1987-09-30

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Today in this House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my congratulations to the Government of Ontario, and particularly to Premier David Peterson. Thirty new Ministers were sworn in yesterday, including six women: Mrs. Lily Munro, Mrs. Elinor Caplan, Mrs. Joan Smith, Mrs. Chaviva Hosek, Mrs. Lyn McLeod, and Mrs. Mavis Wilson.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucie Pépin: Of sixteen elected women, six were appointed to Cabinet, telling evidence of the Government's political will to promote equality.
I should like to mention that Mrs. Chaviva Hosek was given the housing portfolio. I remind the House that Mrs. Hosek has shown leadershsip in causes of women and minorities. We are very pleased that her new duties are recognition she deserves.
To Mrs. Hosek and all her female Ontario Cabinet colleagues we say: Bravo!

Bravo! Hang in there. You are a vital role model and there will be more to come.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, work stoppage along the St. Lawrence Seaway, initiated by the Canadian Marine Officers Union, is of great concern to the people of Saskatchewan. Withdrawal of services by engineers
threatens grain ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway and could possibly halt 75 per cent of all shipping.
Saskatchewan farmers are finishing their harvesting and want to begin quickly moving their grains through the transportation system. Saskatchewan is already feeling the negative effects of the engineering strike, namely, the rail limits on wheat transportation recently imposed in our province. This is unacceptable to the people of Saskatchewan who must meet marketing quotas.
The devastating effects of another transportation disruption could severely cripple the economies of Saskatchewan and its neighbouring provinces. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, the western economy will not be able to endure another marketing delay. For this reason I call on my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), to intervene in the collective bargaining process to ensure that an agreement is reached quickly and that the interests of farmers across Canada are protected.


ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST ELECTION OF SPEAKER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House that it was one year ago today that we as Members of Parliament opened a new chapter in the evolution of the practices and traditions of the House of Commons with the first ever election of a Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Members will recall that the McGrath Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform first addressed the idea of an elected Speaker. It was to the credit of all parties that this progressive and historic increase in the influence of the Members of the House was made.
The election process was long and somewhat cumbersome, as the democratic process often is, but the excellent choice that we made on that historic night has demonstrated that this new procedure serves Members well.
I am certain that I speak for all Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, when I say that you have served Parliament and Canada well over the past year. Your decisions have been thoughtful and fair. The obvious respect that Members have

September 30, 1987
for you has brought a renewed atmosphere of civility, dignity, and respect to this House.
This is a place where great issues of the day are raised and debated, where passions run high, and where patience is put to the test. It is a rare individual indeed who can preside over such a place and enforce the rules and procedures with the great care and skill which ensure that the rights and privileges of all Members are respected.
In you, Mr. Speaker, we have found such a rare individual. We look forward to continuing to work with you in the months and years ahead.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon all Hon. Members rose and applauded.]


Mr. Speaker:: Members will note that I gave the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) extra time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all Hon. Members for your very kind thoughts and demonstration here today. I want to thank you especially for all the help you have given me over the past year. Thank you very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: On November 4, 1986, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) introduced in the House Bill C-18 to set the needed legislative framework to ease the economic control over the Canadian transportation industry.
Our Government had put forward measures to enhance competition and greater market force freeplay, so that Canadian users could benefit from more competitive prices and a greater service choice.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill was given Royal Assent less than a month ago and its positive effects are already being felt.
For instance, Air Alma Incorporated, an airline operating in my riding, has been offering since Monday a new service to its travelling customers thanks to Bill C-18 and this, to the delight of the regional population who will have at its disposal two more flights every day to travel to the capital city of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-18 is only one of a great many initiatives of our Government which are beneficial to our regions.


SAFETY OF WORKERS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, although initially I was one of those who accepted reluctantly your nomination today I must admit I was wrong and I congratulate you.
This being said, I was pleased yesterday, to meet with representatives of the Montreal Harbour employees, and those 1,000 workers proved to us that the accident rate in Montreal Harbour is much higher than anywhere else in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the stated causes of such a high accident level were: first, working hours are too long because dock workers are required, or forced to work between 60 and 80 hours a week. Second, absolutely no workers safety program. Third, no equipment inspection in Montreal Harbour.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of State (Transport) to meet within the shortest time frame with representatives of the Montreal Harbour employees, in order to force Montreal Harbour and all Canadian harbours to have work safety as their first priority, otherwise there will be a serious conflict in Montreal.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office is on strike again. So, what else is new?
This country cannot be held at ransom again by CUPW, who, according to press reports, state that they are concerned about violence on the picket lines.
Shirley Carr of the CLC says that she is afraid that someone will be killed on the lines this time around.
I do not dispute that people have the right to strike, but I find it hard to believe that, in Canada, CUPW can threaten and intimidate those who are willing to work at the Post Office and accept their terms of employment.
The Post Office is an essential service and when it is on strike there are too many innocent victims, including small businesses, seniors, the disabled, and indeed all Canadians. As regrettable as I feel this action is, perhaps it is time to consider declaring Canada Post an essential service and removing the right to strike.
September 30, 1987


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the children of South Africa are going to a special school today. It is a school of the real world.
They are learning that brutal tyranny and the ruthless subjugation of a people do not mobilize nations as much as they mobilize words. Some are noble words, promising action, like those of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Some are the transparent words, like those who would use guns to defend English sheep on a far off island that cannot be her own. Some are the words of collaborators sent abroad to earn their keep from the oppressor. And there are the influential words of those not cured of latent racism, the mendacious Minister turned columnist, the retired judge, and the official spokesman of those who would keep Canada pure and, being consistent, spit calumny upon the victims of racism in South Africa.
Will we take home a lesson for the black children of South Africa, the fulfilled promise of the Prime Minister, or must they foresee that the negative voices will be the more compelling and that they should look elsewhere if ever they are to achieve freedom?


COINAGE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, copying being the sincerest form of flattery, it is interesting to note that a committee of members of the American House of Representatives and Senate is proposing that the United States mint a gold coloured one dollar coin.
The success of the Canadian gold "looney" vis-a-vis the silver Susan B. Anthony has evidently done much to prompt this reconsideration.
In order to retain the compatibility between Canadian and U.S. coinage, it would be advantageous for the Americans to adopt size and weight specifications similar to ours. We could help them with the special technology needed to coat the nickel blanks which we could also supply to them should they so wish.
The Royal Canadian Mint must be proud of its successful coinage innovations which other countries look to as a source of inspiration.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, there is a new wrinkle in the ongoing saga of "close encounters of the capital kind". The "capital kind encounters" we are talking about are the parties that will be taking place tonight in various homes across the City of Ottawa.
There have been a number of suggestions that these parties have been set up to lobby. However, according to the exConservative Member of Parliament who says these are not lobbying parties: "If anyone comes to try to sell them submarines, staplers, or whiskey, this is the wrong place to do it. They are probably-" the Ministers "-just going to be looking for pretty girls".
Given that Mr. Binks is hosting a party tonight where the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be present, I am quite sure that the Hon. Minister would not accept an invitation to a party where he is going just to look for pretty girls.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in protest at the comments that have been made by his soon-to-be host, Mr. Binks, will decline the invitation and boycott the party tonight so he can put an end to these "close encounters of the capital kind".

[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious in the Cantley area of the city of Gatineau. Proposed dump sites could cause tremendous harm to the environment. The Quebec Government was alerted by citizens of Cantley. I therefore want to formally advise Environment Canada, whose Minister already has assured me of his cooperation. He is ready to discuss with his Quebec counterpart a situation of concern to citizens in my constituency, without infringing upon the provincial jurisdiction. I thank the Minister for his usual understanding.

The question of waste disposal is a complicated one as we run out of environmentally safe ways and sites, but we must not take steps that we will regret because of looking at short term solutions.
Our environment, Mr. Speaker, is very fragile. It should not be abused as a means to find a very fast solution to a very complicated problem.

September 30, 1987
9484___________________________
5. O. 21 SPORTS


TRIBUTE TO BEN JOHNSON, WORLD CHAMPION SPRINTER
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, one of the realities of this House is that the rhetoric of parliamentary debate tends to draw members into the use of superlatives more often than they should. The biggest and best all too often turn out to be not quite so large and, frankly, not that good.
There is one superlative I want to use today about which there is no question, that is, the fastest. It applies to Canada's Ben Johnson, the fastest human being in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: Just a little while ago, Mr. Speaker, Ben Johnson lined up against the world's best sprinters and left them in his dust as he shattered the world record for the 100-metre dash. He covered the distance in only 9.83 seconds, shaving a full tenth of a second off the old record.
Ben is now back in Canada to receive the credit and the praise that he so justly deserves. He has carried his success with grace and with style.
I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Ben as he visits Parliament Hill today and to express our best wishes and our confidence in him for many future successes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I can say to our distinguished guest, Mr. Johnson, that while he was scheduled to be on the program a few minutes from now, the demonstration of affection and admiration that has been given to him is timely, is very sincere, and is very warmly meant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, they have done it to us again. For the second time in less than three months the powerful Canadian Union of Postal Workers is holding our country at ransom in an attempt to accomplish their own selfish goals.
Carefully planned rotating strikes, occurred in Victoria and Montreal today.
I have received calls from my constituents in Kootenay East-Revelstoke pleading for quick action to be taken by the Government. From our elderly citizens who are counting on monthly support payments to the businesses which demand a
reliable postal service, we will all suffer the effects of this totally irresponsible and selfish act by the postal union.
Unions should not be allowed the freedom to disrupt a vital national service such as the Post Office. This action will only place undue hardship on innocent Canadians. The disruptive action taken by this union cannot and should not be tolerated. I strongly urge our Government to take decisive and immediate action to release the strangle-hold this national union has on our citizens.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last Allied Jewish Communities Services held its 70th annual meeting and accounted for its stewardship of the 17 affiliated social educational and cultural institutions which guide, enable, and promote the interests and concerns of the Jewish community of Montreal.
Over 1,600 people attended, bore witness and paid tribute to the volunteer and professional leadership which has enabled the communal service organization to reflect the heart and soul of this very heterogeneous society.
From 1762 on Jews have made their home, and have become part of the fabric of the Canadian and Quebec society. Successive waves of immigrants, seeking safe harbour from discrimination or economic hardship, have come to Canadian shores, speaking a myriad of languages and reflecting diverse cultures.
We have become a bilingual, multicultural and yet highly identifiable minority in Quebec and in Canada. I salute AJCS on its 70th birthday for its enriching contribution to the development of outstanding leaders, both communal and civic, in all areas of life of our people in Canada, in Quebec and, in particular, in Montreal.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction to the statement made today by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the wife of the Right Hon. Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is not a pretty girl, she is a fine, intelligent and beautiful woman in her
September 30, 1987

own right, who advances the cause of women in Canada and whose least concern is the "pretty" girls alluded to by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said last night that there has been some movement in the American position on free trade. Canadians would be interested in knowing about that. They would be even more interested in knowing whether there has been any Canadian movement on its position in the negotiations with the United States, particularly on the issues of subsidies and our culture.
The Government has virtually destroyed the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. It has weakened the whole issue of regional subsidies. The Government has already sold most of our book publishing industry to the Americans and yielded and withdrawn, apparently, a film distribution policy in the face of American pressure.
What movement has there been on the part of the Americans? And what concessions has Canada been prepared to make by way of a counter proposal?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the comments of my right hon. friend, the quite careless comments about regional economic expansion, I would point out to him something that he cares to neglect, that in all regions of the country, particularly those far removed from the centre, there has been a decrease in unemployment since this Government came to office, in all of the regions of this country, relative to the figures that were in place on September 17, 1984.
The 907,000 new jobs created in Canada is an important figure. The OECD report indicating that Canada's economy is growing at the top rate of all 24 members of the OECD is, 1 think, an important reflection of what we have been trying to do for the last three years as well. Trade, of course, is an important component of that, in all of its facets.
The Minister for International Trade indicated quite properly that there had been some movement on the important principle of dispute settlement. There has not been, however, agreement on the rules that might govern this mechanism. This is what is presently being considered. If, at an appropriate time, we receive an acceptable response from the Americans in this important area, I will be happy to advise my right hon. friend.
Oral Questions


ISSUE OF MECHANISM TO SETTLE CANADIAN-AMERICAN DISPUTES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, such sectors as culture and regional grants contribute to the definition of Canada's very essence, and I believe that Canadians ought to know the position of the Government of Canada in these negotiations. The Prime Minister indicated there has been some movement with respect to the matter of a dispute settlement mechanism between both countries.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his Government continues to insist, as do most Members of the House, that such a mechanism be binding and coupled with a significant exemption from the United States' unilateral right to slap countervailing duties and taxes on Canadian exports?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the initiatives we took in Northern Ontario, in Western Canada and, more recently, in the Atlantic region- commitments in excess of $1 billion-indicate to what extent the Government is intent on minimizing regional disparities. That is one of the major thrusts of the Government's national policy.
As to the second point raised by my Hon. friend concerning the mechanism, yes, we feel it is an important mechanism to settle disputes which might break out between our two countries as a result of the possible implementation of a free trade agreement. It seems normal to us that an impartial mechanism be available to enable both parties to settle their own disputes, should these occur after the possible negotiation of a more comprehensive agreement. This is the position I had announced practically from the outset, and our current efforts to achieve it attest to unfailing consistency on our part.


DEADLINE FOR CONCLUSION OF TALKS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government's recent demonstration of its desperation for a deal-


Mr. de Cotret:: Oh, come on!


John Napier Turner: -and the Government's secrecy throughout these entire negotiations, particularly at this crucial point in these negotiations, prompts me to ask the Prime Minister how long will this whole process go on.
Is the deadline of this weekend a firm deadline, or will the Prime Minister ask for an extension of that deadline to continue the talks?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 30, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could limit myself to the final comment of my right hon. friend in regard to secrecy.
Surely he will acknowledge that there has been extensive consultation, and probably an unprecedented sharing of information among Canadians on this very vital topic.


Mr. Gauthier:: Where are you living?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Most recently there was a seven and a half hour meeting with the First Ministers involved in this.


Mr. Axworthy:: What about the other 25 million?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There has been a continuing committee of Ministers and officials who have met on a regular basis.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the Premiers have commented very favourably on the extent to which information was shared, and is in the process of being shared, with industry, and with the provinces. There has been a debate in this House. We offered a confidential briefing to the Leader of the Opposition on all aspects, every conceivable aspect of trade, but he turned it down.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How about the deadline? Answer the deadline question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was choosing to score political points rather than to be concerned about the national interest. I think that indicates everything we have done-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have been cut off.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, now we know why the Prime Minister needs all those shoes-he is up on his toes dancing so often that we cannot get a straight answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry would keep his preamble to the facts needed to place his question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will make my question very short. The Prime Minister did not answer the previous question. My question is the following.
In the counter proposal that has been forwarded to the Americans, is the Government of Canada asking for an extension of the October 5 deadline? In other words, are we asking the United States to give us more time to try to work out this deal, or are we finally going to cut bait and say that the deal is no good and we should get out?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, Mr. Speaker, we have not forwarded a counter proposal to the Americans. Second, we are not asking for an extension, and third, you do not have to worry about my shoes because we will put the boots to you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, according to a publication from the Prime Minister's former press secretary, he has already tried and failed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We will wait for the publication of the book.
I want to return to the issue at hand. The Prime Minister said that we did not make a counter proposal, but in Question Period today he said, " but we are waiting for an American response". What is he waiting for a response to if he did not make a counter proposal? Why is it that even the Americans are confused? The spokesman for the trade negotiator's office says, "I do not know what this means." Is it consultation or negotiation? That is the same question Canadians are asking. What is the Government trying to do, is it consulting, negotiating or grovelling on its knees?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says the Americans are confused. Perhaps that is the case. The Americans we have been speaking with on behalf of the Government of Canada, Secretary Baker and Ambassador Yeutter, are certainly not confused. They know the position of the Government of Canada. It has been clearly expressed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade and it presumably is in the process of being considered by the American Government at which appropriate time I suppose there will be a response. However, they also know and have known from the very beginning that if the Government of Canada deems that matters are not acceptable, there shall be no deal. We have said this from the very beginning.


CULTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, throughout the trade talks with the United States, the Prime Minister has continually promised to keep our cultural industries and assistance for regional development off the bargaining table. Now we have reports that the United States wants complete freedom in our cultural sector and severe restrictions on regional development aid as the price for a binding dispute settlement mechanism.
Point blank, will the Prime Minister tell us is the United States now seeking concessions on cultural industries and regional development and will this Government, despite its earlier promises, discuss these points?
September 30, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all of the statements contained in that declaration are false.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I note that I started out by saying that the Prime Minister promised to keep these points off the bargaining table. Perhaps he is saying that is false too.


REQUEST THAT CULTURAL INDUSTRY AND REGIONAL AID BE PROTECTED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Our cultural industry and regional development assistance programs are very important for Canadians. Can the Prime Minister tell us quite clearly that his Government will protect our cultural industry and regional assistance programs in its discussions with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member only has to read the statement I made in the House two years ago, on September 26, 1985. There has been no change in the position of the Canadian Government on these two fundamental issues in the last two years.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I hope the Prime Minister will stick to that statement right to the end as these discussions go forward.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TERMINATE TALKS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given these reports in the newspapers that the United States wants major concessions, in cultural industries, in regional aid, with respect to the Auto Pact and with respect to investment freedom, will the Prime Minister do the right thing for the country now? Will he call these talks off and terminate them for good?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think even my hon. friend would agree that I and the Minister for International Trade have responded to precisely that question at least a half dozen times in this House to the Hon. Member. The answer is unchanged.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the postal strike.
Oral Questions
The postal service is being interrupted for the second time in three months. The last strike in June was violent and cost Canadian taxpayers $30 million.
Why is the Conservative Government still encouraging violence in the work place? Is it its job-creation policy to hire strike breakers?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Government not only does not encourage violence, it deplores violence, and it hopes that everybody in the House deplores violence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I of course hope, and I would hope the Hon. Member would share the wish, that this dispute could be settled by negotiation. Since the union has now started a strike and the Post Office is attempting to fulfil its social responsibility of delivering the mail, both sides are required to obey the law. I think it behooves us as responsible parliamentarians to encourage both sides to do exactly that.


HIRING OF STRIKE-BREAKERS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that he wants to solve the strike by negotiation. Since negotiations have been going on for several weeks, Canada Post has been announcing that it will hire strike breakers. How does the Minister expect to solve this strike by negotiation when Canada Post and the Government are provoking it? Why does he not order Canada Post to stop strike-breaking activity so we will get this through with negotiation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I see by the applause that it is the position of Members of the Liberal Party that the Post Office should shut down and there should be no mail delivered by the Post Office in view of this strike. That is fine. If that is their position, let them articulate it. The only other alternative is to acquiesce totally to the demands of J. C. Parrot.
The Post Office is trying to fulfil its social responsibility. The conciliator in the letter carriers dispute indicated it had that obligation. It is to do it in a lawful fashion, obeying Canadian law, and as the union goes on strike it has the obligation to do so in a lawful fashion and to obey Canadian law.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is a grave insult to the peace movement in Canada, to groups such

September 30, 1987
Oral Questions
as Operation Dismantle, Project Ploughshares and Develope-ment et Paix to suggest that somehow their pursuit of peace and disarmament could be Soviet directed and inspired and thus pose a threat to the security of Canada.
My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Will the Minister now explain to the House and to Canadians why CSIS this year hired several individuals whose responsibility is in fact to watch the mainstream peace movement in Canada? Will this Minister do the right thing now and immediately order a stop to this dangerous, undemocratic practice by CSIS?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions in this House, CSIS has been mandated by Parliament to investigate anyone who is considered to be a threat to the security of Canada. Under Section 2(b) of that particular Act, a threat to the security of Canada includes foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person.
To date I have received no evidence that CSIS has acted beyond the mandate given to it by Parliament.


Svend Johannes Robinson: If that is the case, it is a condemnation of the sweeping mandate the Liberals gave to CSIS when they created the organization.


Mr. Holtmann:: Then take it up with Nunziata.


INFILTRATION OF DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another confidential document of the CSIS which confirms that our secret service is infiltrating not only the labour movement and the Quebec peace movement, but also legitimate Canadian political parties, namely the Canadian Communist Party and the Quebec Communist Party.
How can the Minister justify this harmful attack against small but legitimate political parties? Why does the Minister believe that the CSIS has the right to infiltrate these democratic Canadian organizations?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I have no evidence to date that CSIS has acted beyond its mandate. Notwithstanding that, as I said on a number of occasions, I have directed the Inspector General to conduct an investigation to see whether or not allegations of this nature are true. The Security Intelligence Review Committee set up by Parliament under the Act is also conducting an investigation into matters of this nature. The Act is working.
The Act also provides under Section 41 that anyone who feels they are being improperly investigated have the right to go to SIRC and ask for an investigation. I suggest they do that and make the Act work. That is why it is there.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who is responsible for matters involving the greater Montreal area.
The Minister is fully aware that the Committee for Economic and Job Renewal in the East end of Montreal has published its recommendations, showing that despite the economic recovery, and contrary to what the Prime Minister stated earlier, the East end of Montreal is plagued with a very high, 12.4 per cent unemployment rate. In order to prevent the loss of thousands of jobs and to create new jobs, the Committee has put forward some 12 recommendations directly involving the Canadian government.
My question to the Minister is this: Would he be ready to inject $25 million into the setting up of a bureau to help restructuring and modernizing larger businesses, and to create a special fund for manpower training? Is the Minister ready to give a positive answer to that recommendation of the Pichette Committee?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member mentioned, we have received the Pichette Committee report. That most interesting report clearly has required a lot of work. We are going to make an in-depth study of the recommendations and hopefully we will be in a position to respond to its special recommendations within the shortest time frame.


AID-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the people in the East end of Montreal are just about sick and tired of this Government's numerous studies. This Government has had three years of inaction and thousands of jobs have been lost in the East end of Montreal. And I know this junior Minister is talking about Bill C-22 to manufacture pills in Montreal-north. Workers in the East end of Montreal want to know-as for instance the welder at Bombardier's, the welder at Vickers', the mechanic-when are you going to help him keep his job? Are you going to wait again? Stop studying and start doing your job! They are asking you to use $25
September 30, 1987

million to help them, to create an employment tax credit. Are you going to do something, yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, our intention never was to wait. To the contrary, we have taken action-133,000 jobs created in Montreal within the last three years, and I repeat 133,000- we did our job! The unemployment rate has come down to 9.6 percent from 10.6 percent, Mr. Speaker. We did our job!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: Inaction is on the other side, among those who are blocking Bill C-22-they are preventing the injection of $700 million in new capital in Montreal, they are stifling the creation of 1,300 new jobs. Join with your colleagues in the other Chamber and have that Bill enacted and see how the
133.000	figure will increase.


Mr. Rossi:: Always the same excuse! Bill C-22. Outside of that, nothing for the East end of Montreal, nil!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Murphy:: Quiet over there.


An Hon. Member:: Shut up!


Carlo Rossi: Shut up yourself, okay?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Both sides have the right idea. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Minister aware that there are still
22.000	unemployed in East Montreal? Is the Government ready to follow up on the recommendations of the Pichette Report? What the people of East Montreal want to know is when the Government will follow up on this report to help reduce unemployment in that area.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the problems in East Montreal. These problems have existed for several years. The recommendations of the Pichette Report are now being considered by my Department and I hope to be able to respond to these recommendations in the very near future.
Oral Questions URGENCY OF SITUATION


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Government has now been in power for several years also. It could have responded to the problems of economic recovery in East Montreal for the past three years. Can the Minister explain why, since the publication ten months ago of the Picard Report on the economic future of Greater Montreal, action has been taken only about certain aspects of this report, and the Minister is now promising to respond and take action in the very near future? What does that mean and why is the Government unable to act immediately?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right to say that we have already followed up on several recommendations contained in the Picard Report. We are now taking action about several other points and we shall be giving a complete response to the Picard Report within a few days.
As for our concern for Greater Montreal, I said earlier that
133,000	new jobs had been created. There has also been a 32 per cent increase in retail sales as well as a marked increase in housing starts and industrial expansion in the Montreal region. This is reflected by the number of building permits. The Montreal region is faring much better now than when the Conservative Government came to power.


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. His Department has prevented some honey from being sold in the U.S., testing it so slow that some deals are being cancelled. When can the honey producers expect compensation for lost sales? Is the Canadian Government going to buy the honey from these producers, assist in the replacement of equipment, and take responsibility for all other implications of this action which I estimate will cost $100 million?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the continuing interest of my hon. colleague in the problems of the honey industry. Canada is not stopping sales in the U.S. The problem is that the U.S. is not accepting our product at the moment. We are trying to work with the people in the industry, the provinces, and our counterparts in the U.S. to develop a plan whereby we have secure access to markets for Canadian products in the U.S.

September 30, 1987
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. My colleague for Ottawa-Centre referred to the Picard Report. I am certain that he forgot about the recommendation on the Space Agency, which he should support as much as we, Liberals.
My question to the Minister is this. He is now blaming the Senators for sitting on Bill C-22. Yet, the Minister himself has been sitting on the Picard Report for much longer. Could the Minister take the lead and show that he can act quickly by making the required decisions as concerns the Picard Report? Instead of waiting for eleven new recommendations, could he not follow up on the first 86?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken action about several of the 86 recommendations which were before us. First, I must tell the Hon. Member that many of these recommendations were addressed mostly to the municipal and provincial governments. Naturally, these recommendations were referred to the proper government level because we do not want to impinge on other jurisdictions. We have taken action about many other recommendations. As for the rest, as I have said many times, we shall be giving a complete response to the Picard Report in the coming days.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT IMMEDIATELY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister referred earlier to certain figures and pretended that there had been an increase in job creation. If he had read the report which has been tabled, he would realize that unemployment has in fact increased to 12.4 per cent in East Montreal and that there are now 8,000 more potential unemployed because of the age of certain industries. What I ask the Minister is this: Will he wait for these 8,000 workers to lose their jobs before taking action or will he do something immediately in line with the recommendations of the Action Committee and ensure that action is taken immediately instead of letting the situation deteriorate?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly not let the situation deteriorate. We have created jobs in Greater Montreal. We have created jobs in East Montreal. It will give me great pleasure to provide you with a list of our investments in East Montreal if you want this information.
When I say that we are now looking at the Pichette Report, it is because we are doing just that, and we shall give our response to this report as soon as possible.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. In a letter which the Prime Minister wrote this summer with regard to Canada Post he said:
A long term solution to these problems can only be worked out by the
Corporation and its unions through compromise-
In a spirit of compromise, is there a true arm's length relationship between the Government and Canada Post? Is Canada Post free to drop its insistence upon franchising out existing work to drug stores which are often right across the street from existing post offices?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the shareholder of this Crown corporation, we require of Canada Post, as we do of every other Crown corporation, a corporate plan to indicate what it plans to achieve over a five-year span. It is updated annually.
As part of its corporate plan to improve service to Canadians the Post Office intends to open up some 6,000 postal outlets so that people can buy their postal services where they shop and where they can park at times more convenient to them.
The Government approved of that plan. If circumstances cause a change in the plan, which the corporation will bring to the Government's attention, we will, of course, consider it.


CORPORATION'S NEGOTIATING STANCE IN LABOUR DISPUTE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, is the Government allowing Canada Post to negotiate freely? Does it have a complete open hand in negotiations, or does it have to come back to the Government to get permission to change its negotiating stance?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am not at the negotiating table. No representative of the Government is at the negotiating table. I have no influence on the decisions. This is being run by management. The negotiations which are going on are the same kind of negotiations that went on between the cabin attendants and Air Canada last year and between CNR and the railway workers.
The unions and the NDP are attempting to indicate that the Government is somehow orchestrating things. I understand what they are attempting to do, but there is no basis in fact to support those accusations.
September 30, 1987


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is with regard to security at Canadian airports. On June 25, 1985, two days after the Air-India tragedy, the Deputy Prime Minister, then the Minister of Transport, said the following as reported at page 6146 of Hansard-.
Over the last 60 hours, since these tragedies occurred, the Government has moved quickly to ensure the security of Canadian air travellers-
We learned today that notwithstanding the assurances given by the Minister of Transport at the time, the Canadian failure rate now stands at 25 per cent which is worse than the failure rate at major American airports. We find now that safety and security at Canadian airports over the last two years have remained abysmally substandard.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he misled this House and Canadians two days after the Air-India tragedy?


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Where's John Turner?


Miss MacDonald:: As usual he's not in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for York South- Weston knows that it is, of course, against the rules to suggest that anyone deliberately misled this place. While the Hon. Member did not use the word "deliberately", his language was pretty strong. I am sure he would want to correct himself and put the question.


John V. Nunziata: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why did he tell Canadians that the Government had moved quickly to ensure the security of Canadian air travellers when it has become obvious today that the Government did very little, if anything at all, with regard to security at Canadian airports?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, answer. The arrogance!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members could assist the Chair. There is, of course, no obligation for a Minister to answer a question. The Hon. Member may want to ask another question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely unbelievable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Out!
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: That was directed at you, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Contempt!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances I know the Hon. Member for York South-Weston would co-operate with the Speaker. I am going to recognize another Member. The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia has joined the loud chorus of voices in the mining community of Cape Breton in expressing dissatisfaction with the policies and attitudes of the current management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and, in particular, with the President and Chief Executive Officer, Derrick Ranee. Will the Minister now take steps to clean up the management of this corporation starting with the replacement of Mr. Ranee?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the situation. I have had meetings with the Chairman of the corporation. I have also taken steps, as recently as yesterday, to direct the corporation to stop the stockpiling of coal on international wharves which raises environmental concerns in the province and very strong concerns on the part of the provincial Government.
That has already been done. I intend to sit down with the senior management of the corporation in the very near future to air the whole situation.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ranee, the current President, assured the people of Cape Breton in November, 1985, that efficiency would be obtained in the operations without the reduction of manpower.
Why is the Minister keeping Mr. Ranee in office and allowing him to continue his plans to lay off close to 500 workers? Would the Minister not agree that Mr. Ranee has lost faith with the workers and people of Cape Breton and really should be removed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond by repeating

September 30, 1987
Oral Questions
what I said in my former answer. I will be meeting with Mr. Ranee in the next few days to clear up the situation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday it was reported that the British Columbia Government is pulling all of its producers out of the national supply management programs and marketing boards. If this is true it represents a tremendous threat to our national marketing system for some three or four commodities across the country.
Can the Minister confirm these reports and tell us what the implications are for these producers? Will dairy producers continue to receive payments under the Canadian Dairy Commission? Will our import controls continue to be in place under our GATT obligations? Will the Minister tell us what the implications are for these dairy and feather industry producers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question by my colleague, the Member for Algoma. I must respond by saying that I am indeed disappointed, but I am really not surprised because I have been aware of some discontent within certain sectors of the producers in the Province of British Columbia.
I must say, however, that provincial Ministers have already commenced a review of supply management systems and we hope that the report will be due in the near future.
I say that I am disappointed because marketing systems with supply management powers in various commodities have worked well for producers and processors and Canadian consumers. I hope that there would be some sober second thought before the final decision is made with respect to this move.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I am pleased to hear that the provincial Ministers are taking action to restore the integrity of the system.


FEDERAL POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister say exactly what actions he is prepared to take or is taking to ensure the restoration of a system that is the envy of producers throughout North America and European countries? We would like to see it maintained here in Canada.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the federal Government is one of 10 signatories to those plans with respect to the marketing systems. This involves a provincial Government, it
involves the supervisory bodies, it also involves the producer groups of those various commodities.
I have been in touch with all representatives of all the commodity groups in the Province of British Columbia. I take satisfaction in the fact that, while not unanimously, almost without exception they are not in favour of the position taken by the Government of British Columbia at this moment. They would rather remain part of a national supply management system and they hope that a resolution of this matter can take place, thus avoiding the withdrawal from these supply management plans.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday Premier Hatfield announced that negotiations were proceeding with Atomic Energy of Canada regarding the development of a 300 megawatt unit at Point Lepreau II, and that construction will commence in 1990 following completion of detailed engineering.
The Globe and Mail has reported that the Minister has rejected New Brunswick's proposal for 100 per cent financing of the project. Will the Minister provide the House with a report on the status of those negotiations?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first, there is no truth to the allegation that I have rejected Mr. Hatfield's proposals. Last October Premier Hatfield and I met to discuss the possible development of a second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau. We agreed that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and New Brunswick Power should commence discussions with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory commercial arrangement.
These discussions are ongoing and proceeding well, although no final decision has been reached.
I have consistently maintained that decisions on new generating capacity must be made by the provinces and that the federal Government stood prepared to support the development of commercial projects. I indicated in Calgary a couple of days ago that we were not in the business of financing 100 per cent of any project. I am sure Mr. Hatfield appreciates this position.
We are agreed that the project must be commercial and we are actively pursuing discussions with this objective in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that despite the delay in getting started, all of which was completely legitimate and appropriate, this will be the last question for today. The Hon.
September 30, 1987

Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Given the hour, I hope the questions will be short.


AIRPORTS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister confirm that nearly 25 per cent of all the fake and real weapons taken through airport security by Department of Transport staff were in fact not detected by the security guards hired by the contractors? If it is true, why has he not moved to replace these contractors with permanent, well trained employees of Transport Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. gentleman who observes the rules and traditions of this House and is a very good Member of the House. Such a test was undertaken by the Department, the result of which was that 25 per cent of the pseudo weapons were undetected. However, this was a test at all the airports in Canada, including very small airports and airports in the far North. It was not just major airports, as in the case of the United States where they only checked the major airports.
In the late spring of this year we introduced a new training program for airport security screening personnel. We believe there has been a significant improvement. This follows as a result of the recommendations of the task force on the screening process at airports that was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. As always, he was very prompt to act when it came to his attention that action was needed.


SECURITY FACILITIES AT SMALL AIRPORTS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, given that the only successful hijacking in Canadian history occurred a number of years ago out of one of those smaller airports-Thunder Bay-and given that there is no matching fire power within the airport grounds and is not even available for 15 minutes in the event of a real threat through the discovery of weapons, what action will the Minister take to ensure that those smaller airports have access to proper security facilities?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the entire security arrangements at airports have been reviewed and in excess of $30 million in additional funds has been devoted to security at our airports. The Hon. Member will know that there are certain procedures going into effect today, I believe, with reference to the security of those who are allowed into restricted areas at airports.
Privilege-Mr. Gerin
All of these steps have gone forward and there has been steady improvement in that area. We are living in a democratic country and there is a limit to what measures one can put into effect.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have already asked the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to relieve me of my duties as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, at the most opportune time for both the Department and the Government.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told me he agreed to my request, so this decision is effective immediately. Over the past year I have done my best to fulfill the responsibilities assigned to me by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and I am confident I did live up to expectations. I still fully agree with departmental policies, convinced as I am that the Minister attests to the excellence which in past history has been the hallmark of Canada's outstanding Ministers of Justice.
I greatly appreciated the non-partisan approach and the close co-operation of Liberal and NDP critics in the course of debates, particularly in committee, as well as the unfailing support of the Minister's staff and Department officials.
I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for having given me the honour to serve, and I am sure I will have further opportunities to do so again.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his thoughts and comments which reflect the spirit of the very good traditions of the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, having worked very closely with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I would say quite simply that he has done an exceptional job. I am sorry he has decided to resign as Parliamentary Secretary, but I congratulate him particularly for the work he did during the year he was Parliamentary Secretary.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, personally and on behalf of the Official Opposition, I too should like to

September 30, 1987
Tabling of Documents
express our concern and regrets that he has chosen to resign, and we wish him the best of everything!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise to join with others in paying tribute to my Parliamentary Secretary and to thank him very much for his kind remarks. The quality of work which he has delivered in his responsibility has been exemplary. He has brought real distinction to the post of Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank him for his assistance to me in the carriage of my responsibilities as Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, persuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to the 10 petitions N" 332-2976, 332-3030, 332-3031, 332-3071 to 332-3076 inclusive and 3323106.



SPACE RESEARCH


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as we all know, marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of Canada's first venture into space with the launch of Alouette I, which was a scientific research satellite.
With the launch on September 29, 1962, of our first satellite, we positioned Canada to become a world leader in the peaceful occupation and the use of space. More important, we set the stage for us to build a space program which serves our national goals and our national aspirations.
Our space-based communications networks have drawn us together as a people and have played an important role in shaping our national character. As well, Canada's involvement in space will increasingly allow us to better understand and to manage our vast land and improve our custodial practices over our resources to protect and preserve our environment for the
benefit of future generations, perhaps through remote sensing and technologies developed by Canadian scientists and by Canadian engineers.
But while Canada has produced an amazing variety of sophisticated hardware of world-class distinction, the real story of this nation's space program has been the dedicated zeal of the pioneers who were associated with the programs, who for 25 years have had the vision, the courage and the foresight to compete with the very best in the world in the exploitation of a new frontier and to translate the knowledge we have gained into real benefits which are now enjoyed by all Canadians wherever they may live.
Our space efforts have helped us to bridge the vast distances of our land and have allowed even the most remote of our communities to become integrated into the mainstream of Canadian life. On behalf of the Government, therefore, I wish to pay tribute to the great efforts and the commitment of scientists, engineers, astronauts and, yes, even statesmen and politicians, who have built a solid foundation from which we have now launched a new effort.
Let us be inspired by our space pioneers to look ahead to the future prospects that await us. I am convinced the next 25 years will prove even more challenging and even more rewarding than our past endeavors. We have a proud history of accomplishment and a bright future in this silver anniversary year of Canada in space. I know that all Canadians would want to join us in celebrating this great Canadian success story.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Minister in commemmorating and celebrating Canada's 25 years in space. Canada's history in space is distinguished, not by glamour, prestige and dramatic adventure, but by a steadfast and continued commitment to the pre-eminent national need for reliable long range communications. As the Minister has said, it began September 29, 1962, with the NASA launch of Alouette. It was a Canadian made, designed and built satellite. It involved three years of workmanship, 20 years in manhours, and $3 million in federal financing. It was built to investigate the ionosphere and provided much valuable information over the years.
That was the beginning, but we continue to go forward. Indeed, Canada will participate with the United Kingdom, the United States in the RADARSAT satellite project which is scheduled to be launched in 1994. It is a remote sensing project that will monitor soil conditions, ship movements, and provide other information at a cost in total estimated today of $770 million, of which Canada will participate to the tune of $250 million. That will also include the participation of the provinces of Canada as well.
Canada, in the last number of years, has provided new pioneers for space, not only technicians and scientists, but these days astronauts. We now have six astronauts in this
September 30, 1987

country, all payload specialists, one of whom, it is worth noting, is a woman. Canada will participate in the U.S. space station at a cost of about $800 million over 15 years.
Many Canadians would welcome that development provided they can be assured, and there are still some concerns, of the use of such a program, provided that it is non-military and provided that the cost of Canada's $800 million worth of participation is not done at the expense of other research and development.
As much as I join the Minister in celebrating Canada's 25 years in space, I would be remiss if I did not remind the House, and indeed the Minister, as well as Canadians, that this Government had committed itself to increased R and D spending to 2.5 per cent of GNP in line with other major industrial nations. I know the Minister would like to see that happen. That was the commitment three years ago. The reality is an expenditure of roughly 1.3 per cent.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his book Where I Stand committed himself to an expenditure increase of roughly 20 per cent in NRC. The reality is that there has been a reduction of nearly $400 million or a cumulative drop of 23 per cent. He promised an increase and we developed a drop of 23 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget of February, 1986, announced an increase of $1 billion to federal granting agencies. The reality is that there will be a $335 million drop in base budgets of those same granting agencies.
Yes, Canada does have a proud tradition, Canada does have 25 years in space of which it can be proud and which it should celebrate. But those accomplishments were not only a reflection of the genious, the hard work and the dedication of the technicians and scientists of this country, they were a reflection of the commitment of the governments during those 25 years to see progress in Canada. That commitment can only continue, and the next 25 years can only be as bright when the Government of Canada continues the kind of financial commitment necessary for R and D in this country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I was a graduate student in the United States when the first satellite, Sputnik, was launched into space. It was traumatic for the nations of the west at the time, but as scientists we saw in the event the beginning of a new era for science. Subsequent developments fulfilled that hope. Working as a graduate student, it was with pride that 1 learned that 25 years ago my country, Canada, became the third country to orbit a satellite, Alouette I, thus establishing Canadian leadership in the peaceful exploitation of space.
It is meet that it has been through the use of extraterrestrial space that we have been able to enhance communications among our people, across the vast terrestial space of our land, and thus foster a nation more united.
Petitions
I wish to join the Minister in paying homage to the scientists and engineers who have, by their creativity, skill and knowledge, placed Canada among the front-ranks in the development of first-class space technology. It is technology that is not limited only to the exploitation of space but serves as well to enhancing the technological basis for industry as well as improving the lives of our citizens.
As we celebrate the twenty-fifth Anniversary of Alouette I, Canada has committed itself to the intensification of its efforts in space with its new $2 billion space program. In Radarsat we will be provided with extraterrestrial eyes to help us in managing our resources. In MSAT we will extend again our communications capacity, and in the development of the mobile servicing system we will expand our knowledge of and ability to exploit space.
As a scientist, I appreciate the significance of our involvement in space, but I also, as a scientist and as a citizen, must express my concerns. First, Canada must not allow its collaboration in space to become collaboration in advancing the destabilizing military policies of the United States respresented by the star wars initiative. We should commit ourselves to the more noble effort of establishing in space the monitoring systems that will provide confidence for the world in the security of future disarmament agreements.
Second, our research effort in space must not distort or allow us to forget our scientific efforts in other fields. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has noted, Canada remains minor league in its science effort and our space agency alone will not bring our general performance to the major league level.
While we are preoccupied with free trade as the basis for future industrial and economic development for Canada, we have shown virtually no commitment to the real basis for future growth, the expansion of knowledge. It is there, not elsewhere, that Canada's future lies.


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a duly certified petition from a number of constituents in my riding of Hamilton West and from other concerned citizens of the Province of Ontario. The petitioners have expressed serious concern that the Soviet Government has consistently refused over the past 10 years to grant exit visas to the Kagan family who are forced to reside under this socialist regime.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to protest the constant refusal of the Soviet Government to grant exit visas, and demand that our Government continue its efforts to secure the Kagans release.

September 30, 1987
Order Paper Questions OPPOSITION TO TAX ON FOOD


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, which follows the numerous petitions I have tabled with the House for the last four or five weeks. The petitioners avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance.
Whereas since September 1984 the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular, on medical, dental supplies, snack foods, candies and soft drinks, and whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food, and whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low-income taxpayers, youth, and so on, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present a duly certified petition from some 220 residents of York-Scarborough who urge that Canada Post re-establish its practice of providing door-to-door mail delivery to new subdivisions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that question No. 174 will be answered today.


Mr. de Jong: What were the total costs incurred by the Canada Post Corporation during the letter carrier's strike for (a) the use of taxi cabs and rented vans to transport replacement workers (b) total payment to replacement workers, including the use of management personnel (c) additional security arrangements (d) hotel accomodation for management personnel (e) additional warehouse facilities (/) transportation costs incurred by management personnel?


Harvie Andre: The Canada Post Corporation informs as follows:
The information you have requested is currently not available. Information relating to expenses incurred during the letter carriers' dispute will be reflected in the corporation's next annual report which will be released at the end of the 1987/88 fiscal year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


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.


Mr. Speaker:: Applications under Standing Order 29.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 29, to move a motion for the adjournment of the House today on a matter of immediate and urgent concern, namely, the recent revelations regarding the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The series of information which has come out in recent days of CSIS infiltration of democratic organizations in Canada, including the labour movement, the peace movement, as well as legal political parties, give rise to grave concerns that must be dealt with on an urgent and emergency basis by the House.
In addition, clearly CSIS has dangerously mishandled its responsibilities in the area of counter-terrorism, including the Air-India disaster and the failure to take steps to provide for the protection of a visiting Punjabi cabinet minister.
In light of the series of events which have taken place and in light of the importance of an urgent debate on this situation, and, Mr. Speaker, in recognition of your earlier rulings under similar applications pursuant to Standing Order 29, I would hope there could be an emergency debate this evening on this serious and important question touching the civil liberties of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for bringing this matter back to the Chamber. As the Chair has stated, it is an important matter.
September 30, 1987

The Chair is in some difficulty, and I have indicated to Hon. Members on both sides that the Chair is somewhat concerned that, in the absence of apparently any allotted days, or perhaps some arrangements soon in committee, this matter is left in a position where it can only be addressed each day in Question Period, and in circumstances which are somewhat less than debate.
I request that the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the Minister have a discussion tonight which will not preclude the fact that I would hear a further application on the same subject.
Perhaps the time has come when it would be in the interests of this place that some time is made available to address some of these matters. In the absence of that, the only action that Hon. Members in the Opposition can take is to ask for an emergency debate.
I am also mindful in reminding Members that one of the reasons expressed many times in the past by Speakers for turning down an emergency debate was that there was some other place and another occasion to debate the same subject.
I would ask that the Hon. Member for Burnaby contact the Hon. Minister and perhaps the chairman of the committee and see if something can be worked out between now and tomorrow. I will hear the Hon. Member tomorrow if he wishes to put in a further application.


Svend Johannes Robinson: 1 certainly will speak with the Minister, as Your Honour has suggested. With respect to the suggestion of proceedings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on this important matter, I wish to draw to the attention of Your Honour that yesterday at an organizational meeting of that particular standing committee an attempt was indeed made to bring this serious question before the committee, and it is partly because of the fact that I was informed that this would not be possible until some time late next month that I brought forward the motion seeking leave to adjourn under Standing Order 29.
However, I will certainly speak with the Minister tonight, as Your Honour has suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that I should make it clear to all Hon. Members, and also to the public, that on applications for an emergency debate the Government is put in a position of disadvantage in the sense that it cannot respond to the application. That is the reason the application is put in its most finite terms, and the Hon. Member has co-operated.
But it is not here that the Chair can entertain a discussion or an argument across the Chamber on the merits or otherwise. That is one of the reasons I am inviting the Hon. Member and others to meet and have a discussion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the comments, I understood that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said that the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General was reorganizing.
I fail to understand how the committees could reorganize at this time because the House has not given concurrence to the Striking Committee report that was tabled in the House in the last few days. I cannot see how a committee would reorganize without the House concurring in the membership of those committees. At this time I would object that any committee would reorganize without the House concurring in those reports.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) points out another matter arising out of the comments. Perhaps the Hon. Member as chairman of the committee would wish to respond.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I wish to advise the Opposition Whip that we did not have an organizational meeting. Yesterday we had a future business meeting at which we planned our agenda between now and the end of the calendar year, and in fact beyond. We agreed to hear from the Solicitor General in the middle of November on the issue raised by the NDP justice critic.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as you will appreciate, under the rules it is difficult for me to respond on behalf of the Government with respect to a request for an emergency debate. Therefore, I simply raise the question as to whether the House considers Hansard from Monday, September 28, 1987, to be correct in that I note that there were no statements made under Standing Order 21 with respect to this subject, and only one series of questions.
I would also point out that Hansard, September 29, 1987, records no statements under Standing Order 21, and only one series of questions from the Hon. Member.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that for an emergency to be a true emergency more than one Member of the House must be seized of that issue and take the opportunity available to Members, through Standing Order 21 and Oral Questions, to bring it to the attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: As I stated, on these applications the Government is at a disadvantage. But the Hon. Minister is ingenious, and has at least put some of his thoughts forward.
At the risk of closing off other very ingenious Members who may wish to get into a debate, which is not required, I request that Hon. Members follow my suggestion, and if necessary I can hear the matter again tomorrow.
There is another motion under Standing Order 29 and I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear the definition of emergency as suggested

September 30, 1987
by the government side. There certainly have been a great many questions and statements made with respect to free trade.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can do something which I felt 1 had to do many months ago, that is, dispel any Hon. Members from thinking that just by the numbers of people rising they are necessarily going to persuade the Chair that it is an emergency.


Steven W. Langdon: I am pleased to hear that admonishment to the Minister, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the subject, and I raise this very seriously, in the last week we have had a tremendous charade take place in this country, and a series of "toings" and "froings"-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member does know that the application that he brings with respect to an emergency debate on the trade talks is a matter that is viewed with great seriousness by the Chair, and I am sure by all Hon. Members in this place. The application has to be made directly. The Hon. Member will realize, for the reasons I set out, that under the rules the Government is not given any permission or right to reply, the Hon. Member will make his statement very briefly and not in an argumentative fashion. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Chair understands his position very well.


Steven W. Langdon: I do not make these points in any attempt to argue with the Government, but simply to point out that there is a great urgency for the country as a whole and for us as parliamentarians to be able to discuss this issue in a forum that is more open to detailed discussion and probing in detail than is possible during Question Period.
On Monday, there were seven and a half hours of negotiation in the United States, and apparently yesterday Cabinet negotiated for 11 hours. We have not had any statement from the Government, as I expected would come at some stage this week.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member, and I hesitate to do so. I am not going to engage in debate, but I simply wish to ask the following. It is my understanding that in order to invoke Standing Order 29 an Hon. Member must give to the Speaker, "at least one hour prior to raising it in the House, a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed".
Under Standing Order 29(3) it states that "the Member shall rise in his or her place and present without argument-"
Under Standing Order 29(4) it states, "The Speaker shall decide, without any debate-" I would simply ask, since this arises as a result of a letter, whether the remarks of my hon.
friend should not pertain exactly to what was written to you in requesting the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can help the Hon. Minister. I think I have to say to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) that the Hon. Minister is correct. I have the Hon. Member's point and I am again today not of a disposition to grant an emergency debate tonight.
I say again that that does not mean that the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members are precluded from bringing applications another time. For now, for the reasons, as I mentioned yesterday, which I have in my head and do not always allow out of my head, today there will be no emergency debate. However, that does not mean that there might not be one at some further time.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like to have clarified whether it is the usual rule in circumstances such as this to be able to put one's case, albeit briefly, or whether it is commonplace or indeed allowable under the rules to have that case interrupted by a Government Minister seeking to stomp the full presentation.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member by remarking that any Member at almost any time can rise on a point of order and call the attention of the House to the rules. Sometimes Hon. Members do that before the Chair does it. The Chair has been known to allow at least some latitude at times. However, as I said, strictly speaking, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is correct. The Chair has allowed and may well continue to allow sufficient comment when the application is made so that the position of the Member is clear. Applications sometimes come in for emergency debates and they are not much more elucidating than the words, "Dear Mr. Speaker, I want an emergency debate on something, thank you very much, sincerely". It may well be that it is helpful to the Chair to hear at least a few comments, but I think the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members will accept that when it gets beyond argument or when a government Member quite correctly rises to say that perhaps the Chair is allowing too much latitude in comments on the application, then I think we have to take that into account.
The rules are there and I think the Minister of State was within his rights in drawing them to the attention of the House. In any event, as the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor knows, I have heard him in the past and I know that he knows that I will hear him in the future.

I should like to advise the House that because of the Minister's statement, government orders will be extended by 10 minutes.
September 30, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section;
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (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:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"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 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:
[Stage Direction]
September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"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.
IOIB.	(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.
IOIC.	(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 101 B 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;
(0 subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
September 30, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"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.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier made a very impassioned speech and we allowed him to extend the hours of debate in order to complete his remarks. I thought we might have the usual opportunity to question my hon. colleague and then commence debate. Is that not the position we are at?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister is correct. I have just consulted with the Table and we are in a 10 minute question and answer period following the speech by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment my colleague on his speech and his support for the Accord. I wondered if he would like to elaborate on just how he feels the mechanism of the meeting between Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) serves to allow for an agreement to be reached in a country as large as this with so many diverse opinions and wishes. I would ask him to comment on exactly how he feels the Meech Lake process has served the country in coming to grips with this problem among politicians rather than among civil servants, functionaries, law professors and lawyers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, evidently, the process this time was a little more productive than the 1981 process with which nine provinces agreed and one province, the Province of Quebec, stayed out of. The process of consultation among 11 First Ministers is an ongoing one and will now be constitutionalized, from what I understand, if Meech Lake is adopted as
Constitution Amendment, 1987
proposed, and will give the First Ministers a constitutional obligation to hold annual meetings.
I take it that the results of these meetings would be decisions which, prior to their being adopted by the Premiers, would be thoroughly aired by their provinces' parliaments or legislatures. However, we could be replacing Parliament and the legislatures with another form of Government called constitutional meetings of Premiers and the Prime Minister. A little club would be established of those who would decide matters of national importance among themselves.
I still think that there has to be input from this Parliament and from every legislature. Through that medium, and through the Premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister, those questions could be well covered at these annual constitutional meetings of the First Ministers.
I have a reservation in my own mind as to the possibility of creating a very elite club of people who would take decisions without the proper consultation. God knows that we do not want that to become a form of constitutional government whereby select people, be they Premiers of the provinces or the Prime Minister, would negotiate among themselves deals or arrangements that would bind the whole country without prior consultation with their respective parliaments.
I would hope that this system of consultation, questions of economics, social programs or anything dealing with the national well-being and the quality of life of Canadians, would be resolved in a fashion that would allow for input from all levels of both the legislatures and the Parliament of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He talked about the fact that there will be an annual opportunity for Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to come together to discuss a constitutional agenda. As he knows, one of the central themes, I suppose, of the Langevin Accord is the notion of unanimity. Does that concept raise any questions or doubts in his mind about its application?
Bear in mind the possibility that between now and the time this Accord passes all the provincial legislatures and this House there may well be in one province or another a change of Government. The new Government may very well use the principle of unanimity, which is central to the Accord, to destroy the Accord. I would be surprised, and I am asking the Hon. Member if he would be, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all the Premiers would take kindly to a new player coming into the club and destroying their work. The agreement they drafted contains the principle that any one player can thwart the will of the rest. Has the Member given that some thought and what kind of conclusion has he come to?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank the Hon. Member for the question because it is of great importance. I find it difficult to accept

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that following a change of Government a new player can come in and change the rules. I guess one would accept in a federated state like we have that the word of one province has to be accepted. If it so happens that following an election the disposition of that province is not the same, there nevertheless has to be an acceptance of the previous decision, especially on constitutional matters. What the Hon. Member is alluding to is to be found in Part VI which says:
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.
It goes on to explain that the conferences will have on their agenda Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate, fisheries, and so on. I take it that if these Premiers met, following the decision of the provincial legislatures and this Parliament, the deal would be binding until subsequent meetings change it.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Madam Speaker, I am very proud to take part in this historic debate in support of the Meech Lake Accord. The accord recognizes formally and by way of celebration what has always been implicitly accepted: Quebec is an integral part of Canada and yet a distinct society among us.
For women, Quebec's struggle for recognition of its distinctiveness holds special relevance because women have also laboured long and hard for recognition of the distinct role they play in society. The gains that women made through the equality provisions of the Charter in 1982 were not just the result of hard lobbying which took place over a short period of time, but the culmination of decades of consciousness-raising, achieving inner strength, and personal and public credibility.
Some women still have fears that hard-earned gains can disappear with one stroke of the pen. That is a sign that we as a society are still a long way from true equality. There are still two levels of comfort in this country, one for men and one for women. However, change has begun. It must begin someplace. The process is well under way.

However, any change must reflect honest intentions and good faith, otherwise all ideas, words, arguments and systems are futile. Are our intentions honest? Yes, undoubtedly. Is there real good will toward Canadian women? Yes, more so than ever before in the history of our country. Is that the end of the struggle? No, because some prejudices, either real or imagined, still persist in our society.

But is there progress-considerable and without question. The spirit that enables us to solve the problems of Quebec, distinct yet part of Canada, is the same spirit which looks to erase the other inequities that exist in our society.
Our Government has been and continues to be committed to equality for women, not only in word but also in action. It is unthinkable, therefore, that in accepting the constitutional Accord we would in any way diminish the important rights that the Charter established for women.
The Constitution is the property of all Canadians, men and women. It is open to all. It is a living document. Its life comes not from politicians or from the courts but from the people. No politician today would tamper with the hard-earned rights of 1982 and 1987. Nor would Canadians tolerate regressive action by future leaders. We, as elected representatives in this Chamber are only part of the process and the vigilance which must continue if women are to achieve true equality. This vigilance must carry over into our courts, our factories, our schools and our homes.
As Minister responsible for the status of women, I am very pleased that Canadian women took such an active part in the debates surrounding the Accord. Indeed, among the most distinctive features of the hearings of the special joint committee were the presentations made by many women's groups which amounted to over 10 per cent of the total testimony. Their arguments were complex and thoughtful.
It was concern about a perceived threat to equality rights that brought women before the special joint committee. They raised questions about the potential of the Accord's language duality-distinct society clause to override or supersede the rights guaranteed in the Charter, particularly the sexual equality rights. Women had no argument with the new measures that would welcome Quebec formally into the Canadian federation, but rather the possible creation of a new balance of rights and freedoms that could be used to the detriment of Canadian women.
This question had not been taken lightly by First Ministers. In drafting the constitutional Accord they devoted a great deal of attention to Charter rights. They had a lengthy discussion of the relationship between the rights found in the Charter and the recognition of Quebec's distinct society.
After all is said and done, some controversy may still linger, but it is based on complex legal interpretations rather than on errors. The First Ministers' decision to include the language duality-distinct society clause was based on legal advice that such an amendment would not override the Charter of Rights. It would not allow Quebec or any other province to enact laws that could override the Charter or be immune from Charter scrutiny by the courts. All federal and provincial laws and other government measures would still remain subject to Charter review, federal and provincial human rights legislation, public opinion, and the general democratic process which we must not underestimate.
Charter rights such as equality rights are substantive rights. Interpretation clauses such as the distinct society and recognition of multiculturalism and aboriginal heritage provisions
September 30, 1987

operate on the margins of other provisions of the Constitution and generally supplement their meaning. They cannot displace or override substantive rights.
The linguistic duality-distinct society clause does not obstruct the Charter. The rights and freedoms in the Charter remain whole. None will be amended, superseded, overridden or taken away. The interpretation clause is not a grant of power to enable governments to do something in the future that they cannot do today. I believe that this point has been lost in much of the technical discussion, and sometimes the passion, which inevitably enters into such debates.
As an interpretation clause the Accord's distinct society provision is designed to be read along with other constitutional values in any Charter analysis by the courts. It enables the courts to interpret the Constitution, including the Charter, in a manner consistent with Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada. It would be used to shed light on the application of the Charter in certain cases where there may be ambiguity. Since the courts are already taking into account the reality of Quebec's distinctiveness in their judgments, this clause essentially makes explicit what has long been implicit.
In no way will the distinct society clause change the substance of Charter rights. Elere, Madam Speaker, is where it is important to make the distinction between interpretation clauses and provisions which confer substantive rights in our Constitution. Substantive rights operate on a different plane than interpretation provisions. Section 28 in particular gives sexual equality rights the highest protections within the Charter. This perspective was supported by a number of senior constitutional lawyers who appeared before the committee.

The primacy of rights contained in the Charter, including equality rights, is unambiguous.
As the Minister responsible for the status of women, I appreciate the concerns expressed by some women's organizations regarding the Accord. I spared no effort to ensure that these concerns are heard and examined fully. The Special Joint Committee has listened carefully to the evidence put forward by women's groups. I personally met with representatives from several of these organizations in order to discuss the matter and I arranged a meeting in Ottawa where women's groups representatives and government experts discussed the Accord. We had a straightforward discussion on several aspects of this matter.

At the end some did not agree with our position, but I am fully convinced, after considerable research and considerable thought, because the Charter is important to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the Government as well as to myself, that we have advanced the cause of a united Canada without adversely affecting the rights of Canadian women.
It is clear from the discussions I have had with women, and from the testimony that women's groups presented before the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
special joint committee, that the unease which women have with the role and interpretation of the Charter and Constitution has its primary source in matters outside of the Accord. Women's fundamental concerns about equality rights delve into the wider context of the Charter's operation as a whole.
For this reason I welcome the committee's recommendation that a consultative process be initiated under the direction of a permanent Joint Senate-House Committee on Constitutional Reform. In light of the concerns that have been expressed the Government agrees with the committee that perhaps the Charter as a whole, particularly Sections 1 and 33, should be reviewed in the future by First Ministers. Further parliamentary scrutiny of this issue would be welcome. This process, in addition to the annual constitutional conferences established by the Accord, would offer women practical opportunities for input into an ongoing process of constitutional reform.
I have said it before in this Chamber and other places, but it is worth repeating here that women have been major players in ensuring the equality rights which all Canadians now enjoy. However, the field has changed substantially in the five years since equality rights were enshrined in the Constitution in 1982. Women and women's groups have been welcomed by the Government as significant participants in the process of policy development and in decision making. In the areas of pension reform, economic development, tax reform, employment strategies, and child care the views and concerns of women have been listened to and heeded.
I am delighted to say that in my efforts as Minister responsible I have been aided and supported by the Prime Minister and my cabinet colleagues who all share belief in the strength and potential of Canadian women. We are united in our determination to further the advancement of the women of Canada with all means available to us. We have advanced issues with tangible measures such as our employment equity program, reform of Canada's divorce and family orders enforcement laws, and a plan of action to ensure the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value in the public service.
[ Translation]
Moreover, we have made a special effort in the area of appointments. For instance, for the first time a woman held the rank of general in Canada, for the second time a woman was appointed to the Supreme Court, and we nominated the first woman to the Federal Court of Canada.
The initiatives our government intends to take are described in the document entitled Dimensions of Equality: A Federal Government Work Plan for Women, which was tabled at the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy held last November. This document identifies our priorities and describes our action plan over the next two years for enhancing equality between men and women.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987

The constitutional Accord brings into reality one of the most essential elements of Canadian history and the Canadian dream, that is, a nation from coast to coast with Quebec officially a part of the Canadian family. The richness of that province and of its people will shine on all of us. The Canadian dream that was put into motion so many years ago by Sir John A. Macdonald and his contemporaries is a dream that does not end, because it is a dream of justice and fairness for every member of our society across Canada.
The Prime Minister and the ten Premiers were not alone when they put on paper the words that would make this country complete. They had with them the ideas, hopes, and aspirations of successive generations of Canadians. They listened to the voices of the present, but their eyes were on the future because the Constitution is not merely for today. It is a living document and it will encourage Canadians to continue their dream. There is a powerful momentum in this country of justice and equality for all Canadians. That momentum was captured at Meech Lake and will carry all of us, men and women, celebrating Canada into the future.


Ms. Jewett:: Madam Speaker, the Minister said that she had met with representatives of several of the national women's organizations. I believe she said she had discussions with their constitutional advisers as well as with the Government's constitutional advisers.
I have talked to all the women's organizations and most of them do not feel there was adequate discussion of their concerns. Indeed, in many cases their briefs were only available in the last week or two because of the shortage of time, lack of financial support and so on.
Since there are differing points of view among the constitutional experts, would it not be an excellent idea for the Minister to seriously consider the proposal of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women that said yesterday there should be a national conference on the potential effects of the Accord on the equality rights of women and minorities?
I am sure the Minister has read many of the briefs and proceedings of the committee this summer. Does she not believe that there is indeed a great deal more ground to be covered by constitutional experts, including those in the Government and those who represent women's groups and universities, in examining the potential outcome of the Accord? If so, such a conference would be educational, desirable and should be facilitated.
Will she give that assurance to the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I received the resolutions of the Canadian Advisory Council yesterday. Of course, I am always prepared to take those resolutions under advisement.
Let me make two points to the Hon. Member. First, I agree with her assessment of the Charter which she made in the House, that sexual equality rights in the Charter are not threatened by the Meech Lake Accord.
Second, in terms of consultation, I wonder whether a large national gathering is the appropriate place to discuss what is really a legal interpretation issue. I believe the Charter as a whole is a very important issue and that is why I welcomed the recommendation of the committee that we look at the Charter over time and not just for now, so that a permanent part of the Government's role is to be vigilant in regard to the rights of women and other people whose rights are reflected in the Charter.
Having said that, I am always prepared to look at the resolutions and take them under advisement. I think it goes beyond a one afternoon event. Therefore, the process laid out by the committee is probably more appropriate.
However, I did read the briefs and the testimony before the committee very carefully. I have paid considerable attention to this issue because it is clearly one that is very important to women.
1 think the appropriate conclusion is that we regard the Charter as an over-all part of the Constitution that we are prepared to review over time as a body of jurisprudence builds up in the courts. I am sure, based on the Hon. Member's comments in the Chamber, that she would probably agree that that is a wise procedure.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women is perfectly free to hold its own conference. I hope she was not suggesting for a moment that it needs her approval and she would regard their resolutions as ones that need her approval. I hope she would not repeat the experience of the Member of the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was ultimately responsible for the advisory council and attempted to cancel the meeting.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Pauline Jewett: I am simply asking a question. 1 hope she is not going to cancel a proposed conference of the advisory council. They are free to hold a conference on this matter.
Would the Minister be willing to facilitate the conference financially and in other ways?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I certainly recognize the council's right to be independent and to hold its own conferences. It has certainly done so before and I suppose I took it for granted that the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members would know that.
I said that I would take under advisement the resolutions and any role I would have to play. At the moment, I believe there is another process that is more appropriate.
September 30, 1987

The Canadian Advisory Council has done excellent research on behalf of women in Canada. I have said that many times and I certainly respect their right to make decisions and hold their own consultations, as they have done many times. Indeed, I have been a speaker at many of those consultations and conferences.
I fully understand my role vis-a-vis the council and other women's groups in this country, both in terms of listening to them and forwarding their views. We will not always agree with all of the groups that appear before Members of this Chamber. There are as many opinions among women as there are among men and that is why I believe our discussions have been fruitful and should continue. The issues concerning the Charter will not be resolved with one consultation or one conference, but should be considered over time as an integral living part of the Constitution.


Mr. Manly:: Madam Speaker, the report of the special joint committee places considerable emphasis on the difference between legality and legitimacy. It points out that while people can claim rightly that Quebec has always legally been bound by the Constitution, the Constitution of 1982 lacks legitimacy within Quebec and with the people of Quebec.
In the same way, 1 suggest to the Minister that this Accord lacks legitimacy with many of the women of Canada and with the majority of women's organizations in Canada that have studied this report. Is the Minister prepared to remove the doubts that exists among women and women's organizations that the Charter protects their rights from any changes that are brought about by the Accord? Will she ensure that this new Constitution is not only legal but also has legitimacy among Canadian women?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I believe the best way to do that is to provide a procedure whereby the Charter is given pride and place in the kind of monitoring that is recommended by the committee.
I have looked at all of the opinions. I am not a lawyer, so it is the legitimacy that concerns me as much as the legalities. I believe that there is a great deal of legitimacy to the Meech Lake Accord. I understand what was in the joint special committee report. However, I think that in terms of where we go from here, the balance that was achieved in the Meech Lake Accord between the Constitution and the Charter, and the entry of Quebec into Canada, is a very delicate balance. It was achieved. It is something that we on this side of the House are very proud of on behalf of the people of Canada whom we and other Members in this Chamber represent, as well as the regions of Canada that are represented by their elected Premiers as well.
Our celebration of the Accord recognizes that within the whole constitutional process there is always considerably more that can be done, and will be done, because there is now a
Constitution Amendment, 1987
process in place to recognize the vitality and the life that exists within this document for the future.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to join this debate on the Meech Lake Accord.
[ Translation]
First and foremost, I wish to talk about Quebec. As all Canadian men and women and as a representative of the North, I am delighted that at long last, Quebec men and women now officially adhere to the Constitution. I think that was necessary for the progress of the Canadian Constitution. For many years, a large number of Canadians felt quite concerned about the unfulfilled promise made during the referendum. Now, for Quebec, as a result of the Meech Lake Accord, it has become a reality. I must clearly state that I realize how very important is the Accord for Quebec as well as for the rest of Canada. But it is with anger and sorrow that I hear people say that Canadian Northerners seem to be against Quebec. It is untrue and unfair. Most of the Northerners I represent are quite happy with Quebec being part of the Accord. Now, Madam Speaker, I must deal with the problems which this Accord has created for Northern Canadians.

People in the territories to whom I have spoken feel strongly that the lack of consultation and the lack of participation in the democratic process in the formation of the Meech Lake Accord have been an insult and, more importantly, patently unfair to Canadians occupying one-third of the land mass of Canada. Perhaps it will be the Quebecois who understand best what we are saying in the northern territories when we speak of feeling like second-class citizens because we feel that our voices are not being heard and our opinions not respected.
As the Government leader of the Yukon said in his presentation to the constitutional committee, "Quebecers also know the exasperation of abandonment. The failure of fair treatment for Quebec has remained a haunting and collective embarrassment. Has no lesson been drawn from this? Is there no concern for the aspirations of Canada's two northern territories, two potential partners in Confederation?" It should not be in a mature society that 75,000 citizens of that country have no voice, that their duly elected representatives and legislatures are unrecognized in the creation of something as fundamentally important as the development of a Constitution for this country.
For many, I regret to say, at least those above the 60th parallel, it may be seen as the southern Constitution. This is not fair. This is not right. This is not against Quebec. This is not the way to build an integrated and a whole Canada.
In 1981, an article in The Globe and Mail under the heading of "Selling the North" stated as follows:
The people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, both natives and
white, have been used as bargaining counters in the constitutional argument
between the Prime Minister and the Premiers.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Those were the words of a different Prime Minister, a different Government, but the same scenario.
In 1981 also the former Member from the Yukon, a member of the government Party now, put forth a motion during the constitutional debate of 1981 that the territories should deal only with the federal Government as had all other areas in Canada when they came into Confederation regarding potential provincehood. I would like to quote that former Member's comments. He said that for over half a century the dream of provincial status has been the lodestone of northern hopes. It has been central to the vision of the North which sees the development of Yukon and the Northwest Territories as the best and brightest hope for Canada's future. When the Prime Minister accepted the inclusion of two clauses in the April Accord relating to the extension of existing provinces into the territories, and notwithstanding any other law or practice in relatin to the establishment of new provinces, he dealt a crushing blow to the hopes and aspirations of thousands of Canadian citizens resident above 60. He gave away what was not his to give away, the rights and privileges of Canadians of northern Canada above 60.
The mover of that motion was so eloquent that he convinced the members of his Party to vote for that motion. The Liberal Government at the time, of course, voted against that motion. 1 am proud to say that the New Democratic Party is the only Party that has remained consistent on this issue, as you will see, Madam Speaker, when you read Addendum B of the report of the constitutional committee. At that time, we supported the report on that motion regarding the territories. We support it now, and we will be proposing it.
In June of 1987 the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) proposed a similar motion. We do not see at all the same consistency in either the current Opposition, or the current Government. So six years later we have a flip-flop. I suppose all one can say is that plus cela change, plus c'est pareil.
I would now like to say a few words about this one-third of Canada. The North, when viewed from the outside, is often seen as a vast wilderness, largely uninhabited, romantic, with some interesting and perhaps exotic aboriginal residents, and tourists who come to see the last frontier. To be sure, the population is not large, which is very much the attraction of the North. In constitutional terms, it is true that we are not asking for provincehood now. But we do want those rights to be assured for the future.
It is equally true that since the early 1900s the directions of all federal governments have been based on the assumption that the Territories will at some time in the future become provinces. In the presentations of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the committee, they made fairly strong points about this. I would like to quote a couple of examples that those presenters made to the committee. In 1922, the constitutional expert, Mr. E. Kennedy wrote in a leading law text of the day:
It is true that the Dominion of Canada which was created by proclamation on July 1, 1867, consisted of only four provinces, but a little vision might have seen that the Canada in the British North America Act allowing territorial extension was at least pregnant with magnificent possibilities.
In 1958, Alvin Hamilton, the then Minister of Northern affairs and National Resources, stated in the House of Commons in relation to proposed amendments to the Northern Territories Act and the Yukon Act:
I think the House will recognize that our responsibilities with regard to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories take us into the field of provincial and municipal government. These amendments forward steps in the administration and growth of our new parts of Canada towards provincial status.
The Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) stated in this House on June 8, 1987:
I do not think anyone can challenge the fact that my Party and this Government have taken a leadership role in respect to ensuring that, as quickly as possible, we move forward in this area of the Territories controlling their destiny and attaining provincial status.
On September 29, 1987, the Minister made a very moving statement. He said that the Constitution is a document of the people. No one would disagree, but we ask: "Of all the people?" Is it all the people except 75,000? And we leave that question.
The Legislatures and Government of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon today are not glorified municipal institutions. They legislate in respect of municipal matters, business, health, education and justice. Some of the legislatures, to quote the Government Leader of the Yukon, exercise their authorities over an area as large as India. The Government leaders and Ministers of the Territories have also participated in meetings of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers. They were invited to participate in the First Ministers' meetings on aboriginal rights. However, they were not consulted, not invited and not signators to the document which will set the future of citizens living above the 60th parallel. This is the only area in Canada where citizens were not represented by their elected leaders.
The report of the constitutional committee submitted this month states that some unnamed provinces were: " extremely jealous of the trappings of provincehood of the Territories". Therefore, one can only conclude that it was not by oversight but by calculation that the appointment of Senators and Supreme Court judges was reserved only for provinces. At the same time, with this attitude, we feel that our fears that the unanimity clause will preclude future provincehood are well-founded, and therein lies the concern of the North with the unanimity provision.
It is for this reason that my Party, in putting forth Addendum B, highlights those areas to ensure that aboriginal people will be recognized, that the North will take its rightful place, that women's rights will assuredly remain entrenched and that the rights of visible minorities will be similarly protected through a process of Charter review. I say to you, Madam
September 30, 1987

Speaker, that certainly in the North, the Tory "trust me" is just not good enough.
I have spoken briefly about the provincehood issue. There is another area that remains unchanged, and that is, the clause regarding boundary extension. Do the First Ministers actually envisage that the Yukon will become part of British Columbia, that the Western Arctic will become part of Alberta? Do they really harbour such fantasies of a land grab in this day and age? Can any Canadian take such an idea seriously? Would Albertans, for example, stand by while Manitoba took over Calgary and Edmonton? It is ludicrous. Therefore, why is it there?
I would like to say a few words now about the people of the North. As the Hon. Minister said yesterday, Constitutions are the peoples. I would like to talk about the peoples of the North who, like everyone else in Canada, live, work and raise families. We must first remember that the North is an important part of Canadian history, not just a history of gold rushes, whalers, missionaries and fur traders, but it has a rich heritage of aboriginal people whose ancestors have lived in the North for at least 30,000 years.
These people are not exotic supplements to National Geographic. They are politicians, scientists, business people, trappers, hunters, storekeepers, linguists and archeologists. As an example, in Old Crow, Yukon, there is a man who does not read or write but who, without the aid of any of our culture's science, classified 200 species of birds, not in Latin but in Loucheu, not written on paper but remembered and recited orally. He is a scientist. He is a northerner. He is a Canadian.
There are those who came to the Yukon as fur traders, adventurers, seeking gold, seeking jobs, building the highway. They stayed to build a country, your country, Madam Speaker, and mine. I know a woman whose father carried a piano on his back over the Chilkoot Pass on his way to the gold rush. Today that woman, her children and her children's children are building a society in the Yukon. They are Canadians.
I know a miner, a refugee, who works at a difficult and dirty job but who is proud "she" and her family are Canadians. She can work here and build her community in her Canada and our Canada.
I know farmers-yes, Madam Speaker, there are farmers in the North-raising cattle and growing crops under very difficult environmental conditions. They are working to ensure the self-sufficiency of the North. They are Canadians.
There are many more. There are fishermen, business people, gourmet cooks. There are theatres and cinemas. There are singers and song writers. From Watson Lake to Old Crow, from Dawson to Haines Junction, from Mayo to Faro, in Teslin, Tagish, Carmacks, Carcross, Elsa, Snag, Burwash, Swift River, Beaver Creek, Moose Creek and Whitehorse, and in the 13 Indian bands of the Yukon, there are Canadians who elect governments territorially, elect Members of Parliament,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
who raise their families, run their businesses, drink a beer now and then, and understand themselves to be full-fledged Canadians. As an aside, Madam Speaker, Revenue Canada certainly appears to agree with them.
Unless amendments are made to this Accord, northern Canada will be saying it is only half Canadian, that our voice does not count.
At one time when people from the south asked me what I did for a living, I would say somewhat facetiously: "I am paid to occupy the North". We see increasing instances of our sovereignty under dispute, but it will not be through further militarization that we assert our sovereignty. It will be through pointing to Yukoners, to residents of the Northwest Territory, to the Inuit, to the Dene, the Loucheuc and other aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups, saying: "This is our land. These are Canadians. This is Canada".
With respect to our specific concerns which are addressed in these amendments, such as appointment to the Supreme Court, why would members of the Bar, many of whom belong to several provincial Bars but reside in the Territories, be excluded? It defies logic. There is the need for a resolution of aboriginal rights, further aboriginal rights conferences. As aboriginal groups have so eloquently said, the circle of Confederation will not be closed until Canada's first peoples are recognized.
Finally, provincehood, not now but for the future. Surely this is a logical extension of our history to date. The Government of Canada has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the North and aboriginal people. Can the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) truly say that he has fulfilled this duty?
In an article in The Toronto Star on September 20, 1987, Richard Gwynn stated, "The Arctic matters deeply in itself to Canadians. It matters in terms of sovereignty; and of the environment. It matters most perhaps, psychologically. It rounds us out as a nation; giving us depth and form". I could not agree more.
Representing that part of Canada which has no vote and no voice, I must vote against this Accord as it stands, unless amended. I urge Members to listen to the amendments which will be put forward by our Party which will add to making this Accord acceptable to a much broader range of people.
As I mentioned earlier, we were not part of the consultation process. This is the only formal forum in which we can speak and say no. I urge Members of the House to support the amendments of the NDP.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I feel that this debate is about Canada, about ourselves, about the way we perceive ourselves and it is also a debate on the division of powers to enable us to do the things which we have to do as citizens, in our country.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
If I speak out against the Accord today, it is not because I am against Quebec, as you surely know, but because I am for a stronger, not weaker Canada than the one we had known so far.

It seems to me that the important thing is how we organize ourselves as citizens in a large nation, and how we see ourselves in the mirror called the Constitution. We are a small population, geographically located next door to the most powerful nation. We live in a large geographical chunk called Canada. The fact that we are neighbours to the United States and not to Luxembourg, or the Republic of San Marino, requires a Constitution that adds strength and does not diminish strength in the role of the national Government, if we wish to compete successfully in the world instead of seeking special favours in Washington and retreating to the comfort of fortress America.
What happened to public participation in the process of this Accord? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did not consult with Canadians when he negotiated the Accord. Eleven politicians decided for 25 million Canadians. The joint committee did not travel. Instead, it brought a handful of witnesses to Ottawa. Yet the committee had a responsibility to travel and consult Canadians on the Constitution. To make things worse, in July the Prime Minister announced that the Accord would not be changed, no matter what the committee recommended.
This week we are debating the Constitution of the people of Canada. Senator Murray told the committee at the outset that amendments to the Accord would not be accepted, and that the hearings were for public information only. What a sham! What a sad day for democracy! Is that the Progressive Conservative notion of democratic consultation?
This is the constitutional proposal of 11 individuals. The committee report did not produce one amendment, except for the Liberal proposals. In my submission, the 11-man vision of Canada expressed in Section 2 of the Accord is a rear-view mirror vision which may have been valid two generations ago. However, today a new Canada is emerging.
Canada includes many distinct societies: Quebec, Newfoundland, Haida Indians, New Brunswick, Ontario, Lubicon Indians, immigrant groups, the Dene Nation, Inuit, Mennon-ites, British Columbia, you name it, Madam Speaker, there are hundreds of distinct societies from coast to coast. In my submission, it is wrong to single out one distinct society in this constitutional Accord. Instead, we should constitutionalize what Canada is, a multicultural society, a nation composed of people from many different backgrounds.
Canada is not a nation where ethnics are over here and majorities are over there; not two founding races over here and aboriginal people over there; not the 10 provinces and the Prime Minister at one table cooking this up, and the two
northern territories left out, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin).
Ethnicity and multiculturalism are not only the label for minorities. Majority groups are also ethnic and part of multiculturalism. Since ethnic and multicultural have become interchangeable words in the current political language, since Canada means people from many origins and cultures who joined the aboriginals, since the distinct character applies to many regions and people from Newfoundland to British Columbia, from the 49th parallel to the North Pole, it becomes imperative to amend Section 2, which is the description of our society.
When a decision is made on the present amendment before you, Madam Speaker, I intend to move an amendment to Section 2 which will state that the Constitution of Canada should be interpreted in the manner consistent with the recognition that Canada is a multicultural society which includes aboriginal peoples, French-speaking Canadians centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec. In the amendment I intend to move, aboriginal people and new Canadians will not be added as an afterthought, which is probably what the Prime Minister and the Premiers did at 4.30 in the morning when they realized the political repercussions of their initial oversight.
In the amendment I intend to move, Canada is defined as one society, one distinct society because of its uniqueness in which there is no room for the potential emergence of two societies and eventually of two nations, in which there is no division between minority and majority groups, and no division between aboriginal and all other groups that compose Canadian society.
If not amended, the reasons I will vote against the Accord are the following. First, the definition of Canada proposed in the Accord is outdated. It is not the modern Canada. Millions of Canadians are left out who do not identify with either French or English. They have no place in the Accord, and they are outside the Constitution. Native people are an afterthought. This is not today's Canada.
Second, the spending power clause would lead to a chequer-board Canada and to the Balkanization of standards of social services, as it was so well put to the joint committee by several witnesses including the former Deputy Minister of the Treasury Board. Further, we want Ottawa to retain the power to stop provincial attempts to opt out in future as in the case of extra billing. The Accord encourages this option of opting out.
On the spending power, we do not want future federal Governments to be restrained when taking environmental initiatives. Third, there is the devolution of power to the provinces in the appointment to the Senate and the Supreme Court. As well, there is uncertainty about women's rights.
September 30, 1987

Greater rights are given to the provinces on immigration matters. The Cullen-Couture Accord, as far as I am concerned, goes far enough. There is no need to give provinces greater powers. Immigrants should not and cannot be forced to reside in a specified province. Immigrants choose Canada when they come, not Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia, but the whole Canadian nation.
Because of the erosion of power of future Parliaments, federal-provincial constitutional meetings will from now on be institutionalized. The result will be that joint committees and Parliaments will not be able to make changes to future accords for all sorts of reasons, as it is the case now. Canada's future constitutional changes will then be written, if we adopt this Accord, by a process reminiscent of a board of directors consisting of the Prime Minister of the day and the 10 Premiers as well.
Once the Accord is approved as it is proposed, everyone in the House knows that it will be virtually impossible to make substantial changes to federal institutions in the future. Once passed, this Accord will be cast in cement and it will be Canada's Constitution.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the Constitution is the mirror in which we see ourselves as Canadian citizens. It is the instrument that we agree upon to divide powers so as to get things done for the benefit of the nation and of all its citizens.
This Accord is not good because it weakens Confederation. It gives the wrong picture of Canadian society. It leaves the public out of future changes. It gives the provinces new powers without giving to the national Government, to Canada itself, new powers as well. Therefore, it produces a one-way flow of powers in the direction of the provinces without benefiting the national interests.
For these reasons, I oppose the Accord. My reasons are based on a number of considerations. Fundamentally, I reject the definition of Canada in Section 2(1). I find it outdated, a vision of the past. This is why I call it a rear-view mirror. That is not the Canada that we experience and see every day, be it urban or rural Canada. We do not want to leave out of our Constitution those who do not identify themselves with the French or the English culture, and we do not want to have in the Constitution as an add-on, an afterthought, the consideration that is due to our aboriginal people, to the minority groups and to immigration groups. Hence, I look forward to the debate later on when there will be an opportunity to put forward an amendment on the definition of Canadian society, an amendment which proposes a definition which I think is the proper and more contemporary one for Canada to consider.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. There are no questions, so we will resume debate.


David Bruce Daubney: Madam Speaker, as a member of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which looked into this matter, it is an honour for me to participate in this important debate today. I
Constitution Amendment, 1987
am very proud to have my signature on the report of our committee. I would be bold enough to suggest that I think it is one of the finest parliamentary reports ever to be handed down in the history of this institution.
The constitutional Accord of 1987 itself is an historic document. It truly marks a turning point in our constitutional history. It closes a difficult chapter that began when Quebec was left out of the agreement leading to patriation and to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.
The 1982 reform was a major, significant and important advance in our constitutional development, but it was incomplete. It did not include all of Canada. Quebec's distinct identity within Canada and our linguistic duality as a country were glaring omissions from the 1982 description of our national values. The elected Government of Quebec did not join the other nine provinces in support of the agreement.
As the Hon. Robert Stanfield told us at the joint parliamentary committee hearings in 1982, we created two Canadas. By recognizing linguistic duality and Quebec's distinct identity within Canada, the 1987 Accord completes the constitutional picture drawn in 1982 of how Canadians see themselves, of Canada as it is, in the words of our committee.
Quebec's acceptance of the Accord makes Canada whole again. The Chapter that opened in 1982 is now closed. Now we can write a new and happier chapter for the Accord unblocks the constitutional reform process. It offers new means and new hopes for reaching such long-held goals as Senate reform and for addressing a number of other issues raised before our joint committee.
As Hon. Members know, the Government of Que' ec had been watching the constitutional reform process from the sidelines ever since the 1982 package was put together. With the Accord in place, it can return, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) foresaw, with honour and enthusiasm to the constitutional bargaining table.
This is a development of measurable importance. Quebec's isolation was more than a rebuke to the values of moderation and tolerance that we cultivate as Canadians. It was also a real obstacle to further constitutional reform. There are dry, mathematical reasons for this. Without Quebec's participation, it would be all the harder to secure amendments calling for the support of seven provinces representing half the population. It was impossible to pursue reform of the Senate because of Quebec's veto over its representation there and it would be impossible to secure amendments calling for unanimous consent.
More important are the reasons related to our democratic and federal principles. No solid or lasting reform would be possible when a large segment of the population felt that its wishes had not at least been considered.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Gordon Robertson, the federal Government's top constitutional adviser from 1975 to 1979, reminded us in committee that the first goal of the constitutional reform process from the start was, in his words, to produce a sense of satisfaction and acceptance in Quebec. Through the Accord this goal has been won at last. I would like to quote briefly from Mr. Robertson's testimony shown at page 29 of the committee report. It says:
Members of the Joint Committee were particularly impressed with the approach formulated by Gordon Robertson, former Clerk of the Privy Council and a participant in almost every important federal-provincial conference on constitutional matters from 1950 until his retirement from the federal public service in 1979.
Mr. Robertson advocated a three-step approach.
These are his words now:
As I see it, the basic question is what are the prime objectives of policy to be achieved at this time, 1987, in the constitutional realm? The (federal) government has decided, and I think the other governments, the provincial governments agree, that the prime objective is to achieve an agreement under which Quebec can become a willing participant in the Canadian Confederation. This seems to me to be right as to the prime objective of policy at this time. If that is agreed, the second question I think is whether the arrangements to achieve that objective involve consequences that are seriously adverse for Canada.
Then the third question, it seems to me, is whether there is a reasonable prospect of getting better arrangements than the arrangements that are incorporated in the Constitutional Accord, 1987.
Mr. Robertson went on in his testimony to answer both those latter questions in the negative.
Really, 1 think there are two opposing visions of Canada challenging us in this debate and that challenged us as members of the joint committee over the long hot summer days when we sat in the Railway Committee Room. One is a vision of confrontation, the other a vision of co-operation. One is founded on struggle and animosity between federal and provincial Governments, the other on co-operation and mutual respect. One sees the federal and provincial Governments as rivals for the allegiance of Canadians, the other as partners in serving Canadians.
The Constitutional Accord of 1987 stands squarely for the vision of co-operation, mutual respect, and partnership. I believe this vision of co-operation and partnership is shared by most Canadians.
I believe as well that most Canadians want us to adopt the Accord because it translates this vision into the building blocks of a stronger and more united Canada. How does it do that? That is a question I intend to answer in the next few minutes of my remarks.
The Constitutional Accord of 1987 is rooted in the spirit of federalism and the principle that the federal and provincial Governments share responsibility for the well-being of Canada. That spirit was brutally ruptured during the events leading to patriation of the Constitution. In 1980 Quebecers said non to sovereignty association and oui to the renewed federalism they were solemnly promised by the rest of us, in
particular the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, during the referendum campaign. Yet when the final deal was made it was without Quebec's consent, without the participation of the people who had opted for Canada in the belief that their culture and their presence would be respected.
We heard clear testimony in committee on the threat this situation posed to our continuing unity. "It left a wound and a grievance", in the words of Jack Pickersgill, a man who draws on a wealth of experience in constitutional and political matters going back to the time of Mackenzie King. Gordon Robertson sounded a clear warning that it would be "an extremely dangerous situation for the future if we leave it one in which perhaps there is a sense of grievance, frustration, perhaps even of betrayal" in Quebec.
This Accord now gives us an opportunity to heal the wounds and make us one Canada again. I think it was perhaps put best, certainly most emotionally, by Solange Chaput-Rolland, former member of the Pepin-Robarts committee and Liberal Member of the Quebec Legislature when she told the committee:

It was only on the day following the Meech Lake Accord that 1 really felt
for the first time that we had won the referendum.

Those are the words of a woman who cherishes and respects her country, who stood for her country when it was not easy to do so, and who now rejoices in the respect her country has paid, with this Accord, to her culture.
However, the Accord does much more than bring Quebec back into our constitutional family. I would support it even if it had nothing to do with ending Quebec's isolation since it promotes my view of Canada by creating a framework for heightened co-operation between two orders of Government.
I will not take up the time of the House describing these provisions of the Accord in detail, they are well-known and have been mentioned by other participants in this debate. However, I think it is useful to sketch some of the implications to make my point clear.
Let me begin with key federal institutions. By offering the provinces an opportunity to have a say in appointments, the Accord strengthens the Supreme Court of Canada, and the other place, the Senate, as truly federal institutions. In the case of the other place, the Accord moves forward the process of further reform in the second round of constitutional talks.
I do not suppose anyone doubts that the goal is to strengthen regional voices in our national decision-making process. Certainly that is the starting point. The interim procedures set out in the Accord represent an important gesture of good faith. Let me point out that this aspect of the Accord is in the spirit of 1867 when the Fathers of Confederation envisaged the second Chamber as a forum for regional concerns at the centre. As to the Supreme Court, its federal character can only be reinforced by provincial participation in the choice of
September 30, 1987

justices. This is, after all, the court that acts as the ultimate referee in disputes about the meaning of the Constitution, including federal-provincial disputes. It is also the court that rules on the constitutionality of federal and provincial laws.
Much has been heard, in the shallow criticism of this Accord, about the so-called limitations on federal spending powers. I think that is a good political catch phrase. It is portentous and empty, perfect for those who want news coverage and to give the illusion of thought. The truth is that there has never been any requirement for provinces to adhere to shared cost programs initiated by the federal Government in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. For the first time we have entrenchment of federal Government power to be involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We are talking about areas of "exclusive provincial jurisdiction". Those three words seem to have escaped the critics of this part of the Accord.
All the Accord does is to recognize the integrity of provincial jurisdiction by guaranteeing reasonable compensation to provinces that prefer to meet national objectives in ways tailored to the particular needs of their people.
Peter Leslie, Director of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University, pointed out to the committee that this arrangement can be of positive benefit to Canadians as taxpayers and users of programs. Provinces, he points out, will have the latitude to find innovative solutions to problems felt across the country. They will be encouraged to devise means that are the most cost effective or most efficient in pursuing national objectives.
Professor Gerald Beaudoin, of the University of Ottawa Law School, told us that terms employed in the section dealing with national shared cost programs were unlikely to give rise to great difficulty because the concepts such as "compatibility" and "initiative" were already known to the law.
He emphasized that, in any event, the section would only come into play in the limited category of future programs that have the following characteristics. First, it must be a national program; second, it must be a shared cost program; third, the program must have been established after the section has come into force; and finally, the program must be in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Only if all four of these conditions are satisfied will the section be triggered.
Accordingly, the proposed Section 106A will have no impact on established national shared cost programs, nor will the section affect non-shared cost programs such as the family allowance program. If the Government of Canada establishes a regional rather than a national program, the section would not come into play either. The section will not apply to programs established in areas of shared jurisdiction such as agriculture, immigration, and perhaps education.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I suggest that some of the Members opposite are trying to walk both sides of the fence. They are afraid of taking a clear stand on the principle of national reconciliation so they posture, adopting positions they know will not work, stands they know will have no chance of implementation. They propose an amendment to the spending powers provision so they will look good on the evening news, so they will look as if they knew a constitutional principle when they stumbled over one.
This kind of posturing is the cheapest attempt to gain notoriety without taking responsibility for action. The proponents of this amendment know, as we all do, that this proposal has already been discussed by the First Ministers at length and has been rejected. What can be easier than proposing an amendment you know will not, cannot, be accepted or implemented?
Members opposite evidently believe that making the amendment will delude the public into a belief that the members of the Liberal Party are in fact capable of independent thought. Well, they are not. They have lost the fire and the vision necessary to build a country. All they have left is the pathetic posturing of a marginal Party which does not count any more because it does not care anymore. It does not care about our history, our culture, or anything beyond short-term partisan advantage. While they whimper in the corner of our national life, the rest of us will go about the business of building a nation secure in its diversity.
This Accord is both an end and a beginning. It marks the end of a profound and dangerous alienation of Quebec, its culture and its people, from the rest of Canada. It is the beginning of the rest of our national journey into the twenty-first century. This Accord provides us with the basis for a continuing exploration of the territory of constitutional reform. With a strong and stable national base we can afford to listen, and we must now respond to the legitimate calls for equity and reform which in other times might have threatened us. It is an exciting time to be a Canadian and I will be proud to vote in favour of the Accord.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena);: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. While I was sitting here I was thinking of the long history that my family has had in constitutional matters. I was talking to an uncle of mine who used to teach history in Alberta who reminded me that a distant forefather of mine, Peter Mitchell, was a Premier of New Brunswick and actually sat at the constitution table and was one of the Fathers of Confederation 120 years ago. More recently, another relative, whom I also did not meet, was the Premier of Prince Edward Island earlier in this century and was also involved in constitutional matters. Only five short years ago I was the spokesman for our Party on constitutional matters. Many of my old wounds from that lengthy process are still healing.


Mr. Siddon:: Were they Liberal or Conservative, Jim?

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987


James Ross Fulton: One of the Members across asks about my two forefathers. I believe that Peter Mitchell, who was the Premier of New Brunswick, was a Conservative and that James Stewart, who was the Premier of Prince Edward Island, was a Liberal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then you are a typical NDPer.


James Ross Fulton: As we progressed westward, our politics have changed. Most of my relatives in Alberta and British Columbia are New Democrats to a one.
I want to spend a few moments talking about one of the grave errors which I think occurred in the constitutional process and why there are raw nerves in many areas of the country. The construction of constitutional consensus was missed out. For a constitution, a charter, our courts and a society to work truly all Canadians must trust and be confident that a proper process was gone through. Public involvement must be first rather than last. I believe that all Members who participated on the joint constitutional committee found that not being able to travel and not giving all Canadians the opportunity to appear at the committee until after the fact has created many raw nerves.
We were served up a constitutional meal without a chance to ever see the menu. The 11 cooks at Meech Lake left out some vital ingredients-the spice of participation and the choice of democratic involvement.
With the support and good will of all Canadians, Quebec has joined as a full and willing partner in Confederation and constitutional affairs. The Accord makes good the promises to Quebec of seven years ago when Quebecers said yes to Canada. It was very much time that the Parliament and the people of Canada responded to that deep-felt need in Quebec.
I listened with care to what Mr. Trudeau had to say when he appeared before the committee. I and many other Canadians disagreed when he said that the division of power between the federal and provincial Governments was disturbed. After studying carefully the wording of the Accord and having listened to and read the evidence of many of the witnesses, I am certainly convinced that those powers were not disturbed. In fact, many of the powers that had been exacted through practice now exist in the wording of the Accord. I will come to those in a moment.
I will deal for a moment with the fact that Quebec is now properly recognized as being distinct. That has been done without giving Quebec a different constitutional status than that of British Columbia, Alberta, the Maritimes, or any other province in this country.
Just this year in Montreal the New Democratic Party passed a resolution supported by delegates from every province and both Territories which stated: "The uniqueness of Quebec as the one province within which the majority, language and culture is French-". That policy was first enunciated by the NDP in 1961. I am proud to belong to a Party that has
remained consistent for many decades in pursuing the aspirations of Quebecers and all Canadians and to have now seen that become a constitutional reality.
The federal Government's authority to set up national cost shared programs, even in areas of exclusive jurisdiction, is unimpaired and likely even strengthened, as we heard from many of the witnesses. Provinces can opt out of programs which are set up entirely within their jurisdiction, but only with compensation when their programs achieve the national objectives set out in legislation. When a national day care program is set up, we hope in the next few years, it will only be possible for provinces to opt out when they set up child care programs which meet the national objectives set by this Parliament. That is a very good thing.
However, in my view the First Ministers demonstrated a collective blindness to the reality of some parts of Canada and some parts of our history in some very key areas. In particular, I want to spend a moment discussing our first nations and first citizens. Canada is more than only a duality of French and English. The founding nations were the first citizens, the first nations, of over 30,000 years' duration with powerful internationally recognized cultures and highly evolved laws and traditions. They included the Niska, Inuit, Haida, Huron, Beothuk, Iroquois, Tsimshian, Nootka, Haisla, Tahltan, and Tlingit to name just a few.
As we heard from Senator Lowell Murray and others speaking for the Government, out of an abundance of caution special protection was provided in Clause 16 for the constitutional wording on aboriginal rights that have been stalled by political inaction and bureaucratic inertia, not because of a lack of public support.
In my Province of British Columbia, it has been found through polls and discussions among people on the street that the majority of British Columbians support and endorse negotiated settlements on the questions of aboriginal title and rights in the Province of British Columbia. It is political inertia and the blindness of the political leadership at the provincial level in British Columbia, in other provinces and certainly in Ottawa that is responsible for the lack of substantial movement one would have expected in the wording of the Constitution Act, 1982 which recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights and title which have been practised by some aboriginal cultures in Canada for 30,000 years or more.
In facing the reality and vital importance of providing an avenue for the entrance of Quebec, some key Canadian realities were sidelined. This includes fairness to the aboriginal peoples. First, in terms of the First Ministers' meeting on aboriginal rights and self-government, we will be moving an amendment to attempt to secure in the wording of the Accord and the motion before the House that aboriginal rights and the full participation of aboriginal leaders takes place at the meetings as we propose, as well as in terms of any First
September 30, 1987

Ministers' meetings that deal with or touch upon matters affecting aboriginal rights. It is crucially important that aboriginal people not be inhibited or dealt with unfairly in terms of these vital constitutional matters.
Members of the House and Canadians generally should recognize how the wording in relation to aboriginal rights came to be in the Constitution Act, 1982. That wording was withdrawn by Prime Minister Trudeau and it was only under pressure from the New Democratic Party that it was restored. Canadians should understand that in terms of the evolution of aboriginal title and rights in this country.
It has only been through the ongoing battle by groups such as the Nishga Tribal Council of British Columbia who took their case to the Supreme Court 15 years ago. After a century of trying to deal with Great Britain and Ottawa, trying to deal with kings, governors general and political Parties, they, along with Tom Berger, finally took their case to the Supreme Court of Canada where they obtained a tied decision on the matter of Nishga title in the Nass Valley.
It was at that point that the assimilation and cultural extermination policies of the Parliament of Canada were reversed. The Minister at that time, Mr. Chretien, backed away from the White Paper proposals on assimilation. It led to the march toward the constitutional wording that is there. We must move on to the constitutional conferences that must be held to bring on side those Premiers and political Parties that would live in the historically inaccurate backwaters of Canada rather than move forward to recognize title and remove those grey areas that are infringing on the rights of Canada's first nations and citizens.
I want to spend a moment dealing with fairness for Canada's northern citizens. In my view, three new provinces would be created in the North, of which two would be in the Northwest Territories, perhaps to be called Denedeh and Nunavut, and the Yukon. As my colleague, the Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), pointed out so well, evqn in the words of Erik Nielsen, the concept of provincial status was the lodestone for more than half a century of northerners as they look toward their aspirations of becoming provinces.
I spoke to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after the Accord was signed and asked how there could have been such blindness in requiring the unanimity rule for the creation of new provinces north of sixty. I was somewhat saddened to hear the Prime Minister, as the number one statesman for Canada, one would always hope, taking such a legalistic approach. He said that making them new provinces would affect the Consolidated Revenue Fund and federal institutions. He said this would require a First Ministers' Conference and the need for unanimity and so on.
That is hardly the case. All our other provinces entered Confederation in a bilateral process between the federal Government and themselves. It was only after 1982 that it was changed to seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, along with the federal Government. This represented a much
Constitution Amendment, 1987
higher wall to be scaled by Yukoners and residents of the Northwest Territories in their aspirations to become provinces.
They now face the bleak prospect of a wall that many of them believe is perhaps impossible to scale in order to become provinces. I believe that the First Ministers should have put much more thought into the feeling this leaves with northerners. As my friend from Yukon pointed out, northerners now experience, as Quebecers once did, the feeling of being left out and that this is a southern Constitution which ignores a third of Canada north of sixty.
I reviewed press clippings from the last decade to see whether any political Party or leader in Canada ever suggested that Clause 43 should have been changed in this Draconian way in terms of the creation of new provinces. I could find none. I believe that the First Ministers did not notice this omission and, in their view of the greater picture of Canada, they ignored the fact that northerners-I am proud to consider myself as one-hold dear the feeling of fullness in participating in the Canadian family.
Not only do we face the unanimity rule, there is also the fact that northerners, whether members of the Bar or the bench, are excluded from the opportunity to even be proposed to be members of the Supreme Court. My uncle in Yukon is the Supreme Court Justice of Yukon. I find it dumbfounding that he should be prohibited from having his name submitted for sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. While I do not want to speak for him, and do not know whether he would want to take on such an onerous task, I believe it is unfair. Furthermore, the Supreme Court Justices of Canada said as much to the Canadian Bar Association, and it is very rare that Supreme Court Justices would speak out about the unfair, un-Canadian and perhaps even unconstitutional move to prohibit certain Canadians from having the opportunity to be nominated or placed on the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a terrible oversight and is something that we hope to rectify as part of our amendments.
Let me deal for a moment with the Senate. Premier Getty and others said much in the West about a Triple E Senate. They were certainly snookered at Meech Lake.
I believe that the Senate is one of those anachronisms in Canada. We should abolish it first, then decide what is required in addition to the democratic institution of Parliament. That opportunity was missed, although I suppose the Premiers were somewhat appeased by being able to submit names for the Senate, as though it would in any way deal with the important issues which this country must face.
I want to talk about the participation by the territorial Governments. They must be given more than simply slots on the agenda in terms of the First Ministers' meetings. There must be participation by territorial Governments, particularly at meetings where matters affecting them are on the agenda. As a northerner, I certainly serve notice that northerners intend to move to provincial status in the future. It is very important that the venues and ongoing access to major

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
decisions be maintained. Territorial leaders such as Tony Penikett who have given so much of their time to the North must be given the opportunity to participate in the important evolution of constitutional debates in this country.
The matter of equality of women and the Meech Lake Accord requires considerable comment. Section 28 was Canada's constitutional commitment to sexual equality. That section was achieved as a result of great effort by thousands of women from every province and territory in 1981 and 1982.
In my view, it is more a matter of consistency than necessity that Section 28 be included in Clause 16. Senator Lowell Murray said that it was out of an abundance of caution that Clause 16 was formulated to include aboriginal rights and aboriginal matters. Even since 1982, court rulings have had dramatically different effects than what was suggested by the Ministers who spoke in the House and in committees back in 1981 and 1982.
We have seen that the courts, in terms of the trade union movement, in terms of freedom of association and so on, did not and were not held in that light by the justices and the courts of the country. In the construction of constitutions it is crucially important that there be consistency. Just as Sections 25 and 27 were included out of an abundance of caution, out of consistency, we are moving an amendment to attempt to get the Government to make the necessary changes to make this Accord better.
I want to spend a moment now on the future of constitutional evolution in terms of Charter review, the ethno-cultural reality of Canada, and the democratic process of how we can deal with what I described earlier as the raw nerves that are out there. Northerners did not have the kind of biological and vocal involvement in this process that there should have been. The leaders from the NWT and the Yukon were excluded, as were aboriginal people. When we see an agenda set for future meetings, including fisheries for example, we have to think very carefully about how to improve the democratic process.
In terms of the democratic process, we have recommended that the special joint committee on constitutional reform carry on and become an ongoing process whereby Canadians who are touched, damaged or feel endangered in some way by rulings of the court or by pieces of legislation brought forward by provincial, federal, or the territorial legislatures will have an opportunity to have their constitutional views aired. There will be an ongoing balance, some forum, some focus where Canadians of all origins, creeds and sects have an opportunity to have their views heard and to have them heard often, before First Ministers' conferences, before we have anything further cooked in the kitchen at Meech Lake, or anywhere else.
On Canada's ethno-cultural reality, we see the linguistic duality of Canada recognized in the Accord as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. The report of the committee states that the ethno-cultural diversity of Canada deserves further
study. I doubt that there is a single Member of the House who would not agree with that. It is crucially important in terms of constitutional evolution with the ever-changing demographic flux within Canada that much greater consideration be given to this. We are urging early consideration of the ethno-cultural reality of Canada as a fundamental characteristic of our nation.
On the matter of Charter review, after the Meech Lake Accord had been struck, we heard concerns raised by women, constitutional experts, and by representatives of visible and other minority groups that go far beyond the scope of the 1987 constitutional Accord.
To come back again for a moment to what I said earlier, one of the crucial things that was missing in this whole process was the involvement of Canadians to a true extent in the process leading up to the Accord. I must say that we have very much the same critical concern from Canadians from coast to coast back in 1981-82. There was not as broad a forum and as broad an opportunity for them to set the seeds of their ideas to fertile soil, for parliamentarians and First Ministers to have an opportunity to grapple with the kinds of wording that would be the most useful and the longest standing for all of us in Canada.
So the democratic process, the Canadian ethno-cultural reality, fairness for Canada's northerners, fairness for aboriginal people, fairness for women, and Charter review, are matters that we feel very strongly should be dealt with in the near future. I have been involved for many years in constitutional matters. I am honoured to say that because of the movement on board now of the people of Quebec and the Province of Quebec it is with open arms, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart, of British Columbians that we receive them. So from the West to the East to the North it has the substance that allows me to vote for it despite its flaws.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, it is with deep emotion that I rise in this debate today, and I would hope that all Hon. Members are fully aware that we are living through historic moments about which our children and grandchildren will be talking.
When I decided to be a candidate in the 1984 election in the riding of Louis-Hebert my idea was to promote in particular four goals that were of special concern to me. As I said in this House on October 7, 1986, the first of these goals was to have Quebec sign the constitutional agreement and resume its rightful place in Canada, and to see that its rights were respected.
I had faith in our leader who had committed a Conservative Government to work with all Canadians to achieve national reconciliation. Throughout the election campaign he had made several references to this pledge. Allow me to quote the remarks he made in Sept-Iles on August 6, 1984:
September 30, 1987

Canada is the bet made by men and women of different cultures, languages and religions to settle their disputes, harmonize their interests, and successfully promote the values of respect for others and selflessness.
A Conservative Government will take up this bet. Co-operation and understanding will be more than mere words to us. It will be the honour of the Party I lead to make that a way of living, to deal with our fellow Canadians, to suffer, to work, and to triumph with them. One thing for sure is that not a single Quebecer, man or woman, has given federal Liberals free reign to take advantage of Quebec's disarray resulting from the referendum to sentence the province to constitutional ostracism. My Party does not rejoice over the political weakening to which these deplorable incidents have led Quebec. If Quebec is weakened, so is Canada; if Quebec is strong, so is Canada.
There is room in Canada for the affirmation of all identities, respect for all aspirations, and the quest for all ideals.
I know that Quebecers expect more than simple words. We will have to offer guarantees and take positive steps to achieve the objective I have in mind: convince the Quebec National Assembly to endorse Canada's new Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
Madam Speaker, since the Meech-Langevin Agreement, this is exactly what has been done. As a Quebecer, my fondest wish has come true thanks to the firm will and negotiating talent of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to the open mind of the Premiers, and I am quite proud of it.
This historic Accord puts an end to the constitutional ostracism of Quebec, with terms which are to the advantage of Quebec, of all the provinces, and most important, of Canada as a whole.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the situation in Quebec was not very good during the last twenty years. There was a climate of constant confrontation between the provincial legislature and the central Government. There was no possibility of agreement between the two Government levels. Quebec had been isolated and rejected.
When Premier Bourassa dared to defend the rights of Quebecers, he only succeeded in being called a "hot-dog eater" by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
Quebecers have had enough of the obvious lack respect for their views before the 1980 referendum, and it was absolutely essential to back the Federal Government against the wall if we wanted at least to resume discussions. Quebec had to give itself tools to obtain the power to negotiate. As a Quebecer and a Canadian, I was distressed to see Quebec lose ground, and this is why I accepted to chair the yes campaign in the Louis-Hebert constituency for the 1980 referendum. A "yes" victory in the referendum seemed to me the only possible solution to make the Trudeau Government negotiate with the Quebec Government. Unfortunately, at the time of the 1980 referendum, Quebec voters were promised that a no vote would not mean that they were accepting the status quo, but rather that they wished a renewed federalism. At the time, there was no detailed explanation of what this renewed federalism would mean, but I believe that everyone understood that it would be a federalism along the lines that successive Quebec governments had supported.
Madam Speaker, the Trudeau Government betrayed Quebecers. Recently, one of my colleagues opposite, the Hon.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), following publication of the letter of Pierre Trudeau in the newspaper La Presse, recognized the terrible mistake made in 1982 by stating that if he had realized what his then leader was thinking, he would have voted yes in the referendum. In addition, Mrs. Chaput-Rolland, one of the eminent members of the Pepin-Robarts Commission on Canadian unity between 1977 and 1979 and leader of the no committee for 1980 referendum, stated the following before the Special Joint Committee:
In Quebec, we decided seven years ago that Canada was our country. It remains for us to find out if we were right to assert our loyalty. Quite frankly, I must say that I wondered in 1982 whether the suffering, the disputes, and the bitterness which followed the 1980 referendum had really been necessary. We voted for Canada, but Canada, through its central Government, which was so busy preparing to repatriate the British North America Act of 1867, did very little for those who had just openly stated their will to remain within this country. Promises and dreams had both vanished. Not a single Quebecer would want to relive this period in our history.
Madam Speaker, the isolation of Quebec is a problem with which we had to deal when we came to power. It was essential that we not leave it as a legacy to another generation which might have been forced to solve it under more difficult circumstances and at a less favourable time.
Madam Speaker, since the Meech-Langevin accord, I am a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian. I can tell all Canadians that I am speaking here from the bottom of my heart. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but deep inside I know that finally Quebec has resumed its rightful place, its rights finally have been acknowledged after so many years of confrontation, and I must add I am deeply moved. The accord, Madam Speaker, acknowledges the basic aspirations of Quebecers, and as stated by Michel Roy in La Presse on May 2, 1987: "What transpired Thursday in the Gatineau Hills is somewhat of a miracle. That accord to a large extent agrees to the five proposals put forward by the Bourassa Government after it was elected. This is an agreement that fully warrants Quebec's concurrence to the Constitutional Act. It protects Quebec's historic rights and legitimate aspirations. It enshrines Quebec's distinct nature. It recognizes the Canadian duality that Ottawa and the provinces are agreed to protect. Premier Bourassa and Prime Minister Mulroney rightfully view it as the conclusion of an exceptional day."
The constitutional expert, Robert Decary, in an interview to the program Le Point of May 1, 1987, stated and I quote: "It was not expected that the concept of distinct society would appear in the body of the Constitution itself. The courts now will be able to give it far greater consideration than if it had been written in a preamble. The courts are now empowered to rule that Quebec has the authority and duty to protect the French language.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
1 was extremely surprised to see the situation resolved. Mr. Mulroney had stated it was necessary that Quebec adhere to the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. This has been achieved in my view."
Many experts who appeared before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the Elouse of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Agreement also lead us to conclude that the Meech Lake Accord was a solid document that ends Quebec's constitutional isolation and strengthens national unity. No major flaw was found. Distinguished law experts, such as Professor Lederman from Queen's University, Mr. Yves Fortier, former President of the Canadian Bar Association, and Professor Gerald Beaudoin of the University of Ottawa stated they were satisfied with the present wording of the accord.
Veteran participants and researchers in the area of federal-provincial relations such as Robert Stanfield, Jack Pickersgill, Gordon Robertson, Peter MacKinson and Professors Richard Simeon and Peter Leslie, the former and present directors of the Inter-Government Relations Institute, have stated that in the circumstances the accord could not be any better. They were unanimous in concluding that such a favourable opportunity must be taken to end the round of discussions on Quebec and to open up the constitutional reform process.
Mr. Gordon Robertson, the former Cabinet Secretary under the Trudeau Government, took part in all the conferences from 1968 to 1969 and attended throughout all the 1980 and 1981 conferences as a CBC analyst. In his view, in order to analyze the 1987 Accord we must first ask ourselves what prime policy goals we want to set up in 1987 in the constitutional area. The federal Government has decided, and the provincial Governments have agreed, that the prime goal was to have Quebec become a fullfledged partner in the Canadian Confederation. Like Mr. Robertson, I am deeply convinced that major policy goal was the right one.
Madam Speaker, to those who fear that the Accord may weaken the central Government, my answer is: not at all! Quite the opposite! Indeed, the Meech Lake Accord will strengthen our federalism in two ways: first, by providing greater legitimacy to our institutions and greater harmony for the exercise of jurisdictions at every level of government.
Since it reaffirms the will of each region to promote the well-being of the country, the Accord will strenghten the ties within Confederation. Moreover, by acknowledging the importance of each province in the development of our collective options, we will thus strengthen the federal character of Canada.
By allowing the provinces to have their say in the appointments to the Supreme Court, the Accord will voice within one of our most important institutions the spirit of true federalism. Considering the acknowledgment in our basic legislation of the specific character of Quebec in Canada, the Meech-Langevin Accord shows that we are ready to live in a community while respecting our differences and our ties.
Madam Speaker, all Quebecers and Canadians throughout the country should rejoice and have confidence in the new concept of co-operative federalism as advocated by our Government and the Premiers of all our Canadian provinces.
Madam Speaker, like all Canadians from whatever region, I am deeply attached to my province, Quebec, and to my country, Canada. I have no qualms whatsoever about this feeling of dual belonging because to me, far from being a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength, and this also makes us greater as a nation.
That is where lies the full portent of the Meech Lake Accord. Its amendments to the Constitution are nothing more or less than the perception of all Canadians. The Accord attests to our confidence in ourselves and in our collective future.
It projects the image of a federal state where a strong national government speaks on behalf of all citizens. It mirrors a federation where the central government plays its role of guardian of the national interest with the close co-operation of provinces.
Madam Speaker, with this Accord today we can look to the future with confidence. There is only one strong Canada, the kind of country which the Conservative Government has always advocated and of which, as I said on many occasions, I am very proud.
Madam Speaker, the Saskatchewan and Quebec legislatures have already endorsed the Langevin-Meech Lake Accord. As federal Members of Parliament from all regions of Canada we are gathered in this House to debate the Accord.
Again I want to express my heart-felt hope that the Accord will be ratified as soon as possible, and this is why I urge all Hon. Members, whatever their political persuasion, to give it their unanimous support and, at last, to say a resounding yes to Quebec.
As I pointed out earlier, the interests of all Quebecers, naturally, and as a Member from Quebec, I am especially aware of these interests, but most of all, the interests of all Canada are at stake.
I therefore ask, Madam Speaker, all the Members of this House and all Senators, who will also have to ratify this Agreement, to respect the will of the Canadian population and to vote unanimously and without reservation in favour of having Quebec rejoin the Canadian constitutional family.
The Meech-Langevin Agreement is a major step toward national reconciliation, and both this House and the provincial legislatures which have not already done so must ratify it without delay in the interests of all Canadians and for the future of our beautiful country, Canada.
September 30, 1987


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, this motion serves to ratify the 1987 Constitutional Accord, more commonly known as the Meech Lake Accord, or the Langevin Accord after it was modestly modified to place in the Accord a non-derogation clause which, it was believed, would protect the aboriginal people and the multicultural nature of society from the duality that the Meech Lake Accord emphasizes.
That modification indicates that it was recognized that there were certain weaknesses, but that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers were not prepared to deal with them. They took so much satisfaction in having reached an arrangement that they closed their eyes to the many weaknesses in this document.
It is difficult for me to resist the temptation to be immoderate in expressing my feelings on this agreement. Quite frankly and candidly my own view is that this is a bad piece of constitutional work. It is out of step and out of keeping with the type of Canada in which we live. I see it as a throw-back to another time when the ancien regime or a model of that nature predominated in Quebec, and when the United Empire Loyalists dominated Upper Canada. That time has long since past.
This agreement fails to reflect the reality of modern Canada. I am convinced that gradually over time this document will serve to change the character of Canada so that our search, sometimes even a struggle for a national identity, which has always been elusive and difficult to grasp, will become well nigh impossible to achieve as we tend more and more to go our own ways as provinces and regions.
I am sometimes asked what is wrong with the constitutional amendment of 1987, the Meech Lake Accord. What is wrong is that it gives validity to the view that our nation is no more than a community of communities, what former Prime Minister Trudeau once disparagingly described as a loose association of shopping centres.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense.


B. Keith Penner: This Accord permits and encourages political power to flow from the centre into the provincial capitals, and it leaves unanswered the question of who will speak for all Canadians when there is a reason to have someone speak for all Canadians.
A few weeks ago I had an opportunity to speak to an Ontario cabinet Minister. Among other things, we discussed the Meech Lake Accord. I told him I did not like it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Which they are supporting.


B. Keith Penner: Yes, they are supporting it. The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has interjected that they are supporting it. I wish to tell the Hon. Minister of Transport that
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the cabinet Minister stated that we cannot blame Premier Peterson, to which I replied that I did not blame him. The cabinet Minister stated that they had been given far more than they expected or asked for, and how could that be turned down.


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely.


B. Keith Penner: That is right. In other words, we sold the farm for an old run-down half-ton truck.
I am convinced that the shift in power that is bound to take place over time will make the provincial capitals the preferred centres of action. That will relegate this national forum and Parliament into something that is analogous to the European Parliament that now sits in Strasbourg. Of course, the provinces will still make use of us. They will still like to use us as the collection agency. After all, collecting taxes is never a pleasant duty. Over time, Parliament will be a centre for the debating of vague resolutions that will carry very little in the way of effective influence. The Prime Minister's duties are bound to be significantly altered as he or she will become the person chairing the annual meetings of First Ministers. At one meeting they will discuss the economy. At another meeting they will discuss an agenda-they have actually put an agenda right into the Constitution. Forever and a day they must discuss the Senate. They must discuss fisheries, and they must discuss such other matters as may be agreed to. We can just imagine that meeting, "Is there any discussion on the Senate? None. Any discussion on fisheries? None. Are there any other matters that we can agree on? No." Meeting adjourned. How can something like that be put into the Constitution and call it a good piece of constitutional work?
The description of Quebec as a distinct society is a difficult and troublesome concept. If the Accord were modified in a number of ways, perhaps I would be able to swallow this notion. If definite steps were taken in the agreement to prevent or assure Canadians that there was no dilution of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly women's rights, if steps were taken to guarantee and advance aboriginal rights, if the political future of Canadians living north of 60 were not blocked, as they certainly are by the Meech Lake Accord, if all of those safeguards were built in, as the Liberal amendments to this Accord attempt to do, then, reluctantly and hesitantly, I could perhaps accept the distinct society of Quebec, but I would never like it. I would never feel comfortable with it.
I think that to describe Quebec as a distinct society is really an insult to many other Canadians who live in the various regions and areas of Canada. Distinctiveness in Quebec, it is argued, is based on language and culture. But surely there are numerous other equally valid categories of distinctiveness if we want to play the game of distinctiveness. I sense, when I cross the Rockies and go to our western most province, that there is distinctiveness there. I certainly feel it north of 60 and on the Prairies.

September 30, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The region from which I come regards itself as being distinct from southern Ontario, distinct from other parts of Canada. Certainly that distinctiveness exists in Canada and it exists nowhere more clearly and evidently than it does in the province from which the Hon. Minister of Transport comes, the great Province of Newfoundland.
If we adopt this measure, how then will we address each other in the House? We will all be Hon. Members, but if you are an Hon. Member from Quebec, you will be an "Honourable and Distinctive Member". The Minister will be an Honourable and Distinctive Minister". A judge of the Supreme Court will be "Your Distinctive Honour". The Premier from one province will not be Mr. Premier but "Mr. Distinctive Premier".
The multicultural nature of Canadian society is surely downplayed by this Accord. As I said earlier, if we want to talk about distinctiveness, then what a sound and good case could be made for the distinctiveness of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. They too have distinctive languages, though many of them are dying out. There is a rescue operation going on, not too successfully because the resources are not available, but there are distinctive languages and there are distinctive cultures.
If Hon. Members want to take a moment to read that marvellous new edition of the Historical Atlas of Canada, they will find that the first section in that new edition says that for a long period of time, it was argued that the aboriginal people were immigrants who came here in 2,000 B.C. across the Bering Strait ice bridge. That has now been refuted and there is clear evidence from archeological research that the aboriginal peoples in North America go back 12,000 B.C. So when the elders of the First Nations talk about time immemorial, they are referring to time that goes back as far as there can possibly be any evidence for, that is, to 12,000 B.C.
The struggle for the recognition of the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples is, in my view, set back irreversibly by the Meech Lake Accord. I talked about the agenda that is built into this Accord dealing with the Senate, fisheries and other matters as may be agreed to through unanimity.
We had four national conferences on aboriginal rights and made very little, if any, progress. Surely to goodness if there is to be an agenda-and how ridiculous it is in the first place to put an agenda in the Constitution- we would not forget to put in a major piece of unfinished business, defining and describing what are the aboriginal rights of Canada's first citizens.
Those who live north of 60, a great part of Canada, a distinctive part of Canada, are given a lower status than all other Canadians. In the City of Yellowknife, they are wearing armbands branding themselves as being a lower level of citizenry. That is how strongly they feel against the Meech Lake Accord. Northerners believe that they may be prevented forever from achieving their legitimate political goals of provincehood, of owning their own resources, of directing their own future.
In this House in answer to a question I posed several months ago to the Prime Minister about the creation of new provinces, the Prime Minister shot back a question to me. He asked if it is the Liberal position that new provinces shall be created bilaterally between the federal Government and the territory in question and the people who live there. The answer is unequivocally, yes. That is the way the other provinces were created.
When my grandfather came to this country and settled on a homestead in western Canada, his first address was the Northwest Territories. He was among those who encouraged the creation of a new province in 1905 and said that since there were certain matters that should be dealt with closer to home, they should be a province and have their own capital and their own legislature. Why should that not be possible for the Yukon? Why should that not be possible for the Western Arctic? Why should that not be possible for a new territory that is likely to be created in the Eastern Arctic with the name Nunavut?
I believe that the Meech Lake Accord dilutes one of the most valuable constitutional tools that any individual citizen has, and that is, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it does threaten women's rights, and that point has been made strongly, articulately and forcefully by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
I am concerned too about linguistic rights of English speaking people in Quebec and linguistic rights of French speaking people outside of Quebec. What does this do to the nature of Canada, which I see as a society that has as its first citizens aboriginals with a history that goes back as far as it is possible to go back, a multicultural society and two official languages.
The 1987 Constitutional Accord is one which should be substantially amended. The document, in its spirit and in its thrust, runs directly counter to what constitutes this nation. I deeply regret the process by which this Accord came into existence. It was so exclusive, a private conclave. It should have been much more open. It should have followed the pattern of the 1982 Constitutional Act.
As you know, Madam Speaker, a series of amendments have been proposed by the Liberal party. I think these amendments would significantly improve the Accord. They would make it much more acceptable to many Canadians and they would in no way offend Quebec or the people of Quebec. For me, these amendments are not only vital and important, but they are essential.
In 1517, there was a young German priest who nailed on the door of a church at Wurtemburg a number of proposals for change to the institution that he loved and to which he was dedicated. He had exhausted every single avenue in order to
September 30, 1987

get these changes accepted. When he was turned down at every door, at every forum, he said, "Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me".
For me, my Party's amendments are necessary to accepting this 1987 constitutional amendment, and if they fail to be accepted by the House, I am left with no choice, no option. I will vote no. I will vote against the Meech Lake Accord.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It's being 6.10 p.m., the House stands ajourned until tomorrow, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
The House ajourned at 6.13 p.m.

Thursday, October 1, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers