1987-05-11

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present to this House petitions signed by 533 constituents of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. Those signatures, added to the 7,353 already presented, bring the grand total to 7,886 people who are not happy with the corporate plan of Canada Post Corporation.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by people of the Province of Manitoba, including residents of the City of Winnipeg, Snow Lake, Thompson, and other communities.
In their petition, they call upon the federal Government not to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that the proposed changes will increase drug prices to Canadian consumers and unnecessarily restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs.
The petitioners also believe that this attempt to change the law is yet another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, and especially those people whose health needs require the use of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all of the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to today's business, there have been discussions with the opposition House Leaders on to how we might proceed today, and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to the following motion with respect to the timing for the consideration of the resolution standing in the name of the Right Hon. Prime Minister:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of the House, the House sit as follows today, Monday, May 11, 1987, for the purpose of consideration of the Government Motion, in the name of the Prime Minister, dated May 6, 1987, respecting the Meech Lake Statement of Principles by all First Ministers:
-The House continue to sit, without interruption for lunch break or Private Members' Business, provided that statements by Members will be at 2 p.m. and Question Period from 2.15 to 3 p.m.
-The Speaker will adjourn the House at the regular hour of daily adjournment, without debate on the adjournment, unless otherwise ordered.
[DOT] (UlO)


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed of this proposal just before the House opened. I attempted to send a message to the Government House Leader that while we would agree to have Private Members' Hour used for this debate today, we would prefer that the House sit into the luncheon hour only for the time necessary to complete the speeches by the three Party Leaders. I am sorry I could not get that message to my hon. friend personally beforehand, but this is our position.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our Party I would certainly agree with the proposition of the Government House Leader with the small amendment of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that perhaps we sit through luncheon hour until the three Party Leaders have spoken; if there is time for a short break, take the break; and certainly waive the Private Members' Hour.

The Constitution


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we would probably then have to draft another motion. My understanding is that there were discussions and I thought that it was clearly understood.
We can continue to have further discussions and perhaps bring forth an appropriate motion this day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister) moved:: That this House endorses the Meech Lake statement of principles approved by all First Ministers, April 30, 1987 as a basis for Quebec's participation as a full partner in the Canadian Constitution, and as a basis for the establishment, in a spirit of equality and fairness, of a process for considering futher constitutional reforms.-
He said: Mr. Speaker, on May 20, 1980, in a referendum on its political future, Quebec said yes to the rest of Canada. Some seven years later at Meech Lake, the rest of Canada said yes to Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And out of this mutual affirmation of our willingness to live together came a Canadian federation stronger and more united than ever.
That is the essence of the Meech Lake Agreement.
It is about fulfilling the commitment 1 made on August 6, 1984, at Sept-iles on behalf of the Party I am privileged to lead. And it is about a new vision of Canada in which, as I said on that occasion, "The Canadian federation is not a test of strength between the different governments".
It is about a country in which the provinces are active participants in national affairs.
It is about a new federalism in which, "we rebuild the bonds of confidence with the provinces," in a vital federal system that is adaptable to the legitimate aspirations of Canadians in every part of our country. It is about a country in which all regions contribute to a stronger nation. And, Mr. Speaker, it is about a country whose soul teems with inexhaustible resources. And it is about Canadians working together in a spirit of co-operation and harmony to fulfill this country's potential.
It is about our past, and about our future, joined together in a uniquely Canadian wilderness setting-Meech Lake.

One hundred and twenty years ago our forebears established on the northern half of this continent a noble experiment in federalism. Their objectives were clear in the letter of the British North America Act, namely, peace, order, and good government. What a characteristically Canadian statement that is. There is little poetry to it but a strong ring of Canadian common sense.
May 11, 1987
The articles of Confederation served the nation well, but the task of nation building did not end with Confederation. It continued with each succeeding generation; it continues to this very day, for we were born in colonialism, and only over a century and more have we achieved a full measure of sovereignty.
In Sir John A. Macdonald's lifetime the territorial integrity of the nation was assured by the building of the Great Pacific Railway and the settlement of the west.
In the First World War Canada won the right of representation at the international conference at Versaille. The price was a heavy one, paid in blood at places like Vimy Ridge that are inscribed in the history of valour.
In the Second World War the sons and daughters of Canada sailed from the shores of one of our mother countries, Great Britain, to participate in the liberation of the other, France, and then to all Europe. As long as the notion of bravery exists, the contributions of Canadians shall be remembered and honoured.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the settlement and industrialization of our nation, in the epic struggles elsewhere of freedom against tyranny, we emerged as a fully independent state in all but name as our Constitution remained at Westminster. For more than 60 years Canadians sought unsuccessfully to reach unanimous agreement on making our Constitution a truly Canadian document.

Succeeding generations of Canadians have sought a more harmonious accommodation between our two principal language communities. Quebec's First Premier after Confederation, Pierre Chauveau, compared Canada to the double staircase of the Chateau de Chambord's.
"English and French", he said, "we climb by a double flight of stairs toward the destinies reserved for us on this continent, without knowing one another, without meeting each other, without even seeing each other except on the landing of politics."
More recently, Canadians were asking themselves how they could work towards reconciliation, how the legitimate aspirations of Quebec and the other provinces could be fulfilled within our federal framework. That brought us to the referendum of May, 1980, one of the most momentous pages in our history. From 1976 to 1980, we discussed the most fundamental questions of country in the most civilized manner, with the utmost respect for democracy and one another's opinions.
The experience was a difficult one, even painful for many, yet in the end it further awakened us to the blessings of democracy.
May 11, 1987

Soon after that, Canada repatriated her Constitution. And though it was no longer British law, deep down we all knew it would never be truly Canadian until Quebec had agreed to it. For the Constitution is more than a legal instrument; it enshrines a commitment of our hearts and minds to fundamental principles and aspirations. That's why 1 resolved to bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family. For that to happen, there had to be changes, a new way of looking at things.
As I said at Sept-Iles: "If Quebec is weakened, then Canada is weakened. If Quebec is strong, then Canada is strong."

Yet we could not reopen the process, reopen the question, risking the consequences of another failure unless we were assured of some minimal conditions of success.
At Sept lies I set for the Government the objective of convincing the Quebec National Assembly to give its consent to renewed federalism with honour and enthusiasm. I also stated that I would not undertake a constitutional path with ambiguity and improvisation. Once we had established the principles, we had to establish a process, one in which all partners in Confederation could feel that their interests were well served.
All provinces played an indispensable role in this regard. The Government of Quebec, led by Premier Robert Bourassa, drew up a five-point agenda based on its position paper, mahriser I'avenir, which had been submitted to and powerfully endorsed by Quebecers in the 1985 provincial election.
All provinces then agreed at Edmonton last summer that this agenda represented a reasonable basis for discussion, and further agreed with our suggestion that we should settle the Quebec question first.
Ministers and officials worked diligently over the autumn and the winter. In March, I concluded that this stage of the process had gone about as far as it could go without the involvement of First Ministers and, accordingly, I invited them to Meech Lake on April 30.

Our task was to reconcile Quebec's distinct needs with the interests of other provinces, and with the national interest. Any agreement had to be good for Quebec, good for the other provinces, and good for Canada. And it is, Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake agreement is all of those things. It is consistent with the principles of Canadian federalism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And it opens the door to a future in which Canadians are more united, in which we can address other concerns, such as Senate reform and fisheries, in a second round of constitutional negotiations. From a more unified
The Constitution
Canada, I am convinced we will achieve a more prosperous Canada.
In that spirit, First Ministers came to Meech Lake on April 30. There were just 11 elected representatives in that room, Mr. Speaker, but they represented the interests of all Canadians. Each represented his own province but all, in my judgment, were motivated by the national interest. The more we discussed, the more it became apparent that we could reach an agreement in principle, an agreement that would meet the test of fairness, an agreement that would stand the test of time, an agreement that would open the door to a new federalism based on reconciliation and mutual respect. To their very great credit, the Premiers were determined that this opportunity should not slip away for they knew another like it would not soon present itself again.

With the positive signals Quebecers have sent us in recent years and through the open-mindedness shown by the other provinces, the distinct nature of Quebec society within our Canadian Confederation is now acknowledged.
The dream of millions of Quebecers is becoming a reality.
The accord also clearly recognizes the existence of a francophone Canada centered in but not limited to Quebec, and an anglophone Canada based in the rest of the country, but also present in Quebec. Our linguistic minorities, wherever they live, can therefore count on the solemn commitment of the Parliament of Canada and every provincial legislature.
At the same time, federal-provincial relations will acquire a new degree of flexibility, making it possible to defuse pointless tensions and turn our Constitution into an inspiring, creative force.
In the area of immigration, federal-provincial agreements can be drawn up with provinces that ask for one. Once signed, they will be fully protected by the Constitution. These agreements should address the specific needs of the provinces that sign them, but the federal Government will remain ultimately responsible for setting national standards and objectives.
We have agreed to entrench the Supreme Court in the Constitution, which I believe Members will agree is appropriate, especially given the pre-eminent role of the High Court in interpreting the Charter.
The current legal requirement that three of the nine justices of the Supreme Court come from Quebec will also be entrenched in the Constitution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And a joint procedure for nominating justices will ensure that they are acceptable both to the province involved and the federal Government, which I believe Members will agree conforms with the true spirit of federalism.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution

We agreed that reasonable compensation would be made available to provinces that do not participate in future national shared cost programs, provided they operate a provincial program or initiative compatible with national objectives.
Medicare could very much have been created under this arrangement. The 10 provincial medical programs today vary in a number of respects related to financing of the range of services, but they all meet the national objectives of providing high quality health care to Canadians within a framework of portability, universality and accessibility.
There is every reason to believe that child care can be achieved through the new spending power provision. As Premier Peterson noted in his Canadian Club address last week, this provision in no way inhibits the federal Government from introducing new national programs. The Parliament and the Government of Canada retain the right to act swiftly and strongly in the national interest on behalf of Canadians. That is our responsibility. That is our duty. That is precisely what we have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Which is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be discussions and dialogue, but this is very much in keeping with the true spirit of federalism.
We reinforced the equality of the provinces by placing all national institutions under the unanimity rule. Unanimity was achieved on unemployment insurance in 1940, old age pensions in 1951, supplementary benefits in 1964 and the Meech Lake Agreement in 1987. So it is difficult, very difficult, to sustain the thesis that unanimity would be a straightjacket.
Consider what the absence of unanimity-the absence of Quebec from the constitutional accord, for example-would mean for Canada if allowed to extend over years and then decades. Consider what the absence of Quebec from the Canadian confederation over decades would mean. Consider the corrosive and debilitating implications of that as one weighs the value of the strengthened unity that comes from the Meech Lake Accord.
As Eugene Forsey, a firm advocate of a strong federal Government and a noted constitutional authority has stated:
If we want to get results and get Quebec and the other provinces alike
satisfied, we have to pay a certain price. And, on the whole, it looks to me that
the price that would be paid is not an unreasonable one.
There will be an annual First Ministers' Conference on the economy and other questions that arise in the management of a federation, a proposal already introduced and acted upon by this Government. There will be an annual First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution which will pursue Senate reform, roles and responsibilities in the fishery and other important questions.
Until Senate reform is achieved, there will be a joint federal-provincial procedure for new appointments. This should be
taken as a sign of good faith on our part. Make no mistake about it, we are intent on Senate reform, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in Alberta last week, we will be placing a specific proposal for Senate reform on the table at the First Ministers' Conference next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There remains the important unfinished business of achieving a constitutional amendment on aboriginal self-government. Four First Minister's Conferences have been held in this matter. I have participated actively in two. I understand the challenge and the importance. I know this Parliament has contributed mightily in trying to achieve that vital accord that will bring justice to our native peoples. Regrettably, a consensus has eluded Canadians each time. I say to the aboriginal leadership and to the provinces, the Government of Canada remains prepared to work with you toward this objective, but, as with the Quebec issue, the conditions must be conducive to success for we dare not risk failure another time.
Officials have been working on a draft to be approved by the premiers at our next meeting. I have invited the Premiers to meet here during the first week of June. Assuming a formal agreement is reached, we will then table the appropriate resolution in Parliament at the earliest subsequent opportunity. I would hope that the provinces would do the same. Members of the House of Commons will then have ample opportunity to join in the debate on the resolution.
The Meech Lake Agreement represents a conscious act of nation building by all First Ministers, requiring generosity of spirit and a deep understanding on all sides. By recognizing the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada, we affirm our identity as a nation and strengthen our sovereignty as a people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: By adopting new constitutional and institutional arrangements, we will also provide an opportunity for more harmonious relations between the federal and the provincial Governments.

By civilizing the use of the spending power, clarifying roles and responsibilities in immigration, which is an area of joint jurisdiction, and constitutionalizing First Ministers' Conferences, we create opportunities for concerted government action from which all Canadians will benefit.
Joint procedures for Supreme Court and Senate appointments will reinforce the legitimacy of federal institutions.

I have been heartened by the response of ordinary Canadians to the Meech Lake Accord. People on the street, school children, farmers in the fields of Saskatchewan, strongly
May 11, 1987

support this statement of national unity. That is what this is all about, nation building.
I pay tribute to the First Ministers whose leadership and resolve have strengthened our federation and enriched our citizenship. From every region of Canada, from all political Parties, the First Ministers came to Meech Lake and theirs were the voices of confidence and unity and of belief in the greatness of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let no one say our national unity is undermined by respecting differences and incorporating them in a common entity in the custody of a central authority.
It would be astounding if the nation that succeeded in resisting disunity felt more threatened by unity.
Together we ventured out on a long and difficult road in search of our political indentity and constitutional sovereignty. Yet we never lost faith in ourselves, we never denied our tradition of tolerance and we never doubted that, somewhere at the end of our quest for democratic dialogue, a fraternal and honourable solution awaited us.
Success is now within our grasp.
I appeal to the civic spirit of every Member of this House so that we may put aside Party politics at this great moment in our history, this hour of strength drawn from our rediscovered solidarity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is what our fellow-citizens expect from us, from one end of this country to another in a great spirit of hope. We will do honour to ourselves not to disappoint them.

From Macdonald to Laurier, from King to Diefenbaker, from Meighen to Pearson, from Bennett to St. Laurent to Trudeau, the overriding objective of all Canadian Prime Ministers has been a strong and a united Canada. The Meech Lake Agreement contributes to that unity and is a statement as well of a vision of Canada, a vision that is rooted in our love of this country, our pride in its people, our respect for its traditions, our joy at its promise. But that promise shall be realized only in unity, only in the unity that comes from English and French Canadians, east and west, new Canadians and old, together, finally together in a strong and united Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are embarking today upon what is one of the most important discussions or debates any nation can face, the revision of our Constitution. Canadians are familiar with constitutional discussions and with constitutional differences. We have been talking about it in earnest for at least two
The Constitution
decades and this is why I welcome the opportunity to restate my views once again this morning.
When the Constitution was patriated in 1982, the agreement contained one tragic flaw. In our attempt to break away from our colonial past, one of our most important and founding provinces was missing in that agreement, Quebec.

Since patriation, Quebec's absence has been deeply felt by all parties, and we have focused all our efforts on finding the fairest and most equitable way to complete this unfinished task.
I am proud to lead a Party that has always been in the forefront of constitutional thinking and debate.
Last year, I was the first to present a set of recommendations for enabling Quebecers to sign the Canadian Constitution with pride and dignity. These proposals were enthusiastically received by the Government of Quebec.
We were thus able to raise this debate above partisan considerations and to create a genuine climate of mutual understanding and generosity, the impact of which has surely contributed to the success of the meeting at Meech Lake.

I would like at this time to recognize and pay tribute to my caucus and my Party for pursuing this issue with vigour and commitment. Following the election of the Bourassa Government in Quebec, there was a new spirit of co-operation and a political will to participate fully in our confederation. I'am very pleased that that spirit has been given some substance in the agreement we are discussing today. I know from my own participation in the Victoria conference in 1971 that the process of constitutional reform is long and difficult.
I also must pause and congratulate all the First Ministers on reaching an agreement on a process which may in fact see Quebec brought into the constitutional agreement.
[ Translation]
The question of Quebec's place in the Canadian federation lies at the very the heart of our existence as a nation. The political history buffs among us are aware that ever since the end of the 18th century, attempts have been made to provide for a political structure that would allow Quebecers then referred to as "Canadiens", to protect their rights and safeguard their identity.
The beginnings of parliamentary democracy in our country were difficult, both in Upper and Lower Canada. The 1837 rebellions and the morass in which the Government of Union found itself led the British authorities to conclude that it was utopian to consider imposing or forcing on Canada a uniform system of government.
Clearly, what was needed was a political framework that would leave room for developing views and maintaining

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
identities, while involving all participants in the building and development of a great nation.
Despite the hope that the fears of the past would prove to be unfounded, subsequent events soon showed Quebecers that when the majority spoke, Quebec's appeals could meet a wall of indifference. The Riel affair, the Manitoba schools question, Regulation 17 in Ontario, conscription during the two World Wars and the battles for provincial autonomy are some of the events in this century that were instrumental in convincing Lester B. Pearson, as Prime Minister of Canada, to set up the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The Lauren-deau-Dunton Commission sent out a clear and unmistakable signal: the country would fall apart if there was no thorough reform.
Many of these tensions were of course centred in Quebec, but they existed elsewhere in Canada since the very beginning: regional tensions, mostly in the west but also in the north and the Maritimes, which often complained they were not equal partners.

The Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau heard the alarm signal. In Victoria in 1971 we tabled a proposal which remains a model and inspiration for anyone looking for a definition of a political consensus in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being Minister of Justice at the time. The feeling was one of euphoria. The Official Languages Act had just been passed by the Parliament of Canada. The 10 provinces had given their agreement in principle to a formula that recognized the linguistic duality of this country: bilingualism in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and even Newfoundland. The amending formula gave veto rights to Quebec and to each of this country's regions.
Despite this very considerable progress, the Government of Quebec finally withdrew its agreement under increasing pressure from public opinion in that province. It was clear that feelings were running so high they could no longer be ignored.
The Parti Quebecois rode the waves which were to carry Quebec to its own destiny after severing its links with the rest of the country. Indeed, concerted efforts were made throughout this decade to revamp our institutions and adjust Canada's orientations to the heartfelt aspirations of Quebecers. But the referendum process had already been launched and nothing would be possible until such time as Quebecers would be given an opportunity to have their say about their Canadian partnership.
The majority of Quebecers said yes to Canada, and it is because they sent this signal that the reform process began through the Constitution Act of 1982. The statement of principles which is now on the table of the House raises the fundamental question about the kind of country, the kind of Canada in which we want to live. The question is two-fold.
What guarantees of cultural security are offered to Quebec? What is the role of the Canadian and provincial Governments with respect to the linguistic duality of our country?
In other words, what common values do Canadians share, what institutions will interpret them?
Some people believe that Quebec must be a province like the others, for any concession on anything whatsoever opens the door to separatism. They see Canada as a solid block, unable to reflect various aspirations yet party to the same principles of freedom and democracy.
Quebec seeks certain guarantees concerning its distinctive character, its population growth, its presence within federal institutions, its freedom to use as it sees fit its legislative powers as described in the Act of 1867 and, especially, its participation in the Canadian whole.

Quebecers do not want to lock themselves into a ghetto. History has demonstrated that they are an essential part of the Canadian identity. They represent a unique fact in Canadian life.

History indicates as well that Canada cannot exist without Quebec and that Quebecers must be an integral part of the life and institutions of Canada.
Nor is the Canadian Government's role restricted to that of a passive observer, for it rightfully assumes responsibility for ensuring the presence and expansion of the French fact throughout the country and elsewhere in the world.
It must constantly define this responsibility and adjust it to new conditions and more exacting challenges. Such is the major outline of today's debate on the agreement in principle hammered out at Meech Lake.
Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration today is premature because we have yet to see the final legal text of the Meech Lake agreement. Even so we take a positive and constructive approach towards any constitutional proposition aimed at making Quebecers full-fledged partners in the Confederation of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is why we endorse this motion.

1 believe that the motion before us, Your Honour, is somewhat premature since we have yet to see any final wording or precise text. However, we in this Party intend to respond constructively and positively to any constitutional proposal which will make Quebec a full partner in our Confederation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That is why we support this motion. However, in doing so, I want to make it perfectly
May 11, 1987

clear that we do not interpret this motion as a blind endorsement of the statement of principles agreed upon at Meech Lake. We have serious concerns about some aspects of that statement and will certainly have suggestions for improvements, now and when we see the final text.
We view this motion as seeking our agreement to continue, as the motion puts it, a process to bring Quebec into the Constitution. We certainly do and will support any efforts to that effect. It is indeed a good day for Canada and for Quebec. I have always believed that it was essential to the future of this country that Quebec be a major and leading partner in our Confederation and a full-fledged participant in its evolution. I personally support the motion because Quebec's participation will be necessary for any future evolution of the country.
I believe that the constructive work done by my Party contributed substantially to creating the favourable atmosphere in Quebec and throughout the country for this discussion. We have steadfastly refrained from politicizing this question in the House of Commons or across Canada. We have purposely avoided embarrassing the Government on this issue during the course of the negotiations. We knew that the provincial Premiers and the representatives of the Government of Canada were studying the views set forth by Quebec and that the interests of the country take precedence over any partisan views.
The key words in this motion, Mr. Speaker, are that this House accept the statement of principles tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last week "as a basis" for further discussion. In the absence of anything else, we believe that the statement of principles is as good a place to start as any.
At the same time, I view this as a general framework for discussion, not the final solution. As Premier Pawley stated, we must all ensure that the legal wording does not distort either the intentions of the Meech Lake Accord, or indeed the intentions of the Constitution itself.
I also want to emphasize that we will insist upon full committee hearings of the final text which will be produced by the Government of Canada, and a full debate in this House when we see the final results, preferably before the issue goes to the Premiers. Parliament has a right to see this text in final form before it is again negotiated with the Premiers. This is too important an issue for a one-day debate. This is the Constitution of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Of course Hon. Members recall that in 1981 the Trudeau Goverment tabled in this House the final text of the constitutional resolution and this was the topic of a debate. But before receiving the approval of the House the text was analyzed, scrutinized and, let us admit it, improved as a result of the work of a joint committee of the House and of the Senate which sat to give it exceptionally serious consideration over a number of weeks. Mr. Speaker, I
The Constitution
believe that if the House sees fit to strike a parliamentary committee to review, analyze and improve all its legislation, surely we ought to take as serious an approach towards amendments to the basic law of the land, the Constitution.

To do less in this case would be to abdicate our responsibilities as legislators. It is critical that what we do for ordinary Bills in this House, that it, clause by clause review in committee, we should certainly do for the most fundamental law in our country, the Constitution of Canada.
We as legislators must be as precise as possible in our language. We must give the courts clear guidance and an indication as to how we want our Constitution interpreted, what principles we want them to adhere to when adjudicating individual cases. We do not want the Supreme Court of Canada to act as a legislator. That is our role. That is why I believe we need clear and precise language in our Constitution. That is why I believe Parliament has a right and a duty to inspect that language at an early opportunity. We must ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, we look at each provision and try to predict the consequences of them.
On balance, what we see in this statement is positive both for Canada and for Quebec. However, it can remain positive only if its spirit and intent are accurately translated into legal terms.
I believe that the purpose of this debate today-which we welcome-will be to provide to the drafters our advice and guidance on what should or should not be in the final resolution. Our Constitution is the foundation on which our federation spells out how certain powers and obligations are shared, which are exclusive to either level of jurisdiction and, in the case of the Charter, which powers are beyond the reach of either level of Government. Constitutional change is not something which should be done in haste, in a single day before the national forum. It is not something which should be entered into without taking full account of all the implications.
With the provision to constitutionalize two yearly meetings of First Ministers, one on the Constitution and one on the economy, are we not creating yet another level of government, one that meets behind closed doors away from the public eye to change the course of Canada without the prior authority, approval, or even inspection of Parliament?
Will this mean, for example, that we will have abandoned a regional role for the Senate, a body which we believe should be elected? We believe an elected Senate could serve the role of representing the regions on an ongoing basis in an open and public manner. We must be fully aware of the choice we are making and what that choice means to the future of our country. Our role, Mr. Speaker, in this House, in the absence of the precise language which the First Ministers may have in mind, is to look at each statement of principle and try to interpret the impact of these statements and to make improvements where possible.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
We are talking about a process. We are asking the Government to give us the thinking behind some of these provisions. We need greater detail than we have heard so far. What are some of the ramifications of these provisions? Let us begin at the beginning of the statement of principles.

First, the distinct society. Mr. Speaker, since our convention last November, more than 90 per cent of the Liberal delegates have acknowledged the distinct character of Quebec, with its language, its culture, its specific features such as the use of the Civil Code, and even to a certain extent, its humour, its way of life, is different from other Canadian provinces. We think that is one aspect of the rich heritage left to us by the founding fathers of our great country.
We described, with some inspiration 1 believe, Quebec as the major, but not exclusive, source of the French language and culture in Canada, for it is the major source of energy, of cultural and linguistic inspiration for our French speaking community.
However, Mr. Speaker, we have also taken great care to recognize in our resolution all the distinctive features of our diversified society, including first the linguistic duality of our country which we hope will not only be maintained, but also reinforced in every region of Canada.
We should add to that-and 1 am disappointed that the Meech Lake draft agreement does not-the multicultural character of our society, and in particular the respect of the various origins and cultures as well as the various regional specificities which all combine to make the Canadian society.
We also suggested that the contribution of native people in Canada should be included in the opening section of our constitution, and 1 can only regret the fact that native people were ignored in the Meech Lake statement drafted by the Premiers and the Prime Minister.
We therefore want, Mr. Speaker, to repeat that we recognize the distinct character of Quebec, as well as of all the dynamic entities of our society.
Our Party has overwhelmingly endorsed the concept of a distinct character for Quebec recognized in our Constitution and we will continue to support that concept. In our November resolution we outlined our firm belief that Quebec is the principal but not the exclusive source of French language and culture in Canada. However, we took great care in recognizing not only the linguistic duality of our country, but also the multicultural nature of our society and the contribution of our aboriginal peoples. We believe this Accord could be greatly improved with the inclusion of both these elements.
We also need to know more precisely what the two phrases "distinct identity" and "distinct society" mean. Our proposal in November was that this reference would appear in the
preamble to the Constitution. However, Senator Lowell Murray has stated that those phrases will appear in the body of the Constitution. In my view, that has the potential to change the interpretation of that particular section a great deal. We look forward to hearing the Government's interpretation of that situation.
Already, the Government of Quebec has stated that it will examine the possibility of proposing that the phrasing be strengthened. Others have suggested that it can lead to a constitutional interpretation that language rights of francophone minorities outside Quebec may not be sufficiently protected. It is for these reasons that we believe the language must be clear and precise.
Let me turn to immigration. Again, in our November proposal, we supported the right of Quebec to participate in the selection of immigrants as set out in the Cullen-Couture Agreement. The reason being that we believe Quebec, more than the other provinces, has a special interest in protecting its linguistic character.
Our reading of the Constitution Act of 1982 is that the composition of the Supreme Court, that is, its size and the requirement that three of the nine judges be from Quebec, is already entrenched in the Constitution and can only be changed with the unanimous consent of the provinces. We therefore have no objection to spelling it out in more detail.
I have always believed that appointments to the court should be made after real consultation with national and provincial bar associations and, in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada, the provincial courts. I sincerely hope that the entrenchment of provincial consultation will enhance that process.
With regard to the spending power, the Government is introducing a new concept. It would enshrine in the Constitution the right of every province to reasonable compensation for not participating in a national cost-shared program in a provincial area, provided that the province has its own program which is compatible with national objectives.
Also, the statement of principles now provides that provinces will be reasonably compensated for opting out of any constitutional amendment affecting provincial jurisdiction, not just in areas of education or other cultural matters as is now the case under the Constitution Act of 1982.
We are very concerned that this dilution of the federal spending power could limit the ability of any future Canadian Government to initiate a national program on matters which generally fall within provincial jurisdiction.
We are deeply concerned, despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said this morning, that a medicare program might well have been impossible under the arrangement now contemplated. John Robarts, as the Premier of Ontario, was against that program, and under this provision he would have been able to block a national medicare system. We are
May 11, 1987

concerned that the national child care program might now be rendered impossible, as well as a guaranteed annual income. These are priorities for our Party.
Also, we are now assured by the Prime Minister that this Parliament will decide what is meant by a "national objective", but I think it is important that we understand how that process will come about. Will it be a parliamentary process or will it be left to the courts, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the final adjudicator? I suggest that the wording of this section needs to be very clear.
I will now deal with the amending formula. I am troubled by the rigidity in the new arrangement in terms of the unanimity required under the proposed amending process affecting federal institutions. We still believe that the 1971 Victoria formula is the best one, because it offers the necessary flexibility to face changing situations, while ensuring that regional interests and those of Quebec are fully protected.
By reverting to the unanimity rule on changes in the Senate and the addition of new provinces, are we not in effect moving backward rather than forward and ruling out any changes in those areas?
I think we are entitled to ask in the House whether we will ever have Senate reform in practical terms under these provisions. When I asked the Prime Minister last Monday if this provision meant that an elected Senate would now be impossible, he said, as reported at page 5684 of Hansard'.
Not unless you want to make the assumption that the First Ministers are
incapable of coming together in good faith to resolve matters of this kind.
I submit that the decades of constitutional impasse that we experienced in this country under that unanimity rule is precisely what we may experience now. We did not then have a workable amending formula. Constitutional reform was impeded because we had an implied unanimity rule. We should be seriously concerned that this particular change will move us backward to that situation prior to 1982.
The Prime Minister has conceded Senate appointments to the provinces until there is Senate reform, but there is no definition of what Senate reform might be. I suspect that some provincial Governments, having gained the power to appoint their own Senators and having guaranteed themselves yearly constitutional meetings with the Prime Minister, will be a lot less likely to move toward an elected Senate.
I am also concerned with the unanimity requirement for the admission of new provinces. While I agree that provinces should indeed have something to say about the admission of new ones, this rule did not apply to current provinces brought in after Confederation, the most recent being the Province of Newfoundland. Therefore, I believe an exception should be made in the case of Yukon and Northwest Territories and they should be governed by the current formula, seven provinces having 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
I am also very disappointed that the First Ministers did not seize the opportunity to recommit themselves to inserting the inherent rights of our aboriginal peoples into the Constitution.
The Constitution
As I said in the House prior to the meeting of First Ministers, and as indicated in our November amendment, we believe that the rights of our aboriginal peoples should be recognized in our Constitution.
Why did the First Ministers also not pursue the inclusion of a recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society? In particular, we must give due recognition to the many origins, creeds, cultures and different regional identities which shape our society. I suggest to the Prime Minister that we now have a unique opportunity to improve greatly and strengthen our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in two particular areas, as outlined in our resolution in November.

Mr. Speaker, we regret the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada did not take advantage of the favourable climate of the Meech Lake meeting to improve the scope of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that he might have asked the provinces to grant official linguistic minorities the control and management of their publicly funded teaching institutions and to remove from the Charter, from the Constitution, the words "where the number so warrants" used in Section 23.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to delete from Section 33 of our Constitution the word "notwithstanding" in order to give every Canadian man and woman throughout the country equal rights which can never be tampered with by any other level of government.

I would like to remind the House that under the terms of Section 33, the Legislatures in this country, including this Parliament, may limit, if they so choose, freedom of conscience and religion, of thought, belief, opinion, the press, peaceful assembly, association; and restrict the right to life, liberty and the security of the person; deny the right not to be arbitrarily arrested; waive due process of law; waive the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and deny equal protection from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
I am sure most Hon. Members would like to see that provision removed, and I urge the Government to make its removal and the changes to Section 23 that I have just mentioned part of the current discussion with the provinces and with Parliament.
I repeat that 1 believe we have a historic opportunity to bring Quebec into our Constitution. We should take this opportunity to demonstrate to the people of Quebec that we want them in and we want them to play a significant and full partnership role in a better and more progressive Canada. It is what we all want in this country and what we have all been working for in this Parliament.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
As I said at our November convention, Quebec on two recent occasions said yes to Canada. Now is an opportunity for this country and the House of Commons to say yes to Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's note: Interruption from the Gallery.]


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, further to my submission this morning, I think perhaps you will now find unanimous agreement of the House to the following motion with respect to the conduct of today's business:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order of the House, the House sit as follows today, Monday, May 11, 1987, for the purpose of consideration of the Government motion, in the name of the Prime Minister, dated May 6, 1987, respecting the Meech Lake statement of principles by all First Ministers:
-The House continue to sit on this debate through the time normally provided for Private Members' Business, and that the Speaker adjourn the House at the regular hour of daily adjournment, without debate on the adjournment, unless otherwise ordered.
The motion is presented with a proviso that if the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) extends his speech beyond the normal lunch hour-


Mr. Broadbent:: 1 think we are safe.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -he tells me we are safe-he would be given sufficient time to complete his remarks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that this motion responds to comments I made earlier that we will adjourn for lunch at the usual time, unless time during the lunch hour is needed to complete the speech of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and that the debate will continue through Private Members' Hour and then the House will adjourn, we are ready to agree to this motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we also agree. I do not think the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) will speak beyond one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion and 1 take it there is unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the historic meeting at Meech Lake with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Premiers of all the other provinces, produced what can only be described as a remarkable document. I had the opportunity on that occasion, on behalf of my colleagues, to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Premiers for reaching an agreement, an agreement achieved by all of Canada's political parties representing all the regions of our country, and at this time obtaining the signature of the
Province of Quebec, which is something about which all Canadians should rejoice.
I made that statement at that time and I repeated it again to the Prime Minister. I added then on behalf of my colleagues simply the words, which I repeat, that we, of course, want to see the final wording -and the Prime Minister understands that-on some important clauses. However, the purpose, the general principles of what has been achieved, is something which should be endorsed by all Canadians in all regions of our land.
Today, rather than make a celebratory speech at this point, because I hope there will be another occasion before long when we have the final document before us, I have chosen to address a different kind of framework this morning.
I have chosen to try to lay out what I think would be the appropriate framework in which the House should put itself in assesssing a constitutional change and what that will mean or can mean for a nation, and then come quite specifically to some of the concessions in the document we have before us and raise certain areas of problematic concern with I hope will be addressed in a quite persuasive way by those who are now working on the final document.
Free societies are not those which seek unanimity. It is quite the contrary. Free societies are those which institutionalize conflicting opinion, reason and desire. Well functioning free societies are those in which these institutions, once established, contribute to a greater sense of harmony not merely for years but for decades and, indeed, for generations.

The opposing forces out of which harmony may result, in a country like ours, can unite to lay the foundation for durable harmony or they can do the exact opposite. They may succeed in creating no more than a temporary peace, a peace sought perhaps with a great deal of conviction but nevertheless, a peace that raises false hopes.
I believe that here in Canada, we must pay particular attention to this moment in our country's history, which we could call Phase II of the constitutional negotiations of the eighties.
I say this because I believe the Canadian people and our major political groups are all in favour of constitutional peace, which represents a tremendous opportunity for us in the short term. However, there is also a long-term risk involved for this country if we are not extremely careful. On the positive side, the fact is that the vast majority of the people of Quebec and those outside Quebec want the province to participate fully in the Canadian Constitution and to pursue its major role in shaping our national destiny. All the other provinces signed the Constitutional Accord in 1982. Only Quebec was excluded. We all know this situation is undesirable and that it must cease.
During the Referendum, Quebecers said yes to Canada. We now have a responsibility, here in the House of Commons and
May 11, 1987

in all the provinces, to say yes to Quebec. That is the reality today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the fundamental objective of the Meech Lake meeting was to develop a set of proposals that would satisfy Quebec's aspirations. However, these same proposals had to be acceptable to the other provinces, which have their own claims, and consistent with the need for the federal Government to maintain its power to ensure leadership in its quest for the unification of this country, not only in obtaining an agreement, but in meeting future responsibilities.
Unless I am sadly mistaken, I feel that virtually all political forces and Parties which thoroughly believe in a federal Canada share the same aspirations as the Canadian people. They are anxious for an agreement, as demonstrated at the Meech Lake meeting and here in the House of Commons the very next day.
All the political Parties representing the various Canadian regions have expressed the hope that once properly analyzed, the Meech Lake Agreement will satisfy the requirements of Canada, those of Quebec and those of all other provinces.
I said a week ago, Mr. Speaker, that my initial response to the document was positive, and it seems that the Meech Lake Agreement does indeed provide the requisite opening to the Province of Quebec. It does meet the concerns of other provinces, and it seems it does indeed maintain a strong unifying role for the federal Government.
In the final analysis, much depends upon the final wording of the text. The present wording, in certain key respects, I say frankly to the Prime Minister-and I suspect that he is aware of it and, as I understand it, many of the provincial Premiers are aware of it-in a number of particular sections, leaves much to be desired.
Today I want to talk about the wording used in two of the most important sections of the Agreement, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society and the provision on the federal spending authority.

This is a happy moment in our history as we are about to recognize officially the unique character of Quebec society.
I am happy that the three federal political Parties have at last recognized this uniqueness one way or another.
The fact that the language and culture of most Quebecers are French not only enriches the life of that province, but represents a common wealth which all Canadian men and women may share. It is time for this uniqueness to be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
The Constitution
It is also important, however, that the vocabulary used be as precise as possible. Every time we add new elements to our Constitution, we are giving our courts a more active role to play.
In all fairness to our judges and the future generations of Canadians, we must give our courts the clearest direction possible. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, they would have to create everything from scratch, and I do believe that the fundamental creative role in a democratic society should be played not by judges, but by politicians.

I come now to a particular case in point. Paragraph (l)(b) of the Accord notes, and I quote:
-that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
In Clause (3) it stipulates that "the legislature and Government of Quebec" have a role to "preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in Paragraph (l)(b)".
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that nowhere in Paragraph (l)(b) is a definition of "distinct society" to be found. There is simply the assertion that Quebec "constitutes ... a distinct society".
Surely those advocating the idea of distinctness had in mind the fact of the French-speaking majority and English-speaking minority in that province. Certainly, it is the view of my Party that the distinctness, the uniqueness, if you like, of the Province of Quebec is to be found in the fact that it is the only province in Canada in which the language and the culture of the majority is French, with the minority being English.
However, we differ, it seems to me, on other aspects of the Constitution. All three Parties in this House have now accepted, and accepted positively, this uniqueness, this specific quality of the Province of Quebec.
If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me important that this be spelled out in the document we have before us. I believe it should be set out in Paragraph (l)(b) as part of the definition of the distinct character of the Province of Quebec.
I say this because it is essential that we send to the judges who will be asked to rule on the meaning of Clause (3) some message as to the meaning we had in mind.
If we do not do this, it seems to me to be entirely open to the judges to give paragraph (1) (b) almost any meaning they like. They may or may not refer back to paragraph (1) (a) for guidance, paragraph (1) (a) being that portion of the Accord which describes the linguistic majority being French in Quebec, with the minority being English speaking, and vice versa outside of the Province of Quebec.
Unless we provide some very specific definition with reference to the linguistic groups, those making judgments on the operative clause, Clause (3), will have no basis upon which to reach a decision about the meaning of the distinctiveness of Quebec, in respect of which a mandate is given to the Legislature of Quebec.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
If we do not pin it down, the judges may well seize upon any particular definition they wish as to what the uniqueness and distinctiveness of Quebec is all about.
I do not want to be glib. The point is of fundamental importance in terms of constitutional law. We in this House do not want to leave open to the courts the opportunity to go burrowing about, only to find out that, in looking at a perhaps arcane aspect of the history of Quebec, it is some other consideration which they seize upon in giving definition to "distinctiveness" or "uniqueness". Therefore, I think we are obliged, in terms of giving positive force to what we all want to achieve-

Most francophones living in Quebec and most other Canadians living in other provinces accept the fact that this notion should be clearly defined in our Constitution.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that clarification would be most usefully made in paragraph (l)(b), so that when a decision is rendered on Clause (3), the operative clause, the judges will at least have a bench-mark in assessing what we intended in saying that Quebec's legislature and Government have the authority to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec.
It is for this reason I believe that the words "in that it is the only province with a French-speaking majority and an Englishspeaking minority", or words conveying the same idea should be added to the end of paragraph 1(b), so that the clause would then read:
(b) the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society in that it is the only province with a French-speaking majority and an English-speaking minority.
I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, that while they are specific words, what is important to me is not necessarily those specific words; what is important is that the idea contained therein be attached to Clause 1(b) so that the judges-not just the judges who are living with us now, but the judges in generations to come-will have a clear understanding of what we had in mind when we talked about the distinctiveness of the Province of Quebec.
I now turn to the federal spending power section of the Agreement. The wording of this section was intended to ensure the right of the Parliament of Canada to innovate, with its spending authority, new areas of policy with national programs thought to be of advantage to the whole country.
This has happened in the past, as we know very well, with medicare and hospitalization. At the same time, it is thought by modern federalists to be desirable, both from a constitutional distribution of powers point of view and from a recognition of the different circumstances in the different regions of our country, to allow, and indeed to encourage, provincial latitude in building such national programs.
Such can be done. That is, we can have effective programs nation-wide and at the same time have provincial decentralization. What is key is that the programs so established with regional variation are equivalent in their essential elements. If this is what the phrase "compatible with national objectives" means, then that is good and the people who got together at Meech Lake did a fine job.
However, once again it seems to me that the phrase used is subject to a judicial interpretation which could see a provincial program that is "compatible" with one established by the Parliament of Canada but falls short in a number of its details of what was intended by the Parliament of Canada.
If a program with five, six, or seven elements established by the Parliament of Canada, as I see it, is confronted with a province which wants to opt out and still receive compensatory financial assistance, it could provide a program with perhaps two or three elements only and, as we normally use the word, it could be compatible with the national program.
In replying to questions in the House of Commons last week, however, the Prime Minister-and I am pleased to note it- was as unequivocally clear as he was today when he spoke in affirming that it was the Parliament of Canada which would decide what were the national objectives that a province needed to be compatible with and to qualify for compensatory funding for its own program. Last week in the House the Prime Minister said: "with regard to who would set the national objectives, the Parliament of Canada". Again the Prime Minister said that a provincial program had to be "compatible with the national objectives set forth by this House".
I am pleased to see the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) nodding affirmation and support of the idea once again today.
It is very important for today's Prime Minister to say this about today's agreement. However, I also believe-and I am sure the Prime Minister will not misunderstand-that it is much more important for the same idea to be found in wording in a Constitution which will hopefully be around long after we have long since departed this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In short, it is more important for the future that this principle be included in the Constitution. Therefore, I think the following wording: "as established by the Parliament of Canada", which are the Prime Minister's own words, or their equivalent, should be added at the end of the existing wording in the clause. However, if the whole clause is now being rewritten to achieve this intent, we in this Party will of course find that acceptable.
Once again, the precise wording is not what my colleagues and I are after here. We are in pursuit of clear wording which
May 11, 1987

sends a clear constitutional message to Canadians today and to future generations of Canadians.
I took a little time on two important clauses in the resolution, because I thought at this stage in the proceedings, before we are confronted with a final document, it indeed is important for all participants in the process, including the Government of Canada, the provinces, and the opposition Parties, to make some constructive suggestions, and to put it very bluntly, including wording, at a time when it is perhaps a matter of just a few days before final documents can be circulated and discussed by the Premiers.
Obviously I want to say a few words about some other sections of this important document. I think the proposals on immigration are consistent with what has been done before in the Province of Quebec. It is now proposed to embed that in the Constitution, extending a similar right and principle to the other regions. It is a very constructive move.
Similarly, on the question of the Supreme Court, we in this Party believe that in a federal state there is a legitimate role to be played in the proposing of judges who will ultimately make decisions in interpreting the nature of the Constitution. We will have more things to say about that particular provision, but we certainly think that it is a move in the right direction.
On the question of other meetings, I think on the whole that the suggestion that the Prime Minister meet with the Premiers to talk about the fishery, Senate reform, and the economy are all important steps-it goes without saying. I simply want to add what I said the day after the Meech Lake Accord was reached. All Parties were represented there. I do not know what led to it or what factors were taken into consideration. I simply find it an unfortunate result that the people who came together with such seriousness of purpose, and seemed to achieve so much, left out the scheduling of, or specifically putting in the agreement for, meetings to deal with the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
To say the least, those of us who come from European ancestry or from many other parts of the world owe a great debt to the original people of the country which we now inhabit. I hope, at the next meeting to discuss the final wording of the document, that the Prime Minister and the Premiers will rethink the question of our obligation to the aboriginal peoples and will build into the agreement continuing meetings to discuss various issues-in particular the question of aboriginal self-government and the issue of comprehensive claims-with the aboriginal peoples until an agreement of some kind is reached.
I also want to say something on the question of the Northwest Territories and Yukon on which I had occasion to comment just after the Agreement. I want to say in the House what I said at that time. I think it regrettable that the Premiers and the Government of Canada have now decided to impose conditions on that part of Canada, our North, which were not applied to the other regions of Canada before they became provinces. With a little ingenuity-and it should not
The Constitution
take too much-and by looking at the operative clause, the Government of Canada and the provinces should be able to make an exemption and come back to at least the previous amending formula, which simply required seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population to make a decision about the possible bringing in on a provincial status of either the Northwest Territories or Yukon. I say that constructively, hoping that all the Premiers out there are listening to or will be reading this and that the Government of Canada will respond as well.
There is one section which I want to mention briefly, and that is the new amending formula. If there is one part which I think is almost irretrievably bad in this document, it is the new amending formula for federal institutions. Unlike the Prime Minister, I am not optimistic about the flexibility which will be permitted with this clause; in fact, quite the contrary. I do not normally indulge in Utopian politics, so I do not think there is much prospect for changing it. All those people came together and agreed on many other matters of great importance, and I suspect one of the conditions was that there was unanimous agreement and they came up with this formula. I regret to say that we will probably, to put it in pretty ordinary language, be stuck with it. All I can say is, thank God it does not apply to other parts of the Constitution.
However, perhaps there is some possibility of taking another look at the amending formula. I simply say on behalf of my colleagues, I am sure, and I would think on behalf of the majority of the people of Canada if they understood the implications of this very rigid formula, that the Premiers and Prime Minister should take another hard look at the amending formula. However I do not, I say candidly, anticipate that that will be done in this area.
I want to conclude in the way that I opened. It is a tough task to govern a nation, especially one like ours. It is a much greater task for those whose responsibility it is from time to time to charter the framework for future generations. We are embarked on that right now in this House and in the provinces. Although we need an agreement, and as a person who was here a few years ago and felt deeply that the Province of Quebec did not join in, I know I speak for all of us here on both sides when I say that one of the great joys of the accomplishment has been to see that the Government of the Province of Quebec has now decided to support and become a full participant in the constitutional process and, therefore, will reassume her important historical role. That is good.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do want to say that all of us in this Chamber ought to have the occasion to look at the final wording of this important step in constitutional change. In fact, an extreme effort should be made for a non-partisan approach by us all to achieve the goals and principles which the Prime Minister addressed today, none of which we disagree with but positively support. Let us simply end up with

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
wording in the Constitution which carries out the very good intent that has been expressed in the Meech Lake document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and privileged to participate in this historic debate. Just before I get into my remarks, may I make some personal references that I believe are appropriate. I think this country owes a great debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the leadership he has shown in bringing together an accord which at last will bring Quebec into the mainstream of our country through the Constitution. That is not in any way to denigrate the role played by the provincial Premiers, which was also diplomatic, historic and very much in keeping with the sense of what I see in Canada today as a desire that we move together in unity with Quebec as an important part of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say that as a western Canadian. I could not feel prouder about the role that was played by our Prime Minister. I could not feel prouder about the way in which all Premiers participated constructively.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and those of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The message they gave was one of support for this proposition. It is a non-partisan issue, as they pointed out, and I believe that firmly. While there may be questions, suggestions and criticisms to approaches taken, I hope the discussion in the House will always be one of which we can be proud, and we can say that we moved Canada forward historically.
I understand there have been discussions between the House leaders of the Parties concerning the disposition of this motion. I think it important for us in this House to speak with a unified voice at the beginning of a very important process. For instance when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, almost in his first week here in this Chamber I recall, if I am not mistaken, he seconded a motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on behalf of the Liberal Government with respect to the Manitoba language issue. That to me was the essence of nonpartisanship. We were able to deal with that motion and have it accepted as part of the decisions of this House. I hope opposition Members will show the same sense of co-operation in this matter, particularly after they have declared themselves in favour and in support of this motion in principle. I do hope the discussions will carry on until six o'clock tonight.
My message today is a simple one. The Meech Lake Agreement constitutes a sound legal blueprint for the constitutional amendments now under consideration and for the further evolution of the Constitution, the fundamental law of this land.
The Meech Lake Agreement was unanimously supported by the 11 First Ministers and thus meets the strictest requirements of our Constitution's amending formula. All of the elements of the Agreement have been carefully examined from a legal and constitutional perspective. As Minister of Justice, I am fully satisfied that they constitute sound positive changes to the Constitution of Canada.

The Meech Lake Agreement is a major accomplishment which is in the best interest of all Canadians and marks the beginning of a new era for a Canadian federalism based on co-operation, harmony and mutual respect. This agreement is the result of an enormous collective effort on the part of the federal and provincial Governments.

We succeeded because of our willingness to recognize each other's legitimate concerns and to work toward a balanced resolution of those concerns. In this effort, it must be remembered that the First Ministers' meeting at Meech Lake was the culmination of a long process. It began in earnest with the Prime Minister's statement in Sept lies and with Quebec's clear statement of its constitutional conditions. Months of discussions and legal analysis built on that base.
The final agreement was not a last minute inspiration. It flowed directly from carefully constructed proposals that were well understood by all the participants. Everyone was satisfied that all legitimate interests had been taken into account and sufficiently protected. That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that every possible application of the principles agreed upon can be clearly predicted with certainty. If that were possible, we would not need courts to help us resolve disputes when differing interpretations arise. Courts do play a central and critical role in federal systems of government. That is why it has been generally recognized for some time that the Supreme Court of Canada should be expressly entrenched in the Constitution. This is another major accomplishment that will be realized when the Meech Lake Agreement is implemented.
The entrenchment of the court will have the effect of clearly giving it constitutional status as the national court of ultimate appeal for Canada. This will highlight its status and function as the final, independent and impartial judicial arbiter of federal-provincial, citizen-state and private disputes of national importance. The Agreement also provides for entrenchment of the current statutory requirement that at least three of the nine justices appointed be from the Quebec bar. This is in continued recognition of Quebec's distinct civil law system. It ensures that the court will always have the necessary expertise to deal with civil law issues, whether they arise as pure matters of Quebec's internal civil law system or as an integral part of a broader public law issue.

Moreover, the agreement provides that, where there is a vacancy at the Supreme Court level, the federal Government
May 11, 1987

will appoint a person which it feels acceptable from a list of candidates proposed by the provinces.

This joint selection procedure provides for an important measure of provincial involvement which is appropriate for the court of last resort in a federal system. The agreement reached regarding the Supreme Court of Canada entrenches the court along with a new process for selection of candidates. This is in keeping with the nature of the court as an institution that must resolve questions relating to federal and provincial jurisdiction as well as important issues such as aboriginal rights and the scope of the rights and freedoms under the Charter.
In agreeing to share authority over the nomination process for Supreme Court judges, we believe we have acted wisely and in the best interests of the country, the court and indeed the Constitution. This reflects the new spirit of federalism which is visible throughout the Agreement. As a result, we shall strengthen the legitimacy of the court as the body which must adjudicate federal-provincial disputes and interpret the Charter of Rights for all Canadians.
As a western Canadian, I am particularly pleased that there will now be an ongoing opportunity in the constitutional context for a full and frank discussion of issues which are of concern to western Canadians. I am convinced that this process will ensure the institutional equality of all provinces within the Constitution.
In seeking this agreement with the full and essential participation of all the provinces, we all carried out the national will. We were not struggling against one another, we were struggling together to obtain something for our mutual benefit. There were no losers. The nation, with its strengthened constitutional fabric, is clearly the winner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to say a word about the aboriginal peoples of Canada. In 1982, we recognized and affirmed the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We ensured that constitutional interpretation of the Charter be consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
The Governments committed themselves to promote equal opportunities to strengthen the regions of Canada, but one fundamental characteristic of Canada was not recognized in our Constitution. We had to come to the realization that the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada strengthens our identity and indeed our sovereignty. It is time we recognize this. As Victor Hugo once wrote, nothing in this world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
The Meech Lake Agreement provides for the recognition of this reality in a context that is perfectly appropriate for the political and legal challenges it is designed to meet. The elements of the provision were carefully drafted in an effort to
The Constitution
set out the reality of Canada and of Quebec within Canada without adversely affecting our traditional and fundamental constitutional arrangements. They will form part of the background against which the whole Constitution will be interpreted. It will ultimately be for the courts, and particularly for the Supreme Court of Canada to apply this new clause.
A sense of balance was also brought to bear on the other aspects of the Agreement. It is there in the elements of the agreement on immigration and spending power and indeed on the amending formula. The absence of Quebec from the constitutional process, an absence which very happily will be remedied by the agreement, has been a serious bar to the effective evolution of our Constitution. Constitutionally, we could probably not have effectively reformed the Senate without Quebec. Now we can and we will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will do it on the basis of an amending formula that recognizes the constitutional equality of all the provinces.
If unanimity was reached at Meech Lake, where six complex issues were on the table, it can and will be reached again. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, unanimity is not a strait-jacket. The Meech Lake Agreement will result in a constitutional requirement for an annual First Ministers' Conference to seek agreement on Senate reform, fisheries and other agreed upon matters. Those tasks should not be more difficult than the ones we are now completing.
While success in our future ventures is not necessarily guaranteed, success need not necessarily surprise us. It is within our capabilities, if we in fact preserve a sense of goodwill and a desire to build an even greater country.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement is perfectly consistent with our political traditions. We may use this opportunity to demonstrate how proud we are of it. We are convinced that the Canadian people will clearly understand the benefits of this new system.

The bold multicultural experiment called Canada continues not only to survive but to succeed. We know that there are many outstanding issues that still require our attention. As I indicated earlier, we have not forgotten nor will we ever forget matters of concern to aboriginal citizens or any of the other fundamentally important matters that will continue to merit our best efforts in the ongoing evolution of our country. Meetings continue to take place to develop a consensus in order to make progress in a constitutional sense in our commitment to these very important issues. It is with a full knowledge of the challenges ahead that I am confident the agreement we have reached will provide the constitutional bedrock for the country's future growth and development.

May 11, 1987
After the Meech Lake Agreement becomes part of our Constitution, we will have new institutional arrangements to foster greater federal-provincial co-operation and harmony. The challenge Canadian leaders will then face will be how best to make use of those new arrangements to serve the national interest and to ensure the general prosperity of all Canadians in all parts of the country.
I would like to conclude my remarks within the time allotted to me so that there can be full participation in this debate. There are certain areas each of us may wish had been dealt with at this time. However, I think it should not be lost on those of us who come from regions of Canada other than Quebec or Ontario that this Accord is probably the most important step forward in the recognition of regions like western Canada that has been passed in any constitutional amendment since Confederation, and 1 will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It recognizes now that we are equals in Confederation.
Under this arrangement, we are equals with respect to important national institutions as opposed to what we would have been under previous proposals put forward, like the one referred to by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It was once proposed that the veto power should only lie with certain provinces, a proposal which in its time was of some attraction to the First Ministers. It had a very serious flaw, however, in that it absolutely left out western Canada. We have remedied that and 1 think the Prime Minister and the First Ministers should be applauded by all Canadians for recognizing that there are no second-class citizens in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to conclude by once again congratulating all the participants for the way they approached this matter. This is a time for leadership on the part of parliamentarians. 1 hope that we can work together at this time by supporting and passing this resolution, in whatever way possible agreed to among the House Leaders, in order to give the leadership that is required at this time in history. We must go forward and work in a constructive way with our ideas and suggestions for other constitutional matters and the matters before us at this time.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters, whether it be through an Opposition day motion of which there are some 13 available to the Opposition in this time period, or with our own time. We have demonstrated that we are prepared to make this matter a priority by using a Government day for an important debate. I hope we will find new opportunities to debate this important issue in the House, and I say to all Hon. Members that I am very proud, not only to be a Member of this House but to be a Canadian at this time in history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, it is now one o'clock. Would the House be prepared to adjourn now, with the understanding that the Minister would be subject to the usual 10 minute period for questions and comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, University of Toronto researchers estimate that as much as 60 tonnes a year of three chemicals, PCBs, chloroform, and chlorobenzenes, evaporate into the air from Niagara Falls. The total amount of chemicals released could be as high as 175 tonnes a year. According to the researchers, about half the chemicals come out of the mist at the Falls and the rest are released by wave action in the river.
In 1987 the Government reduced the strength of Environment Canada by 106 people. Since September, 1984, Environment Canada has lost S64 million in spending power to inflation.
Can the Government take any initiative to protect the health of Canadians living downwind of the Niagara River?
In November, 1984, the Government cancelled the funds necessary to develop the Guelph-Toronto Toxicology Centre intended to examine the threats posed to health and safety by toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin. We call on the Government to reverse its decision of November, 1984, and give the green light to the establishment of the Guelph-Toronto Toxicology Centre to study this latest toxic threat to human health.
May 11, 1987



POLICE WEEK


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Police Week I would like to draw the attention of the House to the excellent police services provided to Canadians. We are all extremely fortunate and grateful for the competence, dedication and fairness shown by Canada's policemen and women. At the same time I would like to remind Hon. Members and all Canadians that crime control is everybody's business.
We all have a responsibility and a capacity to assist Canada's police forces in maintaining the peace and combating crime in our communities. While Police Week provides a special opportunity to show our appreciation to Canada's police forces, I am hopeful that each of us and our constituents will take this opportunity to explore with our respective police forces the ways in which we can assist in preserving peace and order in our communities.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this past week-end delegates to the 15th annual general meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canada's largest women's organization representing over 500 groups from coast-to-coast, spoke out strongly against the return of capital punishment. Their resolution notes that capital punishment is legislated murder by the state and is the ultimate in violence.
These same women voice their deep concern at the possibility that the motion shortly to be voted on standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) entrenching the rights of the foetus in the Constitution poses a profound threat to Canadian women. The sponsor of this motion has said that women seeking abortions in Canada whose lives are not threatened, and the doctor who performs the abortion, should be charged with murder and executed. That is shameful.
Let us join with the women of Canada and Members of Parliament like the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) who have shown great courage in this debate in rejecting their earlier position on this issue and the cry for a return to the death penalty.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, during the past month the Youth Science Foundation has sponsored 85 regional science fairs across Canada, including one in Ottawa-Carleton. The innovation and creativity demonstrated by the more than 400,000 young Canadians who participated is most impressive.
The 400 regional winners meet this week at the CanadaWide Science Fair at Erindale College in Mississauga to compete for national honours. Some of Canada's future scientific leaders will be among the participants.
The Youth Science Foundation seeks to promote an appreciation and understanding of science in every young Canadian. It encourages young people to pursue careers in science and technology. It helps to develop the great potential Canada has through its youth to become an international leader in science and technology.
The Youth Science Foundation is supported in part by the federal Government and is important to all Canadians because of the manner in which it develops the skills of young Canadians.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, education, particularly post-secondary education, is an investment in the future. The link between higher educational attainment and better employment and economic development opportunities is undeniable. Why, then, is the Government cutting back on post-secondary education for those for whom the benefits are needed most and who would reap the greatest results? I refer to the Indian people of Canada.
Study after study has documented the social, economic and educational disparities between Indians and non-Indians in this country. In recent years more and more Indian students have been staying in school and returning to school and they are graduating. Yet the Government has decided to stem this growth in achievement. It has limited its post-secondary program, capped the number of students it will sponsor, and restricted resources to Indian educational institutions.
Under the previous Government the principles of universal access and opportunity prevailed. This Government has crushed those principles and once again deficit reduction is occurring on the backs of those least able to bear it.

May 11, 1987



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Government always favoured the creation of long-term jobs. Since we came to power, the Canadian economy has been constantly improving. We gave private enterprise the tools needed for its economic recovery. Interest rates went down, major investment projects were set up across the land, and the hope of soon having access to a new, 250-million people market stimulates Canadian entrepreneurs.
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada's figures for April, 1987 show the unemployment rate is at its lowest in five years. Canadians have elected a Government that is building a strong, healthy economy that will make our native land the land of our children.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday delegates wrote many letters to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) including the following:
The Government's decision to ignore the long-scheduled lobby of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women reinforces the public perception that anything is more important than the concerns of women in Canada.
Another reads:
Is this your idea of giving priority to women's issues? Your Government does not respect its commitment to women of all ages.

This lack of respect for and commitment to our representations will not be tolerated.

Another reads:
Once again women's voices are silenced. Obviously women across Canada cannot trust you and your Ministers to hear women's concerns.
Still another reads:
I am nine years old .... I feel very sad about the fact that you do not listen to my granny and all the other women that wanted to talk to you tomorrow.
A further letter reads:
I can no longer believe that you will honour your commitments or promises . .. . A disappointed potential supporter-
Yet another reads:
NAC represents more than 3 million voting women in Canada-we have the right to be heard and treated with respect.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge students who are looking for summer jobs to apply as soon as possible to Manpower Canada's student centres. Again this year, through Challenge 87, this Government will create 90,000 jobs in Canada, 25,000 of which are in Quebec. That program's goal remains very clear. It is to make easier for young people the transition to the workplace. Those jobs are financially interesting and allow them to get job training and experience. For example, the Department of National Defence will be in a position to offer jobs to 7,000 students in Canada, 1,606 of which in Quebec.
I remind that Manpower Canada's student centres help students find jobs and allow employers to hire workers during the summer season. Last summer, more than 425,000 students across Canada were placed that way.
In conclusion, I wish good luck to all students in their search for a job, and I remind them to apply now!



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) met with representatives of the Canadian Environmental Network. During that meeting many concerned environmentalists called on the Minister to reject proposals by the Sunshine Village ski resort to expand beyond its current lease area inside Banff National Park. I want to reiterate the NDP's opposition to this expansion.
To allow Sunshine's proposed expansion to go ahead would fly in the face of the 1978 decision to establish Sunshine's current lease area and limit further expansion. It would fly in the face of Parks Canada policy and it would fly in the face of In Trust for Tomorrow: A Management Framework for Four Mountain Parks which the Minister published last year.
In addition, any expansion of Sunshine Village would make a mockery of the Minister's proposed amendments to the National Parks Act to limit such areas within national parks. Most important, Sunshine's proposal, particularly plans to increase summer use dramatically, could destroy Sunshine Meadows which Parks Canada has identified as one of the most threatened areas in Banff National Park.
Too often in the past Parks Canada policy has been altered or simply ignored to serve short-term political or economic
May 11, 1987

expediency. EIow the Minister deals with the Sunshine Village expansion proposal will be an important test of the Minister's personal commitment and that of the Conservative Government to protect and preserve our national parks.

O)



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on the very first Canada Day in 1867, the Quebec newspaper La Minerve said: "The new Constitution recognizes the French Canadians as a distinct and separate nationality. We constitute a state within a state. We enjoy the full exercise of our rights and the formal recognition of our national independence".
By recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, by giving it and other provinces a first right of refusal over changes in the House of Commons, Senate and Supreme Court of Canada, by limiting the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and by giving the provinces a formal voice in immigration policy and Supreme Court of Canada appointments, the Meech Lake Accord has acknowledged and confirmed the principles set out in La Minerve in 1867. Those are principles on which Quebec understood that it had entered Confederation in the first place. Those principles have had their opponents in the past and they still have them today, but without those principles there would be no Canada.



CHILD CARE


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, society has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Today, less than one in six Canadian families fits the traditional family pattern of the wife at home with the children and the husband out working. Many families are headed by single parents, most of whom are young mothers.
Inadequate child care is not just a woman's issue. It is not just an issue for parents. It is an issue for all of us, including parents, employers, Governments-all Canadians. I believe that all of us have a responsibility and a duty to be part of the solution.
We in the Liberal Party believe that an adequate, affordable, accessible, quality child care system must be based on two principles: sharing the burden, and providing choices for the pre-schooler as well as the latchkey school-aged child.
Our Party has put forward a realistic and responsible solution in the Liberal pocket paper on child care which can be
obtained from our office or the office of the Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).
Liberals view child care as a support to good parenting, not a substitute for it. In our program, the parent's role is paramount. It is time that the federal Government showed some leadership on this issue.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to emphasize to the House the great importance that the Government places on the achievement of economic equality for women. A major step forward in this regard occurred last November at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver. At that time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premiers endorsed a labour force strategy which has a particular emphasis on training for women. Next month, federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for the status of women will be meeting with Ministers responsible for labour market matters to elaborate on this strategy.
Our Government is also addressing women's employment needs through the Canadian Jobs Strategy. For the first time ever, our national employment and training strategy includes targets for the participation of women and a particular emphasis on women re-entering the job market. These two measures, along with many others introduced by the Government, will go a long way to promote the full participation of women in all sectors of economic activity.



PORNOGRAPHY


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the week-end in Vancouver I met with a group called The Coalition on Pornography. It is made up of representatives of the Anglican Church, University Women's Club, Justice Institute, the Junior League, the North Shore Women's Centre, and the Periodical Review Board.
This group was formed to fight pornography and get the Government to bring forward legislation against it. Ironically, they now find themselves fighting the legislation because it goes too far and has, in effect, as its basic premise, that all sex is dirty. I want to bring their representations to the House and urge the Government to bring forward reasonable legislation that combats real pornography but recognizes that sexuality is a part of life in Canada.

May 11, 1987
Oral Questions



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, our country has everything to gain from the full participation of women in the various aspects of Canadian society. That is why when we came to power, and because of the urgent need to act, our Government agreed to double from 15 per cent to 30 per cent the number of women on the various federal boards, commissions and offices.
In the Throne Speech of October 1, 1986, we confirmed our intention to increase the participation of women in the various stages of the decision making process. And the figures are there to show that we are living up to our commitment to Canadian women.
Only half-way through our mandate, over 27 per cent of all the Government's discretionary appointees have been women. By appointing a greater number of women to key positions, the Government wants to show the way to the private sector and the Canadian people generally.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe it is time that we changed the Canada Labour Code with respect to the certification of employees who wish to become members of a union. Some of the major employers in this country which have made huge profits, namely, the banks, also pay low taxes. They have been very successful in preventing their employees from organizing into unions. Most of these employees are women and receive low salaries despite the fact the banks make high profits and pay low taxes.
When there have been attempts by these workers to organize, the banks have used every means at their disposal to make sure these workers do not become part of a union. Time after time the Canadian Labour Relations Board has ruled against the banks but the end result is that these people do not get to remain in unions. I believe that is one reason these people receive low salaries, which helps to create the spread between male workers and female workers.
It is time the Government conducted an investigation into this matter and ensured we have a labour code which adequately protects the rights of female workers.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Government has shown one more time how it can be weak-kneed when confronted with even a slight bit of controversy. A few days ago the National Capital Commission announced it no longer intended to proceed with the planned coloured repaving of the designated ceremonial route in the Ottawa area. Since the NCC had repeatedly affirmed its commitment to this project in the past, I have concluded that its change of heart was caused by none other than the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) responding to the whining and moaning of a few disgruntled backbench Tory Members of Parliament.
With this kind of weak-kneed approach, our national railways, our government-run airlines and even the construction of our War Memorial would have never proceeded. The Parliament Buildings would probably have never been built. The National Capital area is being very poorly served by the present Tory Government. They shall remember.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, single mothers and, indeed, many Canadian families are having difficulty putting food on the table these days. Over the past week-end, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women at its meetings here in Ottawa expressed grave reservations about the possibility of a national sales tax on food as well as a tax on other necessities.
My question is a simple one. Will the Prime Minister do a very simple thing right now and assure Canadians that there will never be a national sales tax on food?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was absent when the Minister of Finance addressed this matter in the House in the last couple of days. However, in regard to the spirit of tax reform, the idea is a greater degree of fairness for Canadians in the tax system in a very special way, a greater degree of fairness for those on the lower levels of the income scale and a greater degree of relief for them and their parents, including the individuals to whom the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred.
The details of this will be spelled out when the White Paper is published on June 18. My right hon. friend, as a former Minister of Finance, will, of course, want to wait for the publication of that document.
May 11, 1987


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will wait, but I have noted that the Prime Minister failed to give me the commitment I sought with respect to a national sales tax on food.


CENTRES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN- PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women have learned that they can no longer rely on the Prime Minister's word. In the Speech from the Throne, the Government had promised once more to address the immediate and long-term problems of battered women and their children. Instead, existing shelters for battered women throughout Canada have had to close down because of the budgetary cutbacks in spending and the lack of a national social housing program. When is the Prime Minister going to keep his word in this respect?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister is keeping his word. One need only look to the changes made to the Canada Assistance Plan.
While that plan was based on financial need, as he will be aware, the argument we put forward is that persons could have needs other than financial, and the plan has been expanded. There has been close co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces in that respect.
In respect of social housing, the Minister responsible for CMHC has also been looking at this area and has in fact advanced further numbers of spaces for transition homes, and again this has been done in co-operation with the provinces.
The program is well in place. As the Right Hon. Member knows, these programs also have to be bolstered by education and awareness, and we are working on that as well.


John Napier Turner: Let me say to the Minister that on Friday last I was in contact with the Downtown East Side Women's Centre, and certainly his programs are not evident at that particular centre, or other centres for battered women in Vancouver. I hope there will be some action on this.


WAGE GAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
John Napier Turner: My
final question is for the Prime Minister.
For the first time in 18 years, the wage gap between men and women in this country has widened.
If the Prime Minister's programs for women are so good, why has the wage gap between men and women in Canada widened?
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the figures published on the wage gap were obviously of great concern to us, as well. I should point out that the lag on the statistics is such that they do not reflect the effects of the Employment Equity Bill and the Canadian Jobs Strategy, nor do they reflect the effect of the training program that came out of last fall's First Ministers' Conference.
None of the programs we put in place to address that problem were in motion at the time these figures were published.
It is something that we intend to keep a close eye on, because that is exactly what we are trying to achieve for women in the workforce.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The new reproduction technologies are becoming more and more part of our daily life. Whether in the area of in vitro reproduction, sperm bank creation, ovum transplant or surrogate mothers, the Government should certainly act expeditiously and quickly.
Could the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is prepared to set up a Royal Commission of inquiry on the new reproduction technologies?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, within this Government, and certainly at the Family Conference sponsored by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, this issue has been addressed in some detail. It is something in which the Department of National Health and Welfare is actively engaged.
I do not know that we need a Royal Commission, when we have a department of Government that is working very hard on this topic, a topic that is of great importance to women.


DISTRIBUTION OF DEPO-PROVERA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: My supplementary question is for to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the Minister prepared to confirm the news that his Department reportedly approved last week the distribution throughout

May 11, 1987
Oral Questions
Canada of the Depo-Provera drug, in spite of the strong opposition of women's groups because of the drug's secondary effects? Could the Minister tell us whether or not he has approved this drug for distribution?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to dispel another rumour that is going around, namely, that approval for Depo-Provera has taken place.
There has not even been a recommendation in that respect that has come to my desk.

[ Translation]


DAYCARE CENTRES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning, during the constitutional debate, the Prime Minister indicated that the Parliament of Canada can set up a daycare program.
Will the Prime Minister guarantee that a Bill for that purpose will be introduced before July?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Premiers, at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver, gave a very direct mandate to their respective Ministers of Health in this regard, and we have been working co-operatively with the provinces on a child care proposal.
We think that work is progressing very well. There is a date in June when we want to put that in the hands of the Prime Minister and the various Premiers. Whether or not it will be legislation or in the form of legislation in June would depend upon those discussions, and I could not commit myself on that point at this time.


PROVISION OF MORE CHILD CARE SPACES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. As the Minister knows, one could deal with this matter either from the point of view of legislation or simply direct federal Government spending to provide increased daycare spaces.
Since the Minister, before the week-end, expressed dissatisfaction with the majority report brought in by a House committee, the majority of whose Members were from his Party, will he now give assurances to the House that when the measure is brought in, hopefully before the end of June, the
major amount of money in it will be used to provide additional child care spaces?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the reporting of the speech that I made at Guelph on Thursday and the point that I made about the report of the special parliamentary committee, I indicated that the choices that committee had put forward were a very good approach to child care.
I also said that in order to have advanced child care we would also require more spaces. It was in that respect that I thought the report would have to put more emphasis. That is what I said in Guelph on Thursday.
In respect of the configuration of the approach which we will take, that will be announced at the appropriate time. I take the Hon. Member's point as representation. It is not new, nor unique. We are dealing with it as well.


John Edward Broadbent: It is neither new nor unique but long overdue in Canada, and I hope the Government will act on it; that is the point.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since in his earlier answer the Minister alluded to the possibility that there may not be action before the end of June, depending upon what happens in the discussions with the provinces, will he at least give assurances that the federal Government will live up to its commitment to increased child care spaces by taking action, before the end of June, to provide money to increase the number of badly needed spaces?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave any wrong impression that the provinces are not co-operating. In fact, quite the opposite is taking place. There is very close co-operation in the discussions between the provinces and our federal responsibility.
I accept what the Hon. Member says in terms of the urgency. The Prime Minister has very clearly indicated that. He has put his personal imprimatur on it. It is that mandate that we are following.


COMMUNICATIONS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, broadcasting has the power to shape attitudes, values, and provide role models for our children. However, according to recent statistics, men outnumber women two to one as prominent television characters in prime time programming and four to one in children's programming. Not only are
May 11, 1987

women under-represented, they are often misrepresented on television, performing a limited number of stereotyped roles.
My question is for the Minister of Communications. Will the Minister introduce broadcasting legislation to increase the number of women at the production level as well as on the screens of the Canadian broadcasting system, so that there will be a fairer portrayal on Canadian airwaves?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member fully knows, we are in the midst of reviewing the Broadcasting Act and preparing for the introduction of new legislation. She is one of the hard-working members of the committee. I take her representations at this time as something to be considered as we come forward with a new Broadcasting Act.
I also want to mention that the CRTC has recently put forward guidelines for sex role stereotyping which should also be considered in the revision of the Broadcasting Act.


APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT-ROLE OF CRTC
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Notwithstanding the important step forward in terms of sex role stereotyping, I would like a stronger statement of commitment, if possible.
Since the current Employment Equity Act lacks an effective enforcement mechanism, will the Minister ensure that employment equity obligations apply to all broadcasting licencees regardless of size and that the CRTC is mandated to supervise and enforce employment equity provisions as a condition of licence?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see that in a recent rulings of the CRTC it did make compliance with the guidelines on sex role stereotyping one of the conditions of licence when the application comes forward for renewal.
I think there are advances in this field, and I am very pleased with the way in which the broadcasting community is addressing itself to the provisions of the present Employment Equity legislation in order to ensure greater equality in our broadcasting industry for women and for minority groups.


CHILD CARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My question is for the Minister for National Health and Welfare. It has to do
Oral Questions
with child care concerns raised by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The Minister knows that study after study has shown that non-profit child care is consistently of higher quality than commercial child care.
Will the Minister put aside his own market-place ideology and assure the women of Canada that their children will not be used for profit and that new public funds for child care will go to develop non-profit child care services?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member puts forward an argument which she knows does not do any justice to families who decide what type of child care they want, whether it is non-profit, commercial, or informal child care. I am not going to be a Minister who will stand in this House and demand that parents do this or that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I promise the Hon. Member and the House is that when the Government puts forward its proposal there will be a wide range of choices, which I think is an approach more in keeping with what Canadian parents want.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the appropriate use of tax dollars for child care. Appropriate use is not for profit-making child care.


USE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Another related overriding concern of women is the quality of child care, Mr. Speaker. They are very concerned that the Minister may extend or agree to extend Canada Assistance Plan funding. Will the Minister guarantee that the Canada Assistance Plan funding, which is a welfare program-we want child care to be for everybody-will not be extended to fund profit-making child care either now or in the future?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member forgets, for example, that the present Ontario Government recognizes that over 50 per cent of its spaces are in the very types of configuration which she condemns; in Alberta around 70 per cent are and, in Atlantic Canada, which does not have the kind of financial resources that some of the other provinces have, the percentage is also very high. Simply to condemn, then to lose those spaces and to say we have done more for child care is to argue the preposterous. What I am saying to the Hon. Member is what I said in my first answer, that there will be a choice, and she will have to wait for that day.

May 11, 1987
Oral Questions PORNOGRAPHY


CONTENT OF BILL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns Bill C-54, the pornography Bill. When the Government began to encounter criticism of the Bill the Minister suggested that he would be flexible and would accept constructive amendments to it. Over the week-end, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Calgary suggested that the Bill could not please everybody and that the Government would move ahead with it.
Was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs speaking for the Government or is the Government prepared to accept constructive amendments to get away from this idea that all sexuality is pornography?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question on this important Bill. I think that I have to take issue with the Hon. Member's generalization about the legislation. His generalization is just the opposite from the actual fact.
If the Member reads the Bill, he will see that we have attempted to bring a balance with respect to this whole question. I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who thinks it is an easy proposition to define these matters. I can tell the Hon. Member that this Bill is light years ahead of present law and it is receiving very substantial support across the country.
His own Party has been calling for strong legislation on pornography and the importation of this type of material into our country. I hope the Member will not change the policy of his own Party in order to carry out the wishes of the editorial board of The Toronto Star.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DIVIDE BILL IN TWO
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared-because it is true that the Liberal Party supports such a legislation-to bring forward a Bill dealing with violence, degradation, child pornography and leave aside that encroachment on Canadian life standards; in other words, is he prepared to divide the Bill, to introduce legislation dealing with the parts on which we agree and waive the remainder pending a more thorough study?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the Hon. Member is saying. He knows what the present state of the law is. The highest courts have determined that depictions as I have set forth in this legislation are currently considered to be obscene under the present law. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that we want to expand and loosen the present standards to allow for pornography to be available in
the corner confectionery stores across the country and in various neighbourhoods, I wish he would stand up and say so.
I think it is important to put this in perspective. I appreciate constructive suggestions. I would be prepared to listen to them but, on the other hand, I do not want generalizations which are inaccurate to be the basis of those suggestions.


POSITION OF NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. This past week-end the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canada's largest women's group, voted overwhelmingly to reject the Government's proposed Bill on pornography. Will the Minister now agree to scrap this dangerous and Victorian legislation? Will the Minister bring forward instead a Bill which clearly distinguishes between violent and exploitive degrading pornography on the one hand and images of consensual adult sexuality on the other, as strongly recommended by the Fraser Commission? Will the Minister not understand that basic distinction, Mr. Speaker?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not take issue with the resolutions that have been passed. People have different points of view. The President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women on the tabling of this legislation I thought had a very supportive statement when she asked this House to move quickly on this important legislation. This legislation, I think, represents a balanced approach. It is in accordance with the values and traditions which the overwhelming majority of Canadians hold respecting acceptable material.
If the Hon. Member has suggestions about the Bill, I would like to hear them, I think at committee stage, but I do not want to take his generalization that we should simply open the doors and have no provisions at all with respect to pornography. I do not think that is a fair position for the New Democratic Party to take, quite frankly.


CARING RELATIONSHIP QUERY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the President of NAC speaks for her organization in overwhelmingly rejecting this legislation.
The Minister has said that images of caring relationships will not be affected by this Bill, and yet the definition of erotica in the Bill includes only nudity and nothing more. Does this mean that for a Tory Government a caring relationship is an exclusively non-sexual relationship? Why has the Government rejected the Fraser Commission's recommendation, that the Government has no right to invade the bedrooms of the nation to tell adults that they cannot view consensual adult sexual activity? Why this puritanical anti-sex approach, Mr. Speaker?
May 11, 1987


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question if it were a correct proposition. Is the Hon. Member reflecting the position of his Leader? Is this the position of the New Democratic Party on this matter? I think it is important to know where the New Democratic Party stands. If the Hon. Member does not understand that this particular Bill does bring a balance with respect to the whole question of sexuality-


Mr. Cassidy:: A Victorian balance.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that it only attacks hard-core depictions-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Nonsense.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member wants to throw it wide open, Mr. Speaker, and have all women depicted as love slaves or something of that sort. That is not the position which this Government takes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Here comes his Leader. Come back Ed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It took me to bring him back.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Ed, you better phone Svend again and calm him down. Here is a quarter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the Minister aware that many Canadian native women who have had their Indian status restored as a result of Bill C-31 are unable to return to their communities because there are not enough houses? Housing construction in Indian communities has nearly been paralysed because of the Minister's refusal to use the Jobs Strategy Program to provide the labour component of the construction of houses.
Oral Questions
Is the Minister prepared now to tell the House that he will adjust his policy so that Indian women and their children who want to go home will be able to find houses when they do so?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my colleague was drawn to my attention some time ago. Moreover, I have met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on two or three occasions. However, my colleague should know that funds earmarked for the Canadian employment strategy are distributed in an equitable fashion among various Canadian groups and generally speaking, native people have received sums corresponding to their needs. However, I recognize with him that the training problem and the implementation of the employment strategy represent a special problem in the case of native people since on reserve training and even off reserve training gives rise to a particular problem. This issue is now under consideration and I shall be in a position to give an answer in that respect in the days or weeks to come.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY-USE OF FUNDS FOR INDIAN COMMUNITIES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that Indian communities lost $8 million from what they had under the Canada Works Program because of the change in his policy. Will the Minister confirm to the House that his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made a very specific request, having recognized the gravity of this situation, for a fair share of the Canadian Jobs Strategy funds so that Indian communities can have houses built now when the construction season is getting under way? Will the Minister confirm that he received that request and will he tell the House that he is prepared to respond to that request quickly and positively?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I told my friend that I met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development two or three times. The requests of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are always fair, but I am not ready today to say when I will be ready to give that answer. It will be a good and a fair answer but we have to take into account that this money has to be expended with fairness for all Canadians.


TAX REFORM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Prime Minister and it is with reference to his statement that the new sales tax and tax reform will be

May 11, 1987
Oral Questions
fair. He knows that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women representing three million Canadians has declared its unequivocal opposition to proposals for a business transfer tax or some other form of sales tax that would impose a tax on essentials such as food because of the impact it would have on working families and on poor families, most of which are headed by women.
Could the Prime Minister clarify the confusion left by the Minister of Finance last week and tell us specifically if the Minister of Finance was reflecting government policy when he said that only low-income families would receive some kind of a sales tax credit to offset this proposed new sales tax on food?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance indicated that the Government of Canada would be setting out its views in regard to tax reform in a White Paper on June 18. He indicated the components of that and the philosophy behind it. That philosophy is one of greater fairness, the elimination of tax avoidance, and a greater degree of fairness and assistance for those who are at the lowest level of the income pole. This will be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which will be set out in the White Paper to be presented on June 18. My hon. friend would no doubt want to wait until he sees the integrated package before he asks me to comment on any hypothesis.


SALES TAX CREDIT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the existing sales tax credit, modest as it is, is given only to families earning less than $17,000 per year and therefore not only excludes large numbers of working families just above the poverty line but also excludes many thousands of families that are actually below the poverty line? Is this the model for the proposed sales tax credit on food? Does this not mean that the Government intends to make working families pay this sales tax on food of $300 per year while many families in poverty will pay the sales tax as well? Is that his policy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There have been reports that the Minister has now decided not to proceed with any reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act despite unanimous recommendations to the contrary made by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. Is that
correct? Is it true that the Minister has now dropped any reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the other day my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, said that we do have a reform of $1 billion. I told him that he did not have good information. Today I told my friend that there will be an announcement next Friday on unemployment insurance reform.


MATERNITY AND PARENTAL BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, while there were some differences between the Standing Committee report and the Forget report, there were also some major grounds of agreement including what should be done with maternity benefits and parental benefits. Would the Minister not at least legislate in those areas where there is agreement between the two reports?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government has received and will continue to receive a number of reports on a problem as special as unemployment insurance. There is no question of the Government considering only one aspect of a report. We have to define whether the current unemployment insurance system is now meeting the needs of Canadians. And in accordance with the reviews which will be made and reports which we have received, we will table next Friday what the Government intends to do about unemployment insurance.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Just weeks after the Dome sale was announced, another large Canadian firm, Cadillac Fairview, is now being sold to a U.S. firm, putting malls and office buildings right across the country in U.S. hands. What does the Government intend to do to promote the Canadianization of the economy and to reverse this growing shift to U.S. control of key firms across the economy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to tell my colleague is that the company concerned did not submit an application to Investment Canada. Besides, when reviewing such applications, we always make sure, before anything else, that Canadian interests are protected, and they have been in those instances, when we take into account the Canadian participation in the management of that corporation; second,
May 11, 1987

the increase in Canadian productivity and third, the technology ownership.
That is how, each time we review such transactions, we look after Canadians' interests.


REVIEW BY INVESTMENT CANADA
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that this firm has even refused to sell public shares to Canadians. I hope that will be part of what his review will look at.
Will the Minister assure Canadians that the Investment Canada review that will take place will permit communities right across the country to have input on this takeover since these changes in ownership will be of such importance to those communities and the country itself?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I will only repeat what I said. Every time we have to review such transactions-and since the enactment of the new legislation on Investment Canada, that corporation has reviewed more than 2,200 of them-we have always safeguarded Canadians' interests and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A couple of weeks ago in this House he said if he received a plea for help from western farmers he would respond. Although he did not respond, while in the west last week, to the request by wheat producers and their organizations facing the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, now that he has been to the west and met with some farmers will he respond positively to their pleas for a deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I met with western farmers throughout that area in a very good series of meetings last week. They were obviously concerned about the future because of the drop in commodity prices. They were very grateful for the $1 billion cash infusion which was the largest deficiency payment in the history of Canadian agriculture, designed by this Government. They were concerned about the future and so we resolved to work with them and their organizations, as well as the provinces, to alleviate as best we can any concern regarding next year.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW DEBT RESTRUCTURING INSTRUMENTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the farmers would be more pleased if they could get a commitment on the floor of this House today. Not only are they receiving the lowest prices since the 1930s in constant dollars, but are also suffering the worst devaluation in land values amounting to about $100,000 for the average economic sized farm.
Since the Prime Minister lifted the moratorium on FCC foreclosures will he make a commitment today to bring in new debt restructuring instruments to assist farmers facing foreclosure? Men and women who have worked for years and years and years now face the loss of their farms because no proper debt restructuring instruments were put in place by the Government to cope with this crisis.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by my hon. friend I find especially troubling. The thought that anyone who has worked the land with his family should, for whatever reason, lose that land or his right to it is something I find very troubling. I have examined with my colleagues, and will be examining with the provinces, further instruments whereby we can be helpful in that regard. I met specifically with a farmer and his son in Lethbridge, and then other farmers and their families outside Saskatoon, where this particular matter was discussed. I shall be working very closely with them in that regard.
I should tell my hon. friend, because I know he will be happy to hear it, that the farmers, while concerned about next year, are very grateful to this Parliament for the fact that aid to western agriculture, since this Government was sworn in, has increased by 350 per cent. They asked that their gratitude be conveyed to all Members.


LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having come back from western Canada after talking to some of our farmers I hope he now feels more personally the crisis that exists in western Canada. Whether he went to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, surely the question that came up and again and again was what sort of long-term solutions is the Government working toward. Can the Prime Minister tell us what sort of long-term solutions the Government is prepared to offer to ensure that dozens of farm families will not go bankrupt? What long-term solutions is the Government thinking of and is prepared to offer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only did the farmers raise the question of longterm solutions, they know full well there is no quick fix to the problems inflicted on western agriculture. They know no one in this House is responsible for the decline in commodity prices. They know full well that over the longer haul the answer is not greater and greater deficiency payments. They have increased their productivity and they do not want hand-outs. They want

May 11, 1987
Oral Questions
to be treated with dignity and respect and that is exactly what we are trying to do.
They also know, and discussed this very clearly with me, the work begun by this Government which for the first time raised agriculture at the level of the industrialized countries' summit in Tokyo last year.
A follow-up meeting is taking place right now at the OECD where the Minister of Finance and the Minister of International Trade are specifically dealing with international agricultural subsidies. That will be followed by a meeting convened in Canada of the Cairns group. That will be followed by meetings that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I shall have with farm leaders before we take to the Venice Summit this very debilitating issue of the trade war and agricultural subsidies between the U.S. and the ECM. This is killing our western farmers. They do not deserve this kind of treatment and the Government is resolved with them to solve this longterm problem in the economy.


GOVERNMENT POSITION-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, western Canadian farmers recognize that the problem is the trade war between the U.S. and the ECM. They also recognize it will take a few years before that is resolved. They recognize as well, as one farmer is quoted as saying, that all the Government has come up with is short-term band-aid solutions. What they want to know is what thinking, if any, the Government is putting into finding a solution to keep them going and prevent thousands of farm families from going under until an international agreement is reached. Neither the Prime Minister nor his Government has given us any indication that some longterm thinking is being done. Is he prepared to make some definite announcements to Canadian farmers in the very near future if not today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is now asking quite a different question. The first question dealt with the long-term problem and I think we have attempted to deal with that. He is now turning his question to the problem of tomorrow as it affects the ordinary farmer in Saskatchewan. That, too, is absolutely vital.
What have we done? We brought about a reduction in interest rates of four percentage points, each of which saves farmers about $150 million in payments to financial institutions. We helped them reduce input costs. We increased direct support. We arranged for a degree of diversification. We brought about the largest single deficiency payment in the history of Canada.
We shall work with the farmers to make sure that they get through this critical period. As I said in western Canada, and I will tell my hon. friend again, with this Government, when western farmers cry out for support, there is someone here to answer them.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES FARM BILL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the answers of the Prime Minister. He said the Government is taking all measures possible to deal with the immediate crisis in the West and the international trade problems.
The U.S. Government in the last two weeks has substantially expanded the U.S. Farm Bill to provide export subsidies to markets traditionally supplied by Canada. The U.S. is proposing further changes which would cause a further drop in prices. If the Government is interested in doing something for the western farmer is it prepared to take immediate action to forestall those actions which will have an even more damaging effect in the next six months on the farm economy of western Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question was whether the Government has intervened with the United States administration with regard to various actions it is taking which are harmful to the interests of Canadian agriculture. The answer is that it certainly has and will continue to do so.
A discussion on precisely that matter occupied a large portion of the lunch convened by the Prime Minister for the President at 24 Sussex Drive in which the Prime Minister made clear, in no uncertain terms, Canada's grave concerns about the implications for Canadian production, and indeed for world trade in agriculture, of the U.S. Farm Bill. I will be carrying that message to San Francisco later this week when I meet with Secretary Shultz again.


CANADIAN ACTION INTERNATIONALLY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He just said that the matter was raised at a luncheon with the President. A week after that luncheon the President of the United States authorized his own administration to expand substantially farm exports in order to challenge Canadian traditional markets in both the Middle East and the Soviet Union. It must have been a hell of a luncheon discussion to get that result.
The point is that the Americans are continuing to move into those markets using their subsidy programs. What further action will we take to stop that kind of invasion of those markets and that use of the Farm Bill?
Has Canada responded to the proposal which was put forward by GATT several months ago for us to put our agricultural negotiating position on the table so that we know clearly what initiatives and priorities we have in agriculture? Are we going to do something deliberate to stop the United States taking that action? Have we put our proposals in front of GATT?
May 11, 1987


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, you know my natural modesty. I hesitate to suggest to the Hon. Member that he read the speech I gave to the Canada Grains Council in his own city about a month ago in which I set out quite precisely the five principles which Canada has advanced into the OECD and GATT which, if agreed to by other partners involved in international trade in agriculture, could begin much more quickly than in 10 years' time some movement away from the cycle of subsidy which we are now facing.
We intend to press this issue and the interests of Canadian farmers in international negotiations at every opportunity. We have been doing that and intend to continue to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that there will be a question and a supplementary question from the Hon. Member for Churchill followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Drummond. That will close off Question Period.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, during the First Ministers' Conference last year the Prime Minister promised that there would be a full study of the impact of government policies on women. Has the Government undertaken a study to learn what the impact of the Government's free trade position is on women?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the Government is approaching trade will result in the future of jobs and opportunity in Canada being very positive for women. Women do best in an atmosphere of growth, competition, and productivity. That is where women get real economic opportunities.
Allow me to point out that poor countries do not have a good record with regard to women. We want to ensure that there is prosperity, competition, and productivity in this country.


GOVERNMENT STUDY-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the women of Canada appreciate the rhetoric, but I think they want to know whether the Government is going to live up to its promise to have a full impact study of its economic policy on free trade and how it affects women. Will that be made public?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, no Government has done a better job for women than has this Government. There are 427,000 more women working today than there were on the day of the election.
The Constitution


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is because we are looking forward and not to the past. We have employment equity, job training, trade which will expand job opportunities, more women working fulltime, and tax reform coming. All these things will work for the benefit of women in this country.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: My question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and deals with the textile industry. Last Friday night, one of our companies, Dominion Textiles, which manages its production in a very modern way, won the Regional Industrial Olympiad. Could the Minister guarantee the House that the textile policy will be followed, to allow the industry to continue and prosper in Canada.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to congratulate that company on behalf of the Canadian Government.
Secondly, you may recall that the textile policy has been in effect since July 30th, 1986 and that its main objectives are to limit imports and to allow for a better control. According to information received from industry representatives, the industry is very pleased with the Government's policy which has led to a consolidation of employment and a streamlining of operations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney:
That this House endorses the Meech Lake statement of principles approved by all First Ministers, April 30, 1987 as a basis for Quebec's participation as a full partner in the Canadian Constitution, and as a basis for the establishment, in a spirit of equality and fairness, of a process for considering further constitutional reforms.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m. the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had completed his speech. I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to question the Hon. Minister of Justice or comment on his speech. If there are none, we will resume debate.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Elnatyshyn). With officials of his Department, he is preparing the final legal text of constitutional changes agreed upon at the Meech Lake meeting. Could the Minister tell the House when this text will be ready? Could he guarantee the House that we will have an opportunity to debate the proposed resolution before it is submitted for approval to the provincial Premiers?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my Department has been working, on an urgent priority basis, on the wording which will be submitted to the First Ministers. As the Hon. Member will appreciate, the process will involve discussions among the participants and those First Ministers who must take that step in a constitutional sense to ensure that the wording is satisfactory for First Ministers to take to their respective legislatures. We are working on it on a very urgent basis.
Bilateral discussions are, of course, taking place. We are quite prepared, through participation in this debate, to hear points of view. It is very helpful to hear comments of all Members of Parliament.
With regard to the manner in which this whole proposition can be dealt with, I think that would be best left to discussions between the House Leaders to find the most appropriate methods of dealing with the matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question really deals with the legal text. Will the Minister give his undertaking today that he will table in the House the legal text before-and I emphasize "before"-it is brought to the Premiers for their approval so that we can discuss the legal text in this House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the Hon. Member is suggesting. The Hon. Member may not have meant that we should somehow ignore the First Ministers with regard to discussions about the text, but that would be the result of his proposal.
I believe there will be opportunities for Hon. Members to study the legal text at the appropriate time. I do not want to suggest for a moment that we are going to ignore the First Ministers. The matter will be discussed with them to ensure that we have something with which we can move, on the same basis as we arrived at the consensus which the Hon. Member, his Leader, and his Party have indicated in this debate that they support absolutely.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his Government have made provision for this House to debate for days, weeks, and perhaps even months, the death penalty. We are debating this proposal for one day. Would the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) care to comment on the strange sense of priority which allows the Government to find a lot of time for the death penalty debate and only one day for debate on this very important measure?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can give a satisfactory answer to the Hon. Member. I think the position on the capital punishment debate is that Members on the government side are prepared to have this matter go to a vote right now and that the opposition Members want to talk on this for quite a long time. I am not disputing the right of the Hon. Members to have-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is supposed to be a free vote.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 am just giving my view of life in the House of Commons and why, when Members ask me a question, they sometimes do not mean what they purport to say. I am trying to put this into perspective.
I can tell the Hon. Member, as I said in my remarks, that I think it is important. I believe he would agree with me because he is a man of principle who stands up regardless of pressures, some that are even brought on him by colleagues in his own caucus. He would understand that this is a matter of very important leadership. It has been in the public domain and I do not understand why we cannot have a vote at the end of the day showing that we all support it, because everyone has stated they are in favour of it. It is important to us that the principle is decided.
The Hon. Member knows that the opposition Parties have many opportunities to raise this issue in whatever context they want. Allotted opposition days are always available to them. I believe, in terms of the time that should be made available for this very historic occasion, his House leader should meet with the Government House Leader; I am sure they can come to an understanding about what is appropriate in dealing with these matters.
Personally, I believe the principle is important, one on which we should have a vote to show the unanimity with which we accept Quebec in the Constitution, and the prospect of a continuing role for other provinces in western Canada and Atlantic Canada to bring matters onto the agenda, as well as the two central provinces. I believe this is a wonderful day in Canadian history, and I am glad the Hon. Member's Party is supporting this Agreement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) a question with respect to an important element of this Accord that has not yet received a great deal of attention, the element with respect to the naming of appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most important institutions in our land now and, of course, has increasing importance in Canada in view of its powers the Charter of Rights and to interpret the provisions of the Constitution itself.
Will the Minister explain why the Government gave away the power of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to choose the best possible man or woman from the provinces or the regions to sit on that court? We strongly support consultation with the provinces before Supreme Court of
May 11, 1987

Canada judges are named, but what will happen in the event that the nominees of the province or a particular region are unacceptable to the Government, yet the particular province insists it wants to maintain that list? How will this deadlock between the provinces and the federal Government be broken?
Finally, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to appoint a particular outstanding man or woman from one of the provinces but that person is not even on the list that has been submitted by the province, the federal Government's hands are tied.
Why has the Government accepted a proposal which could very seriously weaken the Supreme Court of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I find that to be an incredible proposition on the part of the New Democratic Party. 1 must ask the Hon. Member again, as I do on so many occasions, if his question reflects the position of his Leader and Party. If he is speaking as an individual Member, I understand, but if the New Democratic Party is suggesting that Premier Pawley should have no role in terms of the appointments of a Supreme Court judge, 1 do not accept that proposition.
I suggest that in this country the Government has at least demonstrated the ability to work in a co-operative federalism with a view to having real consultation. I say to the Hon. Member that naturally it is a decision to be made by the federal Government in the final analysis, but to be made on the basis of names put forward. There will be a real sense of participation, partnership, and discussion in the process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I know the Hon. Member believes that it is important to ensure that all regions of Canada are dealt with equitably. Both of us are from western Canada and he would want to make sure that western Canadian premiers and Governments duly elected by western Canadians can send a strong signal as to the composition of the court and its western representatives.
I do not look at this in a negative sense, but as a positive way in which we can develop and encourage co-operative federalism. I do not anticipate a deadlock situation, quite the contrary.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, after the bafflegab of the Minister, perhaps he could answer the very specific question. What happens if Grant Devine or Bill Vander Zalm submit to the Prime Minister of Canada names of people who are clearly not acceptable to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal Government returns those names to the Premier but the Premier insists on putting those names forward? What mechanism will there be to break a deadlock between the federal and provincial Governments in the naming of the judges to the highest court of the land? How will that be done?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical situation. In this case, as in so many cases, my own experience has demonstrated that, by and large, the whole appointment process is one in which it is possible to have sane and legitimate discussions with provincial Premiers and Governments.
The Constitution
I do not think it is appropriate to assume that these matters of national interest begin with the lowest common denominator. I do not believe that is the Canadian way. It is inconceivable to me that the federal Government and the western premiers could not find some consensus with respect to the name of an appointee to represent western Canada. 1 suggest that it has not happened and will not happen. I believe we will be able to find support for a representative person who has the prime criterion of competence with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I hope that we do not consider this constitutional discussion on a negative basis because constitutional building involves a very substantial element of understanding and trust. Our present Constitution contains many concepts that are not precisely defined, but they have not impeded us from having an outstanding country and one in which we can carry on, to the benefit of Canadians. I simply say to the Hon. Member that that is the attitude I take in this process. I hope the Hon. Member will agree.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the important subject raised by my colleague concerning the procedure that will be followed. We were asking whether we could debate the resolution before it is formally approved by the 11 First Ministers. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) suggested in his answer that somehow this would not be possible because the resolution that would come here will be drafted in consultation with the 11 First Ministers. Surely there is no inconsistency. Once the formal approval is applied to that resolution, it is very difficult for the Government to seriously consider practical suggestions that might be made by our Party or the New Democratic Party.
I hope there will be consultation in the preparation of the final resolution, but will the Minister of Justice undertake that however the final resolution is prepared, before it goes to the level of First Ministers' approval there will be good faith by the Government to present that resolution to us in the Chamber to allow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), our Members, and Members of the New Democratic Party to make the kinds of suggestions that were given in 1981 when the Opposition participated fully in the constitutional proposals? Will we have a similar opportunity to make constructive suggestions for consideration by the Government before the First Ministers meet and put on the seal of approval on the final package?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, first, I think we should remember that constitutional amendment was created by the 1982 enactment and proclamation. It was a Government, of which the Hon. Member was a distinguished Member, that brought us to the reality that in order to bring about a Constitution, we must have the assent of First Ministers; in certain cases a percentage of the provincial Legislature; ana in some cases we must have a unanimous proposition. Right now we have the prospect of a unanimous approach by all Premiers representing all political Parties of our country and the federal Government. I simply say that we have to take these matters in logical step.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
The Hon. Member's House Leader can discuss with the Government House Leader and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party the appropriate way to deal with this matter. We must have a starting point. Unless we can come to some arrangement with respect to the wording with the First Ministers, there is nothing very useful for us to discuss. We have to be able to get that agreement.
I am saying to the Hon. Member that we have a proposition which will allow Hon. Members to declare themselves. It is not a question of keeping it from the House. The House will have a chance to declare itself. We have taken the first step to talk on this occasion on a statement of principle, to hear from Hon. Members, particularly from opposition Members, as to where they stand on the issues and to have their suggestions as to what should be included or not included. We are listening and we are going to try to do the very best job we can. I think our record in this area is pretty good. We have had unanimity and I hope we will continue to have the support of the Hon. Member's Party.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that the time for questions and comments has expired. 1 am in the hands of the House. Is there agreement to extend?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Debate.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Over the years, Mr. Speaker, this House has certainly been the scene of major debates which, in more ways than one, have highlighted the history of our country. The one we are launching today is one more such debate, for the main concept underlying the Meech Lake constitutional agreement reflects the very heart of the country which Canadian men and women choose to build every day. As the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said in the House of Commons last May 1 after the Meech Lake agreement was announced, and I quote:
It is a happy day for Canada and for Quebec, particularly for all those who
believed that our country would remain united by respecting the diversity of its
regions and the equality of its citizens.
At the outset of my remarks I want to tell the House that I intend to support the general thrust of the Meech Lake agreement as endorsed by the 10 Provincial Premiers of Canada. I would also advise the House that, in accordance with the position set forth by the Leader of the Opposition, I will vote in favour of the motion submitted for the consideration of the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Mr. Speaker, 1 would also add that, after consulting most of my colleagues from Quebec and the other provinces, we are looking at a process which, although it may contain certain difficulties, constitutes an orientation which enables us today
to support the Meech Lake constitutional evolution. Need I recall that one of the reasons which prompted me to return to active political life, this time at the federal level, was to fight to find a way to make the adjustments required so that Quebec would at last sign the 1982 constitutional agreement? Despite my profound Quebec and francophone roots, and despite the diverging views we might entertain on some of the aspects of the Meech Lake agreement, I trust that nobody will question my dedication to fight for Canadian unity.
When I was a Cabinet Member in the Government of the Province of Quebec, my provincial Liberal colleagues and I fought against the independence movement then advocated by Pierre Bourgault, Gilles Gregoire and, finally, Rene Levesque.
I defended Canadian unity in the Quebec National Assembly, in the universities, and in discussions at CEGEPs, at a time when even families were divided on the question of whether Quebec should be part of Canada.
I remember how shattered many Quebecers were, and with them the Bourassa Government's young Cabinet, when they heard our colleague, Pierre Laporte, had been killed. Pierre Laporte, a great Quebecer and a nationalist, lost his life in circumstances that are now history, in the defence of Canadian unity. I remember the tense social climate in the province at the time of the constitutional conference in Victoria, only a few months after Mr. Laporte's murder. When people ask why the Bourassa Government at the time was reluctant to support the Victoria Charter, my answer is this: Remember the political and social climate in Quebec after the October Crisis in 1970.
It would have been easy for me and for so many people of my generation to give in to popular pressure and succumb to the mass movement like so many young Quebecers who were entranced with the idea of political sovereignty for Quebec. Like so many colleagues in the Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party, however, I did not give in to those pressures because I believed that the independence option was an illusion and that the greater interests of francophones in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada would be far better served within Canada, within a "renewed" Canada, than by an independence formula that, sooner or later, would have isolated Quebec, both economically and culturally, linguistically and socially. The hopes of Canadian federalists who stood up for national unity in Quebec rested on a "renewed Canada". A new federalism that would meet Quebec's aspirations, that was the message members of the Trudeau Government brought to Quebec in 1980.
That was the concept we defended during the referendum, and because the majority of Quebecers believed in the concept of an evolving federation, they voted no in the referendum. And I say to my anglophone colleagues on both sides of the
May 11, 1987

House that they should never forget this fact, because it is fundamental to the debate we have begun today.
The then Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers who took part in the referendum debate clearly indicated their desire to do everything they could to find a balance that would be acceptable to Quebecers within the Canadian federation, in recognition of the fact that because of its language, its civil code, its history and its traditions, Quebec had a distinct identity within the Canadian federation.
Thanks to the 1982 Constitutional Accord, this country was able to achieve several objectives which I supported at the time and still do. The entrenchment of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution and the patriation of the Constitution to make Canada a fully sovereign state, capable of changing the basic laws of our country right here, without having to go to a foreign parliament-these were major, positive steps.
I have always thought, and I still do, that although the 1982 Constitutional Accord did not meet the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers who support national unity, it was because at the negotiating table, a separatist Quebec government was seeking formulas that would support its concept of independence, not the unity or enhanced unity of this country.
The 1982 Constitutional Accord was an unfinished symphony, and to finish it, it was necessary to approach the Quebec question in such a way that the parties concerned would accept the premise that no solution would be possible without recognition of Quebec's distinct identity within the Canadian federation. Quebec would also need the assurance that the rules of the constitutional game would not be changed with respect to the fundamental tenets of the federation, without the consent of the province of Quebec.
Therefore, in addition to the recognition of the distinct character of Quebec, the new constitutional balance was to provide security to Quebec at two different levels; first, at the level of immigration and second, at the level of the amending formula. The Meech Lake Accord positively answers the immigration issue. 1 do not intend to deal further with this matter on which there seems to be a general consensus. Moreoever, the resolution that was passed by the Liberal Party of Canada at its convention in November, 1986, stated somewhat the same idea which is to entrench in the Canadian Constitution the Cullen-Couture agreement.
As for the amending formula, I readily admit that I would much rather have the Victoria formula than that contained in the Meech Lake Accord. The Leader of the Official Opposition stated this morning some reservations which I share not only with regard to the amending formula but also about the meaning of some words appearing in the Meech Lake Accord. The intent of the legislator should be clearly indicated. Otherwise, the problems which were supposed to be solved could be compounded in the future. For example, there are some sincere and honest concerns about the capacity of the
The Constitution
Government of Canada as a result of the Meech Lake Accord to intervene in regional economic development.
I do not think that we can brush aside these concerns simply because they are voiced by people from Atlantic Canada, Manitoba or Quebec. In my opinion, as we deal with this problem, we must bear in mind that the wording should be precise enough so that the text of the Constitution does not say things that are not intended and does not cause unnecessary division. I shall take spending power as an example.
I could go into a fiery plea against the limitation of spending power and argue that Quebec should never have accepted this text, since for the first time in the history of our country, it shall be written in the Canadian Constitution that the Federal Government has the right to intervene in matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. But I do not believe that such is the intent, as some would see it, since the argument of those who are against the limitation of spending power is the exact opposite.
I therefore submit that it should be possible to give a precise wording to what was the intent of the Prime Minister and the Premiers who met at Meech Lake. In my view, it is simply a question of coming to an understanding which will avoid unnecessary disputes in the future.
Coming back to the amending formula, I can say that given the circumstances and taking it for granted that what is essential has been preserved, since Quebec, as the other provinces of Canada, shall have a right of veto with regard to those institutions which are fundamental to the Canadian federation, I feel that the compromise which has been reached is essentially adequate and reasonable and that it deserves to be supported.
That is why, inasmuch as the legal wording that the Government will bring forward at the end of May does translate in a clear and precise fashion the basic principles contained in the Meech Lake Agreement, I shall support the agreement, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, not only in this House but also in Quebec and all across Canada.

The Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, represents a conception of Canada that may depart from the vision of some. I understand the view expressed by my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). The kind of Canada he is dreaming of is the one that Sir John A. Macdonald advocated leading up to 1867. It was not possible then, and it is not possible today.
The idea of uniting Canada's two founding peoples, peoples with varying regional and cultural interests, under the umbrella of one all-powerful central Government is an old and long-enduring dream on the part of some. In fact, the dream of a centralized governed Canada started as a pragmatic policy as early as 1822, when the merchant class of Upper Canada suggested that, in order to spread the cost of building the first

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
St. Lawrence Seaway the Government of the two Canadas, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, merge into one unit.
I point out to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount that that dream was one supported by the Lower Canada English elite, not because they had a stake in the commercial success of Upper Canada, but because they wished to protect their rights through the creation of a country in which they would no longer be a minority and in which, in the long term, they could assimilate the French-speaking population of Lower Canada in 1822.
I understand the opposition to the Accord of such fine Canadians as the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, who oppose the intent of the Meech Lake Accord on the basis of their view that a strong central Government, a Government speaking for all Canadians in every field of human activity, is best for Canada.
But history tells us that Lord Durham's recommendation of 1839 did not work the way it was expected to, due to the strong resistance of the Quebec French Canadian population to unitary rule. The solution was then found in having the two majority systems of Government applied to the Government of the country under the new union.
The idea expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, is no different from that expressed by the English-speaking Quebec minority of the early 19th century. It did not work then; it will not work today.
In 1867, Nova Scotia also expressed a desire for a certain degree of regional autonomy. In fact, the first separatist Government to be elected in Canada was in Nova Scotia. Joseph Howe's Government, not Rene Lesvesque's, was the first separatist Government in the history of this country. The Nova Scotia election of 1867, and not the 1976 Quebec provincial election, was the first to put a separatist Government in power, to promote regional interests.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a 20-minute speech does not permit the recounting of all of the facts of Canadian history. One thing is clear, and it is that this country was built on the idea of the division of power between the provincial and federal levels of Government; it is a country that was built on the idea of two languages, French and English, which were later joined by new languages and new cultures.
According to one argument, the Meech Lake Accord is a step backward from the nation-building project which to date has led to a rich and vibrant society on the northern part of this great continent.

Mr. Speaker, some people are suggesting that the Meech Lake Accord is a step backward as far as setting up a strong and prosperous nation is concerned. It seems to me that this idea is not supported by the experience of our past history. Quite the contrary, I believe that Canada will be a strong nation to the extent that the regional aspirations of the various provinces are met.
There are also those who object to the notion of enshrining Quebec's distinct character in the Canadian Constitution. I can understand that this idea might bother a number of Canadians. I can also understand their concern, but I ask all my colleagues in the House and all other Canadians: How is it possible not to recognize such an evident fact?
As Mr. Richard Rohmer stated in the May 5 edition of the Toronto Sun, and I quote:

So, who in English-speaking Canada can quarrel with the proposition that Quebec is, in fact, a distinct society with a distinct identity?
And Mr. Rohmer continued, and again I quote:
If you've never been to Quebec (outside Montreal-or inside it for that matter) you might have problems putting your mind around or accepting the reality of Quebec's distinctiveness. Put it this way: There are now more than 6 million direct descendants of the 60,000 French in Canada when Gen. Wolfe did his thing on the plains of Abraham.
Mr. Rohmer continued:
And can you also believe that a substantial percentage of those French descendants (we now call them Francophones) don't speak a word of English! And why should they? They are a distinct, proud race who are as completely Canadian as any other race that has come to this vast nation.
That is what Mr. Rohmer wrote in the Toronto Sun of May 5, 1987-and I agree with him.
The recognition of the distinct character of Quebec is only recognizing a fact of life.
What can one do when confronted with a fact such as Quebec's specificity? One can try to escape from it, but it would not change the reality. In fact, the same people who refused to recognize Quebec's distinct character know so well that it expresses the fact that they refuse to recognize it precisely because they are scared to encourage Quebec's specificity to serve as a basis for Quebec separation. What a lack of confidence in Quebecers' attachment to Canada!
This attachment has been confirmed without a doubt when one examines the referendum results. Why should the rest of Canada doubt Quebec's good will and attachment to Canada, we being the only ones to vote for Canada? Does Quebec not lead the way in respecting the rights of our two founding peoples? Does Quebec refuse to fund schooling for religious minorities? No. Does Quebec refuse the right of Englishspeaking Canadians to speak their language in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec or to use the English language to defend themselves in court? No, no, no. The answer to all those questions is no.
Please, let us not use this ill-structured argument to initiate doubts over Quebecers' loyalty to justice, to federalism, to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond Garneau: Let us, instead, recognize the distinct character of my province within Canada, a society which in
May 11, 1987

turn helps make all our country so different and, 1 would say, so much richer than our neighbour. Rather than erasing differences, let us benefit from our rich cultural heritage and continue to make this a caring, humane, understanding, and tolerant society, a model for all the world to admire and follow.
[ Translation]
I agree that the Meech Lake Accord is not perfect. But it can be seen as an extremely important step in the process begun with the Constitutional Agreement of 1982. This step should make it possible for Quebec to adhere fully to the Canadian Constitution and for the Constitutional process to continue its development and adapt to the constantly changing conditions in both Canadian society and the outside world.

As Sir Wilfrid Laurier put it: "We are divided into provinces, we are divided into races, and out of these confused elements it is not always the ideal policy from the point of view of pure idealism which ought to prevail but the policy which can appeal on the whole, to all sections of the community".
Canada is a nation of diversity and compromise. This, some might argue, is its weakness. I say that it is its strength.

Personally, I rely on Canadians and trust in the good faith and generosity of the provincial Governments and the Members of this House for many, many years to come. On the basis of common sense, I am willing to wager that Canadian unity will be better served if we respect regional differences and if one level of Government does not try to impose its will on the other.
I, for one, feel that Canada is an arrangement which expresses the will of Canadians to live together. It is also a balancing act which has to be corrected every day and which needs constant protection and adjustment to new conditions. Historian Michel Brunet was right when he said that "All Canadian anti-federalists make the mistake of ignoring the past. If Canada is a difficult country to govern, it is not because it is a federal state; it has developed federal institutions because it is a difficult country to govern."
It is this balancing act which makes it possible for our federal state to adapt its institutions to the needs of the francophone minority today, and later on to the needs and interests of the various Canadian provinces.

I have only a minute remaining in which to finish my speech. May I have the unanimous consent of the House to continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Constitution


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, as a newspaper reporter said, the Meech Lake Agreement is neither a miracle nor a mirage but, in my opinion, it is an opportunity. The Agreement includes elements of the resolution passed by the Liberal Party of Canada during its November Convention. There are differences though. Our resolution was more comprehensive than the Meech Lake Accord and I too would have liked to see more provisions included. We have this opportunity today because provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada have tried to meet, as we have tried to do it on this side of the House, the concerns of the Province of Quebec and the demands made by its Premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa. Mr. Bourassa's demands have not come out of a hat. They have been the subject of extensive consultations and have led to the election of that Government in December, 1985. Thanks to the provincial Premiers who tried to act in a positive manner and to the Liberal Party of Canada who tried to make a positive move in its November Convention, it is possible today to have a debate on the Meech Lake Agreement. I think this is an important step. Federalist as he may be, Mr. Bourassa strongly believes that Canadian unity will be best served if the fundamental law of this country recognizes the distinct identity of Quebec whereby its society is entitled to some guarantees in terms of immigration and development of federal institutions in this country.

The Meech Lake Accord, as I said, represents for me an opportunity which was in no small part assisted by the resolution passed by the Liberal Party of Canada at its November, 1986, convention. I am proud to be part of this House and to share this moment with my colleagues in all political Parties. I believe that the Meech Lake Accord is certainly following the right path, a path for a renewed and united Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to live in this House a very important event for Quebec, an event that transcends Party lines because I think that Quebec's adherence to Canada is for us on this side of the House both a rational and emotional issue. We have worked hard. My colleagues under the Trudeau Government have worked hard to reach that goal. Unfortunately, the political situation in Quebec at the time did not allow them to make that step. Today, we have a Conservative Government, but I will not indulge in partisanship and will not deny the speeches I made in the Quebec National Assembly, during the campaign of 1984 as well as within my Party because the solution in which I believe has been introduced by a Conservative Government.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the depth of his emotion and the thoughtfulness of his address. I would agree and concur that we are all delighted

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
that a mechanism has been found so that Quebec will become part de facto, as it has already been de jure, of Canada.
In recognizing the distinctive character of Quebec in the larger portrait of Canada, I am looking forward to an active participation. I was certainly very involved in the referendum and, as my hon. colleague knows, I was an Yvette, moved and actively concerned about maintaining Quebec in Canada. From that point of view I am delighted.
I have one concern which I wonder whether my colleague can answer for me. As we look at the linguistic duality, which I hope is the concept behind the Accord, I wonder whether he could advise me whether the linguistic protections will be promoted for the anglophones of Quebec and equally for the francophones hors Quebec. This is one matter that is of concern in its many dimensions.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I think in all good faith that the intention was there, but I do not think that it is clearly indicated in the Accord. I wish, as I said in my speech, that the legal text would clarify those things.
I met with some English-speaking Quebecers during the week-end and they indicated that they were anxious about this. To avoid any confusion, the legal text should be very clear and precise so that the problems we think we are solving now will not create other sorts of problems in a few months when the judges of the Supreme Court will have to interpret the Bill. This is why I hope the legal text will be much clearer so that no confusion will exist.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member and I am looking forward to reading the fine print as well. I bring to your attention, along with my colleague, the fact that the multicultural communities want to know if they are perceived as part of this distinctive characteristic of Quebec. Is that covered in "distinct society" as well as "distinctive character"?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the 1982 agreement on the Constitution recognized the multicultural aspect of Canada. It is in the body of the Constitution. I think it is well protected there.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to listen to a speech in this House that obviously comes from the heart, coupled with good thoughts from the mind as well. I would simply like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) for what I think is a first rate speech.
The Hon. Member will know I am a Member from Calgary, Alberta. I sat many long hours on the Constitution Committee some years ago and recognized a kind of kindred spirit of feeling among the many minorities in this country, which is a magnificent and very large country.
The French speaking people in the Province of Quebec are in the majority within that province but a minority within
Canada. Many of us in western Canada, particularly from my province, feel that far too frequently we are viewed as a minority within the Canadian context, because we come from a province which is so far from the centre of Canada and sometimes there is a tendency to overlook and to forget.
I wanted to make that comment more than anything else but also to ask the Hon. Member if he or the Members from Quebec within his caucus have a sense of just how joyous and how pleased we are from that minority in the Province of Alberta with this undertaking. We think our joy is perhaps equal to that which the Member himself seems to feel. Is there any sense of that existing within his caucus about how pleased we are with this undertaking?


Raymond Garneau: I think it is a loaded question, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly agree and tell this House without any restriction, that in my caucus, and even my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), who expressed a certain reserve about the Accord, everybody agrees it is a good thing that Quebec is back in the Constitution. We understand that in 1982 a certain number of steps had been taken not only for Quebec but for other regions too.
We have to recognize that in 1982-and I note that the Hon. Member is from Calgary-the Constitution was amended and rewritten partly because of the question of natural resources. It was done at the request of the then Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed. It is a symphony that must be adjusted all the time, une symphonie inachevee. Nobody will believe for a moment, when and if the Meech Lake Accord finds its way into legal text, that everyone in this House will vote for it. The task is not finished. We will have to adapt the Constitution to any new situation that may arise, from the environmental point of view defence, or for any other reason. I am sure this will have to be done all the time because the federal system is a living institution. It is like a pendulum that swings from one side to the other. Sometimes the pendulum swings to the provinces and sometimes it swings back to the central Government.
I concluded my speech by saying that this matter should not be based on partisan politics. I want to remind the House that Liberals and Conservatives have been on both sides of the issue since the beginning of Confederation. Sometimes, and for years, the Liberal Party has been the Party of the regions. Why was the problem of Manitoba considered solved? It was because Laurier decided to respect the power of the regions.
The change of attitude was made after the war. During those earlier years the Tories were representing the national policy. It was the idea of John A. Macdonald. Then things switched. The Liberals became more centralized and the Tories became more regionalized. This is not a Party matter. I am pleased and I understand that all regions of Canada will be pleased if we can find good legal wording for the Meech Lake Accord. I would not like to-
May 11, 1987



-as we say, we should not put the cart before the horse, and find ourselves in a situation where my agreement of today would turn into a disagreement because of nit-picking about the meaning of words.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as this century draws to a close and we, as Canadians are seeking to redefine the values we share and confirm our common identity, we realize that Canada's unity is closely linked to our respect for diversity. And I therefore support the motion of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the master builder of the historic Meech Lake accord.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all Canadians that in a speech at Sept-Iles in August, 1984, the Right Hon. Prime Minister said that the very existence of this country was the result of a commitment by men and women of diverse cultures, languages and religions to resolve their differences, to harmonize their interests and to let the values of respect for others and a firm belief in one's own potential prevail.
Mr. Speaker, are we seeing the dawn of a new beginning in this country? I have often wondered whether my Quebec nationalism would be compatible with a pan-Canadian context and status. I believe that in the final instance, my feelings of pride are not so different from those of my colleagues in the Atlantic provinces, western Canada and Ontario.
It seems to me that today in Canada, in every part of this country, there is a common desire to affirm our various identities, to respect all aspirations and the potential for pursuing the most ambitious ideals.
Like so many fellow Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, I took part in the process that brought us here today with occasional feelings of reluctance, a feeling that we were being asked to give up too much, that there was a general lack of understanding for our position and also that we as Quebecers would not feel at home in this country. We sometimes had the impression that to some politicians, this country was a purely utopian dream that would never come true. Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to recall that these fears and hesitations are part of this country's history and part of the reality on which we must build for the future.
Confronted with geographical, linguistic and cultural differences, we needed time to find our common ground, our common political aspirations. As a result of frank and forthright efforts at conciliation and the recognition of the basic tenets of a hard-won but ever vital reciprocity, today we are nearing the goal already pursued in 1864 by the Fathers of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those representatives, one of those who have not always looked at the situation as we see it today, which gives us a much broader perspective of our country. We
The Constitution
have all seen its regional particularities, its linguistic singularities, its cultural identities and, of course, its divisive elements.
Quebecers-surely because of language considerations mostly, but for other reasons as well-have been forced to proclaim, sometimes with infinite patience, their basic rights and their fair demands. In this sharing exercise which makes a great nation, they long harboured the impression that they were losers and they hesitated for a long time. They even went as far as proposing different options, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest with all the consideration this issue commands that we can now appreciate some of the realities of 1980.
After seven years, Mr. Speaker, history no longer passes judgment on people. History can only confirm the facts and assess realities, and it will be up to those who will follow us to define and weigh these choices of 1980. At that time of deep reflection my own political convictions were torn between my attachment to this country and my pride in and allegiance to the other homeland, a double adherence which typifies each Canadian residing in this country. I know now that at the time many Quebecers were intent on continuing their exhaustive quest and deep interrogation with respect to the prospects for Canada and to the common and reciprocal will to build a home where living together is possible indeed but also pleasant and livable-pleasant in the sense that it pleases each and everyone, livable in the sense that one feels at home, and in the sense that one can fulfil one's personal life aspirations.
When I agreed to come to Ottawa to serve the interests of my region, first and foremost I wanted to echo the sentiments of Quebec within the Canadian confederation. I had to cope with a number of facts which until that time in my life did not have the rallying power they have gained since then.

I have expanded my horizon from sea to sea. I became an active Member of the House and I am pleased to serve as a member of the Cabinet and to participate in the decisionmaking processes of the Government of Canada.

I have learnt a lot from all those teachings, but I have nevertheless always felt that I belonged with that society which is now being recognized as a truly distinct one by the whole country.
This sensitivity, this openeness shown by our 1987 Canada, show me that I, as a great Quebec nationalist, can be a full member of this great-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, let us think of those who have come from Quebec to Ottawa since 1867; let us pay tribute to those who, in a sometimes hostile environment, stood up for Quebec in the federal arena; let us think of my present colleagues, honorable members of this House who came from Quebec in 1984 to represent their fellow citizens and defend their basic rights to equality and a fair share. I sympathize

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
with them, and I think of those who work on the same objectives, but in the Province of Quebec. God knows how difficult and painful the exchanges have been over the years between those two political worlds. However, the concept of a united Canada was on its way. But for that concept to become a reality, there had to be a gradual recognition of the possibility for Canada to become a modern country at long last, to become a full-fledged economic, political and cultural entity.
A former Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, said: Adapting to one's environment is a basic law of life, it is a necessity for any living organism, and that goes for institutions as well as individuals. To live on, the Canadian Confederation must develop, and to develop, it must be able to reconcile the conditions of a specific point in history with its underlying principles and unswerving spirit.
Mr. Speaker, most of the position of Quebec with respect to Canadian federalism has been repeated consistently and unanimously by almost every premier of that province.
Mr. Speaker, the right to be ourselves, to ensure the permanence of our roots and institutions, to achieve individual and collective self-fulfillment, this right which we see as fundamental through the centuries and through all those men and women who shaped our history, this right is not a passing whim, but the noble and sound reality of Quebec nationalism, a nationalism, Mr. Speaker, which in our province is passed on from generation to generation and which is not, as some people might believe, the offshoot of passing idealisms. This nationalism has never failed even though it has expressed itself in different ways in different eras. This same nationalism, which has made us different from others within a same country, is now reflected in a positive way by this constitutional agreement which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society.
Today we know that when the Prime Minister spoke to the people of this country and the people of Quebec, particularly in terms of national reconciliation, he was thinking of the adhesion of Quebecers to a workable project.
We know also that the Prime Minister was speaking the truth when he expressed his will to have Quebec join the Constitution, and that he will be remembered in our history; beyond partisanship, beyond good and bad times, beyond words, we have to recognize in this man the immense understanding he has always shown in his own cultural duality for the distinct reality of Quebec, and his deep commitment to it.
I have personnally worked for this agreement, this historic agreement, since I belong to a generation which was always there when things were changing. In the course of this extraordinary development, I have managed to define my nationalism, my deep and vital sense of belonging to Quebec. But I have also felt with the same intensity that all my action was aimed at an opening onto "another homeland".

I have also seen an extraordinary thing happen, and I think all Canadians are aware of it. Over the many years of constitutional equivocation, we often saw the Province of Quebec
claiming its role within Confederation and asserting what it maintained were fundamental rights. Quebec spoke of a division of power, of increased powers over immigration, of opting out, and of its own identity.
I am proud to say today that the intense reflection of Quebecers over all those years resulted in an openness from which all the provinces are now benefiting. That is the true spirit of this Confederation. That is the initiative which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saw as necessary in order to lead the country toward what I referred to earlier as modernity-

At Meech Lake, for the first time in Canadian history, the 11 First Ministers reached an agreement that must now be officially worded and signed.
We must not disappoint Canadians, we must make this a matter of honour. And I say, in a strong, unequivocal voice- Quebec's concurrence to the Constitution is possible.
We saw those First Ministers leave Meech Lake with the conviction it was possible. We heard them, back into their provinces, report to the people on an agreement in principle that meets their vision of the country and their genuine aspirations.
It is important that I should put this new agreement into the perspective of a Department of special concern to me- Immigration.
There is in that area an opening warranted by representations and projects, that will enable new Canadians to find substance for their material, and cultural needs. And there is above all an opening under which Quebec can ensure the new Canadians it is receiving can adapt rapidly to the language and culture patterns of French-speaking Quebecers, without thereby losing their own.
The various communities that live in this country make such a contribution that we must take the necessary steps to guarantee all of them full and complete well-being and development. As you are aware, Canada has a reputation as a generous country that welcomes immigrants. In order to continue this course we must unite our efforts so that nothing is spared in providing a welcome characterized by fairness and sharing. The respect for ethnic groups lies at the very heart of the vitality and dynamism of a country such as ours. To have a sense of this remarkable wealth, of these remarkable riches that come to us from elsewhere and that contribute so tangibly to our personal and collective development is to have at the same time a renewed and reassuring awareness of one's own nationalism.

My experience with the various communities, when I was at the Department of the Secretary of State, led me to a major
May 11, 1987

realization. Quebec's cultural reality can fit into a federalist outlook where, thanks to a conjunction of languages and cultures, the essence can be deepened, the vital element retained and riches obtained. This is how modern nations are built. This is how Canada will be built, within a multiplicity that can respect entities.
I know it is with renewed conviction and enthusiasm that we will take all steps and initiatives needed to ensure nobody is hurt by our constitutional exercises. In this country, reciprocity is a requisite for reconciliation-the latter is not possible without the former. We can now feel that this reciprocity is understood and wanted, strongly flowing from the Meech Lake agreement. All we need do now is to translate this new confederative pact into concrete measures.
I have the impression that this country exists in plenitude, that we can acquire the desire to live in it. I know very many Canadians are making exactly the same reflection as I am making. Some made it before, our great predecessors, the visionaries of our country. To them we owe gratitude. But what interests me even more is that others after us will do the same thing because this country, Mr. Speaker, now seems to me to be headed for an irreversible accomplishment.
In conclusion, here is the part of the Sept-Iles statement I keep in mind: Canada is the challenge of men and women of various cultures, languages and religions to resolve their conflicts, harmonize their interests and actively promote the values of respect for others and surpassing oneself.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec there are injuries to heal, concerns to allay, enthusiasms to rekindle, and links of faith to restore. Canada offers plenty of room for the affirmation of all identities, the respect for all aspirations, and the quest for all ideals.
We are at the dawn of a genuine fresh start if we can substitute the prejudice of the agreement for that of discord. Renewal is the very principle of a democracy, its own way to regain vigour, to purify itself and to take a new expansion.
I have the deep conviction that we are witnessing one of those privileged moments when a whole country opens a new page of history, a page which will be written in a new style of dialogue and exchanges among all the artisans who are building a country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the provincial Premiers on their open attitude to Quebec at the recent meeting at Meech Lake. This is of course a very important moment in Canadian history, now that we are finally about to recognize Quebec's distinct identity. It is time that formal recognition was given to the fact that the language and culture
The Constitution
of the majority in Quebec is French and that the concept of a distinct identity was entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
However, Quebec's distinct identity must be more clearly defined in the forthcoming constitutional text. In fact, there is no definition, or at least none was given in the agreement in principle. For the sake of present and future generations, we must clarify this concept as much as possible. We cannot afford any confusion in this respect. In fact, I am concerned about a statement by Senator Murray, the Minister responsible for Federal-Provincial Relations, who said that "distinct society" does not give any more powers to Quebec, and by the Prime Minister himself, who said on English language television that at Meech Lake, Quebec had not gained any powers it did not already have.
The forthcoming constitutional text must be clearer and more precise, because otherwise, it will be a matter for the courts to decide, while in our democratic society, the basic responsibility for drafting laws lies with our elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want constitutional peace, and they want a lasting, not a temporary peace. If the Meech Lake agreement in principle leads to confusion, if the constitutional text does not reflect this need for clarity, we can expect to see many more of those long, drawn-out constitutional debates that have left their scars on this country. The forthcoming constitutional text must be drafted on the basis of long term considerations of a higher order.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the clause concerning the appointment of justices to the Supreme Court of Canada and with the clause concerning immigration.
This last provision will have a vital impact in preserving the French identity of Quebec.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the wording to be used in the legal text will be important. I have, however, some reservations with respect to the federal institutions amending formula, particularly with respect to section 42 which is too rigid in my mind.
From a constitutional point of view, and in order to better acknowledge the various realities of the various regions of Canada, the effort of the Federal Government to decentralize its powers for the benefit of provinces is a welcome one. It is welcome, however, provided Canadian men and women in the various regions of the country will derive similar benefits from this devolution of authority, and I think for instance of medicare. It is most desirable, Mr. Speaker, that provinces be able to develop such programs based on their own specific features. It now seems possible to develop such pan-Canadian programs while at the same time decentralizing them in the provinces; the key word here is that in essence they should be equivalent.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the draft of the legal text to come will be extremely important.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude on a positive note, and I will be commenting further once we get the final draft of the constitutional text.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what has just been said by the New Democratic member and the premise of the question put by the Hon. Member for Burnaby after Question Period. It seems the New Democrats on one side of their mouths support changes to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on the other side they oppose them. May I ask whether that Party accept the change that gives provinces the right to appoint judges to the Supreme Court?


Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to try and answer that question, which I feel sure is not partisan, and I will refer to what the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), our Party Leader, stated at noon.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the New Democratic Party did not express a view about that, I hope he will soon. I also want to ask about the resolution put forward by the New Democratic Party on the question of the adhesion of Quebec in the Canadian Constitution. In its resolution passed at the national policy convention in March, 1987, Quebec is given the right to opt out and receive financial compensation when programs in provincial jurisdiction are transferred to the federal level. No other province is given a similar right in the resolution of the New Democratic Party.
I am more concerned that the resolution of the New Democratic Party does not require that Quebec, upon opting out, provide a compatible program which meets national objectives. From the speech of the Hon. Member-

One can take it the New Democratic Party has now changed its resolution in order to require that, on programs usually coming within provincial purview, Quebec must now have an equivalent program that follows the same objectives, or are they still with the resolution they adopted in March?


Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, in that respect, the decentralization of powers, I would perhaps like to make available to him a letter sent by Mr. Broadbent to Mr. Trudeau in 1980, which clearly shows the feeling and belief of our Party concerning decentralization to provinces but, as I said, under certain conditions.
Second, I will finally refer the Hon. Member to our convention held last March in Montreal, during which we came up with a unanimous resolution on the official recognition of the unique nature and the principle of decentralization.
Mr. Speaker, I feel we have been clearly consistent.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let us take for example a daycare policy, and this is hypothetical, since we all know that Quebec
is very progressive, but we have to ask that question to explain the position of the Party.
If all provinces agree unanimously to a daycare policy, the cost of which would be shared between the federal and provincial Governments, except Quebec which refuses to meet national objectives or to agree to a program compatible with national objectives, would the resolution of the New Democratic Party still apply or would they nevertheless give a compensation to a province which is not willing to offer an equivalent program?


Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said before, that the position of our Party on decentralization is very clear. This kind of question should have been addressed to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased and honoured to take part in this debate on the Meech Lake Agreement. The events of April 30 will long figure prominently in the history of our country.

At last, the Canadian constitutional family was reunited. [English]
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said to this House on May 1, the Meech Lake Agreement "enhances the Confederation bargain and strengthens, I believe, the federal nature of Canada". He, along with the other First Ministers, deserve our heartfelt congratulations. In particular, the Prime Minister's leadership and negotiating skills were decisive in bringing this question to a successful resolution. It was an act of statesmanship by him and all the First Ministers. The agreement has won many positive and constructive comments from across the country.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is of great importance to Quebec, naturally, but the commitment of that province to further constitutional reform is also significant.

No one should be led to believe that the Meech Lake Agreement closes the book on constitutional reform. In fact, a failure at Meech Lake would have spelled continued constitutional blockage. That which has been achieved is only the conclusion of the most recent chapter. There is still a great deal to be done. In particular, we must address the constitutional priorities of special interest to certain provinces and regions. Among the priorities of greatest interest, especially to the west, I believe, is Senate reform. The desire for Senate reform reflects a wish to participate fully in decision-making at the national level. It is based on the belief that each region should feel that it counts.
May 11, 1987

I want to say a few words about the significance of the Meech Lake Accord for Canada's future constitutional development. Members will recall that in the House of Commons on April 9, the Prime Minister reminded all First Ministers of their commitment under the August, 1986, Edmonton declaration, namely, that the top constitutional priority was to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in the Canadian federation. He went on to quote the declaration which stated that there was a consensus among the Premiers that then they will pursue further constitutional discussions on matters raised, which will include, among other items, Senate reform, fisheries, property rights, and so on.

The agreement reached by the First Ministers on April 30 at Meech Lake, which marks the return of Quebec into the Constitutional fold, is an important step which will strenghten our federation.

As part of the agreement, they approved an entrenched second round of negotiations aimed at fostering further constitutional development. The Meech Lake Accord requires that a First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution be held not less than once per year and that the first be held within 12 months of the proclamation of the amendment but not later than the end of 1988.
Among the items on the agenda to be considered at these conferences will be Senate reform, including the functions and role of the Senate, the powers of the Senate, the method of selection of Senators, the distribution of Senate seats, and finally, as demonstration of the Prime Minister's good faith and commitment, the agreement provides that until constitutional amendments regarding the Senate are accomplished the federal Government shall appoint persons from lists of candidates provided by provinces where vacancies occur and who are acceptable to the federal Government.
The provinces thus will have a real say on appointments to the Senate until an agreement is reached on more comprehensive reform. Provincial Governments will also participate in nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada for the first time in our history.
There can be no doubt about the Prime Minister's seriousness about Senate reform. He announced last week in Lethbridge that the Government will put "a specific proposal on the table for Senate reform" when the First Ministers meet for the first time on this issue in 1988. That is encouraging to all of us who believe in genuine Senate reform. As we approach such discussions among the Government's concerned, a range of approaches will no doubt be put forward. There is certainly no shortage of proposals.
Senate reform and a directly elected Senate, in particular, are issues that have acquired much popular appeal. There is little doubt that direct election represents in part a desire for a
The Constitution
stronger voice in federal institutions. I believe that it also appeals to our democratic values.
Many Members of Parliament have shown a considerable interest in Senate reform. The Special Joint Committee on the Reform of the Senate, for example, carried out one of the most comprehensive studies on this issue ever done by a public body.
That report was tabled in the House in January, 1984. It called for a directly elected Senate in order to strengthen the authority of Parliament to speak and act on behalf of all Canadians in all parts of the country. The committee believed that these reform proposals would improve what it saw as the Senate's principal role, namely, regional representation.
The joint committee recommended a Senate of 144 Members, with seats distributed among the provinces on the basis of a weighted representation. In other words, smaller provinces would have proportionately more than the others, but every province would not have the same number of seats. Senators were to be elected for a single nine-year term in single member constituencies.
The committee proposed that the Senate have a suspensive veto over ordinary legislation of 120 sitting days, divided into two 60-day periods. A Bill adopted by the House of Commons and rejected by the Senate, therefore, could not be presented for Royal Assent until the House had adopted the Bill a second time, and that second adoption could not take place until at least 60 sitting days had elapsed since the Senate rejected the Bill.

For a Bill of linguistic or cultural importance, a double majority would have been required: first, a majority of Senators and second, a majority of French-speaking Senators.

Finally, the special joint committee addressed the question of responsible government and the possible impact of reform as it had recommended. Its members expressed the view that a reformed Senate should not be able to undermine Canada's well tried system of responsible government.
Calls for a directly elected Senate have grown. In March, 1985, a special select committee of the Alberta Legislative Assembly endorsed what is now generally referred to as the Triple E Senate. By this, they mean direct election, equal representation by province, and effective powers. As the Alberta special committee argued: "Canada needs an effective Upper House in order to protect the diverse interests of Canadians".
The special committee of Alberta recommended that election be based on the first post-the-post system. The Senate would consist of 64 Senators, six from each province and two from each territory.
Their proposal was based on the view that it is important that the Senate be as independent as possible from the House of Commons while at the same time not unduly hindering the

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
work of the Lower House. The Senate would retain the power to amend any Bill with the provision for the House of Commons to override any amendment or veto that the Senate proposed. Finally, this Triple E Senate would have double majority veto on language matters.
The recommendations of that report were unanimously endorsed by the Alberta Legislature in May, 1985. On March 10 of this year, the Alberta Legislature unanimously registered its support for the concept of a Triple E Senate.
Triple E Senate reform holds great attraction for a number of political leaders in the west. As Hon. Members are aware, Premier Getty is a strong advocate of the Triple E proposal. In his April 5 speech to the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party Convention, he declared that Canada "can only grow in a healthy way if our regional representation is fair and balanced". Following the Meech Lake meeting, Premier Getty repeated that he will be pushing for a Triple E Senate. The former Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, has also come out in support of this idea.
As we proceed seriously to consider Senate reform, we will need to answer some difficult questions, such as what the powers of the reformed House should be, its relationship to the House of Commons, and its effect on the powers of provincial Governments. In this regard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) recently injected a judicious note of caution. Speaking in Camrose, Alberta, on April 25, he wisely pointed out that many questions "have to be considered very carefully as we proceed with Senate reform because you cannot change one institution in isolation from the rest". He also said: "We want changes that make Canada work better. That requires both commitment and care". This is the approach, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs affirmed, with which the Government will address the undeniable need for Senate reform.
In closing, I want to repeat what the Prime Minister said in this House on May 1, and I quote:
The Meech Lake agreement is good for Canada and good for Canadians. It
will unblock the Constitutional reform process and enable Canadians to turn
their attention to other issues such as Senate reform and fisheries.
The tabling and proclamation of this agreement will conclude the first round of Constitutional renewal. Senate reform will be at the top of the agenda for the second round. Let us applaud what has been accomplished. Let us look forward to further reform aimed at strengthening Canada. Is it really too un-Canadian to rejoice and celebrate this day of national renewal?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: There being no questions or comments, we will resume debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In 1982, Mr. Speaker, I was a Minister in the Trudeau Government at the glorious
time of the patriation of our Constitution. This major achievement has contributed to the enhancement of Canada, and I still feel very proud of what we accomplished then. But as others have indicated, it was to a very large extent an incomplete symphony.

At the time of great rejoicing in 1982 when the Constitution was brought back, we were unable to secure the approval of the Province of Quebec to the constitutional package. The issue was tested in court and it was held that the repatriation was effective nonetheless, that it was binding in all parts of Canada, including within the Province of Quebec. However, a legalistic approach cannot be the beginning and end of a story like that. There is more to it than simply legally concluding that repatriation had been achieved.
I approach this debate, as does my Party, on the premise that it is extremely important that the approval of the Government of the Province of Quebec be achieved for the Constitution of Canada. That is not because it is legally required but because otherwise constitutional growth, national identity, and a sense of Canadianism are adversely affected.
I would like to give some specific examples and show how very important it is that the Meech Lake initiative advance and succeed, although I will suggest some areas in which I hope there will be changes. First, those critics of Canada, not only within the Province of Quebec but elsewhere, can use the fact that Quebec has never approved of the Constitution to attack Canadian identity and Canadian nationality. Separatists can say that this is not a freely arrived at Constitution, gladly and serenely accepted by all the people of Canada, that it is less than that. That type of criticism can be damaging to our country.
There is also the difficulty of achieving further constitutional evolution. We can talk about reforming the Senate, about establishing Indian self-government and about any change, any development in the Constitution such as bringing in new provinces. None of these measures which are on the Constitutional agenda for the future, the changing of powers, the reform of some of our federal institutions, can be achieved well without Quebec's participation.
It is interesting to note the ironic fact that without Quebec's participation in the Constitution, my own Province of Ontario has a veto. How satisfactory is it to the rest of Canada that one province has a veto when provincial constitutional conferences are held and amendments are proposed? The reason is that to approve an amendment under the present Constitution, seven provinces covering 50 per cent of the population have to agree. If all of the other provinces which attend such a conference agree and Ontario disagrees, the amendment cannot be adopted. Therefore, this unfinished business is not simply a matter of an elegant repatriation of a Constitution. It is not simply a wish or hope that the Constitution be accepted and understood in all parts of the country. It is a serious constitutional defect that Quebec not be part of it, and for all of our
May 11, 1987

joy in 1982 in bringing the Constitution forward, there is still unfinished business which must be attended to and which 1 think must be attended to soon. Not only do I feel that way but all of the Premiers, the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Province of Quebec, agreed that the top priority would be to correct that piece of unfinished business.
The Liberal Party, the main architect of the 1982 Constitutional Accord, made its own attempts within the Party, which culminated in success last November, at arriving at a formula which, in the opinion of our Party-and it was a strongly held opinion-should be the basis for the next stage of evolution of the Constitution, the stage of bringing Quebec on board.
When I look at the Meech Lake Accord and the agreements actually reached by the Government and the provinces, I see it is different from the resolution of the Liberal Party in its convention last November. I feel that it is something of an evolution in the idea of federalism, that it re-enforces the provinces and their powers in a way which goes beyond the resolution which our Party arrived at last November.
I can say I have no dilemma in deciding if it is more important to bring Quebec on board now or if Quebec should come on board under the terms of the Liberal Party's resolution of last November. For me, there is no dilemma; it is an easy matter to resolve. I think it is more important that the Government of Quebec come on board as approving the Constitution now. At the same time, I serve notice, as did my Leader, that we have an agenda for this Parliament and we will try in every way we can to ensure that when the final resolution is brought forward to bring Quebec on board into the constitutional arrangements, it contains some of the elements of our resolution, more than it does now, and that it deals with some of the problems which I intend to raise right now.
I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the only items which appear to have been considered were items raised by the provincial Governments: matters of reinforcing their own authority, of ensuring that the Constitution provided for provincial powers to be exercised and to evolve. Nothing was requested by the federal Government to reinforce the authority of the federal Government in any way at all.
It is fine to offer the provinces changes which make them more comfortable, but I ask the federal Government to put forward items also that would strengthen the federal Government's side of the equation.
After all, if we recognize that there are areas where the provincial Governments should have more authority, so we have always recognized that there are areas where the federal Government should have more authority: for example, strengthening the economic union of Canada.
In our resolution of last November, while recognizing the need of the provinces to evolve with more authority, we also
The Constitution
insisted that there be measures to strengthen the economic union of Canada.
There are barriers imposed by the provinces which prevent products from travelling, within an economic union, from one province to another, which prevent or inhibit workers from going from one part of Canada to another to find employment.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that, in an evolution toward a strengthening of provincial authority, there would also have been asked by the federal Government, in return, that there be some strengthening of the federal Government's power to achieve the goals which we all want our federal Government to be stronger in carrying out, such as developing the economic union of Canada; looking at questions of free trade with more authority than is currently the case under present constitutional arrangements.
As my Leader has already said, we would prefer to see a formula that would more easily permit the entry of Yukon and Northwest Territories into provincehood than that which will result from the arrangements proposed under the Accord.
I would like to have seen the federal Government recognize, as we did in our resolution of last November, what we call regional entitlements, meaning that when there is a federal program put forward in which a lot of federal money is spent, there ought to be some constitutional responsibility to be certain that that money is spent in a way that benefits all regions of Canada.
One can think of the CF-18 contract, something which was much in the news while we were dealing with our resolution of last November. We had a constitutional provision in our resolution which I think would have helped in that situation. It would have strengthened Canada by ensuring that benefits derived from federal government activities are shared, with some kind of entitlement, among the regions of Canada.
I want to turn now to some of the devolution of authority to the provincial Governments. In expressing my concerns in this regard, it is my hope that this devolution of authority will be addressed and dealt with between now and the time that the Accord becomes final.
My hope is that it will become final and that there will be an agreement bringing Quebec, comfortably, positively and approvingly, into the Constitution.
The opting-out provision is at least vague, and perhaps somewhat troublesome.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in his remarks today that if a medicare program came along, it would surely be adopted, in the same way that it was under the former constitutional arrangements. I have to question that, Mr. Speaker. I would hope so, and 1 would hope the language will make it clear; but, I remind the Prime Minister of Canada that when the medicare program was put forward, it was strongly objected to by the Province of Ontario.
The federal authority to spend in provincial areas is an important fact, and we, as representatives of an opposition

May
5972
The Constitution
Party in the House and the voice of federalism in Canada, would want to be certain that it not be unduly constrained. If, for example, we in this Parliament determine that there should be child care, that there should be a guaranteed annual income, we want to be certain that Canada will have the capacity to deliver that program to our constituents in all parts of the country.
I want to express some concerns about the resolution dealing with the distinct society. I do not want to be a nit-picker and argue about whether Quebec is a distinct society or a distinctive society. I do want to express my satisfaction that the bilingual nature of Quebec is recognized and the bilingual nature of Canada. As well, I want to indicate that we will be watching to ensure that minority language rights inside Quebec, and those outside Quebec, are not diminished by this constitutional package, that the anglophone minority in the Province of Quebec can be confident on the ground that the Constitution provides a measure of security in respect of their rights.
1 would think that if the Government of Quebec, representing both the anglophones and the francophones, can express concern in the larger Canadian community about the security of the francophones in Canada, it should also understand, as 1 believe it does, the legitimate need of the anglophone minority in the Province of Quebec also to feel secure. I should like to see some reciprocity in that respect. I should like to see the francophone minority in Manitoba and the francophone minority in Ontario also feel secure constitutionally.
I hope it is not too late for this very important issue, an issue which may be affected by the vague language before us today. I hope it is clarified, and clarified in such a way that it will provide a sense of security and a greater sense of harmony to the minority language communities in provinces where they exist in important numbers, such as Manitoba, Ontario, and the Province of Quebec.
In respect of the changes to the Supreme Court of Canada Act, I commented earlier today about what I see is an equivocation within the New Democratic Party in terms of where they stand on these changes. I should like to say where we stand on it, and that is that we recognize-

-that the Supreme Court of Canada has the responsibility at an important moment in our history to decide between the claims of the two levels of Government, that is between the federal and provincial jurisdictions. It can be said that the current situation where the federal Government assumes the full responsibility for appointing judges is rather strange. If a Court has to decide between two levels of Government, it is rather strange that just one level of Government should appoint its judges. So far, I feel, as most Canadians do, I believe, that our judges have been appointed in an exemplary fashion. We have had judges who have ruled with complete impartiality between the two levels of Government, but it is certainly-

I think it is a legitimate question to address: How can we pick judges in such a way that it does not look as if they only had the support, approval and legitimacy of the federal Government choosing them, which is the present arrangement? But to go the other way and turn it all over to the provinces, to say that only the provinces can put forward lists from which judges will be selected, does not solve the problem, to my mind.
I hope the federal Government will address the question of what happens in the event that the provincial list is not satisfactory to the federal Government. Do we then sit back, with vacancies on the court, until it becomes a political issue and is settled in an election? I do not think that that would be very satisfactory. I have expressed our concerns; I have raised the question.
Before the final version comes before us, it is my hope that the legitimate interests of the provincial and federal levels of Government will be recognized, and not in what seems to be quite a one-sided way as in the Agreement now before us.
Next, I should like to turn to the question of the Senate. Our Party is now on record, and we were last November, as favouring an elected Senate.
That does not take us to the proposal put forward-I understand without even being requested by the provinces-at the Meech Lake Conference, a proposal which gives the provinces the right to nominate for appointment to the Senate individuals from their respective regions. I tend to think of that as a Trojan horse. What can happen if these interim arrangements become permanent, as sometimes happens, is that eventually we could have Senators phoning for instructions to head office at their provincial government seat before deciding how they will vote or before voting. In a situation like that we could not only have another provision which limits the power of the federal Government to spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction, but we could also find our hands tied by provincial Governments in doing the things Parliament wants to do within its own areas of jurisdiction.
We could bring forward a Bill to introduce a new program totally within federal competence as an amendment to an existing statute, and we could find our hands tied by Senators phoning head office for their instructions.
I should like to ask that the Senate provision be examined as well. I think it could be improved. As I said, I have no commitment to the present Senate. Our caucus and our Party very strongly favour an evolution of the Senate, but I ask that it be an evolution that is federal and recognizes the regions without the injection of such a strong element of provincial control.
In my final moments I want to put forward two more thoughts. I think this package will benefit from parliamentary input. I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who is
May 11, 1987

listening, will reconsider the position he has taken on the resolution in its final form en route to the final constitutionalization, so that we have another opportunity to deal with it here. Whether it be a parliamentary committee, a joint committee, or a House committee, or whether it be some work on the resolution in the Department of Justice consulting with the provinces, I hope we come back with something more precise and something that reflects the concerns which have been expressed in this place. I hope he will reconsider and not simply bring us back something to rubber-stamp.

It is not enough for the Parliament of Canada to be asked to agree, without being really entitled to make suggestions and comments in this House.

I do not want to take away from the achievement which is before us. We could not have sat back from 1982 with an offer on the table and have said: "This is it; take it or leave it". That is not the way to build a country. We in the Liberal Party have evolved. We have indicated that we are prepared to look at the positions being taken by Quebec, by a federalist Premier in the person of Robert Bourassa. In the short time he has been in government, he has already indicated a very open spirit, not only toward constitutional reform in his attitude toward the "notwithstanding" clause compared, for example, with the position taken by his predecessor, but toward the legitimate concerns of the anglophone community in Quebec.
We much appreciate what is happening. We are not wedded or welded to a particular form of federalism. We want a strong central Government to speak strongly for the Canadian people. However, we recognize also that negotiation has occurred and that negotiation will continue. We ask the Government, in this negotiation, to take account of the remarks we have made in this place, and to look at the firm and detailed position which the Liberal Party of Canada put forward in its convention last November.
We hope, when the final resolution comes out and it is before us, that it will be possible for us to vote for it. I, for my part, cannot give such a commitment now because of the questions I have raised and because I want to encourage some change between now and the final vote. However, I hope we will have a package, when the process comes to a conclusion, that the Official Opposition will be able to approve.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the Senate, the Hon. Member who has just spoken indicated that the position of his Party now is to have an elected Senate. Of course he is as aware as I am of the problems that there will be with Senate reform under the new arrangements. In particular, members of my Party would like to see the Senate simply abolished, at least in its present form, because we do not feel that it contributes a great deal to Canadian life, except to keep on reminding us about the 19th century as we move into the 21st.
The Constitution
Is the position for an elected Senate a Party position and, therefore, is his Party also in favour of the Triple E proposal which would have the number of Senators from Quebec the same as the number of Senators from Alberta? Is that now the position of his Party?
Could he perhaps explain why it is that his Party failed to take any effective action to try to reform the Senate during the 20-odd years it was in power from 1963 to 1984?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Canadian could accuse the Liberal Party of Canada of not trying to achieve constitutional evolution. We are accused of being obsessed by constitutional evolution rather than of not doing anything on the Constitution.
I would hope that the NDP would wake up and realize that there is a role for the Senate in Canada. The position which it has taken that the Senate should be abolished is out of tune with what Canadians want, particularly Canadians in western Canada who have spoken so strongly on the Senate.
With regard to the specific provision, we want an elected Senate. I recall discussions within our Party and within our Cabinet as we tried to move toward reform of the Senate. I remember the difficulties we had.
I do not mean to suggest, in my criticism of the interim solution the Government has come up with, that it is an easy problem to solve. We are open to an elected Senate. We are open to a Senate which will be effective. Certainly we are open to changing the present Senate, of which we are as critical as any Party in the House or any other Canadian.
I only want to emphasize the point that I think the interim arrangement has something going for it which might make it permanent. If it becomes permanent, it will be very regrettable because it will diminish the authority of the Parliament of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of a few statistics I was able to pick up during the Hon. Member's speech, namely that a Special Joint Committee of the Senate was established by this House, with the Senate's concurrence, in 1980. It held sittings from October 6 to October 23, 1980. There were 11 days of debate in this House, for a total of 36 hours, 54 minutes. In comittee, 103 sittings, for 270 hours. 1 would also remind the House that, once the resolution was tabled in this House, there were from April 2 to April 23 a further 22 days of debate totalling 72 hours and 10 minutes. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member could tell me whether, in his comments, he proposed the establishment of a committee. Is he looking at a committee of this House only or a joint a further House and Senate Committee, since the Senate is seriously involved in that matter?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I believe that present Senators have much to offer in a discussion on the future of our Constitution, and I would be very much in support of Senate involvement. But I would be ready

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
to commend the Governement if they were giving us more than they are proposing right on, that is, I would be happy to have a committee of this Elouse. I would be happy to have a Senate committee, or a joint committee. The important thing to me is that we give ourselves and concerned Canadians an opportunity to come up and discuss more in-depth our Constitution's future and the implications of the Meech Lake proposal, proposal.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Lion. Member. He has expressed the support of the Liberal Party for an elected Senate and for the Triple E proposal, if I heard him correctly.
I do not know how, if every province has the right of veto, provinces like Ontario and Quebec could agree that the smaller provinces should have an equal number of Senators. However, I would really like to ask him the following question.
How does he or his Party see the power of the new Senate? The present Senate, at least theoretically, has almost equal power to the House of Commons, a power which it does not use. How does the Hon. Member see the power and responsibility of a new elected Senate?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pretend that Senate reform has been a particular obsession of mine. I do not have the answers to those questions. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have studied the problems that arise when the administration, the executive, is accountable to two Chambers which each have their own election process. That is the situation in Australia. 1 know the Australian system quite well and I know the problems. I think it has some advantages, but I am not prepared for myself to disclaim or reject any of the possibilities of the Triple E proposal. I would like to consider it, and I know our Party would like to consider it. We hope that such an opportunity for consideration will be available within the parameters of the debate that the Government will allow to Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The time allotted for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie).


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of satisfaction and pride that I rise to participate in today's debate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all the Premiers deserve our thanks and praise for reaching an agreement that should allow Quebec to return to the constitutional fold.
This is a special moment in our history. The Prime Minister, in particular, is to be applauded for his statesmanship and vision. On May 1, when the Prime Minister reported to this House on the Meech Lake Agreement, he said that it:
-enhances the confederation bargain and strengthens-the federal nature of
Canada.
I fully agree, Mr. Speaker.
What is especially noteworthy about the First Ministers' achievement at Meech Lake is that it is the culmination of past efforts by the Progressive Conservative Party to improve the climate of federal-provincial relations and to enhance the legitimacy of federal institutions. All these reforms-an entrenched First Ministers' Conference on the economy, provincial participation in Supreme Court appointments, and a role for the provinces in Senate appointments-can be traced to commitments by our Party and this Government.
1 look back with pride on the record of our Party in this area. In September, 1977, for example, the federal Leader and the Premiers of Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick and Newfoundland signed the Kingston statement. Among the principles enunciated in that document were the following:
-federal spending power must be brought within constitutional bounds-by specifying in the Constitution that no federal spending shall take place within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the agreement of the province or provinces directly affected;
A commitment to annual consultation among First Ministers on economic and fiscal policies and goals;
To assure the federal nature of certain Canadian institutions, provincial Governments should be closely and formally involved in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and a proportion of those to the Senate.
The Kingston statement was followed by a policy paper in 1978 by the Progressive Conservative Party, entitled The Constitution and National Unity. In that document, this Party stressed:
The need to accommodate regional diversity in Canada through two significant changes: firstly, through direct provincial participation in national institutions and agencies, principally by reform of the Senate . . . and secondly through formal recognition that a federal system requires regular public consultation among responsible Governments, through federal-provincial conferences.
The Government's record on the Quebec constitutional issue is clear. Even before 1984, the Prime Minister and members of this Government were committed to bringing Quebec back into the constitutional family. At Sept-Iles in 1984, the soon-to-be elected Prime Minister set this important objective for a Progressive Conservative Government.
Over the years, the commitment of this Party and this Government has been aimed at improving the climate of federal-provincial relations and ensuring that federal institutions fully reflect the interests of all parts of Canada. It is a commitment to harmony in diversity, to co-operation rather than confrontation, to national renewal and national reconciliation.
From Kingston in 1977, to Sept-Iles in 1984, and to Meech Lake in 1987, our Party has remained consistent in its objectives and steadfast in its ideals. This is, indeed, a memorable occasion.
As Canada contemplates a bilateral trade agreement of historic proportions with the United States of America, the fundamental unity of our nation in a constitutional accord is an important achievement. It is important, too, as an act of
May 11, 1987

national reconciliation as Canadians work to improve their standard of living and quality of life.
The provinces, like the federal Government, would now have a veto power over a limited range of constitutional changes affecting Parliament, the Supreme Court, the creation of new provinces or the extension of present provinces into the Territories. These institutions belong to the Canadian people and are the basic national elements of our Confederation. It seems only fair that they should not be altered without the agreement and concurrence of all the partners to our Confederation.
Through the conciliatory genius of the Prime Minister, and the goodwill of all the First Ministers of the provinces, there is an explicit recognition that French Canada is not confined to Quebec, nor is English Canada confined to the other provinces. While recognizing the reality of the distinctive nature of Quebec, all 11 Governments are committed to the protection of the country's two language communities.
Under this Accord, the federal Government will have to provide reasonable cash compensation to any province that opts out or does not participate in the future cost shared program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is important in considering this concept that we bear in mind that we are talking about an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction which may be part of a national scheme in which a provincial Government may not wish to participate. The exclusivity of the provincial jurisdiction, in my view, justified the willingness and desirability of the federal Government to be bound by rules of behaviour in someone else's house.
Under these circumstances, the federal Government will provide reasonable cash compensation if the opting out province undertakes initiatives or programs of its own that are compatible with national objectives.
A quick look at our Canadian history suggests to us that some of our greatest landmarks in social legislation were accomplished before the Constitution was amended in 1982 and when each province felt it had a veto power, not just over the limited range mentioned in the present Accord, but over every federal program which invaded provincial jurisdiction. Despite this, an important amendment was won, passed in England, which resulted in unemployment insurance. Our health care system, which is a model to the whole world, was put in place composed of hospital care and medicare during the same period.
It might well be argued that the Government closest to the people, the provincial authority, is best qualified to administer a national program and tailor it to the particular needs of Canadians who reside within the provincial jurisdiction. I think it can be argued that this is preferable to rigid uniformity.
All of our great national programs have come into being because there was a national consensus that the Canadian people wanted them put in place. Consultation and cooperation between federal and provincial had always resulted in better laws better administered.
The Constitution
I suggest that it is preferable in federal programs to spell out goals and objectives clearly with the specific means and details being worked out with reference to the particular characteristics that exist in the regions of Canada. For example, the design of a daycare system in our only bilingual Province of New Brunswick must surely be different from the design of a daycare system in Metropolitan Toronto, Vancouver or Whitehorse.
From 1950 to 1975, Canada experienced the greatest period of expansion and development in its history. Canada stands today at the apex of its power and influence, having witnessed in the third quarter of this century some tremendous milestones in human achievement.
We have today the lowest infant mortality rate in our history, more young Canadians in post-secondary educational institutions than ever before, and a life-span that has been extended by 10 years. These achievements are in great measure the result of milestones of social legislation which have been put in place by the will of the Canadian people and the good faith of our leaders, both federal and provincial.
The reality is that following the economic reversals of the mid-1970s, the federal Government has not been able to achieve any major redistribution of wealth without the cooperation and assistance of the provinces. There is, however, much that the federal Government can do and will do to improve the standard of living of Canadians, particularly those who live below the poverty line. However, there is much more that the Government of Canada can do in step with the provinces.
Even though the federal Government spends billions of dollars annually on programs under provincial jurisdiction such as those funded by Established Programs Financing, many legal authorities looked upon this as a move into the grey area of constitutional concern. Parliamentarians may recall the court challenges arising from the federal Government Bill in 1983 that withheld medicare funds from provinces that allowed extra billing or hospital user-fees. The Meech Lake Accord does much to clarify this point.
Prime Minister Diefenbaker was the champion of the underdog and put his indelible mark on Canadian history with a Bill of Rights. Prime Minister Trudeau, by indomitable will and force of intellect, gave Canada a new Constitution. The present Prime Minister, by tireless diplomacy, has completed the act of Confederation and has established a strong and unified Constitution that is evolving and developing and serving the reality of Canada.
This Accord demonstrates once again that when the chips are down, Canadian leaders put Canada first. Our young nation now marches forward into the 21st century, a century that will belong to Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Questions? Debate.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the 10 Premiers for the unanimous agreement reached at Meech Lake.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec would be part of the Canadian family as far as the Constitution of Canada is concerned. And as the Prime Minister stated this morning, seven years ago Quebec said yes to Canada, and now it is time for Canada to say yes to Quebec.

We now have an agreement which is very important in bringing Quebec into this constitutional family of Canada. I believe Canadians outside of Quebec, through their various provincial Premiers, have shown a great openness to Quebec, particularly when they have talked about Quebec being a distinct and different society. They made a considerable move toward bringing Quebec into the Constitution. I now invite Quebec to show the same kind of leadership in trying to bring about solutions to some of the other constitutional problems that face other parts of the country, and I particularly invite Quebec and the other provinces to show the same kind of leadership in bringing our native Indian people into the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic in that perhaps the process of change to our Canadian Constitution started on November 15, 1976, with the election to Government of the Parti Quebecois and Premier Rene Levesque in Quebec. That election was followed by a referendum in Quebec three years and a half later, on May 20, 1980.

After that referendum, we had a debate in the House and across the country about patriating the Canadian Constitution. We went from that step to what is before us today in the Meech Lake Agreement.
The Constitution of Canada is the fundamental law of this country. It is the foundation on which all other laws are based. The Constitution does not belong to the Governments, to the politicians or to the bureaucrats. The Constitution belongs to the people of Canada.
Today I reaffirm my belief in federalism. It is federalism that makes this country work. In particular, I reaffirm my belief in a system of co-operative federalism, the only way in which a country as diverse as Canada can work at all.
There are two orders of Government in this country and there must continue to be two orders of Government. On the one hand, it is very important to have a strong and central federal Government and we need that strong and central federal Government to equalize things between the various regions and, as much as possible, between the various people of the country, whether they come from a wealthy part or a poorer part of Canada. On the other hand, in addition to a
strong and central federal Government, we need strong provincial Governments with their own jurisdictions because of the differing realities in each province and region. Those two orders of Government must be equal partners if Canada is to have a national dream and a national vision toward which we all must work.
I suppose I can say that federalism means both uniting the country and decentralizing it at the same time. To me, federalism means a compromise between a unitary system such as those that exist in Britain or in France on the one hand and independent, sovereign states on the other. Federalism is a compromise. Federalism is co-operation. I think it is very important that we see it in that way.
In addition to that, federalism is more than just co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces and the various other Governments. Federalism is about the two founding peoples who many years ago founded this great country, the English and the French. It is also about the prefounding people, the native people. There are many different Indian nations that were here a long time before our predecessors came from Europe and other parts of the world.
In addition to that, federalism is about the various cultures that exist in Canada. I suppose you can tell by my name, Mr. Speaker, that I come from neither an anglophone nor a francophone background but that I come from a third group of countries that is neither British nor French.
Our differences should unite us, they should not divide us. It should be the differences that make this country flourish. We all benefit from the fact that we are not one great, gigantic melting pot. In fact, one of the big differences between Canada and the United States is that the United States tends to be very much of a melting pot.
A person from my riding named Alex Kuziak was the first Canadian of Ukrainian ancestry to ever be appointed to a Cabinet anywhere in Canada. He was appointed to the Cabinet of Saskatchewan by Tommy Douglas back in 1948. In 1969, a year after I came to Parliament as a Member, we were debating the Official Languages Act. There was much uncertainty in parts of Canada. It was felt that perhaps too many rights were being given to French-speaking Canadians and it was wondered if there should be equality of languages and if Quebec was getting too much power. I recall Mr. Kuziak rising in a meeting held in Yorkton to say that the one reason there is more tolerance of minority languages, customs and cultures in Canada is the very fact that we do have two big language groups, the French and the English. Because of that, he said, we are also more tolerant of others. That is one of the things that makes this country different from the United States of America.
To begin with, Canada is in some ways very difficult to keep together. We defy geography and the natural north-south trading patterns. We also sit right next door to the most powerful nation in the world and we must protect our sovereignty, culture and economy. Those things make it very
May 11, 1987

difficult to begin with. That is why it is very important that all Canadians pull together to try to form national goals and objectives.
In the few minutes that remain I want to comment specifically on parts of the resolution before us. With regard to Quebec and a distinct society-

-I would like to say yes to the particular society of Quebec, to that distinct society. I have long said that Quebec is different and that the fact has to be recognized in the Constitution. I enthusiastically support this proposition of the 11 First Ministers.
I also want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec ... It is not only the fact that Quebec is unique and distinct, but also that it is the main cultural centre for all French-speaking Canadians.

I also want to say that even though I very deeply respect the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), I think his point of view with respect to Quebec and a distinct society is a point of view of yesterday. It is an idea of yesterday. It is a vision of yesterday. I do not think that is the way Canadians want to go today.
I want to comment about the regrettable fact that our native people are not part of this constitutional Accord at Meech Lake. I know the Prime Minister has had conferences on this issue. I know he and several Premiers have supported enshrining more aboriginal rights in the Constitution. I support him. 1 would just say it is very unfortunate and regrettable that the people who were here before all of us are not part of the constitutional family when we seek to bring Quebec into the Constitution. I say very clearly that I am not proud of the Premier of my province, Mr. Devine, because he did not agree to the enshrinement of Indian self-government in the Constitution. I am not proud of Premier Don Getty of Alberta or Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia for not agreeing to enshrine more Indian rights in the Constitution of Canada. We should be expressing our feelings to those three Premiers who were the main stumbling blocks to doing just that a few weeks ago. My understanding is that the other Premiers and the Prime Minister were ready to move but the three Premiers from the westernmost provinces said no, no, no, and I believe that is wrong.

Another aspect, Mr. Speaker, is immigration. I agree with the Meech Lake Agreement as far as the question of immigration is concerned. It enshrines in the Constitution more rights for Quebec in that field. The Government of Canada can also negociate with a province an immigration agreement.
The Constitution

Another point concerns the Senate. Under the Meech Lake Agreement there is talk about the provinces having more input on the appointment of Senators. There is a commitment to enshrine in the Constitution discussions on Senate reform. I believe that the Senate as it exists today should be abolished. It is nothing but a house of patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not think there is any place in the 20th century for an unelected legislative body.


Mr. Benjamin:: There was not in the 19th century either.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not in the 19th century either. Our Party remains open to replacing the Senate with some other institution if it is abolished. I speak only for myself but I certainly remain very open to the possibility of having the Senate in some way reflect the regions in its representation. For example, there might be an equal number of Senators from each province. We have to make sure the Senate is elected.
Another point I am concerned about concerns spending power. This is something a number of us are concerned about. We believe we need to have on the one hand a strong federal Government that can implement national programs like medicare, unemployment insurance and family allowances, and on the other hand, we need to have enough flexibility so that the provinces can represent their own reality and recognize the diversity of this country. I am by no means a constitutional lawyer or expert, but I want to raise a concern about the drafting of the section which deals with spending power. It says that the provinces can undertake their own initiatives or programs with compatible national objectives. After hearing a number of commentaries I am not sure whether the word "compatible" is strong enough to protect the national interest. Perhaps instead of "compatible" we should be looking at "equivalent" provincial programs. There should be minimum standards that must be met. If not, there would be no compensation.
Coming from Saskatchewan I well remember the medicare fight when Woodrow Lloyd was the Premier and the big fight was over establishing medical care in 1962. I remember the tremendous opposition to medicare. The vested interests fought very hard against it. A little bit later on I remember the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall on this question and the debate when Prime Minister Pearson was in office. Tommy Douglas was the Leader of this Party. John Diefenbaker was the Leader of the Conservative Party. I remember how close we came to not getting national medicare. I am really concerned that we do not enshrine in the Constitution wording which would be so interpreted by the courts as to make it impossible to get those kinds of national programs in the future.
I note that the former Liberal Minister of Finance, Don Macdonald, said he thought we could still obtain national

May 11, 1987
The Constitution
programs with this kind of wording but they would be marginally more difficult. I think we should clarify the wording so that we have national programs with the same standards across the country. If not, you run the danger of having a much better program in Ontario, which is wealthy, than in Newfoundland, which is poor. We could have a much better program in British Columbia or Alberta if the western economy picks up again than we have, for example, in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island because they are much smaller and much poorer. I appeal to the Prime Minister to try to get an agreement to entrench wording which would protect the national interest.
I want to comment on the creation of new provinces. This is one part of the Agreement I do not agree with at all. I do not know why the rules should be different for the creation of new provinces in the Northwest Territories or Yukon than they were when Saskatchewan, Alberta and other provinces were created. In the past there was an agreement between the province concerned and the federal Government. The province came into the federation, and that was it. If the First Ministers are not willing to continue with that as a fall back, as my Leader said today, we certainly accept the existing amending formula where seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and the Parliament of Canada have to agree. In that way one or two provinces cannot veto Yukon becoming a province. I am not sure if Mr. Vander Zalm, for example, would agree to Yukon becoming a province. I think the existing amending formula would be much fairer for Yukon. I once again appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to look very seriously at that idea.
I am also concerned about the unanimity rule as it concerns national institutions, and I am particularly concerned when it comes to the Senate. I recognize the special problems of Quebec with respect to protecting the French language and culture. However, I am concerned about whether or not we have created a bit of a strait-jacket here for Senate reform. Under the present rules, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta get six Senators, but New Brunswick and Nova Scotia get 10 apiece. We are now going to have a system where the Premiers recommend potential Senators and the federal Government must pick someone from the list acceptable to it. I am not sure whether Richard Hatfield or another Premier of New Brunswick, or the Premier of Nova Scotia, want to give up that power and that number of Senators. I am just not sure those Premiers would be more interested in doing that now than they were three or four weeks ago. I am not sure whether David Peterson of Ontario would like to give up this new-found power of recommending 20 or 24 people as Senators. If that does not happen there will be great discrimination because Saskatchewan and British Columbia have only six Senators each while Ontario and Quebec have 20 or 24 apiece. That is a major problem.
I know other Members would like to say a few words before six o'clock. I will, therefore, conclude by saying that we have,
in general, a good agreement in principle. I am concerned about a number of the details, particularly the spending power. I am concerned about the amending formula as it pertains to the creation of new provinces. I am very concerned that the Indian people did not have more rights enshrined in the Constitution. I appeal to the Premier of my province, the Premiers of the other provinces, and the Prime Minister of Canada to do whatever they can to make this a better deal for the country.
I agree that we have a tremendous future and a great country. When we fully patriate the Constitution of Canada we can start working on some of the very serious economic problems, patriate the economy of Canada, and create an economy within which we can wipe out poverty for every Canadian.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), referred to the position taken by our friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount. He said that he believed that position was outdated in 1987. I agree with that statement. As a neighbour of my good friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount I must say that in my opinion he has exaggerated the possible negative interpretations of the Accord. In any case, I think he was premature in his remarks.
When the Liberal Party passed its resolution in November of 1986 it said that a preamble should be added to the Constitution of Canada to recognize the linguistic duality of Canada and the distinctive character of Quebec as the principal but not exclusive source of the French language and culture of Canada. It seems to me that that is not too far from what we have in the Accord. As we have all said, we will want to see the final wording.
I know my friend has a deep interest in the rights of minorities and he has already referred to native people. Section (1) of the Accord states that:
The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with a) the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canada, centred in but not limited to Quebec, and English-speaking Canada, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
Section (2) says:
Parliament and the provincial legislatures-are committed to preserving the
fundamental characteristics of Canada-
Would the Hon. Member not agree with me that that provides adequate protection to the linguistic minorities of the country? It appears to me that it does, and I am one who voted against the agreement in 1982. What is the Hon. Member's opinion on that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think there is adequate protection for the linguistic minorities. There is reference in the constitutional agreement In the first section with regard to the distinct society, "the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canada, centred in but not limited to Quebec, and English-speaking Canada, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec". It also refers to the role
May 11, 1987

of the National Assembly in Quebec in terms of achieving this distinctiveness. It refers, in addition, to legislatures outside of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada.
I would also remind my friend, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) of Section 23 of the Canada Act which talks about minority languages and education rights within those minority languages. It says that all provinces must provide education in the minority language where numbers warrant. Therefore, I think we are covered pretty well in terms of protecting minority language rights.
As more of an opinion than a fact I would say that one way of protecting the French language from coast-to-coast is to ensure that there is very strong protection of it in Quebec. The French language is a minority language in this country and an even smaller minority in North America. We can protect the French language across Canada by protecting it very solidly in Quebec, ensuring that it is not eroded there. If it is solidly protected there, that can help it flourish right across the country.
The English language is very well protected because it is the most important language in the world today. It is the majority language in North America as it is in this country. One way to protect minority rights is to ensure that we have two secure linguistic bases. If people do not feel insecure about that, both can flourish on each other's turf, so to speak.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) as well as to those who preceded him, particularly his Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). 1 was very impressed by the clear indication of support which both Leaders have offered with respect to the resolution currently before the House.
With that in mind, would the Hon. Member, on behalf of his Party, be agreeable, in light of the unanimity which seems to prevail, to have this motion deemed adopted, as was the case when we dealt with the Manitoba French-language resolution a few years ago which was sponsored by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)? I think it is in the interest of all Members of the House to have a clear indication from the House. I sense that there is unanimity and ask whether we might consider, before concluding the debate at six o'clock, to agree to have the motion deemed as adopted by the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) wants, and I think it is fair from his point of view. However, those of us who were not direct participants in the constitutional debate at Meech Lake would first want to see the Final details of the Accord. I, along with others, have raised some questions about the spending power, whether or not there is a possibility of more Indian rights in the Constitution, and the amending formula as it pertains to the creation of new provinces. Therefore, we would like to see more details.
The Constitution
Second, I know that there are some other Members of Parliament who would not want to vote unless they had a chance to speak. Therefore, a one-day debate with a vote at six o'clock is not really fair.
The third and final point that I will make is with regard to the Manitoba case of a few years ago which the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned. I was here and supported that resolution. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that in the Manitoba case we had details about what was being debated because there was legislation in Manitoba. There were also court decisions on the Manitoba case and we, therefore, had a lot of information to look at. In other words, the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed. In this case we are debating a question in principle and want to see more details before we will be prepared to vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The time for questions having expired, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) for debate.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, usually there is a 10-minute period for questions and comments after each speech. It is my understanding that the 10 minute period would not end before 5.57 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is correct that there is a 10-minute period provided for. The 10 minutes have expired according to my clock.
I saw no other Members rising. I immediately proceeded to debate. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country of tolerance which is in the process of becoming united again with full respect for its differences.
Mr. Speaker, in the early 1980s I joined the team of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because 1 believed he could manage to create a new climate of harmony in Canada and make Canadians regain their aspirations for genuine federalism. I believed he would be able to put an end to the sterile squabbles among the various regions of the country.

I believe that such a change could create a new relationship between Canadians, a more creative, tolerant and generous relationship between Canadians.

May 11, 1987
The Constitution

Finally I believed that the new climate might bring us to the day when Quebec would regain its place within Canada's constitutional forums. All those who, like myself, responded to the Prime Minister's appeal also believed in this change. Men and women in Quebec put their faith in us because they were convinced we would succeed in making this great change. This faith in the possibility of changing things has never been a blind faith. The man who is now Prime Minister then made a firm commitment to Quebec.
As he said in August 1984, all Quebecers love Quebec and are proud of Canada, but they also love Canada and are proud of Quebec. Their heart is big enough for both allegiances. He said that Canada offers plenty of room for the affirmation of all identities, the respect for all aspirations, and the quest for all ideals.
To heal the wounds of 1982, for wounds had indeed been inflicted to Quebec, he had solemnly pledged to do everything possible to convince the National Assembly to accept the new Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. Well, on April 30, something extraordinary happened, because his commitment to Quebec was not restricted to a single election campaign, or a vague promise to win over part of the nationalist electorate. This commitment is part of his vision of Canada and Canadians based on fairness, equity and generosity.
The Prime Minister has always appealed to the noblest and highest values held by Canadian men and women to defend the rights of minorities, linguistic and otherwise, and to defend the people and the regions of our country. He has always believed that it is through respect for our differences that we shall find new strength to stay together.
It is with enthusiasm that I came to Ottawa to defend the interests, first of Quebec, and also of the rest of Canada, but I came also because our new Prime Minister had promised us to do everything to restore Quebec to its rightful place within Confederation.
Today, Mr. Speaker, this major task is well on its way towards accomplishment.

The Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Quebec, along with the other Premiers have agreed in principle, which will permit the Province of Quebec to join the constitutional family and permit Quebecers to be true Canadians.

This is indeed important: To be a true French Canadian, it is necessary, in my opinion, for me to be a Canadian.

I am also proud of what has been accomplished at Meech Lake. It is not to be perceived as being a gesture of favour to Quebec, because it was a gesture of favour to all provinces.
They have also agreed to include in the Constitution an aspect of utmost importance to our national identity.

The Constitutional Act of 1982 was to a great extent a description of the characteristics which make Canada unique. Yet, there was no mention anywhere in the Constitution of Quebec's distinct society or the existence in Canada of francophone and anglophone communities.
In the absence of these two basic realities, how was our commitment to linguistic minority rights to be interpreted? How else were we to show respect for Quebecers' desire to affirm themselves proudly as full partners in our national design, as partners equal but different through their history and institutions? I suggest that the Prime Minister was well aware that there was an important gap to be filled, and he appealed to the open mind and generosity of his counterparts to ensure a successful conclusion to the Meech Lake exercise. This was a necessary gamble, because solving this problem did not depend entirely on the Government of Canada, but also on the Governments of Quebec and the other provinces.
All the provinces, therefore, had to participate in the development of a new Constitutional consensus which would take into account the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers, but also the basic interests of all other Canadians. The Prime Minister felt also that, to be fair, any agreement would have to take place within the context of a true federalism. The support of all Governments was necessary, the opinion of each had to be taken into account. The country had suffered enough from partisan agreements, behind-the-scene maneuvers, deals negotiated with no real consensus.

All Premiers were aware of the damages that would result from another failure. No one placed himself into an irrevocable position. Quebec was also just and generous. When it asked that its distinct character be recognized, it did not do so with a desire for isolation. It could have, but it did not. On the contrary, Quebec insisted that its specificity be recognized for a broader reality: one of existence of a francophone Canada, concentrated and not limited to Quebec, and one of an anglophone Canada, concentrated in the rest of the country but present in Quebec.

That is the essence of the agreement, is it not? The recognition of the existence of French-speaking Canada centred in but not limited to Quebec, and that of English-speaking Canada concentrated in the rest of the country but also highly present in Quebec.
Therefore, the First Ministers agreed to enshrine this fundamental characteristic of the federation into the Constitution. That simple recognition has already allowed Quebecers to stand proud, and that is what we achieved on the evening of April 30, to the surprise of everyone.
May 11, 1987

However, the Lake Meech Agreement is more than that. The First Ministers recognized the importance of our two main language communities for our national identity. It is perhaps because they sensed the delicate balance that they committed themselves to protect that reality.
In the future, the Constitution shall necessarily be interpreted with due regard for the existence of our two linguistic communities and for the fact that Quebec constitutes a distinct society. This is what is fundamental and this is what is important to us.
This agreement, Mr. Speaker, is therefore a victory for all members of official language minorities in Canada. It grants recognition to the two main communities and to their existence in every region of the country, and this is in tune with the
The Constitution
reality of Canada and the aspirations of Canadians. I am proud to see, Mr. Speaker, that our Prime Minister and our Premiers have chosen first and foremost to be statesmen rather than power hungry petty politicians: this is fundamental. So I say today that I am proud of you, Brian Mulroney, as a Quebecer, which you are, but also as a Canadian, which you are as well for all of us: I am very proud of you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 12, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers