1987-10-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 1, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct
society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"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.
[Stage Direction]
October 2, 1987
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
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 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
101 E. (1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the
Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators:
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
October 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(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.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 1, 1987, the following amendment is deemed to have been moved by Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
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 new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:

October 2, 1987
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
"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.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 1, 1987, the following amendment is deemed to have been moved by Mr. Broadbent:
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.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased this morning to have the opportunity to share some thoughts with my colleagues in the House on the resolution before us, which is commonly known as the Meech Lake Accord, and on the amendments thereto.
I had the privilege during the past two months to attend about 90 per cent of the hearings of the joint committee on the Accord. Participating in those hearings was an educational process without parallel.
I was startled at times during the hearings at the enormous contrast in the appreciation of the Accord by different Canadians.
Perhaps I could summarize the hearings as follows: witnesses almost universally welcomed Quebec into the constitutional Canadian family. Second, witnesses generally endorsed the Accord but some were partisan to a particular view as to how the Accord affected them or their view of the shape of Canada's social and political make-up.
When learning that an Accord had been agreed on by the First Ministers in the evening of April 30, I recall being overwhelmed by a flood of emotion and pride that a pathway had been found to allow Quebec willingly to take its place in our constitutional confederation. It was a precious moment, long to be cherished and long to be remembered.
June 2 and June 3, 1987, were equally dramatic but to some extent anticlimactic. Looking back, I was never troubled by the distinct society clause in the Accord. I always felt that
Quebec was a distinct society and that view was reinforced by Jack Pickersgill when he related to the committee some of the history of the evolution of the Quebec society in North America, pointing out to us that certain things were granted to the French community in Canada back in 1760s, 1770s and through the 1790s, that related to their ability to practice the Catholic religion and other things relating to their language and civil law.
I could accept as well those procedures in the Accord which related to appointments of Senators and Supreme Court judges. If I had concerns after the Accord was signed, they related to the spending powers that were identified there and, to some extent, about the amending formula. I will return to the spending powers formula in a few moments, but before doing so, I would like to comment on some of the broader issues.
In a nutshell, the constitutional Accord, properly known as the Meech Lake agreement, is a three-prong consensus by Canada's First Ministers, to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in Canada's constitutional evolution, to foster greater harmony among Governments through new arrangements, and to hold annual constitutional conferences. In reviewing its finding and conclusions, the joint committee emphasized the nearly unanimous view of witnesses before it that Quebec rejoining the Canadian constitutional family is an important and desirable goal.
The question at hand, then, is whether the reform package negotiated by the First Ministers ultimately contributes to an improved Confederation for all Canadians. In passing judgment on the advisability of the agreement, the joint committee drew upon the wisdom of one of its testifying constitutional experts who argued that, given the importance of the success of the Accord as a package of constitutional reforms, any deficiencies it may contain must be seen to be serious and likely. While conceding that the Accord is a compromise, the joint committee's report asserts:
Nothing has been said to lead us to believe that the basic principles of the
Canadian Federation would be compromised.
That is, by the terms of the Accord. At the same time, the joint committee indicated that it heard a great body of opinion relating to matters which largely addressed constitutional problems outside the immediate confines of the Meech Lake agreement. In this vein, concerns with the operational issues of the Charter of Rights such as unsettled aboriginal matters and a lack of an institutional framework for constitutional discussions by First Ministers, figure prominently as problems which future constitutional conferences will have to, and must, address and resolve.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to return to my earlier concern about the spending power clause and how my thoughts and analysis evolved during the hearings. However, before doing so I would like to back up to the period of May and June of this
October 2, 1987

year. I was concerned, perhaps, that the spending powers would have some effect in balkanizing this tremendous Confederation of which we are privileged to be part. 1 recall the importance, going back to Confederation and the Confederation forefathers who put so much thought into our Confederation, of a strong central government. As we look at the report, the committee reminds us that innovation by provinces has historically been an important source of advances in social policy. Medicare is perhaps the most notable example. It became a national goal only after Saskatchewan showed that it could be done.
I do not, nor did the committee, discount the dangers of checkerboarding that goes beyond details and reaches fundamental objectives of social programs. If Canadians could not count on public services everywhere, it would inhibit provincial mobility and sap our sense of belonging to one nation, to one country and to one federation. I believe these concerns are nothing but phantoms. The Accord includes its own bulwarks against checkerboarding. One is clearly written into Section 106(a), so that it need not detain me long. It is the proviso that reasonable compensation is available only when provincial programs and initiatives are compatible with national objectives. I repeat "national objectives". It is this House that will always set the national objectives for Canada.
No compatibility, no money from the federal Treasury. That alone powerfully incites provinces to ensure compatibility if they do opt out of shared-cost programs. Nothing in that Constitutional Accord takes away from the power of this House to define its programs and to decide when it wants to spend money on matters of national importance.
A second bulwark, one that works in favour of co-operation, is the Accord's guarantee of First Ministers' conferences on the economy and other matters once a year. This provision has not attracted much attention during public and parliamentary discussion of the Accord. Perhaps we have become too blase and too easily take for granted the co-ordinating work done by First Ministers and the Prime Minister. The First Ministers' conference is a forum where the provinces can make their special concerns known so that federal programs are framed in ways that work for all Canadians wherever they live and whatever their social and economic setting. There is nothing in the Accord that compromises the authority of the federal Government to establish new national joint programs.
The Accord is intended to civilize the use of the spending power, and clarify that it cannot be used to oblige the provinces to take action in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The Accord also recognizes that it is constitutionally acceptable for Parliament to establish new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and provides that reasonable compensation will be granted to provincial Governments which establish a program or programs of initiative that are compatible with the national objective.
As I understand it, the reason the Accord addressed the federal spending power and the establishment of national
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
programs was to improve the bargaining relationship that results from the virtually unlimited federal spending power on the one hand and, on the other hand, the fact that its use in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction has sometimes led to federal provincial disagreements.
This question did not suddenly spring up in 1987. I would point out that the spending power was thoroughly examined by Governments in two previous exercises over the past many years, in 1968-1971, in the mid-1970s, and again in the period 1978-1979. I felt at times rebuffed by the intrusion of former Prime Minister Trudeau into the debate. However, in looking back, I found it was helpful because it did cause Canadians to focus in on some of the more important issues confronting us. But there was some dichotomy in what Mr. Trudeau said, not only in the public press but before the joint committee. It was a Government led by him in 1977 that gave up more constitutional power of spending in the block granting process to the provinces for health care and education than any Government in the history of this country since Confederation.
Where spending takes place over which this central Government has no control, at this point in our history and evolution, we have no guarantee, and have never had any, that funds that were to be directed for post-secondary education across this country would be spent for just that purpose.
The spending power clause found in the Accord is much simpler and more conducive to the establishment of new national social programs than the proposals the federal Government supported during those earlier exercises. It contains no consent mechanism, nor does it provide for unconditional compensation. Rather, it will encourage a healthier bargaining process between the two orders of Government and recognition that it is legitimate for Parliament to pursue joint economic and social programs on behalf of all Canadians.
Creative federalism was an idea that came up more than once at the committee's hearings. The group of 12 scholars, including Professors William Lederman, Peter Leslie, Richard Simeon and Donald Smiley, who submitted a joint brief, described the spending power provision as "the clearest embodiment of our view of creative federalism in the Accord". May I repeat that-the clearest embodiment of our view of creative federalism in the Accord.
We heard something very similar from J. W. Pickersgill, a veteran practitioner of government and a long-time Member of this House, when he met with the committee. Most Canadians want creative co-operation, Mr. Pickersgill said, and the acceptance of the Meech Lake Accord will make that possible. "I regard the Meech Lake Accord as the gate to greater unity and harmony in Canada," said Mr. Pickersgill. I agree with him. Negotiation is inseparable from federalism and creativity. It is essential to the harmonization of federal and provincial activity in a way that will translate into better policies for all.

October 2, 1987
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
So I agree with Mr. Pickersgill when he said, "Let us not shut the gate".
There were many touching moments during the presentations by the witnesses before the joint committee. I recall that very clever and enormously sharp advice that the committee received from many constitutional experts, some of whom had been involved with constitutional reform since the late 1930s and who brought an enormous amount of skill and advice- and good advice-to the committee about the value of the Accord.
I recall as well the very touching testimony by Madame Solange Chaput-Rolland, who appeared before the committee and who reviewed in considerable detail her historical perspective about the role the citizens of Quebec played in Confederation over the last 15 or 20 years. She spoke about the enormous emotion that was involved in the debate in 1979 and in 1980 as to whether or not Quebecers should stay within the constitutional framework of Canada. She spoke about the dichotomy between father and son, between mother and daughter, between neighbours, between communities. It was heart-wrenching. At those moments she had the committee in the palm of her hand, or at least she had me and I think most of my colleagues in the palm of her hand.
She spoke about the enormously gratifying feeling when Quebecers voted, not by an overwhelming but by a substantive majority, to stay within Confederation. She spoke as well with sincerity about the promises that were made to Quebecers by those who sat in this federal institution at that time, the promise that they would be brought into the greater Canadian constitutional family.
Then, she went on to review the process of 1980 and 1981, when a formula was put together to amend our Constitution and to bring it home, as it were, and to develop a framework, that the people from the Province of Quebec, Canadians with a great deal of generosity, talent and skill, were unable to support, that no political Party in the Province of Quebec was able to support. We heard her again say how enormously disappointed she was that she and her fellow citizens still had to sit outside, albeit morally, the Canadian Constitution. She reminded us, with tremendous emotion, of how she felt when the First Ministers came to an agreement about the Meech Lake Accord and its enormous importance to Canadians.
The joint committee not only gave its recommendation for adoption but it also stated, "It is neither necessary nor wise to recommend changes to the Accord at this time". As an alternate member of the joint committee, on September 9 I had the privilege of signing the report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Lion. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


Mr. Daubney:: Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and on his important contribution to the work of the committee.
It was my pleasure to work with him just about every day during those long, hot days of August when we had the honour of reviewing the testimony and listening to the evidence that came before us from Canadians from all parts of this great country. I think the Hon. Member's survey of that evidence was very well done today. In fact, I think it has been one of the better contributions to this debate so far this week. It was an excellent, fair-minded survey, but also a very heartfelt one. I felt it expressed adequately the emotion he felt, the emotion we all felt, about the work that we were about.
I think it also served to underline a disappointment that we shared as members of the committee in hearing this excellent testimony, this positive testimony for the most part, from the constitutional experts and others from whom we heard, from right across Canada. He pointed out how badly we were served, I think quite frankly, by journalism in this country in the inadequate and, in some cases, distorted representation of that evidence in the press.
My friend from Nepean-Carleton dealt at some length, and very well, with the spending power. But I want him perhaps to comment, if he wishes, on some of the other evidence we had from people such as Gordon Robertson, who I believe he referred to in his remarks, the former Clerk of the Privy Council who, since the early 1950s, was the key constitutional adviser to federal Governments in this country. In fact the Trudeau Government was prepared to go much further than the Meech Lake Accord did, and in fact, as Mr. Robertson pointed out, there was no transfer of powers in this constitutional Accord of 1987, but the previous Liberal Government was prepared on several occasions to transfer federal power to the provinces.
I believe my hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton was sitting next to me when we had Mr. Trudeau before us that memorable night last August. When I asked Mr. Trudeau that question, I do not think he responded to it at all. But the record is clear, historically, that he was prepared, in fact, to transfer powers from the federal authority to the provincial authorities, something that is not done despite the misleading and shallow criticism which has been made about the Meech Lake constitutional Accord that is before the House at the present time. I would be glad if he would be prepared to comment on that.


William Tupper: I am very pleased to do so. By coincidence, I am happy that my colleague from Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) actually focused in on the comments and advice of Gordon Robertson. I do so on that account with particular pleasure. For a long time Mr. Gordon Robertson was indirectly my boss in the sense that for a number of years he served as Chancellor of Carleton University where I had the privilege to be a professor.
One of the interesting things about Mr. Robertson's testimony was that he reminded the committee of his long
October 2, 1987

experience in constitutional matters wherein at times he had been the Government's chief adviser on constitutional reform, and at other times he had served as a consultant. As he reviewed the process of constitutional reform, particularly over the last 12 or 14 years, he was quick to point out to the committee that most of the items and the points of principle that are incorporated in the Accord had earlier been offered to the provinces by the Trudeau administration. Interestingly, that has never been denied, as I recall.
As we review our history, we find that the fact that one is prepared to place so much politics on something that is so lasting and fundamental to the peoples of Canada as its Constitution adds to the terrible dichotomy. We must work on the Constitution collectively to develop, refine and, in the course of time, make it more compatible to the needs of the great Confederation of which we are part.
In his presentation, Gordon Robertson clearly indicated to the committee that there was nothing in the Accord, as he saw it, that took away from the spending power of the central Government.
Let me say in closing, it is interesting to note that Mr. Robertson gave the joint committee the very strong advice that the Accord was indeed a dramatic and historic achievement that perhaps no other Government could have had the capability of putting together. It was his advice that the committee and Parliament endorse it.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to compliment the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) on the excellent speech that he delivered today on the Constitution and the steps forward that have been taken in terms of the Meech Lake Accord.
I represent one of the western regions, a different part of the country than those mentioned in the discussions that have been going on here this morning. One of the difficulties that we have always faced in the West was that we felt alienated. The process itself seemed to be somewhat alienating going back in the history of the constitutional talks and former leadership.
The very positive aspect that has taken place under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is the change in terms of looking at the region. I was very pleased this morning to hear that in many ways I shared the thoughts of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) and the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton in terms of the uniting of this country. We feel in the region I represent that we have been alienated for years, and my own personal opinion is that this alienation has not been good for the uniting of Canada. Real steps have been taken under the leadership of the Prime Minister in bringing this country together, which is an absolutely outstanding achievement. I would like to hear the Member's comments from a central Canada point of view, as opposed to the region I represent in the West.


William Tupper: It is a treat for me to respond to my colleague from the Province of Saskatchewan. It is not often that I want
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
to give out a bouquet, or feel the need to do so to a colleague who may sit in the seats immediately to my right. For some time I felt that I wanted to compliment publicly the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). During the time that he sat on the joint committee he showed an enormous amount of good judgment and a perspective on Canadian politics and Canadian problems, as well as practicality when attempting to point out to witnesses the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments that they were making at the particular point in time. This morning I wish to reinforce that compliment and say to the Hon. Member that I thought westerners were well represented in that dialogue.
Many Members in the House will know that my heritage is in Atlantic Canada. The Ottawa Valley has been my adopted home now for over a quarter of a century. I am one of those who historically has his roots in what one may refer to as Lower Canada. In fact my family was indirectly involved during 1863, 1864, and 1865 when my home province and Atlantic Canada struggled with the enormous debate on the pros and cons of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick joining Confederation with the Upper Canada provinces. In those days Nova Scotia was an enormously prosperous community. As time has moved forward economic disparities and political differences have developed. When one thinks about the tremendous nation we have in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario and the richness in so many ways of western Canada, there is absolutely no way that we can progress economically, socially, or constitutionally unless we are content with the way we will govern ourselves.
In this mechanism of 1987 we have taken a dramatic step forward in the construction of a truly Canadian family.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today and address the Meech Lake Accord, the constitutional agreement of 1987. I believe that there are few processes which highlight or better illustrate the difficulty of constitutional negotiations, and the difficulty of integrating negotiations of this nature between related parties into a democratic or quasi-democratic process of public approval.
Those of us who have participated in negotiations, be they commercial or labour-management, know that behind each negotiator lies a constituency. In many cases, the constituency does not approve or does not want the specific heads of negotiation that the negotiator may in time be impelled to accept. Indeed, there are times when negotiators accept things that they know will be unpopular in the cause of reaching an agreement which it is believed will hold wider implications for the good of the parties to the agreement.
It is also said somewhat tritely that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Thus we see the shortcomings of the committee process. I believe that most of us in Canada are somewhat individualistic and are somewhat committed to

October 2, 1987
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
pursuing our own goals to a degree which sometimes impacts negatively on society but which nevertheless is a reflection of today's contemporary Canadian reality.
The flaws of the Meech Lake process unfortunately reflect not only the individualist orientation of our society but also the tendency within parliamentary government to invest full powers in the Government of the day, with only very limited consideration given to the views of an opposition at any level. Those flaws have been evidenced by some of the difficulties which the process of the Meech Lake Accord has encountered.
There was not the organized forum or public consultation before the signing of the agreement. We have, on the Prime Minister's authority in his televised speech announcing the Accord, the length, detail, and gravity of the constitutional consultations which preceded it. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that the Accord represents an agreement framed by, marketed to, and approved by the elected leadership of the country and the provinces, rather than something which arises from a nation-wide surge of public feeling and sentiment.
In the framing of the Meech Lake Accord there has obviously been difficulty and incompleteness in the identification of the potential problems, just as in 1982 the framers of that constitutional agreement failed to recognize the difficulties which the freedom of association clauses would cause for the organized labour movement, difficulties which must be resolved and which I believe strike by the exercise of one freedom against the exercise of another freedom in society.
The failure to identify the problems is not in any way a criticism of the work of the special joint committee. I should like to add briefly my thanks to that special joint committee for the excellent and indeed very hard work it put into its report. I think it is a document of considerable merit which illuminates the Meech Lake Accord for the benefit of all Canadians.
As has been said by many other speakers, the Constitution, after all, is a fundamental law. It underpins and bears up all other laws, yet it must be more than something chiselled in stone and exercised without exception or deviation. A successful Constitution can only be a living document or a living spirit, indeed, and in order to be successful it must be a people's document which is accessible and understandable by the people and which commands their broad loyalty and support.
As 1 said in the debate on June 11, it must be a document that reflects the inspirations from which our society springs and that reflects the aspirations of the people of our society. It is in this regard that written Constitutions encounter some difficulties. The complexity of the terminology of the Constitution is something that I would certainly recommend to the attention of future Governments, and, I suspect sadly, future generations.
The written Constitution is something that has been somewhat in vogue since the Constitution of the Haudenosanee
of the 17th century in the country. Indeed it is something of an irony that Great Britain, having itself no written constitution, imposed through the British North America Act a written Constitution on the Dominion of Canada.
There is much to be said in favour of the Meech Lake Accord; first and foremost, of course, the adhesion of the Province of Quebec.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I arrived in Canada as an immigrant I spent my first two years in Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, where I believe I was able to appreciate to some extent the constitutional, spiritual and emotional situation in which the people of Quebec found themselves. At the time certain Quebecers were motivated by a strong separatist leaning. There were obvious signs of tension within Quebec's society, as evidenced by acts of violence and the public debate which was carried on with an enthusiasm and a dedication the likes of which I never saw either before or after.
Mr. Speaker, to those who are against the Meech Lake Accord I can only say that perhaps they did not fully appreciate the nature of the very struggle of all segments of Quebec's society which went on during recent decades.

I would commend to those who have spoken against the Accord a profound study of the recent constitutional history of the Province of Quebec, because I think it is essential to an understanding of the importance of the agreement at which we are looking today.
The entrenchment of the Supreme Court in the Constitution is appropriate. The constitutionalization of the federal spending powers in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction is a necessary recognition in order to resolve a situation that has seen considerable tensions over the past few decades in which the federal Government has spent in areas in which the provinces, frankly, were not satisfied to see the federal Government intervening.
We have a minor reduction in the powers of the Senate concerning its ability to obstruct certain amendments for only 180 days, though there is much to be said against it so far as the Senate is concerned.
We have the freedom-and I believe it is not a threat to any part of the Canadian society-for provinces to make immigration agreements with the federal Government, not on a compulsory basis, not saying that agreements must be reached, but providing that opportunity. We have-and I think it was said by earlier speakers but bears repeating-the significance of an agreement among the 11 Premiers. I think the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) characterized it as an agreement between those who have not established a reputation for agreeing on very much, and I think he was perfectly right. The agreement itself represents a telling argument for the Accord, yet I must acknowledge that I also find fault with many aspects of the Meech Lake agreement.
October 2, 1987

I see the terminology or the framing of the agreement as a tragic and profound insult to the constitutional aspirations of our native people. It was not mentioned in the Meech Lake Accord that the talks on aboriginal self-government would be revived. There is no specific commitment to restarting those talks. Aboriginal peoples' legitimate and seriously held constitutional concerns were reduced to the level of other matters. I feel that that was a demeaning way in which to acknowledge the existence of those concerns.
Turning to the accolade of the distinct society, while I understand very well the necessity for stating that concept explictly with regard to the Province of Quebec, it was not conferred upon the equally and obviously distinct societies of our aboriginal nations. However, we must bear in mind and we must acknowledge that the entrenchment of self-government rights was not possible at Meech Lake because the participation of the aboriginal people was not invited and not foreseen in that type of discussion. While the aboriginal people of Canada have seen their sensibilities trampled on by the Meech Lake agreement, I believe they have not had any doors closed to them in their constitutional evolution. I will return later to the ways in which it can be clearly demonstrated that those doors remain open.
I should mention with pride the entrenchment of the aboriginal rights amendment in the 1982 agreement and my Party's pride in having participated in that.
Another obvious objection of mine to the Meech Lake Accord is the way in which it entrenches the role of the Senate. We first started on this slippery slide of giving constitutional legitimacy to a non-democratic, indeed an anti-democratic, institution in 1982. It has since been pointed out by learned constitutional scholars, including at least one in the Senate itself, that essentially the advent of the written Constitution by the 1982 Constitution Act gave the Senate powers that had not been envisaged as pertaining to that institution for a century or more. That was the gravest mistake of 1982.
Any agreement that envisages this non-democratic institution continuing to play a part within the democratic institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada has got to have a great deal going for it before I can be persuaded to swallow the indignity of allowing 100 appointed Party faithful reaping their political reward to have a say in the legislation of this country.
With regard to the creation of provinces, I believe that the objections which my hon. colleague, the Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), has brought to this argument are very valid and well founded. Let us not forget that in 1905, Saskatchewan was inducted into the Confederation on the authority of the federal Government. The same happened in Newfoundland in 1949. However, from now on it will require an absolute majority of the provinces for any change in the structure to be made.
Constitutional Amendments, 1987
I beseech Hon. Members to think of the implications that that might bring with the change in demography of this country. Our country supports approximately 26 million people, but has the economic capacity to support 400 million to 700 million in the fullness of time. Yet we will, by this agreement, be binding ourselves to an arrangement which will enable the smallest province, whatever that might be 100 years from now, to unalterably obstruct the redivision, subdivision, or amalgamation of provinces which might seem appropriate to future generations.
It is also not clear under the Meech Lake agreement who controls the constitutional agenda. I believe the annual constitutional conference written into the Constitution itself is a serious mistake and almost a contradiction in terms because it implies that there will forever be constitutional business to regulate.
I wish to address the danger of alienating the excluded. We know very well the dangers that this country was placed in with the exclusion of the people of Quebec from full participation in the Constitution. Yet we must forever be vigilant against the possibility, indeed the probability, of excluding other groups by the operation of future constitutional amendments, including this Meech Lake Accord. There is very legitimate and deeply felt uncertainty as to the status of women's rights and the ability of native band Governments to deliver federal programs under the operation of the Meech Lake Accord. I have every confidence that they will be favourably resolved by the courts, but that, after all, is only one person's prediction.
The confusion and difficulty which the distinct identity clause has caused is also something which we must bear in mind in considering the Accord. There are other objections which have been brought by some which I do not believe have great force and effect but are worth mentioning.
I believe that the right of the provincial Governments to nominate to the Senate and the Supreme Court is not something which undermines federal institutions. In fact, it shows the confusion which exists in some minds with regard to what are national institutions and what are institutions of the Canadian federation. Let us not, after all, forget the paymaster factor. Let us not downgrade the intelligence, integrity or judgment of those who accept Supreme Court or even Senate appointments. Let us not accuse them of an inability to expand their presumed provincial perspective to the Canadian and national perspective.
One of the most telling factors in my assessment of the Meech Lake Accord has been the nature of the arguments put forward by those who oppose it. I must, with regret, say that I find them generally to be very deficient and in some cases deriving from an inspiration which I believe is not appropriate for the consideration of constitutional business in this country. Doubts have been raised about immigration. It has been said that there will be a general balkanization of the country. I do not see this happening. I endorse what the Leader of the

October 2, 1987
Ways and Means
Official Opposition has said. "I do not fear confrontation with the provinces. That is the inevitable nature of things in a federation."
Let us also note that, despite the imprecations of the former Prime Minister in what I can only consider to be a disgusting display of personalization of issues before the committee, the constitutional Accord is not simply addressing Quebec's asideness from the Constitution up until now. It is also addressing the phenomenon of western alienation, which has existed in this country and is addressed by the Meech Lake Accord.
It is not a question of there being a strong federal Government and a weak provincial Government, as Mr. Trudeau would have it. It is not a question, as critics would say, of there being strong provincial Governments and a weak federal Government under the Meech Lake Accord. We must remember that the adversarial model that this presupposes has never held sway in Canadian society. This shows a lack of appreciation of the degree of willingness and, frankly, the degree of skill at fashioning and implementing compromises, which I believe is inherent in the Canadian character.
The opposition to the Meech Lake Accord shows an imperfect understanding of the constitutional and historical perspective. None has effectively refuted the most telling evidence of Madam Chaput-Rolland. Until I hear that evidence refuted I cannot believe that a case has been made for the rejection of the Accord.
Those of us who came to this country as immigrants have experienced on a daily basis the generosity and openness of Canadian society to those whose origins are outside the country. We do not need a constitutional amendment to recognize that. We have that ongoing affirmation on a daily basis as do the aboriginal people of the country.
I believe that I may have a couple of minutes left when debate resumes. In deference to Question Period I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues for your consideration.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask for unanimous consent to move a Ways and Means motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the customs tariff to
implement the harmonized commodity description and coding system. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.
This motion is based on multilateral agreements with our trading partners. All our major trading partners have either passed legislation or are in the process of doing so. A host of other countries are also implementing the harmonized tariff system.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the extent of child poverty, its destructiveness to the families involved, and the subsequent cost to society are not generally recognized in Canada. Nearly 30 per cent of Canadians living in poverty are under 16 years of age.
Members of Parliament have been invited to meet with a number of support groups next Tuesday to discuss the pressing problem of child poverty.
[DOT] (MOO)
Approximately one in five children lives in poverty; many are homeless and are forced to go to food banks. In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in single-parent families, a very high percentage of whom live in poverty.
The effects of poverty have been well documented by organizations concerned with its destructiveness on the lives of the poor. The stresses of poverty perpetuate more misery and contribute to the waste of human potential. Federal budgets since 1984 and proposals in the White Paper on Tax Reform, if implemented, will see child benefits reduced by $1.5 billion by 1991.
I call upon the Government to recognize the issue of child poverty now as changes are being contemplated to the tax and social security system, and to correct this socially unacceptable crisis which the Government has helped to create.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the witching hour is upon us. It is about time the federal Government did something to bring the two parties together to facilitate th? sale of Firestone to Cooper Tire. The Minister should know, though he probably will not because he has done
October 2, 1987

absolutely nothing on the dossier, that the two parties are only $5 million apart, but the word is if they do not come together very shortly, Firestone may pick up its machinery and equipment and silently steal off into the United States.
I call upon the Minister, again, as I have done in the past, as I have called upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to show some leadership, to save those 1,400 jobs in the riding of Hamilton East, by going to Firestone in Akron, Ohio, directly. He knows that is where the decisions are being made.
Do not send civil servants. Show some political leadership, go to Akron and help save those jobs. Make Firestone realize that for $2 million we cannot afford to sacrifice 1,400 workers in Hamilton East.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-East):: Mr. Speaker, last August 27 the Prime Minister once again showed leadership by appointing the Minister of State (Seniors) (Mr. Hees), an appointment which was warmly welcomed, as evidenced by the applause and ovation given the Minister by all Parties in the House.
Quebec senior citizens were also very enthusiastic about the appointment. Among others, the Federation des aines dynamiques du Quebec issued a press release commending the Prime Minister for this historic initiative. They consider the Minister of State (Seniors) as, and I quote: An excellent choice as a Minister with whom we are quite prepared to cooperate.
Besides reacting enthusiastically to this appointment, the Federation des aines dynamiques du Quebec has expressed the hope that the provinces will draw inspiration from the Prime Minister's leadership and create similar ministries at the provincial level.
Mr. Speaker, that is yet another telling example of the importance this Government gives senior citizens, people who have generously contributed to the progress of our society. Our Government is aware that demographic evolution will translate into an ever aging population, and this is why we are moving with firmness and determination to give older Canadians the priority which they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that under the leadership of the Minister of State (Seniors) older Canadians will be served with respect and understanding.



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has added another notch to its plan to recover costs for most of its services at the expense of farmers and ultimately of consumers. We have seen this new user-pay philosophy put into place with farm improvement loans and small business loans. Now it is being extended to horticultural produce.
Previously, growers paid $5 per inspection to ensure that any fruits or vegetables shipped interprovincially met the designated grades so that consumers knew what they were buying and that they were getting good produce. Now the charge is being upped to three cents per hundredweight. The plan is to double it before next harvest and ultimately to quintuple it by 1990.
Potato producers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick receiving a meagre six cents a pound now for their produce are particularly affected by this massive increase because they ship most of their spuds to other Canadian provinces. I call upon the Government to reconsider this new fee proposal.



CANADIAN FAMILY NATIONAL WEEK


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, next week will be Canadian Family National Week. Unfortunately, in the last three years, families have been the group most neglected by the Conservative Government.
Everyone will recall the deindexing of family allowances. Everyone will recall the lowering of the maximum amount for the child tax credit. Everyone will recall the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a hand over his heart, swearing that there would be a child-care system for families, which are the corner stone of Canadian society. We have nothing yet.
Yesterday, we learned that the tax system is harder on large families. I invite all Canadian families to remember the three years of neglect of this Conservative Government and to do what it takes to defeat all Conservative Members of Parliament in Canada. These are the people who have neglected them.

October 2, 1987



LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in an article in yesterday's Le Devoir, we learned from the eloquent pen of Michel Vastel that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) had mounted a campaign to attract some of the provincial Liberals to federal politics, and we can now see why.
Mr. Speaker, I was astounded to read that article. The Liberals, with only 40 Members in this House, cannot agree on a single issue. Everything becomes a source of dissension among the Liberals. And what about their Leader, whose leadership is constantly being threatened? I believe that he should learn to lead his present followers before adding to his problems.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals got Canadians used to confusion and incoherence, but they are now overdoing themselves and their leader is at the bottom of it.



HOUSING


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, there is presently a shortage of 2,400 houses in the Northwest Territories. Each year the need increases by approximately 150 houses just due to population growth.
According to a recent study, the population of the Northwest Territories grew by 14 per cent between 1981 and 1986 compared to 4 per cent for the entire country. At this rate of population growth, the housing shortage in the Northwest Territories will not be alleviated for at least 16 years.
The lack of funding for the application of Bill C-31, the legislation to reintegrate the native population to the Indian reserves, has amplified the problem of housing in the North. Sixty thousand claims for returns to the reserve, are still waiting to be processed.
The situation in the North will get worse. I urge the Government to increase immediately the number of units constructed through CMHC programs.



MINES AND MINING


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure on Wednesday to attend the opening of a new gold mine north of Timmins, Ontario. That mine, known as the Bell Creek Mine, owned by Canamex, is by world standards not a big mine. It will employ about 100 people, but 100 new jobs in Timmins are dramatically important.
In reality, those 100 jobs will translate into perhaps 300 or 400 jobs. Indeed, it was a proud moment for my colleague from Timmins-Chapleau.
A most significant highlight of this mine is that it was the first one in Canada to be discovered, developed and brought into production by financing raised by flow-through shares.
Normally at mine openings, the president of the company or the chairman of the board is praising the financiers for their help in bringing a new unit into production, but the situation was much different in Bell Creek on Wednesday. The president was praising the federal Government for its responsible and creative fiscal and tax policies that allowed the creation of this particular new wealth.
In the next year, this same company, Canamex, will be bringing three additional mines into production, all financed and created by this particular financing mechanism. It is a demonstration of what good fiscal policy can do.

[DOT] (mo)



BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on September 22, Lamford Forest Products of Sooke, British Columbia, was presented with a Canada Award for Business Excellence in the labour/management category. The award is well deserved and highlights what can be accomplished through co-operative effort. In this instance, however, labour/management relations were simplified because at Lamford labour is management.
Two years ago Sooke Forest Products closed its lumber operation because the company was unable to operate financially. Rather than accept the end of their livelihood, the 270 I.W.A. members in Sooke established the employee-owned Lamford Forest Products. Today that operation is one of the most efficient high-recovery mills in North America, employing 275 shareholders.
Rather than succumb to the corporate doomsayers, the employees took a chance with their collective future and, with
October 2, 1987

last week's award, have proven to themselves and all of Canada that co-operation beats confrontation hands down.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the export sale of commodities such as wheat, lumber, coal, uranium and potash is the backbone of the western Canadian economy. This reality is brought home each time a foreign Government adopts protectionist measures which inhibit the flow of Canadian goods.
Most recently, short-sighted American duties paralyzed the Saskatchewan potash industry. This is but one example of the damage that can be inflicted on our economy when there is no effective trade dispute settlement mechanism in place. If there exists the possibility of Canada and the United States agreeing to establish such a mechanism, if there is a way to ensure that Canadians will no longer be subject to the protectionist whims of the U.S. Congress, then the pursuit of such an agreement is worthy of a determined and committed effort on behalf of all Canadians.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his initiative and encourage him in pursuing every possible avenue to conclude a trade agreement with the U.S. that is both free and fair.



AIRPORTS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, over the last three years the Conservative Government has shown a reckless disregard for the security and safety of Canadian air travellers.
On June 25, 1985, two days after the Air-India tragedy, the then Minister of Transport, now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), said: "Since these tragedies occurred the Government has moved quickly to ensure the security of Canadian air travellers." This week we learned from a Southam news story that airport guards missed 25 per cent of fake weapons carried through airport screening checks by federal Transport inspectors during a 15-month period. In effect this means our airports are only 75 per cent secure.
In April, 1986, again the Conservative Government of Canada announced plans to make our airports more secure. Notwithstanding those promises we find today that our airports are still not secure. Security is substandard. The Government's credibility on this issue is in tatters. Indeed, it
appears as though it does not know who is responsible for airport security.
On June 25, 1985, the Minister of Transport said: "Ultimate responsibility for flight security rests with the carriers." A document prepared for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) dated September, 1985, says: "Airport and airline security in Canada is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and is governed by regulations issued under the Aeronautics Act." That says that the Government does not understand who is responsible for airport security. Is it any wonder that Canadians feel so insecure when they travel on airlines in Canada?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's call by Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev for an Arctic zone of peace has much to recommend it and ought to be responded to by Canada. However, it is somewhat ironic that the appeal was made from Murmansk in the Kola Peninsula, one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world. This is the home base for the Delta IV and Typhoon Class Soviet submarines carrying SSN 20 and SSN 23 intercontinental nuclear missiles. These bases are of course heavily protected by naval and air defences.
If Gorbachev is really serious he could start the process by stopping the flights of AS 15 nuclear warhead-equipped Cruise missile-carrying Bear H strategic bombers over the Canadian Arctic. Canada can hardly be blamed for taking defensive measures against this blatant Soviet threat.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, every Standing Committee on Public Accounts of which I have been a member for the last eight years has recommended or supported intermittent reporting by the Auditor General as well as the single annual report presently required by law. Such a change in the Auditor General Act would allow much more current reporting to Parliament and increase the accountability of government, something we all desire.
Even as we have had all-Party agreement on the proposed change, the Government has consistently refused to allow Private Members' Bills on the subject to pass. Since that channel seems blocked, I call upon the Government to achieve the desired accountability by taking action itself on this important issue.

October 2, 1987
Oral Questions



CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 TRADE QUEBEC AS DISTINCT SOCIETY-POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker,
Canada as a country is unique because of its bilingualism and its multiculturalism. Canadians take great pride in the fact that this tremendous diversity does not prevent them from seeing themselves, first of all and above all, as profoundly Canadian.
However, refusing to admit that Quebec constitutes a distinct society, different from the rest of Canada, shows a complete lack of historical knowledge and a lack of respect for the Francophone population of Quebec. Unfortunately, that is what seems to be happening today the Liberal Caucus, where, according to one Caucus member, some fellow members are anti-Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the narrow-minded attitude of those members of the Liberal Caucus who refuse to recognize the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. I am sad to hear that anti-Quebec forces are at work in the Liberal Party and in the Liberal Caucus in this House, forces that are casting doubts on the specific character of Quebec society.



THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF PATRO D'OTTAWA


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa's Patro, one of Lowertown's most important Francophone institutions, will be celebrating its thirtieth anniversary tomorrow. As one of seven centres of this kind that exist in Eastern Canada, the Patro has, over the years, opened its doors to many children, teenagers and senior citizens, providing them with a place to play, to talk to friends or to go swimming. Throughout its history the Patro has made an admirable contribution to community development and it continues to do so today. Several times its very survival was in jeopardy. However, with the help of the people in the community, the leaders of Patro managed to meet the challenges facing them.
Thanks to the hard work and perseverance of members who have had to cope with all kinds of financial and other problems, tomorrow Patro will be celebrating its thirtieth anniversary. Those who take part in this great celebration will remember happy times spent in the pool, at fairs, festivals, day camps and summer camps, and the plays and many other activities that have been a source of entertainment for Ottawa's Lowertown, in my riding.
Today I wish to pay tribute to all those who, with Father David Lachance, the founder of the Saint-Vincent-Patro in Ottawa, have made this institution prosper. To all those who worked so hard, sincere thanks!



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the news that the bilateral trade negotiations may be back on the rails is good news for Canadians. It is time those who have opposed this historic negotiation got onside. The time for political rhetoric is over.
For the sake of Canada and the future of our young people and the new jobs a new deal would bring, opposition Members should stop trying to undermine the negotiations. Those opposite would have had us pull out months ago and subject us to further protectionist policies by our neighbour to the south. They have no solution to the problem, only selfish political posturing.
In the final hours it is time to end the scare tactics which have made some Canadians uneasy over the last several months, despite assurances from the Government that our social programs, the Auto Pact, agricultural marketing boards, and our cultural industries are not and have not been part of the bilateral negotiations. Those opposed have used these tactics to make cheap political gains.
As the talks enter the final stage let us pull together, and not give the U.S. the advantage of being divided. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has repeated from the beginning that if it is not in the interest of Canada there will be no deal. That is good enough for me and I am sure it is good enough for all Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister, During the discussions on free trade held during the past week, in this House, two crucial points for Canada have been raised. First, Canada's need for a binding and universal dispute settlement mechanism, a mechanism which would allow Canada to be exempted from American trade duties. And, second, protection for the Canadian cultural industry and Canada's right to grant regional industrial development subsidies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us today that those requirements will not be set aside during the current negotiations in Washington?


The Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no basic change in the Canadian position, and we do not intend changing it.
October 2, 1987


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that while there was some movement on the question of a tribunal, there has been no agreement on rules that would guide such a tribunal. These are rules that would apply to regional development, cultural industries and a number of other very essential ingredients to the Canadian domestic political and social fabric.
Does this mean that there has now been a fundamental change in the American position and they have abandoned any demands that Canada limit its ability to provide regional development programs, and limit its right to determine for itself its cultural programs? Has there been a total abandonment of that position?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated in French that there has been no change in the fundamental positions Canada has put forward for some time.


Lloyd Axworthy: The American position.


Charles Joseph Clark: No fundamental change in the position we have put forward for some time. I think that is all that is appropriate for me to discuss at this stage.
However, I want to bring the House up to date with what happened since Question Period yesterday until today. During a meeting to consider the discussions that had been held yesterday in Washington, a telephone call was received from Secretary Baker, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Cabinet Committee directing their side of the discussions. On the basis of that telephone conversation, it became evident to us that we had reason to resume the negotiations. For that reason, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade, Ambassador Reisman and other of our technical experts are in Washington today.
The House will understand that I cannot go into details of the matters under discussion in Washington today. We have to see if they yield a positive result.


UNITED STATES DEADLINE FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is based upon that telephone conversation. As the Minister well understands, the deadline for the decision by the United States is Sunday night. We are now entering into negotiations in a two and one-half day period, for one of the most complex, difficult agreements ever arrived at between two countries.
Is it the position of both the Canadian and American Governments that in the two and one-half days they will have fully negotiated that agreement, or will the President of the
Oral Questions
United States announce on Sunday night simply some kind of vague agreement in principle which will, in effect, require Canada to make an agreement to a blank cheque without having had the opportunity to review its contents or whether in fact we agree with it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have three observations that I hope will be germane. First, we have no intention of signing, accepting, or being party to a blank cheque. Second, I cannot predict what will happen with these negotiations. They are in a more hopeful phase today then they have been at other times this week.
Third, with regard to the very valid point the Hon. Member makes about the complexity of the negotiations, he should bear in mind that precisely these issues have been under detailed consideration by the expert negotiators on both sides for a long number of months. We are not starting as though there were no past. There has been extensive preparation on the detail of these matters.
We will see if it will be possible, before the American deadline expires, to get the kinds of agreements on principle and on detail that would be necessary to serve Canada's interests. If we do, we will bring forward an agreement. If they do not serve Canada's interests, there will be no agreement.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Negotiations at Canada Post have come to a deadlock. Tempers are starting to boil on the picket lines, and Canada Post admits that mail delivery is disorganized.
Moreover, this morning, Canada Post decided to issue a lock-out order aimed at five Canadian Post Offices, including Ottawa, which can hardly result in getting the parties any closer together.
In order to prevent the worst, does the Minister not believe he should immediately appoint a mediator with a very specific mandate, in order to end that dispute?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, a mediator is to be appointed when the parties are ready to reach an agreement, and if Mr. Parrot is to be believed, the parties are not.

October 2, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT APPOINT MEDIATOR
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are fed up with this Minister's answers.
Is he waiting-as he did in the letter carrier dispute-for violence to increase on the picket lines and for the people to stir him up before he will appoint a mediator to solve the dispute? He knows he made a goof, a gigantic mistake the last time, why does he want to goof again? Is it because this Tory Government wants to resort to violence to solve disputes, rather than having him assume his responsibility as Minister of Labour and appoint a mediator to prevent disputes?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in the article from which I quoted a few sentences yesterday, Mr. Parrot felt that this was not the time to appoint a mediator. And I will quote him once more, in case the Hon. Member was not here yesterday.
"The presence of a mediator is useful when both parties involved seriously want to come to an agreement". And it is not my opinion at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the parties "seriously want to come to an agreement"!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS- AMERICANS' INTENTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
According to reports in the United States, the Americans want to reduce the powers of the Canadian Government to establish, as a sovereign country, regulations for regional development programs here, in Canada.
Will the Minister assure Canadians that the Canadian Government will not accept such conditions?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I read a similar statement several weeks ago, and I am sure that the Leader of the New Democratic Party will recall the statement of the negotiator, Ambassador Reisman, to the effect that Canada had to break off negotiations and that Canada found some of the proposals as concerns regional development and other issues unacceptable. That was the Canadian position and it still is.


AMERICAN PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we take that assurance in a positive way. I hope the Government stands by that.
My supplementary question concerns the timetabling of the American proposal. According to news reports confirmed by the Minister today, it was very late last night that, what has been described by a spokesperson for the Prime Minister as a significant proposal, was made by the Americans, literally at the last hour before the termination date this weekend. Does the Minister not believe that the Americans really have us boxed in an interesting corner? They have waited until the very last moment to make a significant proposal and we are now forced to meet their deadline on their terms, in their capital. Is this any way to conduct negotiations that will lead to a good settlement for the people of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there would have been no good settlement for the people of Canada if we had walked away from the negotiations and simply let Canada stand exposed to the protectionist pressures that have already taken their toll in Canada and could take a much more serious toll. I am sure all Members of the House are genuine and serious in wanting to have some system that protects the security of existing Canadian jobs and might lead us to a substantial expansion of jobs, opportunities, and markets in this country.
My interpretation of events is the exact opposite of that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I suppose that is because I have been closely privy to the negotiations. He could have been, had he accepted our offer for a confidential briefing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but he declined that offer.


Mr. Nystrom:: After the election he will be, Joe.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that I asked the Prime Minister a week ago, following all the concessions Canada has made in the last 18 months, if he could name a single concession the Americans had made-and he could not at that time-I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs today if he does not think the Americans have done it again. The very clever bargainers they are, they have forced Canada to meet their deadline, on their turf, in their capital, during the last 48 hours, and we are saying: "Oh, gee! Wasn't it great? At the last minute they finally made perhaps one concession". Is that a way to get a good deal for Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be a good way to get a good deal for Canada, and that is not what happened. Look. We know the Americans are tough negotiators. We have known that from the beginning. The question we had to decide was whether or not Canada was going to be afraid of the
October 2, 1987

Americans and run away from a deal that might be good for Canada.
The New Democratic Party is either afraid of the Americans or it does not like them, one or the other.


Some Hon. Members:: Both.


Charles Joseph Clark: Or both. Their policy on this trade negotiation, as it was their policy on the Auto Pact, has been to run away from a deal. I believe that history will prove them as wrong with regard to this arrangement as it has proved them wrong with regard to the Auto Pact. They did not like the Auto Pact. We think the Auto Pact was good for Canada.


UNITED STATES DEADLINE FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister just told the House of Commons that there can be no good deal for Canada if we walk away from the negotiating table and leave Canada exposed. That would lead one to the conclusion that the Minister and the Government are determined now that they are going to have a deal. We are interested in the timetable that is now in place.
The fact is that the U.S. President is required by U.S. law to give notice no later than Sunday of the intention to present a deal to both Houses of the U.S. Congress, signed between Canada and the United States. Is the Minister telling Canadians that in the next two and one-half days, a complicated trade arrangement is going to be initialled with all the t's crossed and i's dotted? Or is he telling us that the President will merely give notice on Sunday of the intention to present a deal to Congress at a later date and that in fact these negotiations may continue beyond Sunday, in effect on Congress's time?
Right. Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, just so the record is clear on part of the preamble, this Government will sign a trade deal if it is a good deal for Canada, and we will not sign a trade deal if it is not a good deal for Canada. That has been the case consistently and that remains the case.
The United States deadlines are the affair of the United States. We expect that we will have the proposal brought forward on the so-called fast-track basis. What the Americans might say, what the Americans might sign, how the Americans might authoritatively interpret their system, is in their hands. So far as we are concerned, there has been a development that makes us believe that it is worth while resuming negotiations and we are doing that. We hope that might yield a good result. If the negotiations turn out not to be fruitful, there will be no deal.


UNITED STATES TIMETABLE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat my question-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


An Hon. Member:: Spare us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, of course, can repeat the question. The Chair cannot guarantee there will be any different answer, but the Hon. Member has the floor.


Mr. McCurdy:: Slowly this time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, he may understand if I speak slower. What I am asking the Secretary of State, to be perfectly clear, is this: Can he assure us that any notice given by the President of the United States on Sunday will be notice of a deal completed versus merely notice by the U.S. President to present a deal within a week, two weeks, or three weeks?
What we want to know is whether or not Canada is going to participate in a process where in effect 585 Members of Congress are looking over the negotiators' shoulders as we commit ourselves to a deal in the absence of having completed the negotiations. If that is the case, our position will be dramatically weakened by a Government that obviously appears to want to have a deal at any cost.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has repeated his question, so let me repeat my answer.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No answer, in other words.


FREEDOM OF INVESTMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. In the first two years of what Canada has already given the United States in new investment freedom, Investment Canada allowed 1,192 takeovers of Canadian firms. Will the Minister confirm what Mr. Yeutter told U.S. Congressmen in his briefing yesterday morning, that Canada is willing to give even more investment freedom to the United States? Is it giveaways like this that have really started these talks up again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we really are going over a lot of old ground, but let me very quickly make two points which are well known to the House. As I said before, the positions of Canada that are known are the same positions we are carrying into the negotiations today, and we intend to respect Canadian interests. The second point, and I know there is an ideological obstacle to foreign investment on the part of the New Democratic Party, one of the reasons this Government has been so remarkably successful in job creation, creating over 900,000 new jobs since our election-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tell that to Peckford now.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell that to Getty.


Charles Joseph Clark: -is because we have changed the rules regarding investment. We have changed that old hostile

October 2, 1987
Oral Questions
anti-foreign attitude that has become such an unhappy characteristic of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Crosbie:: Right on!


Steven W. Langdon: Of course those were takeovers 1 was talking about which do not lead to new jobs but often to shutdowns and loss of jobs.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We can tell you about that in Windsor.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES CONGRESS
Steven W. Langdon: Given the almost completely negative comments which have come from U.S. Senators and representatives yesterday and today, why does the Government think, even if it gets a deal with Mr. Baker and the administration, even in those circumstances, why does it think that Congress is likely to approve anything that comes out of that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Transport has as usual put his finger on it precisely. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


John Edward Broadbent: He has put his finger in it very often.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now, wait-


An Hon. Member:: That's an original thought.


An Hon. Member:: At least we try.


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone suggests it is an original thought, it is not a thought that has guided the policies of either the Liberals or the New Democratic Party on this issue. In both cases they have looked at the toughness of the Americans or they have looked at the complexity of the American system and they have said: "That is too much for poor little us". That is not what Canada is saying.


John Edward Broadbent: Poor little you, that's right.


Charles Joseph Clark: What Canada is saying, and what this Government is saying, is that this country was built by people who were prepared to take bold measures, who were prepared to take on tough challenges.


John Edward Broadbent: See what Sir John A. had to say about that.


Charles Joseph Clark: It was not built by people who run out of NATO, who run out of NORAD, who run away from the trade negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't get anywhere that way, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: This is a recorded announcement.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On Wednesday the Minister said he had given a directive to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to stop the stockpiling of coal in the Whitney Pier area of Sydney. Yet the President of the corporation, Mr. Derek Ranee, says the stockpiling is going to go ahead, and if he has to stop the stockpiling, he may have to close some mines. The Government appointed Mr. Ranee as Chairman, and he is now ignoring the directives of the Government.
Is the Minister going to allow Mr. Ranee to continue to ignore these directives? Or can he assure us, and the people of Cape Breton, that the stockpiling will be stopped until proper pollution controls are put in place that are agreeable to the people of the area?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I have been following the developments of Devco very closely. I had to take a step which I guess no Minister ever really enjoys taking, that is, a ministerial directive to the Board of Directors to stop immediately the stockpiling of coal at Whitney Pier. I also asked in that letter for the Board of Directors to report back to me on how that would be done and within what delays.
I also very clearly mentioned that all environmental concerns that were raised at both the federal and provincial levels would have to be dealt with before any further resumption, if that should be required, occurred.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for that reply. Yesterday the Premier of Nova Scotia mentioned that a letter had been sent by the Board of Directors to the Minister. I would like to ask the Minister this. Does that letter contain a request from the Board of Directors that he remove Mr. Ranee from his position as President of the Cape Breton Development Corporation? If so, what action is he going to take on that request?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of communications with Dr. MacNeil, the Chairman of the Board. I think that the content of those communications either in oral form or
October 2, 1987

in written form are best kept confidential for the moment. I will inform the House of whatever further action we intend to take on the Devco issue as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport who will know that western grain farmers are watching anxiously the three labour disputes which have the potential to tie up the St. Lawrence Seaway and thereby disrupt the flow of grain from western Canada to export markets. My question for the Minister is this. Since Canada's reputation as a supplier of high quality wheat is again at stake, can the Minister advise the House as to whether the continued flow of that prairie wheat to export can be assured?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the situation, there is a strike at the moment, as the Hon. Member knows. It is occurring between the Canadian Marine Officers' Union, which is the marine engineers, and the Canadian Great Lakes shipowners. I am assured that to date there has been no interruption at all in the delivery of grain through the system. That is the present position. We are watching it very closely. The Minister of Labour is watching the situation.
There are two other potential disputes, and both are in the conciliation process. As at the present time, grain is moving in the normal manner without disruption. However, if there are any serious disruptions, the Hon. Member can be assured that we will take action to protect the Canadian farmer.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was reported this morning that a British trade mission is on its way to South Africa with British government support. My question to the Secretary of State is this. What action does the Government intend to take in response to this act of utter contempt for the will of the Commonwealth and the already weak sanctions imposed by it, largely as a result of the involvement of the British in weakening its resolve? Does the Government intend to protest this action as it should be protested?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no, 1 do not intend to protest the action because it is an action that is within the sovereign discretion of Great Britain. I have had extensive discussions, and the Hon. Member in his relations has had extensive discussions, with representatives of the British Parliament, and some members of the British Government. There is a different view on the effect of sanctions, and that difference is well known. They have a policy that differs from Canada's.
I guess what is most germane is how we can work together to ensure that the Commonwealth Conference, which opens in a couple of weeks in Vancouver, is a conference whose result will be to increase the pressures for change upon the Government of South Africa. That is what I am dedicated to doing.
Frankly, I do not think that we would advance our ability to do that by launching a condemnation of one of the principal members of the Commonwealth two weeks before the conference convenes.


REQUEST FOR COMMONWEALTH ACTION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: My
question to the Secretary of State is this. Is it not about time that we stopped kowtowing to the British inclination to collusion with South Africa and go to the Commonwealth, exercising leadership to get from the Commonwealth, even if without the British, the kind of action in response to that apartheid-type regime that that civilized country and a civilized Commonwealth ought to be providing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is most important is for us to exert the maximum possible world pressure upon the South African regime to change the system of apartheid. That is what we have been doing consistently before the Nassau declaration, and with some effect.
The Hon. Member suggests that the Commonwealth should throw its weight absent Great Britain against South Africa. He knows that the Commonwealth economic weight absent Great Britain is absent a great deal. What would be most productive for us to do would be to find ways in which we can continue to work on the British to change their views about sanctions, but can also continue to work with them in areas where there is agreement to increase both the pressure for change on the South African Government and to increase the stability and security of the front-line states.
It is also, I think, possible for us to look at ways, with Britain and with other industrial countries that are not members of the Commonwealth, in which we can continue to add to pressures upon South Africa. That is the purpose of the policy of this Government.

October 2, 1987
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


GRAIN FARMERS-DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows that farmers are facing the lowest grain prices in constant dollars since the 1930s and the Great Depression. In late August the Minister agreed in principle to a $3 billion deficiency payment to Canadian farmers. Can the Minister give a commitment today as to when that payment will be made? When will the cheques be sent out so that farmers facing great uncertainty with world prices will know that this Government is going to follow through on that commitment which he apparently made to Canadian grain farmers in late August in Winnipeg?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. Part of it is right and part is wrong. Of course the Hon. Member did not attend the farm leaders' meeting in Winnipeg on August 27.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I was not invited.


John Wise: I am sure that if he checked with any of the 50 farm leaders who attended that meeting he would find that no commitment whatsoever was given with respect to the $3 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it was the third meeting of series two with reference to Special Canadian Grains No. 2. What happened at that meeting, as I have reported in this House numerous times, was that farm leaders almost unanimously agreed on a method of distribution. What is happening now is that officials of my Department are putting the numbers to that particular distribution formula. In fact, they are consulting on a day-to-day basis with the farm leadership seeking additional information.
The commitment that I gave was that if it met the fairness and equity test, then it would form part of the submission that I would make to the Government. But there was no commitment. Indeed, a year ago at this time there was no commitment on the dollars attached to the Special Canadian Grains Program. Today, of course, there is no commitment to the dollars attached-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Hon. Members want the information, and I am trying to be forthcoming. As of today there is no commitment as to a price-tag on the program.
[DOT] (U50)


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE TALKS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this is the same type of stonewalling that we heard last October-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: -until Premier Devine screamed for a political bail-out in the Saskatchewan election. There is no Saskatchewan election this year. Grain is at the lowest prices since the 1930s, the engineers on the Seaway are on strike, in the next week or so the lock-men on the Seaway will go on strike. Surely there is enough uncertainty that the Government can stop stonewalling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As all Hon. Members know, this is an important matter. I would ask that the Hon. Member to put his question and I ask the Hon. Minister to answer it, succinctly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Both of you.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the question.
Is the hold-up because of the free trade negotiation that is going on with the United States? Is there uncertainty as to whether the agreement that is being hammered out in Washington, and in the Langevin Building today, whether or not this type of payment is permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member can put his question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Is the payment of $3 billion which the Minister promised to the farmers on the free trade negotiation table, and is there uncertainty as to whether or not that will be permitted by the American agreement with Canada? Will the Minister clarify if that is the hold-up?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Now goes the truth.


John Wise: The only stone wall must be between the Hon. Member's ears.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Cheap shot.


John Wise: There is no stonewalling on the part of this Government whatsoever. The design and the program to consult with the Canadian farmers have nothing to do with the bilateral trade arrangements between Canada and the United States.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice finally to have the opportunity to ask a question.
Earlier in Question Period in response to a question, the Minister of Labour said that it is not yet time to appoint a mediator. In view of the fact that the postal workers have offered to negotiate on the issue of franchising, and have made
October 2, 1987

an offer in this area, is it the Government's policy that Canada Post will negotiate on the issue of franchising? Where, when, and how will that occur?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Post Office, I think that he made it fairly clear to the House yesterday as reported in Hansard at page 9550 where he stated, "Mr. Dunstan ..." on behalf of Canada Post, "has made a commitment to negotiate, along the lines suggested by Mr. Foisey,..." the conciliator, "to ensure that no employees would be adversely affected by this decision, which is most properly a management decision".
Of course, the federal Government is hopeful that Canada Post and CUPW can return to the bargaining table to negotiate a settlement, and that is obviously the preferred course of action.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Why is it the position of the federal Government that we should take jobs which are basically filled by women who are earning a good salary, and make sure that those jobs go to women, probably on a parttime basis, who will be earning the minimum wage? Why is that a good policy for this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is somewhat slanted.


An Hon. Member:: Just a little bit.


John Carnell Crosbie: As usual.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is a conciliator's report which we believe could form the basis for a negotiated settlement. Yesterday the Minister responsible for the Post Office indicated that the Post Office is ready and willing to sit down and work-


Rodney Edward Murphy: How about women's salaries?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and negotiate a settlement. That is the preferred course of action.


STRIKE BY INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
I had the feeling during the interview shown yesterday evening on Canadian television with the heads of the Canada Post Corporation and the union that they were playing cat and mouse instead of trying to come to an agreement and settling the postal strike.
Oral Questions
Can the Minister assure the Canadian population that the Government is doing everything in its power to settle this strike as quickly as possible to minimize the cost to the Canadian economy?


Pierre H. Cadieux: 1 believe that we all agree that the best collective agreement is one that is negotiated by both parties at the bargaining table. This is why I encourage both parties to return to the bargaining table.
Having said that, I can advise both parties that the Government will not tolerate a disruptive work stoppage at the Canada Post Corporation.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the serious and potentially explosive situation with parole supervision in Metropolitan Toronto.
In a memorandum from the senior board member of the National Parole Board to Mr. O. Ingstrup, the Chairman of the National Parole Board, he stated:
It is becoming very apparent that major problems exist in the area of
supervision in Toronto and vicinity. We continue-to see evidence of very
shoddy work and to see signs of impending major problems.
Mr. Speaker, for more than a year the Solicitor General has been aware of this very serious problem. I would like to ask why the Conservative Government has not committed the necessary resources to ensure proper and adequate supervision for parolees in Metropolitan Toronto?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: On behalf of the Solicitor General, who is out of Ottawa today on official business, I am informed with respect to the allegations made by the Hon. Member that indeed there has been action taken with respect to improving the capacity of the Parole Board in the Toronto area. There has been a significant increase in the personnel operating out of the district of York in Toronto. The situation is well in hand.
The Solicitor General has responded quickly and effectively with respect to the workload that is facing the board in this part of the country.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SITUATION
John V. Nunziata: Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not appear to be the case. The senior member of the National Parole Board had some very serious concerns with regard to parole supervision.

October 2, 1987
Oral Questions
The Solicitor General will know that it is a powder keg ready to explode. There are situations where dangerous inmates are not being properly supervised on the streets, and the public is at risk in Metropolitan Toronto.
The National Parole Board in Ontario has recommended a full review and audit to be made of the processes being followed, the staff problems, and reporting procedures.
I wish to ask the Government whether it is prepared to initiate that full review and audit, as recommended by the Senior Board Member of the National Parole Board in Ontario.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Good question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take issue with the inflammatory language used by the Hon. Member. It does not serve the system well to make that type of categorical catastrophic allegation. All of us are interested in ensuring that the system operates effectively on behalf of those it serves, and on behalf of the Canadian public.
1 have indicated that I am informed that the administration of the Parole Board in the Toronto area has been addressed by the Solicitor General when it has been brought to his attention. He is taking action to ensure that the best interests of our system of justice are addressed. I would simply counsel the Hon. Member not to make these statements, otherwise he will have his picture in the Toronto Sun.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Which page?


An Hon. Member:: Page 3.


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the Minister advise honey producers in Canada if a sulfathiazole certificate is necessary for shipments of honey to Japan and to European countries?
When will the Government certify more labs for testing honey?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I answered part of that question yesterday. My hon. colleague should realize that product cannot move interprovincially unless it carries an export certificate issued by Agriculture Canada, and meets the standards established by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The same holds true for export product from Canada to the United States, and more recently to Japan.
What we are attempting to do is to negotiate with these two receiving countries an agreement that this product would be acceptable, providing that it carries with it an export certificate.
In order for us to issue the export certificate, it must meet the standards established by Health and Welfare.


MARINE SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Have members of the B.C. Conservative caucus met with the Minister in order to request a moratorium on the destaffing of West Coast lighthouses?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has been under way for some time. The Hon. Member will remember that the Government appointed, or that I appointed, a completely objective and independent evaluator of the proposals in connection with light stations in Canada.
He made a report and recommendations, and I believe he found that the course upon which we are embarked is a proper, sensible, and reasonable one.
Nevertheless, I am discussing these matters with members of the B.C. caucus who might not be as reasonable and rational in their judgment as the independent person we appointed to look into the matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We certainly agree with that.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am naturally going to heed what they have to say.


Raymond John Skelly: I must say that I agree entirely with the Minister about the irrationality of his colleagues.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member would put the question, it would be helpful.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON DESTAFFING
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that B.C. Tory Members made a public commitment to urge the Government to abandon the plan to destaff the lighthouses?
Will he impose a moratorium on the Coast Guard while his consultation with his colleagues is going on?
October 2, 1987


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only report to the hon. gentleman that 1 read the papers as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am from a marine area myself. I hate to see the closure of lighthouses, but the world changes and the world moves on, and this is a program in effect in all parts of Canada. British Columbia is a province of particular sensibilities, and 1 am certainly going to be very sensitive to those sensibilities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Given the confusing and unsettling situation in Fiji where a second coup took place this week, can the Minister advise the House who Canada now recognizes as the Head of Government in Fiji?
Given that the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver is fast approaching, will Fiji still be considered as a participant in the meeting and, indeed, has the Minister received any representations that Fiji will be represented at the meeting?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Naturally it is of interest to British Columbia Members and to those across the country, and I know that the Hon. Member for Capilano has followed questions in the Pacific area with particular interest.
The Government recognizes the Governor General of Fiji as being the sole legitimate source of executive authority in that country. As Canada recognizes the Governor General as the Head of Government, the Governor General or his representative would be welcome at the Vancouver meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
As far as we are concerned, Fiji is and remains a full member of the Commonwealth.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. It concerns part of a secret and very disturbing cabinet document which I
Oral Questions
received that was approved by the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet.
The document is entitled "Sweeteners" and suggests increasing future refugee levels simply, and I quote, "to improve the public perception of the Government's commitment to the refugee issue. .. which would neutralize criticism that this Government does not care about refugee protection".
How can the Minister justify such a cynical strategy which attempts to artificially sweeten refugee legislation which the Government recognizes is seriously flawed?
Rather than playing with the lives of refugees through its public relations gimmickry, why does the Government not implement legislation which is truly designed to stop human suffering and to protect human lives?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, this Government need not apologize for our refugee policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Our generosity has been demonstrated. We do more for the real refugees of the world on a per capita basis than any other nation. This year we will be bringing in almost 20,000 people under refugee and humanitarian programs. We are getting to those in the most desperate need.
In addition, we contribute tens of millions of dollars to international humanitarian agencies, to food aid, et cetera. Anybody who comes to our door and seeks protection, those in need of protection, will never be turned away. If a person does not have a safe haven, we will make sure that he is given a haven.


VISA REQUIREMENTS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in the same "Sweeteners" document, Cabinet states that after Bill C-55 is law "visas would not be required to deter claimants from countries with no significant human rights problems", yet "visas will remain a necessity to control arrivals from countries where human rights problems do exist".
Therefore I would like to ask the Minister, particularly after his answer, how can the Government decide that people who are fleeing countries where serious human rights violations have been recognized by Canada, are to be systematically restricted by the use of visas?
Are they not the real victims who should be addressed by a true refugee policy? Why does the Government not put an end to this Machiavellian strategy which does nothing but bring dishonour to the country-


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

October 2, 1987
Tabling of Documents


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we saw clearly the increasing abuse of our laws, of the integrity and credibility of those laws. This year, to date, over 21,000 people have come to make a refugee claim here. By the advice we are given, more than 70 per cent are not real refugees.
We have found a way to bring forward a process which is almost complete now. We are well advanced in that process to identify and determine the real refugees, to welcome them, and to make sure that they are provided a haven here. However, those who are abusers will be kept out. We are saying "no" to illegal aliens and "yes" to real refugees.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who will recall having been on his feet seven times between November and May to tell us that "soon" there would be an economic recovery program announced for northwestern Ontario.
He will also recall that on July 13 it was stated in the press release finally announcing the program that within four weeks to six weeks the program would be operational.
Since it is now 12 weeks later and the board has not even been appointed, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House and the people of northern Ontario what he intends to do to rectify this scandalous situation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are very much committed to the economic development of northern Ontario. We are working actively with the Minister who will be responsible for the initiative-between him and my officials and between the two of us-to finalize the plans.
The announcement should be made on the advisory committee on or about October 9. The official opening of the office in Sault Ste. Marie is scheduled for the very near future, before the end of October.
The acronym for the program will be FEDNOR, and the proposals are presently being compiled by interim staff.


COMPOSITION OF CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL
John Edmund Parry: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board must be aware of the fact that the applications have been submitted, that the composition of the consultative council will reflect the francophone reality, the aboriginal reality and the geographic diversity of Northern Ontario. Is he prepared to assure the
House and Northern Ontario residents that the composition of this committee will reflect these realities?


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to my colleague that the composition of the advisory committee will be representative of the local population. Having in mind the establishment of both the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Economic Diversification Office, the aim of the Government in such initiatives, as in the Northern Ontario initiative, is precisely to forge a link between local forces and interest groups and Government programs. So this is in keeping with our projections: to have an advisory committee to represent local interests groups.


Mr. Speaker:: I know some Hon. Members will be very disappointed that the Question Period has come to an end but I have been very generous. I know other Hon. Members will not be disappointed at all. In any event, we must move on.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-2982.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), that the thirty-second report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House on Monday, September 28, 1987, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 2, 1987

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with my colleagues in the other Parties, one of whom had to catch an airplane. I think you will find unanimous consent for a motion to make a change of membership on the committee involving 10 members of our Party. 1 move that the membership of the Standing Committee be amended as follows:
1.	Mr. McCain for Mr. Gass on the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
2.	Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere) for Mr. Fontaine on the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture;
3.	Mr. Gass for Mr. McCain on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans;
4.	Mr. Fontaine for Mr. Daubney on the Standing Committee on Government Operations;
5.	Mr. Attewell for Mr. Friesen on the Standing Committee on Human Rights;
6.	Mr. Brisco for Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere) on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration;
7.	Mr. Witer for Mr. Pietz on the Standing Committee on Multicultural-ism;
8.	Mr. Darling for Mr. Hicks on the Standing Committee on National Defence;
9.	Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est) for Mr. Hawkes on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and
10.	Mr. Pennock for Mr. Gormley on the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other Hon. Members rising with regard to that statement? Is that agreed?
Period 1984-85	Organization University of Toronto	Amount $ 8,500
	University of Toronto	$ 9,000
	University of Toronto	$ 5,000
1985-	86 1986-	87	NIL York University	$10,0001987-88	York University	$ 5,000

Questions on the Order Paper


["I want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments. As I said on previous days, this is of course a very important subject but, considering the present circumstances, the Chair is reluctant to agree that a debate is urgently needed this afternoon.\nI know the Hon. Member will understand that the Chair's decision does not in any way overlook the importance of the issue, but perhaps Monday or some other day, there will be another opportunity when a debate would be appropriate. Today, however, the Chair does not feel that is the case."]
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 180 will be answered today.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS WITHIN METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and government within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: October 2, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Minister has been answered.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 sent notice that I would ask the Chair to allow an emergency debate under the provisions of Standing Order 29. In fact, the Official Opposition has been asking for such a debate nearly every day for almost a week. We feel that Canadians should be informed about the trade talks and be correctly informed about what is happening between the U.S. and Canada with respect to free trade.
Mr. Speaker, you suggested several times that the Government could use another approach, such as an Opposition day or a motion. That has not been done. Your advice was ignored. We sincerely believe that a debate is necessary and that a debate on this matter is urgently needed since this is the last sitting day we will have to do so. Considering the importance of the subject and the timely and urgent aspect of the trade talks, 1 thought that today you would perhaps be willing to recognize the urgency of this matter and give permission for a special debate under Standing Order 29.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments. As I said on previous days, this is of course a very important subject but, considering the present circumstances, the Chair is reluctant to agree that a debate is urgently needed this afternoon.
I know the Hon. Member will understand that the Chair's decision does not in any way overlook the importance of the issue, but perhaps Monday or some other day, there will be another opportunity when a debate would be appropriate. Today, however, the Chair does not feel that is the case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that
October 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95 B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
101C.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2) Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is
Constitution Amendment, 1987
appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act. 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(0 subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
[Stage Direction]
October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its
powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the
Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act. 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585) and Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586).
Mr. Speaker:: I understand we were on questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, at the close of debate before Question Period the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) was elucidating for the House some of the weaknesses of the arguments which have been presented against the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord, other than those contained in the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party. I was quite interested in his comments. I wonder if he could expound a little further on them as I would be very interested in hearing further comment on that.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) for his question. I was indeed expanding on what I saw as the weaknesses of the
arguments which have been presented against the Meech Lake Accord.
1 believe that immigrants such as myself and the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) do not require the inclusion of a distinct society clause such as is envisaged to address the needs of the Province of Quebec. I also believe that the prime identifier in constitutional terms for the aboriginal people is the existence of treaties and the existence of a process to resolve areas which are not yet under treaty such that the constitutional entrenchment is secondary to the existence of the treaties.
There is, after all, also the experience of the unfortunately unsuccessful discussions toward self-government. They were, however, constitutionally entrenched discussions, and similarly with multiculturalism. For those of us who come from other cultures, other than the mainstream ones,whether we were born in Canada or outside Canada, this is a daily affirmation. After all, we have not undergone the internal divisions, the rifts and the travails, that rent the Province of Quebec over this very question of membership within the Canadian Confederation.
[ Translation]
So, Mr. Speaker, the words "distinct society" will be entrenched in the present Constitution to allay the deep and legitimate fears of Quebecers regarding their status in North America. On the North American continent inhabited by 250 million mostly English-speaking people, Quebecers have always been afraid, with reason, of being isolated or assimilated by the English world. While the English fact inside Quebec can be manipulated from outside the province in order to downgrade the French fact that is alive within the Province of Quebec and which we should all recognize in this debate, I stand in solidarity with Quebecers who need to have these words, "distinct society", included in the Constitution.

Other arguments have been equally weak. The Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) talked of the dream of a bilingual Canada. That dream has never been there. It is the dream of the availability of services in both languages across the country that has existed. Consequently, the destruction of that straw man was of course easy.
The perspective of my hon. colleague from Cochrane- Superior frankly seemed to eliminate any acknowledgment that he was a representative of a region of Canada as well as, of course, a Canadian and a federalist. It seemed to ignore the diversity of our own roots that are spread right across the country and indeed from outside the country but which lead to the diversity and differences that exist within Canada today and which we must not only recognize but indeed celebrate.
The bard of Scotland, Robert Burns, said: "Oh wad some power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as others see us!" Let us believe that many who oppose this Accord will be seen by
October 2, 1987

others as over-emphasizing their personal perspective to the detriment of their public responsibility. If we oppose, we can be seen legitimately as individualists, always wanting our own way.
It was the Austrian statesman Metternich who said that politics is the art of the possible. In voting on the Meech Lake Accord, we must set aside what seems to be the demonology of the view of provincial politicians. We have to remember that there are those at every other level of Government whose commitment to Canada is as strong as ours, whose faith in Canada is as strong as ours.
Obviously, I have a deep desire to see the amendments proposed by my Party or those by the Liberal Party largely incorporated in a changed and improved Meech Lake Accord. There does come a point however at which we have to look at what is before us. I will conclude then by saying that the process of discussion in this House must surely have raised in the minds, not only of the Government but of all other Governments in Canada, the need for some form of codicil or addendum to the Meech Lake Accord which will recognize the very serious and legitimate concerns that have been raised.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question to put to the Hon. Member. One of the amendments brought forward by the Liberal Party would require, in subsection 2.(2), that the federal Government not only preserve but promote the fundamental characteristic of the country, our two official languages, and that it do so actively. I wonder if the Hon. Member will support and vote for including the requirement, at least for the federal level, of not only preserving but particularly promoting the linguistic duality.


John Edmund Parry: I should thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier for his question. Mr. Speaker, if you read the amendments proposed by his Party you will note that they are more detailed than the ones proposed by my colleagues from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and New Westminster- Coquitlam (Mrs. Jewett).
I think we recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government cannot accept, word for word, an amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. I believe it would be more realistic for the opposition parties to propose amendments of a general nature which would allow the Government to incorporate their substance in its own document.
On the particular question, however, I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the federal Government has the responsibility not only to promote our two official languages, but also to support and promote the survival, continued existence, and use of native languages which were used on this continent before English and French.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for many of his comments on this historic
Constitution Amendment, 1987
document which offers Canada and all Canadians an opportunity to move into the 20th century as a country that is willingly united.
I would say by way of comment that unlike many Hon. Members who have spoken and those who will speak, I do not view the referendum of 1980 as a great success for Canadians. I believe that the results of the 1980 referendum indicate that we had failed as a country to deal with the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec.
In 1980, fully 40 per cent of the population of Quebec voted to leave Confederation, and about 50 per cent of the Frenchspeaking people of Quebec voted to leave Canada as we know it. That was an alarming result; hardly a victory, simply a sad result.
We as a country gave a commitment during the referendum debate of 1980 to do something to make that 40 per cent of Quebecers more comfortable within Confederation. That is what the ensuing debate was about, and it was a great miscarriage of justice and a breach of promise when in 1982, the Government of Canada, in concert with the provinces, proceeded to effect major constitutional change without the consent of the very people it was supposed to benefit.
It was in an effort to right this wrong that in 1987, the First Ministers of Canada reached a constitutional Accord which brings Quebec willingly into our constitutional family. It is an imperfect document, of that there can be no doubt. But so have all constitutional documents been imperfect.
The 1982 constitutional agreement was grossly imperfect in that it excluded Quebec. It was grossly imperfect in the manner in which it put the Charter of Rights in the Constitution, permitting provinces to opt out of the protections of the Charter. The 1867 Act itself was imperfect. Every constitutional amendment, one could argue, has been imperfect in one way or another.
But what we must balance is the need to correct an historical wrong, a wrong that could form and probably would form the basis for a separatist movement in the future. The Rene Levesque of 1995, in the absence of constitutional reconciliation, would have a far stronger case to make than the Rene Levesque of 1976 and 1981.
I urge all Hon. Members to take the opportunity presented in this Accord to unite our country and make it stronger so we can face the challenges collectively and in a united fashion.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his serious and scholarly contribution. I must say that I do not really share what I see as a pessimistic interpretation of the results of the Quebec referendum. 1 have to observe that the use of referendums to manipulate public opinion has seldom been better demonstrated than in the phrasing of the text of the question on which the people of Quebec were asked to vote. I believe it was phrased in order to catch the maximum

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
number of people who might have any doubt about the form of Quebec's association and involvement within Canada. It succeeded in doing so and the number of people voting for it came to about 40 per cent.
However, I take very much to heart his criticisms of the 1982 agreement, and I think his criticism of past agreements reflect my own concern about the way in which written constitutions can be used and misused by those with motive to do so.
I understand the Hon. Member perhaps does not share all the reservations and criticisms I have about the Meech Lake Accord. Perhaps the question of consideration of analyses from outside the milieu of those actively involved in the negotiations is one where he has more optimism than I. Yet I think we tend towards the same conclusion, that the Accord is a fully necessary response to the outreach of the Province of Quebec towards integration within our great Canadian Confederation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who will be followed by the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this historic debate and in a constitutional accord which, to my mind, is incomplete and imperfect. However, when we look at Canada's history, we realize that what we had in 1982 was an imperfect and incomplete constitutional accord. Since Canada was founded in 1867, and even under the Fathers of Confederation, we had an incomplete and imperfect accord. At the time, we are told, there were always pessimists telling the Fathers of Confederation that Canada would never be able to function without an amending formula, that it would be anarchy, that it was impossible and that we would never be able to patriate the Constitution. The impossible happened in 1982. Actually, between 1927 and 1982, fifteen constitutional conferences were held in an attempt to patriate the Constitution and agree on an amending formula, and every time everybody wanted a perfect constitution which, unfortunately, did not reflect reality and did not allow for change, and every time it fell through. In Victoria, we still had pessimists who were saying ... I call them prophets of gloom and doom; in Victoria we came closest to a perfect accord. Unfortunately, it fell through. There would be no going back.
The pessimists who said that were wrong again. In 1982, we had an accord that once again was incomplete and imperfect. Quebec and our native people were left out of this Constitutional Accord. Today, we are discussing the Meech Lake Accord which is still imperfect and incomplete. It leaves out native people and multiculturalism is not sufficiently protected, but this time it is Quebec's turn to ratify the Canadian Constitution. Today, again, there are pessimists who say that because native people were left out, because of the unanimity
rule and because of the distinct society aspect, the Accord is unacceptable and it will be impossible to change anything in Canada. Come on, you prophets of gloom and doom!
The history of Canada, although there is no amendment formula, although it was simply a legislative measure in London, there is the Supreme Court, the federal and provincial governments had co-operated to provide health insurance, hospital insurance, social programs, old age security pensions, pension plans. All that was done as a result of the good will of people in those days. The pessimists who claim such initiatives could not be taken after the Accord should know better. Your children will be as intelligent and as brilliant as those of earlier generations. If something does not work out in five or ten years they will not be any more stupid than people are today or were before. They will fix it. People who are against the Accord are insulting younger Canadians. These people think there is nothing after them. Prime Ministers and Hon. Members are all here for a finite time. Before Malepart, there was someone else in Sainte-Marie, and someone else before him. The prime Ministers have also changed. Whether we are speaking about Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Joe Clark, or anyone else, we are all here for a while to represent the population, and every one of us in his time has done a very good job of defending our own generation. I am convinced that the next generation will succeed even better than we have in protecting the interests of the population.
It is sad to see those who object to the distinct identity of Quebec. We do not find them only in the Liberal Party, but there is also one in the New Democratic Party who has just announced his position and a couple in the Conservative Party. It is sad to see that they still have the same old attitudes and do not understand Quebec. When I say that they are anti-Quebec, it is not because they are racists or because they object to the linguistic concept. Perhaps 1 am not using the right terms, but I simply want to show that these people do not understand today's Quebec. When they say that they want the status quo with the distinct identity, they are wrong. Those who do not want the distinct identity want to maintain the status quo of 30 years ago, when Quebec was dominated by the English-speaking minority. Francophones in East Montreal had to speak English when they shopped at Eaton's. The situation has changed today. French is increasingly present. However, something else has changed. Twenty years ago, when someone who spoke neither French nor English arrived in Quebec, he had to become assimilated with the anglophones. Then, the francophones took action to assimilate newcomers in their own community. We must congratulate the Parti Quebecois for that. I did not agree with their option, but today, it is different. We have Italians in Quebec, such as the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who is a Quebecer like the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but he is an Italian Quebecer while the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is of French background.
October 2, 1987

The Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and Asians all have their own culture and do not want to be identified with either francophones or anglophones. They want to keep their independence. This is what makes Quebec different. What makes it different is the francophone majority which is increasingly asserting its position. It is not taking the place of anyone else, but assuming its own rightful place.
As for the Italian community, we can look at what is happening in Saint-Leonard. A Quebec television station has a program which shows how the francophone and Italian communities live in the same regions in harmony which keeping their own identity.
When I see my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) say that federal Members from Quebec will be less important, I tell him that in hockey when one realizes that the game gets too fast, it is time to hang one's skates, because development and progress are increasingly quicker. And whoever is unable to follow the pace should not try to stop the others but drop out and leave his place to someone younger. Such is evolution!
Mr. Speaker, I think that with this kind of Constitution . . . and when he wants us to believe that a Quebec Member, if ever the distinct society concept is accepted and Quebec is given jurisdiction over communications, will never be able to become Minister of Communications. If we draw up the Constitution to see what job we can have in Ottawa, we might as well not have a Constitution at all.
Once again his argument is at fault. As far as the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan are concerned, Quebec has autonomy in its field. We have had Mrs. Monique Begin as Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as Mr. Marc Lalonde, but even while Quebec was exclusively responsible for the Quebec Pension Board, the others were responsible for the Canada Pension Plan. Medicare and hospital insurance are administered by the provinces. We have had someone from Quebec. Let us assume that the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) or the Member for Mount-Royal (Mrs. Finestone) are right, then the Quebec Members in Ottawa would have to do their best because their provincial colleagues would have some of the powers. This is all very well, then we will have better representatives in Ottawa and the French-speaking Members from Quebec have never been afraid of competition. We have never feared competition, because we always have had to fight and I know that my children will have to fight in that Parliament.
However, do not try to delude me. I congratulate all Canadians for having thought out the concept of the distinct society. The last election has clearly shown that people want to be rid of those who decide or want to undermine the French culture. In Ontario, they put Grossman out. People no longer want that kind of representatives.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I hope that those who are against the distinct society will change their mind; however, I respect the views of my other colleagues from all parties who would like to have protection for the native people. I understand them. However, I do not approve the Tory, NDP or Liberal Members who say that the concept of the distinct society would maintain the status quo. And they suggest we here in this House are adopting an incomplete agreement, well in 1982 it was just as incomplete. Even with Prime Minister Trudeau it was incomplete. He himself recognized the distinct nature when we had him include the so-called Canada clause with respect to the teaching language in Quebec. In the other provinces, it is the universal clause. That did not please the Prime Minister of Canada. As a constitutional amending formula, he preferred the Victoria formula but he yielded. Canada is a consensus, and such is the reality of the time. It is not the nature of a provincialist Member to support the Meech Lake Agreement, but of a federal Member, of a Member seeking the good of all Canadians. And it is my view that my colleagues, both in the NDP and the Conservative Party, who suggest that because we support the Meech Lake position that allows Quebec to concur in the Canadian Constitution we are taking a provincialist decision, are making a tremendous error, because as long as Quebec is left aside, the Canadian Federation is wobbly. It is like a four-wheel car that has lost a wheel. Quebec is an important wheel in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendments put forward by my Party, and I also blame the federal Government for not accepting a few improvements, for not showing the leadership needed to contact the other provincial Governments. That was done in 1982. Mrs. Judy Erola-unfortunately she is no longer here, but were she here-Concerning women who had the will to fight despite the fact that the nine provinces with the then Prime Minister had signed an agreement. . . Mrs. Erola, along with women groups from all across the country, forced the First Ministers and the House of Commons to bring in other amendments. Like the request by Mr. Claude Ryan, for Quebec once again-to meet Quebec's claims-like the Canada clause I referred to earlier concerning the teaching language. Here again the provincial Governments accepted.
To all those men and women who steadfastly want to add something, I say it can be done in my view. Is there one Canadian Prime Minister who can publicly tell his cultural communities'. No, I cannot include you in that agreement? Is there one provincial Premier who can tell his cultural communities who call on him: No, I cannot include you? I am sure of that, and I strongly urge the Prime Minister to show leadership in that regard.
As far as the native people are concerned, I understand that the situation is much more difficult, but it is to be hoped that their turn will come too eventually.
But this time, Quebecers have accepted to adhere to the Constitution. They could have refused. I suggest we should commend Mr. Robert Bourassa, Quebec's Premier, for performing this miracle. It is Robert Bourassa who managed

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
to convince the other Premiers- The Minister of State (Youth)(Mr. Charest) would like me to believe that it is the Prime Minister of Canada who did it. Unfortunately, 1 must tell him that he is wrong again, and that it was Mr. Remillard, the Minister of Cultural Affairs-because the Prime Minister of Canada did not have the guts to do it-who had to go and see each and every provincial Premier. Robert Bourassa met with them and convinced them to return to the table and deal with his five conditions. And it was the Prime Minister of Canada, as usual, who presided over this meeting.
On the other hand, where I can blame the Prime Minister of Canada for his weakness, it is concerning Senate reform. To have given up federal patronage in exchange for provincial patronage is not the discovery of the century. This is typical of what comes out of his little head. But notwithstanding his mistakes which, 1 am sure, will be corrected, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow there will be another Government which will make right his wrongs and correct his mistakes concerning Senate reform. I suggest the Prime Minister could have found for the Senate a formula or a scheme providing for half the Senators being appointed and half being elected, or even devise a system to limit the powers of the Senate. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, he chose to let it pass. Yet, he could correct his mistakes, there is still time. If he could show leadership, the Prime Minister of Canada would be able to protect our cultural communities. As the Minister of State (Youth) said, the Prime Minister of Canada should prove to us that he was the one to do it. The Meech Lake Constitutional Accord and Quebec's distinct society are Robert Bourassa's achievements.
If the Prime Minister of Canada wants to be awarded a medal or a trophy for this Constitutional Accord, he should stand up and call up a meeting of Provincial Premiers. He is going to see them about the free trade negotiations. He could take ten minutes to tell them: Listen, we made a mistake when we forgot the cultural communities in Canada. There are cultural communities in each province, so it is important to add them to the text. Do you agree? That would be a fine opportunity to show leadership, and that would be normal. In 1982, even after having signed the Accord, the Provincial Premiers agreed to change four or five points to address women's and Quebec's concerns. It was not the Canada clause which had been agreed upon at first with regard to the language of teaching, it was the universal clause all across Canada. But it was as a result of the meetings of the provincial premiers and the agreement with the federal government, that those changes could be made. In that respect I call once again upon the Conservative Members to put pressure on their Prime Minister to show at least some leadership so that we can argue with credibility when congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada on the success of the Meech Lake Accord.
I very seldom feel inclined to congratulate this Prime Minister, but in this instance I believe he did well. Since I was waiting at the door that night, I know that as the meeting's chairman he did not do too bad. He may have been a little too
generous in order to get his deal on the Senate. Even Robert Bourassa exclaimed: "That is more than I was hoping for!" So it does not look too good when you have to give in. This is my concern with the Americans.
But coming back to the distinct society issue and the Conservative Members, I would like to single them out by name, for there are two or three who are starting to break rank themselves. On the NDP side, there is the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who declared himself against it because he too is afraid of that. On the Conservative side, there is the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), both anti-Quebecers who do not understand the nature of today's Quebec. They can be found everywhere, in the Conservative Party and in the New Democratic Party as well as in the Liberal Party. You have on the one hand two members who oppose the distinct society-


An Hon. Member:: Two out of 200!


Jean-Claude Malépart: I can understand the position of the Conservative Member and that of the New Democratic Member who comes from Yukon. She has nothing against the distinct characteristic, but she does not accept the Accord because it does not provide any protection for the people of that Territory. I can understand someone for making his own case. The Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) does not see the difference in positions, but he should have respect for those who have convictions and know how to defend them. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of the Hon. Members I mentioned who oppose the recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness. You can be assured that the affirmation of the distinct characteristic in the Constitutional Accord means something when it comes to communications. Some years ago, there were more English than French radio stations. That was unacceptable and that is why Quebec wanted someone to defend its interests because we are different from the rest of the country. Would my colleague the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) accept the situation if there were more French than English radio stations in Toronto and Ontario? He would say that that does not make sense, that the licences must be revoked because people will not understand. It is the same with us, in Quebec. That is why we want to be represented, and I do not blame anyone from the Maritimes for protecting his interest. That is what Canada is all about: each region is represented here in the House of Commons, and also in the Senate where, it is sad to say, it would be better represented by elected rather than appointed senators.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I dare hope the Government, the Prime Minister will show leadership at least towards the cultural communities, because we have to admit, as I said earlier, that in Quebec as much as anywhere else, the Italian, Greek and Portuguese communities have contributed a lot to progress. The face of Quebec has changed, not only because it
October 2, 1987

is French, but because it has become more and more European. We know that the Greeks in Quebec have taught us about the restaurant business. Many Italians are engaged in construction and have brought us new ideas. Quebec has progressed, it has changed with the French majority, with the English minority, but to those were added-an important feature that must be protected-cultural communities.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that even if the Prime Minister does not take his responsibilities and the amendments moved by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are defeated, I will vote for the Meech Lake Accord.


Hon. Jean C. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on his truly splendid intellectual tour de force. He actually managed to rise in the House and say all of the following: First of all, I support the amendments my party is proposing which would, for all practical purposes, make the Meech Lake Accord null and void, but on the other hand, I am going to vote for the Meech Lake Accord. He says: It is your Government's fault and your Prime Minister's fault if Quebec enters the Federation. We want it to enter Confederation, but it will be your fault if it does. That takes some doing, Mr. Speaker. I think he managed to criticize just about everyone except, of course, you yourself, Mr. Speaker. He did not criticize Robert Bourassa, but he will later on because he mentionned free trade. Mr. Bourassa supports free trade, and the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is against free trade. Since our Government's position is that of Mr. Bourassa, who has praised our Prime Minister's position, the Hon. Member will have a chance to criticize him later on.
Personally, I would like to remind the Hon. Member of a few historical facts. He feels Mr. Bourassa has a great deal of merit. I can't say I disagree. In fact, I think he has quite considerable merit. Does the Hon. Member remember that during the 1984 election campaign . . . Funny, I remember a speech made in Sept-iles by the then Leader of the Opposition, today the Prime Minister of Canada, in which it was made quite clear that bringing Quebec into the Constitution was part of our election platform. Funny, I remember a visit by the Hon. Member's present Leader or his tentative or interim Leader, a visit to Quebec in the riding of Rimouski, where he criticized people who voted yes in the referendum. He said they had no right to run for office. I did not hear any criticism from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) at the time. And that is the team that today is going to vote yes, no and maybe on whatever issue is tabled. I would like him to respond, I have a few questions to ask him. First, does he support his Party's abstentions concerning the report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons-indeed the position of his Party until now with respect to the Meech Lake Accord is abstention. Unless I am mistaken you are now defending and representing the position of abstentions, probably those who are absent because you are
Constitution Amendment, 1987
also the people whose absence in Quebec right now is most obvious.
As a matter of fact, not only will 13 of your colleagues not endorse the Party position, which is to abstain, because that is the official position, but now they will vote against, 13 out of 40, yet he refers to the fact that we have two in our Party, two out of 200, including one who also comes from northern Canada and who, for the same reason as the present Member for Yukon, has chosen to vote against the Meech Lake Accord. So I am curious to know whether he too is abstaining. I am also curious to know whether, during the next election campaign, he intends to advocate the Meech Lake Accord amendments now proposed by his Party and which will obviously be defeated. So the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie should tell us right now, yes or no, if he intends to be, if he can be frank during the next election campaign. His answer will now give us an idea of his frankness. If he does not respond we will know exactly where he stands, particularly if his answer is evasive. Yes or no, during the next election campaign will the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie speak in favour of the Meech Lake Accord amendments he is proposing today?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) has reminded me about the promises of his leader during the electoral campaign. He lied to the population and misled senior citizens and families. All the parties said about the commitment to a Constitutional Accord that Quebec had to rejoin the constitutional family. Have you ever heard a Canadian stupid enough to say that he did not want Quebec in the Constitution, except for the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke? Mr. Speaker, this clearly shows his stupidity. The Prime Minister lied to the population during the electoral campaign. Senior citizens have said so. Moreover, 71 p. cent of the population disagree with him.


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: I think that it is obvious, Mr. Speaker. I am asking myself certain questions. The Hon. Member speaks about liars and so on. He did not reply to the question. He acccuses everyone of lying, including the Prime Minister. I therefore ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper in this House to use such language in a debate of this importance on the Constitution and the rights of Quebec?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not unparliamentary language. I do not believe that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) meant that the Prime Minister had lied deliberately. I shall therefore give him the benefit of the doubt. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member who just rose on a question of privilege deny that her Prime Minister had said he would restore full indexation of Old Age Security

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
pensions? Did the Prime Minister not say that during the election campaign? Is it not true that he did just the opposite?
I answered the Minister of State for Youth regarding the commitment made during the campaign. All parties said that. The Liberal and Conservative Leaders expressed their views in Ontario; the NDP never said that they were against Quebec signing the Constitution. As to his second question about who worked to bring Quebec in the Canadian fold: it is Robert Bourassa. Who should we congratulate? The Premiers of the other provinces who understood Quebec when the time came. Regarding the amendments, could the Minister of State for Youth who is about to speak tell us who protected the cultural communities and what he has against his colleague for Dollard des Ormeaux? Why is he against protection for the Italians in the Constitution? Why is he against protection for the natives?
I campaigned for protection of cultural communities in Canada. I campaigned for protection of native rights. But you, who are the Minister of State for Youth, you are against natives, you are against cultural communities. Ask your colleague for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) whether he shares your views, whether or not he thinks they should be protected by the Constitution?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it might be important to immediately recognize that the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has probably lost his self-control and is quite ready to cast aspersions on all Members of this House, as he does regarding his colleagues in his own Party when he calls them anti-Quebecers. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) has been called a "Westmount Rhodesian" by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). A Member of his own Party has accused the Hon. Member of behaving like a saleslady from Eaton's. The Hon. Members of his own Party that they behave like Montreal "manglophones" of the 19th century.
To place things in perspective, I think no one will take very seriously the accusations brought against me because, in the final analysis, the Hon. Member had accusations to make against everybody. But if you want to be honest, you ought to say, as well namely to Mr. Bourassa for whom you seem to have great respect, that during the next elections, according to what your leader has publicly admitted on television, you intend to campaign against the Meech Lake Accord. During the next election campaign, you had better go and tell exactly that to Quebecers, to French-speaking Quebecers, because if you do not, there is one thing you can count on us, to let them know.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, during the next negotiations on matters like the Senate reform and multiculturalism protection, phase II would destroy the Meech Lake Accord, just like the Meech Lake Accord destroyed what had been achieved in the 1982 Accord. Wake up, Mr. Minister, you are going the wrong way! There will always be constitutional negotiations. We must now proceed to the reform of institutions like the
Senate. Your Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he wanted to change the Senate. So, if in the next election campaign, he does not take position for Senate reform, it will prove that he misled the people of Canada. If protection of multiculturalism and sharing of jurisdictions between the federal and the provinces are not issues dealt with in the next election campaign, it will mean that the process has been stopped. But Canada will still be there, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that had the member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie made an effort and read the Meech Lake Accord, he would know that the Senate reform is on the agenda of each and every constitutional conference in the years to come. I would add for his guidance that if he read the Accord he could spare us this completely useless argumentation. Just stick to real questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (M. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does this mean that your party only wants to discuss Senate reform and refuses to protect the Canadian cultural communities? If the Hon. Member wants to run on that issue in Dollard, I am game. If he wants to come to the western part of Montreal, and tell the people in Saint-Leonard that his party never wants to go back to the bargaining table to protect cultural communities, to protect native people, it's his privilege, Mr. Speaker, not mine. As far as we are concerned, the Constitution remains a permanent concern.
I must also tell the Minister of State (Youth) that the Constitution is like a huge collective agreement. Year after year to meet the needs people will make changes to the Constitution with a view of improving it.
As to the protection of native people, even the Pope when he came here, asked the Canadian people to protect our aboriginal people and be generous towards them. Now the Minister of State (Youth) says no to this request made by the Pope. The people of Sherbrooke will remember.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since there are two points of order, I shall entertain another question from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (M. Nystrom). Afterwards, debate will resume with the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a question. As an informed member I agree with the distinct society clause for Quebec and I have signed the special committee's report, and so on.
Something else I want to mention is the fact the province of Saskatchewan was the first English-speaking province to adopt the resolution, and I am proud of that.
October 2, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Claudy Mailly: The Conservatives.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not only the Conservatives. Three parties we represented in the Saskatchewan legislative assembly and except for three members, everyone supported the resolution, including the Liberal member Mr. Ralph Goodale and the NDP opposition. However, I have a serious question for the Hon. Member. If the Liberal amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) were accepted, I am afraid this would be the end of the Meech Lake Accord because I think that many amendments are not go conducive to a distinct society and duality, as they talk about the supremacy of the Charter of Rights and so on.
I would like to know if the Hon. Member is in favour of the amendments of his Party; does he think that the package of amendments of his Party will in fact mean the end of the Lake Meech Accord, if they were accepted in this House?


Jean-Claude Malépart: No, Mr. Speaker. If the proposed amendments are accepted by Mr. Robert Bourassa, I am convinced there will be no change because I know that at the negotiation table, Mr. Bourassa will protect Quebecers very well. Are the Hon. members . . . When we added something in 1982 to protect women, it did not harm the Accord; can the Hon. Member tell me whether or not it would jeopardize the concept of distinct society if we added something to protect native people, and if the provincial First Ministers agreed? I do not think this is what he means. If the Hon. Member tells me that if he provinces accepted the recommendation of the Leader to add to the Charter the protection for cultural communities, this would not be an impediment. I do not think that Mr. Robert Bourassa of Quebec would oppose vigourously protection for cultural communities, because he is one of those who protect cultural communities in Quebec, which the Prime Minister of Canada does not do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that exchange occurred rather abruptly, and caught me just momentarily off guard.
I think it is important that the debate on the Meech Lake Accord occur on the highest plane. I must say that I hope that my contribution will shed rather more light than the heat that moments ago was being shed upon the debate.
I am not a historian and 1 am not a constitutional expert. But I do know this: It is not possible to have a perfect Constitution. It is no more possible to have a perfect Constitution than it is to have a country that does not experience evolution in terms of its sociological, political and demographic characteristics. Constitutions must reflect that. They cannot be perfect. The Accord that we debate today and the Constitution
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that it seeks to amend are not perfect. Both are deficient. But both must be judged on what they intend to accomplish.
The Accord must be judged on what it is supposed to do and what in fact it does. The Constitution must be judged, in its newly amended form, on whether or not it reflects the Canada of now, and whether it is capable of reflecting the evolution of Canada as it will be.
First, I will address the Accord, what it intends to accomplish, whether it in fact accomplishes its purpose, and I will consider in what respects it is flawed. Most particularly, after looking at whether it indeed fulfils its role, I will consider what message it sends out to the people of this country. It will be my suggestion that no matter whether the Accord fulfils what it intends to fulfil or not, the Constitution that it amends remains as a consequence flawed and the message that it sends to one-third of the people of this country is seriously flawed.
It is perhaps, 1 think, appropriate that I review what it is in my experience that shapes my view of this country. I was born in London, Ontario, and initially I was brought up there. At that time the vision that I had of Canada was entirely English; indeed, it was imperial. I sang "Rule Britannia", celebrating the empire that subjugated my own people in other lands, while at the same time not treated as an equal in my own land.
Subsequently I moved to Amherstburg, Ontario, next to the American border. As a consequence of that, the view of Canada that I learned in London became somewhat deluded and rather more coloured by our proximity to the United States. Increasingly, I was not very conscious of the differences that existed between Canada and our close-by neighbour.

It is during my first visit in Quebec that I recognized that this country is different. It is during my first visit that I felt I was equal in my own country.

Let me repeat that, because however I may value the two languages of this country, I sometimes speak in a fashion that devalues French.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: You are doing fine, Howard.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let me make it perfectly clear what I am saying. During my first visit to the Province of Quebec I realized there was something different and unique about this country. In my experience at that time, what was different about this country was the French fact. It was in Quebec that for the first time in my own country that I was treated as an equal. From that point my notion of this country began to evolve into what it is now. Since that time this country has changed; it has changed so much that I stand in this Chamber.
In the debate on the Meech Lake Accord there has been some discussion of the place of the aboriginal peoples. Perhaps

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
we can communicate what it was like to be a black Canadian at that time in Amherstburg. Some Hon. Members will know that there was a great deal of intermarriage between the black population and the Indian population. Many of the black community were eligible to have Indian papers. No matter how bad the situation of aboriginal peoples was at that time, and no matter how bad conditions remain for aboriginal peoples, in the Canada of my childhood it was better to be an Indian than a black.
I love this country. I have loved this country, as many have within it, as a result of a test of that love. In some measure, our faith has been fulfilled. I have come to a greater understanding of it. Canada is not Canada without Quebec. There can be no doubt about that. That is not to say that other portions of Canada are indispensable. But clearly Canada is unique in large measure because of its unique history and the existence of two cultures and two languages as the basis for its ultimate origin.
In 1980 when the referendum issue arose in Quebec, like other Canadians I met it with some fear, consternation, and puzzlement. Would our country be divided as a result? Like many in the country, 1 celebrated the outcome. During that debate certain promises were made, and certain assurances were provided to meet the concerns of Quebec and make Canada whole.
In 1982 we had the Constitution Act of that year. Essentially two things were accomplished, the patriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. But Quebec was left out of it. Perhaps the time was not right, perhaps we had achieved the level of evolution appropriate only to what was actually accomplished in 1982. Changes occur when history makes change possible. That Charter of Rights was extremely important. There are those who even now have great concern about the relationship of the Charter of Rights to the powers of Parliament and the legislatures.
I can recall having been engaged with a colleague of mine in government in another province over the question of the view held by many that Parliament is supreme and should remain supreme, and the view which I advocated that there was a necessity for a Charter of Rights. Parliament as the supreme governing body, unimpeded by Charters of Rights, are appropriate to countries with homogeneous populations ruled by a majority. In Canada in part that fact was recognized in the distribution of powers between the Province of Quebec and the peculiar and necessary concessions made in recognition of the character of that province. But now this country has become increasingly diverse. By virtue of the will of the majority, Parliament cannot protect the minorities that are unable by their numbers to elect majorities in Parliament.
Of course, a classic example is in the United States where, if the black people of that country had waited until Congress had eliminated segregation, segregation would exist in the United States until this day. It was only because there existed a constitution, which was ultimately interpreted by the courts,
that led to the elimination of segregation there. That is the lesson of history of the need for the protection of the rights of minorities which can only be provided by a Charter of Rights, as we have in the Constitution, although, it will be my submission that the Charter is inadequate.
While the 1982 Constitution Act was necessary, it was inadequate. It excluded Quebec, not legally, because it is bound by the Constitution as adopted then, but in terms of its spiritual participation and the extent to which the allegiance of the people of Quebec is won to it.
As time has passed and Governments have changed, Quebec imposed five conditions in order to join the constitutional compact. I am sure we all know what those are. The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, a greater role in immigration, a provincial role in the appointments to the Supreme Court, limitations on federal spending power, and a veto for Quebec in constitutional matters.
The Meech Lake Accord must be looked at both in terms of process and results. There can be no doubt that the process was flawed. Never again should 11 First Ministers and their associate bureaucrats engage in this kind of process. The future must ensure that there will be full participation of Canadian citizens in any future constitutional change, so that it is fully reviewed and full support across the country is won.
Let us look at what has happened as a result of the Meech Lake Accord. There is a great deal of concern about what is perceived as a decentralizing thrust of the Meech Lake Accord, that increasing power is being accorded to the provinces. It must be said that one problem with the country is that it has been too centralized in too many respects. The land is vast and its people are diverse. In order for people to feel that they are a part of this vast land, they cannot be subject to the rule that all decisions must emanate from the centre of the country. If they are, the regions at the periphery will never feel a part and will lack control and if they lack control, they will feel alienated as persons and as regions.
The Meech Lake Accord and the constitutional changes which it advocates propose that there should be consultations on appointments to the Senate. This has been much criticized as according provincial control over the Senate, but the Meech Lake Accord says that there must be agreement between the federal level and the provincial level and that there should be consultation. What could be more appropriate? It does not suggest that only the provinces shall appoint or that they will overrule the federal Government.
In respect of the Supreme Court, similar conditions are imposed. We recognize that similar conditions are involved in the appointment of members of the Supreme Court of the United States which have not resulted in a situation of paralysis. It ought to be possible for people of reasonable mind
October 2, 1987

to agree on such relatively simple matters as who are appropriate for the Senate and who are appropriate for the Supreme Court.
The Accord also accords the provinces an increased involvement in immigration. There are some concerns in this regard, but I think they are largely met by the requirement that these agreements must be enacted in law by the Parliament of Canada and that these agreements are ruled by the Charter of Rights.
Further, there has been a great deal of concern over spending power. There is a provision in the Accord that if the federal Government enacts legislation in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, the provinces will have the option of opting out or having funds provided to them so long as the programs enacted are consistent with national objectives. I would interpret that as a step forward because we are talking about provincial jurisdiction. For the first time a recognition of the right of the federal Government to be involved under certain conditions in areas of provincial concern is being inserted in the Constitution. Those who fear that we will be unable to have day care and so on should be assured.
Of course there are problems with the amending formula. Surely it is clear that the amending formula, as it provides for unanimity among First Ministers and all Governments in respect of the recognition of new provinces from the territories and in respect of the changes in the Senate, imposes an unnecessary rigidity on the Constitution. 1 would suggest that the Accord be amended in respect of the application of the amending formula to the admission of new provinces, because it is an insult to the North and deprives the North of rights which it should share with the rest of Canadians.
While the Senate may remain unchanged, at best it will become even more irrelevant, and its very irrelevancy may compel various Governments to propose changes in a unanimous fashion to make it more in accord with a democracy.
Of course the core of the Accord is the recognition of the distinctive character of Quebec and the dual linguistic character of Canada. This is where the trouble begins. There are considerable doubts about the impact on the Charter of Rights. Among these rights are the rights of sexual equality.
I would plead for time to say a few more words, because I think it is important that I have the opportunity to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Hon. Member have a few more minutes within which to complete his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of concern about the recognition of two singular aspects of Quebec society-the recognition of the responsibility of the Government of Quebec both to preserve and to promote the French language, and the recognition of the responsibility of Parliament to preserve the French character and French minority outside Quebec. They are important but they raise
Constitution Amendment, 1987
considerable fears. Among them are the fears of women that sexual equality will be compromised, particularly with specific reference in the non-abrogation clause to aboriginal peoples and to the multicultural nature of the country.
I do not believe that sexual equality rights are abrogated or affected in any significant way, nor do I believe that there is any material change of the rights of minorities as a result of the distinctive character clause. Nothing has changed- nothing has been made better; nothing has been made worse.
It must be said, in respect of the real character of the country, that the failure to make firm provision for providing self-government to the aboriginal people is a serious oversight that must be corrected.
The main concern which must be addressed is not what the Accord does now but what must be done in the future. Earlier I talked about the message, the message in the Accord to a third of the population-the blacks, the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Italians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, the Czechoslovakians, and the variety of other people who compose my riding-that they are not really an inherent part of the country. There is still the recognition inherent in all that has happened that there is some primacy to the two founding people. As long as that message is maintained, the country cannot be whole. As long as it is not recognized that the multicultural character of the country is as fundamental as anything else, the country cannot be whole. As long as the rights of the minorities guaranteed in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights are subject to an override, to the whim of Governments, it is in complete contradiction to the function of the Charter. It cannot be accepted as long as it exists because it implies that those of us who are neither English nor French are not really a part. Just as there was unfinished business after 1982, there is unfinished business now. It is unacceptable to me and all others, whether of French or English extraction, that we should in any way be considered as second class citizens.
You can say that Quebec was a part of the Constitution even after 1982 just as you can say that the minorities are part of the Constitution after 1987. However, just as the Constitution of 1982 was over the heads of the people of Quebec, an accord that recognizes Quebec as it has to, as it must, and as we approve of it, leaves unanswered the pleadings of the third portion of this country. The first priority must be to ensure that just as Quebec was welcomed into the Constitution so should those of us who are neither French nor English be welcomed into the Constitution.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, First of all, I must admit that not so long ago, in fact it was three years ago, not many of us expected to have the opportunity and the privilege to debate a motion in the House of Commons that for all practical purposes would bring Quebec within the Canadian constitutional fold. In 1984, we

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
campaigned on this issue, and our statements and our commitment were realistic and sincere. We must also realize it was an enormous task, to which our Government and the ten other Governments across Canada would have to bring the political will to take action and to deal with a problem that was an extremely important one for this country. From the outset, we see both the importance and the delicate nature of this commitment, if only because of the number of governments involved in the process. We therefore had every reason to believe and to hope that someday we would be able to debate a resolution in this House whose ultimate effect would be to bring Quebec into the Constitution. However, as so many other Canadians today, I admit I am somewhat surprised to be standing here before you.
I would like to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to recall the historical context that brings us before the House today. Without going back too far, I think we can, at least, with a degree of nostalgia for some, go back to the 1980 Referendum, when Quebec, after several years of debate, finally made its decision to keep the province within the Canadian federation. Mr. Speaker, you will recall the various statements made during the 1980 Referendum, including statements made by the then Prime Minister of Canada, who told Quebecers: We Canadians from all over Canada want you in Canada. If you vote no, you will be saying yes to Canada. It will be a solemn affirmation of the fact that you intend to remain within Canada, and we Canadians promise to help you remain within our Canadian federation.
We then had the 1981 negotiations, Mr. Speaker, followed by unilateral patriation in 1982.
We also recall the sad period when the Quebec National Assembly, including the provincial Liberals led at the time by Mr. Ryan, the same provincial Liberals who are now led by Mr. Bourassa, unanimously adopted a resolution denouncing the 1982 repatriation of our Constitution, which they described as a reprehensible action, an act of betrayal against Quebec, while the Premiers of certain provinces, with the support of the federal Liberals, had decided to ignore the wishes of Quebec and everything they had said during the 1980 referendum to repatriate the Constitution unilaterally.
The 1984 elections were a turning point for Canada in many ways, but for the purposes of today's debate, Mr. Speaker, let me simply remind the House that the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, made his famous speech in Sept-Iles and said: As a Government, if we are elected, we shall make every effort to have Quebec join the Constitution and to bring about unity and reconciliation in the country.
At the same time, we had the sad spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister and newly chosen Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, campaigning in Quebec and denouncing those who had voted "yes" in the referendum, apparently because such people did not have or should not have the same rights as those who had voted "no",
and saying that such people should not be candidates in a general election and should perhaps not even vote.
Such was the argument used by the federal Liberals in 1984. Strangely enough, some of the federal Liberals rose today, some to speak for, and others to speak against the Meech Lake Accord. However, in no case has anyone said that he stood up for the interests of Quebec in 1984.
In any case perhaps it was not necessary because Quebecers did come to grips with the situation. They decided they would settle the issue themselves at the appropriate level. In 1984 they said: We will make a clean-up. They may not have understood, but we sure did and we will turf them out. We will vote for people who for once can appreciate the legitimate aspirations of Quebec, so today, as a result of all those efforts, we have the honour and privilege to be here in the House.
There have been major changes after the 1984 election. First, as Hon. Members may recall-and some may have forgotten-in the months after the 1984 election even the PQ Government led by Premier Levesque presented a series of demands as being the minimum demands of Quebec before it would join the Canadian federation.
Then there was a government change and this time the Government of Mr. Bourassa came to us with five demands, at least five demands prior to endorsing the Canadian Constitution. First the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society and, second, a limit on federal spending powers. There was also more power or more influence for the Quebec Government with respect to the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges. An increased and more important power. And recognition of Quebec's real power concerning immigration. There was also the question of veto.
Mr. Speaker, I confess that at the time I think we were all surprised to see that Quebec had cut down the number-from 20-odd demands the first time under the PQ Government-to a minimum of five, and we felt that was evidence of courage and frankness on the part of the Quebec Government which was saying: Well, here is our position. We will not give ourselves too much leeway to negotiate. But if you are sincere, and we think you are, we too will be sincere, we will be frank, set our minimum demands and begin the negotiations.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, Canadians saw some spectacular about-turns. On the political scene, I think everybody was amused, but first we were quite puzzled to see the sudden reversals within two major political Opposition Parties in Canada.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the unusual sight of the Liberal Members from Quebec gathered for a convention, I think, in Saint-Hyacinthe with Serge Joyal, Andre Ouellet, Mr. Garneau all finally seeing the light after having rejected Quebecers for 20 years, suddenly feeling somewhat like a
October 2, 1987

charismatic event in Saint-Hyacinthe, and finally understanding that Quebec had legitimate yearnings and that the necessary efforts had to be made to have them join the Canadian federation. Then Mr. Joyal and the whole group finally woke up and opened their arms to Quebec and said to the federal Government: "Those minimum conditions must be met." For our part anyway, we wondered for a long time what had happened, if there had been a special event or some kind of miracle in Saint-Hyacinthe during that weekend. We have to admit that fundamentally after short reflection, we thought there was some lack of credibility, an incredible about-turn in such a short time. Actually, are we going to complain today? I do not think so. At that time anyhow, we were not going to complain but we said: "They have finally understood,it took them 20 years, but they have finally understood and they will try to have Quebec join the Canadian federation so that the country may begin to build together instead of tearing one another to pieces and trying to reign by dividing. Afterwards as is often the case, the New Democratic Party held its own general convention in Montreal and Mr. Howard Pawley who is the Manitoba Premier was there. As a parody, they had square dances throughout the weekend and discovered they had deep roots in Quebec. They also said to themselves: "We have to be open to Quebec." It was a turn-about just as dramatic as that of the federal Liberal Party except that in their case, they were not in government but in the opposition. They also suddenly discovered the legitimate yearnings of Quebec 20 years after sharing the views of the federal Liberal Party.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we were not going to complain about that as a Party, as a Government. After all we were the ones in 1984 who made that commitment, not them-not Mr. Broadbent, nor Mr. Turner because he had done the opposite in 1984. At that point in their history, they came to join us, they acknowledged, they told us: You were right in 1984, you were right in stating what you stated, Canadian voters recognized it, and because we are reasonable people, we also will recognize the wisdom of Canadian voters.


An Hon. Member:: Brian Mulroney's leadership!


Jean J. Charest: Yes, Mr. Mulroney's leadership actually which made sure we got there at that point. So the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and everyone joined the group. Interestingly, as I am trying to remember, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) had said nothing up to that point. Quite intriguing anyway. They said nothing then. It was perfect solidarity, plain love, everyone was agreeing. Perhaps they were hoping. You will see that one of these days both groups will play tricks on each other, and they will set out on great missions.
Finally, there is another event which we must recall, that is the meeting of the provincial Premiers in August 1986-if I am not mistaken because I do not have the exact dates-the meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, where I recall the formula for the Senate and Senate representation were discussed. That was
Constitution Amendment, 1987
a turning point in the negotiations and the evolution of the constitutional matter for the following reason: First, Mr. Bourassa and the Prime Minister had agreed on the following. They had agreed that they should contact provincial Premiers and settle a couple of things. First, they would tell them: Look, the next round of negotiations should concentrate on the following matter, the following theme: Quebec's acceptance of the Constitution. This is what the Prime Minister and Mr. Bourassa at the time told the provincial Premiers. They told them: Look, let us try to concentrate on that matter for the time being, otherwise we will never reach any agreement. Never!
Also, the Quebec Premier, who was playing an important game, told them this: Here are the five conditions which we propose for adhering to the Canadian Constitution. At this Conference of the provincial Premiers which was held in Edmonton, the provincial Premiers found that they could live with these five conditions. In other words, Mr. Speaker, on that historical date which, unfortunately, very few people appreciate, the provincial Premiers accepted for the first time to say: None of these conditions is so offensive to us that we could not, as provincial Premiers, negotiate on the basis of these five conditions. Well, I say: Bravo! That was a major step which was taken thanks to the efforts made by the Prime Minister of Canada and Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) and those of Mr. Bourassa at the time.
There were then the historical Meech Lake meetings. I do not intend to deal at length with them, nor with the final meeting in the Langevin Block. Nevertheless, I should like to pause a few seconds to make an essential comment which I can summarize this way: As both a Quebecer and Canadian, I was quite surprised to hear the comments made by those who said: Constitutional negotiations should not be carried out with only the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada holed up in one room for eight or ten hours, until they reach an agreement. That is not the way it should be done. It should be done in the open, I do not know where. Perhaps these people felt that it should have taken place in a shopping center! We feel it should not have been done that way. Let us not expose ourselves to ridicule, Mr. Speaker. You know, Quebec has seen about sixty years of constitutional negotiations. What happened during the talks at Meech Lake and here across the street in the Langevin Building is certainly no big secret. I do not think any earth-shaking discoveries were made during those talks. After sixty years I think it was only normal to be able to sit down together for a few hours and finally reach an agreement.
I do not intend to waste much time refuting the arguments of those people, but I merely want to say their line of reasoning is ridiculous, and that personally, I think it is all rather ridiculous and redundant.
The result of the two meetings was a unanimous accord signed by the ten provincial First Ministers and the Prime Minister of Canada. That they were able to do so unanimously

October 2, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
was a historic event. The Accord recognized the fact that Quebec is a distinct society, and that is not to everyone's liking. Today there are still people who have trouble with this concept. We on this side of the House do not think anything new was added, aside from official recognition. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact, and everybody recognizes it, that Quebec is a distinct society. Is anyone going to deny that today? Quebec has been a distinct society from its earliest days. One obvious example is that Quebec has a civil code. It is governed by a civil code, based on the Napoleonic Code, unlike all other Canadian provinces which are governed by common law, an entirely different legal principle. Everybody knows that. And what is the Civil Code and what is Common Law? It is the social fabric. It is part of the social fabric. These are rules which govern relations between individuals within a given society. The fact that Quebec has had a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code since it became a province, and ever since it existed as a territory, means ultimately that Quebec is a distinct society.
This fact has been recognized in the Meech Lake Accord. In addition, Quebec is a province where the majority of the population speaks french. However, this did not stop us, quite the opposite, from recognizing the linguistic duality of Canada and the fact, which is new, that each province should also recognize this linguistic duality.
The distinct society clause is an interpretation clause. It is a clause which, in case of any doubt, because when there is a doubt, this is interpreted as a principle of law, can be used to say that Constitution should be interpreted as recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, if ever the question is raised in that context. I do not think that we should go beyond what already existed. We have to be very careful in interpreting such a clause. Its effect is not to reduce existing powers, rights and privileges, and this is stated explicitely in the Meech Lake Accord and other sections of the Charter.
Mr. Speaker, other parts of the Meech Lake Accord also recognize the legitimate claims of Quebec as concerns the appointment of the members of the Superior Court and Senators. Once more, we have to put these matters in the proper perspective. For instance, as concerns the appointment of Senators, what had to be done was to put in a transitional clause which would take into account the political will of the provinces and the federal Government to reform the Canadian Senate. This is what had to be done. I know that some people object to the provinces having a say in the appointment of Senators. However, there is also a provision to have this matter discussed between the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada at their annual meetings. This transitional clause forces everyone involved, and especially the federal Government, to be open to a major and very needed change as concerns the Senate.
The federal power to spend is probably the issue which distinguishes us most from certain other groups. What was done basically, Mr. Speaker, was to recognize that we have a constitutional agreement and that, at any given moment, the
federal Government can sit down with the provinces and say: You will deal with such and such a thing, and we, the federal Government, will deal with such and such areas of jurisdiction. The only thing that was done as concerns the power to spend was to civilize these relations. I never understood why some people would object to the fact that, after agreeing with the provinces and telling them that certain matters would come under their jurisdiction, the federal Government would no longer be able to invade brutally that area of jurisdiction and take it away from the provinces. Yet, some people really object to that. In addition to that, it was not enough, five conditions were imposed for opting out. Here are the five conditions: First, the federal program must apply on a national basis, not only at the regional level. Second, if ever a province wants to opt out, it must also be a shared cost program, that is a program which requires the financial participation of the provinces. Third, it must not be a program which already exists. Fourth, the federal program must relate to a sector which falls under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Fifth, the province must set up a program or take an initiative whose aims are compatible with the national objectives of the federal program. Well, Mr. Speaker, if some people are offended because we have to respect the Canadian Constitution, I simply cannot understand because, in the end, it is nothing more than that.
My remarks about immigration will not be long, for in fact we are only acknowledging what was already included in the Constitution since 1867 on the first hand and, on the other, an agreement with the provinces which has been there all along for 16 years already, among others the Cullen-Couture agreement with the Province of Quebec, in force since 1977, 1 believe. The amendment formula, admittedly difficult particularly for certain territories, is compatible with the way a federation must operate, and it can always be reviewed by future constitutional conferences.
The implications of the Meech Lake Accord are that Canada, the federal Government along with the provinces will have to look at the following issues: the Senate, the fisheries, for instance, the Natives who today, by the way, are left out of the Constitution because they did not get the self-government they were asking for, and since we must tell the truth at some point, that was because indeed Quebec refused to take an active part in federal-provincial conferences.
If the whole truth is to be told, Mr. Speaker, today is the day. That is the reason why our native people did not get what they wanted at that point.
I know that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, I only need a few minutes and I would ask the House for leave to use a few extra minutes in other to conclude my comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: In conclusion, I would like simply to comment on the way this debate has taken place. I am referring for instance to my friends from the Liberal Party of Canada, and
October 2, 1987

it is my view that they will have to make up their minds today and in the coming days, yes, they will have to decide what kind of country they want exactly. Because, all in all, that is the question.
For us those debates are not easy ones. No one would claim this is an easy debate. I am sitting here on this side of the House with 200 other Members, and for us in our party, those were not always easy matters. We will be frank, since this is the time to be frank.
Moreover, I know that in the New Democratic Party it has not always been an easy debate either. But in politics, there are things that are acceptable and others that are not. I will tell you one thing that is not acceptable, and that is refusing to take a position. Mr. Speaker, we were elected to make decisions, good or bad, and we must take positions. And each one of us has a basic obligation to the Canadian voters at large and to our own constituents. It is an obligation to speak out and say, as elected representatives, on which side of the fence we stand. If you vote for me, I will do this or that, or I will certainly not do this or that. That is the minimum obligation for all politicians whatever their political stripes. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing so cowardly for a political party or a Leader to say: I abstain. That is acting cowardly indeed. And the most glaring act of cowardice I have ever witnessed since I became involved in politics was the behaviour of the Federal Liberal Party of Canada within the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons when it declared itself in favour of abstaining. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to forgive a political party for behaving in such a reprehensible way.
As you know, it is possible to make mistakes. But for a political party to say that it is abstaining for reasons of expediency is outright unacceptable.
Moreover, they said: We are going to move amendments the effect of which will be to cancel the Meech Lake Accord; then we will vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. Then, they turn around and say that, when the time comes for the next federal election, their party platform will include the amendments they are suggesting today, the effect of which would be to cancel the Meech Lake Accord. Well, we will see. That is what you are saying. I should like to see the Members of the Liberal Party of Canada generally, and especially those from Quebec, stand up and confess that openly, as their Leader did on The Journal television program. Because that is exactly what he said!
Well, you had an opportunity to declare yourself in favour of Quebec joining Confederation and you let it pass. Now, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to see who are those among that party who will have the individual fortitude to stand up for Quebec and Canada!
Statue of Monarch


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will give the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) 30 seconds and the same to the Minister. Debate must end at two o'clock.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I was rising in debate, not to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When I agreed to the extension requested by the Minister, I did not realize my colleague from St. John's East had been seeking to make a short comment on his speech. Perhaps the House would agree to that before we call it two o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PARLIAMENT HILL PROPOSED ERECTION OF STATUE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II
William Tupper: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this afternoon to rise in the House and speak in support of the motion. I hope that in the time available to me I will be able to persuade you and my colleagues on the merit of this motion.
Before attempting to make the case for the motion before us, I want to express my appreciation for advice, encouragement and material which I have received from William A. Smy, a constituent in Nepean-Carleton, from Albert Bousfield, editor of Monarchy Canada, the Monarchist League of Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion, the United Empire Loyalists, the endorsement of a very significant number of municipalities and the encouragement of many members of this and the other place who have written to me in support of this motion. I welcome that. I acknowledge that 1 incorporate many of their comments into my presentation this afternoon.
In particular, I welcome the support of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) who has indicated that Members might wish to consider marking this event. He stated in a letter

October 2, 1987
Statue of Monarch
which he sent to a fellow Cabinet colleague on July 24, 1987: "Support for this initiative is welcomed."
Some Members might have a question about the protocol of raising a statue to a living monarch. This is dealt with rather explicitly in the report on commemorative statutes to Canadian Prime Ministers and other commemoratives to other eminent Canadians, issued by the Minister of Public Works to Parliament. Section 6 of that report, entitled "The Monarchy", states:
1992 will mark the 40th Anniversary of Her Majesty's reign. No other
monarch has served as long since the country came into being in 1867. The
practice of raising commemoratives only to deceased people has not applied to
monarchs. Hon. Members might wish to consider marking this event.
Canadians have a special attachment to the monarchy and especially to Queen Elizabeth II. No monarch since Victoria has engendered such respect and affection, and very special bonds have developed and exist between Elizabeth II and Canadians. It is because of this remarkably special relationship that I hope I and others can persuade the House on the merits of the motion under consideration.
On February 6, 1952, Elizabeth II became sovereign. One year later, this House, through the Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act, named Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada. Her proper title now is "Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith".
The Queen's main occupation and the one for which she was rigorously trained, is to be constitutional head of state for Britain, Canada and 16 other countries. On April 31, 1985, the Queen became the monarch who has reigned longest over Canada since Confederation.
Queen Elizabeth II has been enormously successful as an institution of government and as a working official. Our system of government, put in place in 1867, and involving the monarch as head of state, together with the House of Commons and the Senate, is one of the most stable, most democratic and least costly in political history. And it works.
Elizabeth II has a reputation among senior statesmen as one of the best informed and most sensible public servants at that level in the world. Many regard her as the most effective statesman of our time in Europe.
Elizabeth II is a very charming person, who inspires affection along with respect. Why has she been so successful? Why do Canadians and others have so much respect for her? What has she done to earn that respect?
One of the principal reasons for her popularity and the respect people have for her is because her interests reflect those of her subjects. She is an acknowledged expert on art, history, politics, and on animals, particularly horses. Before attending a conference, or visiting a country, she studies intensively the history and interests of those whom she will meet. She frequently invites people for luncheon meetings,
including artists, scientists, and politicians, in order to discuss contemporary issues and their work.
The Queen has fostered the growth of Canadianism. By assuming the separate title "Queen of Canada" in 1953, she allowed Canadians to realize the dream the Fathers of Confederation had for the Dominion of Canada. In 1962, at her own initiative and wish, she adopted a distinctive personal Canadian flag. In 1965 she proclaimed the national flag of Canada. In 1967, the Order of Canada was established by her authority and with her personal approval. Her presence at the proclamation of the revised Constitution in 1982 turned the event from a politically controversial one into a national celebration.
The Queen has been a great unifier of a diverse Canada. Long before the Official Languages Act was thought of, the Queen spoke in both English and French in all parts of this country. I was particularly touched by a speech which she gave in the Province of Quebec during her visit to Canada at the time of the Olympics. I want to quote what she said:
How Canada resolves her political and constitutional differences is her own affair; but how she resolves her linguistic and cultural problems matters to thoughtful people everywhere. The world, all too familiar with the tragic price of conflict between people of different race, language, religion and culture, can look to Canada for a better example, and for a renewal of the human spirit. It can look to her for a practical demonstration of how two strong communities can live together in peace, drawing from each other's strengths, respecting each other's differences.
Her 15 tours and stays in Canada were in 1951 as Princess, 1957, 1959, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1971, twice in 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1983 and 1984, as well as four stop-overs. As a result of those visits she has brought hundreds of small Canadian communities and groups which ordinarily go unnoticed to national and often international attention.
As the personification of our history, she has presided over and endured the success of numerous Canadian anniversaries and national occasions. They include the centenary of the Confederation Conference in 1964, the centenary of Confederation in 1967, the provincial centenaries of Manitoba in 1970, British Columbia in 1971, and Prince Edward Island in 1973, and the bicentenaries of Ontario and New Brunswick in 1984. She opened the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 and the Montreal Olympics in 1976. In 1983, from Vancouver, she invited the people of the world to visit Expo 86. That was a proud moment. She opened Parliament in 1957, the first monarch to do so, and again in 1977. In 1967 she addressed both Houses.
O)
The Queen's personal qualities have continued to inspire Canadians individually and nationally. This has been an immeasurable contribution to Canadian life over nearly 36 years. The Queen's example encourages many, many people to emulate her virtues in their own lives and in their work. Duty and service have been pre-eminent among her personal qualities. She has always put her country ahead of herself. Her constitutional behaviour has been impeccably correct. Because
October 2, 1987

of this she has brought prestige and credibility to our system of government which, as democratic systems tend to do from time to time, commonly creak. She has been a stable person during a long voyage.
The Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces is vested in the Queen, and her Majesty has performed three vital services for Canada in this area. First, the Queen has been the focus of loyalty for the Armed Forces, ensuring the military is an agent for and not a master of the state. Second, the Queen has brought proper attention to the forces as a link between them and the people. For instance, in 1984 her Majesty presented a guidon to the historic Queens York Rangers, the first American regiment, in a moving ceremony in Toronto. The Queen's presence drew 50,000 people to the event. These people, frankly, would not have otherwise paid tribute to and learned about that great Canadian regiment.
Finally, as Captain General or Colonel in Chief of the Royal Canadian Artillery, the Canadian Guards Regiment and numerous other regiments and branches, the Queen has always taken an active interest in the lives and concerns of the men and women responsible for defending this country.
As the fountain of all honour, the Queen has played a major role in bringing national and international attention to deserving Canadians. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Queen approved the establishment of distinctly Canadian bravery and service distinctions. The Queen thus fostered and brought recognition to public and voluntary service in Canada, making Canada a better place in the process.
The Queen has fostered the genuine multicultural character of Canada. She herself is a living testimony to the value of multiculturalism. She herself has in her immediate or distant background nearly 30 different ethnic strains and she is the personification of what Canada is as a country.
Her visits to many different ethnic groups in Canada for festivities and celebrations have helped both to enhance the culture of these groups and to integrate them more fully into the Canadian context. Among the more memorable of such visits were those to the Acadians in Prince Edward Island in 1973, the Ukrainian-Canadians in 1978, the Chinese-Canadi-ans in 1983 and the Italian-Canadians in 1984. The Queen's involvement in the 1984 Loyalists celebrations also had a multicultural dimension because the Loyalists of the 18th Century were white, Indian and black.
The Queen's contribution in this area of Canadian life is nowhere better seen than with the native peoples. In 1970 at The Pas Indian Reserve, she created an opportunity for the Indian people there to gain a public hearing for the injustice they feel they have suffered at the hands of the Government. In 1976 the Queen received a much publicized delegation of Alberta Indian Chiefs representing Treaty Area 6 and Treaty Area 7 at Buckingham Palace. Most moving of all was her 1970 visit to the Inuit at Resolute Village. "Thank you", she said to those too shy to approach her, "for being just the way you
Statue of Monarch
are". The Queen has seen genuine Canadian multiculturalism as a pattern for other countries.
Perhaps the Queen's greatest contribution has been to provide the Canadian Government with a human face, allowing Canadians to be truly a national family. No one can doubt her personal commitment to Canada and to its people. When she proclaimed the revised Constitution in 1982, she declared:
There could be no better moment for me, as Queen of Canada, to declare
again my unbounded confidence in the future of this wonderful country.
In short, the Queen has succeeded in raising the Canadian Monarchy to heights undreamed of by Queen Victoria.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, I thought I should speak in this debate because, among other things, my constituency includes the precinct of Parliament Hill. I congratulate my colleague and neighbour, in political terms, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), for his intervention and his advice to the House.
The motion calls for the Government to consider the advisability of commissioning a structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed somewhere on Parliament Hill. I would like to discuss, not to take issue with the comments made by the Hon. Member with respect to the Queen's accomplishments. I would give her credit now for having been prepared to speak out as boldly as she has with respect to the deplorable situation in Fiji, giving her support, for the Governor General, as the only constitutional authority in that country.
The parliamentary system we have is an unusual one. I know the Queen has in fact been very conscious of her responsibilities to the Commonwealth and I believe she has played a great role as a rallying force within the British Commonwealth, something that no one could really have anticipated developing the way it has over the course of the last 30 or 40 years.
When the Queen came to office in the early 1950s as a young woman, almost all of what is now the Commonwealth, apart from the old Dominions, were in colonies of the United Kingdom. Now we have a situation where that is completely reversed. There are only a handful of colonies left and, for the most part, these are all independent countries which find a common bond together in British institutions and in the Queen as the symbolic head of the Commonwealth.
The question is does this contribution justify making an exception and having the statue of someone who is alive commissioned now for placement on Parliament Hill? Our country acknowledges our membership in the Commonwealth, but acts as an independent country. In fact, the British link, although it has been fond and strong in the past, is diminishing. Do we in fact want to embark on a tradition that we should continually have statues of our Monarchs in various places on Parliament Hill?

October 2, 1987
Statue of Monarch
We have a statue of Victoria just over to the west of the Chamber, and I think it is appropriate because Victoria is the Monarch who was in office at the time Canada achieved its independence. It may be that in a few years time, sometime in the next century, perhaps, it will be deemed appropriate to put a statue of Elizabeth on Parliament Hill, as she was the Monarch who was in power at the time Canada acquired its own Constitution and severed the last remaining legal link with Great Britain, given the fact that we appoint our own Governor General and we are otherwise independent. That is a possibility. But should we do this now? If we should do it now, on what basis should we make the decision?

I was concerned the other day when Conservative Members of the House discouraged or blocked the efforts of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) to have the Government erect a statue of Lester B. Pearson, a Prime Minister of this country, a Nobel Prize winner, an eminent under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, a man with a distinguished diplomatic and political career in Canada, around the precincts of Parliament Hill to accompany the statue of John Diefenbaker which is now sitting between the West Block and the Centre Block.
But the fact is that that is a kind of an ad hoc approach. The parliamentarians of the day may lean to have a Pearson one day or a Diefenbaker another day. They may lean to have an M. J. Coldwell or a J. S. Woodsworth as people who were eminent leaders of the New Democratic Party. But I am not sure if I am very happy with that creation of ad hocery. I suggest that it might make sense to think through exactly how we do this in order to ensure that Parliament Hill is not, on the one hand, overwhelmed with statuary and, on the other hand, that what statuary we put up here makes sense for an area which has enormous symbolic significance for Canadians from coast to coast.

I want to say that Parliament Hill is an historic and symbolic site for all Canadian men and women. That is why we must stop, Mr. Speaker. Instead of simply making ad hoc decisions on the statue issue, perhaps we could consider setting up a Parliament Hill Commission to decide such issues. I suggest that we should insist that no more than one or two statues are erected on the Hill every decade. 1 do not feel we should adopt a tradition whereby all Canadian Prime Ministers should be "commemorated" on Parliament Hill.

I would ask my colleague this, even though he is a good Conservative. Would he agree with me that if it is appropriate to have a statue of John Diefenbaker on Parliament Hill, do we also, after his death, and I do not wish it to come soon, anticipate having a statue erected of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). If the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) only lasts one term in office, and it is a possibility, and if he then leads his Party to a devastating
defeat, which is a possibility, would we then anticipate that there should nonetheless be a statue erected of the present Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, because he did at one time lead the largest parliamentary majority in Canadian history? Again, I would have some doubts about that.
At what time will Canadians be able to reconcile their feelings about the man to come to the point of accepting the possibility of a statue of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, that it might at some point live on Parliament Hill? I see some of my Conservative friends are chuntering a bit in expressing certain reservations.
In other words, these decisions are difficult to make. It is not good to make them while people are still alive. I think that we should have some more orderly way of making these decisions rather than making them on the kind of ad hoc basis that is being considered here.
I would also suggest that it may well be that other Canadians should be commemorated and not just people who are monarchs or people who are Prime Ministers. We have one or two examples of that already in different places on Parliament Hill, including the statue commissioned by Mackenzie King of the boy who is just outside of the parliamentary precinct on Wellington Street.
I mention J. S. Woodsworth, that great Canadian and the founder of my Party, and a Member of this House for many, many years. I mention the name of Norman Bethune, a national hero in China although he is a Canadian, but a hero of enormous repute in the People's Republic of China, a country which will grow of increasing importance to this country.
I would mention Georges Vanier, a distinguished soldier, distinguished diplomat, distinguished Governor General of our country, a man who embodies all of the finest traditions of French Canada. After seeing the games of a couple of weeks ago, I mention Wayne Gretzky, probably the finest hockey player that we have seen in this country for this entire century. Perhaps in a few years Jeanne Sauve as the first woman Governor General of Canada since she became Governor General of Canada will have a statue erected in her honour, before a woman becomes Prime Minister of Canada.
In other words, we should not confine ourselves to only monarchs and Prime Ministers. I think we should beware of an ad hoc approach that says, well, because a person has been distinguished in her role as monarch we should therefore automatically feel that now that she is alive there should be a statue of her here. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if one asked the Queen, "Do you want a statue of you erected on Parliament Hill?" She might well say, "Perhaps there are other ways in which my interests, which are genuine, can be commemorated and marked". I am not sure if that is true. But that is certainly also a possibility.
October 2, 1987

I believe that statues are decorative and that they enliven and embellish any community, particularly a capital. I think that the National Capital Commission should be asked to give more attention perhaps to the municipal authorities here to statuary that would go not just on the parliamentary precinct but elsewhere in the community. I think that some of the people whose names I have mentioned might in fact find statues of themselves elsewhere, such as we have done for example with the Terry Fox statue which is located near the Conference Centre.
Those are a few thoughts on this particular motion. I would ask my hon. friend and his supporters in the Monarchist League to recognize the context in which I give these remarks. It is not by any means at all to diminish the service that Queen Elizabeth has given but to suggest that we as Canadians who are responsible for leaving a parliamentary precinct which is symbolic of Canada should be very careful about how we seek to decorate that, whether it is with statues of Prime Ministers, of monarchs or of anybody else.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: want to say a few words about the motion before us today to commission a statue on Parliament Hill for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. 1 want to say that as a person who grew up in Victoria County, Ontario, a county that was named after Queen Victoria, I lived in a community that related very closely to royalty and monarchy and all those institutions that preceded a growth of Canadian national spirit in Canada after World War I and particularly more so after World War II.
I wonder how many statues we really can put on Parliament Hill over a period of time. The reason why I think Queen Elizabeth II is a very important part of that growth or development of our historical background on Parliament Hill is that Canada has been a nation that has related broadly to the peoples of the world. We have a tremendous image as a nation in the eyes of other nations of the world. Queen Elizabeth II has, without exception, related to those many national interests and the cultural development and reality not only of the nations of the Commonwealth but, indeed, she was broadly read on many other cultures and nationalities throughout the world.
I can recall very well teaching school in a small community back in 1952 when she became our new Queen. During the course of that year it was requested that schools put on special events to commemorate the new monarch. I can remember as principal of the elementary school at Harlowe, in the northern part of Frontenac County, in that particular year we got together with other communities on the Highway 41 corridor, such as Kaladar, Cloyne, North Brook, Flinton, and I believe we had some discussions as far north as Denbigh, and we had a big field day. That was tremendously well attended in commemoration of the ascension to the Throne of Queen Elizabeth II.
Statue of Monarch
[DOT] (M30)
We know that there are areas in Canada today where the monarchy is not as popular as others. We recognize it as part of our background history. Indeed, Queen Victoria was consulted on the location of these very Parliament Buildings. It was through her that Ottawa was chosen. Therefore, rightly so, she has a very prominent place on Parliament Hill.
It is important to note that Queen Elizabeth holds a position that is respected by history. She is respected because of the person that she is. In the future there may well be another individual who does not play the role as courteously and effectively. The reason why the monarchy has declined somewhat over the years is because of monarchs coming to the Throne who did not have those personal qualities to relate to the people whom he or she represented. To illustrate that point we can go back to the reign of James I, Charles I, and Charles II.
On a six day visit to London, England, with the NATO parliamentarians, the Queen had a reception at Buckingham Palace for all the delegates and the staff of the delegations at Buckingham Palace. That day the Queen and Prince Philip came over and stood in the middle of the Canadian delegation and spoke with us at some length in common everyday discussion. That is the type of thing that gives a real insight into the person. The Queen and Prince Phillip are people who have the capacity to relate to all the members of the Commonwealth, and indeed to many other people in the world.
She was here for the signing of the 1982 Constitution Act. She has visited Canada on many occasions. Indeed, she opened this Parliament.
The fact that she has been on the Throne for a long time, as Queen of Canada and the Commonwealth, she has indeed earned her a role in the history of our nation.
I want to say a word to the Hon. Member who has proposed this motion. At this time it must be brought to the attention of the House and to the people of Canada that while we relate very well to Queen Elizabeth II and the tremendous role that she has played as a mediator in disputes in the Commonwealth, and taken very strong stands, as she recently did on Fiji, our thoughts go back to the debate in the House when the Hon. Member for	Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) brought in a Bill to commemorate the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and have a monument to him on Parliament Hill. I would remind the Conservative Member who has proposed this motion, and others in the House, that when the Bill went to committee, the Conservative Members on that committee referred that Bill to the National Capital Commission for further study for sites of and on the Hill. Imagine that type of partisan politics coming into the commissioning of a statue on Parliament Hill for a former Prime Minister of Canada? Not only was Mr. Pearson a former Prime Minister of Canada, but he was a man who probably had the greatest record as a Secretary of State for External Affairs in the history of this country.

October 2, 1987
Statue of Monarch


John Barry Turner: After Joe Clark.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In that debate on the Private Member's Bill to erect a statue on Parliament Hill for Lester B. Pearson, the Conservative Members referred it to the National Capital Commission for further study to decide whether the site would be off the Hill or on the Hill. I take great exception to that. There should be no partisanship in this type of role at all.
Queen Elizabeth has brought a great attitude of responsibility and great dignity to the office she holds. We have no objection to having a statue on Parliament Hill when she has played such a role in Canadian affairs for such a long period of time.
1 do not think it was properly mentioned today, but someone did mention that Queen Victoria was in office from 1837 to 1901. She came through some pretty horrendous periods. In 1837 there was a rebellion in Upper Canada, and a rebellion in Lower Canada. In the 1850s there was the Crimean War. Every time there is an international war we have internal problems in Canada. In 1885 there was the western Canada rebellion. In 1899 to 1901 there was the South African war. That created another internal problem in Canada. Monarchs have helped along the way to smooth these things out, and it important to recognize that.
In conclusion, I wish to say that in expressing our admiration for the tremendous role that Queen Elizabeth II has played, we certainly have no objection to having a statue of her on Parliament Hill. At the same time, I will not agree to having a site for a Canadian Prime Minister off Parliament Hill. I do not care from what Party they come.


David Bruce Daubney: You already have one off Parliament Hill, Louis St. Laurent, and you put it off Parliament Hill.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Any statues to be commissioned in the future should be located here where the centre and the pulse of the nation is.


David Bruce Daubney: You set the precedent.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let us not play politics with these things. Perhaps there should be a special commission to advise Cabinet on these matters rather than throwing them out for partisan debate on the floor of the House of Commons. With us in the case of Queen Elizabeth II there is no partisan debate. I want to make that very clear.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There certainly is when Members opposite attempt to kill a Bill for a former Prime Minister of Canada, at a time when the Liberal Party of Canada totally agreed that the statue should be erected on Parliament Hill in honour of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I knew that man well, and I agree that he belongs there. But I also wish to put forward in the strongest terms that any statue of a Canadian Prime
Minister should likewise be here on Parliament Hill. We should not have partisan politics about that.


David Bruce Daubney: Did you tell Trudeau?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) is shouting across. I wish to say to him that is not unusual at times.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Erie.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak in support of the motion introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper) to erect a statue of Queen Elizabeth II on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of her ascension to the Throne.
My appreciation for the monarchy springs from my family's love for our kings and our queens. In the early 1700s German farmers were offered free land in Pennsylvania and thousands took up the offer. Thus it was that my roots were transferred from Germany to Pennsylvania and then to Ontario.
In doing so, these new immigrants signed an oath of allegiance to the monarch of the day. After the American revolution this allegiance caused many of them to uproot themselves and to come to our shores. My history book informs me that my forefathers crossed the Niagara River in the year 1800, with the aid of friendly Indians, and settled along the shores of Lake Erie.
I believe our Queen is someone very special to Canadians. To us she is more than our ceremonial head of state, a responsibility in itself, for as we all know she is the guardian of our democratic Constitution that ensures the rights of liberty and of self-government for all Canadians.
I can remember the day of her coronation on February 6, 1952, when she succeeded to the throne as Queen Elizabeth on the death of her father, King George VI. Still young, with poise and confidence, she assumed the mantle of her responsibilities wholly and willingly.
I remember with pride, in the year 1939, as a boy of 12 years of age belonging to a bugle band and going to Niagara Falls, Ontario because King George VI and his Queen were to be there. I was privileged to be with that small bugle band from my town, to line the street, and to play as our Queen's mother and father went by.
As I speak today, Canadians have not been disappointed in their Queen. Rather, they have watched her with pride and admiration fulfil her role and duties with dedication and with diligence.
I suppose for a monarch, especially for the Queen, it has not been easy, balancing a fine line of preserving historic traditions and keeping pace with the mores of the present. Too many
October 2, 1987

times we have let traditions in our country slide. Too many times we have erased or removed them. The Queen has adapted her role of a constitutional monarch to suit the needs of the Commonwealth citizens she serves so capably. Constantly she and her royal family remain in the public eye, but, while accessible, she retains the aura of dignity and statesmanship that her office must uphold.
Of the Queen's interest and commitment to serve Canada and its people, it is absolute. In 1957, she was the first reigning monarch to open Parliament in Ottawa. No previous monarch has been in Canada so often or in so many parts of it. No previous monarch has had anything like her knowledge of our country and its affairs.
As early as 1951, when we knew her as Princess Elizabeth, her attachment to Canada was clearly stated:
From the moment when I first set foot on Canadian soil the feeling of strangeness went, for I knew myself to be not only amongst friends, but amongst fellow countrymen.
Her feelings strengthened when as Queen in 1957, in the first solo television broadcast of her life, she said:
Industry and commerce may bring wealth to a country but the character of a nation is formed by other factors. Race, language, religion, culture and tradition all have some contributions to make, and when 1 think of the diversity of these factors in Canada today and the achievements that have grown from their union, I feel proud and happy to be Queen of such a nation.
We are proud to have her as the Queen of our nation. She has proven over and over again how valuable her counsel and her experience can be. She has done much not only to foster unity within the Commonwealth family but in her role as our Queen to assist in assuaging and bringing together the diverse factors and elements within Canada.
In her address to the Quebec Legislature in 1964, she recognized the turmoil which the Province of Quebec was undergoing. She stated in French:
A dynamic state should not fear to assess its political philosophy.
Clearly to my mind that statement relieved a great deal of pressure.
To cite another example, it was Her Majesty who did as much as anyone by touring our Canadian North in 1970, thereby attracting the recognition of our claim and sovereignty to the world.
On Canada's ninety-second birthday, in a broadcast from Government House she said:
If I helped you to feel proud of being Canadian, if I have reminded you of the strength which comes from unity and if I have helped to draw your attention to the bright vision of the years ahead, I shall feel well satisfied because I believe with all conviction that this country can look to a glorious future.
How often have Canadians made her Christmas broadcasts a major part of that very special day? Her comments she can make to us as a part-time player and observer and to remind and encourage us to remain steadfast to our Canadian ideals and Canadian values.
Statue of Monarch
I have mentioned her desire to be accessible to those whom she serves. She is no doubt the consummate public servant. She has made her walkabouts a very special feature of her Canadian tours whenever she visits our country. She has set the standard for her family, equally willing and popular in their own right, to follow in her lead.
Moreover, she is as well the patron of various associations such as the Canadian Red Cross Society and many others too numerous to list. In this way I believe she has attempted and succeeded in instilling a link with Canadians, to show that the Crown is not merely an abstract symbol of our unity but a personal and living bond between her and her subjects.
Outside her immediate obligations to Canada, she has been a statesman acting for Canadian interests at the international level. As head of the Commonwealth, her position is a vital link with other nations within the Commonwealth family. She takes on this responsibility seriously, for she realizes the importance of human relationships in world affairs and how membership in the Commonwealth has a subtle influence on the relationship between its leaders.
How often has she been relied on to act as the mediator between conflicting schools of thought? How often, with skill and diplomacy, has she been able to resolve differences or to allow time for a breathing space for such controversies to be aired?
Unlike the changing faces of government, she remains constant. For 35 years, because of her interest and dedication to international affairs, she has become a repository of unique knowledge, advice, and encouragement to all who seek her confidence.
When I speak of our Queen, Queen Elizabeth II, I speak of a strong, courageous, and charming individual who has delighted and honoured Canadians by her love and attention to our needs. We are indeed fortunate to have her as our Queen.
Therefore I would encourage the House to give its unanimous approval to the motion of my colleague.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, i should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) for moving this important motion and for giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to speak on an issue which is close to the hearts of all of us, to the hearts of all Canadians.
We live in a country which is known as a constitutional monarchy. We live in a country which has as its head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. She has been Queen for more than three decades and has led the Commonwealth through many difficult periods and has led Canada through very difficult times.
My understanding of a constitutional monarchy is a country in which democratic principles, including freedom of speech

October 2, 1987
Statue of Monarch
and the right to elect people to legislative assemblies, are widely accepted. That principle has been defended in successive world wars by citizens of Canada.
We owe much of what we value to the evolution of democracy in the United Kingdom. The Magna Carta of 1215 is one of the documents on which the western world bases its concept of democracy. The United Kingdom evolved into a democracy over centuries. We, as a young country, have benefited from the evolution of democracy. We borrowed it at a mature stage. The United Kingdom evolved from a feudal system to its present totally democratic system.
The United States has also benefited from this evolution. It borrowed from the United Kingdom the basis for its democratic system which is a great contrast to the evolution which has taken place in many other countries. In communist countries evolution took place to the point of semidemocracy but then regressed. Communist regimes suppress the liberties and freedoms of their citizens. Certain other countries are not beneficiaries of the British democratic traditions. Some of the so-called developing countries of Africa are controlled by military dictatorships. That situation will probably exist until a revolution or other types of civil disobedience takes place.
We saw the toppling of the Marcos Government in the Philippines. We see the struggle taking place in Central America today, particularly in Nicaragua. The Somoza Government was overthrown several years ago only to be replaced by another dictatorial and undemocratic government. Popular movements do not always result in democracy and it is not uncommon for governments in these developing countries, once in power, to regress to a unilateral type of government system. We have not had that experience in Canada. For successive generations Canadians have enjoyed a democratic system.
When I think of placing on Parliament Hill a statue of Queen Elizabeth II to commemorate the thirty-fifth anniversary of her ascension to the Throne, I think not only of her role in preserving our democratic traditions, our constitutional system of government, but also of the way in which the monarchy has adapted, changed, and responded to the political realities of the United Kingdom. I think of such a statue as a symbol of our democratic traditions, as a reminder to us all that in the United Kingdom and in Canada we have had a peaceful evolution of democracy.
In that regard we stand apart from many countries of the world whose histories and/or present-day life are marred by civil war. In many ways we are light years ahead of some of our sister countries in which the thought of a Chamber such as this to which elected officials can go to express their opinions and those of their constituents is only a dream.
That is what I think of when I think of a statue to honour Queen Elizabeth II. I am sure that the Queen represents those values to people throughout the Commonwealth. Her constituency is far broader than only Canada. The Queen has performed her duties at all times with great sensitivity and responsibility. She has endeared herself to all of her constituents throughout the Commonwealth.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton for this important initiative. I look forward to the day when a statue of Queen Elizabeth II will be unveiled here on Parliament Hill.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and political neighbour across the Rideau River, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), has suggested that a statue of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should be erected in the near future on Parliament Hill. My colleague referred to the tremendous support he has received from the Monarchist League of Canada and other provincial, national, and, I would think, international organizations.
It is very appropriate that we should discuss this motion today as we also debated today, as we have all week, the future of our Constitution. It is appropriate that we should discuss the foundations and fabric of our country on the same day that we debate this motion to erect a statue of Her Majesty.
I have a very vague memory of Princess Elizabeth that day when she was in Kenya and her father died and she became the Queen of the Commonwealth, the Queen of the United Kingdom, and the Queen of Canada. I was only six years of age at the time but my memory has been refreshed many times over the years by newsclips. That young princess went on to become a great monarch.
I have travelled throughout most of the Commonwealth and have recognized, not only the importance of Canada's role within that community of nations but the Queen's role as well. Whether in Africa, Asia, or the Caribbean she has shown and continues to show tremendous leadership, as has our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). We are all very proud of our past, our traditions, and our ties with the United Kingdom.
I realize that the time for debate has come to a close for today and I respectfully request to continue my remarks when the motion next comes before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 3 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 3 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, October 5, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers