1987-10-07

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the thirty-seventh anniversary of the illegal and cruel Chinese occupation of Tibet. Yesterday 60 Tibetan monks were arrested in Lhasa by the Chinese army for simply shouting the name of the Dalai Lama. Last week at least 19 Tibetans were killed for pro-independence demonstrations.
This is the worst attack on Tibetan freedom since 1959 when 87,000 Tibetans were killed and the Dalai Lama fled to exile. High ranking Tibetans have appealed for world support. They ask the United Nations to support their cause, to know that they are suffering, and that their human rights have been trampled upon for 37 years. On September 21 in Washington the Dalai Lama proposed a five-point peace plan. I ask the Government and all Hon. Members to give serious consideration to this important cause.


THIRD WORLD
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's uniqueness is expressed in many ways. One of these is that we are blessed with plentiful supplies of clean water. The same cannot be said of the world's poor countries. Two billion people face the daily challenge of finding clean, uncontaminated water, and 80 per cent of disease in the Third World is caused by dirty water.
Ready and easy access to abundant supplies of clean water is essential if the cycle of poverty is to be broken and economic prosperity is to emerge in these less fortunate countries.
Watercan is a Canadian non-profit voluntary agency, founded by Michael Lubbock, an 81-year old constituent of mine, whose aim is to increase the supply of clean water in the poorer regions of the Third World. Watercan's aims and strategies are simple and effective. It raises donations by including its pamphlets with municipal water bills. Our Government has offered $50,000 for Watercan's operating costs and will contribute $2 for every $1 raised by donations.
Watercan has not wasted any time in providing clean water for those in need. A donation has already been sent to Zambia to provide for a system of wells.
I would like to commend Michael Lubbock's efforts, along with those cities which have included Watercan's pamphlets with their water bills. I call on all Canadian municipalities to follow suit to help Watercan's worthy mission.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since this is Family Week I would like the House to reflect for a moment on some of the special needs of Canada's farm families.
Low incomes, high stress, and lack of safe and affordable child care are all concerns according to the responses to a rural farm women's needs survey conducted in my constituency.
Their basic survival as farmers is a major concern. Low prices and high debt loads are contributing to family stress. With 40 per cent of the families reporting a straight loss or net incomes of less than $5,000, it is small wonder that few of their children are contemplating a career on the farm.
Some 50 per cent of the farm women responding were looking for an off-farm job, and most reported that they could not find one. These women are well educated and have training in a wide variety of fields. However, when the farm economy is badly hurting, jobs are disappearing in all the related fields in rural Canada.
If the Government really had a commitment to Canadian farm families, it would be clear on its farm family assistance

October 7, 1987
policy. It would announce the level of grains income assistance for the coming year and would provide a clearly understood rural day care policy.


HIGH QUALITY OF CANADIAN GRAIN EXPORTS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Tass News Agency reports that more than 40 per cent of the June to September grain shipments from the United States of America to the Soviet Union were infested with live pests and had to be fumigated on arrival.
In Canada, thanks to the excellent work of the Canadian Grain Commission, all our export sales are thoroughly inspected and certified to be of the highest possible quality.
The Entomology Section of the Commission routinely examines over 100,000 samples per year from farms, elevators, and ships and, if any cases of infestation are found, licences can be revoked.
If the Soviet Union or any other buyer wants assured high quality grain, Canada, with our thorough inspection and high standards, remains the logical source of supply.


FREE TRADE-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN BEFORE MID-APRIL
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week I said that women heaved a sigh of relief when they heard that the free trade talks were stalled. This week, we have an agreement, and many women are once again feeling their initial concern.
When we realize that two-thirds of the workers in the industries affected by free trade are women, and 65 percent of the people working in the service industry are women, when we realize that women have a harder time getting access to training and retraining programs than men, and that in the United States, many states have abysmal labour laws and a ridiculously low minimum wage, and that poverty hits women hardest, what has our Government done for more than 52 percent of the population?
It is intolerable that a Government should negotiate an agreement and leave out women.
I am therefore asking the Conservative Government to introduce special programs for women between now and mid-April, so that women can adjust to this new situation and so
that half the population of Canada is not left behind when the train leaves the station.


FREE TRADE-ABITIBI-TEMISCAMINGUE REGION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, if any region in Quebec can meet the free trade challenge successfully, Abitibi-Temiscamingue can.
Local personalities, including Paul and Robert Arcand, Jean Perron and Guylaine Saucier, have many times expressed their faith in the benefits of free trade for our region. This very morning, Jacques Bibeau, Mayor of Rouyn-Noranda, Paul-Aurele St-Pierre, Mayor of La Sarre, and Jacques Leblanc, Mayor of Ville-Marie, told me personally that they supported the free trade treaty. In fact, Mr. Perron from La Sarre said recently in Rouyn-Noranda, and I quote: "This is a government initiative that deserves our attention. Free trade is something to look forward to." He went on to say: "As far as I can see, the protectionists, the people who are against free trade, are trying to hide their own inefficiency. It takes a lot of guts to say yes to free trade, and we do say yes to free trade!"
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that thanks to this new dynamism in our region, our farmers, forestry workers and miners will meet this great challenge with enthusiasm and leave future generations a legacy they can be proud of.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians begin to examine the Conservative Government's misguided, hurried and patently unfair trade deal with the United States they are realizing that Canada has been put up for sale. Even formerly staunch supporters of the trade initiative are now telling this Government that the deal is a bad one for Canada and Canadians.
Roger Phillips, president of Ipsco, one of Canada's major steelmakers, told the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday that he could no longer support the trade pact because it does nothing to guarantee secure access to the U.S. market for Canadian steelmakers. Canadian steelmakers, he warned, will not be able to compete on an equal footing with their rivals across the border as a result of this flawed deal.
October 7, 1987

It is clear that Mr. Phillips cannot be duped by the Government's empty assurances that this deal is in Canada's interest. The Government should heed the judgment of Canadians like Roger Phillips, before it is too late.


SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the pathetic performance of the Liberals and the New Democrats during Canada's trade negotiations with the United States cannot pass without comment. First they told Canadians that our social programs would be up for grabs. Were they? Not a single one. Then they claimed that Canada's cultural industries would be sold out. Were they? Not one. Next they even suggested that our unemployment insurance program would be changed. Was it? Absolutely not. Finally they said that the Auto Pact would be dismantled. Was it? No. In fact it was strengthened.
So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whose credibility is on the line? Certainly not this Government's whose initiative and courage have given us an historic trade deal that will ensure that Canada continues to prosper. Rather, I would suggest that Canadians think long and hard about the misleading and irresponsible disinformation circulated by Canada's not so Loyal Opposition and its socialist allies. Constructive actions speak much louder than deceptive words.
Our Government's record will bear the scrutiny of any honest Canadian. The same cannot be said of the Liberals and the New Democrats.


PUBLIC SALARIES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House what I believe to be a serious injustice in the way the Government is treating some of its civil servants. The injustice to which 1 am referring is the salary presently offered to registered nurses working for the federal Government.
At the present time a registered nurse makes three cents an hour more than a registered nurse assistant. I find this situation to be totally unacceptable. Representatives of nurses and the Professional Institute of the Public Service have met with the former Treasury Board President concerning this issue and were promised an answer by September 1. September 1 has long since come and gone and the registered nurses working for the federal Government are still being treated
unjustly and are still waiting. There are 900 hospital nurses in the service of the federal Government who need assistance.
I call upon the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) to act now. Any further delay and procrastination will only compound the present injustice.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF MANITOBA PREMIER
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, some things never change.
Was it any wonder last night we heard a voice crying alone in the socialist wilderness from Manitoba about free trade? We have come to expect Howard Pawley to take the reactionary socialist position of the rest of the New Democratic Party by protecting the status quo and resisting any positive change to our nation.
Howard Pawley and his group of NDP incompetents have made Manitoba an island of despair in Canada over the past three years. While Conservative policies have led the entire nation into new prosperity, the NDP in Manitoba have resisted at every step.
What is ironic and totally incomprehensible is that Mr. Pawley and his Government wish to seek and expand sales of Manitoba Hydro in the U.S.A., that Mr. Pawley and his Government wish to develop Manitoba potash and find a U.S.A. market, that Mr. Pawley and his Government in late 1984 tried to secure American investment to build a glass plant in his riding, that Mr. Pawley and his Government condemned the U.S.A. action of countervail duty on Canadian hogs, and yet do not favour a free trade pact which would secure these markets for Manitoba. He and his Government should resign.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want Canadians to believe, falsely, I think, that the New Democrat opposition to free trade is based on a backward vision while they somehow are looking to the future. The contrary in fact is true. It is the Conservatives, with their backward look at the voodoo economics of the 18th and 19th century when free trade was a panacea.

October 7, 1987
Oral Questions
We are looking to the future. We believe in fairness for Canadians and for future generations. We have confidence in Canadians. We believe that Canadians can create jobs in Canada without becoming the 51st State of the United States.
Many Canadians want to see energy policies and conservation of non-renewable resources. This free trade deal would betray that trust. It means unfairness for Canadians in the future.
What about the Liberals? They have renounced the voodoo economics of the past but they have no alternative vision. We have and that is what we will be taking to the people of Canada.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the socialist party has announced that he will send his jackals and hyenas throughout the country to fight against free trade. 1 would like all Canadians, each time they hear one of these doom and gloom prophets criticize free trade, to ask them these questions: Why is free trade good for the Oshawa constituency and has been applied there since 1965? Why are Oshawa workers much better paid than the national average? Why do retired automobile workers have an indexed pension plan?
The answer is that they have benefited from free trade since 1965. Ask any socialist Member why he does not want what has happened in Oshawa and what has been good for that region to apply to the rest of Canada.
We Canadians have to start asking questions to the socialists, to these frustrated members of our society. Let us ask them where they come from. They have always been parasites living off Governments, universities or the money of poor workers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. During his November 1985 meeting with the Premiers in Halifax, the Prime Minister stated the following:
In my opinion, it is obvious that I shall not be able to reach a free trade
agreement in a federal system such as we have in Canada without the support
and participation of the provinces affected.
We now know that several Premiers disagree with the agreement. We also know that several areas under provincial jurisdiction are affected by the free trade agreement. Is the Government willing to respect the commitment it made in November 1985 or will it forget that promise?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be reported that the Premiers at the First Ministers' meeting were very supportive of the Prime Minister's consultation with them. All of the Premiers without exception pointed out how it was not necessary for the Prime Minister to consult with them because, of course, treaties such as the free trade agreement are under federal jurisdiction. They all pointed out how much they supported the idea of this kind of co-operative ambience the Prime Minister has introduced.
I will just repeat that federal treaties are a federal matter. The provinces will be asked to make those changes in their jurisdiction. However, anyone who sees the free trade agreement will see those are very few indeed.


Lloyd Axworthy: My question was not about consultation. The Prime Minister clearly committed himself at that meeting that he would not proceed with the free trade deal without the full support and participation of provincial Premiers. As I read it last night, several of them were not in favour of the Accord.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering the Minister is now being allowed to answer questions, 1 will direct my question to her. A number of areas under provincial jurisdiction are affected by this agreement, things such as financial services, certification standards, agriculture, energy and resources.
Both U.S. Senators and the administration said they could not agree to any free trade deal that did not have the full and unanimous support of the provinces. Therefore, I ask the Minister if both her Government and the Americans have now retreated from that stand, or are we really facing the fact that the Government will have to withdraw the agreement if it does not have provincial concurrence?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out it was not the intent of this Government to change the Constitution of Canada in this regard. As the Hon. Member well knows, I attended the First Ministers' meeting, as I attend all of them as Trade Minister, and that is why I was not in the House. I can assure him that only two of the 10 Premiers expressed serious reservations about the agreement, and that was on philosophical grounds. It was not on the merits of the agreement itself. They could pick no holes
October 7, 1987

at all in the agreement itself because it met all their regional interests.


Lloyd Axworthy: I think it is fair to say that some provincial leaders will live up to their philosophical beliefs and follow through on their commitments.


FINANCING OF READJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this will be a question the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to answer seeing as we get non-answers from the Minister.
Two days ago the Prime Minister said in a speech to the Export Association that there will have to be a massive undertaking involving new resources to deal with the problems of dislocation. Yesterday in this House the Minister of Finance said there will be no new massive undertakings and that present programs are fine, thank you very much. He totally contradicted the Prime Minister.
Who speaks for the Government? Is it the Prime Minister? The Minister of Finance? Or is the Government totally unprepared to come to grips with this vital issue and does not really know what it is doing?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any contradiction at all between what the Prime Minister said Monday and what the Minister of Finance said yesterday, in the sense that we already have in Canada what we call massive mechanisms-as my colleague put it-concerning labour adjustment. When we are talking about outlays of $6 billion, I would suggest it is relatively serious. The Minister of Finance did not say that things would not change, but we have to begin somewhere. We will begin by waiting, jobs have not been lost yet, and no final decision has been made. Of course, Mr. Speaker, my colleague would want us to behave like the Liberals-first create programs, then assess the situation. We will analyze and scrutinize the agreement, then we will create programs if necessary.


RETRAINING AND READJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has resorted to exaggeration and deception.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member has an important question. I know he would want to withdraw the word "deception".


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will follow your good advice.
On Monday the Prime Minister said there was a need, to use his words, for a massive federal-provincial retraining and
Oral Questions
readjustment program to compensate- for free trade. On Tuesday the Premiers said they had never heard of such a program and the Minister of Finance did contradict the Prime Minister.
The Government has already cut training and employment programs by 32 per cent from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $1.6 billion in 1987. Therefore, where are the massive programs? Will the Minister come clean with the country and tell us how many jobs will be lost and what the Government will do about it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the massive programs are the Canadian Jobs Strategy and Section 39. The massive programs are the one million jobs created in three years, something that the Hon. Member's Party was never able to do.


FREE TRADE-JOB LOSSES-ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): On Monday, as a result of the free trade deal, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a major federal-provincial retraining program. On Tuesday, he was contradicted by the provinces and the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, according to several studies between 100,000 and one million jobs will be lost. If the Minister and the Government do not agree with these findings, what are their own official predictions? Is the Minister prepared to admit that many jobs will be lost as a result of the free trade deal and will he say what the retraining programs will consist of?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am now in a position to advise the House that there are programs already in place to trigger the employment adjustment mechanism. Some 5 million Canadians per year have changed jobs, one way or another, and we have the necessary mechanism to relocate and properly help these people. Now, as far as the Canada-United States deal is concerned, both the assessment and review of the mechanism provided for under this deal will take place. No job will be lost before January 1, 1989. Nothing will be done until then. My Department, together with all the others, will carry out a series of analyses and, on the basis of our findings, the necessary measures will be implemented. But what differentiates us from the Liberals is the fact that we study a situation before acting upon it whereas they used to act first, and we have had to face the consequences.


MONITORING OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked questions about why the Government gave up our sovereign control over pricing and security of supply in energy. Today I have a question about the loss of sovereignty in the investment field.

October 7, 1987
Oral Questions
I will direct my question to the Minister for International Trade. According to a study produced by Statistics Canada and released just over an hour ago in Edmonton, for every $1 billion in profits between 1978 and 1985 Canadian companies created 5,700 new jobs. For the same $1 billion of profits during the same period of time U.S. firms created the grand total of 17 jobs.
Given the alarming significance of this data, is this not a time when we should be, if anything, increasing our monitoring of the performance of foreign firms in Canada instead of giving up our sovereignty in this field?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up our sovereignty in this area. We will still be monitoring direct investment. We will still be welcoming direct investment. You will recall that when the Government took office we changed FIRA to Investment Canada and changed the thresholds. There was record investment after that. We are changing the thresholds again.
While I am not aware of the particular study to which the Hon. Member has referred, I can give him a different set of statistics. We have created one million new jobs since we took office and last year we had a record $6 billion worth of investment. Surely the two are connected.


STATISTICS CANADA STUDY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would look at the data produced by another Minister's Department, she would see that is precisely the point. The Canadian firms that are making the profits are indeed reinvesting, but the foreign firms that are making the profits overwhelmingly are taking the profits out of Canada. That is the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: It is your lack of understanding.


Mr. Gustafson:: What about Oshawa?


Mr. Masse:: It is all right for Oshawa but nowhere else.


Mr. Crosbie:: Bushwah from Oshawa.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Some of our colleagues across the aisle are talking about Oshawa. The point of investment in Oshawa is that we have insisted on performance criteria in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.


Marcel Masse: Who is the "we"?


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Minister aware-


Mr. Shields:: Bob White pulls the strings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Siddon:: He is distorting statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members on the government side will expect Members on the opposition side to extend the appropriate courtesies when Ministers give answers. I would hope that they would extend the proper courtesy to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who is asking a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that they are a little sensitive these days.
Is the Minister aware that the same study produced by Statistics Canada shows that during the same seven-year period, from 1978 to 1985, more than 99 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada were created by Canadian firms? If she is aware of that, why is she prepared to sell out existing control levels that we have for foreign firms and their performance? Why does she not increase Canadian sovereignty in this field rather than reduce it?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, possibly the fact that 99 per cent of those jobs were created by Canadian firms is because this is Canada, and Canadian firms, while it does not seem to have occurred to the Hon. Member, are the major employers.
The whole purpose of our free trade agreement with the United States is to make those Canadian firms even stronger, to provide them with greater markets, to provide them with greater security of markets so that they can employ even more Canadians.


CONTROL OVER AMERICAN INVESTMENT IN CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada figures indicate that over the past seven years Canadian companies, mostly small-and medium-sized businesses, have created 99 per cent of the new jobs, whereas American companies have created less than 1 per cent during the same time.
My question is very simsple. Why did the Conservative Government agree to surrender our sovereign right to control American investments in Canada?


Pat Carney: 
INDUSTRY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have an urgent question for the Minister of Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister will know of a breakdown in negotiations between Firestone Canada and the Ohio-based Cooper Tire and Rubber Company. This could mean the devastating shut-down of the Firestone plant in Hamilton, with a loss of 1,300 jobs, while Cooper wants to move the operation to Tupelo, Texas.
In view of a clear demand by the City of Hamilton to get the parties back to the negotiating table, will the Minister arrange for a high level meeting between himself and the Minister in the Province of Ontario? Can he give me any assurance of financial assistance to make sure that Firestone and its 1,300 employees remain in Hamilton?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I was in touch with the Mayor of Hamilton, and my provincial colleague. We have agreed on a common strategy. We want to get the parties back to the table and get the negotiations under way in a serious manner.
We are willing to intervene directly. I am communicating with the two companies this afternoon in order to get them back to the table. Hopefully we will be able to come to some satisfactory resolution to this issue that will safeguard as many jobs as possible in the firm.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE DIRECTLY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I welcome the conversion on the road to Damascus because a week ago this self-same Minister said that he could not get involved in this matter because it was a private matter between two parties. I am glad that he is involved.
Will he follow the demand of the Mayor of Hamilton and send a team, including himself-not another civil servant as he has done over the last two years-and members of the Opposition who have been unable even to have meetings with him, to go to Akron to meet with Mr. Nevin to tell him that Firestone better start bargaining in good faith or the Government's hammer will come down on them?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my short answer is no. The reason is very simple. No cabinet Minister of this Government will go to the United States or any other country and beg for any decent commercial behaviour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Foster:: Tell that to Pat Carney.
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Get off your knees.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions that have been asked by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East are serious questions that involve a serious matter that is taking place at this time. The Minister is trying to give a response. I would ask that he be given the courtesy of some silence.


Robert René de Cotret: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going down to the United States to negotiate with the firms. As I indicated, I have talked to both the provincial Minister and the mayor. We have a strategy in place.
I will be happy to talk to the firms if need be. That meeting would be in Ottawa. This is a step that would be taken only if further negotiations break down.
1 would only add in response to the Hon. Member's question that my statement last week, that I was not willing to intervene, was because the commercial negotiations were still under way. Now that there are signs that they have broken off, I think it is the appropriate time for the Government to take action.


FREE TRADE-ELIMINATION OF CONTROL BY CANADIANS OVER AMERICAN INVESTMENT-RESQUEST FOR DETAILS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and has to do specifically with the figures released today by the Council of Canadians which indicate that, from 1978 to 1985, 99 per cent of new jobs created in Canada came from Canadian companies, less than 1 per cent from American companies.
Can the Minister confirm that under the agreement with the Americans we Canadians will not be allowed to say anything at all about American investments, probably over a 20-year period, despite the fact that Canadian companies, not American companies, are the ones that create jobs in this country?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question. I believe that Canadian companies employ more Canadians than American companies because this is Canada and Canadian firms are the major employers.
I do not understand the NDP obsession with American firms. The American firms that we are talking about will still be subject to monitoring by Investment Canada. We insist that we have sold out nothing. We have given away nothing. We have protected our right to invest in America. More Canadians

October 7, 1987
Oral Questions
firms are investing in America, in percentage terms, than are investing here. We think this is a good agreement, and that it will create new investment.
The Government has welcomed foreign investment. Foreign investment creates jobs. The Government has grandfathered the provisions in certain sensitive industries. We have grandfathered provisions in the communications and cultural industry. We have grandfathered provisions in the energy industry. We have also changed Investment Canada to welcome foreign investment. That foreign investment has brought new Canadian jobs.


CONTROL OVER AMERICAN INVESTMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister who may not have seen the charts that we received today showing that 99 per cent of the jobs created in those seven years in Canada came from Canadian companies. While American-controlled companies had one-third of the profits they created less than 1 per cent of the jobs.
My question to the Minister is the following. Is it not true that Canada is binding itself to have no control over American investment for 10 or 20 years coming into this country? Therefore we have been able to do nothing about situations like what exists at Firestone in Hamilton. The Government is giving up our right to protect Canadian jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations are absolutely false, without foundation, and do not deserve a further answer.


GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT-EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated that regional development programs will not be affected by the free trade agreement. Of course that simply is not true.
On February 28, 1986, the Minister of Supply and Services announced that the federal Government's Department of Supply and Services under the Atlantic Opportunities Program would spend an additional S600 million in federal purchases over four years in Atlantic Canada. The Minister said in that release that this new expenditure of $600 million would create "an average of 5,000 jobs a year in Atlantic Canada".
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to acknowledge that the national treatment provisions for government procurement contained in the free trade agreement will eliminate the Atlantic Opportunities Program and, according to the Government's own estimates, will cost Atlantic Canada an average of 5,000 jobs a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that that question is typical of the Opposition's attack-


Lloyd Axworthy: Answer it then!


Pat Carney: -trying to stir up fear in the hearts of Canadians.
What he has said on procurement is not true. It is not true that our Atlantic program is affected by this. The procurement package that we negotiated in the free trade agreement would not impinge in any way on the Atlantic program that this Government introduced.


READJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only thing we are trying to stir up from the murky waters of that Minister's answer is a shred of truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: The reality is that the Government of Canada has now given American companies access to Canadian procurement. The Government can no longer guarantee a certain amount of procurement for regions like Atlantic Canada or, for that matter, for western Canadians under the Western Diversification Program.
I ask the Minister again to tell the House of Commons how the Government of Canada under the Prime Minister's so-called massive assistance program is going to replace the 5,000 jobs lost in Atlantic Canada, and replace the initiative promised under the Western Diversification Program which is now no longer available as a result of the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, again I say that the Hon. Member's complaint is not true. There is nothing in this agreement that affects those firms-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Stewart Mclnnes confirmed it yesterday.


Pat Carney: -that would be covered by the Atlantic and Western Diversification Programs. I again repeat what I have said in this House. A free trade agreement is not a licence to poach-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Minister sitting behind you confirmed it yesterday.


Pat Carney: I am sorry the Hon. Member does not want to hear my answer.
October 7, 1987


EXPORTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RED CEDAR
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is for the same Minister.
Under the elements of the agreement that was signed covering shakes and shingles the Americans, under the ITC 201, have agreed to eliminate and not to take further action.
I would like to ask the Minister if she will guarantee that-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Gerry St. Germain: -the restriction on exports of red cedar logs, bolts, blanks and blocks will remain in effect.


Pat Carney: I am
happy to give the Hon. Member that assurance, Mr. Speaker. It was something very important to British Columbians. In return for a few restrictions that the Americans placed we did protect our log exports in British Columbia. We also won assurance that the Americans cannot again place the kind of tariff they did place on cedar shakes and shingles-


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh yes, they did.


Mr. Riis:: What about softwood?


Pat Carney: -and that no new tariffs in that area will be applied in the future. We will have much better safeguards against that kind of action under the free trade agreement than we have now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SERVICE INDUSTRY JOBS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The Stats Canada-study which was revealed today in Edmonton points out clearly that between 1978 and 1985 the Canadian service sector created 10 times more jobs than American firms in this sector in Canada. The Government has now opened up this sector to American takeovers thereby risking thousands of Canadian jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: My question to the Minister is this. Why has the Government given up Canada's sovereignty in the area of screening foreign takeovers? Why?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, this just shows how the NDP is living in the last century. One of the most wonderful features of the FTA in world terms is that it is the first major free trade agreement that covers services. This means that Canadians will have the right to work on both sides of the border. Canadian companies in the service industry will have access to the U.S. market.
Oral Questions
That is very important because more jobs are being created in the service industries today than in the goods-producing industries. That is where the jobs of the future are, and this Government has secured access to the U.S. market for people in those jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SCREENING OF AMERICAN INVESTMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same Minister. I want to tell her that the people in the Sudbury Basin will be delighted to know that they can now go down to Texas to work in the service sector.


Michael Morris Cassidy: For four bucks an hour.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the Government would pay attention to the facts as revealed by its own agency, Stats Canada. Between 1978 and 1985 new jobs created by American controlled companies in Canada were 1,400, while Canadian controlled firms created 876,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad that they applaud, Mr. Speaker, because my question to the Minister and to the Government is this. Why are they placing in jeopardy the sovereignty of Canada to screen investment in this country and to putting at risk the jobs that our companies in this country can create? Why are they doing that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have just done some hasty arithmetic, and while it may be wrong all his figures show me is that under previous administrations it took them seven years to create the same number of jobs that this administration created in three.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ASSURED SUPPLY OF ENERGY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The National Energy Board which was previously safeguarding our energy supplies is now nothing more than a monitoring agency. There is no assurance now that Canadians have an assured supply of energy to meet their needs before energy is sold to the United States. What assurance can the Government give to Canadians that there will be an assured supply of energy to meet Canadian needs in the future?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that, and I am sure the Hon. Member knows it, is that by securing our energy markets in the U.S. for all the energy-producing provinces we have been able to ensure the investment in Canada needed to create new

October 7, 1987
Oral Questions
supplies of energy. The Hon. Member knows that as well as anyone in this House.
[DOT] (M50)


PRICE OFOIL
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there are no assurances that there will be investment to replace the light and medium crude when it is gone.
Can the Government give us its assurance that it will put up the funding to bring on projects like Syncrude and Hibernia?
Perhaps now that the Americans feel that they have a continental energy policy, they will pay a continental price, a price above the world oil price in order that we can bring on projects like Syncrude and Hibernia after they milk us of our medium and light crude.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the history of energy development in this country has shown that investment follows secure markets, creates new jobs, and creates new sources of supply.
In this agreement we have secured markets for British Columbia's hydro, we have secured markets for the Prairies' oil and gas, we have secured markets for Ontario's nuclear potential, and we have secured markets for Quebec's hydro potential.
I certainly concede that investment of billions and billions of dollars will flow into the country because of the work that we have done in the free trade agreement.
[ Translation]


FREE TRADE-SITUATION OF QUEBEC FARMERS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for International Trade. The Free Trade Agreement provides for removing tariffs on processed food products, which means that Quebec farmers will lose a substantial part of their chicken and milk markets. At the same time, the Agreement will increase import quotas for chicken and eggs, and this means that Quebec producers will lose part of the Quebec market to American imports.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Could the Minister perhaps inform the House how many Quebec farmers will be forced to stop their operations and close down as a result of the measures contained in this Free Trade Agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is raising unnecessary fears. There is nothing in this agreement-


Mr. Nystrom:: Aren't you nice.


Pat Carney: Would Hon. Members allow me to answer their own Member's question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Miss Congeniality!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: I believe that the question related to food processors.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we have taken measures in our agreement that will look after the concerns of the food processors. We have secured our supply management systems, and the fears that he raises are unjustified.


QUERY WHETHER STUDIES MADE OF FREE TRADE CONSEQUENCES FOR FARMERS
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform the House whether her Government has carried out the requisite studies to determine the consequences and the cost of free trade for our farmers? If so, will she publish them? If not, does the Minister realize how dangerously her Government has been improvising in these negotiations?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Hon. Member looks at the details of the Agreement with respect to marketing boards, he will find that the Canadian Government has kept its word, which was to maintain the marketing boards. We have done what we said we would do.
As far as reducing tariffs is concerned, there will be a reduction over a period of ten years, and if certain measures should lead to increased imports, we still have the GATT measures we can use to protect the Canadian market. You may be sure that the rights of Canadian producers will be respected and protected, Mr. Speaker. You can count on that!


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON GRAPE PRODUCERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Farmers across the country know that they have been sold out by the Government in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Last April the President of the United States toasted the Prime Minister of Canada, and stated that he would be happy when all Canadians were drinking Californian wines. Last Sunday night he got his wish.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I want to ask the Minister for International Trade why the Government in the free trade negotiations has totally sold out the grape producers in British Columbia and Ontario, and the wine industry? Why have they been totally abandoned and left out of this agreement? Is there any reason
October 7, 1987

why the Government should completely destroy this industry and give it over to the Napa Valley in California?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of a free trade agreement is to reduce tariff barriers between the two countries, and to reduce discriminatory price mark-ups and other barriers to trade.


Mr. Caccia:: How about the jobs?


Pat Carney: If the Hon. Member is saying that under no circumstances can Canadian wine growers compete with Californian wine growers, then the doom and gloom that he' portrays will be something which he will create himself.
We feel that the Canadian wine industry, and all Canadian industry, will be able to compete with American industry.


ELIMINATION OF SEASONAL TARIFFS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. Surely all that the wine industry is receiving from this Government is the grapes of wrath.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: That industry has been completely abandoned by this Government.
I wish to ask on behalf of those same producers of fruit and vegetables why the seasonal tariffs have been given away in these negotiations?
The United States has kept its dumping duties, and its countervail duties. Why were the seasonal tariffs given away, threatening thousands of jobs of Canadians?


Lloyd Axworthy: Here is an answer from the sour grape herself.


Pat Carney: The
Opposition is yelling "sour grapes". I think that applies to their own question.
May I point out that the grape industry price mark-ups are discriminatory. Those discriminatory price mark-ups are in the order of 69 per cent and 65 per cent. They are considered a barrier to trade. There are cases before the GATT on this issue. This industry was facing a 301 trade action from the United States.
In terms of the vegetable growers, we were successful in negotiating a special 20-year protection clause for that industry. The head of the Horticultural Council was consulted, and was very pleased with what we had negotiated.


EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT FOR CONSUMERS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Oral Questions
Over the past few days British Columbians have been exhilarated by the new trade deal and the opportunities that it provides for the resource and manufacturing sectors.
What about the consumers? Can the Minister assure this House that this trade deal will be good for ordinary Canadians when they go shopping for clothes, appliances, and furniture?
Can he tell us that a good trade deal for Canada is a good trade deal for the pocket-books of Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Finally, Mr. Speaker, a question of concern to ordinary Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that a real winner in this trade deal is the consumer.
The Economic Council estimates that on the Consumer Price Index there will be savings between 5.7 and 7.5 per cent. That will mean that every Canadian consumer, which means every Canadian, will now have a wider variety of goods, better quality, and cheaper prices.
If the NDP do not like that, they should go out and tell Canadian consumers that they do not want them to have cheaper prices, better quality, and more variety.


John R. Rodriguez: Where are they going to get the money to buy it?


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who has just informed the Hon. Member for Algoma that the Government has done a good job of protecting the fruit and vegetable producers by introducing a clause that gives them protection for up to 20 years.
Is the Minister for International Trade not aware that that particular section of the agreement requires that the producers cannot rely on that clause, if acreage in this country goes up for any of those particular fruit or vegetables that they are attempting to put into place?
Why did the Government try to freeze production in this country at their present levels? Why has it no faith in the productive capability of Canadian farmers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member should wait until we have the full free trade agreement before us, with the level of detail that he is talking about.
We have negotiated special protection for the horticultural section of our agriculture. At the same time we have been able

October 7, 1987
Oral Questions
to ensure that we have greater access for meat producers, pork and beef producers. We have negotiated exemptions from meat import laws. We have managed to keep our commitment to maintain our supply-management schemes in Canada.
It is a very good agricultural package. It is the only agricultural package ever negotiated in a free trade agreement, and Canadians can be proud of it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Minister should know that I just had a briefing session with our negotiator on this particular part of the package, and I think that my facts are correct.


PROCESSED FOODS-EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON FARMERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that we have maintained the marketing boards and the power of the marketing boards, in response to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne. She said that the processors were very pleased with this agreement.
Can she tell us how the farmers who supply the processors are being protected under this agreement? It looks very much as if the processors are being guaranteed U.S. product, and Canadian producers of chickens, eggs, and turkeys are going to have to cut back their production to fit into this agreement.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the NDP cannot attack this agreement on its facts, so they are trying to attack it through falsehoods, because in that area-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Pat Carney: -we can be very, very clear that all interests have been protected.
Certainly to suggest that poultry producers and other producers are going to be ruined is totally distortive of the facts.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CHARTERED BANKS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government made two major concessions to the Americans without getting anything in return-first, scrapping the 25 per cent limit on foreign ownership of Canadian chartered banks and, second, exempting U.S. bank subsidiaries in Canada from the 16 per cent of total domestic assets limitation?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that we got a balanced agreement in financial services. It was negotiated under the special attention of our Finance Minister and, very important in the financial services package, we were able to negotiate and preserve our Canadian access to the U.S. financial market.


EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. It is difficult for me to understand how she can say that it is a balanced agreement.
Canadian law permits one bank to operate many branches. American state law generally requires a separate corporation for each branch. Therefore, it is clearly easier for an American bank to establish a national presence here.
Second, the U.S. Glass-Steagall laws are still in place with the limitation of a Canadian bank on entering into the investment field, whereas Canadian banks here allow that.
It is very difficult to see how the Minister can describe such an unequal situation as a balanced agreement.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that in areas of financial services Canada has and will maintain better than national treatment in the U.S.
Our Canadian banks are able to do things in the United States that Americans are not able to do. We preserved that better than national treatment in our financial services package.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West on a single question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Over a year ago the Board directed all agencies and government Departments to limit the amount of money they can pay in fees to former public servants working on contract to the Government.
The fee is limited to the former salary of the public servant, minus whatever pension the individual is in receipt of, and this limitation is in effect for the lifetime of the individual.
In light of the fact that the conflict of interest code contains other limitations on the association which former public servants can have with the Government, would the Minister agree that the lifetime duration of this provision is excessive, and would he consider shortening or eliminating it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his representation. As he is aware, there are some very strict guidelines under the conflict of interest post-employment part
October 7, 1987

of the code. I think he is aware as well that under certain conditions and provisions there can be modifications to that if the conditions warrant.
I will take the Hon. Member's representation to see if there is any flexibility which can be applied to take into consideration the specific point he has raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that this is the end of Question Period.
I indicate to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert that I know he has been rising and I would hope that I would be able to take that into account tomorrow.


PRIVILEGE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the rules of the House that questions of privilege must be raised as soon as possible after Question Period, I would like Your Honour to review the Hansard "blues" of the responses of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).
Sometimes in the heat of argument one does not hear everything that was said but a sound to my ear came perilously close to the Minister accusing me of having been spreading falsehoods.
I think that that is not parliamentary, that it detracts from the opinion of Hon. Members, and that it is a practice that is not generally indulged in in the House.
I think it is particularly bad in this case where it is very difficult for the Government and all of us in Canada, with a procedure and an agreement, that the facts are only becoming known now. As we dig out the facts, even though they are well understood by the negotiator for our side and by the various commodity groups who were involved, it does not help for the Minister to accuse people who bring those facts forward, or to accuse me, of spreading falsehoods. They are very well known facts in the industry, in spite of the fact that she may not be fully aware of them yet.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think I am as fully aware as anyone in the House of the details of an agreement which I helped to negotiate.
I can say very clearly that the allegation which is being made about poultry production is not true.


Mr. Keeper:: Are you going to withdraw it?


Pat Carney: If Your Honour so decides that my language was unparliamentary, I know that you will direct me to withdraw it.
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the comments of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and of the Minister. I will examine Hansard and report back to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to Petition No. 332-2989.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the week of October 4 to October 10 has been declared by the International Social Security Association to be the week of international co-operation in social security. During this week, which is also the sixtieth anniversary of the association, countries around the world have been asked to reflect on the benefits which each has gained by working with others toward the development of social security systems that more fully meet the needs and hopes of our citizens.
The Canadian member institutions of the International Social Security Association, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Regie des rentes du Quebec, have played a very active role in the work of this vital association, and we will continue to do so.
Canada, as a nation made up of people whose origins can be traced to virtually every country in the world, recognizes the importance of international co-operation in social security. The most concrete and best known form of co-operation is, undoubtedly, the social securities agreements which Canada has concluded in recent years and which bring benefits to thousands of our fellow citizens.
It has been my honour to sign 11 agreements in my term as Minister of National Health and Welfare. These agreements were concluded with Austria, Barbados, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Saint Lucia, Spain and Sweden. I look forward in the ensuing months to signing more.

October 7, 1987
Committee Reports
I know that all Members of this House join me in congratulating the International Social Security Association for its accomplishments in its first 60 years and in wishing it well in the years to come.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, during this week of international social security, I applaud the Minister for his achievement of 11 social security agreements with various governments. I know they will be of particular benefit to Canadians who have come from other countries.
I want to raise a related matter of great importance to the future social security of Canadian citizens. Since this week also is National Family Week, I remind the Minister that Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article II of this covenant states that governments are required to provide for the basic needs of their citizens and to strive for continuous improvement of living conditions.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, provinces are required to provide financial aid or assistance to any person in need in an amount that takes into account his basic requirements. How then does this Government explain the continuing increase of poverty among Canadian families with young children? How can we tolerate the fact that one out of every five of our children is being raised in poverty?
Consider what it means to be born into poverty, to be raised poor, to bear your children in poverty and to die poor. It means being shortchanged at birth by inadequate pre-natal care, not getting enough to eat, and being sick more often than other kids. It means entering the school system already seriously disadvantaged, being labelled "slow" because your hair does not shine, your eyes do not sparkle and you cannot sit still because you have had no breakfast. For girls it usually means having babies and repeating the cycle. For boys it usually means dropping out of school, heavy drinking, drug abuse and getting into trouble with the law.
In Canada we have condoned a situation of national child neglect. The decreasing incidence of poverty among the elderly proves beyond doubt that Government policy and programs can make the difference. I call upon the Government to turn its attention immediately to developing a comprehensive family policy that will provide some fairness and honesty for Canadian families and particularly for Canadian children who are poor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party I do not believe that the fight against poverty among seniors has been won. In fact, I believe that that Party made the commitment on many occasions to end the kind of discrimination that currently exists with respect to the federal Government in our own social security system
dealing with single seniors, and with people who are separated and divorced who are not eligible for a spouse's allowance as a result.
I think for the Minister to make a great week, along with the commitment that he is making to social security internationally it would behoove him to stand up in the House and, rather than make an announcement in very glowing terms about what is happening across the world, say that he is prepared to end the discriminatory practices of the Government toward senior citizens. I do not think the battle against poverty among senior citizens has been won. I do believe that we are also launching a battle to fight the kind of poverty that is facing one child in five in Canada.
This evening I will be presenting a motion in the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare that we have an in depth study of poverty among children across the country. I do not think we can trade them off one against the other. We have to recognize that as a society we should be protecting our helpless and our defenceless. That includes our elderly and our children. I think the Minister would be far better in this House today were he to make an announcement regarding an end to his discriminatory policy with respect to senior's pensions.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart), has said many times that as far as allowances and old age security are concerned, the policy is discriminatory, and if the Minister really wants to make this a week when Canadians could rejoice in our social security policy, he should announce in the House today that he will drop a policy that discriminates against the elderly and against persons who are single, divorced or separated, since it does not give them the same benefits as persons who are married or widowed. It is a discriminatory aspect of our social security system and it should stop.



SUPREME COURT ACT


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the Legislative committee on Bill C-53, an Act to amend The Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof
[Editors note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 7, 1987



RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF POSTAL SERVICES ACT


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure the continuation of postal service for all Canadians, for seniors, for the disabled, for those receiving family allowance cheques and for businesses to function. The essential aspect of this Bill will be to take away the right to strike of CUPW and declare the Post Office an essential service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an Act to amend the Railway Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's cooperation. I was caught a little bit off guard.
The intention of this Private Member's Bill is to require the national railways to adhere to environmental laws which provincial governments have introduced. There are some serious problems on a provincial basis in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act (request for an inquiry).
Petitions
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to empower any standing committee of the House of Commons to require the Auditor General of Canada to inquire into and report upon any matter relating to the financial affairs or public property of Canada. The report would then be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and then laid before the House forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: All other Bills are reserved.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have once again a petition, one of a large series, which comes from towns in my constituency from Windsor south to La Salle, Anderton, Amherstberg, Malton and includes people from further into the constituency in McGregor, Essex and other parts of Essex-Windsor. All of them protest very vigorously against the very dangerous safety record of Fermi II, the American nuclear reactor, which is so close to the borders of Canada and of my constituency specifically.
They call on us, the Parliament of Canada, to make sure that immediate negotiations take place with the United States to see to it that there is a neutral review conducted both by Canadians and Americans to see to it that this reactor is reviewed before it is allowed to go into full capacity operation at any stage in the future.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the obligation under Standing Order 106 to present to the House some petitions. The first concerns the Governments refugee legislation, Bill C-55 and it is signed by residents of the Cities of Scarborough, Weston and Bramalea in the Metro Toronto area. The other comes from residents of Vancouver, Port Alberni, Victoria and Kelowna.
Essentially, the petitioners are asking the Government to drastically alter and reform Bill C-55 by eliminating the prescreening stage, deleting the safe third country concept and improving the refugee appeal system by removing it to the Federal Court and ensuring that there is a proper, fair and expedient appeal system and to discourage those who wish to abuse the system by making it speedier.

October 7, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Sergio Marchi: The second petition comes from residents of the City of Edmonton, and others from residents of the Cities of Montreal, St. Leonard and Toronto. Essentially, these petitioners are concerned with the Meech Lake Accord as it affects the multicultural heritage of nearly one-third of Canadian citizens and are asking that Clause 1 be amended so that when we define what it means to be a Canadian, we also include the reference to the multicultural and aboriginal heritages that join with linguistic duality to give a full and meaningful definition of Canadianism.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would 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.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will simply to refer the House to page 9724 of Hansard where, in an exchange with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I was referring to the past Premier of Alberta, a man with whom philosophically I disagree, but on a personal basis, a man with whom I have been friends for many years. I referred to him as Peter Lougheed and that is how I have always referred to Peter Lougheed. When I talk to him personally, I call him that, and they have written here "Low-heed".
I just do not want Hansard to reflect in any way negatively against the past Premier of Alberta. As a fellow Albertan, 1 particularly feel slighted that Hansard would have done this. However it is partly my fault because I did not read the "blues". If I had looked at them, I would have picked that up. In British Columbia, when we refer to Lougheed Place or Lougheed Mall or Lougheed Highway, that is the way we pronounce it, and if they spell it "Low-heed", it is intended as no slight against the past Premier of Alberta.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and I think that will meet the sensibilities of all Hon. Members and any others outside of this House.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I now have a ruling to bring to the Chamber. On September 23, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) raised a complaint with the chair alleging that certain actions and/or lack of action by the Canadian Radio Television Commission amounted to a breach of the privileges of the Hon. Member.
After hearing the case put forward, I said in part that the Hon. Member may not have a question of privilege, but I added, and I quote what I said on that day: "It most certainly is a complaint." Regretfully, I have to repeat that I am still of that mind. I think there is a complaint and a very real one.
While I will not comment on the Hon. Member's words when he talked about the "cavalier and inneficient manner of the operations of CRTC", on the facts presented, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West has a valid complaint and reason to be upset and angry.

As was said when the subject was raised, some simple changes in the regulations governing applications for rate changes would be sufficient to prevent this kind of frustration.
I do not think I need go into the various definitions of privilege found in the authorities May, Bourinot and Beau-chesne, but this type of problem is not covered by them. I will, however, refer Hon. Members to Citation 16 and Citation 17 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.

I must therefore conclude, with all due respect, that the Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege.
October 7, 1987



I would add that this does not leave the Hon. Member without recourse. This fact needs to be emphasized. The recent reforms adopted by the House allow Members to pursue such matters vigorously, not only in one of the several standing committees but also under Private Members' Business. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West has made his point forcefully but, I repeat, it is with regret that the Chair cannot take any further action and the matter raised cannot go forward under a finding of prima facie privilege.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for his co-operation and patience in waiting for this ruling. I would like to be able to help him with his particular problem but, regretfully, I cannot under the concept of privilege. However, I hope the frank comments of the Chair might be helpful to the Hon. Member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) that they are unable to move their items for Private Members' Business, Bill C-214 and Bill C-262 respectively, on the dates required by the order of precedence. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(a). Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop both items of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. There will be no Private Members' Business on the days scheduled for those items, namely Thursday, October 8, and Friday, October 9. The House will continue to consider Government Orders pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(b).
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by six minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 6, 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;
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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 (l)(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 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
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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 95B(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 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 Government 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;
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
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.
October 7, 1987
[Stage Direction]
1!. 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.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(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 101B. 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 (1) 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
(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).
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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);
(f)	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."
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks on the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord by recalling that the last two times I had an opportunity to speak on the Constitution was, first, in the fall of 1980, and
again in 1981 at the time of the last constitutional upheaval, you might say.
I recall, and I say this not by way of excuse but by way of illustrating something, I hope, profound, that I was much more concerned to have a prepared text at that time than I am now. What I mean to illustrate by that is that over the years since 1980-81 I feel that what Members of Parliament have to say about constitutional matters has become less and less important. I want to illustrate that, if I might, by talking about some of the developments since then.
First, some would argue that the effect of the Charter of Rights we passed at that time has been to take decisions away from Parliament, which might otherwise have been made there, and placed them in the courts. Of course many people feel that is a good thing rather than a bad thing. However, the fact of the matter is, no matter how you feel about it, there are things being decided elsewhere which at one time would have been decided here in Parliament.
Second, if the free trade agreement comes to be a fact of Canadian life, many things that would have been open to Parliament to decide will, of necessity, be decided in the continental market-place and no longer by Parliament.


Pat Carney: That is wrong.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: So I feel as a Member of Parliament that my role, and that of Parliament itself, and the Canadian Government for that matter, will have been diminished.
Third, I also feel that the process surrounding the Meech Lake Accord has diminished the role of Members of Parliament. I want to preface my remarks by saying it is my intention to vote for the Meech Lake Accord. Let there be no confusion on that account. However, I feel that the process which has attended the Accord has set some very dangerous precedents with respect to the role of Members of Parliament in constitutional change.
It has been called executive federalism. Whatever you want to call it, the fact is that 11 people, the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister, can arrive at agreements which profoundly affect the future of the country and then have Parliament put in the position, as we have been put, of not being able to amend what was decided by those 11 persons.
My support for the Accord was much more comfortable support in the early days when I thought Parliament might have an opportunity to amend the Accord. I thought the committee process might be a place where some of the obvious flaws in the Accord might be remedied.
The first flaw, of course, that comes to mind is the obvious injustice done to northern Canada by virtue of the requirement that there be unanimity with respect to the admission of new provinces. For the life of me I cannot understand why that was incorporated in the agreement and why, when there is almost universal agreement on the injustice of that provision, the agreement could not have been opened up to provide for that
October 7, 1987

particular amendment. I suppose it has something to do with the politics of it, I do not know. I suppose there are perhaps some Premiers who feel they did not get all they wanted and that if somehow the agreement were to be opened up, then new political pressures would be put on them to open up the agreement to get what they are being criticized for not getting. I understand that, but surely to God, when it comes to so obvious an injustice as that done to northern Canada, we should have been able to do it.
With respect to my support for the Accord, I want to say that I am going to be voting for it because at the end of the day, having heard all the arguments, certainly having been convinced of the imperfection of what is before us, I still think a Canada which accepts this Accord and goes beyond it to new constitutional evolution will be better than the Canada which would exist if this agreement were to fall apart.
That is an over-all judgment which every Member of this place has to make for himself or herself, and which political Parties also have to make. I emphasize that it is an over-all judgment. It is not a question of how and to what degree various Members are committed to the rights of aboriginal peoples or the multicultural nature of Canada or the equality rights in the Constitution or the importance of federal leadership in social policy, or whatever is on the great long list of concerns people have about this Accord. It is a question of people having to make an over-all judgment about what would be best. It would be easy for Members of Parliament, except perhaps those in Government, to say that we can vote against it on these grounds and therefore be absolved of any responsibility for the consequences of the imperfections of the agreement which become known in the future.
However, I think we have the responsibility to ask ourselves what we would do if our vote made the difference. Would we prefer the Canada which would result from the breakdown of this agreement or the Canada which would result from this agreement? My judgment at this time is that 1 would prefer the Canada which would result from the agreement. I hope that history proves me right. It is in the nature of constitutional debate that everyone has the responsibility to make his or her own decision.
I spoke earlier of my fears as a Member of Parliament about the growth of executive federalism. The current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) organizes First Ministers' conferences by putting the Premiers into a room without their advisers or any backup, and there is no record kept. The Prime Minister is the only one who has any say about what the draft statement will look like. The Prime Minister goes out before the Premiers and has his little show with the media. The Premiers are not allowed to comment until some time after. From what I have heard from some who have participated, the whole process is quite orchestrated. This is no way to run a country. I hope this is peculiar to the style of the current Prime
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Minister and will not be endemic to First Ministers' conferences which will be institutionalized.
I would like more parliamentary participation to be institutionalized in constitutional negotiation and debate. I know the committee made some recommendations in that regard. I would like to call attention, as I know others have, to the proposal made by John Holtby for a more comprehensive parliamentary and legislative exercise which would include members of the legislatures of Canada on a umbrella-like committee. I recommend that proposal to Members who are interested in thinking about how parliamentarians and legislators can be more involved.
I want to speak a bit about the business of unanimity, and point out some of the ironies which attend constitutional policies and debates. I recall the debate in 1980-81 about the amending formula. It sometimes happens that people, by virtue of their vehemence against something, end up with a situation which is actually worse than that which they were attacking and which actually conforms more to what they were attacking than to that with which they started out.
For instance, I recall that people in the Prairie provinces in 1980-81 were very concerned about the amending formula proposed by the then Liberal Government which would have given Quebec a veto. By the way, the veto power which Quebec has under the Meech Lake Accord is much less than that previously proposed veto power. It has a veto only with regard to federal institutions rather than with regard to everything. That should be kept in mind by people who may be concerned about the veto of Quebec, as well as the veto of other provinces on federal institutions.
The people of the Prairie provinces were very concerned about Quebec having a veto. That same amending formula provided that any two western provinces could prevent something by not agreeing to the original veto which was provided for in that amending formula., As a result of objections to that particular formula we ended up with another formula which provided that two-thirds of the provinces comprising 50 per cent of the population could veto something. Under that formula something could be done in Canada without the consent of any of the Prairie provinces. That has always struck me as ironic.
It is also ironic that, thanks to two very significant political figures in our history, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Diefenbaker, the "one Canada" heroes, the notion of any special veto for Quebec was made so anathema that when the Premiers went to Meech Lake many of them knew that for domestic political reasons if Quebec was to get any kind of veto over anything they had to have it too.
The tremendous political irony is that by creating the political context which they did, one could argue that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Diefenbaker set the stage for the very kind of Canada which they claimed to be so much against. In fact, that is not the kind of Canada which they were either for or against because somewhere along the line the proposition got

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
sort of transmogrified into a situation in which all the provinces now have a veto with regard to certain matters. That is an incredible irony which should not go unremarked upon.
There is another thing which amazes me with regard to the principle of unanimity. We are about to enter into a constitutional situation in which unanimity will be required with regard to federal institutions. Yet, through the free trade agreement, the Government proposes to change the very economic constitution of this country without unanimity, without the approval of at least five of the ten provinces, and without even the requirement of a vote in Parliament. There may be a vote, but there is no requirement for one. It is a shortcoming of our system that something as important as the economic constitution of the country can be changed in the way in which the Government proposes to change it without a shred of unanimity, without even a consensus.
I know that other Members of Parliament, particularly some of the Conservative persuasion, will disagree with me, but I hope they will hear me out. I feel as though my country was sentenced to a slow death on Sunday morning. I believe that in time we will see the erosion of everything that I value about Canada as it is and as I thought it could become through the political process and the building up of an independent Canada on the northern half of North America.
I feel as though Meech Lake has all of a sudden become irrelevant. I have the sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that it will not really matter any more, if the Government gets away with what it has in mind. In the offing is a process whereby Canada as we know it will come not to exist in any event, and, for example, whether the provinces or the federal Government appoints Senators is trivial in the long run. That about which I speak will not, of course, happen over night and that is what makes this debate on free trade so difficult. Again, it is a question of judgment as to what will arise out of any particular decision.
When I spoke on the Constitution in 1980 and 1981, I did not talk only about the need to patriate the Constitution but the need to patriate our economy. While the Liberals made some effort to patriate our economy through the National Energy Program in the following years, we are seeing the complete opposite now, where our economy is being exported by integrating it so profoundly into the American economy and North American market.
I want to deal with aboriginal rights. I was one of those in 1980 who was warning my Leader and others that I would not vote for the package as it was until it included aboriginal rights. I feel very good about that aspect of my political life, that we were able to achieve that recognition. While it was not as full and complete as we wanted, nevertheless I recall being part of the process whereby the Government of the day had to bend in order to get the kind of approval it wanted for that patriation package.
In my opinion, aboriginal rights are not endangered in any way by this particular Accord. I believe that we will only achieve a truly just relationship with native people when we, as a society, truly repent for the way we have treated native people. Constitutions will not achieve that, nor will the courts or many other mechanisms that are used. It will be a matter of political will, public opinion, and a change in the consciousness of Canadians. Quite frankly, I despair whether that change will ever happen, but that change in consciousness and political will is necessary in order to meet the wishes of the native leadership in this country.
I want to deal with one other issue in the minute I have remaining, and would hope that Hon. Members would indulge me for a few more minutes. It concerns the cynicism of the observations made about the various political parties with respect to Meech Lake. I speak particularly of the cynicism which has attended the NDP position on this matter.
Those who are seriously concerned about our position should review the history of NDP policy with respect to Quebec. They will see, as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) yesterday, that the New Democratic Party's position now with respect to Quebec and the constitutional discussions has its roots in the very formation of the Party back in 1961. It is very cynical and wrong for journalists or others, including the general public, to say that the NDP is agreeing to the Meech Lake Accord because we are high in the polls or want support in Quebec.
This reflects a certain psychology that takes over political commentary. I have seen it happen with respect to other things since we began to do very well in the polls. For instance, some journalists have commented about the new suits I am wearing, when they are exactly the same suits I have been wearing for the last two years. Another example was when people thought that the reason my Leader was angry about the behaviour of one of my colleagues when President Reagan was here was that we were high in the polls. I can tell you that when I wore a black arm band when President Reagan was here in 1981 I was chewed out by the Leader, and we were low in the polls at that time.
There are principles which we hold whether or not we are high in the polls. Our high standing in the polls did not stop the New Democratic Party from taking what was perceived as an unpopular position with respect to refugee legislation. Our standing in the polls did not affect our position with respect to amendments to the drug patent laws even though they were popular in Quebec. That did not change our position, because we have principles.
One of our principles has been to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It is a principle that goes back far into the history of the Party. Anyone who believes that what we are doing is a reflection of political opportunism is dead wrong.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member found it necessary to conclude his remarks by trying to explain away
October 7, 1987

the so-called public cynicism. Ele appears to be concerned about the public perception that the New Democratic Party somehow has sold out the ship in order to garner more support in Quebec.
He indicated during his remarks that in the previous constitutional debate in 1980 and 1981 he was about to vote against that particular Constitution because aboriginal rights were not recognized. He went on to say that the Liberal Government of the day finally gave some recognition to the aboriginal people. He said further that in his view aboriginal rights are not endangered by the Meech Lake Accord.
According to a great number of submissions and representations made by aboriginal people to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, they feel that their rights are endangered because they are not recognized in the first part of the Meech Lake Accord which speaks of the fundamental characteristics of Canada. Will he explain why he believes aboriginal rights are not endangered when the aboriginal people of Canada, the ones most directly affected by the Meech Lake Accord, say that their rights are adversely affected? Is he presuming to understand the situation better than the aboriginal people of Canada?
1 suggest to the Hon. Member that it is because of statements like that that Canadians really wonder about the NDP position and perhaps about the Hon. Member's position. A few short years ago he was prepared to vote against the Constitution because aboriginal rights were not recognized. Today, when aboriginal people of Canada are saying that this Meech Lake Accord is not in their best interests, the Hon. Member decides that he knows better than the aboriginal peoples and will vote contrary to their wishes. Will he explain the obvious inconsistency in his position?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it is either obvious or inconsistent. At the time of the last constitutional change I was concerned, as were many others, that aboriginal people were in a particularly dangerous situation because of the nature of what was happening vis-a-vis patriation, given the relationship between the claims of aboriginal people and the Crown. At the time of patriation, if certain language was not built into the Constitution, it would be of grave danger, indeed, to their rights.
I believe that this particular constitutional change neither advances nor retards the possibility that aboriginal peoples will get the justice which they seek within Canadian society. It is my understanding of the position they put before the committee that they were legitimately concerned that they would somehow be taken off the constitutional agenda by not having built into this Accord the provision for more constitutional conferences.
I certainly do not think that we have seen the last of constitutional conferences on aboriginal rights, even if there is no such provision in the Accord. That is not something which
Constitution Amendment, 1987
is prohibited by the Accord. That is, pursuant to what I said earlier, something that will be created by the political process and by the political will to deal with those problems, whether it be through conferences or whatever the process may be.
I do not feel badly about the position that I have taken in this respect. I have had many opportunities, both prior to being here when I worked in the church with Project North and with other groups and with native leaders, many of whom came before the committee, to discuss this issue with native people. I do not think the Hon. Member should presume to lecture me or anyone else on this matter.


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue this matter for a minute or two and ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) a question. I expect the Hon. Member has read the report of the joint committee, in particular Chapter 15 which contains the recommendations of the joint committee. I hope that all Hon. Members will read it, if they believe in the committee system of this House.
In fact, on the question of putting aboriginal rights and, in particular, the rights to self-government back onto the constitutional agenda, the committee makes some very explicit, very strong recommendations, beginning with the resumption of funding, which was cut off in June of this year at the end of that round of constitutional conferences on aboriginal rights. Indeed, a whole sort of work plan is laid out in the final chapter of the joint committee's report on the constitutional Accord.
My first question to this Hon. Member who is a member of the reform committee of the House of Commons is whether in his judgment that kind of accepted recommendation, that is, accepted by all Parties, will have an impact on the Government, particularly in view of the fact that they have recommended what George Erasmus asked for, namely, a constitutional conference beginning in 1990.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, just on that point, I think that there are two questions to deal with, of course. The recommendations of the committee with respect to aboriginal claims, and also with respect to funding, ought to be followed by the Government. But I am beginning to be concerned that a Government which has made so much of parliamentary reform since its coming into office in 1984, and for that matter a Prime Minister who has made so much of parliamentary reform, is starting to develop a very bad record with respect to paying attention to the unanimous recommendations of committees. I would think that in their heart of hearts this should concern some of the Tory back-benchers, even though they might not want to admit it. There were the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to food irradiation which have been completely ignored by the Government. There are the recommendations of the committee with respect to the matter under discussion, but also with respect to other amendments. There are other examples as well which dim the hope of those who were involved in parliamentary reform, that

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
a renewed committee system, and renewed political life in the committee system of this House, that this would happen through the Government actually paying heed to the recommendations of committees. That hope has begun to weaken as a result of actions taken by the Government or, more appropriately, as a result of actions not taken by the Government, actions that have been urged on it by committees and recommendations that have been made by committees which have been simply ignored by the Government.
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands

Canso): Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, that it is with a great deal of honour that I participate in this debate on what is an historic constitutional Accord, perhaps a milestone of governments in the last number of decades. It is an important debate because it focuses on the unity of our country. It focuses on the vision that we have as Canadians of our country and where we would like it to go.
We have heard a great deal in the course of this debate about the Accord, what it should say, what it does not say, and what are its strengths. Before we But to make look at the terms of the Accord we must understand what is the issue. We must understand the political, legal and constitutional context in which we as a country find ourselves in 1987.
What is the issue? Surely, the issue that faces all Members of this House and all Canadians is whether or not we as a country can accommodate Quebec within our constitutional family. We must ask ourselves whether we have the flexibility, the understanding, the commitment and the political will to reach out to the people of Quebec as we promised to do. In the 1980 referendum, Quebecers voted to stay within this country. They voted by a narrow margin to stay within this country. Fully 40 per cent of the people of Quebec voted to leave Canada as we know it today. Approximately 50 per cent of the French-speaking Members from Quebec voted to leave.
That is hardly a recommendation for the manner in which this country has been governed. It is hardly a recommendation for previous governments that have attempted to reconcile the national interests with the legitimate aspirations of the people of the Province of Quebec.
There are those who have said and will say that the question of 1980 was somehow not truly known to the people of Quebec when they voted, that it was a slanted question. But those who make that argument considerably underestimate the intelligence and awareness of the people of Quebec.
How could the people of Quebec participate in debate for months and years about the future of their province and not know what the question was when they went into the voting booths to vote yes or no? That is an argument which I cannot accept, and which somehow implies a certain degree of inferiority on the part of the people of Quebec. In fact, if anything, the people of Quebec have superior instincts in the political field.
The 1980 referendum was a request from the people of Quebec for Canada to adapt the Constitution, to allow the province to evolve within the Canadian family. But what happened? What followed was a series of actions by the national Government, and finally in concert with the provinces, which excluded Quebec, decisions were made about the fundamental nature of this country, about the future of the country, without the consent of the Province of Quebec.
There are those who will say, We would never have gotten the consent of Premier Rene Levesque and his separatist government that ruled the Quebec of the day. What they seem to ignore is that the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously to reject the terms of that Accord. The terms of 1981 and 1982 were not acceptable to any member of the National Assembly of Quebec, not just to the separatists that sat in the National Assembly. That is the situation that faced this country, that was part of this country until 1984.
In 1984, our present Prime Minister outlined to the people of Canada that he was committed to reconciling Quebec but reconciling Canada to Quebec as well. He said he was interested in national reconciliation, constitutional reform, and making the evolution of this country a top priority of the Government. What followed then were discussions, after his election as Prime Minister, with the Premiers.
Finally, in August of 1986, the 10 provincial Premiers and the Government of Canada decided that the Quebec issue was the primary issue that had to be addressed at First Ministers' constitutional meetings. That is why earlier this year the Premiers came together and were able to reach an accord. What followed August of 1986 were months of preparation by the Ministers in the respective provinces. This deal was not a rush deal. There are those who say that it was reached in two days. Those people who make that criticism are acknowledging only their ignorance of political and constitutional affairs. If they knew nothing about the negotiations that preceded the meetings of the spring that resulted in this Accord, they are simply admitting that they did not take the trouble to be informed.
The Accord of 1982 was imperfect in that it left Quebec out. The Accord of 1987 brings Quebec in. In my opinion, criticism of the process is unfounded. What about the deal? That is what truly interests Canadians. They are pleased to have Quebec within the constitutional family, but they will also ask, "Just what did it cost us?" In my view, it did not cost Canadians. Canadians only win as a result of the Meech Lake Accord. They win a united country.
Let us look at some of the terms of the Accord itself. In the Accord there are two new rules of interpretation. One is the recognition of Quebec within Canada as a distinct society. Some will say that that confers upon Quebec the right to pass laws, and say that it is a distinct society, therefore, it can do a,
October 7, 1987

b, or c. But the legal opinions are quite to the contrary. This is merely a rule of interpretation.
It states in the agreement that "the Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with . .. in other words, these are rules of interpretation. These are not grants of legislative powers. The Charter of Rights today provides that the Charter of Rights shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the reality of this country; that certain things can be done consistent with the rules of a democratic system. The reference to a distinct society is merely read in collateral and in conjunction with that reference.
What about the English minority in Quebec? The Accord also provides that Canada has dualism. In Canada there are English-speaking Canadians in a minority in Quebec, and French-speaking Canadians in a minority in many other provinces. To this point in time provinces that had rejected the concept of official bilingualism and a commitment to accepting and preserving the bilingual nature of the provinces have accepted in this Accord that as a fundamental characteristic of this country they will preserve its dualistic nature.
What about the powers of the legislatures and the Government of Canada? Again, the Accord states that nothing shall derogate from the powers, rights, or privileges of Parliament, the Government of Canada, or the legislatures or Governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights, or privileges relating to language. That is a very clear indication of the agreement that was reached by the Premiers.
What are some of the other terms? There is a reference and a decision made that the provinces may nominate persons to the Senate, and that the Government of Canada then will make a selection based on those nominations. There are those who say that we are giving away the shop; we are giving to the provinces control of the Senate. The appointment rests with the Government of Canada, but more basic than that is the reality that the Senate belongs to no government. It does not and should not belong to the Government of Canada. It is a national institution that belongs to all Canadians and is designed to reflect the co-operative and federal nature of this country. What a better way than to have joint appointments to the Senate to reflect this reality. Why should the Government of Canada be the sole appointing body to the Senate? In addition, there is a commitment to effect reform of the Senate.
In my view those who argue that somehow the Government of Canada is weakened, do not understand the federal nature of this country. They do not understand the agreement that was reached in 1867, or the agreements that followed that brought in other provinces. Those provinces agreed that this was a federal system of government; that the provinces had roles to play, but that these roles were protected by the Constitution and that no attempt would be made by the national Government to undermine that commitment in our constitutional documents.
A lot is also heard about the immigration agreement, that Quebec can somehow have a say in the nature of immigration
Constitution Amendment, 1987
into that province. This is not new ground. For a number of years the Province of Quebec has been a party to an agreement with the Government of Canada under which both Governments agree that the Province of Quebec has a role to play and a say in the nature of the immigration as it affects that province. That is not new.
It is also not new that there are amendments to the Supreme Court of Canada. In this regard, I hear and read some amazing comments. Because the provinces have a right to make nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada, we hear some people state that the Supreme Court of Canada will be an instrument of the provincial Governments, and that we will have pro-provincial decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada. If we accept that, we must also accept that until this point in our history the Supreme Court of Canada has been a political instrument of the Government of Canada, the national Government, undermining the legitimate role of the provinces as laid out in our Constitution.
Until this point in our history, the Supreme Court of Canada has been appointed by the national Government. In truth, the Supreme Court of Canada belongs to neither level of government. It belongs to the people. It is a national institution, and it should not be nor will it be an instrument of manipulation for either level of government. That is very basic to our understanding of the constitutional principles upon which our country is based. The Supreme Court of Canada is now entrenched in our Constitution. In my opinion, the institution of the Supreme Court of Canada is a big winner.
There is also discussion about shared-cost programs and that the national Government has lost its ability to instigate, participate, and promote new national shared-cost programs. In fact, quite the contrary is true. For the first time there is a constitutional recognition that the Government of Canada has a role to play in initiating programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We are not talking about programs in areas of national jurisdiction. We are talking about a role for the Government of Canada implementing programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In other words, in areas where traditionally the Government of Canada has had no right to be. This enhances and legitimizes the role of the Government of Canada to put forward programs that are in the national interest. At the same time, it allows the Government of Canada the flexibility to institute those programs in order that the needs of the provinces and the people are addressed.
Of course, there are national objectives established by the national Government. If any provinces does not meet these objectives, the money for the program can be withheld from that province. That is a tremendous lever in negotiations. We cannot ignore the realities of federal-provincial negotiation and communication that must take place.
What about the yearly conferences on the economy, and on other issues? There are those who say that we are creating a third level of government. In reality we are simply putting into the Constitution a role for the provinces and the Government

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
of Canada to play in concert with the important issues of the economy and constitutional reform. This is the ongoing reality. There is nothing to fear. All the people who will attend these conferences representing the Government of Canada and the provinces are elected officials. We are all accountable every four or five years. Accountability, which is so much a part of the democratic system, is the greatest guarantee for Canadians. If Canadians do not like the decisions which are being made, they will change their representatives.
A wide range of issues comes to mind when we talk about the Accord. As we in the joint committee on the Constitution identified, there are weaknesses in the Accord. On that there is no debate. Nor is there any serious debate that the other constitutional documents which are the basis of our country had their weaknesses. There is no such thing as a perfect constitutional document, not in 1987, 1982, or 1867.
In 1982 there was a constitutional document involving repatriation and acceptance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which excluded the Province of Quebec. What could be a more glaring deficiency than excluding a full third of the people of the country? It was not unanimous in 1982. That was a glaring defect, but that document was pushed forward by some of the same people in the House today who say that the Accord must be stopped because it is imperfect. That is the hypocrisy of those who oppose this document, in my view, for what they may see to be short-term political gain. However, that is a short-term view of Canada which should not be a part of this debate.
What is at issue is the future of the country. We are all being called upon to rise above the temptation to score small political points at a great price to Canada. Today we are talking about a document which is not perfect, but we are talking about a document which is very good for Canada. Those who want a detailed commentary on the Accord itself should read the 1987 report of the special joint committee.
For five weeks I had the opportunity to raise questions and to hear witnesses respond to those questions, and in my opinion all the issues are addressed with great satisfaction in the report.
There are imperfections, but we cannot achieve a perfect document. No Government, no peoples, can achieve a perfect document. However, we can achieve a good document, and we have achieved a good document in this Accord.
It would be very dangerous for us to set about the task now of renegotiating or unravelling the Accord. To those who think that the questions which were put to the committee were not discussed by the First Ministers, I say that they have a great deal of naivete. The First Ministers were well advised. All these questions are not new, and in fact all of them were addressed. Some of the very basic questions at which the committee looked were described to us by some of the participants at the First Ministers' Conference as deal
breakers. In other words, they went through the debate and a deal was reached, the first unanimous deal of its kind in 120 years.
It is hard to achieve unanimous agreements. It is not time now to look for the perfect solution. It is time to take what we have, which is a good Accord, to move forward, and to make it perfect over time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion the Hon. Member said that it is hard to achieve a unanimous decision, referring to the Meech Lake Accord, and I suppose applauding the fact that the 10 First Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were able to come to an agreement. His words were that it is hard to achieve a unanimous agreement or position.
However, at the beginning of his speech the Hon. Member talked about Senate reform and addressed some of the concerns of the people of Canada with regard to Senate reform. He said that it was possible to reform the Senate. He summarily dismissed those of us who are concerned about this particular provision which requires unanimity in order to secure Senate reform.
He says that it is hard to achieve unanimous consent. How then can he explain the facility by which Senate reform might be possible? The Hon. Member knows that as a result of the Meech Lake Accord it will be impossible to achieve Senate reform because of the very fact that unanimity is required. At some point in the future there will be those who will want reform of the Senate. The Hon. Member is from Atlantic Canada. He knows that a lot of people from Atlantic Canada would like to see Senate reform.
Does he really believe that the Province of Ontario, for example, or that the Province of Quebec will at some time in the future agree to giving the Province of Prince Edward Island or the Province of Nova Scotia the exact, same power in the Senate; in other words, equal representation? Does he really believe that the Province of Ontario will agree to giving the Province of Nova Scotia the same power or clout in a new reformed Senate?
The Hon. Member quickly dismisses those who have concerns with regard to this provision as being naive. However, I suggest to the Hon. Member that it is naive of him to believe for a moment that at any point in the future there will be unanimous consent to reform the Senate and to ensure that every province has equal representation in the Senate of Canada. It is impossible because of the very fact that unanimity is required to achieve Senate reform. As some commentators have pointed out, the Meech Lake Accord has put the country in a type of constitutional strait-jacket.
With regard to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Member criticized the present process. He suggested that for the last 120-odd years the Supreme Court of Canada was an instrument of the national Government. Surely
October 7, 1987

the Hon. Member, who I understand was trained in law, is not suggesting for a moment that over the last 120 years the Supreme Court of Canada has been a puppet of the political party in office. He referred to the Supreme Court of Canada as a national institution. Surely the Hon. Member will agree that if it is in fact a national institution, then the national Government should be ultimately responsible for appointments to that national institution.
He also said that it was important for provincial Governments to appoint members to the Supreme Court of Canada. I ask the following question in conclusion. Why is it so important for the provinces of Canada to have that particular power, if not for the fact that the provinces want to appoint judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, because they believe if they appoint judges, that over a period of time the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada appointed by these particular provinces will in effect be rendered puppets of these provinces?


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, first of all I invite the Hon. Member to read the "blues" or to listen more closely when he is in the House. If he had been listening closely he would have understood that my comments on the Supreme Court of Canada were simply that I rejected that the Supreme Court of Canada was an instrument of the federal Government over the last 120 years.
What I said was that if we accept the logic that it will be an instrument of the provinces in the future, we must accept the logic that it was an instrument of the federal Government in the past. That is the point, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to hear that the Hon. Member agrees with my logic.
I would also say that when the Member talks about the Supreme Court of Canada as a national institution he reveals what I understand to be his view of Canada, namely that national institutions are controlled by the Government that sits in Ottawa. But that is not what I understand about this nation. I understand that national institutions are institutions in which all of us, the provinces and the Government of Canada, have a part. That is a federal nation we live in and that is the view of this country that I accept. I know that perhaps there are people in his Party who reject that notion, and that is precisely why we as a political Party have replaced national confrontation by national reconciliation.
Finally, when the Member asked questions about the Senate and whether or not reform is possible, he makes my point. Just a few months ago it was possible to reach unanimous agreement on perhaps the most difficult of all issues facing our country, an issue that has faced us for a number of decades, that is, bringing Quebec back into the fold by reaching agreement on the wide-ranging Accord.
The Member asked whether Ontario would agree to Nova Scotia having as much clout in the Senate as Ontario does. With or without Meech Lake that question is equally valid, for as things stand today with Quebec not at the table, Ontario
Constitution Amendment, 1987
has a veto over reform of the Senate. In either case Ontario has great influence over whether or not we have reform. In the absence of Quebec-with Quebec not at the table-meaningful constitutional reform is almost impossible because you have to get a certain number of the nine provinces that are at the table to agree, Mr. Speaker. When Quebec is at the table, some provinces, like my own, have a natural ally. We have an ally with whom we can forge agreements that can result in good constitutional change for Nova Scotia, notwithstanding that the Province of Ontario may be opposed to these changes.
My friend speaks and reveals a vision of this country. It is the paranoid view of the Liberal Party when it comes to doing things in a co-operative and federal way.


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, early on in his discourse, my hon. colleague referred to the Quebec referendum campaign. He characterized the 40 per cent vote for the referendum proposition in that campaign as being a rejection of Canada, saying moreover that it represented half of the Francophone Quebe-cois rejecting the concept of Canada.
In view of the fact that the adhesion of Quebec to the Constitution is, of course, the prima mobile of the Meech Lake Accord, would my colleague defend or expand on that assertion? Would he rather not agree that the phrasing of the Quebec referendum was such as to catch anyone off guard who had any form of doubt about the nature of the relationship of Quebec within Canada? Does he really cling to the assertion that it was a rejection of Canada?


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who made a similar point the other day in the House, raises a question with which I have no difficulty. The logic of what he is proposing is that somehow the people of Quebec after all of this debate did not really know the question being asked.
I do not accept, after such an emotional debate, that the political people of Quebec-they are people who have keen interest in politics-did not fully understand the nature of the question being put to them. That to me, put bluntly, is an insult to the intelligence of the people. I just do not accept that people would vote on such a fundamental issue and not know what the question was after listening to debate for a period of months, debate that literally tore the province apart.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to take part in an important debate that affects the lives of all Canadians and that, I think, goes to the very heart of our concept of Canada as a country. The responsibility we have here today cannot be taken lightly, and I know that when we vote, we will all be conscious of the fact that we are helping to build our country.
The debate we are continuing today is perhaps above all a collective scrutiny of what we are. When our descendants, our children and our grandchildren study this chapter in the history of their country, of Canada, they will ask whether we, the Members who sat in the House of Commons in 1987, did

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
what had to be done, whether our speeches rallied everyone to the cause, and whether we set aside partisan considerations to make this what I would call one of the finest moments in Canadian history.
When I spoke in the House on May 11 during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, I said that I intended to support the general thrust of the Meech Lake Accord as endorsed by the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). Mr. Speaker, my position remains the same today in this historic debate, and I will vote for the Accord, now referred to as the Meech-Langevin Accord.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was a Member of the Quebec Legislature for more than eight years, and subsequently spent six years in the private sector. I then decided to return to active politics, this time at the federal level. My main reason for doing so was that I wanted to make a modest contribution towards seeking a satisfactory settlement for Quebec, so that Quebec could finally sign the 1982 Constitutional Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, at the time of the 1980 Referendum, Quebec voters were promised that if they voted no, it would not mean a vote for the status quo. We were told that a no to independence meant yes to a renewed federalism in which Quebec and its French-speaking citizens would be comfortable, confident in the future of their country and the role they would have to play. Mr. Speaker, in the 1980 Referendum very few Quebecers thought the status quo was acceptable, and in fact, it was not.
We should also remember that the Constitution Act, 1982, did not receive the support of the Quebec National Assembly, including the Pequistes on the Government side and the provincial Liberals, who were then the Official Opposition. All these people, duly elected in their respective electoral districts, felt that Quebec had been ignored, and some would say excluded from the 1982 Agreement.
Today, this Parliament has a chance to keep a promise made seven years ago, namely to complete what I would call the first phase of constitutional renewal, and to respond to the expectations of the vast majority of Quebecers as to their future within Confederation. We may not have this chance again in the foreseeable future, and I submit, with respect, that we should take advantage of this opportunity and do so now.
I referred to a seven-year-old promise. In fact, we have to go back 200 years, to the eighteenth century, to understand the issues, the crux of the problem and the essence of the Meech Lake Accord, which is the recognition of Quebec's distinct identity. As was recalled by so many Members who spoke in this debate in the House and at the sittings of the Special Committee, the concepts of linguistic duality and distinct society are older than Canada as we know it today, older than Confederation or Canadian federalism. Some mentioned the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, where, under section 14, Francophones were given the freedom to practise the Catholic religion. My point is that we have here the official recognition of two religious communities, and also that, at the time, religion and language in North America were intertwined.
Others have emphasized the 1763 Treaty of Paris and the judiciary decrees issued by various British governors in the
years following the treaty. People were gradually allowed to practice the Catholic religion, and recognition was extended to language rights before the courts and to the seigniorial system, different from the British system.
From that perspective, Mr. Speaker, yesterday's British generosities-others would say respect for basic rights- gradually made up the foundation of Quebec's distinct character. But let us get back to the present. I suggest that the Meech-Langevin Accord reflects the spirit of the Liberal position concerning our constitutional future. What 1 have in mind here, Mr. Speaker, is the November 1986 resolution acknowledging the distinct character of Quebec, as well as several points which can be found in the Constitutional Accord now under consideration.
I will add this. As a Quebecer, the fervour with which I will defend Canadian unity will be all that much stronger to the extent that the particular role Quebec must play within Canada will be acknowledged and understood. It is obvious to me that a Canada without Quebec, fully aware of its distinct character and recognized as such by the rest of the country, would fly in the face of its own political, cultural, sociological and historic reality.
Let me state my case for my English-speaking colleagues. The Meech-Langevin Accord, with all its potential imperfections and oversights, is still an important step in the right direction because it seeks to achieve the fundamental objective of bringing Quebec into the Constitution and of ensuring its continued presence. As politicians we must deal with the practical and the possible. We must be guided by realism, if at the end of the day we want to be remembered for more than yellowing copies of Hansard. That is a simple fact of political life. I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier's words are appropriate in this regard. He said:
We are divided into provinces, we are divided into races, and out of these confused elements it is not always the ideal policies from the point of view of pure idealism which ought to prevail, but the policy which can appeal on the whole to all sections of the community.
Realistically, as political leaders in this exercise, our efforts must first be concentrated on maintaining the essential and distinct character of the Province of Quebec on the one hand, and on the other on ensuring the continued presence of Quebec within Confederation. I say as a Quebecer that that is the necessary and sufficient condition for any future constitutionmaking.
I understand the concerns some of my colleagues have raised over other very valid issues and I answer them this way: be patient. Recognize that there are priorities which must be addressed first. Quebec, in a political sense, had been left in constitutional isolation in 1981-82. This problem cannot and should not last forever. Are we going to have to wait for the eve of a second referendum to find an acceptable solution? I say to this House and to my colleagues: we have this opportunity now, let's grab it.
October 7, 1987



Mr. Speaker, in his September 29, 1987 address to the House, the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) explained why he is in favour of the Accord. As he said, we support the Accord because it brings Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family politically, emotionally, and psychologically.
Mr. Speaker, the Accord only seeks to bridge-some would say correct-a historic gap. I would indicate the problem quite simply. This Accord is the outcome of an essential corrective measure after the 1982 Constitutional Agreement. It confirms the reality of a Quebec which has managed to maintain its language, its culture, its traditions, its religion, its institutions-hence its distinct character-against forces which logically should have swamped it.
This Accord pays tribute to the dedication, the effort and the courage of a nation which, although it remembers its past, can look to the future with confidence. The Accord states loud and clear what many Quebecers think deep down. In this connection, I find quite moving the remarks made by Mr. Eric Kierans, a former Member of Parliament, who related this personal anecdote to the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which was dealing with the proposed constitutional accord. Here is what Mr. Kierans said:
"The very first time I visited Quebec's Legislative Assembly at Mr. Lesage's request, I looked at the paintings on the walls while walking through the corridors. I could not help feeling that, My God, this is a tradition totally different from mine, this is a different culture and a different language".
If I mention the awakening of Mr. Eric Kierans, an Englishspeaking Montrealer, to my English speaking colleagues, it is to urge them to recognize the historical fact of the Quebec reality, the French fact in Canada which can be found mainly in Quebec but which is also alive in other parts of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I think it might be useful to look at some of the other testimonies which were heard by the Special Committee on the Constitutional Accord.
I should like to emphasize in particular the comments made by Mr. Gordon Robertson, a Former Secretary of the Federal Cabinet, who had the opportunity to attend Constitutional conferences over several decades: He knows what he is talking about for having been involved in them on a number of occasions. With his usual clear thinking and common sense, and after having accepted the Accord's main political objective, which is "to ensure the presence and participation of Quebec in our Constitutional Accord", and after having found it praiseworthy, Mr. Robertson asked several questions. I will quote only one: "Could the agreement weaken the federal government in any significant and important way? To which he replied, and I quote:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"In my judgment, the Constitutional Accord of 1987 meets the present priorities. It will produce a fair and reasonable arrangement. I do not think it will have any seriously adverse effects as far as federal Governments of the future are concerned."
Another witness, Professor William Lederman, had this to say in analyzing the concept of a distinct society: "It has been true since 1867 that the courts have known that Quebec society is, in certain important ways, a distinct society. That has always weighed with them in settling constitutional issues that touched closely on Quebec. This has been implicit. I believe it is worth making that which has been implicit explicit because it is one of the fundamental realities of the Canadian free and democratic society, and has been from the beginning."
Finally, Professor Gerald Beaudoin, also during the hearings of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, explained the legal implications of the distinct society clause in these words: "In my opinion, as in the opinion of a good number of lawyers, the recognition of the distinct society is an explicit and important interpretative clause, but it does not change the distribution of powers or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
I wanted to quote these comments because they correspond to my own thoughts on the Meech-Langevin Accord: a moderate and natural step in our constitutional development.
Mr. Speaker, what can we do about the special identity of Quebec? We could try to avoid it, but this would not change the facts. Even those who refuse to recognize the distinct character of Quebec are so well aware of it that their refusal is due to their fear that, by promoting this distinct identity, they will make separation easier. To them, Mr. Speaker, I would say that they have very little confidence in the attachment of Quebec to Canada.
Today's debate is the result of history. History will also judge what has been said about the Accord in this House. I have every confidence that the way shown by the Meech-Langevin Accord, which, we must remember, has the support of all party leaders in this House and all provincial Premiers, is the right one because, in the best Canadian tradition, it is acceptable to Quebec and also to the other provinces. Of course, the Accord is a compromise. No one will deny that. Of course the Accord changes some of the rules for appointing judges to the Supreme Court, for Senate appointments and for the role played by the legislatures in immigration. Some of the rigging has been changed, but the fact remains that the Meech-Langevin Accord is a compromise, a Canadian compromise that was reached in the way Canadians have always been able to reach a compromise in the past. It may not

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
be perfect, but those who seek perfection run the risk of losing a consensus and then, it is back to square one. To those who want perfection at all costs and who are not prepared to agree to a consensus with warts and all, I want to repeat what I said earlier, in quoting what a former Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said about this country:
We are divided into provinces, we are divided into races, and out of these confused elements it is not always the ideal policies from the point of view of pure idealism which ought to prevail, but the policy which can appeal on the whole to all sections of the community.

Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord has received the support of every section of our Canadian community, of the governments of each province, and the party leaders sitting in this House. And that is why I say that the Meech-Langevin Accord is a compromise made in Canada for Canadians, in the best traditions of this country.
I am a supporter of the federal character of this country which has managed to uphold the diversity of our regions and preserve the distinct identity of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, to be a Canadian or to define the essence of being a Canadian is not always easy, and in some cases downright difficult. It is not always an easy to reconcile our differences. That diversity and those differences have sometimes provoked controversy, even within political parties. You are of course aware of the split in my own caucus on an issue of fundamental importance to our country. Diversity may have led to controversy and disputes in some cases, but it has also, more often than not, been a tremendous source of strength, freedom and incredible generosity.
Mr. Speaker, the Belgians have a saying that unity is strength. I would say that Canada's strength is its diversity, and that our unity stems from the recognition of our diversity. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Meech-Langevin Accord reflects my vision of Canada: a union of citizens sharing the same ideals and the same goals, whose strength lies in the strength of its components and in respect for their diversity. The Meech-Langevin Accord reflects and projects into the future this concept I have of Canada. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Accord when the question is put.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on his speech on the Meech Lake Accord. I would like to ask him a question about the distinct society of Quebec, recognized as such in this Accord. I know he talked about it in his speech, but I would like to know whether he would care to comment, and I know that we Canadians who live in Quebec have no problem with Quebec's special identity as a distinct society, because we believe and we know it is a distinct society and that it wants to remain in Canada, and I think that in 1980, during the referendum, Quebecers responded to this
appeal and confirmed their desire to be both Canadians and Quebecers.
But I wish the Hon. Member would elaborate with a view to assuring our anglophone colleagues or others outside Quebec that the distinct society provision does not mean additional powers for Quebec. In fact people know what Quebec is and what it has been in the past, and you even recalled historic events . . . Would he elaborate on this?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, like all other North American democratic societies, Canada is a society in evolution. Naturally, significant changes have occurred in Quebec in the last 50, 25 or 10 years. One of these significant changes relates to the link which once existed between language and religion, now quite devoid of that complicity which was at the root of Quebec's cultural and linguistic development.
Over the past 25 or 30 years, since the quiet revolution, this phenomenon or this acknowledgment which was made or developed-language being the guardian of faith, faith being the guardian of language-is a cultural factor which is vanishing in Quebec. As a result, the state-and this is what Quebec citizens sought in successive elections-has gradually taken over the role of the Church with respect to protecting the language. Faith used to be the guardian of language, but since we now live in a pluralistic society where a number of cultural communities have swelled our ranks, we are asking the state to maintain and promote this distinct character, whereas before we would ask the Church to do that.
What was once private action has now become collective action. Never through this collective action-first taken a number of years ago, and certainly more vigourous since the onset of the quiet revolution-did we seek to question or jeopardize the rights of minorities in Quebec.
And I wish, Mr. Speaker, that all linguistic minorities throughout the country, official language minorities living everywhere from coast to coast, will be treated in every province the way the English-speaking minority is treated in Quebec. That is the wish I express, and I hope that Canada's constitutional evolution will one day lead to the recognition of the linguistic duality, not only in federal institutions but in provincial institutions as well.
When I say that the Church-to-state transfer of responsibilities for promoting the French fact never did affect the basic rights of Quebec's official language minority, the Englishspeaking minority in this case, I would remind Hon. Members that I once belonged to a government which, even before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed, had the Quebec legislature adopt the Quebec Charter of Rights guaranteeing the basic rights of all Quebec residents, whether they belong to the majority or the minority.
So I do not see why, today, by acknowledging the distinct character of Quebec, by allowing Quebec to play a greater role in immigration, by defining more precisely the role of the provinces in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, by
October 7, 1987

letting the provinces have a say in Senate appointments, I do not see why this Canadian fabric which is getting tighter, 1 believe in its unity, I do not see why this evolution would cast a shadow of doubt on and change the conception Quebecers have always had concerning the rights of their minority.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional accord arising from the so-called Meech Lake agreement has transfixed perhaps not nearly as much of the country as should be the case. However, it certainly has motivated a considerable number of people to look very closely at their conception of the country and at the future which they hope to see for it. That is the context in which I want to make my contribution to what is an historic debate.
First, I want to discuss some myths about this agreement which have been presented to many of us by constituents who are worried about the direction in which they have been told this Accord is likely to take Canada.
The first myth concerns one of the least controversial areas. It is that the changes with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court will somehow weaken the federal Government and cause an erosion of power at the centre of Canada, especially with reference to our justice system. I believe that this is a very strong myth because there does not seem to be any truth in that assertion.
Indeed, if one considers the changes suggested for the Supreme Court, I believe they are essentially quite sensible and would have the effect, among others, of taking appointments of Supreme Court justices out of the present patronage-dominated system which has been so suspect to many people throughout the country.
I believe it makes very good sense in a federal system to have a combination by which provinces suggest names for Supreme Court judges and the federal Government makes the final appointments. The myth that this somehow gives provinces the right to appoint the Supreme Court is simply not true. It is a combination that is appropriate and sensible in a federal state.
A second myth concerns the question of compensation to provinces which establish programs that are compatible with national programs though not themselves part of those national programs. Again, there is a myth that this will somehow reduce the power of the federal Government to initiate new changes in social legislation and ensure that those changes are brought throughout the country. On the contrary, I suggest that setting forth in our Constitution a very precise and clear mechanism for how Canada can initiate new social or economic programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, with the consent of seven provinces as has been the case for many years, makes considerable sense. If other provinces decide to implement basically the same programs, it makes equal sense for the federal Government to have a responsibility to provide
Constitution Amendment, 1987
financing, just as it would to other provinces which are part of the federal program.
The third and perhaps most important myth to discuss is that making Quebec a distinct society somehow detracts from the power of the federal Government to shape the future of this country. Again, we have heard a great deal of nonsense in the House about how that notion of a distinct society undercuts or destroys the power of Ottawa to take leadership in this country in areas like industrial policy, trade policy or other economic fields, which are certainly important to my constituents. If one carefully examines the Meech Lake Accord as outlined in our Order Paper, it is absolutely clear on this issue. It states:
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-
In short, this will not shift power in any significant way. Instead, it is a very crucial psychological recognition of something which anyone who has worked in Quebec or has worked with Quebecers and knows something of that province simply must accept as a reality. Quebec is a distinct society.
I tell Canadians who are concerned about this, including people in my constituency, that I very much wish they could visit Quebec to see its various sections so they could come away with a sense of the great distinctiveness of such things as the civil code in that province, the majority dominance of the French language, and the different economic structure of that province. We should not be concerned about the myth of the distinct society being a danger to us.
Fourth, 1 want to talk about the unanimity clause because it is also an area about which a great deal of mythology has been suggested. The myth is that somehow every future decision associated with our Constitution will require unanimous support of the provinces. This is simply not true. The vast areas which make up our Constitution will not require any changes that are different from the present constitutional arrangement for changes. It is only federal institutions will require this unanimous consent in the future. That has to be stressed to people, too. I do not like that. I think that it is a mistake. I think that it is a step backward with respect to federal institutions. I do not think that it is something that needed to be done. However, I do not think that it is a major and significant change about which people across the country should be concerned.
After talking about these myths I want now to talk about what I do see as serious problems within this Accord. There are three of which we as a Parliament have to be very aware. First, the role given to the Territories of the country is virtually nil within this Accord. That is a serious mistake for the future of the country. There have just been elections in the Northwest Territories. At present, there is a New Democratic Party Government in the Yukon which is doing interesting and

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
exciting things. It is important to the future of these Territories that they, too, should be able to join the constitutional family without having to run this gauntlet, in a sense, which they have to run of all the other provinces before the approval process can be completed.
1 think that this is something which the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) has made very clear to the House. It is something which Conservatives, such as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), have spoken out on very clearly. I think that it would be a serious mistake for the House of Commons not to listen to those voices from the Territories and make changes as suggested in the amendments proposed by my Party which would bring the Territories into a fuller potential future in Canada.
Second, there are some very serious problems with respect to aboriginal rights. We, as a country, forget far too often the traditions, the people, the tremendous sacrifices which the aboriginal people of Canada made in helping to build this land. I can tell Members of the House that in my constituency great battles were fought in which the aboriginal people, under the leadership of the Iroquois, helped us to make sure that this country stayed independent in the War of 1812. Had it not been for the powerful alliance which existed at that point, this country could well have been conquered by the United States. We could be in a position today in which our independence has already been surrendered, rather than facing at least the last fight in the free trade talks over whether or not that independence will have to go.
These aboriginal Canadians have said to us very clearly that this agreement is not satisfactory. 1 quote from the words of the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, George Erasmus, who has said to us that the circle of Canada "will only be complete when the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada are unequivocally expressed and protected in the Constitution, and when that relationship between the First Nations and the rest of Canada is respected". He went on to tell the special committee that the amendment which was made to the constitutional Accord "fails to give explicit constitutional recognition to the existence of First Nations as distinct societies that also form a fundamental characteristic of Canada. If anyone is more distinct, surely it is the peoples of the First Nations".
He went on from that point to state very clearly that there should be changes to this Accord which would recognize this fact and which would, as he put it, establish a renewed constitutional process specifically dealing with treaty and aboriginal rights. Our agenda, as he put it, is unfinished; the process should continue until the agenda is complete. I want to suggest that that agenda of the aboriginal peoples cannot simply be forgotten by the House of Commons. It is just not right for us to forget what we owe to the aboriginal people of Canada.
I would like now to talk about the third serious problem which I see. It is that the women of Canada fought a very
serious and important fight to have Section 28 of the Charter established, which section gave to Canadian women equality with Canadian men. It was a hard fight. It took a great deal of pressure. It took a great deal of mobilization. It is not a fight which should be reversed by this constitutional Accord.
Yet women's groups across the country have said to us that that threat exists in this Accord. We have heard this from the President of NAC. We have heard this from the President of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The New Democratic Party has also moved an amendment in this area.
It is an amendment which reflects the statements of our members of the special committee who said the following. They said that Senator Lowell Murray defended inclusion of the non-derogation clause guaranteeing that neither Canada's multicultural heritage nor aboriginal rights would be affected by the linguistic duality-distinct society interpretive clause on the grounds of an abundance of caution. They said, "We want that same caution applied to Section 28 of the Charter, sexual equality". I believe very strongly that this House should accept that amendment as a constructive addition to this constitutional Accord.
My final point is simply to say that the Government has so far adopted a position, which I must describe as pigheaded, that it will not shift this Accord in any respect. With a document as serious as this is and as crucial to the future of our country, we should not be prepared to do that. Therefore, I urge the Government, and plead with it, to look at the amendments which we have put forward, which do not detract at all from the Accord, and to accept them. In that manner, we will have for our children and for our country in the future a better constitutional arrangement with which to move forward.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member who just spoke referred to the Government's position as "pigheaded". He also referred to the Meech Lake Accord as crucial to the future of our country. The Hon. Member spoke about three serious problems in the Constitution. The Hon. Member used the word "serious" on a number of occasions, first with regard to the role of the Territories, then with regard to aboriginal rights, and finally with regard to equality vis-a-vis Section 28 in the Constitution.
Having said all that, the Hon. Member still intends to vote for the Accord. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot talk about the objections as being myths-and he spoke about a number of myths-and then speak about serious problems in the Constitution. The Hon. Member talked about aboriginal rights, the role of the Territories, and women's rights. If the problems are as serious as the Hon. Member states they are, I ask, why is he voting for the Accord?


John Carnell Crosbie: Because he is inconsistent, and proud of it.


John V. Nunziata: Why, pray tell, has he decided that the Government's position is pigheaded because it will not accept
October 7, 1987

amendments? I happen to agree with the Hon. Member that the Government's position is pigheaded.


An Hon. Member:: No, no, it is not.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member refers to the
Government's position as pigheaded. How would he refer to his own position? If the Government's position is pigheaded because it will not accept amendments from the New Democratic Party, how can one explain the position of the NDP when it states that it has serious problems that the Government will not accept, and it is pigheaded for not accepting them-


Mr. Orlikow:: Why don't you ask your Leader?


John V. Nunziata: -but, on the other hand, we intend to vote for the Meech Lake Accord.


Pauline Jewett: What about John Turner? Tell us about John Turner.


John V. Nunziata: It is typical NDP. Approximately an hour and a half ago his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), stated that aboriginal rights are not endangered by the Accord. Those were the words of his colleague, that aboriginal rights were not endangered by the Accord. An hour and a half later, a member of the same political Party stated, and I quote, "very serious problems with aboriginal rights". My friends, you cannot have it both ways.
In closing, I wish to ask the Hon. Member, who is a member of a political Party which prides itself on being committed and the Party of conscience and principle, is it any wonder that Canadians really think that members of the NDP are a bunch of hypocrites for the position that they have taken?


Steven W. Langdon: I appreciate the question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).
I wish to say two or three things, because I think it is a serious question, even if it comes from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. First, I wish to say that perhaps I am an eternal optimist. Perhaps I think it is possible that the Conservative Party, with its abysmal showing in the public opinion polls, will somehow come to its senses on this issue before the amendments that I spoke to have to be voted on, and that it will accept the obvious clarity and logic of my colleague and former professor, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).
I very much hope that each of our amendments will be accepted, because we would not have moved such amendments if they were not serious problems. For instance, with respect to the question of aboriginal rights, I am afraid that I have to tell the Hon. Member that I am prepared to take the words of the head of the Assembly of First Nations as representative of what aboriginal people in this country think about this Accord. If he states that in his view aboriginal people are badly treated,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I take that very seriously. It is I who has to do the judgment, not anybody else.
I also wish to say that the Member's question fails to reflect the fact that his own Leader is taking a position which has called for vast changes in this constitutional Accord. Yet the Hon. Member is prepared to vote for the Accord.
My analysis of the myths which have been perpetrated, among others by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston about this Accord, is that they themselves are wrong-headed. We have the pigheaded Tories, and we have some wrongheaded Liberals.


Mr. Mayer:: And we have empty-headed New Democrats.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I distinctly heard a member of the Conservative Party opposite call the Hon. Member empty-headed. I would like you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on whether that is unparliamentary.


Mr. McDermid:: That is not what he said.


John V. Nunziata: Did he mean that New Democrats in general are empty-headed?


John Horton McDermid: That is what he said.


John V. Nunziata: If that is the case, I withdraw my point of order.


Charles James Mayer: His voice wavers so much because he is empty-headed.


Steven W. Langdon: That is an interesting comment coming from a distinguished Minister of the Government. I must say that there will be a time when that Minister will deeply, deeply regret that particularly nasty comment.


An Hon. Member:: That sounded quite threatening.


John Horton McDermid: You called us pigheaded. We can call you empty-headed.


Steven W. Langdon: I will say to the Minister right now that he will discover at some stage just exactly how ridiculous and how inconsistent his statement is with everything that anybody in his Government has ever stated.


John Horton McDermid: Here comes the threat.


Charles James Mayer: You can dish it out but you can't take it.


Steven W. Langdon: No, no. I have no comment with respect to empty-headedness. That is up to the Minister's usual level of political rhetoric. But his other comment was something which has to do with medical issues-


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker-

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Another Hon. Member wanted to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid, with all this "brilliant" repartee going on around here, that we have left my hon. friend very little time to respond to my question.
Because he is an economist and as a former student, I know a brilliant one, I wonder whether he has time to elaborate a little on the point he was making about the mythology of the spending power having somehow been eroded.


Steven W. Langdon: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker-and I will try not to enter further into this debate with the ignoramus opposite-


John Horton McDermid: That is parliamentary?


Steven W. Langdon: -I say to the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) that the spending power issue is something that gives to the Government of Canada much more capacity to act in the future than it has had in the past in respect of new programs and in respect of initiatives. It also gives it the possibility of undertaking equivalent activity with other parts of the country which do not want to be part of a federal-provincial agreement in itself. That is a major point.
Perhaps I could just make one last point. I want to make absolutely clear that, despite the strong hope or sense of optimism which I have in respect of our amendments, I think nobody should be unaware of the fact that when one weighs the reservations against the myths which are untrue, one still has a document for which one has to vote because of its steps forward, despite the fact that it also includes some unfortunate backward steps.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, when most Members of Parliament rise they always indicate what an honour it is to participate in a debate. I am sure this one has special meaning for all those who have had an opportunity to speak. This is a very important constitutional document, one of the most important in Canadian history. I think it is a privilege for all Members of Parliament to have an opportunity to give their comments on this very important process.
Let me say something about constitutional development within Canada. I think the Meech Lake Accord and everything which has preceded it must be looked at as an evolutionary process. 1 remember reading a foreign publication at one time in which they were trying to fix a date for Canadian independence. To try to do that is like imposing another society's concept of constitutional development or nationbuilding, because it would probably be very difficult to pin down to one particular date the time when Canada became an independent country.
There has been a series of very important constitutional dates throughout Canadian history since 1867, and I would
suggest that the passage of the Meech Lake Accord will add another important date to the process.
As well, I think Canadians should understand that not all parts of the Canadian Constitution are written. Indeed, many important parts of the Constitution are unwritten, and they, too, make up what is collectively known as the Constitution of Canada.
The Charter of 1982 is a constitutional document; it is not the Constitution. The British North America Act is a constitutional document. However, for those who have studied this area, such an ancient document as the Constitution of 1689 is a Canadian constitutional document as well.
I am very pleased to direct my comments to the 1987 constitutional Accord, and later I should like to make comments in respect of some of the proposed amendments. The 1987 constitutional Accord is about bringing Quebec back into the constitutional family. I speak not as a Quebecer but as an English Canadian from Niagara Falls, Ontario, who is very proud to have been born in that area. As a Canadian I feel it incumbent upon me to involve myself in this discussion and to give my comments on what I perceive to be the future of the country.
As I grew up, as a child in Niagara Falls during the 1960s and as a young adult during the 1970s, one of the most troubling things for Canadians was the problem-and I believe it started at the beginning of the 1960s-referred to as separatism. At least, some of us who lived in the part of the country from which I came viewed it as a problem.
What was most troubling about it was not that there were people questioning the existence of the Canadian Confederation, which in itself was troubling, but that there was an indication that this movement was growing and seemed to have widespread support according to media reports. What bothered me most about it was that some sociological studies showed that many young people had embraced the idea of separatism. We had been given indications-and certainly 1 remember discussing it at university-that it would be only a matter of time, with so many young people growing up and calling into question the Canadian Confederation, that a separate state in the Province of Quebec would become a reality. For those of us inside and outside the Province of Quebec it was a very heartbreaking concept to try to grasp. All of us know of the intertwined history between French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians, going back two centuries. We know of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have fought and died for the entity known as Canada because they believed in it. That prospect for those of us growing up in Niagara Falls at that time-and I am sure it was the same in other communities across the country-was a very heartbreaking one indeed.
I have been a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party since I was a child. When Mr. Trudeau was sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada in 1968, it was my sincere hope that he could reconcile the different areas of Canada and that he
October 7, 1987

could put an end to the continual questioning of the Confederation.
It is one of my great disappointments in his administration-and I would suggest that it must be one of his own personal disappointments-that he was not able to do that. I would suggest that on many different issues-and if we had time I would like to recount them, but I do not believe we have time-Mr. Trudeau exacerbated the situation or the tensions which existed between French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians.
A hopeful sign for all of us was the 1980 referendum. All Canada watched that debate as it progressed. I believe the whole country was tuned in the night that the results of the referendum were delivered. As one English-speaking Canadian at that time, I would have done anything to ensure the survival of Canada, the unity of our country. I was very pleased that after the successful conclusion, in my mind, of that referendum debate in 1980, Prime Minister Trudeau said: "All conditions are off. Everything is on the table to be negotiated. We will usher in a new era of co-operative federalism with the provinces. We will sit down, make a deal and get Quebec into the constitutional family". You know that was not done, Mr. Speaker. I believe, as most Canadians believed, that that very unfortunate indeed.
Another unfortunate aspect of the 1980 referendum debate was how quickly it faded from the minds of most Canadians. When it was finished, I believe there was a collective sigh of relief. Many Canadians consciously or unconsciously said, "Let us move on to other things". I believe that need to recognize some of the strains within the Canadian Confederation was still there.
I was very interested in the special committee on the constitutional Accord, and the comments of one individual, Madame Solange Chaput-Rolland who said, among other things, in referring to the 1980 referendum and time subsequent:
Inside Quebec, seven years ago, we decided that Canada was our country. We have yet to find out whether our loyalty was well placed. Frankly, in 1982 I wondered if the agonies, the pains, the quarrels, the bitterness following the referendum had been necessary. We voted for Canada; Canada through its central Government totally absorbed in its will to patriate the British North America Act of 1867, cared very little about those who had openly stated their will to remain linked to this country. Promises and dreams were shattered; not a single Quebecois will want to go through such emotions again. You Englishspeaking Canadians have asked during years; what does Quebec want. Now you know. It has been described in five proposals not written by constitutionalists, jurists or nationalists; but by men duly elected by "we the people"-
That is a very emotional appeal and a very poignant one which cries out for the necessity of passing this agreement by the House of Commons.
In putting together this agreement, I would like to pay tribute to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It was his vision, his leadership and his determination more than that of any other individual that made the 1987 constitutional Accord
Constitution Amendment, 1987
possible. Coupled with this war the co-operation of the 10 provincial Premiers who put aside their differences and showed that co-operation is still possible in the federal-provincial context.
It was very important and significant as well that the Leaders of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties on the day after the agreement was struck gave their endorsement to it. It is unfortunate that we are now dealing with a number of amendments. I will indicate why I believe that it is unfortunate. It seems to me that after the initial support of this document by the Leaders of both Opposition Parties it would appear that they, or at least some of the members of their Parties, would like to have it all ways. Some of the Members would like to support the Accord and some do not. Some would like to support the Accord with a number of amendments. I do not think that has been productive.
When I first had a look at the report of the special committee on the Constitution, the first thing that struck me was the opposition addenda to the report. There was a very pious declaration of support by Members from both opposition Parties. Right in the opening sentence, for instance, the Liberal Party said that its members:
-once again confirm their support for the-Accord as a positive step
forward in Canada's constitutional evolution.
The New Democratic Party Members in their first sentence said that they "fully support" the committee's report.
That is great and good news, Mr. Speaker. 1 presume that would include the recommendation from the committee that Parliament adopt the Accord in its present form. It would seem to me that, having given that support, it is inconsistent, as has been done, to tag on a number of amendments, which it has been said time and time again could lead to the unravelling of the agreement itself. I do not believe a lot of amendments will work.
At the hearings we were warned repeatedly that reopening the Accord for renegotiation would be fatal. A number of individuals appeared before the committee and made that point. From Queen's University, Peter Leslie and Richard Simeon; from McGill, Laurent Picard; as well as Gordon Robertson, Peter Meekison, and a long-time member of the Liberal Party, Jack Pickersgill, all of whom made the same point. If members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party were frank, they would admit that even one amendment could destroy this Accord, that one amendment could bring irresistible pressure for a second and a third amendment, until at some point some Premiers would say that the whole deal is off.
I know that members of the opposition Parties will say, "Don't be so worried." I see that the NDP claims that its amendments could be accepted by First Ministers without in any way putting the Accord in jeopardy. That is good to hear. The Liberals say that their amendments should be acceptable to the First Ministers. "Should" is not the same as "are" or "would be" acceptable. What strikes me about this whole

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
discussion is the problems we have had in constitutional debates.
I notice in the opening chapter of the report of the special joint committee what a long, difficult and arduous task it has been to arrive at the position we are at, which is to be able to solve the crucial question concerning Canadian unity. Constitutional development has been very difficult and it has been very easy to unravel the agreements of the past. The special committee outlines the problems with the Fulton formula in the early 1960s and in the mid-1960s the Fulton-Favreau formula, the agreement at the Victoria Conference. It took one Premier after all that work to say, "No, I do not like this", or, for whatever reasons, to back out, and so the whole thing became unravelled.
If history teaches us anything, it should teach us how delicate the Accord is that we have before us. It should be respected. Complicating the thing as well, if we did want to accept amendments from the Opposition, is that the Province of Quebec and the Province of Saskatchewan have already ratified the agreement in its present form. We would be in a position where we would have to change the agreement and have it go back before those Legislatures, ask for their approval of the amended version as well as get all the other Premiers on board. It is not worth risking everything that we have achieved at this time to do that.
Our choice is between this accord and no Accord at all. I believe it is between this Accord which Parliament has before it right now or Quebec's continued isolation. I do not believe there are any other choices. Members of the Opposition must know in their hearts that that is the decision we are facing.
Let me say something about some of the specific points raised in the debates over the last few days, and with specific reference to some of the amendments. A subject that has been raised a number of times is the subject of equality rights. I believe we have ample evidence that the linguistic duality, the distinct society provisions, will not override, supersede or take away the sexual equality rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would not mention this but I see the the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) is in the House. She said on September 29:
We do not think that our equality rights are jeopardized by Meech Lake.
They are not.
I agree with her. I realize she had other reservations, but I think that point is well taken and I think it was a point agreed to by many of the individuals who appeared before the committee, the New Democratic Party admits the concerns, I believe, in that particular quote that I have just read, that the equality provisions are not ruined, are not overruled by what has taken place in the Meech Lake Accord.
We read in the addendum to the report, for example, that:
The NDP Members of the joint committee do not believe the linguistic duality-distinct society interpretation clause abrogates, supersedes or overrides any other rights guaranteed by the Charter.


Pauline Jewett: Read on.


Rob Nicholson: Yet at the same time they are proposing expressly to restate the same thing. Why? I suggest there is a considerable risk of having all this unravel by opening the Meech Lake Accord.


Pauline Jewett: It started in the Langevin Block with Section 16.


John Carnell Crosbie: Calm down, Rambo.


Rob Nicholson: The Liberals would like to exempt the entire Charter from interpretation in light of the linguistic duality-distinctive society clause. I suggest that if this proposal is accepted it will, among other things, make the clause meaningless. If we bought the Liberal amendments, the Charter would be interpreted in light of our multicultural heritage, which is very important, and aboriginal rights, as it should be, but not in light of our linguistic duality and Quebec's distinct identity. It would have the effect of ranking Quebec behind multiculturalism.
I suggest as well that by continuously saying that somehow equality rights are going to be taken away, they are raising groundless fears in the hearts and minds of the many people who are worried about this sort of thing. They have to live with those fears. Yves Fortier, a very respected legal mind, appeared before the committee and said on this very subject:
I believe that those fears are totally groundless. And if it were not for the seriousness of those organizations that expressed those views, I would simply say we were dealing with a smokescreen.
1 suggest to the opposition Parties that they have lost sight of the distinction between the Quebec round, which is what we are dealing with here, and the next round. No one is saying that Senate reform and the other issues are not important. We will get on with them because we believe they are important.
Let me sum up by saying that when the BNA was implemented it was generally conceded at the time that no single individual was more responsible for it than Sir John A. Macdonald. Our present Prime Minister should take a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that on this important constitutional document he, more than any other individual, is responsible. He is responsible for its creation and, I believe, its success. When the history of these times is written, I am sure Canadians, as many do today, will recognize his great contribution. He can take great comfort in knowing that he has done much to unify this country and made it a better place in which to live.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in closing the Hon. Member talked about the great contribution the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made to Canada. Might I remind him of the public opinion polls which show that about 23 per cent of Canadians still have some confidence in the Prime Minister?
October 7, 1987

The rest have totally and absolutely lost confidence in his ability to govern.


John Carnell Crosbie: You should talk.


Pauline Jewett: Only Ed is on top.


John V. Nunziata: If the heckling across the way will stop, perhaps I can continue. I know Members opposite are awfully sensitive when it comes to public opinion polls and the reputation of the Prime Minister, but this is not the time nor the place to be critical of him.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is not a place for politics.


John V. Nunziata: This is the time and the place to ask questions of the previous speaker. He should be fuming about free trade because he knows his constituents, the wine growers in Niagara Falls, are absolutely furious about the so-called free trade agreement. Yet this is not the time or the place to talk about free trade and the Hon. Member's political future.


John Horton McDermid: What have you got against Canadian wine?


John V. Nunziata: Nothing at all. What does the Prime Minister-


John Horton McDermid: Why would you stop drinking it, then, because of free trade?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can we please get back to the debate at hand?


John V. Nunziata: At one point the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) said it was unfortunate that we were dealing with amendments. He said they were not productive. Those were his words. That reflects his Government's attitude about the future of our country. On a spring night several months ago the Prime Minister decided to act like a blackjack dealer and deal away the future of our country. He started a process which, I submit, was an absolute farce. A committee was put together, and I would like to commend it for the effort it put in, but even at the beginning it was obvious that the Prime Minister was not prepared to accept amendments. The Meech Lake Accord signed by the First Ministers was in effect the final document.
The Hon. Member talked about the fragility of the Accord. If it is so fragile that it cannot withstand an amendment that would guarantee the women of Canada the rights they fought for not so many years ago, then I suggest it is an unmitigated disaster not worthy of the effort we are putting into it. If it is so fragile that it cannot accept an amendment to recognize the rights of the aboriginal people of Canada, then it is not worthy of passage by the House of Commons. Surely he would agree that the women of Canada and the aboriginal people of Canada can be recognized in the Constitution without affecting the basic principles of the Accord, the primary one being the inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I suppose the Prime Minister can take a certain satisfaction and comfort in knowing that he will be Prime Minister for many years to come and the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) will never be Prime Minister again. I will tell the Hon. Member why.
This debate is as good an example as any. Some members of the Liberal Party say they agree with the Meech Lake Accord. Other Liberals say they agree with it but would like to see all these amendments made. Then we have other members of the Liberal Party who say they do not like the Meech Lake Accord and they are voting against it. That is why his Party is not going to govern the country and why ours is. We have our act together on this issue as on others and his Party, unfortunately for him but fortunately for the people of Canada-


John V. Nunziata: Point of order. The Hon. Member seems to forget that the Liberal Party is first in public opinion.


John Carnell Crosbie: That will not last very long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by my colleague from Toronto. It may be true that the Liberal Party ranks first in public opinion, but its leader comes last in the polls.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can we please get back to the debate?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, earlier in my speech I was talking about the long, sad history of the Liberal Party with respect to constitutional change and English-French relations. As an observer of Canadian politics in the past and a participant now, you will know just how much the previous Government under Mr. Trudeau did to exacerbate relations between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. He used every opportunity to pit English against French. The arrogance with which he conducted the negotiations after the referendum debate in 1980 is ample evidence.
I suppose it is entirely consistent with Canadian history that the political Party which did more than any other to create Canada in 1867 would be the Party to bring in now the very significant constitutional changes which will, I believe, ensure Canadian unity for generations to come. That will be to the credit of the Prime Minister, the Progressive Conservative Party, the present Government, and all those individuals who have supported it.
I suggest that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) should get back to worrying about the

October 7, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
principles for which his Party stands and quit worrying about public opinion polls because they will not get him anywhere.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He mentioned that if even one Premier were to start questioning the Meech Lake Accord it would scuttle the whole thing, it would be game over. We are in fact to have a new Premier around the table very soon. There may be a New Democratic Premier, but there certainly will be a new Premier who will raise questions about why aboriginal rights and women's rights are not in the Accord. The Government will have to deal with questions on how to improve the Accord. It is not enough to say that we cannot touch this because it is too fragile. If it is meant to last for one hundred years or more, it must be strong.
The Member is afraid of the pressure of one modest amendment. Surely he can distinguish between frivolous amendments and worth-while amendments, amendments that deal with women's rights, aboriginal rights, and the North. Surely those selected amendments would improve the Accord. Surely the Government is not just a collection of 211 marshmallows that have to bend to every pressure brought to bear. The Government should use some judgment and improve the Accord rather than saying that it can do nothing because the Accord will fall apart, or that it can do nothing because then someone else will force it to do too much.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Member says that we will soon have a new Premier. We have just had
an election in Ontario and it will be five years before the people of Ontario get a chance to change Premiers. He need not worry about that for a long time.


Cyril Keeper: In New Brunswick.


Rob Nicholson: With regard to the fragility of this agreement, I refer to the historical analysis of constitutional development. On two or three occasions in our lifetime the federal Government and the Premiers thought they had come to a deal on an amending formula for the Constitution, an agreement to patriate the Constitution. Those agreements did in fact become unraveled because one Premier decided he did not like all the provisions.
By their very nature these things are fragile. They are very important. The subjects addressed in the amendments are important as well. However, I think members of the Opposition have missed the fact that while to conclude anything in this agreement will take unanimous consent, many issues will be decided on the seven provinces-fifty per cent of the population basis. In the next round of constitutional discussions they will be discussed as they should be because they are important.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six minutes after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.06 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 8, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers