1987-10-22

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 192 will be answered today.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	Were any provisions made in the planning of the new Toronto airport terminal for separately ventilated smoking areas and, if so, what are they?
2.	Will users of the new terminal have access to smoke free air and, if so, in what areas?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: 1. The new
terminal building at Toronto, Lester B. Pearson International Airport, will be owned, designed and operated by a private sector developer. The selected developer will be obliged to comply with all applicable building codes and municipal bylaws including any which govern the provision of non-smoking areas in public buildings. In addition, the developer will be advised of Transport Canada's practices with respect to the provision of non-smoking areas in airport terminal buildings.
2. At this time, the designs for the new terminal building have not advanced to the stage that the owner's plans with respect to the location and/or ventilation of smoking areas have been defined or demonstrated.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am certainly happy to see that one of the questions was answered today. However, before giving unanimous consent to let the rest of the questions stand, I hope the new Parliamentary
Secretary will ensure that an adequate number of questions are answered every day and that we do not have a repetition of the situation which was regrettably so in the past where day after day the old Parliamentary Secretary would rise and ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to attempt to facilitate those questions in the manner which they deserve.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary has already started to use the royal "we".
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 21, 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]
October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
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 101B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101 D 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
October 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
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:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province or territory and are qualified under section 101B. for appointment to that court.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
(e)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101C.(4) the following:
''(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (1) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
" 106A.( 1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(f)	an amendment to this Part.
42.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of hew provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(f)	by adding to paragraph 13 subsection 50(2) the following new paragraph:
"(c) aboriginal rights, in particular self-government;"
(g)	by adding to paragraph 13 section 50 the following new subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50 subsection (2)(c) representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."
(h)	by deleting paragraph 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27 or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution.- Mr. Broadbent.
and on the amendment of Mr. Caccia:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a)	by deleting Section 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor: "2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b)	by deleting Section 2.(3).
and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms."
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad Hon. Members opposite seem to be looking forward to my speech on the Constitution Amendment.


Mr. Prud'homme:: It is always a great pleasure.


Gabriel Fontaine: I am also glad to see the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) also supports the proposed Constitution Amendment.


Marcel Prud'homme: Not so fast, I haven't made my speech yet!


Gabriel Fontaine: For the benefit of the Hon. Members, Canadians in general and the people in my riding, I would like to start my speech by quoting the main clause of this Amendment, and I quote:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
October 22, 1987

(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
The second important point:
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society. [DOT] (UlO)
Mr. Speaker, those are the most important points: the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Another important aspect is the appointments to the Senate. It has always been the prerogative of the Prime Minister of this country to make Senate appointments. Our Government has modified this procedure, and after the Meech Lake Accord is ratified, Senate appointments will be made by the Prime Minister of Canada from lists of candidates provided by the provinces to which the vacancies apply. This is a very significant step, which gives the provinces a chance to make recommendations to the Prime Minister on Senate appointments. This is a definite advantage for the provinces.
As far as Quebec and its immigration policy is concerned, the province will have the option of admitting up to 5 per cent more immigrants in terms of the province's population as a percentage of the population of Canada. This means that we as Quebecers will, in many cases, benefit from increased numbers of francophone immigrants.
Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada will also be to the advantage of Quebec. Three of the nine justices of the Supreme Court will be recommended by Quebec. Finally, should Quebec or any other province decide to opt out of national programs and national interests, they can still work together with the federal Government, while having the authority to administer their own respective programs, and this applies to Quebec, Ontario and any other province in Canada.
Canada is now the result of discussions by 10 provinces that together have decided to change the rules of the game and have kept for themselves a number of important activity areas. I think it would be useful to take a look, in chronological order, at the various events that led up to the Meech Lake Accord. First of all, since we are going back in time somewhat, I think we should mention one event that was not a very happy one for Quebec. I am referring to March 29, 1982, when Quebec, which had sent 74 members to Ottawa, these 74 federal Liberals forgot that Quebec even existed and allowed an agreement to be signed in Ottawa, without Quebec, an agreement that received royal assent on April 17, 1982, in the presence of federal Liberal Ministers from Quebec, to the detriment of 27 per cent of our population which at the time was completely ignored by its Liberal Members, several of whom are still here, Mr. Speaker.
Another important event that lead up to the Meech Lake Accord occurred on August 6, 1984. In his election speech in Sept-Iles, the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney) promised to undertake discussions aimed at bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold. And I quote the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada: "We will have to make pledges and take action if we want to convince the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
National Assembly of Quebec to sign the new Constitution with honour and enthusiasm". Our federal-provincial policy will be geared to specific objectives: concertation and harmonization of the policies of both levels of Government, and respect for provincial jurisdictions.
Our Government reaffirmed its commitment in the October, 1986 Speech from the Throne, referring to the compatibility of the future Meech Lake Accord with respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the scope of the Constitution. April 30, 1987 is the date of a momentous event: for the first time in Canadian history, and this has to be the historic event, the 10 provincial Premiers reached an agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. The 10 Premiers, representing four different political Parties, unanimously endorsed our Government's proposed constitutional project.
This marked the beginning of a new era. Quebec was urged to rejoin Canada, a suggestion which was warmly welcomed by the Government of the Province of Quebec. Indeed, taking its cue from Premier Bourassa and his team, the National Assembly began consideration of the Meech Lake Accord on June 23, 1987. After a few days of constructive debates which reflected the unqualified support of most Quebecers, the National Assembly readily accepted the Meech Lake Accord. Thus the Government of Quebec-first among the 10 provincial administrations-confirmed that henceforth Quebecers would feel as full-fledged partners in the Canadian community. The new accord rallied widespread support, and Quebecers now belong to this great country. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, that is the national affirmation message conveyed to Quebec and the rest of Canada, a message which Quebecers must be increasingly aware of. They are now full-fledged citizens of this great country.
Not long after, a second province-Saskatchewan- endorsed the Meech Lake Accord, paving the way for similar action on the part of all 10 Provinces. What is our position here in the House of Commons of Canada with respect to various Members, different Parties, and an untold number of Canadian communities? Yesterday, we heard our Prime Minister's superb speech. We also heard the speech by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and a speech by a Member of the Liberal Party. On the Government side, the benches were full. The seats of New Democratic Party Members were full as well. Among the Liberals, seats were half-empty. Why were those seats half-empty yesterday during the speech on the Meech Lake Accord? Because, Mr. Speaker, there are 10 Liberal Members in the House of Commons who are against the Accord, and despite the fact that their Leader warned them to toe the Party line or else be put out of the caucus, the same Members have nevertheless stated here in the House that they are against the Meech Lake Accord.
We shall see whether the Leader of their Party intends to take disciplinary action. Some Liberal Members have decided to defer their opinion, and I am referring, for instance, to the

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We will have to wait and see what their position will be, but we hope they will close ranks with their Party and act like true Canadians.
However, I must say, to the credit of a number of federal Liberals, for instance, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), that they do support the Accord.
I have heard some of these Members call each other "Rhodesians from Westmount". That is just their way of promoting Party unity and describing Canada to the outside world. At times we would be grateful for this kind of publicity, which is probably meant to satisfy the narrow interests of certain Party Members.
When we listened to the speech by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, I was delighted with his very positive views on the Meech Lake Accord. However, instead of talking about Madeleine de Vercheres and Jacques Cartier, significant as they were for the history of our country, and instead of talking about the past and the present, I would have liked to hear him talk about the Canada of tomorrow, the Canada of the future, the Canada we intend to build through our work here in the House of Commons.
I would have liked to hear the Hon. Member and Quebec lieutenant of the Liberal Leader give us his views on the major initiatives in which we are engaged for the benefit of this country and its future development. One of these initiatives is the Free Trade Agreement with United States. I would have liked to hear the former Quebec Minister of Finance and friend of Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa speak out in favour of an agreement that will give Canada an excellent economic base for the future. This Agreement will make Canadians happier and more prosperous, and will, in the final instance, open the door to a better Canada. A better Canada is not just the Constitution and a lot of documents. A better Canada means people who are more prosperous, a more autonomous society, and the Free Trade Agreement is one way of achieving that goal. If we seriously want a better Canada, we will also have to support this historic Free Trade Agreement which protects one job out of four. That is because in Canada, out of a total GNP of $500 billion, $125 billion, one-quarter of that amount, is derived from exports. We have a labour force of between 11 and 12 million. We could say that one-quarter of these workers depend on exports for their jobs. Real Canadians will recognize the importance of our export markets, and especially the importance of the American market, where we sell 80 per cent of our goods and services and sell them at a profit. We sell them $95 billion worth of goods and services, and when I say we, I am referring to our business people, our manufacturers, and our exporters who developed this market and I am also referring to us in the Government who gave this market our blessing through our historic Free Trade Agreement.
I would also have liked to hear the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides explain where he stands on research and development in this country. Madam Speaker, as you know, we are having trouble obtaining Royal Assent for our drug patents Bill. This legislative measure would enable companies to promote research and development. Once enacted, it would prevent certain generic-drug manufacturers from copying the prescriptions of research and development oriented companies and from mass producing such drugs, a tactic which seriously undermines the spirit of initiative and good will of research and development firms. This legislation has remained unchanged since 1968, the kind of legislation likely to attract to this country-and particularly to Montreal-investments of $700 million which in turn would generate 1,300 new jobs in the immediate future.
My contention is that a real Canadian looks far beyond the piece of paper on which the constitutional provisions are printed. A real Canadian-a Quebecer to boot, a friend of Mr. Bourassa-does not buck a government or disregard the views of the Premier of the Province of Quebec. He should voice strong support for Bill C-22 concerning the Patent Act. Madam Speaker, let us bear in mind the fact that twice the National Assembly of Quebec voted in favour of this legislation.
So I would urge the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides to take that into consideration whenever he speaks up in favour of the Constitution and the Meech Lake Accord.
I have a few comments to make about the Members of the socialist Party. I am at a loss to nail down their exact position because the sounds we hear are rather confusing. This brings to mind their main source of income, who also happens to be the vice-president of Canada's socialist party, Mr. Bob White, whom I quote:
"I did not agree the day after the Accord was signed, and I still do not agree."
So we must be wary of their formal statements in the House of Commons, because they do not all see eye to eye with their main financial supporter, Bob White of the Canadian Auto Workers. Incidentally, I might add that he is paid directly from the union dues of the auto workers-and they have been enjoying the benefits of free trade since 1965, the kind of privilege which the socialists are not prepared to recommend for the rest of Canadian labour. What do the socialists want, even though they will say here that they endorse the Meech Lake Accord? They want two Canadas. They want the Canada of Oshawa where the Auto Pact is in force, where unemployment is a mere 3 per cent, the Canada of Oshawa, Madam Speaker. The result of the free trade agreement dating back to 1965 in the car manufacturing industry is that unemployment is 3 per cent, if you can call that unemployment. People in and around Oshawa are doing very well. They do not mind paying their dues to be represented here by socialists who rant on about free trade.
October 22, 1987

I do not think those people are true Canadians. First they officially support Meech Lake in an attempt to put Quebecers to sleep-and that is not working-then they turn right around and denounce the free trade agreement, all the time knowing full well they have had the same kind of agreement since 1965 in Oshawa, the socialist leader's riding which is their bread and butter, Madam Speaker.
So I think their representations are an exercise in windowdressing. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I think and I hope that as many Opposition Members as possible will accept this new strong Canada with a distinct Quebec. That will be national collective affirmation. Such is the duty of all Canadians and, hopefully, partisan feelings will vanish and the House will finally agree to vote in favour of our Government's historic accord, the Meech Lake Accord.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I will make use of this opportunity to speak on the question of the Meech Lake Accord. It is a matter that has perplexed me very much. During the summer 1 was quite unable to attend to the matter of the Accord because of the phoney refugee crisis stirred up by the same Government. That totally occupied my attention. However, I have studied it as well as I could since that crisis came to its intended, manufactured end with the passing of the two anti-refugee Bills.
I have been perplexed about the Meech Lake Accord because I do believe strongly that it is necessary to bring about Quebec's full, willing participation in the Constitution of Canada. On the other hand, I believe that the price exacted for that, apparently by certain provincial Premiers and perhaps other interests, was extortionate and in some ways damaging to Canada. However, by the process and the structure we have, both the legality and perception of the vote will be on the one question of bringing Quebec in regardless of the price. There does not appear to be any way to cast an effective and intelligible vote in protest against the damaging aspects of the Accord.

Concerning Quebec, it is more than a simple question of language or culture, songs, literature, music, local traditions, and so on. I lived in Quebec for five years, two years as a McGill University student and three years as parish priest in the Gatineau Valley, close to the Gatineau river. I now have two daughters who reside in Montreal; they are married, both are bilingual, and now and then they work as translators; their husbands are francophones, the children-my grandchildren- are francophones. I visited them for a few days last week and, as always, I very much like the City of Montreal. I believe that Quebec is indeed a distinct society, not only Quebec but also the francophones throughout Canada.
Constitution Amendment, 1987

I know something of the concept of the family in Quebec. I should also add that my wife lived there many more years than I. Therefore, I have learned something about their strong protection of the family relationship which I for one, and I think many Canadians, consider very valuable. That is part of the distinct society and it is for that reason they asked for and were given a generation ago a separate and distinct pension system, the Quebec Pension Plan, parallel with the Canada Pension Plan. I have never heard of any harm coming to people in Quebec or any other part of Canada because there are two pension systems funded by the federal Government. I believe it was wise to allow Quebec to handle the pension according to its own mores.
There is other social legislation which I believe is in some ways very sensitive, perhaps more sensitive, to the realities of family life than we find in other parts of Canada, particularly rent control. When my older daughter first moved to Quebec I was amazed at the low rent which she and her husband were paying for a place to live in Montreal. I inquired and found that Quebec was the only province in Canada to continue rent controls after the federal Government discontinued them at the end of the application of the War Measures Act following World War II. I believe that was a very fine thing for the Quebec Government to do. It is not because I ever favoured the Government of Maurice Duplessis, but he did a very good thing in continuing rent controls. I assume he did it because the people of Quebec demanded it and he recognized the justice of their demand.
Quebec is also one of the only two provinces in Canada which has had the good common sense to adopt legislation to prevent strike-breaking. That was a good measure which followed many years of shocking violence on picket lines caused by companies which insisted on hiring strike-breakers to take the jobs of their employees during a shut-down caused by a strike or lock-out. I have seen that law operating when on the road in Quebec. I have seen the Quebec Provincial Police maintaining order on a picket line in a very sober and peaceful way.
I believe that is part of the tradition of peace in Quebec. The people there prefer to live in peace. Quebec throughout this century has established its reputation in Canada for preferring peace. We had a little discussion of that issue during World War I and World War II with respect to conscription. There is no question that the difference is not just one of language. It is a basic moral outlook on the world and I think, although I am entirely of English Canada myself, we would do well to consider the point of view of the people of Quebec who are very reluctant to go abroad to fight. They want to know what it is they are fighting for if they are going to do it. There is a lot of sense in that.
There is also at present strong opposition in Quebec to the militarization of Canada even though a great deal of it is

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
happening in Montreal. There is strong opposition to the unnecessary low-level flights of NATO training pilots and so on.
As I said, Quebec has a very distinct society. It is sensible and necessary that that be recognized. Nevertheless, they voted by a majority of 60 per cent in the 1980 referendum to stay within the Canadian Confederation. It would be unfair and immoral now, eight years later, to just take them for granted and say we do not need to arrive at any agreement with Quebec just yet because we have some other things that need to be done to the Constitution so Quebec can wait. That would be very wrong and destructive to the life of Canada as a whole.
As I said, I believe the Meech Lake Accord is in great danger of doing damage to Canada in other ways. I am not going to discuss all the objections raised. There are some I do not agree with and some I do not weigh so heavily as others. What I am concerned about is that the act of including Quebec was accompanied, I think unnecessarily and unfairly, by acts tending to exclude others. Whether that was done thoughtlessly or in haste or because of blackmail by certain premiers we mere Members of Parliament are not allowed to know. However, the aboriginal peoples have been shut out again and they are the only ones in Canada who have a stronger moral claim to recognition than the people of Quebec. Part of the difficulty is to define their claim.
The claims of Quebec were defined by Premier Bourassa. They got recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. With regard to more provincial power in immigration, through my inquiries I have learned that there has been very little real change in the distribution of powers on immigration. In fact, Quebec was the only province which made any significant use of the existing power.
I think it is fair that they got a role in Supreme Court appointments. They do not make the appointments, but there must be negotiation and agreement on them. With regard to limits on federal spending, I cannot see that the federal spending power has been reduced. Quebec got part of the veto it wanted on constitutional amendments. It is limited to federal institutions and does not apply to all federal negotiations.
Contrary to what some of my friends in Toronto and elsewhere have told me, the people of Quebec did not get all they asked for. They bargained and got part of what they asked for. The part they got was reasonable.
However, as I have said, the aboriginal peoples have been left out. Not a word was said about any attempt to bring them in. Through an amendment we asked that they be brought to a meeting next year and were told by the big boss from Baie Comeau that there will be no amendments of any sort whatsoever.
The Territories have been pushed further out than they were before. They now have to climb over the veto power of every one of the 10 provinces. They have also been shut out from the privilege of nominations to the Senate and the Supreme Court. That was unnecessary. Whether it was deliberate or by oversight, it was wrong.
The growing ethnic minorities in Canada were only very slightly recognized for what is becoming their increasingly solid place in the basic characteristics of our country.
I believe these damaging characteristics of the Meech Lake agreement were unnecessary. They are unjust and are an ominous sign of a very undemocratic process in which 11 men exercise their power in a very arrogant way. They have said that having met and made a decision they will ensure that no changes are allowed to it. Whether they can make that boast stick, we do not know. They can clearly make it stick in this House because the Government has three-quarters of the vote. It really makes no difference whether one, more, or all of the members of the Opposition vote against it.
There is a deeper fault which is reflected in this habitually undemocratic way of conducting constitutional negotiations in the country. The fact is that for all our pleasure at having won the patriation of our Constitution five years ago, we have a Constitution which is in some ways very much less than democratic. In the history of Canada the question of our Constitution has been dominated by the question of Westminster. We asked whether we were free of Westminster and, if not, how we could get free of Westminster. Now that we are free of Westminster we should not take for granted that we have a complete democracy. In fact, I believe that we do not.
Members of Parliament do not have control over the decision as to whether the country goes to war. We can cheer the Government on by a resolution after one man and his advisers have decided whether we should go to war. We have no right of control over treaties. They are not even presented to us before they are signed and are not necessarily presented to us after being voted upon.
Certain treaties have been kept secret. For example, when the Standing Committee on National Defence was studying the renewal of the NORAD treaty and asked the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence for the text of all treaties with the United States relating to that, he refused to give them to the committee but said that he would give the titles. He did not, in fact, give them all the titles and they had to go to Washington to find the eight titles which he had deceptively withheld. The Deputy Prime Minister can, therefore, deceive a standing committee of Parliament with impunity. That is a serious limitation on our democracy. They could not even get away with that in the United States.
Parliament has no control over security measures. We have a very weak and indirect committee arrangement which may bring some things to light. However, Members of Parliament are not given the confidence that is enjoyed by Members of the American Congress to examine directly the officers who are
October 22, 1987

supposedly carrying out the mandate of Parliament and the people.
We do not have sufficient protection in Canada for private organizations. Only last week this Parliament adopted a law which enables the Government to interfere in the internal affairs of a private association. That is shocking. Under certain conditions the Government could ban certain members of a union from holding office in that organization. If the Government can do that to one union, it can do it to any union. If the Government can do that to unions, it can do it to churches, ethnic associations, and perhaps even political Parties as such.
Apparently there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the Government from doing that. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the Government from hiring agents provocateurs to disrupt organizations which criticize the Government. I am not talking about subversion but about the disruption of critics.
The issue we are discussing is much bigger than the Meech Lake Accord. The Accord, with its damaging faults, is only a symptom of a much deeper weakness in the Canadian democracy. There is a big struggle coming up over that weakness. It is reflected now very powerfully in the frustration of Canadian people, including many legislators, over the fact that one man and his advisers can negotiate a free trade deal which gives away Canada's control over natural resources and investment activities in Canada and damages many other aspects of Canadian life, including certain aspects of our culture.
The superboss from Baie Comeau tells us that no one will be able to change it, that the legislatures do not have any constitutional power to change it. That is a very serious threat to democracy in Canada.
I shall be voting not only for the amendments which other members of my caucus have moved but for the Meech Lake Accord, because to do otherwise, no matter how I justify it by words, would be perceived legally and by most people as being disdainful of the Province of Quebec, the Quebecois, and the French-Canadian people with whom I have some acquaintance and good friendship.
However, I warn the people of Quebec and all the people of Canada that we have moved this year toward a much more authoritarian and even repressive form of government than has ever been imagined, expected, or envisaged in Canada. It will happen very fast unless the people of Canada, including many Members of this House, think about where we are heading. The symbol of that today is the undemocratic procedure used to narrow the question for voting so that the only way I can vote for Quebec is to vote against the aboriginal people and the northern Territories and cast some doubt about the status of women and ethnic minorities in Canada.
I also regret that the undemocratic structure and procedure even causes occasional distortions in the disciplinary systems of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
political Parties represented in this House. It is for that reason as well that I give that warning about the procedures around the Meech Lake Accord which are endangering the rights of Canadians to determine what will be done in our country.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has made a very thoughtful analysis of the proposal before us. He referred to the damaging characteristics in the Accord which affect minorities and aboriginal people. He also spoke at length about the process whereby this proposal before us, to be voted upon next Monday, has reached the floor of the House of Commons. I believe he referred to the process as undemocratic.
If I did not misunderstand him, he also referred to deeper faults in this document. Yet, to my surprise, at the end of his speech the Member came to the conclusion that he will vote for this measure.
Anyone who listened to him this morning would have difficulty with the logical consistency of the thought process he has adopted. Having criticized the substance and the process, quite rightly, the Hon. Member concluded that he would vote for this measure. He justified voting for the Meech Lake Accord by saying that to do otherwise would be disdainful toward the Province of Quebec. I do not know to what entity he refers, whether the Province of Quebec as a government or as a group of legislators, but to be disdainful in politics is an interesting concept on which the Member may want to elaborate.
To the best of my knowledge there is no constitution in the world that singles out a specific society in a part of the country covered by that constitution in the way that this proposal does in relation to the population in one province. The Hon. Member may want to reflect on the desirability and wisdom of having in a constitution a clause which gives preferential status to the population of a specific territory covered by that constitution.
It would be interesting to know whether the Hon. Member believes it is wise to include in a constitution special recognition for the population in one part of Canada. Does he not think, having reflected on that type of selective legislative identification of one society, since this is a social concept more than anything else, that this error in constitutional drafting by far outweighs his fear of appearing to be disdainful toward the Province of Quebec by voting against this measure?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions and comment, and for leaving me two or three minutes to answer. The reason why I will vote for this measure, even though I acknowledge the very undemocratic process, is that I believe the greater damage would be to leave Quebec as is for another indefinite term. The earlier damage was perhaps caused by jealousy of others and their lack of understanding. That had to be corrected, as I said in my remarks.
When I referred to deeper faults, I was not referring to deeper faults in the document but to deeper faults in the

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
structure of Canada which existed long before this document or even the 1982 Constitution. There were undemocratic procedures by which the Government could do anything it pleased, in many cases without parliamentary approval, and often without telling Parliament fully afterwards. I did not have time to add that there is no mandate and no system for having a mandate from the Canadian people. Organizations created by Canadians, like unions, churches, ethnic associations and even political Parties, have no voice as such. They are allowed to speak as individuals. The superboss from Baie Comeau says that they can talk, but he will not pay any attention to them. Those are the deep faults that already existed. They were not created by the Meech Lake Accord, but are illustrated by it.
I am glad the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) asked whether I could cite another constitution in the world that gives special recognition to one district. While I am not a constitutional expert, I know that there is an example. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) would be very pleased to know that in this respect Canada is following the example of Nicaragua.
Nicaragua has established a constitution which provides for autonomy in its eastern departments. This notion is almost unheard of in Latin American governments. It is to allow special arrangements for people who live there, notably Mosquito Indians and other tribes as well as the Caribbean peoples who have settled there. This was an essential means of ending a civil war within that part of Nicaragua and it has been successful.
Unlike the Meech Lake Accord, this was achieved in Nicaragua as a result of two years of intensive house-by-house, town-by-town discussion that resulted in a broad agreement across the country. It is having the effect of bringing to an end the armed conflicts in the eastern part of Nicaragua.
We do not have armed conflicts in Canada, but I wish we had a more thorough discussion. Nevertheless, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that there is what I believe a good, modern precedent for the action the Government has taken at Meech Lake giving special consideration to one part of the population.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to participate in this debate today, along with many other colleagues. May I say from the outset that I find it rather strange that Members of the House of Commons over these last few weeks and months, are participating in a debate on the Meech Lake, Langevin Accord, a document which affects the basic constitution of Canada, and conducting that debate in advance of other signatories to the Accord, that is the 10 provinces, having dealt with that matter in their own legislatures. The fact is that only one of the 10 provincial signatories to the
Accord, has passed a resolution in its provincial assembly giving its approval to the Accord.
Nine of the 10 provinces of Canada, representing some 75 per cent of the population, have yet to deal with the Meech Lake Accord in their respective assemblies. Why is that important? It is because an important new principle forms the basis of the Meech Lake Accord. That principle is the concept of unanimity with respect to amendments in important areas. Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine how and why the Government of Canada would deem it appropriate for Members of Parliament to deal with the fundamental law of the land, that is, the Constitution, in advance of having the advice and comments, and not to put too fine a point on it, the potential amendments which may arise out of the provincial legislatures.
This is a document that constitutionalizes the concept of unanimity, based, I presume, on the notion that all partners have an equal say, that every voice in the constitutional family must have its say. How could we pass a document that embraces that concept in advance of hearing from 10 of the legislatures of this nation? There is something fundamentally flawed in proceeding in advance of knowing what the Legislature of Newfoundland has to say about the Meech Lake Accord. What amendments, if any, may be forthcoming? It is the same with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and, yes, proceeding in advance of knowing what the Legislature of Quebec had to say. That legislature has spoken. We know that it has passed the document as written, but we do not know what nine other legislatures have to say about the Meech Lake Accord.
We do not know what amendments nine other legislatures may propose to the Meech Lake Accord. Some may presume, perhaps with good cause because of the commitments of the leaders of the respective governments in each of those provinces, that there will be no amendments. However, whether we like it or not, whether it was intended or not, it is contemptuous of the democratic system and of the notion of paying respect and giving an ear to the voices of the provinces, to proceed, particularly in this Chamber, in advance of knowing what will happen in those legislatures.
It is my view, and obviously my saying it will serve no purpose other than making it known, that the House of Commons of Canada ought to have been the last to deal with the Meech Lake Accord. It should have dealt with it in the full knowledge of the debates of all of the legislatures and in full knowledge of all of the proposed amendments, some of which may pass in provincial legislatures, before acting here in this Chamber.
I do not think it is presumptuous to say that the Parliament of Canada has a role somewhat different than a provincial legislature in this matter. I do not think it is presumptuous to suggest that perhaps it has a pre-eminent role. It is the only assembly composed of respresentatives of every part of this
October 22, 1987

country, right across the 5,000 kilometres of this land. The only chamber whose members can speak for every single part of Canada is this Chamber. That is not the case in any provincial assembly. It seems to me that a great opportunity has been lost to have this assembly behave as though it were just one of 11 assemblies.
The last time constitutional debates were undertaken in this House and in committees was 1981-82. As a new Member of Parliament I had a role to play, albeit a small part, in the deliberations of 1981-82. I was a member of the Joint House of Commons Senate Constitutional Committee in 1981, as were other Members who are still Members of this House today.
As a rookie member of that committee, one who had no preconceptions, no notion even of how committees worked, let alone a constitutional committee, I learned some lessons. First, I learned that constitution making is no easy task. I remember the frustration at hearing witness after witness, people concerned primarily with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, representatives of womens' groups, civil liberties associations, native groups, multicultural groups, all saying in essence, if you cannot draft language that is in exact terms with what we give you as acceptable language to us, then the whole exercise is not worth pursuing. If we could not give them a clause affecting their particular group in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if it was not in their language, we may as well scrap the whole thing.
I remember sitting as member of the committee acknowledging that we had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we were bringing the Constitution back to Canada, and feeling frustrated because, rather than acknowledging the important gains being made, albeit imperfectly from any particular point of view, the witnesses were saying if it is not their way, if it is not drafted in their language, it need not happen at all.
I can tell you, Madam Speaker, from experience, as one who faithfully attended every hour of every day of that committee, that the Constitution we wrote in 1981, which was passed in 1982, was not a Constitution that would have met with the explicit approval of any one of hundreds of groups that appeared before our committee. Not one of them would have said that the language they preferred could be found in the document which was ultimately passed by members of all three Parties in this House of Commons.
That was a frustrating experience. I bear that in mind as I observe the work that has been done by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the premiers in drafting and putting together the Meech Lake Accord. Of course, no constitutional document will ever be without flaw. No constitutional document will ever receive the unanimous consent or approval of all the interested players in society.
The role of Members in 1982 was to look at what had been accomplished, to ask ourselves whether or not what had been
Constitution Amendment, 1987
accomplished, flawed or not, was good work, was worthwhile, whether it would move the country forward and help to bind the country together. That was the role. It was not to look for perfection but to look for progress. It was not to look for a flawless document but to look for what was intrinsically good and sound about that document.
With few exceptions in 1982 Members of the House approved the 1982 Constitution and, with one exception, the Premiers of Canada approved the 1982 Constitution. But it was a very painful, a very important, a very glaring exception, given the fundamental nature of this country in 1982. That exception was the Province of Quebec. There is no question, whether we realized it then, and I think we did-we certainly realize it now-that in proceeding without Quebec we took a substantial risk in that Quebec's role in the Canadian constitutional family would have to be dealt with. That is what the Meech Lake and Langevin discussions, and the Accord, are all about.
As one who has a particular sensitivity, as I just explained, for the notion that no constitutional document is perfect, I still have to say that in my mind the Meech Lake Accord as presented in this House, indeed as presented in the legislatures of the country, contains serious flaws. These are flaws which we in the Liberal Party have sought to address by way of amendment. These are amendments which I believe would have had-and it is clear now that they have no chance of being passed-a much greater chance of being addressed seriously and in a non-partisan manner had this Chamber waited until all the provincial houses had spoken.
Indeed, we can see already in the Province of New Brunswick the election of a new Government with an overwhelming mandate led by a leader who believes that there are fundamental flaws in the Meech Lake Accord that ought to be addressed. There is something wrong with the fact that we shall deal with this document before that leader has had a chance, which constitutionally he has as one of 10 Premiers who must agree to this document, to have his say at a First Ministers' meeting. There is something flawed about the fact that in advance of the Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna, speaking to the Prime Minister and the other Premiers at a First Ministers' conference, to lay out his concerns and to find out whether or not there is any room for agreement, for consensus, on some of those concerns, this Chamber should proceed today with this Accord.
We have asked for amendments to clearly define the role of the respective jurisdictions in naming members to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are not satisfied with a court that becomes nothing more than a body of consensus between premiers and federal governments. It is not the role of the court to be a consensus body between premiers and the federal Government. We have raised concerns about the new role and vision for the Senate in the Meech Lake Accord, a role in which the Senate becomes, obstensibly, a body in which the patronage of power, which is what it is and we better call it

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
what it is, which is currently in federal hands is transferred to provinicial hands.
I do not think that there is a Member of this House who would not acknowledge that we need Senate reform. There is not a member of the Senate who would not acknowledge that we need Senate reform, and proper Senate reform which would bring about a democratically elected Senate. Everybody says that they are in favour of that. Every premier that I know, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP and the Senators all say that they are in favour of that. How is it then that we find in the Meech Lake Accord a clause that does not move us toward an elected Senate, a democratically elected Senate, but instead that merely transfers the right of patronage appointments from prime ministers to premiers?
It is true as well that when that power of patronage appointment is transferred from a prime minister to a premier, and when that premier and every other premier must give unanimous consent before that system is changed, the premiers will not easily give up the right to make Senate appointments. They will be reluctant. Perhaps it is not too strong to say that having the right to name a Senator will be equivalent to having the right to pick the winner of the 6/49. Either way it is a million dollar contest for the lucky recipient. I am doubtful, sceptical, that many premiers will want to give up that right. We have made it impossible to take it away without their consent because of the amending formula contained in the Meech Lake Accord.
I would now like to deal with the Territories. I have not lived in the Territories, but I spent seven years of my young life living in Labrador. I grew up in the north and have some notion of the isolation that northerners feel, some notion of the sense of being not only on the fringes of mainstream Canada but, in fact, some notion of the sense of being forgotten. Being on the fringe presumes that the fringe is visible, that it exists, that it is acknowledged. While Labrador is not seeking provinicial status, the Northwest Territories is moving toward-not tomorrow but an evolution is happening- provincial status.
What does Meech Lake say to the people of the Northwest Territories? It says that they can become a province of Canada, not when they have evolved politically, economically and socially to a point where they are ready to take control of their own destiny, to be masters of their own ship, to chart their own course, to fasten their own sail, but when the premiers of each and every other Province of Canada say they can. That is the criterion. It is not political, social and economic evolution in the Territories. It is the right of every premier to express whether it is in his and his province's best interests at any given point in time that the Territories acquire the status of a province. I think that is a fundamental flaw in the Meech Lake Accord.
These and other flaws we seek to address in the amendments that we have put before the House. They are amendments that
I hope, notwithstanding how they intend to vote at the end of the day on Meech Lake, Members will find appropriate to support. I know that many Members opposite and many Members of this Party have expressed clearly their intention to vote for Meech Lake. But an intention to vote for Meech Lake is not analogous with an intention to vote against the amendments.
Surely no Member of the House would suggest that the document is flawless, that it cannot be improved, or that the concerns of native people, of the people in the Northwest Territories and of women are not concerns worth addressing.
Not one of the amendments respecting these concerns has the effect of negating the fundamentals of the Meech Lake Accord. They would improve and enrich the document. Be they NDP or Liberal amendments-quite frankly I am not concerned about the colour of the tag on them-they enhance the document and reflect the body of concern which Hon. Members have heard from one end of the country to the other and in all our legislatures.
At the beginning I said that I participated in the process in 1981-82 and that I quickly learned that no constitution is ever perfect nor can ever be perfect. In 1982 I voted for a document when I knew that it was not perfect. It was flawed. Indeed, the Province of Quebec was not a signatory to it.
I acknowledge today that this document is not perfect and that indeed it is flawed. However, 1 hope that amendments are made. I would rather be presented with another Accord upon which to vote. As I did in 1982 with reservations, I shall do again when the Accord is before the House, that is, vote for the Meech Lake Accord.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I just have a quick question for the Hon. Member. I think he urged us to vote for amendments. If we vote for amendments it would mean for certain that the Accord would not become entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, because it has to be passed in identical form in all legislatures.
Is the Hon. Member saying that he wants us to approve something which will kill these amendments, or is he saying that he is in favour of this kind of constitutional change? He leaves me in a considerable state of confusion.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, far be it for me to lecture such an intelligent and knowledgeable Member as the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on his basic role as a Member of Parliament. He has earned the right to sit in the chair which he occupies and to carry the title "Member of Parliament". He has earned the right to rise and ask questions in this place. He has not only that right but the responsibility to examine legislation with a critical eye and with an open mind and, where possible, to make legislation better. No Member of Parliament can ever occupy his place, call himself a Member of Parliament, exercise his vote, represent his
October 22, 1987

constituents, and seek to make a better Canada when he starts from the premise that anything presented to him is a fait accompli. We cannot start from the premise that the difficulties of democracy, that is, making amendments and subsequently selling them to the provinces, is an untidy spectacle of which we would rather not be a part.
If we amend the document in this place, under the principle of unanimity those amendments would have to be negotiated with the other premiers. That is the reality. Democracy is not tidy. It is never easy. Sometimes it is difficult, but it is democracy and we are sworn to it.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member has made a very eloquent and interesting intervention. He has touched upon a number of aspects, particularly the flaws in the proposal before us, and has definitely concluded that the flaws are not sufficient to warrant his opposition to the resolution.
However, there is one aspect, namely, the totality of the impact or the devolution which the proposal will bring about in the sharing of powers in the Canada of the future, in the new Canada, which goes well beyond the question of whether or not the proposal is flawless.
I refer my hon. colleague to the definition given before the joint committee in Ottawa by former Prime Minister Trudeau when he said, "Meech Lake leaves Canada to be governed by federal units". I would be very interested in the comments of the Hon. Member on that assessment.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), because I know that he takes very seriously the question of the Meech Lake Accord, as do I. I can tell him that I have had to agonize about how I would vote on this Accord. Indeed, it has only been in very recent hours that I wrestled with the question and that I decided that I could put aside my reservations and vote for it.
However, let me tell the Hon. Member that I go forward and support the Meech Lake Accord because of my belief that Quebec must be part of the constitutional family of Canada. I do it believing that in particular the Party of which I am a Member-and I hope it will be so with other Parties-will go forward in future years and generations with constitutional conferences seeking to improve the document. I hope that we will take those areas which have been identified as flaws or weaknesses in this Accord and address them as a mandate or a platform for future constitutional improvements.
I say to my colleague that I acknowledge that it will be much more difficult in the future than it is today to recognize flaws and to correct them, because of the nature of the amending formula which is of itself part and parcel of the Meech Lake Accord-unanimity. I am not certain whether or not future constitutional amendment is even possible in the final analysis. However, presented with a fait accompli, the Meech Lake Accord, and presented with the reality of Quebec, I have to believe that it is possible.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, would the Hon. Member be very surprised to learn that for all practical purposes Quebec is part of the Constitution right now?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, for all practical purposes Newfoundlanders are part of Canada right now in the same way as are Ontarians. However, unemployment in Ontario, where the Hon. Member lives, is 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Unemployment in Newfoundland is 30 per cent. Sometimes we have great difficulty believing that we are part of the same Canada.
Within the structures, laws, and tolerance of this nation we as Newfoundlanders seek to become even fuller partners in Confederation. What I am saying is that we cannot tell someone that technically in the law he is a Canadian when he is unemployed. We have to seek to create jobs where he lives. We cannot tell Quebecers that technically they are part of the Constitution when no Quebec Premier or Quebecer has ever voluntarily embraced the Constitution of Canada.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I want to pursue that step by perhaps pointing out that I recall 65 or 70 Liberal Members of Parliament from Quebec voting for the 1982 Constitution in the House.
I want to ask the Hon. Member about an interesting point which he raised, that is, that perhaps the debate is premature and in fact it should be after the provinces have considered the Meech Lake Accord. I think we both share the feeling that we are proposing amendments here which will not be accepted, but that they are ways of making it better, by changing it. However, the situation seems to be that the Government is not prepared to accept them. In any event, it was not prepared to accept that from the beginning. It is like a spider web. If you cut a little bit of it it will all fall down. Does the Hon. Member accept the notion that this thing is so delicate that it cannot be amended as the Government said right from the beginning and as it is doing in this House and demanding in the provincial legislatures?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member listened attentively to my speech as he always does whenever I rise to speak. He heard me begin my remarks by lamenting the fact that indeed we are proceeding in this Chamber, the nation's Parliament, in advance of hearing what has occurred and what is being said in the provincial assemblies. Of course I lament that.
It is the process itself and the undue haste with which we have proceeded with this matter that has made it extremely difficult for me at the end of the day-and it has been extremely difficult-to come to the conclusion and to say that, notwithstanding all of that, I am prepared to support the Meech Lake Accord. It is my view, as I said it at the top of my remarks, that the process could have been much better served. I suspect, frankly, that a number of Members in this House, who are today saying they shall vote against Meech Lake,

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
would have been prepared to endorse it, provided they had seen the process examined in every house with the possibility of amendment provided for in every house and finally, with full knowledge of what occurred in the assemblies, a debate here in this House. That was a concern to me, a big one. However, at the end of the day, as 1 said, for reasons I expressed a few minutes ago, I have come to the conclusion that I shall support the Meech Lake Accord, with regret.


Mr. Binns:: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a brief comment. I know the Hon. Member has wrestled with his position on the historic agreement and has come to the conclusion that he will support the Meech Lake agreement. I want to give him credit for taking that decision. It is a bold one for him and I like to give credit where credit is due. I am sure in his reflections he will realize that this is an historic agreement which our Government has initiated and which would not have happened were it not for the tremendous leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). We appreciate the support the Hon. Member is giving to the Accord.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member could not resist a comment on such a statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: First, let me thank the Member opposite for his kind words and let me say to him that the duty of any Prime Minister, including the current Prime Minister of Canada, is to seek consensus, particularly in the case of the Constitution, consensus because Quebec was out, and to that extent I congratulate the Prime Minister. But I hasten to add that I think today as we stand here-that is why we proposed amendments-a tremendous opportunity is being lost to fill in some very important-not gaps-holes in the Constitution called native people, the Territories, women, spending power and real Senate reform. Those kinds of challenges are open to us and I regret that the Prime Minister has not provided leadership to ensure that the document lived up to the potential that have been attained with more courage and vision.


The Acting Speaker (Miss Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin).


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me in this historic debate on the fundamental law of our land. So far we have heard much in this debate about what this Accord means for Quebec and how it has been a great accomplishment for Quebec and for Canada. That is certainly the case. However, I would like to consider this Accord in light of what it does for the nation and for all of the provinces, in particular, my own Province of Alberta, and how it is part of a long evolving process in developing a Constitution which truly reflects our country.
We all recognize that our Constitution has been and will continue to be amended. A constitution must reflect the society over which it applies. Our national mood is increasingly one of
national reconciliation. Our fundamental laws must reflect our desired harmony.
It has been about six years since Quebec rejected the 1982 constitutional agreement thereby isolating itself from the rest of Canada on constitutional matters. Its lack of full and active participation weakened the federation. Alberta, and of course the other provinces, felt that it was important that Quebec return as a full partner. We would not welcome a partner that would receive unlimited benefits compared with other provinces. We do welcome a partner which receives fair treatment and a partner willing to work toward a fairer Confederation.
The 1987 constitutional Accord does much more than reunite Quebec with Canada. It creates a new representative confederation. It gives new hope to the provinces and new opportunities to ensure that all Governments of Canada will have their concerns heard by the central Government and that governments will reflect on the concerns of their partners.
The Accord also marks an end to the style of federal-provincial relations based on the assumption that to maintain equilibrium, the federal Government must pit one province against another. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers have directly rejected the notion of confrontational confederation. There is no doubt that the 1987 constitutional Accord reflects a more decentralized view of Canada than the 1982 Constitution Act. It considers the rights and powers of governments and sets a measure of institutional reliance on federal-provincial co-operation.
I would like to repeat a comment made by the Hon. Eric Kierans to the joint committee which examined this Accord to further this thought. He said this Accord is:
Simply the closest that we have come to following the original intent and meaning of the British North America Act since Confederation itself. It reflects more accurately the view of what the original Fathers of Confederation thought that they were agreeing to. .. Above all else, they knew that a centralized Canada would not work.
The Fathers also knew that when discussions of centralism and decentralism arose they could not be addressed in terms of winning and losing. We must reject absolutely the notion advanced by some opponents of the Accord that one government won at this negotiation and another government lost.
When a particular project or program begins, the beneficiaries of a program are all citizens. If a federal Government program is implemented, those served by it are Canadians. They may also be Albertans, Quebecers or Manitobans. They are also Canadian taxpayers. The reverse is also true. When a program is implemented by a provincial Government or, for that matter, a municipal Government, the beneficiaries are residents of that province or municipality. Its supporters are provincial or municipal taxpayers. Those people are also Canadians. To say that a particular government won something and another government lost something is an absurdity because it is to say that the Canadians who won are the same Canadians who lost. It is also to say that a program supported by money collected by the federal Government is somehow
October 22, 1987

better or worse than a program paid for by money collected by a provincial Government. We are all citizens of a province and a country. We do not gain or lose anything when powers or programs are transferred. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
I would like to consider the provincial and national implications of the Accord a little further. Because we each live in a region as well as within the country, we each have a set of particular symbols and particular styles which reflect our regional and national views. To deny that western Canadians and western Canada are different from Maritime Canadians or central Canada would be to deny a natural state of affairs within this country. We all know that it is indeed possible to be a strong Albertan and a patriotic Canadian. The two are not mutually exclusive because the Canadian federation is not a test of strength between different governments. The fact that one can be loyal to one's province does not mean that one cannot be loyal to one's nation. Conversely, to be loyal to one's nation does not mean that one cannot recognize that there are distinct units within it.
We Albertans have long been arguing that we are distinct. We have repeated over and over that we do not want our economy and our resources managed by bureaucrats in Ottawa. We maintain that Canada is too large for centralized operations and that westerners should be looking after the economic and regional issues that are especially important to the West. There is no difference between our wish for selfmanagement and the wish of those who want special considerations for language and culture. Albertans have long said that they are distinct. We cannot argue that other provinces may also consider themselves distinct.
We can acknowledge that Quebec is distinct in its history, its laws, its language and its culture. Quebec has a distinct interest in la francophonie while other provinces are more closely aligned with the Commonwealth. Quebec has a different view of history and of this country's development than does English Canada. The Quebec legal code and its jurisprudence have roots which are distinct from those of other provinces. Quebec has holidays, ceremonies, traditions and works of art which are not part of the English tradition.
These are statements of fact and of the purely obvious and we have acknowledged them for centuries, even before Confederation itself. The constitutional Accord finally acknowledges them in a legal sense. More practically, we have included this important sociological phrase at no constitutional expense to other provinces.
Does the interpretive clause hurt the citizens of Alberta or of any other province in terms of what they can do within their provinces? It does not. Does it mean that Albertans are not true citizens of Canada because they are not distinct? It does not. The provincial Government of Quebec must act within a constitutional status that is not different from that of other provinces. It must follow the division of powers that is outlined
Constitution Amendment, 1987
for all provinces, yet it will consider its distinct society when acting on the political stage. This merely confirms an existing state of affairs.
This constitutional Accord maintains the equality of the provinces. What Quebec demanded before entering Confederation every province received. The Accord recognizes that the provincial Governments and their creative input are essential to an effective Confederation. It is legitimate, even necessary, for provincial Governments to bring regional views to the national level. As a result, we can look forward to increased provincial involvement in immigration, in Supreme Court appointments, in national programs, in economic management and in future amendments to national institutions. We are finally agreeing to rely on the historically proven and invaluable tool of federal-provincial consultation and co-operation.
That co-operation was not possible until Quebec was an active supporter of the Constitution. Western Premiers realized that. They realized that issues of constitutional concern to them were not likely to be addressed when the Constitution itself was not yet a truly national document. The Premiers recognized that they must first work toward ensuring Quebec's participation before they could work toward a fairer Constitution.
The danger was that constitutional fatigue might overwhelm the momentum, giving way to a permanent state of incomplete participation and the eventual erosion of constitutional and political legitimacy in this nation. Indeed, sentiments have been expressed that as a country we have devoted an inordinate amount of time to constitutional matters to the detriment of other social, economic, national and international goals.
To be sure, the process to recognize that Quebec was treated as an equal partner in Confederation has been a long one. This Constitutional Accord is the most recent step in the process which began before 1867 of developing a Constitution that is true to all parts of the country.
The issues dealt with in this constitutional Accord have been fully debated by politicians, academics and interested Canadians for more than a century. I would like to mention some of the more recent milestones in that debate with a view to understanding how this Accord is the proper extension of our constitutional history.
In 1931, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster giving legal recognition to Canada's independence while reserving the British Parliament's rights on constitutional matters. In retrospect, I find it amazing that Canadians accepted a constitutional package which said that they were masters of their own future but at the same time granted decisions over constitutional matters to another sovereign state. Furthermore, that British statute was essentially the constitutional law of the land for the last 50 years.
In 1968, constitutional discussions began at the initiative of Prime Minister Pearson to examine the questions of a Charter of Rights regional disparities and the timeliness of a general

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
review of the Constitution. At their meeting in February, the Ministers agreed to give priority to finding an amending formula and patriating the Constitution.
At a meeting in Victoria in June of 1971, the First Ministers drew up a draft charter embodying the consensus reached at the February meeting. They agreed that the text was important enough to require the approval of all legislatures.
For those who suggest we are proceeding with undue haste, I want to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the difference between the Victoria Charter and the 1987 constitutional Accord. Although the First Ministers agreed on the proposal, there was a fundamental difference in the process. Provincial legislatures were given 12 days to reflect on and to approve a new Constitution. We have debated and studied the 1987 Accord for at least 10 times as long as the time provided by the Victoria Charter.
The unanimity achieved on June 3 would not have been possible without ongoing debate since 1968 on many elements characterizing this Accord including Canada's linguistic duality, Quebec's distinct society, the amending formula, spending power and provincial participation in Supreme Court and Senate appointments. The Accord is built on the work of the constitutional review of 1968 to 1971, the constitutional exercise of 1975 and 1976, Bill C-60 in 1978, the Quebec referendum in 1980 and subsequent discussions and the effort of 1981.
Constitutional renewal reached a milestone with the Constitution Act of 1982. It gave us patriation, an amending formula, recognition of aboriginal rights and our multicultural heritage, a commitment to reinforce our regional strengths and the extension of provincial jurisdiction over natural resources. These accomplishments are not to be taken lightly, but they were fundamentally flawed by the exclusion of Quebec.
In 1984, the Prime Minister set out his commitment to seek Quebec's return to the constitutional fold. It was his view that Canadians needed to come to terms with Quebec's place in the Constitution. Canadians agreed because they gave him an overwhelming mandate to achieve national reconciliation.
Quebecers also gave their provincial leader the mandate to achieve national reconciliation. They elected a Premier who outlined his desire to opt in, not drop out, of Confederation. When the Quebec Liberals took office in December, 1985, the five conditions they had outlined became the provincial Government's program.
In August of 1986, the Premiers met in Edmonton under the chairmanship of Premier Getty. They agreed unanimously that their top constitutional priority was to seek Quebec's return to the Constitution. They agreed also that other areas of concern to them, like Senate reform, would not be linked to the Quebec round but would be addressed at subsequent constitutional discussions.
In November, the Premiers again unanimously agreed that discussion could be intensified and expanded. They had
considered Quebec's five proposals for inclusion in the Constitution and thought that they would be the appropriate basis for discussion. Discussions were indeed continued.
The following April, discussions progressed as far as they could without the inclusion of the First Ministers. The rest is well known. The Ministers announced the unanimous agreement to the principles they had discussed at Meech Lake in April and they put their signatures to those principles in June.
Over the summer, the Accord was scrutinized by supporters and opponents alike. Joint hearings were held by the House of Commons and the Senate. The committee heard from Canadians from all walks of life. The cross-section of Canadians who testified was impressive and included academic authorities, constitutional lawyers, current and former practitioners of inter-govermental and constitutional negotiations, representatives of the aboriginal peoples, representatives of women's groups, human rights specialists and individual Canadians. The committee heard from these people and synthesized their diverse views on the Accord. The committee's unanimous recommendation was that the Accord should be adopted without amendment.
I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by witnesses who appeared before the committee, because many groups did not support the acceptance of the Accord. Generally, however, such groups did not support the Accord either because they felt that they had not been included in it or because they had lobbied for additional amendments which did not come at this time.
These concerns are valid and, indeed, I think all Members should take time to consider them. However, any cultural groups who do not feel that they can turn to the Constitution as a document which represents their interests have overlooked one thing. They assume that because they are not explicitly mentioned in this Accord that they are not part of the Constitution. They forget that the Accord is part of a much larger document, one which recognizes our multicultural heritage and instructs the courts to interpret the Charter accordingly.
Any group which does not support the Accord because it accomplishes less than they seek have overlooked the fact that the constitutional process is not complete. Settlement with our aboriginal peoples, reform of the Upper House, and inclusion of our territories as full provinces are now goals which can be discussed with some hope of resolution. Until we had passed this hurdle, any talk of such things was hindered by the fact that the Constitution itself, the document we would amend, was not itself complete.
If there is anything that can be said about the Canadian constitutional process, it is that we do not conceive our amendments in haste. It is also true that we attempt to address one or a few issues at a time. We have addressed the stated first priority of all of our provincial leaders. Now, with
October 22, 1987

Quebec's participation, we can begin to address the issues that have been so important to the West for so long.
Senate reform is one such issue. Under our current system the Governor General, on the advice of the Government of the day, exercises the discretion of appointing Senators. Those selected must fulfil only the geographical and other qualifications for appointment. Until we can develop an Upper House which more carefully examines important regional considerations, candidates for senatorship will be referred through provincial lists. With the Meech Lake Accord we have Senate reform not only affirmed as a national imperative, but it is the first item on the agenda of a series of First Ministers' Conferences.
Those who would argue that Senate reform is inhibited by this Accord have the onus of demonstrating how Senate reform could have ever taken place without this Accord and without Quebec. We have already seen how difficult it was to secure amendments and additional considerations with the failure of the conference dealing with aboriginal rights. An amending formula designed for 10 provinces works badly when only nine are there. I do not see the fundamental differences that would make Senate reform possible where other efforts have failed.
We must remember that under circumstances other than those made possible by this Accord, the First Ministers' discussions on Senate reform might never have taken place. We might never have had the opportunity to make our views known on an issue so close to our hearts. More important, for the first time in Canadian history all Governments are talking about Senate reform because westerners demanded that it be considered. Alberta has also long demanded that the provincial and federal Governments work together to address specific regional economic problems and opportunities. This has been done in this Accord.
Also long overdue is an effort to ensure an administration of federal programs acceptable to each province. One level of Government cannot legislate in respect of matters over which another has exclusive legislative authority. However, the Government of Canada funds many programs in exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Some are direct grants and others are through transfer payments. With this Accord, if a province chooses to provide its own program compatible with national objectives, it can receive compensating funds.
I and many other westerners are hopeful that this Accord will be a basis for reconciliation of all parts of the country. We hope the welcome hand and sense of importance given to the Province of Quebec in writing the final page of this chapter of our constitutional development will be extended to other provinces who, though they may be legally a part of the country, do not always feel they are treated fairly within it.
In closing, I would like to share a quotation which summarizes this improvement to our fundamental laws. Lord Tweedsmuir, speaking in the 1930s, said:
Law-should be regarded as an elastic tissue which clothes the growing
body. That tissue, that garment, must fit exactly. If it is too tight, it will split,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and you will have revolution and lawlessness, as we have seen at various times in our history when the law was allowed to become a strait-waistcoat. If it is too loose, it will trip us up and impede our movements. Law, therefore, should not be too far behind or too ahead of the growth of society, but should coincide as nearly as possible with that growth.
The Meech Lake Accord is a plan to alter the garment to fit a new and reconciled Canada. I might add that it is a garment that I and all Canadians can be proud to wear.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) whose interesting speech, coming from a Member from Alberta, prompts an inquiry of this nature. He must be aware of the desire of the Premier of Alberta for a Triple-E Senate. After this resolution comes into force will the Hon. Member care to tell us what is the likelihood of that becoming a reality?


Murray Dorin: Madam Speaker, I think I referred briefly to that in my speech. Certainly I think with respect to those who suggest there could have been Senate reform without Quebec, the onus is on them to demonstrate how that could have happened. The fact is that with the adoption of this Accord and this constitutional amendment we will now put to the next matter of constitutional business the issue of Senate reform. That brings it to the top of the national agenda. It will be discussed within a year. That gives the hope we can achieve an elected Senate.
A Triple-E Senate means a lot of things to a lot of people. I am not sure it has been adequately defined. Certainly all the concepts put forward are desirable and what most Members of this House seek to achieve. We have provided an opportunity to address those issues now that we have completed this Accord.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I have not yet participated in the debate and I do not know if I will, but I would like to say that I listened to the Hon. Member's speech and, coming from Alberta as he does, I would like to doubly congratulate him. He has shown an understanding of what we have been trying to say for years and years-you can be very different and yet remain a good Canadian. His understanding of what Quebec is all about is highly refreshing. He is a new Member of Parliament and the way he has expressed himself on this issue is very refreshing. It shows an openness and understanding of what this country is all about.
Needless to say, if I have a chance to participate in the debate, as I probably will, I will certainly take some of the intelligent words he has been using to describe what we are all trying to do here.
I know it is not easy for some of my colleagues, including the one who just questioned the Hon. Member and my hon. friend and colleague from Saint Henri-Westmount. I hope some of my colleagues will understand. Yes, indeed, we went through great agony in 1982, at least some of us because not

October 22, 1987
all of us voted for it, in voting for something that did not include the Province of Quebec. However, because there were certain important elements in the 1982 pact, they did so, regardless of the fact that "I am excluding myself." That was a much greater agony than that which some of my colleagues are going through now. Yet Quebecers voted for it at that time. They knew they were not voting for a perfect pact or perfect entente. Yet they did so, as some of my colleagues will do so today. It is a step, as only Canada knows how to take. Step by step by step you create a country. We are in the process of making a country and every generation is making its own effort. Surely we are not going to deny the efforts made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in his desire to continue building this country. I would therefore like to join with you in congratulating the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will have the opportunity to reply when the House resumes.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on October 2 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said that the closure of lighthouses off the coast of British Columbia is "proper, sensible and reasonable". He went on to say, "I hate to see the closure of lighthouses, but the world changes and the world moves on".
The Minister did not say, and we have now learned from Transport Canada documents, that the Department of Transport is closing the lighthouses because, according to it, a human life is only worth $500,000 and the lighthouse keepers off the coast of British Columbia only have the potential to save one life every 16 years.
How can the Government say that the number of lives saved off the British Columbia coast does not meet bureaucratic cost-benefit standards? That is absolutely sickening and outrageous. If you could come down from your seat, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, as a Member for British Columbia, would share that view.
If the Minister of Transport will not save the British Columbia lighthouses for their beauty, heritage, and what they do to protect our coast, I call upon him at least to keep them
open to save the lives that may be lost. Sailors will always be lost at sea, but they should never be lost because the Government cannot find the money to save them and reduces the quotient of human life to a bureaucratic cost-benefit study.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the water rose behind the W. A. C. Bennett Dam to form Willis-ton Lake. Over 150 native British Columbians were flooded out of their homes at or near Fort Graham. Some of these families moved, without compensation or assistance from the federal Government, to Finley Fork and on to Fort Ware. Others moved to Ingenika, some to the Parsnip Reserve, where six homes were built without proper heat or running water, and some to McLeod Lake. In these 20 years the federal Government has done nothing to provide a home, a reserve, or compensation to those flooded out by the Bennett Dam.
The Carrier-Sekani tribal council met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Quesnel on Sunday, July 12, 1987, to bring their plight to his attention. They have asked for three small plots of land; 300 acres at Ingenika Point, 200 acres at the mouth of the Finley River, and 1,000 acres up the Messilinka at Black Pine Lake.
In March, 1977, I wrote about this tragedy in B.C. Today. Four Prime Ministers have had this matter before them and have chosen to do nothing. The Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) has represented this area for over a decade and has done nothing.
Now is the time to act. These people are not squatters. They are the original owners and occupants of the land and are treated as beggars in their own land by Parliament. Perhaps the November showing of W-5 will help to awaken the Prime Minister to the reality of the Sekani people.



PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH BUSINESS COUNCIL ON NATIONAL ISSUES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had dinner with members of the Business Council on National Issues. It is important that Canadians know which are the major companies behind the Business Council on National Issues. Amongst them are Honeywell, Bell, Ford Motor, Shell Oil, Wood Gundy, Du Pont, International Telephone and Telegraph, Sears, American Express, Bechtel Engineering, British Petroleum, Cargill, Celanese, Continental Can, Control Data,
October 22, 1987

General Foods, Goodyear, IBM, Exxon, Kodak, Lloyds Bank, 3M, Merrill Lynch, Mobil Oil, Nabisco, Quaker Oats, Texaco, and Union Carbide.
The head offices of these companies are outside Canada. These companies finance the Business Council on National Issues. These are the companies which set the agenda for the Business Council on National Issues. It is no wonder then, that the Business Council on National Issues supports this so-called free trade agreement with the United States, which is a code word for this economic union.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSSIBLE INCLUSION OF AUSTRALASIAN COUNTRIES

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, without a doubt the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States will result in increased prosperity for both nations. Canada will thereby avoid being isolated from the world's trading blocs.
However, let us spare a thought for Australia and New Zealand, countries economically and culturally similar to our own. They could very well face isolation. Once free trade between Canada and the U.S. begins to prove its worth, maybe we could invite the Australasian countries to join also. This would be both to their and our mutual advantage.
1 commend this idea for further study by the four Governments involved.



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE AND TARIFFS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the GATT administration has called the countervailing duties, which Canadian cattlemen won the right to impose last year, after the EEC had dumped more than 50 million pounds of subsidized beef on our market, a violation of existing trade rules.
Canadian cattlemen have been hit below the belt again. The EC argued that beef and cattle were not the same thing, and that the application should have been made by the packing plants and not the cattlemen, a pretty weak technical point, but the administration accepted it and ruled against Canada. Unless another international trade committee in Geneva later this month overturns this decision, Canada could see millions of tonnes of European subsidized beef again pouring into our country. There is still hope, as GATT reports must be
approved by both sides and the EC has in the past refused to agree to some panel GATT rulings.
This ruling is most damaging to our cattle industry and Canada cannot afford to let it stand. Canada should say no, no, no, a thousand times no. It is indeed an excellent opportunity to let the world know that we vehemently oppose the heavy subsidization of agriculture carried out by the European Economic Community.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the visit of the Nicaraguan Vice-President is an occasion for all of us to reflect on the obvious sincerity of the collective will for peace which now exists in Central America and which led to the Arias Peace Plan.
The Nicaraguan Government, for its part, has shown good faith through the reopening of La Prensa and Radio Catolica, through unilateral ceasefires in some parts of the country, and through amnesty initiatives. Some of these were either not strictly required by the peace plan or were accomplished earlier than required.
It is now time for the Reagan administration to realize that it must act for peace and drop the idea of continued funding for the Contras. If President Reagan fails to do so and decides that his will is to prevail over the collective will of Central America's political leadership, then all the world will know, as many have long suspected, that it is not freedom the Contras fight for but the stubborn and dangerous reluctance of the United States to permit people it has long dominated finally to determine their own future.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, we must respect the New Democratic Party's standing in the polls, and their newly found sartorial splendor. However, let us consider just what kind of Canada awaits us should Canadians grant them the privilege of governing.
To quote from the NDP's 1980 energy policy paper it says: "With respect to (Alberta's) claim that since ownership resides in the provinces they ought to be able to derive maximum benefit from their sale, (the NDP believes) that in energy . .. there is a national interest which overrides a 'what the market

October 22, 1987
will bear' philosophy. There is little doubt that Alberta has already gained substantially from price increases".
If but that were true, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Alberta lost $60 billion of revenue during those dark days of the Liberal-NDP National Energy Program, a lot of money that could have supported our economy during the lean years of the oil industry and helped to prevent bankruptcies.
Yesterday's newspapers featured a two-page letter signed by NDP Vice-President Bob White, which stated that one of the evils that has resulted from a so-called special relationship with the United States has been the dismantling of the National Energy Program. Some tragedy! That is the kind of bad luck that we Albertans could take any day of the week.



PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH BUSINESS COUNCIL ON NATIONAL ISSUES

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I stand as a Member of Parliament who only two nights ago was denied entrance into a private meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the representatives of the BCNI and American people who will be running the Canadian economy.
The Prime Minister had a private briefing with some Chicago businessmen and CEO's from the BCNI. 1 want to say that there is not a single woman who is a representative CEO on the BCNI. Will we allow the Government to ram through a so-called free trade agreement which is nothing more than economic union, and deny Members of Parliament the opportunity to participate in the same kind of briefings that are given to businessmen from the United States? I think it is shameful.
I believe it is understandable that when the Government puts out its free trade document it has the Canadian flag in red, white, and blue because that is where we are heading as a country. The only way we will stop it is if we as a people mobilize on the streets of Canada to let the Government know that this deal will not be rammed through. The business interests will not take precedence over the working people. We will fight it right into the next election.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the brutal murder of Wanda Lee Woodward of Medicine Hat has again focused attention on Canada's bail and corrections system. One suspect was on bail pending trial
on a murder charge. The other was serving time for murder and escaped custody while enjoying a birthday visit to the West Edmonton Mall. This latest incident is but one of many which cause Canadians frustration and anger.
The only punishment available in this particular case will be to deny an already convicted murderer his birthday trip to the mall next year. That is not good enough. In fact it is an insult to the victim, her family and to all Canadians.
I am heartened to note that the Justice Committee is beginning hearings which Canadians have every right to expect will lead to a thorough overhaul of our bail, sentencing and parole provisions. Tightening up on bail and parole for violent offenders will be too late for Wanda Woodward and others. Hopefuly, reform will come in time to save other innocent lives.



FREE TRADE-STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor

Walkerville):	Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks about free trade made by leading Canadian citizens which I would like to read into the record. They are quoted in Maclean's magazine:
Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear. Before we jump on the bandwagon of continentalism, we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.
I quote another:
Its silly. Canada must improve relations and trade with the United States, of course. But our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister.
Agreeing with that, I have another quote:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
Who said those quotes? Our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made the first statement. The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) made the second statement and the third statement was made by our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Glory to them!

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents who depend on the sale of fish and forest products to the United States are astounded at the hyprocrisy of the New Democratic Party Leader (Mr. October 22, 1987

Broadbent). The Hon. Member for Oshawa is against the removal of tariffs that are impinging on our freedom to sell fish and forest products into the United States. At the same time he supports the Auto Pact which gives his constituents in Oshawa secure access to the U.S. automobile markets. A double standard, Mr. Speaker?
The NDP Leader is also against foreign investment, so he says, but does he tell the thousands of people in his riding, who work for the big bad multinational General Motors, that he wants GM kicked out of Canada? You bet he does not. We are tired of the hyprocrisy of the New Democratic Party.
Nova Scotians are entitled to the benefits of freer trade with the United States. Those benefits are enjoyed by auto workers in Oshawa. If free trade is good enough for Oshawa, it should be good enough for Atlantic Canada. We need to trade our products, our fish, our pulp and paper, to keep our plants open, and we intend to trade them.
* *
*



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government is again attacking our senior citizens, especially those who are still working.
After having tried to de-index the Old Age Security pension, after having denied single, separated or divorced people the benefit of spouse allowances, after having cut unemployment insurance benefits paid to older workers, this Conservative Government has announced, through its Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), that it had eliminated the so-called Workers' Retraining Program, which was actually a pre-retirement scheme. Since August of last year, the Government has cut this program which was available, within designated areas, to 85 per cent of the older workers employed in the textile and footwear industries, and 85 per cent of them were Quebecers.
Since August, the Government has negotiated with the provincial authorities a new but less generous program; the Minister responsible for Income Security has indicated in the National Assembly that he could not agree with what the federal Government had done, claiming that "it should have maintained the former program". Now, because the Government has eliminated this program, 400 working men and women in Canada are on welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all Conservative Members to stand up, defend older workers, and ask the Government to reestablish the WRP, a program which made pre-retirement possible for older workers.



PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS


Gabriel Fontaine: This coming weekend, Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals will be having an economic conference in Montreal. The Montreal community should ask those federal Liberals why, in their caucus meetings with their leader, they supported the Senate's position against the Patent Act; why they prevent Montreal from getting 1,300 new jobs; why they stop pharmaceutical companies involved in research and development from investing $700 million in Montreal; and why they oppose two unanimous decisions of the Quebec National Assembly which is in favour of the Patent Act?
Why do the Quebec federal Liberal Members, most of whom represent Montreal ridings, oppose what would be good for Montreal?
The Liberal Leader's Quebec deputy, a former Minister of Finance in a Quebec Government, will have to tell Montrealers why, as his Leader's Quebec deputy, he is unable to convince his federal colleagues and deliver to Ottawa the clear message from the Quebec National Assembly, the Quebec Government, and the Quebec Premier.
* *
*



FISHING INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian fishermen and the fishing industry have been neglected in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal with President Reagan. Our fishing communities could be devastated by the omnibus Trade Bill now before the U.S. Congress.
As Hon. Members know, in the groundfish countervail case of March, 1986, the U.S. Department of Commerce ruled that seasonal UIC benefits for fishermen were not a subsidy. However, the proposed U.S. Trade Bill would drastically change these laws and, in future countervail actions, the UI Program could be defined as a subsidy.
There will be a line-up of American fishing lobbyists with countervail petitions. The consequences would be absolutely frightening.
Imagine if you will, Mr. Speaker, the impact of a 15 per cent duty on our fish exports. Why did the Government fail to get protection from this American legislation which could be passed before the free trade agreement even takes effect?
Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES

October 22, 1987



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S POSITION ON CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the comments made by some of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, comments as they refer to the free trade arrangement with the United States. They want to return to the good old days. They do not want foreign investment in Canada, they say. They want a return to FIRA. Yet, of course, they are quite happy to approve of $2 billion of foreign investment in the riding of Oshawa.
Here is what The Globe and Mail reported this morning:
In few industries is foreign investment more critical than in autos-the turf
of the Canadian Auto Workers Union. But Mr. Broadbent and CAW
President Robert White (who is also a vice-president-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


William C. Winegard: I am quoting, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Keeper:: Have some respect for the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member perhaps could be more careful in the reference to a person. I know it is a quote and sometimes in those cases, if it is not creating a disturbance, the Chair might let it go. However, it was creating a disturbance.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, with any luck the whole thing will create a disturbance.
-of the NDP) stoutly oppose Canada's free trade arrangement with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: How do they reconcile their bitter opposition to Ottawa's positive policy on foreign investment with their own dependence on the same fact, expressed by a highly emotional defence of the Auto Pact as is? Why is foreign investment so good for auto workers in Ontario especially, and so threatening for the rest of the country?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, six times yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that American actions to harm Canadian farmers by stealing our traditional grain markets abroad do not violate the Government's trade agreement. Then he added twice that they may violate the spirit of the agreement, but that that was not the same thing at all.
I want to refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the final paragraph of the agreement signed between the two countries, which states:
Accordingly, both Parties understand the need to exercise their discretion in
the period prior to entry into force so as not to jeopardize the approval process
or undermine the spirit and mutual benefits of the Free Trade Agreement.
That is an absolute categorical contradiction of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the House yesterday. The official document states in its final paragraph that any breach of the spirit of the agreement pending the final signature is a breach of the agreement itself.
Why did the Minister mislead the House of Commons? Why did he not admit that the Americans have broken this agreement signed between his Government and the Government of the United States?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I welcome the late blooming interest of the Leader of the Opposition in the situation of Canadian farmers.
He would know-he might be able to find a farmer in his caucus or, if he cannot, he might be able to find a farmer somewhere in the country who supports him-that the Export Enhancement Program has been threatening Canadian agriculture for some time. We are fighting it.
As a matter of fact there has been no new action taken. The story which was widely quoted yesterday in the House was somewhat misleading. There has been no new action taken under the Export Enhancement Program of the United States.
Nonetheless, I intend to make use of the record of debate in yesterday's Hansard in my conversations on Saturday with Secretary Shultz to indicate to him how much we oppose-


An Hon. Member:: We?


Charles Joseph Clark: -we, Canada, oppose the application of the Export Enhancement Program and how much we expect that the United States will not seek to use this kind of measure to seek traditional Canadian markets.


John Napier Turner: When the Minister is speaking with the Secretary of State of the United States, he should use the questions in yesterday's debate and not his answers.


POSSIBILITY FOR UNITED STATES TO BYPASS AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that no member of this Government read the agreement with the United States before it was signed or has read it since.

October 22, 1987

I shall therefore address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he now admit that the United States has violated not only the spirit of the agreement, but also its letter by threatening unfairly Canadian grain sales in other countries, and will he now tell us what is the use of having such an agreement if the United States can break it whenever they like without being penalized?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just replied to this question in English, but in the bilingual spirit of our country, I am willing to reply also in French since the question has just been repeated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
There has been no violation of the agreement, but I believe that it is very important, if we want to protect the interests of Canadian farmers, that we express our concern to the American officials about the constant use of a program which has long threatened our markets.

In so far as his suggestion is concerned that I quote both the questions and the answers in the House, he would be surprised to know how many times we have quoted his statements in the House of Commons to Americans and others around the world, causing disquiet as to the alternatives which exist in this country.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State should recognize that his slick answers do not carry in the House and that they look even worse when we read them the next morning in Hansard.


EXTENT OF OBLIGATIONS-REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE SCRAPPED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the paragraph which I cited has as its heading "Standstill". In other words, there is to be a standstill agreement between the United States and Canada during the further drafting and further negotiation of the definition of "subsidy" so as not to prejudice the spirit or intent of the agreement.
Some standstill agreement! The Government stands still why the Americans steal our markets.
We asked for a standstill agreement during the negotiation of this agreement. That was supported by the then Premier of British Columbia. We had lumber and potash taken away from us. The Americans took advantage of us despite the negotiations and throughout the negotiations. Even after the standstill we are having markets taken from us.
1 want to refer the Minister to the paragraph in the agreement entitled "Extent of Obligations". It reads:
The Parties to this Agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are
taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance,-
It has not taken the United States long to prove how much that paragraph really means. I want to ask the Secretary of
Oral Questions
State for External Affairs and his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, if the United States takes these two paragraphs as seriously as it appears to be taking them, namely, not at all, why doesn't the Minister scrap the agreement because the United States is not living up to the spirit of it?


Mr. Gustafson:: We have a Government that says it will sell our grain.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is that Canada's markets have been lost. As I have indicated to him already in this House, that is false. His premise is false and his question is consequently irrelevant.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is supplementary to the answer that he has just given. If the Minister is telling us now that this whole activity on the part of the Americans is not in breach of the spirit of the agreement or the agreement-and we believe it is in both cases-how can he reconcile that with his own statement of yesterday when he said:
I don't think it's consistent with the spirit of the understandings entered into
and I'll make that point to him.
Is it unfair to quote him using his own words? Can the Minister tell us which version is correct, today's or yesterday's version?


Charles Joseph Clark: Both, Mr. Speaker, and they are consistent.


QUERY CONCERNING CANADA-UNITED STATES CONSULTATIONS
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. In today's latest propaganda piece that we got in our office entitled "Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Overview" it says:
The two Governments have, therefore, agreed to consult more closely with
each other; to take account of each other's export interests when using export
subsidies on sales to third markets-
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether he was consulted pursuant to this paragraph in his own document that he sent to us today? If he has not been consulted, is that a breach of the agreement, or will he change his mind about that tomorrow?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the third time there have been no new sales. There is no new American program. There is, nonetheless an outstanding American program, the Export Enhancement Program, known to many of us, which we have

October 22, 1987
Oral Questions
been fighting and which creates a potential threat to the traditional markets of Canadian grain farmers.
As a matter of fact because of the excellence of Canadian grain farmers and the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board we have not lost any of those markets. Indeed, we have increased our proportion and our share. Nonetheless, that threat is there. We have opposed it before. We will continue to oppose it. As I said in response to his Leader earlier today, I intend to make use of the lively debate that a misunderstanding of the American position, as reported in the newspapers, caused in this House to help make the point that all Canadians, I believe, want to be made when I meet the Secretary of State. I will be trying to have Canadian farmers removed from the threat of the Export Enhancement Program which has been in place for the last couple of years.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which won't surprise the Minister on the same subject. He has just told the House that the Americans have not obtained new sales. Of course, what he did not say is that they have been spending $1.5 billion in the last couple of years for the existing program. They are using that program to go after new sales that are Canadian sales now, and it is that to which the Canadian farmer objected last year and objects to now. That is the point.
The Minister said that the current program in the United States, the Export Enhancement Program, is not in violation of the agreement. Given what the agreement says on page 35 in the last clause, will the Minister please just tell us in straightforward language why it does not violate the agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Leader of the New Democratic Party has been, but the Export Enhancement Program has been in place for the last couple of years. It is still in place and we have been fighting it.


EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I really find it consoling that the Minister has told the self-evident truth. We know that. We know that the Prime Minister made a commitment in the context of the free trade talks to get rid of those programs. Some Canadians, including Canadian farmers, thought the agreement signed by the Government got rid of those programs.
Again, is the Minister telling Canadian farmers that the existing Export Enhancement Program, already having committed $1.5 billion in the past year with substantial increases coming, is fully consistent with the agreement? The Americans, with this agreement, will be able to continue to go after Canadian markets to the detriment of Canadian farmers. Is that what he is saying?


Charles Joseph Clark: In a word, no, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the Export Enhancement Program has been in place for some time. It has been a threat to Canadian farmers. We have been protesting the application of that program. The threat has not in fact reduced the proportion of world markets available to Canadian farmers because of the effectiveness of our marketing agencies and the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the excellence of Canadian agriculture. Nonetheless, this is a measure we want to have removed. We have tried to get it removed before, and the fact that there is now a trade agreement initialled between Canada and the United States will not cause us to stop our efforts to try to get this Export Enhancement Program removed.
As I understand the position of the New Democratic Party, they are saying that because an old subsidy program of the United States continues to threaten our farmers, we should abandon the new trade agreement. That would be as sensible as saying that because we are still being threatened by the agricultural subsidies of France, Britain and Germany, we should get out of GATT.


UNITED STATES FARM SUBSIDIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I have heard such a phoney argument. We have just heard from the Minister, not from this side of the House, that this wonderful new agreement he has signed will not protect Canadian agriculture one bit. That is what the Minister has admitted.
Instead of this hocus-pocus that he is trying to pass on to the people of Canada and to farmers in particular, will the Minister kindly get to his feet and say to the people of Canada that this agreement will not stop the American Government from massively subsidizing its farmers who are in direct competition with Canadian farmers? Is he prepared to admit that, and if he is, why did he ever agree to such an absurd agreement?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, let me if I can in very simple terms explain to the Leader of the New Democratic Party what in fact we are talking about. We are talking about what was formerly known when it was first introduced as the BICEP, the Bonus Incentive Commodity Export Program. That program came in in June of 1985. Subsequently, its name was changed to the Export Enhancement Program in December of 1985. That program has been in effect for a little over two years.
The Hon. Member talks about taking away Canadian markets. In the first year of the program's operation, Canada sold over five million tonnes to the Soviet Union. The United States sold 153,000. The same year in China-
October 22, 1987


John Edward Broadbent: Because we had to force our price down. What about the prices?


Charles James Mayer: I am trying to give the Elon. Member a substantive answer. In the first year of its operation, Canada sold over 2.5 million tonnes to China. The United States sold about .5 million tonnes. We sold five times as much.
This Government has been very supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is why we ran a S200 million deficit in the pool accounts. It was to support the Canadian Wheat Board in its efforts to sell grain on behalf of Canadian farmers. We have been very successful in maintaining our markets, and in fact in increasing our markets in spite of the Export Enhancement Program.


FINANCE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will know that, in 1984, the electoral slogan of his Prime Minister in Manicouagan was: "Hope has a name: Brian Mulroney." We also know that there now is a new slogan in Sept-Iles: "Despair has a name: . Brian Mulroney." My question to the Minister of Finance is this: After three years of hearing the representation of the social, economic and political interests in Sept-Iles to obtain an exemption for the investment tax credit, can the Minister of Finance now tell us whether he will be able to give an answer to the people of Sept-Iles before they take to the streets on October 31 ?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been reviewing the economic situation and outlook in the North Shore and that has been a matter of ongoing concern of my Department as well as of the Department of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. We are looking at options here, and when it is appropriate to make an announcement, one will be made.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Three years ago he gave the same answer to the people of Sept-Iles. They want more than just concern, they want action. What I want to ask the Minister is this: Doesn't he think that after three years of studies and reviews and promises by the Minister's predecessor at Regional Industrial Expansion, of promises by the Prime Minister's office and promises by just about everybody, that it is time to do something? Is it going to be another case of
Oral Questions
waiting until people feel they have to demonstrate and take to the streets to make you see reason?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member it was one of the first municipalities I visited after taking over my present duties.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Stop those visits and do something!


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have met with local authorities-


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is exactly the same in Montreal East!


Robert René de Cotret: Do you want to hear the answer or keep on shouting? Mr. Speaker, my Department, as it promised the Setp-Iles business community and community groups, is preparing a plan for the development of the North Shore, including Sept-Iles. And as my colleague, the Minister of Finance, just said, the investment tax credit is being discussed as part of this plan which sould be released very shortly.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few minutes ago in the House the Minister said that for the last two years the Canadian Government has been protesting the U.S. Export Enhancement Program. That program spent some $1.5 billion subsidizing American exports in the last two years. Despite that protest, the Americans, starting next month, will be spending $2.5 billion, more than tripling the budget, to subsidize their exports in the next year. Is that how effective this Government's protests are? Is the Government telling us that, within the free trade agreement, the United States can spend some $2.5 billion to subsidize exports to many of these countries that are traditional Canadian customers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we have been saying consistently, and if the Hon. Member wants to be fair, he will know, that the Export Enhancement Program is not a new program. To say it again, it is one that has not worked in terms of increasing over-all sales. It has driven down prices and we have been very explicit in saying that we think it is a counterproductive program in terms of helping world grain prices. We not only have protested that at every level possible, we have also taken the protest to a wider context which includes the Europeans.

October 22, 1987
Oral Questions
Again, if the Hon. Member wants to be fair about it and put it into context, he will know that the Europeans are guiltier than the Americans of subsidizing exports. We have taken that action on behalf of Canadian farmers and just recently tabled our proposal for improving those kinds of situations at the GATT.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the more they protest the program, the more money the Americans put into it. The Minister of State for External Affairs said there was a misunderstanding about the American initiatives. Since July 30 the Americans have started some new programs in places like Colombia, Brazil, Iraq, the Philippines, Bangladesh, China and Sri Lanka, to subsidize the export of grain. Many of these countries are traditional Canadian markets. How can the Government sign an agreement when under its very nose, at that very time, the Americans were taking new initiatives in many countries that are very important to Canada? Is there no shame whatsoever in this Government? How can there be this massive sell-out to Ronald Reagan? Why doesn't the Minister stand up for Canada for a change?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the Hon. Member is a total phoney. He comes from a farming community. He is not a farmer himself, but he represents farmers or at least he purports to represent them. He will know, if he talks to them once in a while, that the producers he represents exported a record amount of wheat last year. He will also know, if he talks to them, that we are further ahead in moving grain out of his constituency this year than we were last year. Surely he should give us some credit because in a very difficult time we have not backed away from the market.
We said we are in the market to stay. We have matched the Americans in sales and beat them in quality and in our reliability as a supplier. That is why we have increased sales to our customers around the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL PROGRAMS-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR FISHERMEN
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, when answering a question by the Hon. Member for Egmont, the Minister said that social programs such as unemployment insurance had not been included in the free trade talks. An omnibus bill now before the U.S. Congress may change the definition of a subsidy so that unemployment insurance would be considered a subsidy to the fisheries industry. Why didn't the Minister take advantage of the free
trade talks to protect the fisheries from this new U.S. legislation that may brand unemployment insurance as a subsidy to the industry? Where is that protection? Fishermen are very concerned, and the answer the Minister gave yesterday was certainly not reassuring.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me again make it quite clear that social programs are not- repeat, not-a part of the agreement tabled in the House October 5. That is very clear.
As to the omnibus Trade Bill, let me also be clear that this Government has been fighting various parts of that Bill. It has not been passed and there is a very real question about whether it will be. I repeat what I said to his colleague the other day. What he has been saying about the results of that Bill is speculative. I think he should accept that position.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister now admits there is no exemption. I wonder why the Minister is trying to spread a false sense of security throughout the fisheries industry, and especially among fishermen. Why did the Minister leave our Unemployment Insurance Program open to attack by the new U.S. bill? Is the Government trying to do what it failed to achieve with the Forget Commission?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me again make it very clear. Unemployment insurance and social programs are not a part of the free trade agreement. Period. Full stop.


WHEAT EXPORTS-SELLING PRICE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Last March during the free trade debate the Prime Minister said his Government's goal was straightforward. He said it was to help Canadian farmers by increasing the predictability and security of access for exports by the farm sector.
Why is the Government signing a deal which leaves the Canadian farmer at the mercy of the U.S. Treasury? If you give away our wheat, we are bound to keep our markets. I want an answer which takes into consideration the price to and income of farmers, not the volume.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a good farmer and knows there are more exporters of wheat than just Canada and the United States. He will know Canada has about 20 per cent of the world market for wheat and the U.S. about 40 per cent. If you do the simple arithmetic that means 40 per cent of the market is accounted for by others.
October 22, 1987

The Hon. Member's Leader laughs. Maybe he is not aware of some of these points. I am trying to explain it to him as simply as I can.


Mr. Jelinek:: He understands only subsidies to General Motors in Oshawa.


John Carnell Crosbie: The General Motors ombudsman.


John Edward Broadbent: Keep it up, Charlie. It is very good.


Charles James Mayer: Let me make this point. Canadian farmers are very appreciative of the fact that for a change we have a Prime Minister who is interested in agriculture and is willing to take their problems to the highest councils in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROTECTION OF FARMERS' INCOME
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, despite the considerable amount of gobbledegook in that answer, nothing in the agreement secures any market for Canadian farmers, particularly our traditional markets. Why was the farmers' income not protected in this agreement?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the Export Enhancement Program is not new. It has not come into effect just since the beginning of October. Despite all the figures the NDP quotes, I am not so sure they are accurate with respect to the amount of money being spent.
The Hon. Member talks about gobbledegook. This Government is committed to spending many billions of dollars on agriculture, an increase of over 350 per cent in the first three years of this Government. I think Canadian farmers will greatly resent the fact that the Hon. Member refers to that kind of support as gobbledegook.


COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will recall that I had a brief conversation with him immediately after the announcement of the free trade agreement. A 1964 protocol clarified certain terms of the Columbia River Treaty, one of which was that Canada would sell into the U.S. its entitlement to downstream benefits for a period of 30 years. Since those benefits will be up for renegotiation in about seven years, and since my constituency contains within its present and future boundaries the bulk of the Columbia River Treaty territory, will the Minister inform my constituents and the House what impact, if any, the energy
Oral Questions
sector of the free trade agreement will have on the Columbia River Treaty and Kootenay West?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement initialled with the United States will have absolutely no impact upon the Columbia River Treaty-


James Ross Fulton: They will be sold down the river.


Charles Joseph Clark: -or upon any subsequent negotiations. Those are the facts. They may not be part of the briefing that the NDP received from Bob White and Shirley Carr but those are the facts.
The consequence that may occur is that this agreement may help B.C. Hydro gain access to transmission lines of the Bonneville Power Authority which are now denied it. This would increase access by B.C. Hydro to U.S. markets.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DID NOT SUCCEED IN PROTECTING EMPLOYEES' JOBS IN CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, the defender of Canada's financial community, and it concerns the Free Trade Agreement he negociated with the Americans. I am pleased to see that on page 15 of the Agreement, the Government managed to protect jobs in the beer industry and in bottling plants in Quebec, whose products are sold in our grocery stores.
However, I met representatives of Canada's 150,000 workers in the textile, footwear and clothing industry, and they would like to know why you let those jobs go. Why couldn't you protect between 130,000 and 150,000 workers in the textile, footwear and clothing industry, the same way you did workers in the beer industry?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had talked to a broad range of people in that industry he would find there are a number of people who see great opportunities for the clothing and textile industry in the U.S. market. They, as do others in a wide range of industries across the country, see this as a market growing from 25 million people to 260 million people. There will be great opportunities for expanding the business base and therefore expanding employment and job opportunities here in Canada.

October 22, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHY TEXTILE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PROTECTED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the Minister of Finance does not surprise me, because we don't move in the same circles. His friends are the bosses in our major industries. In the textile industry, only one company out of 5,000 will make more money. The 4,999 others will have to close down. These workers who will lose their jobs want to know why you did not protect them instead of just protecting the rich and the more fortunate. Why didn't you protect all workers in the textile industry under this Agreement?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I could answer the Hon. Member's question directly. There are many small businesses in my riding, and among the many businesses that congratulated us on the Free Trade Agreement, two textile companies employing less than 100 employees told us quite frankly that the Agreement meant their survival, not just during the next few years but during the next 10, 20 or 30 years, and a chance to expand their markets internationally.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On page 14 the agreement says that each party has agreed to take into account the export interests of the other party. Page 35 talks about the stand-still arrangement saying that each party will not undermine the spirit of this agreement.
If that is the case, how is it possible that the Americans can spend $2.5 billion on the Export Enhancement Program in the upcoming year when they have spent only $1.5 billion over the last two years? Does that not break not only the spirit but the letter of this agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the sixth or seventh time today, there has been no new program introduced by the United States. The Export Enhancement Program has been around for some time. The Member of Parliament for Yorkton- Melville is now suggesting that it has been expanded. Figures have already been mentioned on the floor of the House of Commons showing how ineffective that program has been in the past.
With regard to traditional Canadian markets we believe that that program, like a number of other subsidies practised by the United States, Europe, and other countries, is detrimental to fair trade in agriculture. That is why we played such a major role in the Cairns Group. That is why we played such a major role in negotiations under the GATT on agriculture. That is
why I will be raising the question of the Export Enhancement Program with Secretary Shultz again on Saturday, as we have done before. We intend to continue to keep up that pressure.
I am afraid that the New Democrats will have to go back to their script-writers in the Canadian Labour Congress for another farm issue because this one will not wash.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from western Canada I can say that no one believes that gobbledegook any more. This question was not written in Oshawa or Windsor. It was written in western Canada.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES PROGRAM ON CANADIAN FARMERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain how he can say that the American Export Enhancement Program has been ineffective when, year after year, it has driven down the price of our exports? It has hurt our farmers and farm families. What does this agreement mean when the lives of Canadian farmers are being destroyed?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it has been abundantly clear since this debate began that, while the voice may come from Churchill, Manitoba, the directions are coming from the Canadian Labour Congress wherever New Democratic Party policy is concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF RECIPIENTS OF PERSONS AWARD
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in our Gallery of the recipients of this year's Persons Award. They are Margaret Catherine Harris, Jacqueline Laprise-Demers, Frances Laracy, Kay Macpherson and Norma E. Walmsley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHING INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Can the Minister outline to the House the tariffs that are now restricting the export of Canadian fish products to the United States and how the recently signed trade agreement with the United States will impact on our fishing industry?
October 22, 1987

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Acting Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of Atlantic Canada's exports of fish go to the U.S. At the present time they are subject to a tariff of up to 15 per cent depending upon how much value-added there is. Over the next five years those tariffs will be removed under the free trade agreement which will help the 55,000 fishermen in Canada whose jobs depend on processing and catching the fish that is exported to the United States. This will give Canada a competitive edge over Norway, Denmark, and our other competition.
Gordon Cummings of National Sea Products and Victor Young of Fishery Products International have hailed the agreement. It is a great step forward and will lead to great growth in the manufacturing of value-added products here in Canada. Those who have faith and confidence in Canada greet the free trade agreement with a great deal of excitement and hope for the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Senate Committee examining Bill C-22 has reluctantly accepted the principle of the Government's Bill C-22. However, it has have asked that included in the legislation be a mere confirmation of the Minister's statements made across the country with regard to job guarantees, expenditures on research and development, and consumer protection.
Why does the Minister refuse to include in the legislation those guarantees which he preaches across the country? Why is he afraid of including that in the legislation?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which was passed by this House twice is a compromise, a balance between conflicting interests, which will ensure greatly enhanced research and development and health research while protecting the consumers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Put it in the legislation.


Harvie Andre: The amendments proposed by a committee of the Senate which are not yet adopted by the Senate do not improve the Bill in my view, and in that of the House, after much debate here and discussion in committee.
The question becomes-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Job guarantees.
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: -whether in fact it is the judgment of the non-elected Liberal Senators down the hall or, as the Member's Leader pointed out, in the final analysis a situation in which the will of the House of Commons must prevail. That is the question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. It is very clear that the will of the Government is to accept the word of the multinational corporations bypassing the word of provincial Governments, consumers, and senior citizens.
If the Minister believes in the truthfulness of the statements he made across the country, why is he now afraid to place his word in legislation? What is he afraid of? Why does he not put up or shut up?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had kept his ears open and his mouth shut while this was being debated in committee he would know the answer to those questions.
Built into the legislation are safety valves, if you will, of review by Government and review by Parliament at appropriate times which will allow-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Put it in the law.


Harvie Andre: It is in the law. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East would keep her ears open and mouth shut, she might learn something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON AGRICULTURE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is about a very serious matter which is being discussed today. It is really a matter of trust and I would appreciate a frank response to the question I am about to ask the Hon. Minister.
We are concerned about the possible serious losses to farm families in western Canada caused by the prices which farmers are able to get on the foreign markets for their grain. Does the Minister concur with an expert who recently said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive.
Does he agree with that?

October 22, 1987
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that would depend upon what the rest of the sentence says, who uttered it, when it was said, and whether this is a Kamloops translation of some other statement.
It is certainly the view of the Government that bilateral negotiations alone are not enough. That is why the Government has been proceeding very vigorously, not only in negotiations with our largest trading partner which has protectionist forces which pose a real and immediate threat to Canada now, but also in the GATT and in direct conversations with countries which are not now members of the GATT but can have some effect upon international trading patterns.
We are working to improve multilateral trade and trading situations on all fronts. We intend to continue to do that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The quote that bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive was a quote in Maclean's magazine of June 13, 1983, by the present Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: If the Government had listened to that advice it would not be in this mess in western Canada right now on this particular deal.


EFFECT ON JOBS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be more appropriate to quote the Secretary of State from the same article in which he states:
-free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost-
Was he referring to the jobs and the farms of western Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, since we are in the business of trading quotes, let me quote from the New Democratic Party policy which I believe was renewed this year. It states:
Expansion of our trade with any and all countries willing to trade on a fair and equitable basis will benefit both ourselves and them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: More, more.


Charles Joseph Clark: It goes on to state:
Careful planning is needed to adjust our production to the trade requirements of a fully employed economy. Tariffs are outmoded patchwork attempts to protect domestic industry; they restrict trade while giving less and less protection to the home industry.


John Edward Broadbent: Thanks, Joe. More.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


SALE OF SUBSIDIZED U.S. WHEAT TO SOVIET UNION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understood him to say that no new subsidized export sales of wheat had been carried out by the United States since the U.S.-Canada trade agreement had been announced.
Is it not true that on October 15, 1987, the United States announced a subsidized export sale of wheat to the Soviet Union? Will the Secretary of State explain this contradiction, or does it not show that he does not know what he is talking about?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying all day, whatever actions the United States has been carrying out, they have been carried out under the Export Enhancement Program. That is a program that we believe is unhelpful to the achievement of fair trade in agriculture. We have been opposing it. We will continue to oppose it. However, it is a program that existed before the free trade arrangement was in place between Canada and the United States. Surely that simple fact is understandable to the House Leader of the Liberal Party.
May I ask him, if he believes that the existence of the Export Enhancement Program is reason enough for us to throw out the free trade agreement, does he also believe that the existence of subsidies by the European Community is reason for us to get out of the GATT?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Secretary of State that for the time being he is still the Government and he should be able to answer the questions. He did not answer my question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, let me give the Secretary of State for External Affairs one more chance. Why did he say earlier in the Question Period that since the signing of the U.S.-Canada trade agreement there have been no new subsidized sales of wheat by the United States when the fact is that such a sale to the Soviet Union had been announced on October 15? Does it not prove, first, that he does not know what he is talking about and, second, that he and his Government made a very poor deal with the United States that harms not only Canadian farmers but all Canadians?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt about why the Hon. Member is in opposition and why we are in government. We are in government because we are prepared to take bold decisions such as the free trade decision which will serve the interests of Canadians far into the future, while the Liberal Party is not only mired in the past, but is involved in deep
October 22, 1987

tearing disputes about what part of the past it wants to embrace.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as reported at page 10184 of Hansard. He made a commitment to me that he would pass along a copy or transcript of a speech that he was about to give to a select group of businessmen. That promise was made in the House during Question Period.
Subsequent attempts to receive such a transcript from the Prime Minister's Office have not been successful. We have been informed by the Prime Minister's Office that no transcript will be forthcoming and no copy of the actual speech will be forthcoming.
I suggest that my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached because the House cannot function if the Prime Minister is permitted to mislead the House and Members during Question Period. If you find that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege by the Prime Minister in his refusal to provide me with a transcript of his private meeting with these businessmen from Canada and the United States, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether that is a question of privilege. However, I will look into that matter and get back to the Member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give us the customary statement about the business which the Government intends to call for the coming week.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to debate the Meech Lake Accord resolution today. It is my understanding that the debate will possibly continue into tomorrow. There is an expectation that it will end tomorrow and the back-up legislation for Friday will be Bill C-53.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It is our understanding that the vote on the Meech Lake Accord will be at 6 p.m. on Monday. I would also advise the House that Monday will be an allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the Constitution Amendment, 1987 (p. 9422)
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, there were five minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin). The Hon. Member for Edmonton West is not here at the moment. Continuing debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to be able to stand in the House of Commons and speak in this debate. In my view, this Meech Lake Accord is so flawed that in good conscience I cannot vote for it. As well, the process of agreement and approval of the Accord has been rushed and is incredibly undemocratic.
I am well aware that my Leader and my caucus have taken a different position, which I respect deeply.
On September 6, 1939, J.S. Woodsworth, the first Leader of the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP, rose in this House in dissent from his Party and had this to say:
The position of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation will be stated at the earliest possible opportunity by one of my colleagues. I say frankly, that with part of that policy I heartily agree, with some portions of it, I cannot agree. Yet I was never so proud to belong to the group with which I am associated.
Grace Maclnnis, former Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in her book about her father, J.S. Woodsworth, had this to say:
Here was a man who recognized the right to make the decision for the group, yet who insisted on the right of the minority, even a minority of one, to express its own opinion.
So, in my dissent I am following a democratic tradition in my Party.
In my constituency, some 5,000 kilometres from Ottawa, there is a sizeable body of opinion, both within and beyond the New Democratic Party, and in the rest of British Columbia, and indeed Alberta and throughout Canada, which shares my views. I also believe that the Accord of Meech Lake goes well beyond the resolution of the New Democratic Party Convention of 1987 to which I am bound.

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Let me begin by saying that I too believe it is important to get the signature of the Quebec Government on the Canadian Constitution. However, it is not sufficient a priority that nothing else matters. The real priority is a good and sound Constitution for Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), wanted a deal at any price, and he got one at a great price to the future of Canada. It was not a negotiation. It was in fact a power grab by the provinces. I want to analyse very briefly the result and then go on to some general matters.
First, the Senate of Canada within 14 years will become a provincially controlled body through the power given to the premiers to name the Senators. Either this will be an ineffective process, the new amendment, by the federal Government holding out until it gets its own person on the list, or it will be effective, in which case the premiers will come to love the patronage. It will then be impossible to reform the place or to abolish it.
Eugene Forsey, one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts, and a great Canadian, wrote to me and I want to quote from his letter:
Also, the "temporary" arrangements for the Senate which can be changed only by unanimous consent of the provinces, is, in fact, all the Senate reform we are likely to get. It will give us a much stronger Senate than the present one, as it will have all the present Senate's legal powers, notably an absolute veto over all legislation, and it will have a political clout the present Senate does not possess. It may mean a shift of power from the House of Commons to the Senate. Is this what we want?
The Supreme Court of Canada, which is like a constitutional referee between the Ottawa Government and the provinces, becomes in effect appointed by one of the parties, the provinces. Remember, this is the court that will get new terms to interpret as a result of the Meech Lake Accord such as a "distinct society" as well as old matters such as the extent of the Charter of Rights and the full definition of native rights we put into the 1982 Constitution.
People in British Columbia are waiting to see what sort of names Premier Vander Zalm will put forward. Will they be of the same calibre of the late Chief Justice Bora Laskin or British Columbia's own present judge, Mr. Justice William McIntyre? I believe not. I cannot find a practising lawyer in Canada, not to mention the Canadian Bar Association itself, that likes this provision of the Constitution. This is not the participation in selection of the Supreme Court by the provinces of which the Bar Association spoke, nor what the New Democratic Party policy had in mind. This is the provinces in effect selecting the court.
The Meech Lake Accord constitutionally entrenches a First Ministers' conference, so again power is shifted away from Parliament, the provincial legislatures and the people, to a new super level of government; the 10 provincial barons and the board chairman, the Prime Minister.
Northern Canadians are discriminated against. They will not get a voice in the Supreme Court. They will not appoint Senators. They cannot form new provinces without unanimous permission; of whom? Of the other provinces. There is now a new amending formula requiring unanimous approval of all provinces for reform to federal institutions such as the House, Senate and Supreme Court. Surely this is too rigid.
Many Members in this debate have suggested we could get onto further reform after we hold our noses and pass the Meech Lake Accord. Do they really understand how rigid and permanent it is? All provinces will now indeed have a veto. Women's equality rights, so hard fought for in 1982, have been put in danger. "A distinct society", put in the interpretation as part of the Constitution, is not in the preamble, as we proposed in the NDP congress in Montreal. This could override the Charter of Rights.
Once again we have shut out the aboriginal peoples. Any move to native self-government in the Constitution will now require unanimity of those very provinces that resist the struggles of the native people, or interpretation by a provincially appointed court, the Supreme Court. Let us not lie to Canada's native people and tell them, as Clause 16 of the Meech Lake Accord does, that nothing here affects them. Five years of conferences for the natives, and no luck. Two days for the Premiers and they carve up Canada. Is it any wonder that Canada's original, aboriginal leaders feel a particular sense of betrayal? Jim Sinclair the Metis leader from Saskatchewan correctly predicted last March when he said, "You will look after your own".
Where is the constitutional recognition of the multicultural nature of Canada? Not in the Meech Lake Accord. Provincial power over immigration could result in a checkerboard of immigration policies across Canada and it is being put into the Constitution after little debate and less thought. In the end this could emerge as a sleeper, one of the most radical and controversial changes of them all.
The Accord says that any province can opt out of an amendment, transferring power from the provinces to Parliament and be compensated by Ottawa. I believe this could make such a future power shift in the national interests, for example, broadening the federal authority over financial institutions, less likely.
Of even greater concern is the new power of the provinces to opt out of future federal spending programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction with compensation. Many experts and commentators have said, as well as all the material in the committee, that such legislation as the Canada Health Act, which forced the provinces to stop extra billing by doctors, could not have passed if this Accord had been in effect at the time.
Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute of British Columbia, no friend of the working people, writes gloatingly:
This sort of decentralization is apparently directly anticipated in the Accord and is meant to deal with the coming policy regarding child care.
October 22, 1987

The federal Government would say it wanted to start a national system of child care. Several provinces would say they intended to opt out. The federal Government would then negotiate with them to try to persuade them to stay in. Thus the provinces would get a big share in setting the national objectives of child care, or we could see a hodgepodge of provincial social programs. Either way, Parliament and the federal Government again lose power and the provinces and the courts gain. And who will determine the national objectives? Really, the courts. And who will effectively appoint the Supreme Court? The provinces.
Members should read carefully the brief of the National Association of Poverty Organizations published in April. I used to be a store-front lawyer and acted for this group. There is a group of poor people, and these poor people, especially in my Province of British Columbia, have looked to the federal Government for fairness and help in national social programs. They distrusted the provinces which often take the money and spend it on things other than helping poor people. The poor people know that. They know that instinctively.
Again, the federal Government, in my view, could lose the capacity to deal with effective social programs. This has been given to Canadians as a sort of divine edict, to use Senator Forsey's words, by 11 men who met for two days. Parliamentary hearings were held in Ottawa at the height of the summer, in August, and we are told the whole thing is so fragile, for some unexplained reason, the Government would accept no amendments.
The Prime Minister in his book Where I Stand said that there should be no sessions behind closed doors. He said that Canadians should see and judge those who have been elected to serve them and determine if in the interest of a more generous country they have really answered an urgent and irresistible call to grandeur. If it was true then, why was it not true last summer?
Surely constitutions, which are to last for a long time, should not be made in such haste. Madam Solange Chaput-Roland, in an eloquent plea to the Joint Parliamentary Committee said, "say yes to Quebec". In reality, of course, Quebec is already legally part of the 1982 Constitution and, or course, has been part of the Canadian Confederation since 1867. But I ask you, Madam Speaker, and I do not believe this has been raised in the debate, have the other provinces really said "yes" to Quebec? Or have they just grabbed at power over federal institutions and ran away with those powers?
The provinces received substantial increases in power without a corresponding commitment to uphold the real distinctiveness of Canada, which is a bilingual and bicultural country built on the foundation of the aboriginal people and lately complemented by a multicultural presence. That is Canada. People ask is it not wonderful that Mr. Vander Zalm and Mr. Getty and others have moved a long way from opposing French on corn flake boxes? They are now prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. I say, Madam
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Speaker, that leopards do not change their spots so easily. I believe the opposite is true. Francophones outside of Quebec got nothing, no commitment from the provinces to include their rights. Because of the principle of duality recognized in the Meech Lake Accord, the Vander Zalms can say to the francophones outside of Quebec, "Go home. Go back to Quebec because it is French in Quebec and English in the rest of Canada". That is a tragedy for Canada.
I favour the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in order to protect the language and culture of Quebec. But the Meech Lake Accord goes beyond Quebec's distinctiveness. This is the essence of the Accord for me. The price paid was to give all the provinces rights in federal powers and institutions: the Senate, the courts, immigration, this broadly-based premiers' conference, the opting out and the spending power. We have weakened the federal Government which, according to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, also has a role in protecting Quebec's distinct society and the French fact in Canada. That role is not just the role of the National Assembly in Quebec; it is also the role of the Parliament of Canada. That was the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I have heard that we will have harmony now in federal-provincial relations. I would like to point out that conflict in federal-provincial relations is inevitable in our system and can, if it is handled right, be creative. It was not just Trudeau who struggled with the provinces. We can blame it on the personality of the former Prime Minister, as I have heard many people do. But we should be honest. Sir John A. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Pearson and Diefenbaker, all those Prime Ministers, as well as a future Prime Minister, will have to deal with the same thing. It is in the nature of our system.
Meech Lake in fact rejects the basic assumptions of the 1982 Constitution, as well as the 20-year policy of bilingualism and biculturalism. That is why it goes to the fundamentals of Canadian society.
We should think about it in human terms. I have a constituent who I spent some time with last week who is a friend and who has AIDS. He said to me last week, "You know, I am lucky". "You're lucky", I said, "Why are you lucky?" He said, "Because I live here. I have medicare. I have some social acceptance. We have a tolerant society. I have civil liberties. I have a pension from the federal Government which is going to give me a disability pension. I am lucky. I live in the best country in the world if I have to have this horrible disease".
Socialists and social democrats, should look at the whole recent emerging pattern and add to it the decentralization of the Meech Lake Accord to the anti-labour legislation such as Bill 19 in British Columbia, the recent Alberta labour laws, privatization and deregulation, the cruel new immigration laws and, finally, free trade with its north and south continental outlook, especially in energy and in investment. They will see that the Canada that we know, when we look at the totality,

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the Canada that we love, the Canada that we fought for, the Canada that we worked so hard to create, is being destroyed. Through the Meech Lake Accord and these other Acts we are creating a different sort of Canada, a less humane Canada. That is why this debate is so important.
I believe working Canadians, if they really had the time to analyse and understand the Meech Lake Accord, would reject it because it is not their vision of Canada. I put it another way.
I	said, look, it is not Team Alberta with Wayne Gretzky or Team Quebec with Mario Lemieux that beat Team Russia, it was Team Canada. This is what working Canadians, ordinary Canadians, feel about this country. Canada is not a country of
II	equal governments or a community of communities as this Accord implies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That vision was rejected in 1982. There is a greater vision, a greater loyalty to a larger entity-Canada. There is a dream of a bilingual Canada where French and English can share this country, or any part of it, anywhere, as equals. This is the dream of Laurier and his tolerant society. It is in the writings of Henri Bourassa. It is the dream of Tommy Douglas who in his speeches said, "But the whole basis of national unity is founded on the principle of equal treatment for all and special privileges for none". That is our dream.
Wake up Canadians. Wake up. Do not be robbed of this vision by some greedy premiers or some wheeling and dealing Prime Minister. Canadians know that. There has been a conspiracy of silence, I have to say, by the other political Parties. Let us be honest with ourselves and fair to working Canadians and their families. In my view they reject a radically decentralized federal Government. They share a greater loyalty to Canada than the sum of the loyalties toward the provinces. That is the flaw in the Meech Lake Accord and that is why it has to be rejected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest and emotion to what the Hon. Member has just said. I think he made, perhaps unconsciously, a very real point. He said that this is not just Team Alberta, not just Team Quebec, that it is Team Canada.
I listened earlier to what the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) said. I publicly congratulate him here. As a Newfoundlander he came to a decision, he wrestled with a decision, but he wrestled with a decision in favour of Canada. That is what every single Member of Parliament in his or her seat is doing right now and will stand up in his or her place to vote for on Monday at six o'clock. That is Canada. That is what the Prime Minister was saying. The speech the Prime Minister made in the House yesterday will ring down through history, through generations of school children who will know the importance of what he was saying.
I would ask the Hon. Member this. As the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe pointed out, democracy is not tidy; democracy is not perfect. There is no document that has ever come before the House that cannot be amended in some way, that cannot be fine tuned in some way to make it a little more perfect than the imperfect nature of democracy. But I would ask the Hon. Member, and I ask him most sincerely, this. In the interests of a better and stronger Canada, which is obviously supported by the great majority of all Members of Parliament from all sides of the House of Commons, when push comes to shove does he not believe in one Canada, not two solitudes, not three Canadas, not a multitude of Canadas? Does he not believe in one Canada? Will he therefore not have the guts to stand up in his place in this House at six o'clock on Monday evening and vote for Canada?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I believe passionately in one Canada. That is why I gave this speech. I believe that people should feel at home, whether they are French or English, anywhere in Canada. I do not think this is one Canada. When I heard the Prime Minister end his speech by talking about one Canada I did not understand it. This is not Diefenbaker's view of Canada, or Trudeau's view of Canada, or Macdonald's or Laurier's view of Canada-


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is the view of all Prime Ministers of Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 do not think it is. I think it is kind of a wheeling-dealing view of Canada. 1 must say with respect. 1 think it is a view of Canada, which I tried to say in my speech, which is fundamentally flawed because it allows what I call an abnegation of the federal power. It allows the provinces into the very federal institutions where there should be regional representation, perhaps in the Senate, the court, and so on, but it should not hand the provinces this kind of power. I think that will be worse for Canada. It will lead to a Canada that, as I said in my speech, is radically different.
I am not any more courageous than any other Member for speaking out. I do not have the answers either. I am no guru on this particular matter. I respect what the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe said. I respect the Members of my Party who hold their views just as deeply and passionately as I hold mine, as the Hon. Member from Hamilton does, and I know him.
One of the things that bothers me is when the Hon. Member asks me about amendments. I ask him if he will stand up to support amendments when they come forward. I do not think he will. I think he will not because there is a kind of thinking that we have to get this thing through, although it is imperfect, and Member after Member has said that it is flawed and imperfect. I said in my speech that it will be hard to change the darn thing. It will be hard to amend it because of the rigidity in it and because of giving the plums to these provincial premiers who are not going to give them up easily. Those are my concerns.
October 22, 1987

I know the Hon. Member is putting his views as passionately as I am putting mine and that he believes in them as deeply. I guess we fundamentally disagree on this matter.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, in his lucid and impassioned speech, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) made reference to the possibility that the Accord would lead to a less humane Canada.
He mentioned that he had experience in the anti-poverty movement. It would be very helpful to have from him some elaboration of the thought or notion which he raised in his speech as to what would be the social implication. I suppose he was referring to the spending power of Canada if and when the agreement were to be adopted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, there was a notion advanced by some Hon. Members of the House that this would in fact increase federal power because spending power is in the Constitution. My reply to that is no, because it is in the common law and it would have been adopted by the courts if it had been litigated. I do not think we can argue that it is increasing federal power.
However, we can argue that there is a possibility that it may be decreasing federal power and putting future social programs in jeopardy. Jack London, a distinguished Dean of Law at the University of Western Ontario, made that very point. Also, academics have made the point that in fact we may get a hodgepodge of social programs or social programs which cannot be implemented, and that the national objective, as I said in my speech, could be determined by the provinces.
What I was trying to say as a lawyer was that people feel that instinctively. In bad times they look to the federal Government as the equalizer. Western provinces do that too; that is the irony. They look to the federal Government as the kind of over-all thing which will bring equality to Canadians. When they are in need, they know that the federal Government is there. I think they trust the federal Government more than they trust their own particular Governments. Quebecers also look to the federal Government. That is the point I was trying to make.
I gave the example of the new child care program. We will have to see how it develops. However we are putting in jeopardy some social programs, which will hurt poor people and play into a Conservative agenda.


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). We discussed the matter briefly in Vancouver, and I know that he went through a tough time making the decision he has made. I admire him for standing up for what he believes in.
However, I want to understand his thought processes. In 1982 he and his Party supported the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time it was brought
Constitution Amendment, 1987
into the House and voted upon, we left out a third of the country. Today we are bringing that third into the Constitution-


Charles L. Caccia: We didn't leave it out. Levesque was in power. Have you forgotten?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, not to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who continually speaks from his seat.
I have a serious question for the Hon. Member. I understand the flaws and I understand his concerns. However, how could the Hon. Member have supported and voted for a constitutional agreement which left out a third of the country and this time, when we are bringing that third in,-and let us put aside the warts-he can rise and vote against it? I just want to know his thought processes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it is an excellent question. The Hon. Member and I always fight and heckle, but we both respect each other.
I remind the Hon. Member that I believe he voted for the 1982 Constitution as did I. Obviously at the time we felt that it was worth doing. Maybe he voted against it.


John Horton McDermid: I voted for it, but I am voting this time too.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In any event his Party voted for it. However, he should be careful with his choice of words. He said that it "left out a third of the country". I was in Quebec this morning where I am living now. Business was going on. People were living. People were paying their taxes, those who cannot afford wealthy tax lawyers. Everything was happening normally in Quebec.
We must remember that it was a separatist Government in Quebec. Did he really expect them to sign? I do not think anyone expected Rene Levesque to sign. We keep forgetting that there were Quebec Members of Parliament in the House and a great majority of them supported it.


John Horton McDermid: And they are supporting it now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: All right, they are supporting it now. However, it was not entirely without Quebec, and I would say that Quebec was legally bound.
It is a good question because it is one of the keys. I suspect-I cannot speak for them; they speak for themselves- that that is the determining factor for many of my colleagues and friends. They are voting for it because they want Quebec in.
The Hon. Member says that I should put aside the warts. I cannot put aside the warts. The warts are too big. To me the whole thing is a flawed vision of Canada. I have been presented with a Hobson's choice on whether or not I want Quebec in.

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Of course I want Quebec in. I said that in my speech. However, I think we could have Quebec in at a far lower price than this. I think we could have Quebec in without giving the provinces' right to the federal Government. I think we could have Quebec in without fundamentally changing the constitutional nature of Canada as Meech Lake has done, and that is why I am opposed to Meech Lake.


Mr. Langdon:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want this opportunity to pass without a member of the Hon. Member's own Party having a chance to say that we appreciated and wished to congratulate the Hon. Member on his well put speech-


Marcel Prud'homme: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does not see how that is a point of order. An Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party had the floor for the better part of half an hour. I allowed other Members to question him and to make comments.
I will now recognize another Hon. Member on debate. [Translation]


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I am taking part in this debate as it is drawing to a close. I think I may even be the last speaker for the Party I represent in the House. We all know-


Mr. Gauthier:: And not the least!


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank my Whip, and I take this opportunity I have, Madam Speaker-

Since today is the birthday of my esteemed Whip, I hope every Hon. Member will join with me in applauding him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: He is young and going strong.
I prefer to start with a smile because I have seen so many people experiencing so much pain as if Meech Lake were to be the end of this great country of ours.
I cannot do otherwise but remember the great courage of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. He very kindly invited me to accompany him to Winnipeg in 1964 where he spoke to the Royal Canadian Legion. The legionnaires had expected another kind of speech than the one he delivered that day. He told them that the time had come to have in Canada a truly distinctive Canadian flag. He was booed by the entire crowd, with the exception of Mrs. Pearson, myself, Mary Macdonald, his able secretary, and a few legionnaires.
I would say that 98 per cent of them received his speech very badly. According to these people, and if we listened attentively to the speeches in the House of Commons then, the Canadian flag was to be the end of Canada. It was going to destroy the
country. It was going to divide the country forever. I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to these young Pages-because when I give speeches I always talk about the Canada of tomorrow-is there anybody in this country today who would dare say, "Let's revert back and abolish the Canadian flag"? The flag we have today is not the flag that Mr. Pearson proposed. Instead of two red bands there were two blue bands representing Canada's two oceans. The white portion represented the North. Instead of one maple leaf it had three maple leaves, as we see here in our Chamber. As we look up, the maple leaves are there. We can see maple leaves in the Senate Chamber on its ceiling. People seem not to have eyes when they talk about Canada. But there were three maple leaves to represent the three groups of Canada.
Today, Canada is stronger than ever. To believe that the Meech Lake Accord as some colleagues of mine and others have said, will destroy this country is to have no faith in Canadians. Canadians are much stronger.


Mr. Fennell:: I agree.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Chief Government Whip has just said that he agreed. He knows, as I know, that all across this land of ours people will always stand up for one Canada, but a different Canada, a different kind of Canada.
I have seen some of my colleagues agonizing over the Meech Lake Accord because there is a clause that talks about Quebec being a distinct society. This morning, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin), spoke. I congratulated him. He has a better understanding of what Quebec is all about than do many colleagues from other parts of Canada and from other Parties. We are putting into the phrase that Quebec is a distinct society only what is known. I speak now in English, but you know that I come from Quebec. You see from the way I express myself that we really are a distinct society, but I am trying to convey these feelings in English and I will do so in French later on. I see colleagues who are passionately, passionately disturbed as though a distinct society were to lead some Quebecers someday to say, "We will use the term 'distinct society' in order to put up our flag at the United Nations". If that were to be, then I would denounce those words. I would fight again if some people thought that by using the words "distinct society" they could create a new country in the United Nations. There can be only one voice for Canada to speak internationally, and that is Ottawa's. But Canada can have that flexibility and that understanding. The clause is there to take away the fear about disappearing. I know it is difficult for many of my colleagues to understand that feeling. Some Quebecers have no other country. Some came from France 300 years ago and claimed Canada to be their country.
They want to be at ease in Canada, but they fear. They are not chicken. They are not afraid. They fear because there is an ocean of people speaking only English surrounding them. They
October 22, 1987

want some kind of assurance. If they are given that assurance, they will become better federalists and they will become better Canadians. That is what I see in this clause.
This morning a dissident voice in the New Democratic Party said, "I will vote against the Meech Lake Accord." Maybe there will be two or three. Maybe some will be absent.
Mir. Keeper: I hope.


Marcel Prud'homme: A colleague says he hopes. In any event, the truth will come out. But let me not be distracted. In 1982 the Liberals from Quebec voted yes for the agreement, but very reluctantly. Why did they do so? Why did the majority of us do so in 1982? We did it because it was a step forward again in the Canadianization of our institution. It was to be the end of having to go to Great Britain. We had to amend our Constitution. It was a step in that direction. We were caught between two sentiments. One to say "Yes, I am voting for it". But my province did not vote for the agreement. As a federal Member, a proud Canadian, I voted for it because it was a step like designating my Canadian flag, like designating my national anthem, a step toward being myself, a true Canadian. That is why we said we would vote yes in 1982.
There was another step forward, the Charter of Rights. In our minds the question was whether to vote against that step because Quebec did not or because there were two great new elements. The first was that we had to go to Great Britain to beg its Government to amend our Constitution. The second was the need to have a Charter of Rights. We had to evaluate whether that was more important than the fact that Quebec did not vote yes to the agreement.
The majority of Liberals from Quebec had to make that choice. Yes, it was agonizing I can tell you, Madam Speaker. Yes, we went through long debates. But the agony that most of my colleagues went through then was much greater than the agony that some people are going through today. We had to vote against our own province which did not participate. What helped was a Government there which did not believe in federalism. That made our task easier, I must say. But we paid a price for it. We were accused of being traitors to our own people. It is not the kind of feeling that you like to get every day, but we did vote for it because we believed it was in the best interests of Canada.
As you know, Madam Speaker, my Party has introduced amendments. We do not believe that by voting for that this agreement is perfection or that it is the greatest thing on earth. In no way it is, but it is a step forward, Madam Speaker. We would prefer to have these amendments included.

Who am I, me, Marcel Prud'homme, Canadien-frangais, Marcel Prud'homme-

-a Canadian of French-speaking background. Not Marcel Prud'homme, French Canadian because I am not a French
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Canadian. When will the rest of Canada learn that I am a Canadien-frangais, not French Canadian? I did not translate that into English. In French we all call ourselves Canadiens-frangais. That has been translated by French Canadians so the emphasis seems to be more on the word "French" than "Canadian" in English. While in French we willingly say Canadiens-frangais-so I did not translate. But who am I, Marcel Prud'homme, Canadien-frangais to deny to the native people their own distinctiveness? After all, my ancestors took this land away from the natives. The natives should be recognized. That is why our amendments make sense. I will repeat it in French so people cannot say that we switched something in English that cannot be said in French.

Allow me to ask the question in my own words: Who are we, as French-speaking Canadians living in Quebec, to deny our native people the same recognition that we demand for ourselves? And that is why, even if the Liberal amendment is not included, we wish, together with Quebec, once fully integrated into the Constitutional Act, they will support the efforts made by our First Ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada, whoever he may be, whether he is the present incumbent or my own leader, when he calls a federal provincial conference on native rights. Then, you will have one major province that will generously support our natives and make it possible for them to obtain their rights just as we are seeking our own. I regret, therefore, that our amendment is not there. I just cannot understand that people do not realize it would be important. It is not included.
Mr. Trudeau himself was a great Prime Minister whom I served loyally from 1968 to 1984, even though I came to the House of Commons before him in 1964. Even he did not get all of what he wanted in 1982. He did not get all of what he wanted in 1970 in Victoria. That would have solved the problem. He played a great part. He did what Mr. Pearson did with the Canadian flag and the Charter of Rights. He did what Mr. Louis St. Laurent did when he abolished the last appeal at the Privy Council in London. That was not antiBritish or anti-English, that was pro-Canadian.
This is always that sentiment which I do not understand. As soon as we are pro-Canadian, we look as if we were antiFrench or anti-British. I am neither because I respect both. Today, I am proud to rise in the House of Commons under a British parliamentary system. I have always defended that system as being one of the best political systems.
My colleague, the Chairman of the IPU, knows of the feeling I express here today, the same feeling I express around the world when I accompany him to meetings of the Interparliamentary Union. I believe in the British parliamentary system. It is part of my Canadian heritage, but I believe also in

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
la culture frangaise. That is why I feel richer. I have the best from these two great cultures.
People are afraid that the provinces will be consulted on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. But, Madam Speaker, I ask you, what is Canada about? Canada did not start with the federal Government. Canada started because of the wish of the provinces to have a superior Government to speak internationally.
I do not despise provincial bureaucrats. I am not scared of provincial Governments. Let's call a spade a spade. I know that some people despise the provincialists. It is as if we were like "father knows best" here in Ottawa and we knew what is good for every part of Canada.
I believe very strongly that Canada is a modern, unique country with provinces which like to be important and with a federal Government that must be important, but there is only one voice that speaks for all of Canada outside Canada. I am not afraid of provincial participation, because that is how Canada was built. It was built because of the wishes of the provinces to have a federal Government and not vice versa.
I am not afraid of the provinces participating. How scandalous would it be if the provinces were to recommend someone for the Supreme Court? Would they recommend dummies because they are the provinces? They will have to be responsible for the people they recommend. They will have to recommend prominent people in their own provinces. I am not afraid of that kind of participation.
I wish we had written this Accord. As my Leader said, if he had been the Prime Minister, he would have negotiated differently. Of course, he is not the Prime Minister. He will go alone Monday night at the time of the vote to give his agreement and I will vote with him.
I would prefer it to be different. I do not like to see the agony some of my colleagues are going through, and 1 believe them to be totally, absolutely sincere. I am not calling them names or saying they are brighter. I am no less a Canadian, and I say this in English, because I will vote for the Accord than those who will vote against it because they think the federal Government is in danger.
I did not come here to reduce the power of the federal Government. If I had wanted to have a provincial career, I would have stuck with provincial politics and tried to make a career there, but I believe in Ottawa. I believe that we can have that ability, that understanding, that comprehension, between the federal and the provincial Governments together.
We have put forward amendments that will respect the multicultural aspect of Canada. Again, this is what is so unique about this country. These provisions will come. I repeat, for the attention of some of my colleagues, who can deny the immense contribution that has been made by new Canadians?
We must understand the evolution of Canada. A land that was not ours was taken by the French settlers, who were then defeated by the British settlers. That is the evolution of Canada. It was a French colony and then a British colony. We had no flag of our own, no national anthem of our own, no Supreme Court of our own. This is the beauty of this country. Without killing each other, without fighting each other, we went through a certain evolution.
I want to commend greatly one of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and my two colleagues-

Francophones from outside Quebec have their champions, and I mean first the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier) who is celebrating his birthday today and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I can appreciate in all friendship the concern expressed by my colleague from New Brunswick about the survival of the Acadian people. If he feels it is in jeopardy, I share his concern. I can understand what it means.
But I must say-

I would like to repeat in English that I am a passionate believer in a multicultural Canada as it is well defined. Multiculturalism does not mean that there is a division, but one brings to Canada one's heritage to show that Canada is more civilized than any country in the world. We are bilingual not because French and English are nicer than Italian and Portuguese, but because we have French and English for historical reasons. Because we are more civilized than others, we do not want others to lose their cultures. We think it is enriching for the country.
We will be better Canadians and better internationalists if we give respect to people who do not look like us, who do not have the same colour, language or religion. We think this respect is of immense benefit to Canada. Multiculturalism should be part of the Accord, but it will come, as will native rights. It will come, it must come.
Please, let us not believe for a moment that by giving our assent to this we are giving in to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I am not giving in to anyone. If we want to be partisan, I will say that my Leader spoke first. He opened the door to depoliticization. My friend is smiling, but it is true. My Leader in his great interview in Le Devoir, opened the door to allow the Prime Minister to say: "I can go forward because this man has depoliticized the debate". That is a contribution that we should remember.

Well, Madam Speaker, thank you for-
October 22, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for asking my colleagues. I will conclude, for I do not like to overtax the Hon. Members' patience. But I want to tell them that aii those amendments we are hoping for, but which will not pass, will be part of the future. What is not done today will be done tomorrow. Another Prime Minister will have an opportunity to make his contribution to Canadianization and protection. And I would like to repeat that Mr. Trudeau in 1982 was not the happiest man in the world because he did not get all he had set out for, but he gets credit for that gesture of Canadianization. He severed that last British link to allow for constitutional amendments. He gave us a Charter of Rights. That was a tremendous move forward. But Quebec was not there.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, but Quebec was there legally.


Marcel Prud'homme: There is a colleague there who says Quebec was there legally.

1 do not want Quebec to be in legally only. It does not lead to a constructive participation in the Canadian affair.

In that way, we believe, we can be wrong. I do not question my colleagues' sincerity. There are three here in my own Party who do not share my views. I do not want to have an acrimonious, a passionate debate. I am passionate, that is normal, my country is involved. It is natural that I should be passionate, but I do not want them to believe I am insulting them by having a different view. If it were still possible to convince them that a vote for this will not be such a disaster, if I could still convince them somewhat, maybe our amendments will be put to the vote, we will probably vote for them, and if the amendments do not pass, of course we could wait and abstain from voting. Hon. Members will decide on Monday. But I want to thank you and I want to add that I also would have preferred arriving at something different, but in human matters, one cannot always have everything one would hope for. But I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that when in casting my vote on this issue, I take to heart and keep in mind the feelings voiced by my colleagues on multiculturalism. I say so in French, because I am one of the great supporters, because I understand what multiculturalism means. I do so in Quebec, where this is not as popular as you might think.

I do not do that in English now. I am doing it in French. 1 believe in it.
Constitution Amendment, 1987

I support multiculturalism. I believe in provincial participation. I believe above all that we should have that conference one of these days and make our first citizens, those who were here, Madam Speaker, before you, and I, and even before your ancestors and mine came here to America. Well, I would hope that sometime in the future we complete what we are now doing, as Mr. Trudeau tried to complete what was done by others before him. This is how we built this country. This is how we built Canada, everyone contributing in his time what was possible.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, and I would like to say I am concluding on the same thought which I expressed at the beginning. If you think it was easy to have a Canadian flag, you should have been here. I was, as a young MP-I listened to all the speeches for months. People said it would be the end of this country. So I ask you to be confident, to have confidence in Canadians and confidence in this country, the same confidence I had when I travelled all over western Canada to convince westerners that a basically Canadian flag would not be the end of Canada. So perhaps by Monday, if we discuss these issues a little more, we may be able to convince some of our colleagues to take a different view. However, I can assure them, especially those in my own Party, that they have my full and unqualified respect, whatever their decision will be. They are just as good Canadians as I am.

I want them to believe that I am as good a Canadian as they are even though we may vote differently next Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Clinch:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member. I have a short question. The Hon. Member knows that I represent an Acadian constituency in New Brunswick. There is now some concern in New Brunswick about the new Liberal leader, the Premier elect Mr. McKenna, who has expressed some reservations about the Meech Lake Accord. I have before me a copy of an interview Mr. McKenna gave to Maclean's magazine, in which he said that he had some concerns about women's rights, the rights of anglophones in Quebec and the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I listened to the Hon. Member's comments, and I have a great deal of respect for what he said in the House today. If he had a chance to speak directly to the Premier elect of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna, about his concerns-and what about the Acadians in New Brunswick, in the Acadian peninsula I represent, what should we tell them today?


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank the Hon. Member. I know Mr. McKenna personally, and I discussed these issues with Mr. McKenna. He has some concerns and so do I. I am concerned about the fact that our native people are unhappy. They are not included in the Meech Lake-Langevin Accord. That is how

October 22, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
things turned out. I don't want to second-guess Mr. McKenna but 1 think he will advise his fellow Premiers of his reservations. I hope Mr. McKenna will not only inform his colleagues of his concerns, as the Elon. Member just said, but will also try and persuade them to make some changes at the next federal-provincial conference, to complete what is being done today. For instance, I am sure Mr. McKenna, like myself and many of us at the federal level-I am sure the Hon. Member would like to see his Party add the word "promote" to the "preserve" clause, or at least the federal Government could easily persuade the provinces that-

-not only to preserve the two languages but to promote them. Why would the provinces disagree with that? That would be another step forward. That is my kind of Canada and that would be the kind of Canada of Mr. McKenna. 1 am sure that at the least he will want to be assured that we will tackle his rightful apprehensions.
We must congratulate New Brunswick because it is the only province which has accepted-

-the rights entrenched in the Charter and the only province to declare itself officially bilingual.

Let us look at what is happening in New Brunswick now. The social climate is much different now than it was 25 years ago when 1 arrived here as a Member. If I could choose what 1 were to be in life I would identify very much with the Acadi-ans. Although I am from Quebec, I have always been extremely active in La Federation des francophones hors Quebec whose champion has always been the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). My colleague is a young Member and could join and become the champion of-

-the rights of Acadians.

I say that in English especially-
[ Translation]
-because it must not have been easy for Acadians to survive and to make themselves understood in New Brunswick. Yet, my colleague is now here as an Acadian and he must recognize that the situation has improved because Mr. Robichaud and Mr. Hatfield took some action. The fact that Mr. Hatfield has just suffered a crushing defeat does not mean that we should not pay him the homage he deserves for having understood the Acadians. All this is cumulative. I wish to share these thoughts with you, my hon. colleague and friend from New Brunswick, who are a proud Acadian, because it makes me feel a bit more Canadian myself to see people outside Quebec who share certain things with me, such as my colleagues for
Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and yourself.
This is why Quebecers should not be narrow-minded. We have to understand that there are a million others like ourselves outside Quebec, and we have to show sympathy and understanding for these people and be able to help them. Quebecers have not done much in the past to help Frenchspeaking Canadians outside Quebec. I can see that the Government Whip seems surprised that I would be so frank, especially in French. This is virtual political suicide. However, it is true. We, Quebec francophones, have not been that generous in helping French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec to survive. They fought proudly without much assistance, and the federal Government should now accept not only to protect them, but also to promote their development. Perhaps Mr. McKenna could agree quickly with his provincial colleagues to try to convince the Government to add the concept of promotion to that of protection in this clause. The Prime Minister would agree to this and so would I, and it could be approved very easily and quickly in this House, but it seems that this is not possible at this stage. In that case, let us get on with this stage and begin immediately to work on the next one which will be to try to reconcile my friends about multiculturalism and about the matter of women, who also feel that they do not have the protection they should have.
In any case-

It is all very beautiful and generous for women of Canada from outside of Quebec to believe that they should protect their little sisters in Quebec. Well, their little sisters in Quebec are way ahead and do not need any protection. They are strong and can defend themselves. 1 dare the provincial Government to touch the rights of the women of Quebec. I can assure you that no provincial Government in the Province of Quebec would dare to tamper with the rights of women in Quebec. Let us call a spade and spade in both languages. I thank the Member for his question.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is nearly over. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) had already indicated his wish to speak. I am at the disposal of the House. If the House wants us to continue questions and comments for a few minutes, I am quite willing to proceed in that way. I shall recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and come back to the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) afterwards.


Mr. Nunziata:: Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his passionate speech, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with him fundamentally on whether the Meech Lake Accord is supportable in its present form.
October 22, 1987

The Member said something a moment ago with regard to women in Quebec. It is not only the women in Quebec who ought to be concerned about the Meech Lake Accord. Women throughout Canada ought to be concerned that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being adversely affected by the Meech Lake Accord. I know the Hon. Member disagrees with me on that point.
I know that the Member is passionate when he speaks about multiculturalism. He understands what multiculturalism is all about. However, I am afraid that there is a general misunderstanding in Canada about what multiculturalism is.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that multiculturalism means more than only those who have come to Canada from other countries? It means more than people who have origins other than English and French. Would he not agree that multiculturalism includes anglophones and francophones in Canada and people from all parts of the world rather than being restricted only to those who are neither French nor English?


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I will not abuse the time of the House. Some day there will be a Prime Minister whose major preoccupation will be what concerns the Hon. Member. This is the subject of my life, it is the only reason I stay in Ottawa. This country is so unbelievable. It continues to be built every day. Each generation makes an imprint. Some day there will be a Prime Minister who will see that the time has come. The difficulty will be to put it in legal language.
My friend will likely be the Minister of Justice in the next Liberal Government. His preoccupation will be how to put the sentiments of multiculturalism in legal language in the Constitution. I hope to be here when that time comes, and I do not think it will be that far in the future. That will be the next gesture of government. There is no doubt in my mind that the next gesture of government should be to make the natives happy and to repair the immense damage that we have caused them in the past. I am not opposed to this at all, but it seems that now is not the time.
With regard to Mr. Trudeau, he wanted to get a lot more but took only as much as the times permitted him. I know that he was not happy, but he took what he could, knowing that someone else would finish the job, as someone else will finish the job begun today using our amendments as the beginning of their thinking for future amendments and future conferences.


J. Roger Clinch: Madam Speaker, with a great deal of respect, the Hon. Member has expressed concerns about specific things. However, the bottom-line recommendation which the Hon. Member would make to the Premier-elect of New Brunswick is that there may be some things which can be improved in the future but that the Meech Lake Accord must be signed in the interests of Quebec and all of Canada.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of his sentiment. If I vote for it on Monday it is because I believe we should do so.
I hope the colleagues of the provincial Premier, Mr. McKenna, and the Prime Minister of my country (Mr. Mulroney), will listen to what Mr. McKenna proposes and attempts to do this eventually, sooner than later, but not necessarily at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At this time, the Chair would like to take the opportunity to tell all Hon. Members that I feel very privileged to have been able to listen to all of the speeches that have been made throughout this debate. It is very heart-warming to know that Canada is in very good hands.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to indicate that I think it is important for the House to note that it is the fifty-eighth birthday of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I am sure all Hon. Members will join me in congratulating the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It has been done in French and English. The Chair joins with all Hon. Members in offering best wishes to the Hon. Member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In acknowledging the birthday of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), since he and I were classmates at college, I believe there must be a profound error in the years attached to both of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to the order of Thursday, October 1, 1987, the Whips of the Government and the Official Opposition have asked me to defer the vote for 48 hours. The vote is therefore deferred to six o'clock next Monday. The bells will then ring for no more than 15 minutes.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 25, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. McMillan that Bill C-74,
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1987
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I must admit that it is somewhat of an anticlimax for me to rise after such an emotional and passionate debate as that on the Constitution. We are now discussing Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, a very important measure which has thus far given rise to a very serious debate to which I now want to make a modest contribution.
After three years and some months in power, the Conservative Government has finally brought forward for second reading a Bill on the environment.
Before this Bill was introduced, the House and the Canadian public will recall, I hope, that environmental issues had only been debated on so-called opposition days, that is on the days when the Opposition, whether the Official Liberal Opposition or the NDP, propose a debate dealing with the environment.
As we ourselves raised such issues on various occasions, 1 would like to recall briefly the issues on which we proposed debates in this House. We raised the issue of the budgetary restrictions at the Department of the Environment. Hon. Members will recall the many questions that we asked the Government about the cutbacks in certain services, such as the Wild Life Service and the testing done on birds' eggs to determine the level of dioxin and other toxic substances. Then, there were major negotiations on acid rain with the Americans, and we urged the Government to settle the matter as soon as possible to allow us in Canada to maintain our quality of life, our forests, our freshwater lakes, our aquatic fauna which is threatened by toxic emissions from the industrial centres and smokestacks furnaces emitting thousands of tons of toxic substances each day which then fall in the form of rain on Canada and pollute and poison our environment.
We in the Liberal Party have urged the Government to solve the problem of toxic substances dumped in the St. Clair and Niagara rivers as well as in the St. Lawrence, our largest river. I personally asked why we are still allowing the dumping of industrial toxic substances in the beautiful Ottawa River which runs not too far from here and which has been used for a long time as an open sewer by some municipalities. On opposition days, again, we have pressed the Government to support and approve international reports, to support world commissions on the environment and development so that here, in Canada, some positive steps could be taken.
You know, Madam Speaker, the disastrous record of the Conservative Government as regards toxic substances. In November, 1984, as I said earlier, the Government made cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service, depriving it in particular of its capacity to study the impact of substances on wildlife in order to assess the effects of those products on Canadian health. In November, 1984, the Government cut funds from the Guelph Toxicological Research Centre in Ontario. The
Minister of the day, who fortunately has been removed, had prevented experts from telling the truth to Canadians regarding contamination by toxic substances. The most striking example is the controversy around the contamination of the St. Clair River. The Government stopped publishing Storm Warnings, an important publication which described the movement of toxic substances through air, soil, water, all the way to our food products.
We in the opposition wanted to debate with the Government, here in the House, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the need to hold public consultations on that issue, on the fact that those huge fresh water reservoirs are becoming more and more polluted by reason of carelessness and neglect.
Thus, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a very important and timely Bill. I am not an expert, an engineer nor a biologist, but a chiropractor. I made a career in that profession. I always have taken a great interest in health, and I still do. I am aware that-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I see my colleague from Kootenay West with whom I studied in 1949 and, as he said earlier, we have been working together for a long time. I remember having studied such important subjects as nutrition and toxicology, which are both matters of national concern. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but the number one concern of Canadians is the quality of life and the environment. Thus, it is not only appropriate but essential that this House pass a Bill with teeth, a Bill that will give us the tools required to clean up our environment and our waters and to get the quality of life that we are all aiming for.
I would like to use this occasion to give an overview of the pollution situation especially as it affects my riding, Ottawa- Vanier. I will talk about the Ottawa River in which toxic wastes still are discharged today. Tons and tons of those substances are dumped in it every year. Sometimes, I watch the Rideau River which flows through my riding and which admittedly is no longer very beautiful to look at today because of all those waterweeds. The phosphates carried by the rain waters which wash or drain the farm lands where large amounts of fertilizers are used contribute to the growth of weeds which deprive the water of its oxygen, asphyxiate the river and cause it to die biologically.
I remember that as recently as two or three years ago, it was discovered by accident on Leeds Avenue, in my riding, that tarry substances had been buried away in the days when natural gas was made from coal. The residue had been buried in the ground. And when the time came to build roads and structures, workers suddenly came across a sticky and terribly polluting mass of coal tar, chemical products and toxic substances that had to be removed at a cost of several million
October 22, 1987

dollars. The same thing happened on King Edward Avenue where a Bank of Canada building was erected on the site of the old Bank of Canada, and when they decided to renovate the building, they found, there again, toxic substances which had to be removed to clean up the environment.
All of this, Madam Speaker, is to indicate that we are quite concerned about the environment and we want powerful means to prevent not only the private sector, but also governments, from polluting. Who does not remember trial where federal Government agencies and departments, the Bank of Canada and five or six other departments and agencies were charged with having dumped-I finally have the list here-last May 12 it was. And I raised in the House the legal proceedings facing the Bank of Canada, the National Research Council, the federal Department of Transport, that of Supply and Services, which had dumped toxic products such as paint strippers, solvents, pigments, hardeners and lacquers into the Ottawa River, in my riding. When they, were brought to justice, they claimed they could not be prosecuted because that area was regulated by provincial legislation. And the judge said: Indeed, the federal level of Government is not subject to provincial environmental laws. If the private sector to which this Bill C-74 will apply .. . and the main purpose of that Bill, if I remember correctly, is to put the burden on polluters and make them pay for damages to us, Canadians, and to society.
Therefore, if the private sector is subject to that legislation, should our governments, including the Canadian Government, not also be subject to the most elementary pollution laws? It is quite normal in my view that the federal Government should be subject as everyone else to measures that prevent and deter polluters and that will chastise, and I repeat chastise the federal Government for those actions that I find absolutely unacceptable, for breaking such a fundamental law as the Environmental Protection Act.
At the time, the Minister answered in this House that the problem would disappear as soon as Bill C-74 was passed by the House. If that is true, Madam Speaker, I am pleased that finally we will have a law with teeth.
But if he had assumed his responsibilities at the time as Minister in charge of Environment, he would have told his colleagues responsible for the Bank of Canada, responsible for the agencies I have mentioned, Supply and Services and others, the National Research Council-our main research body that was polluting with removers, paints and dilutants and other toxic substances-the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) should have told those people: Do not do that, because if you do 1 will slap your fingers. He did not say: Stop that. No, he simply suggested: Wait, Mr. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, be patient. When the Bill is passed we will see to it that those errors are corrected.
Madam Speaker, these are incidents which took place in my constituency that I find sad and worrying.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
I want to speak very briefly about the background of the Act. I know that second reading deals with the principle of a Bill. As I said earlier, the principle of Bill C-74 is to protect the environment and to protect human life and health. This is a rather large Bill that, in my opinion, entails serious responsibilities.
In doing some research about the Bill, I noted that the Act has been amended since 1981. The main concern is that it is not tough enough to allow the identification and assessment of new chemicals before they are used and released in the environment.
The objectives of the amendment, as they were then defined by Environment Canada, were the following: first, identify new chemicals in Canada, because new ones are created almost daily. Second, make it mandatory for users, manufacturers and importers of new chemicals to provide information allowing an assessment of their potentiel environmental and health effects. Third, give the Government the authority to regulate or ban dangerous chemicals.
I want to stress here that that applied not only to the production, here in Canada, of these dangerous chemicals but also to their exportation. Madam Speaker, I know we are not supposed to study the Bill clause by clause on second reading, but if I read the Bill correctly, there is no provision in it that would prevent a Canadian corporation from exporting dangerous chemicals. My colleagues will correct me in committee if I am wrong but I think I read the Bill correctly, and it would allow Canadian companies to produce toxic chemicals in Canada not for use in this country but for export.
The Minister, reacting to those concerns, made all kinds of promises. Everything would be corrected if only we were a bit patient. Madam Speaker, I can find nothing in this Bill that would help clean up the Niagara River, which is important to us, or the St. Clair River. There is nothing in there, that I know of, that would oblige anyone to clean the river up or to reduce air pollution by industry.
In December, 1986, the Minister tabled a Bill or rather a preliminary Bill which had more teeth. The second reading of the Bill was moved on June 11. It was a first step, Madam Speaker. I see that my time is almost up, but I was just starting my remarks.
I will conclude, Madam Speaker, but I am sorry I do not have more time. I would have liked to talk more on a matter of great importance for the quality of our life in Canada. This Bill should be a positive step albeit small, in the right direction. I think that we will support this Bill, but we should realize that it is not the answer to our problems. This Government should not hesitate to move as quickly as possible and show leadership. We would support more important steps in order to clean up our water and give Canadians the clean environment they are entitled to and a proper protection of their life and health against pollutants and toxic substances.

October 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Redway:: Madam Speaker, I listened, as I always do, with interest to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He usually presents a clear and factual picture in dealing with any problem about which he is talking or to which he speaks in the House. So this time, Madam Speaker, you can imagine my surprise and my concern when I heard his comments respecting the Government's record in the area of toxic wastes.
The Hon. Member neglected to refer to the fact that within the last year there has been an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States, the State of New York, and the Province of Ontario in respect of dealing with chemical dumps along the American side of the Niagara River, which is a major source of toxic waste flowing into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Under that agreement there is to be a reduction by one half of the toxic wastes flowing into the Niagara River by the year 1996.
In addition, he did not refer to the funds and efforts made by the Government this year in respect of cleaning up the tar ponds in Nova Scotia. Of course he did not refer to the funds made available and the efforts of the federal Government this year in terms of the clean-up of the Windermere Basin in Hamilton Harbour.
He failed to refer to the fact that right now there is being negotiated-or it has likely been negotiated, subject to the approval of the federal Government and the United States Government-another water quality agreement respecting the clean-up of the Great Lakes themselves.
There has been a very substantial number of steps taken in respect of these matters which the Hon. Member failed to address.
Having been given this opportunity, I am sure he would want to rise now to correct the impression that he has left and to praise and laud the Government for all the steps it has taken to date. I am sure he knows full well that this is only the beginning of efforts by a Government which has only been in office for three years.
When we have been in office for 20 years, as was the case with the former Government supported by the Hon. Member, of course we will have a record which will be some seven times to ten times as good as our record now and thousands of times better than that of the former Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will take the next opportunity to answer the Hon. Member's question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I assure you, Madam Speaker, that I will.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)- Environmental Affairs-United States transboundary acid rain emissions/Canadian position; the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford)-Road Safety-National safety code for trucking.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   SMOKING CONTROL ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-209, an Act to control smoking in public buildings and facilities, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the next 20 minutes I hope to explain, first, why I introduced this Bill, a Bill which aims to control smoking in public buildings and facilities; second, why it is a difficult area in which to get legislative action because of all the competing and vested interests, both private and public; third, to turn in some detail to the nature of my Bill and look at its provisions; and fourth, to look at some of the other initiatives which have also been under way this year on this very important front of dealing with Canada's number one health problem. By the use of that phrase, Canada's number one health problem, I have already indicated the reason that I felt it was important to have legislation such as this before Parliament.
The figures estimated in this country are that 35,000 Canadians die each year from tobacco-related causes. If
35,000	Canadians were dying each year because airplanes were crashing and taking that number of lives, or if 35,000 people were dying from some other disease-and I refer to several which have recently been much featured in the public media for whom the number of fatalities is gratefully so much smaller-you would think that on the floor of this House there would be a tremendous outcry and demand for action. Yet action has been slow in coming.
October 22, 1987

In 1982, the federal health Department warned that nonsmokers are being subjected by smokers to far greater risks than previously believed, including one of the worst cancer-causing substances. The majority of non-smokers seem blissfully unaware of the health hazards due to exposure to tobacco smoke. That was a statement in 1982 of a federal health Department bulletin on chronic diseases in Canada. As a consequence, smokers do not receive enough negative feedback from non-smokers to have a major impact on the problem.
One study of non-smokers in the working environment demonstrated that what is called passive smoking, the inhalation by non-smokers of tobacco polluted air, was equivalent to smoking 10 cigarettes a day. The air of rooms contaminated by tobacco smoke contains carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, many chemicals known to be carcinogens for humans and/or animals and many other noxious and toxic substances. An even greater danger than smoke exhaled by smokers is sidestream smoke that drifts directly from smouldering cigarettes. Smokers' lungs and cigarette filters have trapped some of the worst pollutants, but the so-called sidestream smoke contains those in full strength. The chemical NDMA, one of the most potent carcinogens known, is present in sidestream smoke at concentrations 50 times greater than in mainstream smoke, that is smoke exhaled by someone who is smoking a cigarette. It has produced cancer in all animal species tested by various methods of exposure, including inhalation of a single dose. A non-smoker exposed to air heavily contaminated by tobacco smoke inhales as much NDMA in one hour as a smoker does by smoking 15 non-filter or up to 35 filter-tipped cigarettes. That information was in a 1982 study done by the federal Department of health.
The figures continue to show that each year health-related illnesses in Canada due to tobacco use continue to be serious. As a result, on April 17 I introduced, in the first session of this Parliament, Bill C-287. That was, in fact, the first legislation introduced in the 33rd Parliament to deal with this issue. It was shortly thereafter followed by another Private Members' Bill and a government Bill.
In October, when the second session of Parliament got under way, I reintroduced a Bill, which is in the present form that is before us. Although the other legislation has served in this House and in the legislative committee as a vehicle carrying much of the debate and public discussion of this number one health problem, I wanted to have a further opportunity this afternoon to give Members a chance to debate the merits of this legislation that I have proposed.
This will also give me a chance to put on public record my continuing deep concern about this issue and, indeed, to note that, because of many initiatives taken from different quarters by other Members as well as myself, there is some real progress coming. I say some real progress because-and I come to my second main point-that is an area where it is difficult to get action because of competing interests. There, of course, is the difficulty that Government itself faces with the Department of Agriculture looking out for the well-being of
Smoking Control Act
those in the farming community who are growing tobacco and over the years have received financial assistance from Government to that end, while at the same time the Department of National Health has a large portion of its budget allocated to the health needs of Canadians who are suffering as a consequence of smoke inhalation, direct or indirect. A third vested interest in this on the government side is the Department of National Revenue, which busily raises, through taxes on tobacco products, many millions of dollars that are used to pay both agricultural subsidies and health care costs.
Just as within Government, it is not an easy issue on which to focus because of those conflicts, in the private sector as well. I refer, for example, to an article written last month, in The Globe and Mail's Report on Business magazine which stated that where there is smoke there are profits. The writer goes on at length to talk about the ability of the tobacco industry to stay healthy while its customers get sick. He describes that as being one of the most amazing marketing feats of all time.
There are many millions, indeed billions of dollars, involved in this area. We have arts and sports groups that are worried because they receive in this country some $10 million worth of corporate sponsorship every year. At the same time, there was an advertisement on October 6, again appearing in The Globe and Mail and other papers, organized by the Non-Smokers Rights Association, in which a number of other people speak out on behalf of Bill C-51, people from the arts community. So there is a division there.
Earlier this year in June, a committee of this House of Commons reported that some 500 Ontario tobacco farmers might be forced out of business in the next two years. They recommended that Ottawa divert some of the annual $1.6 billion collected here from cigarette taxes to help producers switch to alternate crops.
I will not take any more of my time going on in that vein. I think you, Mr. Speaker, and others here readily appreciate that it is a very mixed field that we are walking across, with many interests, all strong, all sincere in their points of view, all quite eloquent and articulate in putting their points forward. Yet, in the face of that, there nevertheless remains what I believe to be the important public interest of getting on with some action to deal with the control of smoking in federal buildings and facilities. That is the nature of the Bill I introduced, the one I now want to discuss.
Bill C-209 is not moralistic legislation, it is not puritanical or punitive legislation, it is health legislation. I am looking at this issue in terms of the health consequences on our country. I am trying to deal with the issue in a reasonable way, a way that can evolve toward a better balance between those many interests.
The provisions of the Bill would apply to federal Government premises including buildings, aircraft, trains and the Parliament Buildings. The general rule contained in this

October 22, 1987
Smoking Control Act
legislation is that smoking would not be permitted in any federal workplace or area to which the public has access unless one of the exemptions applied. I contemplate three exemptions: First, when the terms of a collective agreement actually provide for smoking; second, smoking in specified areas designated for smokers; and third, places where non-smoking areas could not be provided because the cost would be prohibitive or major structural changes would be required. In those extraordinary cases, a ministerial certificate granting the exemption would have to be issued on those grounds.
I think this represents a reasonable blend of the interests of all parties concerned: The health needs of everyone, the concerns of non-smokers, the position of those who do smoke, and the financial and physical restraints involved in the Government converting public premises to non-smoking areas. This is what I call the doctrine of reasonable accommodation.
I write my legislation with the doctrine of reasonable accommodation at its core because I think it is important that this kind of legislation succeed. I am mindful of the lesson of the prohibition era, which is that legislation that is drafted too restrictively can in fact be counterproductive. We all know what happened during the prohibition era. The law was just unrealistic and unenforceable in the real world and had consequences that went far beyond what was ever contemplated by the people who initially addressed the health concerns they had about the abuse of alcohol.
Yet health concerns and the public interest do require that we start making some real progress in this area. That is why I wanted today to have this chance to look at some of that progress. There has been a lot of action on this front this year. I will conclude by referring, as I said I would, to some of these other initiatives.
Certainly the introduction by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on April 30 of Bill C-51 was significant. This legislation would prohibit the advertising and promotion of tobacco and it also deals with the labeling and monitoring of tobacco products. In all frankness, I can say that unlike many people who are active in this area, I do have some reservations about that. As someone who believes fundamentally in the importance of democratic rights and particularly in the freedom of expression, I am concerned that we would prohibit the advertising of a product which itself is not illegal.
I put that on the record because I am not adamant on all fronts on this matter and I think there are serious philosophical concerns about such an approach.
I have no problems with the provision in Bill C-51 for stronger and more visible health warnings so consumers will be more fully informed about the serious hazards of using tobacco products, nor do I have problems with other parts of the legislation. The efforts made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to promote the national program to reduce tobacco use carried out with the co-operation of the provincial health ministries and national voluntary health agencies are very much the way to go in this area.
There has been some real action on a couple of other fronts. Bill C-51 has yet to return to the House, but meanwhile, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) have, for their own part, been taking very positive steps, and I think it is important to put those steps on the public record.
For example, back in May, the Minister of Transport sought comments about the prohibition of smoking on aircraft flights of two hours or less, and that has led to some action. I have here a copy of The Canada Gazette dated September 10, 1987, containing these new regulations which prohibit smoking during flights of less than two hours. These new regulations will be in place before the new year as they can come into effect within 90 days after appearing in The Canada Gazette.
Very simply, the regulations state that no person shall smoke any combustible material on an aircraft operated by a Canadian air carrier on a flight carrying passengers which has a scheduled duration of two hours or less. There are a few qualifications about flights originating outside the country, but that is the main thrust of it. It is also worthy of note that under these regulations, where a crew member is aware that a person is smoking on a flight of two hours or less, the crew member shall-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Throw them off?


Patrick Boyer: The Hon. Member says he will throw them off. The regulation states that the crew member shall request the person to stop smoking, the reasonable approach, and if the person does not immediately stop smoking, the air carrier shall cause the person to leave the aircraft, but at the next point of landing. That goes some way toward what is already contemplated in Bill C-209.
I would also point out that the private sector is responding as well. Canadian Airlines International, on October 5, banned smoking on most of its North American flights. This decision followed a four-week trial period. Eight out of 10 passengers, states the airline, preferred a smoke-free environment. Passengers reported that the healthier fresh air made the flights more enjoyable and more comfortable.
There have also been certain initiatives on the Hill. In June of last year, under Mr. Speaker Bosley, there was a designation of non-smoking areas on the Hill. A number of other steps have been taken including initiatives by the Minister of Agriculture to see that farmers who grow tobacco crops can be assisted by the Government in switching to alternate crops.
I wanted to put those initiatives on the record because 1 think they are all part and parcel of the spirit of my Bill C-209. It is not that one day, one act or a single step has changed the whole situation. This is part of a shift to focusing essentially on the health concerns of Canadians to try and find a way of overcoming the problems and vested interests in a way acceptable to all, and the sooner the better.
October 22, 1987


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I would like to reply to an excellent speech given by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). I wonder where that is. Could that be somewhere in the west part of Toronto, down near Browns Line, where Mimico, Longbranch and New Toronto used to be?


Patrick Boyer: Alderwood.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Alderwood.


Patrick Boyer: Where the Hon. Member is going to run.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 do not know. I tell the Hon. Member that some people were asking me to run in the next election there. While I grew up there, and that is why the Hon. Member and 1 know a little bit about it, I do not know about that.


Patrick Boyer: You are welcome to run.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He welcomes me to run. That is interesting.
I rose to speak on the Member's Bill and I must say I think it is a good Bill and we in the NDP will support it. I liked one of his lines. He quoted someone, and not being Joseph Biden he acknowledged the quote, that the tobacco industry stays healthy while the customers get sick. It is true. It really is a problem but it is being tackled consistently, bit by bit, step by step.
The Hon. Member referred to airlines. MPs do a lot of travelling, especially when you are from the West Coast, and it is a pleasure to be on a smoke-free airplane. I admit it must be tough for those who smoke. I am lucky that I am not a smoker but I feel for them a little bit when they cannot smoke for two hours. I guess through a little law and a little peer pressure they are being forced to give up smoking.
I want to say a few things about the Bill and the general issue. Many Canadians suffer from conditions exacerbated by environmental tobacco smoke. Among those are 5 per cent of Canadians who are asthmatic, who suffer from other lung complaints, who have rhinitis, or who wear contact lenses. Anyone who wears contacts can detect the smoke on the lense and it is a problem. It is of course more serious for those who have asthma or other similar diseases. Smoke is responsible not only for irritation of these complaints but also but because it causes death among non-smokers. I had the Library of Parliament get together some studies on this issue and I want to read from that brief.
Smoking became an issue for non-smokers with the publication of two studies which found that the spouses and children of smokers have an increased risk of serious health problems. One study found that children with parents who smoke experience much higher rates of respiratory illness, including colds, influenza, bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia, as well as reduced lung capacity. A recent federal Health and Welfare study concluded that the risk of lung cancer is as much as 3.4
Smoking Control Act
times greater for non-smokers married to smokers than for non-smokers who are not exposed to cigarette smoke. The same study published in The Canadian Medical Journal found that one in five Canadians has a serious medical condition such as asthma, emphysema, heart disease or angina aggravated by exposure to cigarette smoke. A non-smoker exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace for 20 years suffers the same ill effects as a person who has smoked 10 cigarettes a day during that period. That is really quite remarkable.
The authors of the report describe airborne tobacco smoke as an occupational health hazard that should be banned or restricted to well-ventilated buildings, but apparently only 10 per cent of the air in most buildings is fresh while the rest is recycled. This means that smoky air is being circulated throughout most office buildings, exposing non-smokers to high levels of toxic and cancer-causing chemicals. Secondhand or sidestream smoke contains higher levels of cancer-causing chemicals than smoke inhaled by a smoker. Unfortunately, air filters do not remove these toxic substances.
I am also informed that in October, 1985, there was a report from Health and Welfare Canada that noted 1,050 nonsmoking Canadians die from lung cancer each year. Lung cancer is one of the most severe diseases, fatal most of the time, and caused by smoking most of the time. Yet over 1,000 people who do not smoke die from lung cancer, perhaps one-half of these because of second-hand smoke or passive smoking. The evidence is there that non-smokers who inhale second-hand smoke also suffer and their rights need to be protected.
The initiative by the Hon. Member is the only way to go. The Government promised a comprehensive legislative approach last year and we did not get one. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) introduced a Bill which would ban tobacco advertising and most tobacco promotion, but never brought it back for second reading. This is just like the former Liberal Minister of National Health and Welfare, John Munro, who introduced a Bill in 1972 which died on the Order Paper. The Government announced a program but it includes no guarantee of smoke-free public or workplaces. The Treasury Board initiated a policy for the federal Public Service but that falls quite short of similar plans introduced by even the private sector. We think the Government should be ahead of the private sector on this issue. The government program does nothing for smoking in public places nor does it cover federally-regulated workers like bank clerks, telecommunications workers, the military or the RCMP.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), introduced a Bill similar in intent to this Bill. It restricted smoking in federally-regulated workplaces to separately ventilated areas. It would provide smoke-free public places, that is the lobby of a public building or bank or a military facility. It said that the workplace of a federally-regulated worker should be smoke-free.

October 22, 1987
Smoking Control Act
I have only a short time left but this is an important initiative. It is part of a campaign by Members of this House. It is not easy. There is a tobacco lobby which opposes this legislation. That is why there have been delays in the past, probably, in government Bills and so on. However, we are seeing an interesting development in that this comes from a Private Member. It speaks a lot for our reformed House.
As I said, we in the NDP are pleased to support this initiative and I am personally pleased with the initiative put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam
Speaker, I looked forward to speaking to this Bill. I have spent 25 years working with young people concerning the effect of smoke and smoking on their lives and lifestyles. I have had some experience with young people and of course adults in that time and I know what it is like so far as smoking or not smoking in public places concerned.
Today I want to confine my remarks to this issue as it affects public transportation and the users of public facilities. There are some advantages and certainly some disadvantages in imposing legal constraints such as those proposed in this Bill. The legislation attempts to accommodate, in their place of work, within reason, both smokers and non-smokers who are employees in the federal Public Service. A problem exists in that some of the people in these public places are not federal employees but employees of the private sector. When the space is shared, it is very difficult to effect legislation which applies only to public sector employees. In such circumstances, legislation such as Bill C-209 could be difficult to enforce.
At present, Transport Canada has in place guidelines for managers and supervisors designed to minimize the harmful effects of tobacco smoke in the workplace. These will remain in place pending consultations with the Public Service unions that will result in smoking being restricted to designated areas by the fall of 1987. Hon. Members will be aware that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to this objective in April, 1987, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced his plans for new initiatives, including legislation, to reduce tobacco consumption by Canadians.
On that occasion it was also announced that there would be continued efforts to reduce smoking by Public Service employees during 1988, leading to a total ban by January, 1989, under a new regulation to be made under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. It is hoped that these measures will serve as a catalyst and an example to other levels of government and to the private sector.
The Transport Canada guidelines were not intended to invoke a complete smoking ban, nor are they being applied in such a way as to interfere unduly with operational activities by segregating smokers from non-smokers. Instead, they suggest a
number of measures which can be taken to minimize the harmful effects of tobacco smoke which we have heard much about today from the Hon. Member.
Above all, however, managers and employees, smokers and non-smokers, are asked to be guided at all times by practical considerations in the application of smoking restrictions, and by the important principles of consideration and courtesy between smokers and non-smokers. We are starting to see some good signs in this regard. We are starting to see voluntary constraint by the general public, which is becoming concerned about the rights of others. 1 have recently seen more mutual respect exhibited with regard to both primary and secondary tobacco smoke by Canadians in all areas than I have ever seen before in my 25 years of observing this.
The Transport Canada guidelines are intended principally to benefit employees whose work is carried out at a fixed location. Those who operate means of transport, notably the Coast Guard fleet, must deal with their conflicting interests somewhat differently.
The Treasury Board has implemented a policy which prohibits smoking at all service counters, desks, and wickets where the public is served. People are restraining themselves in that regard on their own initiative. They know that their smoke offends some people, and they are withdrawing. It is not unreasonable for the federal employer to require employees who smoke to be subject to certain restraints during normal working hours in buildings and workshops since they are free to smoke as much as they wish once they leave public facilities.
However, the majority of the Coast Guard fleet spend more time at sea than alongside, and it would be unrealistic to anticipate a total ban on smoking aboard Coast Guard vessels. After all, we must realize that the vessel becomes their home as well as their place of work. It is only reasonable that they should be allowed to do on board what they would do on shore.
With regard to transport terminals, restrictions on smoking in public waiting areas and facilities in federally-operated air passenger terminals were introduced in 1982. However, this is a complex issue which, in the case of airports and large railway stations, involves renegotiation of contracts in order to place restrictions in concession lease agreements for shops and restaurants as well as enforcement costs. In these places we are dealing again with agencies and their employees who are not federal employees even though they work in a federally leased space.
Similar considerations apply to railway stations serving other commercial purposes, although there are now some five rail passenger stations that have segregated smoking areas, and VIA hopes to increase the number significantly.
With regard to aircraft, Hon. Members will recall the Minister of Transport's announcement on November 17, 1986, of a proposal to ban smoking on all flights of two hours or less in Canadian commercial aircraft. The proposed new air regulations, which would govern smoking on both domestic
October 22, 1987

and transborder flights, were published in Part I of The Canada Gazette to solicit public comment on January 3, 1987. All comments received have now been reviewed, and publication of Part II is expected later this fall.
These new regulations have been supported wholeheartedly by the Canadian public. I am sure that my colleagues in the House, who travel the airways of Canada as I do, would agree that the smokers of Canada are exhibiting tremendous restraint. They realize that in the confined air space on an aircraft there is limited air circulation. They appreciate the fact that tobacco smoke affects all travellers, whether or not. they are smokers. I believe that the entire traveling public is genuinely interested in complying with these new regulations in good spirit.
The flight to Ottawa from London, Ontario, is of one hour and a half duration and is a no-smoking flight. Virtually everyone on the flight knew that there was a Member of Parliament on board, indeed a Member who is also a member of the Transport Committee, and I did not hear one complaint. I, therefore, assume that Canadians now consider this to be part of their lifestyle and part of their obligation to their fellow citizens.
These new regulations will require Canadian air carriers to post signs prohibiting smoking on such flights and that crew members request any passenger who is smoking to stop. If a passenger does not stop smoking upon request, the air carrier, under the new regulations, will be required to have the passenger removed at the next available stop. I have never seen or heard of this happening. Because of that I repeat that I believe Canadians have accepted this and are working it out on their own. They do not need legislation to force them to do this.
In conclusion, while it is clear that tobacco smoke can be a serious source of annoyance and physical discomfort to nonsmokers, as well as a health hazard to some, it is questionable whether legislation of the kind proposed by Bill C-209 would provide a practical solution to the problem.
I want to talk about self-regulation. We have seen a tremendous growth of this. The Canadian public should be congratulated on their own efforts to control their own lives and develop their own habits. Self-regulation and restriction based on consultations between employees and their managers have so far proved to be an effective means of accommodating both smokers and non-smokers in the workplace. Legislation at this time would probably diminish the context of mutual respect within which new initiatives leading to a total cessation of smoking in federal workplaces are now being adopted.
We should consider that people working this out among themselves are doing an admirable job. I am pleased that federal Departments and Ministers are interested in these matters, but let us not underestimate the Canadian public. Let them decide and work this out on their own.
Smoking Control Act


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, rising in this debate on the Private Member's bill introduced by my colleague, I should like to comment on the possible impact of tobacco smoke on non-smokers and their health. Needless to say, I agree with the previous speaker, perhaps laying more emphasis on the consideration the Government has been giving this issue over the past year and a half, and on the measures which have already been taken. They appear to be satisfactory for the time being and may very well pave the way for further measures which, if I may put it this way, would be more closely geared to individual capability.
It has often been said that tobacco smoke causes untold harm to the health of smokers and non-smokers alike. Canadians are growing increasingly aware of this fact. Scientific evidence concerning the smoke of other people was recently highlighted and explained by American Surgeon General Koop in an article or report on the impact of smoke on the health of non-smokers.
Tobacco smoke contains gaseous particles and products, including in excess of 60 substances likely to cause cancer or other illnesses. According to Surgeon General Koop's report, the smoke from the burning end of a cigarette contains more toxic products and cancer-producing substances than does the smoke inhaled or exhaled by the smoker. In fact, undeniable conclusions of a number of studies indicate that the risk of lung cancer for a non-smoker increases by about 30 per cent if he or she is exposed to the smoke of other people. Smoke from a burning cigarette combined with smoke exhaled by a smoker is a threat to the lives on non-smokers.
When the parents smoke, there are higher risks of pregnancy complications, including infants weighing less at birth and a higher risk of stillbirths. Children of smokers are also more prone to bronchitis and pneumonia than children of nonsmokers. Not only do these children have respiratory infections more often, but they may have a greater risk of developing some type of cancer later.
In a recent report on air transport environment, the United States National Academy of Science describes the dangerous effects of smoke in airplanes and recommends that the United States Congress consider banning smoking in passenger airplanes. In a subsequent report, the Academy also concludes that the risk of lung cancer increases for non-smokers when they are exposed to tobacco smoke. The Academy also notes that children exposed to secondary smoke are more prone to respiratory and pulmonary infections.
Scientific research on tobacco smoke and the health of nonsmokers leads to three general conclusions:
First, involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer in non-smokers.
Second, children of smokers are more prone to respiratory illnesses and symptoms than children of non-smokers. The rate of lung development is lower for children of smokers.

October 22, 1987
Smoking Control Act
Third, separating smokers from non-smokers in the same area can only reduce, but not eliminate the problem of secondary smoke exposure.
Since the Canadian public is informed about the dangers of tobacco and the risk incurred by passive smokers, they are asking for many changes as regards the use of tobacco products in public places. Throughout Canada, in public and workplaces, a special room is reserved to smokers. Municipal and provincial Governments as well as labour and management are taking active steps to change policies relating to smoking in a closed place. The smokers' rights are being questioned when smoke increases the risk of illness for those who share the environment.
At present, our Government subsidizes non-governmental organizations such as the Canadian Lung Association and the Canadian Cancer Society which are actively working for the promotion of a non-smoking society. In fact, those groups of health and public interest play a crucial role to change society's attitude regarding smoking. That is why, as a Government, we intend to continue supporting their efforts.
In October, 1985, the Department of National Health and Welfare, provincial departments of Health and many national non-governmental organizations have announced the implementation of the national program against smoking, another step that will improve the co-operation efforts for a nonsmokers' generation. The program was first aimed at teenagers from 12 to 17 years of age, a vulnerable age when one is most tempted to smoke or to start smoking. The program will also deal with the ever-increasing use of tobacco among the youth, the effects of other people's smoke on non-smokers and the consumption of chewing tobacco or snuff. The program will also try to inform the public about the adverse effects of tobacco and its dependency factor.
Furthermore, new flight regulations proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that would prohibit smoking on domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less, on aircrafts belonging to Canadian airlines, will become effective as of December 9, 1987. Most large Canadian cities have restricted smoking in public places and are gradually adopting increasingly stricter by-laws in this respect. For instance, a municipal by-law passed recently in Vancouver has in fact limited the number of areas where smoking is allowed in most public buildings in that city, including places of work. For instance, if people working in a given department cannot agree on smoking at work, their premises become non-smoking areas by default. Smoking is also prohibited in taxis, retail stores, at service counters and in queues.
This year, Quebec also passed a Bill restricting smoking in various public places. It is the first provincial legislation dealing with this question. The Quebec Bill consists of two parts. In the first part, smoking in government offices, hospitals, schools, public transit and many other public buildings is either prohibited or restricted to certain designated areas. In the second part, municipalities are authorized to
adopt additional measures in this respect in their respective jurisdictions.
The scope of measures to restrict smoking in federal offices has intensified in the past two years. Since no air purifier exists that can filter out both the particles and the invisible toxic gases contained in tobacco smoke, the original plan, which consisted in restricting smoking to specially designated areas, has been changed. The plan is now to gradually prohibit smoking altogether. Consideration had been given to providing independently ventilated premises, but the expense would have been prohibitive. Consequently, the policy announced on April 22, 1987 provides that smoking in the workplace will be prohibited by 1989. During the month transitional period which started on October 1, 1987, smoking will be allowed only in areas specially designated for that purpose. In fact, since August 20, 1987, employees have had to refrain from smoking at all service counters, in waiting rooms, and in offices and at counters where they deal with the public.
No-smoking signs will keep reminding the public of the campaign against smoking.
1 believe it is fair to say that most of us realize the difficulties smokers are facing as a result of these changes. I am confident that we will be able to find ways to achieve the goal set by the Government, which is to provide employees with better protection against involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in most federal workplaces.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Indeed, last night, in a period of an hour's relaxation with my family, I was reminded of the nature of this Bill. I am of that legion of people who are perhaps affected by legislation of this type in that I am, regrettably, a smoker. My wife has the unfortunate habit, in my view, of being able to have one cigarette a month.
I find that frustrating. She may go for several months without having a cigarette. Last night in the presence of our nine-year-old she lit up a cigarette. I think my son demonstrated the unacceptability of that practice by saying: "Mom, you have lit a cigarette. Why?" he challenged her. Why did she do this? She did not need to and he did not like it. That is pretty pertinent. That strikes home, and I am comforted by the fact that children today have this awareness, particularly, in this case, my son Jason.
However, what I must do is to address the context of the Bill before us. Bill C-209 is intended to protect the health of smokers and those non-smokers who are forced to inhale the second-hand or sidestream smoke produced by smokers. Clearly, the best way of protecting smokers is to either kill or cure them.
This Bill was introduced in the House on October 7, 1986. The announcement made by the Government of Canada on April 22 concerning this issue has rendered this Bill redundant.
October 22, 1987

The Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the President of the Treasury Board of Canada (Mr. Mazankow-ski), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) announced bold new initiatives which go much further than the goals of the Bill we are presently debating.
The Government's initiatives will offer increased protection of the health of all Canadians, not just the health of some of the workers under the federal jurisdiction, as this Bill would do. Let me describe briefly to the House some of the features of the program announced by the Government as they pertain to smoking in the workplace. The issue of workers' exposure to second-hand smoke is, of course, the responsibility of Labour Canada. That is the Department with the mandate to administer the Canada Labour Code, Part IV, which addresses all matters related to the safety and health of workers under the federal jurisdiction. Acting under this mandate, the Minister of Labour has requested all employees under the federal jurisdiction to restrict smoking in their workplaces to specially designated areas. That in itself, I must add, sometimes creates a problem in terms of specially designated areas because you end up with a collection of hardened and committed cigarette smokers all busy burning up their lungs and the oxygen in a very crowded environment, which perhaps in itself will serve as a disincentive to smoking. However, that is only the first step.
The Minister has also asked the review committee, which was established by Labour Canada, to carry out a full-scale technical review of the Canada occupational safety and health regulations, in order to develop a special regulation on smoking in the workplace. This committee is composed of representatives from labour, management and government. It has been asked to have a regulation ready for implementation in 1989.
Lending support to the initiatives taken by the Minister of Labour, the former President of the Treasury Board of Canada, now Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), announced that the Government intends to ban smoking in all Public Service workplaces by January 1, 1989.
With over 200,000 employees, the federal Public Service is by far the largest employer under the federal jurisdiction. It seems to me that with this kind of support the Government's initiatives will surely reduce the risk from exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace. I have no doubt that my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), drafted this Bill with the best of intentions. That is the nature of the man and the nature of his work. Unfortunately, it has some deficiencies which are not easy to remedy in a legislative sense.
The most serious deficiency I see is that this Act would not cover all employees who are presently protected by Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. While the word "employer" is defined to include all employers who are presently under the jurisdiction of Part IV of the code, both Section 3(1), which states the purpose, and Section 5(1), which states the application of this Act, would appear to exclude a large segment of employers. All banks would be excluded. Certain airlines, bus
Smoking Control Act
companies, ferries and so on would also be excluded. It seems to me that the logic or fairness of providing health protection to only some employees under the federal jurisdiction and not to others does not lend itself to full endorsement of the proposed Bill.
Another section that concerns me a great deal is Section 6. It is a short section and I shall quote it. It reads:
This Act does not apply in respect of an employee and employer who, by
written agreement, have stated that this Act shall have no application.
The meaning of this section is unclear. Does it mean that an employer can arbitrarily exempt any employee from this Act and permit that employee to smoke at his or her work-station even though that employee may be surrounded by nonsmokers? If that were indeed permissible under this Act, it would defeat the whole purpose of enacting such a piece of legislation.
I do not want to leave the impression that I am against any legislation that would restrict smoking in the workplace. Neither am I saying that there are no worthy features in this Bill. On the contrary, I find the fact that it does not resort to complex and technical measures to solve the problem of smoking in the workplace as being noteworthy. All I am saying is that the Government has not only pledged but has acted upon its promise to take legislative action to restrict smoking in the workplace. I feel that that passage of the Bill before us today will only tend to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of Canadians in terms of whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed further. They will begin to wonder whether the actions taken by the Government are indeed adequate.
I am convinced they are adequate. I am convinced that the initiatives taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour deal with this issue fairly and squarely. So 1 urge my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore, to bring his ideas on this issue to the attention of the Labour Canada review committee, which I mentioned earlier, and set aside his Bill.
I should like to conclude, if I may, by commenting on the subject of the airlines, which was addressed by two of the speakers in this debate. As do other Hon. Members, I have the need to travel back and forth across this great nation. Being a western Member, my flights are of four or five hours' duration. Quite frankly, I find that smoking or not smoking in a section designated for smoking is really quite unpleasant. If I decide that I do not want a cigarette, that I really do not need a cigarette, I find those around me who are smoking create an unpleasant atmosphere. If smoking were banned entirely on our major carriers, on long-distance flights across this nation, it really would not bother me one iota.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now

October 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-UNITED STATES TRANSBOUNDARY ACID RAIN EMISSIONS/CANADIAN POSITION
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is to acid rain that I would like to draw your attention and that of the House tonight. In particular, I would like to draw to the attention of the House a statement made in the United States two weeks ago when Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte in speaking on Canada-U.S. acid rain relations told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, first, that emission reductions, which, in other words, means pollution control measures, cannot be defined at the present time; and, second, that the administration's analysis of the document published by a group called NAPAP in the United States shows that the administration in Washington and its understanding of the scientific issues continues to support the policy of the Reagan administration. Mr. Negroponte went on to say that to act now, that is to act by way of imposing pollution control measures in the U.S., could have serious and unnecessary social economic consequences.
Imagine, this is the message from a senior official in the American State Department. Therefore, the question that I have to ask tonight in following up one that I asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a few months ago is whether he will actually admit that despite all the claims made so far by the Government of Canada he still believes that President Reagan will deliver on acid rain and meet Canadian expectations.
His expectations were whipped to an unusual high in this House last April by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the occasion of President Reagan's visit. His expectations, based on the statement here, have been shattered. What John Negroponte's statement does is this. It reveals that the administration's position on acid rain controls has not changed one bit. It has not changed in the past three years and, by accepting the acid rain envoys' report, the Prime Minister has given President Reagan an excuse for inaction. That was a fatal mistake.
It is worth while putting on record John Negroponte's statement since it reveals a number of things that Canadians in your province, Madam Speaker, in my province and in every province which is downwind to American acid gas pollution should know. In addressing the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on October 8, Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte also made these remarks which I would like to bring to the attention of the House.
When President Reagan and the Prime Minister met for their third summit in Ottawa on April 5 and April 6 the President stated, "The Prime Minister and I agreed to consider the Prime Minister's proposal for a bilateral accord on acid rain, building on the tradition of agreement to control pollution of our shared international waters". "It should be emphasized"-and these are the words of John Negroponte- "that in making this commitment, the President agreed to a process, not to a specific outcome".
These are the important key words which must be understood by the Department of External Affairs. They must be understood by the Secretary of State for External Affairs by his Parliamentary Secretary, and by the officials here and in Washington. The Americans have said "Yes, we will consider", and "consider" means just that in English if one looks it up in the dictionary. It means that one considers or looks at a proposition. It does not imply acting on it.
I fault the Prime Minister for having created the impression, in the statements he made after the departure of the President, that the President had agreed to acid rain controls. That was the mistake.
The key words in John Negroponte's comments were that "the President agreed to a process, not to a specific outcome." Therefore, the State Department is leaving its options wide open to do anything that it wants to do.
What does it want to do? We have to look further in the document, issued compliments of the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, to find the following:
The administration's position is also clear. There is a significant long term concern, but, in view of our present understanding and remaining scientific and technical uncertainties, the need for or form of, additional emissions reductions cannot be defined at the present time.
Imagine that!
John Negroponte went on to say:
The administration is prepared to take further action, as necessary, as the uncertainties are resolved. The recently released interim report presents the current state of knowledge about half way through the NAPAP's ten year scientific investigations of the problem. The administration's analysis of this document shows that our understanding-
"Our" meaning that of the State Department. He continued:
-of the scientific issues continues to support our policies. To act now, in the face of these uncertainties, could have serious and unnecessary socioeconomic consequences.
Imagine, that is the thinking of the State Department. They are light-years behind what goes on out there in the environment. They do not understand the consequences to our ecosystem or our resources.
October 22, 1987

I will be very happy to hear the interpretation the Parliamentary Secretary would like to give us on this very significant and unfortunate statement.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, obviously and in the mind of this Government there is no doubt that acid rain remains the most serious environmental issue between Canada and the U.S.A. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made acid rain one of the principal subjects of discussion when President Reagan visited Ottawa in April. At the Prime Minister's urging, the President agreed-and all Canadians will agree-to consider the Prime Minister's proposal for a bilateral accord on acid rain.
The resolve and persistence of the Government have been amply and repeatedly demonstrated. The Hon. Tom McMillan, the Minister of the Environment, has spoken out on acid rain forcefully in the United States and Canada. The release by the United States of the unsatisfactory executive summary of the National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program Report was met with a vigorous and firm response. In June, the Parliamentary Committee on Acid Rain, under the able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound- Muskoka (Mr. Darling), visited Washington and presented the Canadian case. From the beginning, our aims have been clear. We seek to remove a threat to the Canadian environment. We aim to achieve something, not just demand it.
Our objectives on acid rain have been clearly and repeatedly stated, but let me repeat them again for the Hon. Member. Canada wants a bilateral Accord that specifies targets and schedules necessary to prevent the damage caused by the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide. Broadly speaking, we believe that a level of sulphur deposition which our environment can safely sustain will be reached when two things happen: Our national acid rain abatement program reduces annual Canadian-origin deposition levels in eastern Canada to no more than 2.3 million tonnes-an objective we should achieve by 1994; and the transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the United States is reduced to no more than 2 million tonnes annually.
Madam Speaker, there is nothing mysterious or hidden in any of this. We have an environment that needs to be protected; a scientifically sound target level at which the necessary protection will be achieved; a domestic abatement program to deal with that half of the problem which is of our own making; and a negotiating strategy to address the part of the problem that originates in the United States.
In discussions with American officials since the President's announcement in April, Canadian officials have enunciated our approach clearly. I can assure the House that the Government and its officials are resolved to pursue this opportunity as effectively as we can and to achieve something that answers the needs of the Canadian environment.
Adjournment Debate



Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise on this occasion and speak on behalf of the constituents of London-Middlesex-an area which is one of the transportation hubs of Canada-to talk about our concerns. It was very interesting, in fact enlightening when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) answered my query about a national safety code when I was worried about killer trucks on the highways of the United States and the potential of them doing damage on Canadian roads. I wondered what his reaction would be and that of his colleagues, the Ministers of Transport in the provinces and the territories.
I was delighted when he answered that there would be a national safety code. The Ministers agreed to a national safety code which will be effective for Canada January 1, 1988. In fact, Madam Speaker, the Minister went further and said that the Ministers agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding committing themselves to the implementation of it and agreed to a timetable which would be phased in by 1990. Further, they gave their approval to a cost sharing formula for the development and implementation of the code, including the establishment of a national computer link which would permit all jurisdictions to take timely action against unsafe conduct of the operators of commercial vehicles regardless of where an offence is committed in Canada.
It looked like safety was well on its way to being looked after in Canada. However, I have one or two concerns from my question to the Minister and I would like to address them. It would appear to me and certainly to my constituents that the national safety code is dependent upon uniform implementation across the country. The truckers and those involved in this field of transportation in my riding feel that some degree of provincial flexibility might be desirable but, nonetheless, common sense must prevail.
If there are certain provinces which do not meet the time frame proposed in the Memorandum of Understanding, it will lead to the possibility that the federal law would prove invalid since it would not be applied equally across the country. It seems, therefore, that provincial co-operation is crucial in getting this program off the ground. My constituents feel that unless there is more co-ordination a great opportunity will be lost. The regulations would merely exist on paper and could not be enforced. In fact, my constituents have some very specific questions which they would like me to address to the Minister because they are inherent in what has to happen.
What is the current status of negotiation with the provinces? Will there be a significant level of uniformity across Canada? This is very important, Madam Speaker. How can we have

October 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
trade of goods from coast to coast if we do not have a transportation system and policies which will allow us to be competitive? We realize that there are different roadbeds with different carrying capabilities from province to province and we know there will be difficulties. We are not sure what that will lead to in terms of uniformity.
Some degree of uniformity is required from coast to coast. If there is no uniformity, it will be difficult to enforce the federal law. In fact, it may even prove to be unconstitutional. Are the provinces essentially pursuing their own regulations and resisting attempts to establish some common ground which a national code needs and in fact on which a national code is founded?
We realize that some provinces have very distinct problems with road designs and road widths and inclines which all affect the weight and the length of transports which can be applied to the roads in those provinces. We realize that there are great differences in the roads, but given that, what will happen to the ability of the provinces to have the required regulations put in place? How does this affect the national safety code's scheduled implementation date? Will this delay or in fact put to rest a uniform transportation system for goods and services from coast to coast?
This is indeed very important. It is just one aspect of the new legislation which the Government put in place under Bill C-19 which became law this fall. Canadians want safety on their roads, but they also want a very efficient transportation system.
The truckers, the people who provide this system for Canadians, want to be competitive with our friends south of the border. They do not want to have to give up their businesses to the Americans. They want to be competitive so they want to know what the National Safety Code is all about and if it will be applied uniformly in all provinces and therefore what they have to do to measure up.
I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on the national safety code, which was a great vision. Where is it today and what can Canadian truckers expect tomorrow?


J. Roger Clinch: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford). The national safety code for motor carriers basically consists of two components. The first defines minimum safety standards and practices for drivers, carriers and vehicles. The second defines government standards which are necessary for enforcement purposes to ensure industry compliance with the national safety code.
The code will be phased in over a two-year period commencing on January 1, 1988, with full implementation expected by January 1, 1990. The phase-in approach is due to the provincial legislative requirements which are necessary for implementation of certain national safety code standards.
I would like to assure the Hon. Member that most parts of the code will be in place in most provinces by January of 1988. I would also like the Hon. Member to know that the federal Government contributed $24 million to the developmental costs of the code.
It should be noted that a number of standards are already in place today such as the single driver's licence concept, the classified driver's licence system and security of load, just to name a few. The federal Government and all provincial jurisdictions agree that a national safety code is paramount to ensuring that safety on our highways does not decrease as a result of regulatory reform. All concerned have committed themselves to continue their diligent work on the development of a uniform National Safety Code for Canada and to ensure that the timetable for implementation of the code is met.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 23, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers