1987-09-29

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will recall that several months ago, there was some discussion about altering the form of Routine Proceedings by eliminating the necessity under Motions and Bills of reading an endless list of Hon. Members' names, only to say after each name that the matter would stand. It seemed to be the disposition of the House that we try to eliminate that. As a consequence, the Chair has given consideration to the matter and I will read a statement which will perhaps meet the suggestions of Hon. Members. We could try this at least until the turn of the year.
On June 25, 1987, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) raised a point of order regarding the amount of time spent reading aloud individual items during Routine Proceedings. Specifically, he mentioned the large number of Members whose Notices of Motions are listed on the Order Paper. The same comment would apply to the introduction and first reading of Bills.
The Hon. Member suggested that the Chair not read a lengthy list but rather say something to the effect of: "Shall all the motions shown on today's Order Paper stand?" The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader supported the suggestion and the Chair undertook to examine the possibility of streamlining the proceedings.
After examination of past practice and the Business of the House as listed on the Order Paper and after consultation with the three Parties, 1 am prepared to offer the following proposal which will be reviewed after the Christmas recess.
The Chair will announce each heading under Daily Routine of Business. Members wishing to be recognized will, as is customary, rise in their places. After reading the heading Introduction of Government Bills, Introduction of Private Members' Bills and Motions, the Chair will no longer call each
Minister or Member whose item of business is listed on the Order Paper under those headings. Rather, the Speaker will simply announce those types of business and be prepared to recognize those Members if they rise. This should provide sufficient opportunity for Members to bring their business forward.

In order to ensure the effectiveness of this procedure, I should like to suggest to the Hon. Members that it is always useful to notify in advance one of the Table Clerks of the time they intend to move their motions or introduce their Bills during Routine Proceedings.
I wish to thank all Hon. Members for their helpful suggestions and I hope that this proposal reflects the over-all attitude of the House in its eagerness to operate more effectively.
[DOT] (ino)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources entitled "Oil Scarcity or Security?" in both official languages, to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
The committee initiated this study of future oil availability in Canada to dispel the complacency brought about by global oil over-supply and depressed petroleum prices. As the supply of conventional light oil declines in the Western Hemisphere, oil importing nations will turn to the Persian Gulf. Canada must increase its supply of all grades of oil to remain selfsufficient. The committee makes 12 recommendations and believes Government should not intervene in the day-to-day workings of the market-place but come forward with a longterm planning policy to ensure stability in the future.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

September 29, 1987
Petitions


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to meet a commitment which I made to a group of my constituents who were visiting the Byward Market in my riding, to present a petition which complies with Standing Order 106 and which reads as follows:
Whereas, since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 24 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal has studied the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
And whereas food constitutes a vital element of day-to-day life and imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers, such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low and middle income taxpayers, and youth;
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen constituents in the Communities of Thessalon, Bruce Mines and Desbarats calling on the Government to reverse the plan of Canada Post to eliminate thousands of Post Offices, reduce service, and even remove the identity of a number of communities.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in a series from my constituents concerning the Fermi II nuclear reactor in the U.S. just 10 miles from the Canadian border. This petition is signed by 256 Canadians from Amherstburg and Essex.
It stresses the tremendous dangers evident in the safety record of this particular nuclear plant and tremendous problems with its accident record. It forcefully calls on the Government to intervene to see to it that there is a neutral safety review, including both Canadians and Americans, before this reactor is permitted to operate at full capacity.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a duly-certified petition from a number of residents of various communities in my riding. The 180 petitioners express their concern that illegal immigrants
are now allowed to enter Canada. They ask that the Government remedy the situation by making boat people return to where they came from, forcing them to abide by our immigration laws.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by over 150 people from the Cities of Brantford, Hamilton and London, Ontario, New Westminster, British Columbia, Ottawa, Dalhousie, New Brunswick, indeed from across the country, who call upon Parliament to amend existing safety standards for rear seat-belts in passenger cars.
The petitioners believe rear seat-belts in passenger cars are at present inadequate and the cost of medical care for car crash victims can be reduced or eliminated. For those reasons the petitioners urge Parliament to institute mandatory installation of three point adjustable lap and shoulder seatbelts for rear seat passengers. They also ask for installation of front seat air bags.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I present two sets of petitions. The first is signed by residents of the Cities of Toronto, Scarborough, Burnaby, Vancouver, and Richmond. Essentially they request the Government to implement an accessible, fair and expeditious refugee determination system by deleting from Bill C-55 the reference to increased screening and the safe third country concept, and improving the Federal Court of Appeal mechanism.


Sergio Marchi: The second petition deals with the Meech Lake Accord and is signed by residents of Calgary, Etobicoke and North York. They ask the Government to amend the opening clause of the Constitution to recognize Canada's multicultural heritage as a fundamental characteristic of this country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 29, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I have two applications for emergency debates today. 1 will hear the Elon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the fourth day in a row that we have asked for an emergency debate on this very crucial item. I think we have come to your Honour's Chair as often as the Government has gone down to Washington, cap in hand, to try to get the talks reignited.
The Speaker's wisdom has been once again demonstrated. By waiting until today to have an emergency debate we have obviously caught the crescendo of the times at its absolute most important point. The Cabinet is assessing this morning whether or not the talks will continue or whether they will sell out the country, to use a phrase of my colleague.
We have not yet had an announcement from the Government. It may be that you in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, may want to defer a decision on this application until three o'clock in order to learn whether the Government is finally prepared to make a public statement in this House concerning its position on the free trade talks.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that I also have an application on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I will now hear the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that it is becoming a habit to put the argument to you that there is at present a tremendous need for an emergency debate. There are three points which make it essentially crucial.
First, there is a tremendous amount of information which the Government has not seen fit to give Canadians about the course of negotiations as they are occurring. We have not, for instance, received information which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) suggested was received yesterday. The letters which were exchanged over the weekend between the Governments have not been tabled. As a consequence, it is unclear what the key issues are with respect to the discussions which are presently taking place between the two sides.
1 am informed by my House Leader that due to the legislative agenda for this week it would be very difficult to find room for a Supply day on which to discuss this issue. I think, therefore, that both for the information needs of the country and for the potential of Members of Parliament to contribute to the decision-making process, there is a very strong case for an emergency debate at this stage.
Since I understand that the Cabinet is meeting this morning on the issue, I suggest that it might make sense if you, Mr. Speaker, were to defer your decision until three o'clock at which point we would have a sense of whether the Government has a statement to make.


Mr. Speaker:: In the interest of all Hon. Members and also in the interest of the public that is watching and listening, I emphasize again that while a matter may be of very great importance it may not, in the opinion of the Chair, be a matter which on any given day is appropriate for an emergency debate.
The public should know that there has been a series of applications by both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party each day asking for an emergency debate. The Chair has declined each day to order an emergency debate but on each day has stressed that the matter is of great importance.
There is generally an admonishment to the Speaker not to give reasons for decisions and I have refrained from doing that, although Hon. Members will know that what goes on in the Speaker's head probably has something to do with what the Speaker says. 1 would like to be able to say that of all Hon. Members.
The suggestion this morning is that I might defer both of these applications until later on this afternoon to see what may happen later today. I think the better practice would be for me, with great politeness and courtesy, to reject the applications at this time. As I have said repeatedly, that fact, of course, does not prevent anyone from making another application at another time.
I want to say one thing which I think may be helpful. The suggestion has been made that the Speaker has very generously agreed to review the Speaker's rulings on the emergency debate each day. For the record it should be noted that the Speaker is not reviewing past rulings. The Speaker is taking each application as it is made on each given day. I think that is proper procedure.
I point out again that although a matter may be very important it may not be appropriate, in the Speaker's view, to order an emergency debate. 1 want to make it very clear that the Speaker certainly views the matter as important. We will see what transpires.
Members will note that last week I suggested there might be some conversations among the Government, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party with regard to another way of having a debate. It is not for me to direct anyone in this House as to what they might do in speaking with each other. However, that may be something which could be considered.
In any event, that is the ruling for this morning. I thank Hon. Members for bringing the matter to my attention. I also want to thank both opposition representatives for their

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
patience in accepting with good grace the Speaker's rulings in these matters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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


SCHEDULE
[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures
or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
September 29, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
Constitution Amendment, 1987
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]
September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987 "Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its
powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the
Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act. 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties as to debate, and I would like to thank Hon. Members for the courtesy they extended earlier this day. The House will know that this is an important debate. There was a great deal of effort expended by the constitution committee during the summer. It went to great lengths to bring in a report. 1 would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is a report on which the efforts of Members from all Parties were very well expended on behalf of the House and the people of Canada.
For those reasons I would suggest that we deviate from Standing Order 55(1) to the extent that the Member replying on behalf of the New Democratic Party would be allowed the same opportunity to speak at length as the Minister and the Member replying for the Official Opposition.
If you would put that to the House, Mr. Speaker, I think you would find there would be consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, indeed, there have been consultations and we have agreed to that.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy and co-operation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and history that I rise today to propose the adoption of
the Meech Lake Accord. The adoption of the Accord will fulfil one of the fundamental commitments of this Government as outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his August, 1984, speech at Sept-Iles when he said:
There is room in Canada for all identities to be affirmed, for all aspirations to be respected, and for all ideals to be pursued. I know many young men and women in Quebec will not be satisfied with mere words.
We will have to make commitments and take concrete steps to reach the objective that l have set for myself and that I repeat here: To convince the Quebec National Assembly to give its consent to the new Canadian Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
This Government's commitment to national reconciliation results from a deeply held conviction that for the nation to fulfil its destiny, the Canadian family must be unified in a common understanding of shared values and aspirations.
This is the one hundred and twentieth year of Canada's Constitution. The passing years have witnessed the creation of a modern state which has proudly taken its place on the world stage. The dream of a nation spanning a continent, linking the Atlantic to the Pacific, the 49th Parallel to the North Pole, has become a reality.
If the result of that dream has been greater than our founders could have hoped or imagined, it is not for lack of challenges to our development or of those who would gainsay every tentative step forward. Our Constitution has not only withstood these challenges, it has grown and matured as has Canada. This is as it must be. A constitution must be a living document which encompasses and meets changing needs. Our Constitution has had the strength which comes from the flexibility and the vitality which comes from growth. The last 120 years have been marked by continuing refinements to our Constitution. The time has now come to take an additional but historic and important step.
While the 1982 Constitution Act was a significant achievement, it remained fundamentally flawed. To impose constitutional reform on any province and its citizens is to deny their rightful participation in Confederation and runs contrary to the spirit and history of constitutional development in this country. Canada is a partnership of its peoples and provinces, a partnership which can be willingly embraced but not imposed. This concept is understood and accepted by Canadians from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution provides the framework for the rights of all Canadians to participate and enjoy ready access. The Meech Lake Accord makes it better still by guaranteeing federal-provincial co-operation concerning shared-cost national programs as well as Senate and Supreme Court of Canada appointments. It acknowledges Canada's linguistic duality and Quebec's distinct character. The Accord provides for a future constitutional reform process by enshrining in the Constitution the holding of annual conferences of First Ministers to discuss economic and constitutional topics.
September 29, 1987

Perhaps more momentous still, however, it endorses the principle of the equality of the provinces by making their unanimous agreement a prerequisite to any further changes in our national institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that these revisions will make Canada even stronger.

I would like to take a moment to review the major provisions of the motion before us today. The interpretation provision formally acknowledges two basic realities of Canada that have long existed in both fact and law. The first is Canadian linguistic duality and the second is Quebec's distinct identity. There are five components included in the interpretation clause confirming Quebec's distinct society. It is a Quebec within Canada. It is a Quebec that includes French speaking and English speaking Canadians. The distinct society does not alter the constitutional division of powers, nor does it alter our multicultural heritage protected in Section 27 of the Charter and, finally, it does not impinge upon the rights and interests of our aboriginal peoples.
The concepts of Canadian linguistic duality and Quebec's distinct society are of course not new. However, the Meech Lake Accord recognizes and strengthens the interpretative influence of these concepts. The inclusion of this new interpretative provision does not override any of the Charter rights, including, of course, equality rights. As noted by more than one constitutional expert, it makes explicit in our Constitution what has until now been largely implicit.
The federal Government's commitment to negotiate agreements with provinces relating to immigration, or the temporary admission of aliens into a province, is of particular importance to Quebec because it will permit administrative arrangements dating back to 1971 and now embodied in the Cullen-Couture agreement to be given constitutional status, resulting in greater certainty and permanency.
As the joint committee noted, these agreements have had no serious adverse affects and will encourage greater federal provincial co-operation in this important area of concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, in the case of Quebec, this provision was not needed so much to alter the current arrangements as to protect them from arbitrary change or, indeed, termination. These provisions will facilitate the conclusion of federal-provincial agreements in which the legitimate interests of the provinces in matters of immigration and temporary admission of aliens can be assured without impairing the national interest.
The provisions expressly state that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to these agreements or anything done pursuant to them. As a result, immigrants who become permanent residents will continue to enjoy the right to take up residence and pursue their livelihoods in any part of our country.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The Supreme Court of Canada will be formally entrenched in the Constitution, a befitting status for our nation's ultimate judicial institution. Statutory features of the Accord that will be constitutionalized include the composition of the court with its nine judges and the guarantee of at least three members from Quebec's civil law system.
Future judicial appointments will continue to be made by the Governor General in Council. However, provinces will be given, for the first time, a formal role in the selection of judges who will compose our highest court, one which plays such a vital role in interpreting not only our Constitution but also important federal and provincial laws.
Pending a constitutional amendment that brings about fundamental reform of the Senate, the provincial Governments will also be given a direct role in the selection of candidates for appointment to that institution.
The changes to both the Supreme Court and the Senate recognize the importance of having the provinces play a role in choosing the members of these federal institutions. Both changes are reflective of this Government's commitment to a policy of national reconciliation and recognition of provincial interests in these institutions.
Another important feature of the Accord is that dealing with federal spending power. Pursuant to the Accord the federal Government will provide reasonable compensation to any provincial Government that chooses not to participate in new national shared-cost programs if the following conditions are met. The program must be new, co-financed by the federal and provincial Governments and operate in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction; and the province must carry on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
This does not restrict the use of the federal spending power, but will require greater co-operation between federal and provincial Governments in establishing future shared-cost programs. It also recognizes the importance of maintaining a degree of flexibility for provinces in establishing programs which are tailored to their needs.
This provision provides implicit recognition of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, while giving the provinces increased involvement in the establishment and the development of shared-cost programs in their areas of exclusive power.
This is clearly an area where federal and provincial powers overlap and therefore it is necessary to negotiate accommodations to ensure co-operation and avoid court contests. Such plans can only work with the genuine support of both the federal and provincial Governments, and jurisdictional issues must be avoided in the interests of those who are to benefit from such plans.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The revised amending formula will expand those items for which unanimous federal and provincial consent is necessary to include representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons, powers of the Senate and selection of Senators, the Supreme Court and the extension of existing, or creation of, new provinces. It will also provide that provinces opting out of any future constitutional amendments transferring provincial legislative powers to Parliament shall receive reasonable compensation. These provisions strengthen the principle of the equality of the provinces and will not penalize those who choose not to divest themselves of powers that are now constitutionally theirs.
There are a number of basic principles underlying the amendments set out in the Constitution Act, 1987. From a philosophical perspective the following principles are clearly reflected in the proposed amendments. First, Canada is a federal state whose foundation was based on certain unique characteristics, elements of which are found in the Constitution Act, 1867 and subsequent constitutional documents. Second, as a federal state, the provinces have a legitimate interest in the Constitution and the composition of our most fundamental national institutions, and the composition of the federation. Third, the provinces, regardless of size, are entitled to a legally equal status in modifying certain basic institutions of the nation. Fourth, while the national governing institutions must possess ample power and authority to act in the national interest, the process of governing in a federal state requires meaningful collaboration and co-operation between the two levels of Government, especially in areas where constitutional powers overlap or intersect. Fifth, effective government in a federal state must contemplate regular and formal meetings of the First Ministers on certain fundamental issues of cooperation rather than confrontation if agreement is to be achieved.

And so it is, Mr. Speaker, that the 1987 constitutional amendment takes into account our ever-changing federalism and will enable us to take a functional and co-operative approach to federal-provincial relations, particularly with respect to the constitutional evolution. It is aimed at fostering consensus rather than confrontation to solve problems of conflicts inherent in the very nature and the administration of a federal state.
The amendment is a far-sighted document which features two major factors: first, in various ways it faithfully mirrors Canada's current constitutional reality; second, its acknowledgement of current realities will have an impact on the trend of our evolution, for it is the very basis of future constitutional deliberations.

In this regard, the joint committee's report has suggested a range of issues for consideration, including Senate reform, aboriginal rights, devolution of power to the territories, multiculturalism, the extension and protection of linguistic
rights, the enhancement and further protection of individual rights within the Charter, and any possible problems with the effect on the territories of a Supreme Court and Senate appointments' procedure. These are all important issues, and I assure all Hon. Members that the Government plans to review them during future constitutional discussions.
The two opposition Parties propose a number of amendments which, if taken together, call on Governments to reopen for negotiation virtually every section of the unanimously-endorsed Accord.
In days to come, other government spokespersons will address the particular amendments being proposed. However, I would like to make a couple of general observations as we begin this debate.
First, I must point out that no, and I repeat, no egregious error has been identified by the committee. Indeed, if I may be permitted to say, I make the statement categorically that no egregious errors have been pointed out on a balance of assessment of those experts in the field and those people who are vitally interested in the issue of constitutional reform. Hon. Members will recall that an identification of an egregious error was the only basis upon which First Ministers agreed they would be prepared to reopen the Accord. If we were to agree to reopen the Accord for renegotiation to consider even one amendment, pressure to consider others would almost invariably and inevitably mount. In that event there would be no guarantee that the necessary consensus which was arrived at by First Ministers could be reconstructed.
This marks the second time that we have used our domestic amending formula. It is an historic precedent because it will be the first that results from the unanimous agreement of all First Ministers. Given the severe test that faced them and the possible consequences of failure, their unqualified success is truly an occasion for national pride and celebration.
As Canadians know, the patriation process that culminated with the Constitution Act of 1982 has remained incomplete in an essential way because the Province of Quebec has consistently and continually expressed its dissent to that measure. That dissent has been expressed eloquently, passionately, and honourably. I take great pride in the Prime Minister's response and his achievement in gaining the support of the people, the Government, and the National Assembly of Quebec in adopting this Accord.
The attainment of complete national sovereignty with domestic tranquility is unfortunately far from the general rule in human history. Wars of revolution, unsuccessful revolts, civil wars, and other conflicts of this nature fill the history of mankind. In contrast, Canada's constitutional struggles have mostly been fought and won in a more civilized, although no less passionate manner.
September 29, 1987

As Canadians we do not always take sufficient pride in the accomplishments of our nation. I am proud to belong to a Government and to a nation that strives to find common ground in order to create an ever more just, humane, and understanding national society for the benefit of all its members, both individually and collectively. That is what Canada is all about.
I could not speak to this motion without paying special tribute to the excellent work of the members of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the Elouse of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Their efforts in undertaking this enormous task are worthy of praise and admiration. Their report is thorough and compelling. It merits full study, and it demonstrates how seriously the committee took its task of scrutinizing the Accord.
The Joint Committee heard from Canadians from all regions in all walks of life. This type of public debate is both healthy and essential because constitutional documents are the property of the people. They are living documents which must represent the national will.

Many witnesses who appeared before the joint committee advocated the adoption of the 1987 Accord because it achieves national reconciliation and blurs our memory of the shock of the 1980 Quebec referendum and the ensuing isolation of that province during the 1981 and 1982 constitutional patriation process.
The Meech Lake Accord adoption will for ever turn that page of our history. We can look forward to a more challenging future as a result of greater harmony and closer cooperation. This is why I feel confident that we are at the dawn of an era of outstanding achievements for all Canadians.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Premiers of the 10 provinces have come together to forge a new unity, thereby reinvigorating our land. The task now rests with us, Members of Parliament, to confirm this historic Accord.
To say no to the Accord is to say no to the vision of a united Canada. All of us share a common purpose in the House, to ensure that our Constitution includes all parts of Canada, all provinces, and with special emphasis on this occasion to bringing Quebec into the constitutional family. Therefore, I think our responsibilities are clear.
In a careful way we have an agreement between the Prime Minister and the 10 First Ministers of our country which is well thought out, well considered, properly crafted in a legal and historic sense, and one which has said to the people of the Province of Quebec that we will welcome you with open arms into the constitutional family of Canada.
At the same time we have articulated the nature of our country, a country with wide geographic dimensions but indeed divergent parts; a country that is often said to be
Constitution Amendment, 1987
difficult to govern, but because of its diversity, because of its natural inherent strengths and the qualities of the regions and the people who make up the different parts of our country, it is one to which all Canadians say that they are proud to be members of this great nation.
I call upon all Members to support this Accord. I know that because of the nature of the House of Commons, being an adversarial forum, it is traditional to take an adversarial position and suggest that this provision or that provision is not totally satisfactory. We now have an opportunity to transcend partisanship in terms of this debate, an opportunity for all of us to join together and send a message to the people of Canada, and send a message to those people who, unfortunately, have been excluded from the constitutional family over the years since the acceptance of the 1982 Constitution.
Finally, if I may be permitted to say so, I am very proud of the leadership the Prime Minister has given to this particular matter. I will not bother you with quoting my own colleagues on the government side of the House to support that.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Where are they all?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Regardless of political stripe, regardless of the fact that participants represented all political Parties in this country at these meetings, they were unanimous in their praise for the manner in which the Prime Minister gave leadership, and the perseverance and inspiration he gave with respect to bringing forward this Accord.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Where is he this morning? Why is the Prime Minister not here?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will look forward to the support of the House of Commons for this Accord. To do otherwise is to send an unfortunate message to a very large section of our country, to many people, and to the whole concept of our country as has been developed over the years. I know that there will not be a sense of partisanship here, that there will be a sense of unity which will pervade the debate.
As I said at the outset, it is with great pride that I say to the House of Commons and the people of Canada, this is an historic moment in our history. This is an opportunity for us to join together.


Mr. Lapierre:: Where is your Cabinet? Where is your Prime Minister?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Opposition may be on the verge of sinking down to partisanship again, but I wish to avoid that.
I wish to call upon them, notwithstanding their difficulties within their own caucus, to speak to this without any sense of partisanship, in order that we can go forward into a new era with all parts of Canada united and working toward a future which is without parallel in the world.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, earlier in his speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) reminded us that the House of Commons was an adversarial forum. In his closing words he then invited us to dismiss partisanship. He knows the nature of this place. I will agree with him on one feature of his remarks, that this indeed should be an historic debate. Certainly the numbers in attendance this morning for this very important discussion in the House of Commons on the constitutional fabric of our country, on the very bedrock of the laws of Canada, neither justify nor amplify the Minister's remarks in that respect.
We agree that what we are discussing here involves the most important law of our country. It follows upon the 1981-1982 debates, the patriation of our Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a great achievement of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but it was incomplete. Quebec did not sign the accord at that time. There was a gap or an emptiness which did not bring the country as fully together as all of us would have wanted.
It is for that reason that despite its flaws-and it has flaws-we support the Accord, because it brings Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family politically, emotionally, and psychologically.
[ Translation]
For all these reasons and despite its shortcomings, Mr. Speaker, I support the Accord. Back in 1982, thanks to Mr. Trudeau we did patriate the Canadian Constitution, but the process fell somewhat short since Quebec, headed by Mr. Levesque and an independence-oriented administration, had refused to sign the Accord. Although strictly and legally bound under the Constitution, Quebec did feel the need to find its true place within our Canadian confederation and, more important still, within the Canadian family, to be part of it politically, emotionally and psychologically.

I know from the experience of 1971, when I had the honour of holding the place which the Minister of Justice now holds, that the constitutional process is a long, delicate and sometimes tedious one, and for good reason. The balance of powers between the federal and provincial Governments in the uneasy equilibrium of a federation is not to be tampered with unnecessarily.
I felt that in Victoria, under the leadership of Mr. Trudeau, we had achieved a model of political consensus, a model which was dissipated when Mr. Bourassa at that time felt it impossible, because of the pressure of public opinion in Quebec, to ratify that Accord.
Then of course came the rise of the Parti Quebecois and its gain in the significant election of November 15, 1976; the referendum of 1980; and the tremendously emotional debate which gripped the Province of Quebec, family against family, colleague against colleague, partner against partner, business
associate against business associate. The debate went right to the core of the province and of the French speaking Quebecois of the province.
I think the most memorable event was the absolutely magnificent speech of Mr. Trudeau at the Paul Sauve Arena, a speech which I credit with finally turning the tide in favour of Canada. It was a remarkable achievement. I think it was one of the great political speeches in the history of the country. It was certainly the greatest political speech to my mind in his own political career.
In that speech he gave a commitment to the people of Quebec that there would be a renewed federalism.

To put it in French, in a masterly address to a crowd of 15,000 to 20,000 people gathered at the Paul Sauve Arena, Mr. Trudeau made a commitment by stating that if Quebecers were to reject the seduction of independence and opt for Canada there would be a renewed federalism. This is why Quebec francophones, in particular, supported Canada. This is why I said at the November Liberal Convention that Quebec had said yes to Canada, and that now time had come for Canada to say yes to Quebec.

What we have before us, of course, is the undoubted fact that Quebec is an essential part not only of our Constitution but of that subtle complex called the Canadian identity. The people of Quebec and the institutions of Quebec must be seen to be an integral part of the total fabric of Canada.
However, the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, the 1982 law, and even the Charter were not accepted by the National Assembly in Quebec City. One ought to recall that it was a unanimous vote which rejected the 1982 arrangement, not just members of the Parti Quebecois but the Liberal Members as well, because the people of Quebec felt that their province had been left out. They felt that the achievement ratified by Parliament and the other provinces was incomplete.
It is that essential fact which prompts me-and we will analyse this Accord-to support the Accord despite its flaws to ensure that Quebec becomes once again a major party to our Confederation, a major part of future constitutional reform, and that the people of Quebec feel totally at ease and totally comfortable with the Canadian fact and Canadian identity.
I am proud to lead a Party which has always been at the forefront of constitutional reform in Canada. I believe that the constructive work done by members of our Party has helped bring about the process which we are debating.
We did not negotiate this Accord. I was not present at the table. We would have done it differently. Our November resolution set forth the parameters of where we thought the response to Mr. Bourassa's proposition should be. However, we believe that the Accord is a positive step. We also believe that it can be improved without jeopardizing the Accord.
September 29, 1987



1 got the process under way on behalf of federal Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, by responding to Mr. Bourassa's five propositions during an interview I gave the daily Le Devoir in May, 1986, when I acknowledged that Quebec was a distinct society, when we responded in a constructive, concise and precise way, as Mr. Bourassa himself put it. Later on our colleagues and Quebec militant men and women proposed a full resolution at Saint-Hyacinthe, and it was almost unanimously endorsed by the Liberal Party Quebec wing. And finally, when 4,000 militants gathered here in the national capital for the November convention, a majority of 90 per cent supported the November resolution by acknowledging the distinct society, the distinct character of Quebec, along with several points featured in the existing constitutional agreement.

Throughout this debate we took a non-partisan position. I think we set a climate which allowed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers to negotiate, knowing that they would not be attacked in an irresponsible way in the House of Commons. Shortly afterwards so did the New Democratic Party. Therefore the climate that was set allowed this Accord to be achieved.

From both sides of the debate we have heard forceful opinions. Those discussions, Mr. Speaker, have reinforced my personal view that despite its deficiencies, the accord is good for Quebecers and good for all Canadians.
Having carefully examined the contents of the Accord reached by the First Ministers, I believe the Canadian Government is maintaining its leadership role within the Confederation. Overall, I think this is a good step forward although, as the First Ministers themselves indicated, the Accord is not perfect. There is room for improvement.
Since the announcement of the Accord, I took the position 1 am now taking again in the House of Commons. The position was that we would first support the Accord despite its flaws because it brought Quebec fully into the Canadian family, and second, that we would seek improvements by way of amendment and propose those amendments to the Joint Committee, or whatever committee we thought might be established at the time, and in the House of Commons. Third, we wanted a public debate. We wanted to see the issue discussed thoroughly both in and out of Parliament, because after all, we are dealing with the bedrock of the country, the fundamental infrastructure of Canada, a law more fundamental than any other law and a law needing more scrutiny than any other law.
For that reason, we believe that a clause-by-clause analysis is necessary. We believe that the delicate equilibrium of the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
division of powers must be analysed. We believe in the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlining those areas of human conduct beyond the power of Parliament, beyond the power of any legislature to impede or intervene. We believe that the language should be as precise as possible. We believe that the courts, particularly the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, ought to be given guidance. We do not want to yield our primacy as legislators to the judicial process. We do not believe that constitutional change is a matter to be dealt with in haste.
We welcomed the committee hearings. I would like to pay tribute to my two colleagues, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who contributed in a very constructive way to the examination of the Accord, to the conduct of the hearings and of course to the preparation of the minority report which is before Your Honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We did not sign the majority report. We issued instead a minority report, and in that report, we stated our reasons for not signing. We regretted that this crucial exercise undertaken by the committee was, we believe, intentionally engineered to limit public scrutiny and serious debate. We could not support the language of the report because some of it, we believe, was deliberately inflammatory and calculated to make our support impossible.
When the majority report suggests that anyone who proposes an amendment is, in the words of the majority report, inviting a risk to the well-being of this country, and when the majority report accuses the previous Government under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau of having operated on conflict and confrontation, it is obvious that majority members were not seeking the type of consensus about which the Minister of Justice spoke this morning. We believe that the Constitution is the most vital document in our statutory fabric. We believe that Parliament should be heard.
We do not believe that the whole process will necessarily unravel if amendments are proposed. 1 am pleased to see that in this respect, members of the New Democratic Party agree with us. 1 would like to quote their addendum to the majority report:
We believe, however, that prior to a resolution being placed before
Parliament, certain amendments to the Accord could be accepted by First
Ministers without in any way putting the Accord in jeopardy.
Those words are found at page 155 of the committee report, Addendum B.
1 regret, however, that members of the New Democratic Party did not see fit to spell out their propositions and amendments in detail as we have done. I would like to suggest to them and to the House that the 1981-82 experience suggests that despite disclaimers by the Minister of Justice, despite the statements of the Prime Minister, amendments can be received. There are Members sitting in this House who can

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
recall the attitude of the Government of the day. Despite the seeming intransigence of that period, amendments were accepted during the process. I believe it is open to the Efouse and to the Government to adopt a similar attitude in this respect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our amendments are not based on the premise that the Accord fails because it does not resolve all the unfinished business of Confederation. Our amendments go completely to the matter discussed and decided within the Accord. We do not trespass beyond its boundaries. We understand that there will be a continuing constitutional process.
We also believe that our amendments do not undermine Quebec's conditions for entering the constitutional fold. We seek two purposes: that Quebec adhere completely to the Canadian Confederation and that fundamental rights of Canadians be protected throughout the country in their entirety and plenitude and without difference from province to province.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I was mildly surprised that the Minister did not see fit to deal with either minority report or to deal with the amendments we proposed. He has said that some of his colleagues will refer to those particular subjects, but I would have thought that as the senior law officer of the Crown, he would have given us the benefit of his views and of-he is giving me the thumbs-down sign. That is not the sign of an open mind. That is not the mark of someone who wants to achieve a consensus. That is not the symbol of a Minister who wants to achieve the widest possible agreement for this Accord.
Our amendments seek to achieve the following purposes, and for the benefit of the House, which is after all the highest forum in our country, they are the following. First, we want to include as fundamental characteristics of Canada not only the linguistic duality as spelled out in the Accord, not only the specific or distinct character of Quebec as spelled out in the Accord, but also the recognition of our aboriginal peoples, the recognition of the multicultural mosaic of Canada and the recognition of the regional identities and the advantages of lower trade barriers between the provinces.
We believe that the native peoples should not now be left to feel "out-distincted", to use the apt words of the Inuit committee on national issues. We do not believe that our aboriginal peoples ought to be made to feel less important than other Canadians. The committee was told by key native groups that such an amendment as we proposed would ensure equity and fairness for their peoples.

We also recognize there are Canadians whose first language is neither English nor French. Many groups have stated before
the committee that they felt like second-class citizens, and we want to see the Accord stress both their contribution to the Canadian identity and regional diversity. We want the Accord to reflect the true nature of our Canadian society.

Second, we want to offer more protection to official language minorities by ensuring that Parliament is responsible for promoting as well as preserving official minority language rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We want to offer every province the opportunity to commit its legislature to promoting as well as preserving our linguistic duality.
[ Translation]
Third, we also propose that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms take precedence, in order that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians are not diminished by possible conflicts with other clauses in the Accord. Especially the rights to equality for women.
We have expressed some concerns over the rights to equality, which might be threatened by the recognition of Quebec's special responsibilities. Canadian women should not enjoy lesser protection than other Canadian women by reason of the distinct society clause.
Although we think that possibility is very remote, we want to ensure that even the most minute threats to our Charter are removed.
We nonetheless state our support, of course, for the distinct character of Quebec. We do not believe this is a revolutionary concept. We believe we are merely confirming in this Chamber the reality. Quebec does have a distinctive character. Quebec is the only province where French is the language of the majority. There is a different system of law, a unique psychology and a unique history. I do not believe that recognizing that fact in the Constitution is dangerous. I do not believe it will lead to special status or sovereignty association or le concept de deux Nations. I believe it is a historical and cultural fact that should be recognized. I do not believe there should be any conflict between that concept and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We seek to ensure that even a minimal risk of that conflict be clarified and this Parliament unequivocally pronounce upon it so that even a slight ambiguity not be left to the courts.
Fourth, we believe in an elected Senate. Despite all the bafflegab of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and his predecessor, now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), we want Senate reform. As I said in this House two and a half years ago, we believe that is the only fundamental reform which recognizes the geographical facts of this country as against the population of Ontario and Quebec. The Minister
September 29, 1987

of Justice ought to understand that because his constituents certainly understand it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Absolutely.


John Napier Turner: The people of Saskatoon certainly understand it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Even my father understood it.


John Napier Turner: He ought to support any process which would achieve early reform of the other place into an elected Chamber so that the people of Canada would have a true voice there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our proposal would accelerate the move from an appointed Senate to an elected Senate by electing Senators now when vacancies occur rather than appointing them based on provincial lists. I believe the democratic rights of all Canadians would be strengthened by giving them the power to elect all their national legislators. Also, given our amendment, it would recognize the right of the citizens of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to senatorial election, a gap left in the Accord which deprives Canadians living north of the 60th parallel of any future representation or appointment to the Senate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong.


John Napier Turner: They have no list to propose. 1 understand the Minister in personal terms, and 1 suppose the same is true of his predecessor from Newfoundland, feel that their current close allegiance to the Premiers of the day in their respective provinces protects them. However, when the Prime Minister first brought this proposition before the House of Commons I noticed the surprise and dismay on the faces of members of the Conservative Party when they felt this was a complication to their career plans. In any event, the Minister of Justice sits secure so long as there is "Devine Government" in Saskatchewan.

Fifth, we believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Accord clauses dealing with the appointment of Supreme Court justices from provincial lists could lead to an impasse between the federal and provincial Governments. We have therefore suggested a solution that would ensure that at all times the Supreme Court has a complement of Justices, and that would protect the basic rights of Northern Canadians, by granting their Governments the same rights as provinces have to nominate candidates to the Court.

Sixth, we propose that the clause concerning compensation for provinces opting out of national shared cost programs be clarified to ensure greater national consistency in programs available to all Canadians, and to ensure that minimum
Constitution Amendment, 1987
standards are met by provinces in order to claim compensation for opting out of such programs.
One area that I looked at specifically in gauging my own reaction to the Constitutional Accord, and in this respect there has been a distinct improvement in the Accord over the original agreement at Meech Lake, was that it spells out specifically that nothing in it alters the relative division of powers as between the federal and provincial Governments. In other words, whatever the Supreme Court of Canada determined to be the scope of federal spending power remains in place.
We also recognize there has probably been a strengthening of federal spending power by explicitly recognizing for the first time that it may be exercised within areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are also assuaged by recognizing that national objectives are chosen by the federal Government. However, we should clarify the clause to ensure that Parliament sets those objectives and ensure there is no ambiguity in national standards. I would like to make it clear that we believe this should be spelled out. As we all do in this Parliament, I believe in a strong central Government but in equilibrium with a wellfunctioning federalism.
I do not fear confrontation with the provinces. That is the inevitable nature of things in a federation. I believe it can be creative and useful. I also believe the Government side-steps that in order to try and get a false perfume of consent. I recommend to the Minister that he not be lulled into believing the agreement is a substitute for achievement.
However, I do not believe in confrontation for its own sake. I believe in co-operative federalism and it does not disturb me that the provinces can opt out. They have done so before and I was part of the negotiating team regarding the Canada and Quebec Pension Plan many years ago.
Seventh, we propose to eliminate the rigid unanimity provision for Senate reform and return to the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population formula. We believe western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians in particular will want the flexibility we had before the Accord to achieve meaningful Senate reform.
We also suggest that the eventual provincehood of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and extension of existing provincial boundaries into those territories, should that ever happen, be resolved solely by the federal Government and the territory in question. The last instance we had of a new province coming into Confederation was the 1949 Terms of Union with the Province of Newfoundland. That was negotiated specifically between the federal Government and the Province of Newfoundland and put to the Parliament of Canada for ratification.
Eighth, with regard to future constitutional conferences, we propose to make aboriginal rights a priority. Our aboriginal peoples feel, having been left off the constitutional agenda, any progress made to date will be lost unless First Ministers

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
continue discussions on self-government and other aboriginal concerns.
We also suggest that the fisheries issue does not have to be on the agenda every year as it will unnecessarily create instability in the industry and, frankly, three of the four provincial Governments in the Atlantic provinces are concerned that any transfer to provincial jurisdiction would result in anarchy in the administration of fishing rights in the Atlantic.
While it is not in these amendments, for our future constitutional menu we would have preferred that Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982, be repealed; that is to say, the notwithstanding clause allowing provincial Governments to enact legislation exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although we have not dealt with it here because it went beyond the purview of the Accord, we recommend that future constitutional discussions eliminate those words relating to the administration of minority rights in education, eliminate the words "where numbers warrant" and rely on the general interpretation clause in the Constitution which would allow schools to be set up in a minority language where that was reasonable.
The Minister of Justice has closed his mind to amendments. He did not even do us the courtesy of referring to them or analysing them. The Prime Minister has said it is a take it or leave it proposition. He says if we disagree, or attempt to strike out a single word or change a single comma, or add a word here and there, we will destroy the process. I want to remind the Prime Minister through his Minister of Justice that each one of us was sent here to this House of Commons to do our best in analysing the laws brought before us. No other single piece of statute is more important, more fundamental or more vital than the Constitution of Canada.
What he is saying, and what he has said to the House, echoing the hollow words of the Prime Minister, is that no matter how we debate this issue, no matter what our constituents think, no matter what witnesses may have said before the joint committee, it will make no difference. The Government's collective mind is closed. The Prime Minister has shut the door on possibilities of improvement within the ambit of the Accord.
What he is really saying is we have a new level of Government established here with which no one has dealt specifically in the House of Commons to this date. We have a Prime Minister with an overwhelming mandate in the House of Commons, premiers who have majorities in their legislatures, and what we are really saying is that without prior notice, without prior mandate or prior discussion, 11 First Ministers can meet in secret, even until five o'clock in the morning, and decide a new constitutional direction for Canada. Yet it is irrelevant what Members of the House of Commons say. It is irrelevant, I suppose, what Members of the Senate say, although I have my own views about that. It is irrelevant what
Members of the legislatures may say. It is a fait accompli. That is what we recognize here.
The Minister of Justice thinks this annual meeting of First Ministers will be a very important function. It is going to be a function now embedded in the Constitution that Parliament better look at very carefully in the future to ensure we have kept control over it.
I believe our Confederation is a little more resilient than the Minister of Justice imagines. I believe that Canada can survive a debate on the merits of the issues which have been put forward to the House today. I want to hear, as I believe do all Canadians, the Government's response to our amendments.
Does the Government, for example, think it is wrong that aboriginal rights or multicultural identity should be recognized? Does the Government feel it is wrong that the Charter should clearly be paramount? Does the Government feel it is wrong if we move towards Senate reform at a faster pace and, in our view, towards an elected Senate? Does the Government reject a deadlock-breaking mechanism on Supreme Court appointments? Does the Government reject the idea that the spending power might need some clarification? Does the Government object that the Territories should have a say in Senate appointments and in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada? Does the Government object to giving the Territories a clear avenue, should circumstances dictate, for assuming provincial status? Does the Government think it is wrong to make aboriginal rights a priority of First Ministers' conferences? Are all of these proposed amendments to be rejected out of hand by the Government?
By the way, I know the Prime Minister's current priorities are heavy this morning, but this being the most fundamental issue before the House, and without in any way derogating the high office held by the Prime Minister, I would have thought that in the circumstances he ought to have led the debate. I hope the House hears from him on this debate.
I can say to the Minister and to you, Mr. Speaker, that if ultimately, despite our efforts in pressing them before this place, our proposals fail, if our amendments are rejected and voted down, we intend to make these amendments part of our Party's constitutional program. We intend to make them part of the platform in the next federal election and put them before the people of Canada. If and when we form a government, we intend to make them part of the ongoing constitutional process.
Our point of view is that the purpose of the debate will have been fulfilled if Canadians know in detail where we stand on these issues. They also deserve to know where the Government stands on each of these issues and where the New Democratic Party stands. Therefore, in order to inaugurate this process, I would like to propose the following amendment:
That the Motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by striking out
Section 2(1) thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
September 29, 1987

(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union,"
I submit this amendment in both French and English. It is seconded by the Hon. Member for York Centre, on his behalf and on behalf of the Hon. Member for Papineau.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for his comments and the filing of the motion as has been read and presented to the Chair in both official languages. As is my obligation to Hon. Members, I will consider the motion carefully and report back to the Chamber with respect to its procedural acceptability. In the meantime, we will continue with debate. I thank the right hon. gentleman.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: It is a
great honour for me today to be the lead-off speaker for the New Democratic Party on the Constitutional Accord. I may say that throughout the summer, during the hearings, I have taken a great interest in the Accord and what it accomplishes, which is really tremendous. I have also taken a great interest in some of its shortcomings and some of the future directions for constitutional change and renewal. In that connection, I may say that all of us in Canada have realized during the course of debate this summer that the Constitution should belong to the people of Canada and that the people of Canada should be heard when it comes to constitutional renewal and reform.
Partly because of our lack of experience in constitutional change since the 1982 patriation and Charter, and partly because of the haste of the Government, we have not had as much openness and consultation with the Canadian public as we would have liked. There is a lesson in this for us all and I will return in a moment to the process.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to say how very much we welcome Quebec's return to the Constitutional family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: We have always felt it was a grievous occasion in 1982 when Quebec was isolated from patriation and the Charter. As a political Party we have wanted ever since to see this isolation ended. When the Quebec Government suggested a couple of years ago its five proposals which would make possible the ending of this isolation we heralded them. We agreed with them.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Since our founding as a political Party we have known that Quebec is indeed a distinct society. We have known of the linguistic duality of Canada, and that these are key and vital characteristics of our nation.
We felt that after Quebec had basically said yes to Canada in the referendum that we should do everything possible, compatible with the interests, concerns and ideals of all Canadians, to say yes to Quebec. I remember very vividly Ministers of the Parti Quebecois Government coming to western Canada, in particular to British Columbia, and discovering, often to their surprise they said, how much we in British Columbia wanted Quebec in Canada, how much Quebec being a part of the constitutional family meant to us as British Columbians, and how wrong it would be for this nation to go into the future with one of its very basic elements not part of it. It was in British Columbia that I heard the strongest pleas for Quebec to come in, to be in, and for the rest of us to help make that possible.
We feel very badly when we are told that the Constitutional Accord pays some kind of favour to Quebec. I was quite shocked, as some Members of the House will recall, when former Prime Minister Trudeau was before the committee and suggested that all we were doing in this Accord was caving in to something "Quebec wanted" and the rest of us did not want. For we New Democrats, and I speak on behalf of all Canadians on this matter, we are delighted. We feel that the Accord is what we want. We feel that it is good for us, that it is good for all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Not only does the Accord have the result of reuniting Canada, but it does so in a spirit of what we have always called "co-operative federalism", both in the reaching of the Accord and in its provisions. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said a moment ago that Liberal Members could not sign the report of the Special Joint Committee because they did not like some of the language of the document. In particular, they did not like the reference to confrontation and conflict having characterized much of Canada's federal-provincial relations in the years up to 1984. There was confrontation and conflict. There was a tendency- a very strong tendency-to want to tell provinces what to do rather than to seek accommodations with them, in sharp contrast to the 1960s when a strong era of co-operative federalism prevailed.
We think that there cannot be a nation as large, as complex, as dispersed at this country without having a genuine federal system. Within such a federal system there must always be a very high degree of negotiation, discussion, and compromise, in order to reach the national objectives that we want. We think that the Accord gives expression to this vision of the operation

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
of a genuine federal system. Therefore, on that ground, too, we have welcomed the Accord.
With specific reference to the spending power, it became less and less controversial as the hearings went on. There was a very great deal of evidence presented to us that there was no weakening of the purely federal spending power in areas of federal jurisdiction, no change whatsoever in the relative powers of the federal Government and the provinces, no change in the authority of the federal Government to spend in areas of mixed jurisdiction; and, in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the authority of the federal Government to spend is constitutionally recognized for the the first time in the Constitutional Accord. What has in practice often taken place-federal spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, which has often been a very rancorous affair-we now have constitutionally entrenched. The federal Government and Parliament to spend in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction has been entrenched, and provinces wishing to opt out of such shared-cost programs can receive compensation only if they develop a program or an initiative that is "compatible with the national objectives".
If we have a party in power in Ottawa that has no national objectives, or has national objectives which are perhaps anathema to many of us in the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is the Tory Government you are describing.


Pauline Jewett: -such as might be the case under a Tory Government, then we as Canadians change the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: We put one in power, such as the New Democratic Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: -which will pursue the national objectives in a shared-cost program that meets the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people.
We welcome the provisions of the Accord that make possible the achievement of social and economic goals working in cooperation with the provinces that will realize a better Canada. The Constitution provides the framework for the achievement of our national objectives.
In the course of bringing Quebec back into the constitutional family, in developing the constitutionalizing of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and in making other changes in our constitutional relationships, the Government, and indeed all 11 First Ministers, made one very serious error. I wish to discuss three or four errors, but there is one 1 wish to raise first, partly because I am a woman and, therefore, particularly sensitive to it.
The First Ministers have met and decided to give special protection in Section 16 of the Accord to our multicultural heritage, and to our aboriginal peoples. We have no objection to that, but we do object in respect of the equality rights of women. Section 28 of the Charter interestingly enough follows Sections 25 and 27 that are included in Section 16 of the Accord. They sat there and absolutely forgot about women, about their place in our constitutional history, about the long struggles to achieve, first, the strengthening of Section 15 of the Charter, and then the creation of Section 28. Notwithstanding anything in the Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in Section 28 are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. Yet they never even thought of it, they bypassed it, and once again the constitutional history of Canadian women is rendered invisible. It is as if we have to start all over again.
The Government and the First Ministers stated that they did not intend to do this. In an article in Le Devoir on August 28, 1987, the Minister responsible for the Accord on behalf of the federal Government said, "les droits a I'egalite des sexes transcendent la langue et la culture." Sexual equality rights transcend language and culture. Why was that not said in the Accord? Why was that not placed in the Accord? Why was it said outside it? We are constantly told to trust the Ministers. In 1982 they said that labour unions and collective bargaining would be protected under the freedom of association clause. They told us that that would be the case. What happened? They were not protected at all. The courts do not listen to Ministers, but we are told to trust them. We are also told to trust the courts.
In a sense, we all got into this ourselves when we put the Charter in the Constitution. Of course, once there is a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms it follows that there will be judicial interpretation of laws or enactments that may infringe upon those rights. A great many of the problems that we as women have today go back to the wording of the Charter itself, Clause 1 of the Charter, the reasonable limits clause, and the relationship of that clause to Clause 15 and Clause 28 and what judges have been and are doing with those relationships.
We understand that a great many of the concerns raised by women's organizations and their constitutional experts during the hearings are concerns regarding the operation of the Charter. It is clear that the Charter is not totally paramount in terms of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in it because they are subject to Clause 1 of the Charter which allows for reasonable limits on those rights, if they are demonstrably justifiable.
By the way, in this connection the Liberal amendment to include the Charter in Section 16 of the Accord is totally ridiculous. Obviously, they have not heard of section 1 of the Charter. I may say no women's organizations suggested that particular amendment because they also saw how ridiculous it was.
September 29, 1987

We need to bring some understanding to the First Ministers and to the courts that we did not as women fight for nothing when we secured the strengthening of Section 15 of the Charter and the creation of Section 28. At the minimum that is why Section 28, the equality rights section of the Charter, should be included in Section 16 of the Accord. This has been agreed to by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and by la Federation des femmes du Quebec.
We do not think that our equality rights are jeopardized by Meech Lake. They are not. But with the same abundance of caution that the First Ministers put in the reference to our multicultural heritage and aboriginal rights, so they should also put into the Accord in Section 16 our equality rights, the equality rights of male and female persons.
I have a few more comments to make, Mr. Speaker, if I may call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, some disturbing parallels are emerging between the cases of Daniel Gingras and Allan Sweeney, who was convicted of the rape and murder of Celia Ruygrok, an Ottawa half-way house worker.
Mr. Gingras, an inmate of Edmonton Institution, was serving a life sentence for a murder which he committed in 1978 after he escaped from a federal penitentiary in Cowans-ville, Quebec. On June 29 of this year he again escaped, this time from an unarmed escort while on a day pass to celebrate his birthday at the West Edmonton Mall. He was recaptured on August 21 and once again faces murder charges in the deaths of Wanda Woodward and Joseph Piquette. He is also charged with armed robbery, possession of a restricted weapon, and possession of stolen property.
In the Gingras and Sweeney cases there appears to have been some serious lapses of information involving both the National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada on the inmates in question. In both cases as well, the level of risk posed to society by the early release of these inmates appears to have been gravely underestimated.
In light of the firing of the warden of Edmonton Institution following the investigation into the Gingras escape, I call upon the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) to explain precisely why the warden was fired and to explain how it was possible for Mr. Gingras to be released on a day pass to celebrate his birthday at the West Edmonton Mall.



HUMANITARIAN SERVICE


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star recently recognized Canadian surgeon, Dr. Christopher Giannou, for his outstanding humanitarianism displayed at the Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon.
Dr. Giannou dedicated the past three years to a benevolent medical practice in the Palestinian war camps of Beirut. During five months of fierce fighting at Shatila last winter, Giannou and his medical teams performed 200 major operations and between 400 and 500 minor ones. They buried 110 people but saved 650 more who were seriously wounded.
It seems appropriate for the House to recognize the achievements of Dr. Giannou under such extreme and arduous conditions. Not unlike a former Canadian physician practising abroad, Dr. Norman Bethune, Dr. Giannou has demonstrated unique and able courage and dedication to his profession.
The House should publicly recognize the achievements of this doctor in reducing pain and suffering in a horrific Lebanese war.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled in the House of Commons a consultation paper dealing with proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan. The effect of those changes would be to alleviate some of the financial hardship now being experienced by surviving spouses and their families. These changes are long overdue, and we in this Party support them in so far as they go.
Once again, however, these proposals ignore the plight of a substantial number of survivors and their families. While the discussion paper recognizes that there have been major social changes in Canada since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, it stops short of proposing to do anything about it. Instead, the proposals continue to perpetuate the notion that

September 29, 1987
women are only entitled to an adequate pension if they have a man.
This paper does nothing to correct this discrimination against single women, particularly divorced women, and I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to bring forward a further amendment to deal with this issue once and for all.



THE ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
SITUATION IN ABITIBi-TEMISCAMINGUE REGION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: When things are going well, Mr. Speaker, we should come out and say so! Never has the Abitibi-Temiscamingue economy been in such great shape, and we could even say that actually we are rolling in money. The unemployment rate, which had reached the tragic record high of 27 per cent during the 1982-83 years, fluctuated between 6.1 and 7.7 per cent over the past three months, which is Quebec's best economic performance.
What has contributed to this amazing recovery, Mr. Speaker?
First, we had record investments in mine exploration: in fact over 85 per cent of all Quebec investments in this industry were made in our area. Second, a maximum output in our forest industry: over 40 per cent of the lumber produced in Quebec comes from our area.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to our Temiscamingue farmers who constantly meet new challenges by delivering to our domestic markets new products which appeal to more and more Canadians, I say bravo!
Mr. Speaker, of course this outstanding success would not have been possible without the determination, the drive and know-how of the Temiscamingue people to whom I want to pay tribute today.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House the worsening state of the harbours and wharfs in several fishing ports in my riding. This is a matter of utmost importance.
Fishermen in these communities know that the deterioration of their wharfs and harbours will not only disrupt their fishing but will also endanger their health and safety. The Prince County Fishermen's Association has asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to undertake harbour dredging and wharf repairs in the communities of Alberton, Tignish, and Howards Cove. I have made the same request on previous occasions.
In a recent letter the Association pointed out:
We fishermen depend on our harbours for safe landing of our catches and safe berthing of our vessels. Our livelihood creates a large portion of the revenue for West Prince. The upkeep of the harbours and wharfs is essential to the economy of our area.
At a time when these fishermen are striving to land the highest quality fish, it is absolutely essential that the federal Government invest in proper infrastructure. On behalf of the Fishermen's Association, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to undertake the long awaited wharf repairs and harbour dredging in West Prince.



SPACE RESEARCH


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 25th anniversary of the launch of the earth satellite Alouette 1 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. With that launch, Canada was the third country into space.
In the last 25 years we have excelled as a world leader in space science, telecommunications, and remote sensing. With the launch of the Anik 1 satellite in 1972, Canada became the first country to operate a domestic communications system based on a satellite in a geostationary orbit.
In the 1980s we built on that technology through Telesat Canada and have gone on to participate in a variety of international programs such as Landsat, Canadarm, and the European Olympus satellite program. In the process, we built the most advanced satellite-testing laboratory in the world, the David Florida Laboratory located in the City of Nepean.
Canada is well in a position to maintain leadership in the decades ahead with such projects as MSAT, RADARSAT and the Space Station. The formula to get us there has been outlined in a recent report prepared by the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology entitled Canada's Space Program-A Voyage to the Future.
September 29, 1987



NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, federal Conservative policies affecting Indian, Inuit and Metis citizens of Canada are proving to be ill-conceived and dangerous. Today we learn from the media that two-thirds of the prison population in Saskatchewan is native while natives represent only 14 per cent of the population. Saskatchewan Justice officials claim that this is due in part to racial bias in the justice system. That is no doubt true and something the Government should address.
Across Canada we find the startling statistics on incarceration are paralleled in the native community by the highest rates of infant mortality, suicide and unemployment, along with the other shocking signs of cultural genocide.
Two years ago, under the guidance of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Erik Nielsen, the federal Government produced and I released the secret document known as Buffalo Jump of the 1980s. This document plots out the means by which native families can be forced out of their communities by cutting off economic development, housing, medical care and education. It plots the way to undermine existing native political institutions locally, regionally and nationally by cutting funds and blocking the routes to dispute settlements, specific and comprehensive claims, and closing off test-case funding to the courts and for megaproject impact funds, all of which are now being implemented.
All Canadians should be ashamed at the treatment of our first citizens by this Government. The Government's plan is a self-fulfilling prophecy of assimilation and extermination of the first nations of Canada.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, all urban centres are facing major environmental problems due to storm water run-off. This summer as in past summers, the residents of Toronto were again denied the use of their beaches due to high pollution levels in Lake Ontario caused by urban run-off.
One solution has been to speed up sewer separation. This is a very expensive undertaking which, ironically, will serve as a more efficient conduit of pollutants to the lake.
It has been brought to my attention that there are many measures which, when implemented in conjunction with storm sewers, will effectively eliminate pollution. Such measures as improved surface sanitation, sewer flushing, and twice-yearly cleaning of catch basins will remove up to 50 per cent of heavy metals transported by storm water. Porous pavement whose
structural integrity is not impaired has been found to reduce run-off by as much as 83 per cent.
The measures I have listed have been available for decades and are not costly. The fight to eliminate pollution must embrace all methods available, for the future of our existence is the price.



RESEARCH


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we have known for some months now that the spokespeople for the City of Montreal and the province of Quebec in general pursue a common cause in their attempt to have the Space Agency located in that province.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In Ottawa!


Jean-C. Lapierre: At least, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), knows what he wants!
The slogans read: "Montreal, c'est spatial". Today, however when we read the newspapers, we realize that the NDP silence is special.
With regard to a project of such significance for the economic future of Montreal, Mr. Speaker, they shirk their responsibilities. Even the NDP Leader (Mr. Broadbent) is reported to have decided to look into the matter before making a decision at some later date.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Quebec Tory caucus who is talking from his seat should have the courage to stand up for the City of Montreal and support the Province of Quebec in their efforts to obtain the Space Agency. The Chairman of the caucus, who is shouting from his seat, can only kowtow before the Government, Mr. Speaker.
Montreal must get the Space Agency. The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Turner, supports the Montreal initiatives, while the NDP is hiding its collective head in the sand. As to the Tories they cannot make up their minds.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to indicate today my great satisfaction at the entrepreneurship and efficiency shown by those taking advantage of our job development programs. These projects

September 29, 1987
have given me an opportunity to appreciate the potential of this country to help us meet our stated objectives.
Quite recently, I was made aware of six thematic brochures published by a Quebec City organization called Centre femmes d'aujourd'hui thanks to federal financial assistance. Information on such subjects as homeless women, female solitude and the economic contribution of volunteers and homemakers is now available to the population for the greater good of our community.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good example of what this type of employment program can mean to our society. It is obvious that, beyond the financial considerations, our human resources contribute a lot to the strength and quality of this country.



LITERACY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to congratulate the efforts of Southam News in bringing to the attention of Canadians our serious and continuing national problem of illiteracy. By assigning a first rate investigative journalist, Peter Calamai, and backing him with research and survey information, Southam was able to present the following well-documented facts about illiteracy:
Fully five million adult Canadians are functionally illiterate;
The problem is increasing with 100,000 illiterates being added to the population every year;
Less than 2 per cent of illiterates are enrolled in adequate literacy programs.
None of us can feel anything but shame that our educational and training facilities are failing so many. Yet the federal Government, which has only a few token programs, is not responding to the disaster. Where are the federal-provincial agreements to attack this growing problem?
I call on the cabinet Ministers responsible, particularly the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), to give a detailed response to the information uncovered by Southam and tell the House how they will respond positively to this greatest of adult education challenges, providing the necessary learning skills leading to the simple ability to cope in our exceedingly complex society.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as we begin today to debate the 1987 constitutional accord I wish to add my voice in support of this initiative of our Government. I believe it is the most significant accomplishment of our mandate.
Our Party's political agenda has been one of national reconciliation, and we have not strayed from our course. In 1984 our Leader promised to improve relations between Ottawa and the provinces. As Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), with this achievement, he has done just that. He has strengthened our federation and revitalized our national unity. The Prime Minister and the 10 Premiers should be highly commended for succeeding where others have failed.
Canadians across the land have welcomed Quebec, and with it one of our nation's founding cultures, back into the constitutional family. As Members of this federal institution our participation in ratifying this accomplishment is indeed historic. I wish to thank our Leader for providing this significant opportunity, and for an enormous deed well done.



FINANCE


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, last month several credit card companies increased interest charges on unpaid balances. Today one company, Canada Trust, announced it will slash its rate to a record 13.5 per cent. Its cards will not carry any annual fee, transaction charge or monthly statement cost. In effect, credit card balances will become like consumer loans.
If one company can do this, why can't others? This company will make a profit at 13.5 per cent. It is not a charitable institution. We ask, therefore, why must other MasterCard issuers charge 18.9 per cent? Why must VISA issuers add annual fees and transaction charges to their 16.5 per cent rate? Why do leading retail stores charge 28.8 per cent?
The House has given first reading to a Bill that will protect consumers against excessive interest charges. If one major trust company can push rates down to this historic low let no lobbyist tell any Member of this House that rates have to be so high that only an alpine climber can reach them.
September 29, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to trade. Since his Government came to power Canada's trade surplus with the United States has fallen by half. Our trade deficit with the Pacific Rim countries is five times worse than when the Prime Minister assumed office. Imports from Europe are growing four times faster than are our exports from Europe. Believe it or not, Canada's trade deficit with Japan, the world's second largest industrial power, is 24 times worse than when the Prime Minister came to power. Talk about lost opportunities.
In light of the Government's truly pathetic record on worldwide trade would the Prime Minister bring this House up to date on recent developments in his obsessive desire to get a free trade deal with the United States? What did the Americans offer yesterday? What are Canadians conceding today? What is the stage of these negotiations?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian trading patterns remain strong and buoyant around the world. There has been a great deal of work done.
In fact, I know my right hon. friend will want to reflect upon what he said inasmuch as he was a member of an administration which talked about a third option-reducing our dependence on the United States. When that was begun in 1972, 65 per cent of our exports went to the United States. When it ended, 80 per cent of our exports went to the United States.
Rather than reducing our dependence there was a complete failure on the multilateral side by the Liberals, which brought about a situation in which it is clearly in the national interest to seek a comprehensive framework for such a large part of our foreign trade.
The trade talks have been complex and challenging. There was an important review yesterday. That review is ongoing further to a report of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade. At the earliest possible moment I will report to my right hon. friend.


SECURING OF BINDING COMMERCIAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I also hope that the Prime Minister will confide in Canadians and in Members of the House. The figures I just gave come from Statistics Canada and are endorsed by the
Oral Questions
Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and External Trade.
Before the reopening of negotiations with the Americans, will the Prime Minister at least assure Canadians that the Americans guarantee him to accept the binding trade dispute settlement mechanism? Will he also assure Canadians that he is not making further concessions to secure such a binding mechanism?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would know very well, there were no concessions. It was an important meeting prompted by the positive signals sent by the Americans. As I am speaking, the whole situation is being assessed to see whether we ought to resume negotiations. This assessment is being made by Ministers and Government officials, and I will be pleased to make the Leader of the Opposition aware of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I only say to the Prime Minister that the House and Canadians would appreciate knowing from him what is going on. One can understand, even after two years of negotiation, that there must be a deep split in his Government as to whether to continue these negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: It might be that the Minister of Finance, who appears in a forthcoming mood, would like to respond, but I will put my question to the Prime Minister.
Have the Americans agreed to lay off our regional development programs? Have the Americans agreed to lay off our cultural industries? Have they agreed to give us a meaningful exemption from their 1974 trade law and the current omnibus Bill? Have they agreed to give us meaningful exemptions from their unilateral right to countervail, to use anti-dumping against us without notice and in a unilateral fashion? What further concessions are the Prime Minister and his Government willing to make to get that binding mechanism? What further concessions are they willing to make to get these negotiations back on track, if that is what the Prime Minister really wants to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a serious matter about which, between the two countries, there are serious disagreements about some fundamentals. That is why the Government of Canada and Ambassador Reisman suspended the talks last

September 29, 1987
Oral Questions
Wednesday. It is because there was serious disagreement about some of the fundamentals. These matters are complex and difficult. They do not lend themselves to harangues, insults, or diatribes by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition or by anyone else.
1 would suggest to my right hon. friend that if he is in any way concerned about the national interest, he will allow the Government of Canada and our public service negotiators-


Jean-C. Lapierre: You have had two years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, after two years. Indeed, after two years. There is nothing wrong with that-to proceed to resolve this matter, about which we have always indicated if it is very much in the national interests it will be brought forward for consideration by this House. If it is not, as I have said from the very beginning, there will be no deal.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you.


An Hon. Member:: That was not for you, Lloyd.


POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some supplementary questions, if I might, to the Prime Minister. He has just acknowledged that a trade deal of this comprehension is complicated, difficult and complex. We know that the deadline for concluding a deal is Sunday night, which is only five and one-half days away, yet the Government has yet to make up its mind if it is even going to resume negotiations.
We know what happened when we negotiated the softwood lumber deal at the last desperate moment. We got a bad deal with terrible flaws in it. How can the Government begin to resume negotiations, making the same mistake twice, when it has to negotiate a complicated comprehensive deal affecting every part of the economy, and hope to do it in a period of four or five days? Is that not a recipe for disaster? Why does the Government not just say it has been a bad bargain right from the start and start developing a much more effective trade strategy for Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the effective trade strategy is the one like the Liberal Party introduced in 1972 where we did not increase multilaterally. Our dependence on the United States increased directly as a result of the lack of policy of the Liberals, and it is because of the enormity of the problem that we are trying to seek to preserve jobs in Canada and create others by a comprehensive framework which will lend stability and security to the trading relationship.
As far as the negotiating process is concerned, it is well known it has been competently and professionally handled by Ambassador Reisman and his colleagues from the very beginning. There has been an unprecedented degree of cooperation with the First Ministers, all of whom have expressed satisfaction with their involvement and contribution. There has been a debate in the House, and there has been a great public debate. So there has been a tremendous exchange of information as we pursue, as we should, the national interest.
[DOT] (M25)
I have indicated from the beginning that if these fundamental differences that have emerged over the course of the discussions are not resolved then there shall be no deal. If we are capable of resolving them, we will bring forward for consideration a comprehensive trade arrangement which we believe will be in the national interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is resorting to history, he might be reminded that the previous Government's trade strategy resulted in the Tokyo Round of negotiations of GATT that gave us secure guaranteed access to the American market for softwood lumber which his Government totally loused up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with that small introduction, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to the question.
The Prime Minister has still not answered the fundamental problem, that is, you have got five days to go. You have got a negotiating process-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will watch his question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Prime Minister this. Does he propose that in the next five days, if his Government decides to resume negotiations, that it will be able to resolve all the differences and work out an agreement that will cover all the potential flaws and fatalities of that agreement? Or will the Government be asking the country to buy a blank cheque, to buy a pig in the poke so that we will not know what we are getting? We will be signing away the future of the country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when my hon. friend refers to a pig in the poke, I am reminded that the Liberals under the Tokyo Round neglected agriculture-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and all the shame that that caused at the Tokyo Round to the Canadian farmers. The Hon. Member
September 29, 1987

should be ashamed of himself. Western farmers were double-crossed by that.
My hon. friend seems to be traumatized by numbers. For example, he keeps referring to five days. Whether it is five days, five minutes, or five hours, the bottom line remains the same. This deal shall be in the national interest of Canada or there shall be no deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We have been told that the Cabinet has been meeting all morning. We have seen the spectacle of cabinet Ministers flying to Washington for seven hours of pleading with the Americans.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why it is that after this much discussion, this much debate within Cabinet, it is not possible for the Government to tell the Canadian people what is going on. Why are Canadians being kept in the dark?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am reeling under that onslaught. There is something pathetic about hearing a protectionist with his feet firmly rooted in the 19th century trying to talk about changing world trade patterns. I think the NDP is very much on record as having indicated that it opposed the Auto Pact, a great liberalized trading instrument. It has indicated where it is and where it will be in the future.
We have had ongoing negotiations on this important trading matter. Yesterday was an important development in that. Very serious differences remain. We will see if we are capable of resolving them together.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. The negotiations go on and on with no result, and Canadians are not being told what is taking place.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MAKE ITS DECISION KNOWN
Steven W. Langdon: Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This Government has been negotiating with the American for 16 months. Yesterday there was another meeting which went on for seven and a half hours. The Cabinet has been discussing this question all morning. Why does the Government find it impossible to let us know its decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same question in French as in English. Obviously the answer is the same.
In addition the Hon. Member is complaining that he feels he is being denied information. The fact is that the Minister for International Trade did offer to give NDP Members a special
Oral Questions
and confidential briefing just so they would be fully cognizant with all details. But the NDP Members rejected this offer.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ADOPT NEW APPROACH
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to avoid specific questions on this latest crisis which is facing the Canadian people and the country itself.
Does the Government not realize that the game is over? Does it not realize that time is running out? Does it not realize that it has to decide to take a new and different approach instead of following the same sell-out path which it has taken us on for so long?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friend to reread the answers that were provided to the earlier questions of the distinguished Leader of the Opposition.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I requested a public inquiry into the Memotec purchase of Teleglobe, and the Government refused. Today I feel even more justified in calling for a public inquiry, especially after learning that the Government has ordered Memotec to hold off the announcement of its bid.
Why did the Government advise Memotec to postpone the announcement of its bid? Did the Government not realize that this could increase the risk of insider trading? Why does the Government not believe that each and every Canadian should have equal access to the information?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out in the House yesterday, there are three inquiries going on: the Quebec Securities Commission, the Ontario Securities Commission, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I feel somewhat constrained and have some respect for the fact that charges have been laid and no one has been convicted. There are other people who could also take those constraints to heart.


Mr. Nystrom:: Why the delay?

September 29, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO HOLD INQUIRY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, Memotec was in an unusual situation. On the one hand, it was being told by the Quebec Securities Commission that it should reveal that it had made an offer to purchase. On the other hand, the Government was recommending that Memotec postpone such an announcement. Yet, in the case of Canadair and de Havilland, we knew two months beforehand who had made purchasing bids. I therefore wonder why the president of Memotec is now complaining that the Government of Canada prevented him from making his offer public. What I want to ask the Government is this: What was the Government trying to hide at the time, and what is it trying to hide now by refusing to hold a public inquiry?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the confidentiality agreement is part of normal commercial practice during a bidding process.


Jacques Guilbault: Why not in Canadair and de Havilland?


Barbara Jean McDougall: 1 am sure the inquiry will bring out all the facts about this case when the time comes. I think that a parliamentary inquiry, or some other inquiry, could prejudice the outcome of that case.
1 have no intention of interfering with the fair process of justice in a commercial transaction.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Recently we learned that CSIS has targeted a left wing magazine and infiltrated the labour movement in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister now explain to Canadians why in February of this year CSIS hired a senior agent to co-ordinate its activities within the Canadian peace movement? What is CSIS doing with a unit of at least four full-time people specifically targeted to work within the peace movement in Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the answers given in the House with respect to similar inquiries of a general nature have been addressed very well by the Solicitor General.
He has pointed out that, as a result of representations and suggestions made by our Party when this legislation was brought forward, there are at least two opportunities for investigations with respect to the operation of CSIS which have been established, quite apart and in addition to the prerogative of the Hon. Member to ask questions on the floor of the House and in committee.
It seems to me that the Solicitor General was also correct in pointing out to the Hon. Member that if there are specific complaints that the Hon. Member has, or any other citizen, that they should utilize those inquiry devices that are available under the legislation. In this manner they would have the opportunity of getting a proper assessment and we could then make a judgment on facts rather than on speculation.


David Orlikow: Whitewash.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with speculation. I have before me an internal CSIS document which describes dearly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -the objectives of the individual who is working within the peace movement in Canada.


INFILTRATION OF PEACE MOVEMENT IN CANADA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the CSIS hired last February a sub-section chief to examine pro-Soviet activities within the bone fide peace movement, using recruitment tactics and the manipulation of human resources. My supplementary is this: What will the Prime Minister do to put an end immediatly to this dangerous and undemocratic infiltration of the peace movement in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the New Democratic Party believes in principles of justice in our country, they should not be applauding that question.
The reality is that the Hon. Member comes forward and makes an allegation. By way of example, if the Hon. Member were to give information to the Inspector General, or to the independent SIRC committee which has a representative of the New Democratic Party, sworn to the Privy Council, for the purpose of examining the operation of CSIS, and if the Hon. Member were interested in improving the system, then he would do those things.
I can only report that I do not have any access to these documents that the Hon. Member purports to have in his possession. I would ask the Hon. Member to do what is proper and just and in accordance with our principles of justice.
September 29, 1987


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister in charge of Regional Industrial Expansion and of Science and Technology, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. For two years the situation in the east end of Montreal, has been tragic. We have witnessed the establishment of the Survival Committee. One year later, the Picard report was tabled and we are still waiting for a response to that report's 86 recommendations. And today, the Pichette report just tabled recommends that the Government take immediate and drastic steps to help the 22,000 unemployed who are involved in the east end of Montreal.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is the Prime Minister, following those two reports, those hundreds of testimonies, and considering the situation of all those people in the east end of Montreal who are faced either with unemployment or welfare, will the Prime Minister now show some leadership and deliver on the commitment he gave in the shadow of Place Ville-Marie to do something for the City of Montreal?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister as well as the Members from Quebec and the Ministers have tried to do something for Montreal that has been thwarted by the Liberal Party, and I am referring to Bill C-22-millions of dollars in investments and jobs for Montreal. And today, they stand in this House and refer to the Picard report and yesterday's Pichette report. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology has indicated he would soon be responding to the Picard report. As to the recommendations of the Pichette report, we will consider them and respond in due course.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we are sick and tired of the rhetoric used by this Government, who constantly refers to Bill C-22.
Mr. Speaker, all reports concerning the east end of Montreal mention the rail industry and the oil industry. There is a difference between train wheels and pills.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I am asking the Minister: For two years he has been doing nothing about the situation in Montreal's east end. There was the Picard report, now there is the Pichette report. Will they stop skating or using rhetoric, and get some action done? This is what the Pichette report is urging you to do. Stop monkeying around and do something!
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs
Oral Questions
and Northern Development)): Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party is so interested in action, they should talk to the Senators, and let us pass Bill C-22. There is action-it means jobs and investment in Montreal.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I am sure he knows the importance of keeping western grain moving through the Seaway and that this morning marine engineer union president, Mr. Gilbert Gauthier, said that he would welcome some government involvement in trying to help solve the dispute.
In light of that fact, 1 want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not he is now willing to appoint a mediator, which would help to solve the dispute on the Seaway.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of that declaration, and I am presently looking into it.


REQUEST FOR EARLY APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome what the Minister has said, and I would like to ask him whether or not he will do that today, because it is a very important issue to western Canada in terms of keeping the grain moving. The union has already agreed to have the Government involved.
Will the Minister speak to management to ensure that a mediator can be appointed today or, at the very latest, tomorrow?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I
indicated, Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the declaration. My officials are looking into it, and they will report to me later this afternoon.


AIR SAFETY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the bombing of Air-India Flight 182.
Yesterday the Government admitted that Air-India requested bomb-sniffing dogs and that that request was turned

September 29, 1987
Oral Questions
down. The Government also admits that the X-ray machine examining luggage boarded on to the ill-fated flight broke down on the day in question.
My question is very simple. Why was Flight 182 allowed to take off when all the luggage was not properly screened?
Is the Government prepared to admit today that it bears some responsibility for the breakdown in security resulting in the loss of 329 lives?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a lawyer, although you would never know it, and he well knows that this is a matter under litigation in the courts of the country, actions taken by Air-India and other people. It is therefore sub judice, and there is nothing to be added.
Just because the hon. gentleman has access to court files and comes up with these questions does not mean to say that he should ask them. He should wait for the court actions to be heard.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Minister that I passed law school and his two sons didn't.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stewart:: Sleaze.


Some Hon. Members:: Privilege.


Mr. Mazankowski:: That says it all.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for York South- Weston would put his question-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: -without the necessity of using language that wounds people who are not in this Chamber. I know the Hon. Member would not want to leave those words on the record.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for my comments, hoping that the Minister will do likewise.


WARNINGS GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICIALS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question-


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: You are in the Chamber, fellow.


Mr. Rossi:: Mike, go back to sleep.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has apologized.


An Hon. Member:: Insincerely.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances I would ask that all Hon. Members give the Member the chance and the courtesy to ask his question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on the same subject and is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Will the Minister admit that the officials of the Government of India warned his Department about a month before Air-India Flight 182 was bombed? Could he indicate to the House the exact nature of the official warnings? Could he also indicate what was done about the particular warnings from the Government of India?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, both my sons practise law. They don't practise slander in a Chamber from which no redress can be sought.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He can't take it but he can dish it out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a bad reflection on you.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: He is one of your biggest liabilities.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No wonder Peckford bit his finger.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York East.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion my question is directed to whomever may be answering for that Minister.
One year ago in the Speech from the Throne, the Government indicated that it would not only be pursuing trade negotiations with the United States and through GATT but also with provincial Governments for the purpose of removing interprovincial trading barriers.
What has been happening on that issue? When will we see some action? Why is the Government dragging its heels in this matter?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the issue of interprovincial barriers was raised at the First Ministers' Conference in 1986, and Regional Development Ministers across Canada have also addressed the question.
Ongoing meetings have been taking place on this important matter. Specific areas have been identified for discussion. Negotiating teams have been set up to review the possible reduction or elimination of interprovincial trade barriers.
We are confident that these negotiations among the provinces will continue and that an agreement will be reached.
September 29, 1987


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I pointed out to him in questions last week and the week before that in the recent letter carriers' strike Canada Post has been found guilty of breaking the law with regard to forcing workers to do work which is normally done by workers on strike. I pointed out that the internal document of the Post Office also indicated that this was true.
This being the case, why would the Minister of Labour not issue a statement to all employees of Canada Post explaining to them what are their rights?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to my hon. colleague in response to his letter, and I quote:
It is incumbent upon all parties to respect the law, and there should be no necessity for a Minister of Labour to specifically advise one particular party of this fact.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INFORM EMPLOYEES OF RIGHTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's letter also said:
The Board's decision is quite clear, and removes any misapprehensions which may have existed previously regarding the interpretation of Section 184(3)(c), and the protection it affords to employees.
Since many non-unionized workers feel intimidated, why will the Minister of Labour not take the step of informing them exactly what are their rights?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the quotation from my letter which the Hon. Member just mentioned, and I still stand behind that statement. According to me, all parties in all disputes must respect the law.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. He will know that in Saskatoon in October there will be a national forum on post-secondary education.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: It is all very well for government Members to applaud, but I hope the Government will be in a position to applaud when the Minister releases the report he has done on the Canada Student Loans Program. Canadian students
Oral Questions
coming out of university are suffering a debt load of anywhere from $12,000 to $20,000 per student. That is tragic.
When will the Minister release the report? Will it be before the forum? What will he do about that crushing debt load?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member may know, I met with the executive committee of the Ministers of Education on September 14. At that time we received the report from the officials, federal and provincial, with respect to that matter. I expect that I will be able to make a statement on it within the next week or two.


EDUCATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the forum is an important first step but it is only a first step. Are the Minister and the Government committed to a follow-up, to an ongoing forum or to a council as suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Party in a speech he made in Toronto recently so that there can be a national focus and strategy for post-secondary education?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, when I announced the establishment of the forum some months ago, it was of course the first time in the history of Canada that that had been done. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that this Government intends to follow up. In establishing the forum itself, the Government is taking on the opportunity to put Canada in the position of having postsecondary education again at the top of the national priority agenda of Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Recently the Canadian Human Rights Commission directed Treasury Board to recognize the principle of wage parity by adjusting the salaries of nursing assistants and hospital workers. These men and women who belong to the Hospital Services group of the Public Service were given raises of as much as 25 per cent in many cases.

The fact is that many registered nurses are working for less than registered nursing assistants who are in the same

September 29, 1987
Oral Questions
workplace. Would the Minister please see that the traditional relativity of these salaries is restored as quickly as possible?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I indeed appreciate the Hon. Member's question and I know of her interest in this very important issue. It is a very important matter. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition can laugh about it, but the Hon. Member and I have had discussions about it and I appreciate it very much. I also know that she is sincere about it. I want all Hon. Members to know that I am very sincere about it.
There is in place a joint union-management committee that is seized of this particular issue. We are having ongoing discussions within the Treasury Board Secretariat. Hopefully we can come up with a solution to this problem because, as the Hon. Member recognizes, this would impact right across the country on various other areas as well.


ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's predecessor made a commitment to give the nurses a method to adjust this by September 1. Would the Minister please put that kind of mechanism in place so that this adjustment could be made? It is separate from the joint bargaining committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we circumvent the bargaining process. I think she recognizes that is something that all Hon. Members treasure. Her suggestion is one that has been presented to me in the form of a letter and I will be responding to her in very short order.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Since 1986 the Consumer Price Index has risen 4.1 per cent but the average industrial hourly wage has risen less than 1 per cent and the federal minimum wage has not risen at all. What measures can the Minister take to stop this erosion of the ability of federal minimum-wage earners to cope with inflation?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As the Hon. Member knows, the Government reviews the minimum wage and I will take his comments into consideration when we effect the next review which will be shortly.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is about legal aid. Is the Minister aware of the tremendous deterioration taking place across Canada in the legal aid programs to which the federal Government contributes? If he is aware of it, what is he doing about it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be aware of something that does not exist except in the Hon. Member's imagination. These general allegations with respect to the quality of legal aid across Canada have nothing whatsoever to do with the commitment and support of the federal Government for this very important component of our justice system.
All I can say to the Hon. Member is that we have put into the legal aid system, by virtue of agreements put forward for the next three years, record amounts of money to be made available to areas which are essentially under provincial jurisdiction. If the previous Government had had only a particle of the commitment to legal aid that this Government has, I would have been the first to congratulate it.


USER CHARGES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is so happy with the legal aid system across Canada, does he feel that user charges are an appropriate part of the legal aid system to which the federal Government contributes?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this question has, of course, arisen in the course of negotiations with the provinces. There is an element of flexibility in these agreements to allow for cost recovery, in appropriate cases for which legal aid has been provided, from those people who are indeed in a position to contribute. This is a matter that has nothing to do with Party affiliation. For example, in the Province of Ontario where, as my hon. friend will know, there is a Liberal Government, there are provisions whereby moneys can be recovered with respect to the delivery of legal aid. All I am saying is that we are setting down as a basis of the discussions we are having on an ongoing basis with the provinces fair and reasonable propositions with respect to cost recovery.
If there are individual cases, we want to make sure that they are followed in accordance with the agreement we have entered into with the provinces. In terms of actual commitment, this Government has increased substantially the amount of money contributed to legal aid across Canada. I think the Hon. Member should be the first one to acknowledge that and to give us some acclaim for that action.
September 29, 1987


FISHERIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since Newfoundland walked away from the bargaining table in the fish negotiations between Canada and France we have been treated to the spectacle of the Minister of Transport and the Premier of Newfoundland, the two lilliputian titans, engaging in mutual ego bashing. Is the Prime Minister prepared to put his diplomatic skills to work by getting Newfoundland back to the table and by working out a common position with the Premier of Newfoundland so that the people of Newfoundland are not left in the lurch?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the prelude to the hon. gentleman's question was in the same category of literature as that of the author of Gulliver's Travels.
I must report to the House that the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has made a contribution supporting the position of the Government of Canada. He should take a few lessons from that personage.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, there are many in this House who think the Minister of Transport is a wit. I think they are only half-right.


Some Hon. Members:: Author!


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hour, perhaps the Hon. Member would put his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, so I'm not seen to be a Joe Biden, I want to say that I did not plagiarize that. I give credit to the only Conservative in this House that I have liked, and that is John G. Diefenbaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You like Flora.


John R. Rodriguez: And Flora!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What about Maz?


An Hon. Member:: And George.


John R. Rodriguez: And George!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONTACT PREMIER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Irrespective of what the Leader of the NDP in Newfoundland said, or anyone else,
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
what is important is that the people of Newfoundland participate at the bargaining table. I am asking the Prime Minister to use his influence and position to get in touch with the Premier and work out a common position so Newfoundland can take its proper place at the bargaining table in harmony with the rest of those who are negotiating.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to send over some startling information to the hon. gentleman who has just done as he is bidden. That information is that I am from Newfoundland. The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is from Newfoundland. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's is from Newfoundland. We are at the bargaining table. We are protecting Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada and we are going to do so until the end!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege regarding a remark made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). It occurred during Question Period when the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) put a question regarding infiltration of the peace movement by CSIS. At that point the Deputy Prime Minister remarked that they are Communists.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is false.


James Ross Fulton: I know the Deputy Prime Minister would not hold that view. The peace movement in Canada is composed of physicians, members of the church, and many other Canadians from coast to coast. Knowing him to be a fair-minded man, I know he would want to withdraw that remark.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one to withdraw that remark if I had made it. I did not make it and that is the honest truth.


Mr. McDermid:: Fire your researcher, Fulton.


Charles Joseph Clark: Get up, Jim, and apologize.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I certainly take the Deputy Prime Minister at his word. As I looked over I heard the words said and I am sure Hansard will have recorded them. Perhaps whoever did say it will show the same sense the Deputy Prime Minister and I have, and withdraw those words.


Mr. Speaker:: The complaint of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is that the Minister said something. His

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
reply was that if anyone said it, he did not. The Hon. Member for Skeena has of course accepted that. He now wants whoever said it to identify themselves and withdraw. If that should happen it would solve the Chair's problem. The Chair is not in a position to solve the Hon. Member's problem easily.
I might point out, of course, that the Communist Party is not outlawed in this country. I am not at all sure that it is a question of privilege in any event. However, 1 ask Hon. Members to refrain from using language which may offend other Members unnecessarily, thereby putting the Chamber to the time and effort of trying to accommodate all Hon. Members and get on with the business of the day.
I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that 1 do not think the Chair can do anything further at this time.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act. 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section;
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
September 29, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
IOIB.	(1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws
Constitution Amendment, 1987
under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
[Stage Direction]
September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its
powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the
Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) had the floor.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on September 22, one week ago today, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) if he would facilitate a meeting of women's constitutional experts and government constitutional advisers to examine the impact, if any, of the constitutional accord on women's equality rights. The Prime Minister facetiously dismissed the question, as did the Canadian Press.
Today the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women made a similar request, enlarging it to suggest that there be a national conference convened for the purpose of seeing if there is any case to be made for women's equality
rights and other equality rights, including that of minorities, having been put in jeopardy. I urge the Prime Minister to look very seriously at this request and not just shrug it off as he did my earlier request. He should facilitate the holding of such a national conference.
I also urge him to pay some attention to the report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitutional Accord. I was really shocked this morning when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) made no reference to the recommendations of that committee. It is as if all the work we did during the summer, all the witnesses we heard at our hearings, all the recommendations they made to us, were for nought. The Minister simply ignored the report. He probably has not read it, but he could have at least tried to have read the last chapter.
Since no other Minister of this House was involved in the process of drawing up the Constitutional Accord, I think all of us would expect the Prime Minister, in preparing himself to speak on the Accord, as I am sure he will, to very carefully study the recommendations of the joint committee concerning aboriginal rights, particularly self-government, and the unfairness of the Accord to the people of the North.
Indeed, there is a very strong recommendation that there is no justice for the exclusion of the territorial government's nominees to the Supreme Court and that the unanimity rule for the entry of new provinces is much too constraining. It is recommended that linguistic duality be promoted as well as preserved, that there be far more attention paid to the ethnocultural reality of Canada, and that the First Ministers should give serious consideration to the possible repeal of section 33 of the Charter, the over-ride section, which is of particular concern to minorities in the country. It is recommended that there be a process of Charter reviews since it became so clear during the hearings this summer that many aspects of the Charter itself are questionable. In some ways we are having a good deal more trouble with the Charter than with the Constitutional Accord itself.
Finally, we hope that the Prime Minister will at least address the question of the process of constitutional reform of which the Minister made no mention at all this morning. Apparently the Minister thinks that the process of the First Ministers getting together to draw up an agreement and consulting the Canadian public only after it had been done was just dandy.
The Special Joint Committee makes a very powerful recommendation that there be a permanent joint committee of both Houses on constitutional reform and renewal which would hold hearings across the country before the First Ministers meet on such matters as equality rights, the ethnocultural reality of Canada, the over-ride clause of the Charter, and the aboriginal peoples' rights to self-government.
September 29, 1987

It is recommended that we encourage the Canadian public, as well as the constitutional experts and professional associations, to participate in those hearings and that they be funded to do so. We cannot go on forever expecting volunteer groups to take hours and hours of their time preparing learned briefs without any payment for their efforts. We must, therefore, have funded participation. As a result of this process specific recommendations can be made to First Ministers so that they will know what is of most concern to Canadians with regard to constitutional reform.
I hope there would be some indication from the Prime Minister that attention has been paid to this and other recommendations of the joint committee. I would ask also that they read the New Democratic Party addendum. I spoke at length this morning about our concerns for the equality rights of women and our amendment in that connection. My colleagues will be speaking of our amendments already foreshadowed by the joint committee report with respect to fairness to our northern citizens and fairness to aboriginal peoples. They will be speaking in the course of the debate on those proposed amendments.
Finally, I want to reiterate that saying yes to Quebec after Quebec said yes to Canada in the referendum is one of the most exciting achievements that we have known in this generation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say how pleased I am to be able to participate in this historic debate and to have been able to sit on the committee. The joint committee of the House and the Senate studied the Meech Lake Accord and heard from a number of witnesses. I will come to my conclusions about the witnesses in a moment, but I cannot refrain from putting forward the point which witness after witness put forward, that is, that they needed more time to do a proper job.
The Meech Lake Accord is an achievement which I support for reasons that I will remind the House of in a moment. However, it could have been much better if the Government had been generous with it, if the Government had held hearings to give the people a true opportunity to put forward their opinions.
In spite of the committee hearings we experienced today what can only be referred to as executive federalism, that is, the changing of our Constitution basically by action of the executive of Parliament, the executive branch of the federal Government, and the executive of the provinces. That is not the way in which the Constitution should move forward.
My colleague, the Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), spoke about the joyous occasion which she thought this ought to be. In many ways it is, but how much better it would have been if the Government had been generous toward the people of Canada and given them every opportunity to prepare their brief in the amount of time
Constitution Amendment, 1987
they needed and to present them. Even more important, the Government should have given the people of Canada the hearing that they deserve.
I can say as a member of the committee who was present from beginning to end that there was never any intention of the Government to listen to the people of Canada. The Minister who was responsible for the matter, Senator Murray, indicated that they were only interested in hearing about egregious errors. They were not interested in hearing about ways in which the Accord could be improved. They were not interested in hearing about things which could be added to the Accord to make it a document which would have the support of a much broader constituency. That was not of interest to them. Their interest was only in technical errors in the work of the executive at the federal and provincial levels.
I am disappointed in both of those features. I am disappointed because my own conclusion and that of members of my Party who sat on the committee and listened to the witnesses is that it is a step forward, it is an Accord that we should support, but that it could have been a better opportunity for our country. It could have been an opportunity to address concerns of a number of constituencies which could have been addressed without in any way taking anything from the achievement represented by the Meech Lake and Langevin agreements.
A number of criticisms were made of the agreement. There are criticisms of the idea of a distinct society, criticisms of giving the provincial Governments any role at all in the composition of the Supreme Court, and criticism of the way in which Senate reform is to be brought forward, hopefully, but not necessarily, on an urgent basis, much to our regret.
However, by and large the amendments, and certainly the amendments to which the Official Opposition has loaned its support and which we have signed, are amendments which take nothing away from the fundamental achievement of Meech Lake which, as I have indicated, merely-if I can use that term-clarify it in a number of areas in which clarification is in order and add to it by bringing to the Meech Lake Accord the support of a number of groups which feel left out.
I would like to indicate why the Meech Lake Accord has my support. Our Leader spoke this morning of the very important achievement of bringing the Government of Quebec back into the process of negotiating further changes in our Constitution. I understood, and perhaps some Members of the House do not, the circumstances that in my view made it impossible for the Government of Quebec to have approved of the patriation and Charter in 1982. Even if the Meech Lake Accord had been presented by the Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I do not think it would have been acceptable to the Government of Premier Levesque. Therefore, I am one who looks at that period as one where unanimity was not obtainable.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
In the present circumstances, unanimity has been attainable and has been attained. The mere bringing of the Government of Quebec back to the table in constitutional evolution assures that there will be further evolution of our Constitution or, at least, that there can be. Without Quebec at the table we could have reruns of the kinds of sad failures that occurred with the native self-government initiative where, with a certain measure of goodwill on the part of the parties who participated, it was still impossible to work out a satisfactory agreement.
In the future, when we talk about Senate reform, an elected Senate, as I hope we will, and when we talk about the possible redistribution of powers between Section 91 and Section 92, about strengthening the Canadian economic union, and when we talk, as I hope we will, in future constitutional discussions about removing the notwithstanding clause so that no legislature and the Parliament of this country can deliberately pass laws which defy the Charter and to which the Charter is not applicable, Quebec will be there.
When all of that constitutional agenda; native rights, the recognition of the multicultural community in Canada, things that were not done in this round of constitutional negotiations, are discussed Quebec will be there, and that to me is a substantial achievement. It is an achievement which makes the Meech Lake Accord worth supporting and my leader indicated all of that.
I think it is also important to indicate that Quebec's adherence and support was not achieved at a cost of weakening our country. It was not achieved at a cost of making what has been wrongly referred to as the most decentralized federal system in the world-which our system is not-an even more decentralized system. 1 have studied the Accord. I have heard the witnesses. What I like about the Meech Lake Accord is that it does not do these things.
If one remembers, back in the early 1970s governments and spokespersons from Quebec had a pretty heavy list. They wanted to take control of the CBC within the borders of the Province of Quebec. They wanted to take over the communications power. They wanted a strong and specific power in the area of international relations. They wanted to license radio and television broadcasting stations and cable companies. They wanted the responsibility for the situation of the francophone minorities in other provinces of our country. These were matters which were in the past on the agenda of the Province of Quebec under former governments. They were matters which would have led to a Quebec within Canada with a very special status.
In my opinion, special status is one thing that is not a part of the Meech Lake Accord. A weakening of the federal Government is not a part of the Meech Lake Accord. As I look through it, I see that Section 91 and Section 92 which allocate powers to the two levels of Government are unchanged. Not only are they unchanged, but specific language is put into the Meech Lake Accord to make it absolutely certain that nothing
is to be taken away or added to either level of Government's powers under Section 91 and Section 92. That is there specifically. That applies, of course, to spending and to fund raising, raising money by various means of taxation. It is unchanged in the Meech Lake Accord. Both levels of Government retain all the powers they had before without gaining anything and without giving anything away.
I am particularly happy as well that the concept which the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, brought forward in the Official Languages Bill in 1969, enhanced as we continued in terms of constitutional amendments in 1981 and 1982, is unchanged. Bilingualism, as we conceived it back in 1969, is if anything strengthened in the Meech Lake Accord. It is not strengthened as much as I would have liked, but it is marginally strengthened. The door is open and I hope it will remain open for us to strengthen it in the future.
For example, Section 23, which provides for instruction for minority language communities across the country where numbers warrant, is still there. We in the Liberal Party called for the removal of that condition "where numbers warrant". We wanted a more generous attitude toward the situation of official language minorities across the country, whether English or French. I regret to reflect that, from what we understand, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the federal Government did not even ask for such changes. No suggestion was made to the provinces that "where numbers warrant" should be removed. However, that provision is there and it is strengthened marginally, as I indicated.
The Meech Lake Accord puts an obligation on the provincial Governments and the federal Government to preserve the linguistic duality of our country. Not only is Section 23 still there to continue to protect the official language minorities, but the Official Languages Act itself is still the law of the land. The provision is still in the Constitution whereby any province can declare itself to be officially bilingual, and where citizens' rights are enhanced in whichever province that occurs.
One opportunity was lost by our whole country through the Prime Minister's failure to raise that issue, to try on the occasion of the Meech Lake Accord to enhance the opportunity by seeing another province or another two provinces recognize officially their bilingual character. In our amendments, and the Liberal Party policy, last November, we called on Canada to move further along the line of provinces being officially bilingual. Nothing was done about it. However, as I indicated, I do not see the Meech Lake Accord as taking anything away from the type of official bilingualism that was begun by the Trudeau Government and which continues to be a national commitment.
Another thing that makes me pleased about the Meech Lake Accord is that the national leadership of the federal Government continues, in my view, to be a national possibility. There is still room with the powers the federal Government has, with peace, order and good government which is not diminished,
September 29, 1987

with the undoubted power, clarified, of the federal Government to spend money in areas of exclusive provincial responsibility, hedged, admittedly, by a provision contained in the Meech Lake Accord, but recognized that there still is an opportunity for the federal Government to provide national leadership.
I think there is a certain confusion in the country about that subject. 1 do not think the federal Government is providing national leadership now. I think we have a federal Government that is withdrawing from its role of national leadership. One could see from the daycare program the Government proposed that it is not interested in providing national leadership in national programs. One can see from the answer the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) gave me not one half hour ago about legal aid that the Government is not interested in providing national leadership. One can see in the environment, in consumer protection, in the cries of our cities for support for urban infrastructural costs, that the Government is not interested in providing national leadership.
But that is a very different thing from saying that the evolution of our Constitution deprives the federal Government of the opportunity to provide national leadership. I think the way in which we will have national leadership from the federal Government is to defeat the present Government and to elect a Government of a different political colour, for instance, a Liberal Government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party complains. Let me just say that I think that if an NDP Government were elected, the Meech Lake Accord would not be an obstacle to it in exercising national leadership.
When one looks at the Meech Lake Accord one should not hold it against the Accord that we have a federal Government that has copped out of providing national leadership in many, many important areas of life in Canada. That is this Government's style. It is a style that has won it the low position which it now holds in Canadian public opinion.
In our minority report we introduced a number of amendments. I think that it is accurate to characterize these amendments as clarifications and as additions. I cannot see them being characterized or considered as derogations from what was achieved at Meech Lake. I honestly believe, and it is the position of our Party, that it is not too late for these amendments to be considered by the Governments of Canada, provincial and federal, that have not yet taken the final steps that would make this Accord part of our Constitution. If that were done and if the list of amendments were considered and adopted, how could anyone argue that they would not improve the Meech Lake Accord?
The best the committee could do in its majority report was to come to the conclusion, not that the Liberal amendments
Constitution Amendment, 1987
would take anything away from the Accord, but that they could not be achieved, that there would not be the will or the consensus among Governments to make such changes. That is speculation by government Members, perhaps directed by the Government House Leader or the Minister responsible for this measure. I have more faith than that in the possibility of these amendments being adopted.
The amendments are not supported by us alone. These amendments have tremendous support across Canada. There are amendments dealing with multiculturalism, putting the question of native self-government on the agenda and dealing with the entry of the territories into provincehood. Each one of our amendments is an amendment that has tremendous support across the country. They take absolutely nothing away from what was achieved at Meech Lake. I want to urge Members of Parliament to reflect on that point.
There are now a number of Liberal provincial Governments in the country. It is a reasonable question to ask what the federal Liberals feel the provincial Liberal Governments should do. In speaking for myself I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the last thing we would want from any Liberal Leader or Liberal Premier is for them to say, "Well, 1 have read the Liberal amendments in the minority report and I have changed my mind about the Meech Lake Accord. We will only support it in this province if the other Parties agree to the minority Liberal report that was just put out in Ottawa". That is the last thing that we want. We want the Meech Lake Accord to go forward. What we are hoping is that Premiers and, indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), will look at our list, consult with their colleagues and reflect on the fact that these amendments do not diminish the achievement of Meech Lake but that, in fact, they enhance it. They bring to it the support of many groups that now feel out of the process, that feel they are not part of it. I think these amendments can be achieved. I urge them on all Hon. Members.
I hope that procedures will be developed in this debate for us to be able to present each of our amendments for the consideration of our colleagues. I would like to see Members of the House vote against the amendments. How could they vote against the recognition of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our country? Or how could they vote against the idea of an elected Senate? I name but a few, Mr. Speaker.
I want to conclude by asking Members to look at the amendments, not the weight of them, not their number, but for what they each stand, and for what they would do to make the Meech Lake Accord a better deal for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay).


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and a sense of privilege and honour that I rise today to support the Meech Lake Agreement now before this House.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
One of the witnesses who came before the committee, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, recalled that in 1930 Parliamentarian Henri Bourassa noted that in Canada there were an Ontario patriotism, a Quebec patriotism and a Western patriotism, but no Canadian patriotism and that there would be no Canadian nation as long as there would be no Canadian patriotism.
Like Mr. Trudeau, I find that essential, Mr. Speaker, and 1 propose to assess the various clauses of the Accord in the light of what Bourassa called-and I am referring here to Henri Bourassa-Canadian patriotism. But Mr. Trudeau was wrong because clearly there is a Canadian patriotism, but we must go out and tap that patriotism instead of staying in Ottawa and calling for it.
Mr. Speaker, allow me in my preamble to refer briefly to my roots and explain the starting point in my assessment. My family was in Manitoba before Manitoba entered the Canadian Confederation. My parents came to St. Boniface during the 40s from a small Manitoba village named Sainte-Anne-des-Chenes. I would point out to you that in a province where the majority language is English, my parents did not speak that language. So I, as a youngster learned very soon in the street what it meant to belong to a minority group, when my first language was French and all my friends spoke English only. I soon learned also that in Manitoba teaching French was not allowed. I vividly remember that when the school inspector came to visit our classes, our French books and crucifixes had to be hidden away. French was taught nonetheless but it was against the law.
Later in life, I had an opportunity to represent Canada to the University Hockey World Games in Turin, in 1966. And there, for the first time, I noted that the world does not always perceive us as we see ourselves in Canada. The translator who was provided for our team only spoke Italian and French, because it was taken for granted that all Canadian hockey players were French-speaking. I also felt for the first time what it means for a young Canadian to walk behind one's flag and to experience the emotion felt for this wonderful country.
So I view that Accord as a fancophone from outside Quebec, as a very proud Manitoban and as a Canadian, and I state as clearly as I can that it is not impossible to be a threefold patriot. Only the weak are afraid of a distinct society. Only the weak wish everybody were alike in Canada.

I come to the House to speak in this debate as a franco-Manitoban, as a westerner. I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that for westerners Ottawa is pretty far away. We know that it is far away because we cannot drive to it in one day. We know that our National Arts Centre, our House of Commons and our Government are located in Ottawa, and we know that they are all far away. We know what happened when a purported national Government passed a national energy plan and struck the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We know that these
instruments have the capacity for removing the capital that we westerners require to develop ourselves.
This morning the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) mentioned conflict and confrontation. In western Canada we know a great deal about conflict and confrontation. For a long time we have felt that this is what our national Government was doing to us.
When I look at Meech Lake, as Mr. Bourassa has stated, I speak of a Canadian patriotism. I know it is possible to be a Manitoban, a franco-Manitoban, and a Canadian, and that one does not exclude the others.
When we started our work as a committee this summer the first thing that was said to us was that our committee was a sham and a rubber stamp. Because I wished to be sure that all of the questions of my constituents were put on the table, on the first day I asked the Minister responsible what was the hurry with this process. Had the federal Government sold the farm? What was the purpose of the committee? I asked those questions, and I can stand before you today and state that I asked them because I wanted the answers, and I received the answers that I wished.
I know today that these were the wrong questions to ask. They were not the questions that mattered. People talked about the process being a sham. Of course, hindsight is the best teacher we have ever had. Looking back we might suggest a different process for the next round. The committee did exactly that.
When people talk about a process to avoid substance, I am reminded of the preacher who wrote in the margin of his speech for Sunday, "Weak point, shout louder". Process is one consideration, substance is another. The substantial agreement of Meech Lake is far more important than the process that led to it.
When people talk about federal or provincial power, my constituents remind me regularly that who provides which service is less important to them than the fact that a quality service is provided. They do not wish us to fight about power. They wish Governments to deliver the services required.
When the media criticizes this Accord and the process, I know that the committee would wish me to say to them and to the other critics that we wish they would read the letters from the 301 people who wrote in to us, the testimony of the 100 or so witnesses who appeared before the committee, and the complete analysis of the committee's report. We have not only put forth our recommendations for all to see, we have put forth the analysis which led to them. Critics should pass the test of agreeing or disagreeing with our analysis and not with some superficial vision that they read in the newspaper.
The Accord allows Quebec to resume its full role in the Canadian constitutional family and thus repair the damage done to national unity when Quebec was isolated in 1981.
September 29, 1987

After the referendum, former Prime Minister Trudeau promised renewal. What Quebec got was an agreement in 1982 which did not reflect the renewal that they sought. The Accord respects the equality of the provinces, assures federal authority in the capacity to exercise national leadership. It fosters co-operation and reinforces the federal structure of Canada.
It is that vision of Canada that I wish to support. This vision does not see a strong federal Government and weak provincial Governments. It does not see winning and losing, but rather it sees all Canadians and all Governments working together in the best national interest.
One question that we asked ourselves was, should we reopen the Accord? We concluded that it was the unanimous agreement of 11 First Ministers, all of whom are committed to proceeding with its ratification, that those 11 Ministers represented us, and that it would be our decision as a Parliament to agree or not to agree. In our view, opening up the Accord and considering amendments would have led to pressure to reopen the Accord for other subjects. There is no guarantee that, if we were to reopen this Accord, the necessary consensus could then be restructured on a different set of objectives.
Further, there is no pragmatic reason to reopen the Accord, since many of the changes being sought will be easier to accomplish in the future when Quebec sits as a full and participating member for constitutional renewal. There is no morally justifiable reason to reopen the Accord. I wish to remind all Flon. Members that, unlike a number of those groups seeking changes, Quebec was left isolated, and again may be left isolated.
I support the suggestion that we must look at aboriginal selfgovernment. It is very clear that we wish to do that. Need I remind Members that we have had four such conferences and they all ended in failure? Merely saying that another conference should be held is not sufficient. All of the participants must rework their positions and seek a solution.
There is no question that the deliberations that led to more discussion and concern on our part was the matter of the Charter of Rights. We came to the conclusion, based not only on our own opinions but on the opinions of countless witnesses who supported that position, that the distinct society clause will not take away, override, or supersede Charter rights. The courts can now take into account the reality of Quebec's distinct society, where relevant. Quebec's willing acceptance of the Charter's legitimacy strengthens the Charter itself and the values it reflects.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, for a franco-Manitoban like myself, constitutional recognition of the existence of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in this country marks a decisive step in our history, as does confirmation in our Constitution of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the role of Parliament and of each provincial legislature to protect this fundamental reality.
Obviously, some people will want us to go even further. Suffice it to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had put on the table the promotion of minority rights throughout the country during these discussions and that there was no concensus at the time.
Our Government is now sponsoring a Bill on official languages. I believe that it will soon become law. We are making some progress, and the Committee itself recommended that this major issue of the promotion of minority rights be put back on the table.

Senate reform will be the first item on the next round of constitutional discussions. I believe that Senate reform will occur. What is more important, I disagree with the suggestion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition this morning that he would prefer returning to the seven provinces or the 50 per cent majority for this item. The committee disagrees. I need not remind Members that under that formula the two large provinces and five others could tell my province or the Province of Alberta what type of Senate reform they would have. We believe that to be inappropriate. There will be Senate reform, and there will be an elected Senate, but it will be the type of reform that is supported by each province in Canada.
All through the summer the committee met, with the participation of all Parties. It worked long hours, it heard at least a hundred hours of testimony from witnesses who gave this subject incredibly close consideration despite all of the comments on the process being hasty. These Canadians had obviously thought about this a great deal. They cared a lot about the subject. They wished to present their views to us and to all Canadians.
The committee's report stated that the question before Parliament and therefore before us in preparing this report is not whether a different solution might have been reached, or whether other constitutional issues might also have been addressed. Clearly the answer is yes to those questions. It is quite simply whether or not the Accord that has been agreed upon should be adopted, or whether any amendments should now be adopted.
The evidence heard by the committee suggests that the terms of this Accord reflect a compromise. No one should expect perfection in a compromise. A number of witnesses told us that the provisions of the Accord as it is now constituted are the absolute minimum terms upon which it will be possible to secure agreement among the Government of Canada and the provinces including Quebec not only now but into the foreseeable future.
It was under this opinion, which was reflected by most of the witnesses, that we recommended adoption of the Accord.

September 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
There were as always-and there will be here in the House of Commons-a number of worse case scenarios put forth. If these assumptions had been accepted by the committee, it would be appropriate to reject the Accord on that basis. If the worse case assumptions were the appropriate criteria, one would have withheld legislative power from the provinces over property and civil rights out of fear that it could be used to expropriate all private land holdings.
The committee looked at the worse case scenarios. Dean John Whyte of Queen's University Law School gave us a test in which we could address them. It was as follows: "Therefore the deficiencies of the Accord must be serious and they must be likely". As a member of the committee I say to the House that the critics have not met their own test. The deficiencies of the Accord are not serious and they are not likely.
The committee will now deal with the future of constitutional change. The British North America Act was not written as a constitution for all of us as modern Canadians. It served us well, and the repatriation of 1982 was important to Canada. In the future the process can be improved. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be looked at again, because questions are being asked about its application. Residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have the same rights as other Canadians in respect of having candidates for the Supreme Court. Aboriginal self-government must be on our agenda. The promotion of our linguistic duality must be on our agenda. The ethno-cultural quality of Canada must be on our agenda, as well as a reformed Senate and the fisheries considerations.
These do not in any way detract from the Meech Lake Accord. They are things which we as Canadians have determined that we want to look at in terms of our future Constitution.
In conclusion, I want to make some comments from the point of view of a westerner who has seen conflict and confrontation. I think I came here partially because I wanted to bring to Canada a new sense of civility. Partisanship, yes, and disagreement, yes, but based on principle not on power. It is not who wins or loses. It is not the central power or the federal power versus the decentralized or provincial power. Canadians are residents of their provinces and they are Canadians. They do not want to fight over power. They want services provided.
It is not whether the Senate is appointed by the federal Government or the provinces, although it is clearly reasonable in our state to have the provinces being given a say in appointments to the Senate. What Canadians have been telling us is that they want an elected Senate. However, until it is elected, it seems reasonable that both groups would be represented.
Also it seems reasonable that judges should be appointed in consultation between the federal Government and the provincial Government. After all, the umpire of Confederation should be chosen by both teams.
It is not whether shared services are paid for by the federal Government or the provincial Government. I remind everyone that there is only one taxpayer. That taxpayer wants services provided and does not want his or her resources wasted by a fight over who is to deliver the services.
The findings of the committee really addressed themselves to a serious analysis of the following question: Is this Accord a good deal for Canada? In our report we addressed sequentially all the considerations. We stated our analyses and we gave our recommendations.
I think the committee has said-and I want to say it to the House-that the Accord is a great act of national reconciliation. It makes the country whole again. It is not flawed, as some say. It has its imperfections and its deficiencies. It points out a number of other national concerns which need to be addressed. It can be improved. The Constitution can be improved. The process of constitution-making needs to be improved. The substance of constitutional change needs to be addressed.
I came to the House of Commons in 1984 with a feeling about Canada which reflected my roots as a francophone outside Quebec, a minority member of this great Canadian country; as a Manitoban and a westerner who felt that confrontation and conflict had taken over where working together ought to be the norm; and, above all, as a Canadian who felt that this country in all its parts was a magnificent place in which to live, one of which we were all proud.
The Meech Lake Accord is not a perfect document for all times. It accomplishes its major objective, that of bringing Quebec into Confederation and of making a better Canada for all. I recommend to the House of Commons its adoption with all due speed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I must announce the questions to be raised tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Apartheid- South Africa-Canadian relations with African National Congress; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Penitentiaries^Provision	of health care
services/Government policy; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Acid rain-Government policies toward United States/Government position.
September 29, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Elon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
[Stage Direction]
September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
September 29, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its
powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the
Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like in the first place to congratulate the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) for the excellent speech he made in this House a few minutes ago.
Mr. Speaker, today we are having this historic debate in the House just like the historic debate we had seven years ago on the patriation of the Canadian Constitution.

I recommend very strongly to Members of the House the report of the joint committee which talks about not only the things that must be done today in terms of the Meech Lake agreement but also some recommendations for the future. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will look very seriously at the recommendations we are making not only about the Meech Lake agreement today but about future constitutional change, about what should be on the agenda, and about the fact that we are recommending a joint committee of the House and of the other place on an ongoing basis for constitutional discussion. These are very important matters.
We had a broad consensus of the three political Parties in attendance at the meetings this summer. I was very proud, along with the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), to be a member of the committee and to see the consensus among all three political Parties.
Before rising to speak today, I went through some back editions of Hansard and came upon the one for May 22, 1980, two days after the national referendum in Quebec. At that
Constitution Amendment, 1987
time the New Democratic Party had an opposition day, and I was the constitutional critic for my Party. We had an opportunity to put the following motion before the House:
That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec and
pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
I am very happy to say that I think all three Parties recognize that back on May 20, 1980 the people of Quebec voted yes for Canada and yes for constitutional change. I think the Meech Lake agreement will provide that major constitutional change and will bring Quebec, in the constitutional sense, back into the Canadian family. I believe that is very important.

Seven years ago, Quebec said yes to Canada in a referendum and now, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to say yes to Quebec and we should do so. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec's National Assembly passed the Meech Lake Accord three or four months ago. Could 1 now vote against Quebec? I am proud also to be from the first Englishspeaking province in Canada that passed the agreement last week in Regina, that is Saskatchewan, my native province.
Another quite significant fact, Mr. Speaker, is that now the three federal political Parties are in agreement. We have 11 First Ministers who agree on the Meech Lake Accord.
I think that is really significant.
I would like to go back over the history of why it is so important to have Quebec back in the Constitution, back in the Canadian federation in the constitutional sense. We spent some 25 years talking about what kind of a constitutional arrangement Quebec wants. We spent a lot of political energy on that question over the last quarter of a century.

I remember quite well the quiet revolution in Quebec during the sixties with Mr. Lesage as Premier and other important people such as Rene Levesque. There were two or three others who were also important at that time. Afterwards, there was Daniel Johnson's election campaign with the theme: "Independence or equality." He won the election with such a platform. Then there was the Victoria Conference in 1971 where a constitutional agreement was signed by all Premiers but then Mr. Bourassa who was Premier, on his return to Quebec revised his position. There was still some constitutional confusion afterwards.
During that period, the Parti Quebecois with Mr. Rene Levesque was founded. I very well remember November 15, 1976, and I think that all Canadians, all Quebecers well remember that date, November 15, 1976, when Mr. Levesque won the election with a huge majority in Quebec, forcing the goal of national independence for the people of Quebec. After that there was the May 1980 referendum. That was a tough

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
moment for Quebecers, and not only for Quebecers but for all Canadians across this great land.

We spent much political energy and much energy in general trying to come to terms with how Canada is organized. We now have an historic opportunity to have Quebec in the Confederation constitutionally, and L say, let us not miss that opportunity.
This afternoon, I would like to read the words of one person who appeared before our committee, and I will do so in English because I think it is a very important message for those of us who are English-speaking Canadians. It is the testimony provided by Madam Solange Chaput-Rolland. For me, she was the most moving witness who appeared before the committee. She appealed to those of us in the other nine provinces to understand how badly needed is the Meech Lake Accord. She said:
I think none outside Quebec knew the reality of the referendum. I travelled throughout Canada, about a few months after. It was all over, eh? Good. It was not exactly all over. Families against families, towns against towns, fathers and mothers not speaking to their children.
(During the Referendum) we spoke with thousands of Quebeckers. Women wanted to leave their children a country as big as the one they had received from their father. That was mainly the article that reached the heart, because you are right: in this country if we put a little more heart into what we are doing, maybe we would be aware of the hurt we inflict on others.
And then we came home. We went back to the National Assembly, back to our villages, back to our houses, back to the friends that were no more friends; they were on the "yes", we were on the "no". It was not a picnic, it was not a social gathering, it was not a think-tank, it was a battle between brothers, a dangerous, divisive battle, and we still feel it. It was not 100 years ago, it was seven years ago that we lived that referendum.
English Canada could not care less one month after, and it stung me and it stung all of us who fought so hard to remain in Canada and to find ourselves outside of Canada. You know, it was a very dramatic gesture when Mr. Levesque put the flag of Quebec at half mast on the day you were all celebrating here.
But our hearts were at half mast too that day, because we were out of a country we had chosen to remain.
So the Accord of Meech Lake brought us something "incroyable" as a gesture of friendship-
And I would really like people to know that for us Quebeckers, as for all the others here and everyone else, the Meech Lake accords are not an end, but the beginning of a grand process, I think. But I must tell you that for me it is really the first time that I have felt, YES, I won that referendum.
But surely by now, surely, you all know that if Meech is to fail for whatever reason, there can be no more negotiations, no more justifications.
If Quebec is once again to realize that it is more difficult to opt in Canada than to stay out of Canada, then surely, you know that the roads of tomorrow can only lead to another form of independence, but this time not chosen by any political party in Quebec, maybe chosen and imposed on Quebec outside Quebec.
I believe the testimony of Madam Chaput-Rolland was very moving. I think the time has come when we must say yes to Quebec and make Quebec once again part of the constitutional family.
I also want to say that we as a Party very proudly support the idea that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. This
resolution says that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada as it is the only province with a French-speaking majority and an English-speaking minority. It is very much a distinct society.
As a Party, we also support the concept of linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Those are very positive reasons for supporting the Accord.
Aside from the Quebec reasons for supporting the Accord, there are other reasons as well. As I said before, we spent some 25 years on the Quebec question. One of the other reasons for supporting the Accord is that once Quebec is part of the constitutional family, a log-jam or a blockage that had existed will have been broken. Once Quebec is part of the family, we can begin to address seriously many other questions of constitutional change and build a Constitution that is even better for all Canadians from coast to coast.
As the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam said, the Meech Lake Accord also deals with co-operative federalism. She described the co-operative federalism of the 1960s under Mr. Pearson and the great confrontation and divisiveness of the 1970s and the early 1980s under Mr. Trudeau. Once again, this Accord is one that is built on a philosophy of co-operative federalism, and that is good for Canada. That is reflected in the way Supreme Court Justices are now to be chosen. The provinces will have a chance to nominate or recommend people for the Supreme Court, and the federal Government will have the final say by choosing from the list.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam also mentioned that spending powers are now enshrined in the Constitution for the first time. From our point of view, that is a very positive thing. The opting out with compensation is a positive thing for Canada and it reflects the Canadian reality.
I do not think that any of the social programs that exist today would not be in existence if this particular formula had been used previously. For example, I would remind the House that when medicare came in, only two provinces agreed to it, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Ontario was opposed to it. There was no medical care until there was a national will to have it and until the federal Government started putting in big bucks toward making medical care a reality.
The Quebec Pension Plan is another example of opting out. It is a very good pension plan and in some ways is even better than the Canada Pension Plan.
Also enshrined in the Accord is the equality of provinces. To me, a person who comes from a small province with a million people, that is very important in my vision of federalism.
Those are the positive things about the Accord. That is why, even without amendment, the House should vote overwhelmingly in favour of the Accord so that we may go on to build a tremendous country.
September 29, 1987

There are some ways to improve the Accord. In its addendum, our Party has suggested three specific, logical amendments that could be used to make the Accord even better. The amendments do not detract from the Accord nor do they unravel it. Indeed, they build on the Accord and make it all the better.
The first is fairness in the north. It is beyond me why the First Ministers would treat people north of 60 differently from the way they treat people south of 60. The people in the north do not have an opportunity through their territorial assemblies to nominate people to the Supreme Court of Canada or the Senate. I call upon all the First Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to change the Accord to make sure there is no discrimination against those people. This would not detract from the rights of people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia or anywhere else but it would make the Accord all the better.
In my opinion, the 11 First Ministers also did a very bad thing in changing the amending formula to require unanimity for the creation of new provinces. That is not fair at all. In 1905, my province came into Confederation in an arrangement made between it and Ottawa. In 1949, Newfoundland came into Confederation in an arrangement between it and Ottawa. That was a bilateral process and did not affect the other provinces. Why change it now?
As a compromise perhaps we should stay with the existing amending formula brought in by Pierre Trudeau in 1981-82 which says you can create a new province if you have the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. That is a compromise which would not be as discriminatory against the north.
Second, we suggest fairness for the aboriginal people of Canada. We suggest that conferences on native self-government be enshrined in Section 50 of the Accord. We are now putting on the agenda in the Accord itself conferences on the Senate and the fishery, and I appeal to our First Minister in this House to go back to his colleagues and try to persuade them to enshrine the obligation of aboriginal rights conferences within the Meech Lake Accord itself. That does not detract from anyone's powers or rights. In fact, in my opinion it adds to our rights and fulness as Canadians to make sure that we discuss Indian self-government at First Ministers' conferences very soon.

And, finally, Mr. Speaker, we also recommended and proposed justice for Canadian women. This morning, my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) took up several minutes to deal with the necessity of having it in Section XVI, where reference is made to multicultural groups and the native people of Canada. We must also mention Section XXVIII of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and refer to Canadian women and have total
Constitution Amendment, 1987
enshrinement of equality rights for both men and women in Canada. That is so important, Mr. Speaker, that I wonder why the eleven First Ministers overlooked such a right that is basic to Canadian women.

There are a number of other things one can mention. In our addendum we say it is very important for future agendas that we undertake a Charter review. Once again, my colleague mentioned the interaction on women's rights between Section 1 and Section 15 and Section 28. We certainly support the process of review. We also want to mention the override part of the Charter, Section 33, which should be reviewed, particularly when it comes to equality rights. I personally think with respect to discrimination on the basis of sex or colour that there should be no override whatsoever. We should not be able to legislate the removal of those kinds of rights. The override refers to many other things as well and I think we should be reviewing everything that it touches.
The second point referred to in our suggestions for the future is to flesh out the Canadian family in a more real sense. We have to look at recognition in the Constitution of the future of the ethno-cultural reality of Canada as a fundamental characteristic. Over 30 per cent of Canadians have backgrounds which are not Anglo-Saxon, francophone or native Indian. I suppose half my family background, given my Swedish name, reflects that ethno-cultural reality. The time has come to try to create the political will to recognize as soon as possible in future rounds the ethno-cultural reality. I know with your ethno-cultural background you would certainly be in agreement with having the First Ministers discuss this as soon as possible after the Meech Lake Accord is resolved.
I see you bending over in your chair in enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, but I have one last point to make and that is on the process.

He is a good man, Mr. Speaker, a good MP, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) who belongs to the Ukrainian ethnic group. I come from what is perhaps the most Ukrainian constituency in Canada, the constituency of Yorkton-Melville. That proposal is just as important to you as it is to me, Mr. Speaker, and you will agree on that.

We suggest and underline what is said in Chapter 15 of this report. We have to democratize the process. Constitution building is for the people of Canada, not just for 11 First Ministers, not just for bureaucrats and not just for Ministers in charge of the Constitution. In fact, it is not just for MPs or MLAs or MNAs. It is for the people of Canada. One way of doing that is by supporting the recommendation for a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, an ongoing committee to make suggestions to First Ministers on constitutional change and hold hearings across this country.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987

Public hearings are so important for Canadian men and women, and I hope the other Legislative Assemblies, in Saskatchewan and everywhere, will do the same to provide a more democratic process for having constitutional changes made here in Canada.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we have a great land.

We have a historic opportunity to bring Quebec into the Canadian family constitutionally, and once we do that we will have an even greater chance to make some of the changes I have talked about for the future, that is for the ethno-cultural reality, women, and the aboriginal people.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we did something.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecer and as a Canadian it is with emotion and pride that I rise today to support the historic accord of last June 3. First allow me to emphasize the vision and sense of history which inspired our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who was the great artisan of this accord. But each provincial Premier as well had to show much courage and selflessness to reach this accord. Indeed each provincial Premier had to demonstrate a particular feeling for the state and ignore personal and immediate interests to achieve this historic compromise which enables Canada to become whole again and Quebec to resume its role of consenting and henceforth active partner within the Canadian federation.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is an example of political courage, and we all know that such gestures in politics are few and far between. This is why the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers who signed the accord will be highly regarded by the historians of this country.
The debate we are launching today in Canada's Parliament comes on the heels of lengthy negotiations. The process was difficult, sometimes painful. And I experienced these debates, first as a Quebecer, as a Canadian in Ottawa and then in Quebec. I too must admit that I had doubts at times. I was not sure whether Quebec might one day be able to achieve selffulfillment without repudiating any aspects of its own personality in the Canadian Federation. We were being asked the question in a dramatic way: Was it possible to fully experience our pride, that of our roots, of our mother tongue and of our French culture, and at the same time to be just as proud to be Canadians? How could that be reconciled with the remembrance of our French ancestors who were lost in this hostile territory and who, gradually, traveled through the whole continent and eventually settled there only to lose it again, and the oppression from which conquered people generally suffer?
How could we preserve a language and a culture which stemmed from our roots and associate them with the reality of a country to be built, a mostly anglophone Canada to be called our own? Many decades were to go by before one day those realities could be reconciled. Indeed, had it not been resolved in some quarters that the Canadian citizenship required absolutely and without qualification the reduction of this other reality that is part of the soul of a people: its language, its culture, its tradition?
It is about that dilemma and the sufferings it has caused throughout our history that I want to talk about, because it is not futile to view the Meech Lake Accord in a historical perspective. In fact, history recounts the anguish, the conflicts and ultimately the achievement of having remained what we are: French speaking people in Canada, on the American continent.
The history of this people that Mr. Trudeau, when he just recently appeared before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, the history of this people that Mr. Trudeau described as a small people speaking a little understood dialect, is the history of a handful of French men and women isolated in a snowy land. In short, 60,000 people who had a dream of occupying a whole continent. That history is made of struggles, of shattered hopes, of extravagant dreams and bloody rebellions, but above all it is made of pride, a pride that is rooted in continuance, the pride of having survived in spite of all opposition and throughout all the misadventures that abound in our history. The pride of having maintained our language and our culture for more than two centuries and of being able to come here today in this House to assert in French our pride to be French speaking Canadians. That is what our Prime Minister was talking about in his speech delivered in Sept-Iles in August, 1984. Quebec men and women, said he, love Quebec and are proud to be Canadian. But Quebec men and women also love Canada and they are also proud of being Quebecers. They have a big enough heart for both loyalties. There is no doubt what has guided our Prime Minister and the Premiers of every province of Canada who have made possible on June 3 last, thanks to their ability to compromise, the return of Quebec in the constitutional family by signing the Meech Lake Accord.
A renewed federation had been promised to those among Quebecers who bet on Canada on May 20, 1980, which was the day of the Quebec referendum. However, a yes for Canada was also a no to certain things. It was a no to a uniform Canada governed from Ottawa where Quebec always seemed to be the loser. In his speech in Sept-Iles, the Prime Minister also stated: "One thing is certain, no Quebecer authorized the federal Liberals to take advantage of the confusion in Quebec after the referendum to ostracize their province from the Constitution." Mr. Mulroney also said: "My Party is not happy about the political weakening of Quebec caused by the unfortunate events which have taken place in Canada and in
September 29, 1987

Quebec. If Quebec is weakened, all Canada is weakened. If Quebec is strong, all Canada is strong. One of the component of this yes to Canada was the reassertion of the distinctive character of Quebec society and its right to be different within the Canadian federation."
On May 21, 1980, the day after the Quebec referendum, Mr. Trudeau assured us that renewal of federalism was possible. Not only was this renewal possible, but also desirable, according to him. Not only was it desirable, but also achievable, and in the very near future. After believing this promise, Quebecers were surprised to learn in 1982 that the Canadian Constitution would be repatriated. This took place without the agreement of Quebec and more or less behind its back. Experts have told us that the Constitution Act, 1982, was imposed to the Quebec Government against the will of the Legislative Assembly.
Quebec was therefore legally committed to the Canadian federation, but against its will. The Supreme Court recognized that this was unconstitutional. Moreover, many Quebecers added that it was immoral. In practice, this created two Canadas: A Canada made up of nine English-speaking provinces which had adhered to the Constitution, and a Canada composed of one francophone province, Quebec, which had not.
Can we now say no to Quebec, as the Liberal opposition in this House is doing? For all practical purposes, the Liberals are ready to sign the Meech Lake Accord, but they are also proposing a series of amendments which would simply destroy this Accord. Naturally, this is in line with the policy of the Trudeau Government, and the same people are now telling us the very same things in 1987. But the motto of Quebec is Je me souviens, and Quebecers do, indeed, remember.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not see the aspirations of Quebec rejected once more. We shall not now have the rest of Canada ask what Quebec wants and refusing to hear the answer.
It would actually be extremely dangerous to open up this Accord which is rather flimsy. Flimsy it is because it implies a certain amount of renouncement on the part of several provincial representatives who have signed this Accord. Flimsy it is also because, if we open it, each of them might see this as an opportunity to return with his shopping list, with his probably legitimate demands, but which are far from being as urgent as Quebec's return to the Canadian fold. Now, I should like to quote one of the key witnesses who appeared before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, namely Professor William Letterman, the former Dean of Law School at Queen's University. He said: "It is our view, Sir, that it would be very dangerous to start amending this text at this point. As I have said, this is an extraordinary operation to repair an unfortunate omission in 1982, and it responds to what the Quebec Government has told us would satisfy them. We think that objective is so important that we do not want to see it jeopardized in any way". It is neither I nor a member of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
this Tory Government who is saying that, but a former Dean of Law School at Queen's University.
As members of the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, we were overwhelmed very early with this feeling of urgency and felt the need to'correct this historical mistake as soon as possible. In the light of this historical urgency, we were mandated to study the Meech Lake Accord to ascertain whether there were in it any weaknesses, such as exist in any other constitutional agreement, which might be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. We could not find any. We found a number of clauses which could be improved upon, and that is why we have made a number of recommendations for future constitutional conferences.
It would be clearly out of the question to try and repair an injustice by creating other injustices against other Canadians or groups living in this country. But the nature of Quebec's distinct society which we have recognized had already been taken into account in a number of Supreme Court decisions as well as in our history. I should like to quote again from the statement made by Professor Letterman before our Joint Committee: "Nevertheless, I think it has been true since 1867 that the courts have known that the Quebec society is, in certain important ways, a distinct society." As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the concept was not new. The idea was first and foremost to make room for a sociological reality. "That has always weighted with them in settling constitutional issues that touched closely on Quebec. This has been implicit." And Professor Letterman added: "I believe it is worth making that which has been implicit explicit, in general terms, because it is, as we say in our brief, one of the fundamental realities of the Canadian free and democratic society, and has been from the beginning".
But we had also to take into account the flimsiness of the Accord. And that is what we did for several weeks last summer.
We have examined the Accord with our hearts, with open minds and in a spirit of accommodation. We have heard many groups. We have heard people tell us what they fear, what they worry about and what they want changed. Our review was rigorous and straightforward and each aspect was scrutinized with all due respect for those who had accepted to come and share their problems with us. But in the final analysis, we have not found in this historical compromise any obvious flaw which would frighten anyone in Canada. And those who fear that we may embark upon the slippery slope of the two nations concept must recognize along with Professor Letterman that nothing has changed, since Quebec's distinct society and unique character have been acknowledged on many occasions since 1867. It is therefore in a spirit of joy and pride that the provinces have greeted Quebec as an active member of the great constitutional family.
Mr. Speaker, we must be proud to support the first ministers' accord and to strive to make Canada a country where

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
belonging does not mean being the same and where living is worthwhile.
[DOT]	(1630)


Mrs. Finestone:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. With respect to the very careful deliberations she says they undertook in committee, and I appreciate the time, effort, consideration and concern that was part and parcel of a very important aspect of our life here in Canada, I wonder if the Hon. Member would explain to me the interpretation of Article 91, their questions and answers with respect to minority francophones and the consequences-

-the legal consequences of linguistic duality. Could she explain to me what the following part of page 52 means, and I quote: The Joint Committee accepts the advice that the "linguistic duality" clause is a constitutional step in the right direction for French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and that in law the "distinct society" clause is unlikely to erode in any significant way the existing entrenched constitutional rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
Could my colleague explain what the committee means when it says the clause cannot in any way diminish rights.

In a sense, could she explain the intent of "the clause is unlikely to erode in any significant way the existing entrenched constitutional rights"? What is "a significant way", and how would it be diminished or not?
[DOT]	(1640)


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the whole report is very clear on that point. The distinct society in Quebec exists since 1867. It existed under another crown, the crown of France, then under the crown of England. That has not changed in any way. My Hon. colleague will recognize that the English-speaking people in Quebec have always enjoyed a privileged situation as a minority in Canada. But sooner or later Quebecers had to assert their French culture. They had to convince everyone in Canada not only that they were able to defend their language but that their language, that of the majority, had to be spoken in the workplace, to be the current language and allow Quebec to affirm itself as different.
I do not think the English-speaking minorities in Quebec ever had to fear the loss of their language. Over the years they were given two universities, numerous services in their own language, and McGill University, for instance, is certainly one the finest of all Canadian universities. But the six million French-speaking Quebecers are lost on a continent of 225 million English-speaking people. We must not mince words. It is obvious to me the English-speaking minority in Quebec will survive with the support of the 225 million English-speaking
who inhabit this continent, and will survive regardless of the French fact in Quebec, as it has always survived and asserted itself through the years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: I would like to ask my Hon. colleague what grounds she has for saying that at Meech Lake, and I quote: "The Liberals said no to Quebec". I would like to know what she means when she says about the Meech Lake Accord that the Liberals said no to Quebec, for in my humble opinion the Liberals said yes.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer this question because many editorial writers have dealt with it in recent weeks. The hypocrisy of the current Liberal Opposition has been pointed out. I think it is very clear. On the one hand, they say yes, the Accord has their full support and, of course, they will not question it, but on the other hand they bring forth amendments. The list of amendments, if you analyse it, contains items that are so important that to all intents and purposes they are tantamount to questioning the Accord.
What I am saying and repeating in this House to my hon. colleague, and I speak as a former university professor, is that when in a text there are so many things which in one's opinion are offensive and objectionable, it would seem that the only thing to do is not to sign the text. However, the Liberals want to win on both sides, as they have always wanted to do.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate which I consider-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Speaker will be entering the Chamber shortly to make a ruling, I believe. At that time I would ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to relinquish the floor to the Speaker. However, at this time, he can continue his remarks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, any time the Speaker wants to speak in this House. I expect that that authority will be observed by all Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a moment ago I am pleased to take part in this debate which I consider historic. The proposal before us which introduces amendments to the Constitutional Act is for me the second opportunity to present my views. Everyone knows that I took part and got deeply involved in the 1981-82 debate on the patriation of the Constitution and on the amendment, and everyone knows that at the time I spoke with heartfelt emotion on the need to include in the proposed amendment a charter of rights and freedoms upon which I was insistent.
September 29, 1987

It was a great moment for Canada, but we managed to have only nine provinces sign the agreement. So it was also a sad day for a good many Canadians, considering that Quebec was not party to the 1981 constitutional accord.
Personally, as may be recalled, I was forced to withhold support in spite of the fact that I was in favour of patriation and that I felt the inclusion of a charter of basic rights and freedoms was a significant achievement.
I believe that Members of the Elouse and my constituents understood at the time that mine was a protest vote against the majority who oftentimes forgets that we in the linguistic or other minority are subjected to the mass, to that will expressed by the majorities.
Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see Sections 16 to 20 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was glad to see Section 23 concerning minority language educational rights outside Quebec, this of course having to do with francophones within Quebec, it had to do-when numbers warrant-


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Order!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is the Hon. Member seeking the floor? Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and other Hon. Members. However, I did want to return to the Chamber now to indicate that I have looked very carefully at the amendment of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) which he proposed in debate earlier today. I wish to indicate that I will defer any ruling on the amendment until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Of course, between now and then I am prepared to discuss with Hon. Members whether or not at that time one or others of them would wish to give any argument. Perhaps that is something that Hon. Members can indicate to me at some appropriate time.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that Your Honour would accept at three o'clock tomorrow to hear arguments in favour of the amendment moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) if so required. Did I hear Your Honour properly in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is absolutely correct. I would be very anxious, of course, to extend that courtesy. If it is the wish of Hon. Members to give argument tomorrow, then it would be helpful if they gave me some advice along that line. Perhaps they could speak to the Table Officers.
I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy in terms of my interruption. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier-


Clément M. Côté: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) on a point of order.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to my colleague that earlier, when referring to this change, his microphone was off and we missed part of his remarks, to my deep sorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not be taking any time off the Hon. Member's speech. Therefore, he can start wherever he likes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker and I thank my colleague. I did not know that the microphones were not working. I am sorry about that. As the technician of the Official Opposition, I am responsible for certain things in my Party, but not for the microphones or the sound system.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I had to vote against the 1981 Agreement in spite of the fact that I was for patriation and for inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that I was happy that linguistic guarantees would be entrenched in the Constitution in Sections 16 to 20, as well as in Section 23 which guaranteed the minority language educational rights of the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and the English-speaking minority in Quebec.
However, the wording of these clauses did not go far enough to preserve and promote minorities, and left too much to the interpretation of the courts. Hon. Members may recall that I clearly stated a few times in the House that the adoption of such a Charter gave very great powers to the courts compared to those traditonally given to this House, and I cautioned the Members of this House, at least generally, that they should be very certain that they understood exactly what this Charter of Rights and Freedoms meant.
Certain provisions of the 1981 Charter were too restrictive. For instance, the words "where the number is sufficient to warrant" in Section 23 left a bitter taste in my mouth as a French speaking Member from Ontario who is himself part of the linguistic minority. I deplored the absence of Quebec and I deplored the notwithstanding provision in Section 23. I also deplored at the time the fact that, in my opinion, the majority had not shown to this minority, which is important for the very existence of Canada, the generosity necessary to allow it to develop throughout Canada, which I consider essential for the survival of a Canada with two official languages.
I would now like to recall some of the arguments raised at the time. Hon. Members will remember that amendments had been suggested both by the Conservative Party and by other Members of this House. The debate was quite lengthy and certain amendments were accepted. I know, for instance, that Section 23 was rewritten partly because of some comments made by Members of this House. I was one of them. I do not take all the credit for this, but I do say that we had the benefit of a Government and of First Ministers who were willing to listen to our views.

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It will be remembered that in my opinion the quantification of rights was not an acceptable concept. People have or do not have rights. If one requires justification in order to exercise one's rights, there is a great danger that many people will not exercise such rights. They will bow before the will of the majority, the easy solution, and will be assimilated. This is what is happening in this country.
Minorities need support from their leaders and politicians. Minorities should not always have to fight in order to exercise their rights, because this gets to be tiring, and very draining in the long run. Minorities should not need to be always on the defensive; this is why it is important that the Canadian Government, my national Government, not only ensure the protection of minority groups in Canada but promote those groups. This is essential for this country. Again, calculating my rights, quantifying my rights is something mean, and one is forced into a beggar's position. That is not a healthy attitude because it emphasizes the role of the dominant group versus that of the dominated one. Language equality in Canada is a concept that is not tied to the reality of numbers. We say that French and English are the two official languages in this country and that they have equal status. Therefore, any quantification of basic rights to existence in this country and to our language rights that are so dear to us must be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, the 1982 Constitutional Agreement also stemmed from a political compromise. Indeed, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau told me in this House, on January 29, 1979, in answer to a question concerning the rights to language equality to be included in the Constitution via the Charter, and I quote:
I would insist on the fact that this bill of rights should and must include a
bill of rights protecting official language minorities all over the country.
However, in 1981, we found ourselves tied to a document that did not entirely tally with that declaration of intent of the Prime Minister. There were loopholes as I said in the protection of minorities, and Canada became in that respect a mosaic in which minority rights varied and still vary according to the province where you live. In each of the provinces, Mr. Speaker, there is a different situation. Of course there was Quebec, Manitoba, New-Brunswick, where constitutional protection existed. And there were the other ones, where if numbers warranted it, certain privileges were granted. But language rights, constitutional rights as such did not exist for the minority group. Also, in the 1981 Agreement Quebec was absent.
For all those reasons, I took a negative stand, as I had to do in conscience, Mr. Speaker. At that time, it will be remembered that my constituents and certain Members in this House well understood my position and did not blame me for taking it, even though at times it was to them an embarrassment and
a source of difficulties. At that time, in November 1981, I situated my argument within the following conceptual framework. I am quoting from Hansard, p. 1336, a speech that I made. One should not quote oneself, Mr. Speaker, but I think this will sum up my thoughts so I can move to another matter. I am quoting:
The main purpose of a constitution is to guarantee the rights of citizens beyond the reach of any political power. Furthermore, it should not be used to protect the right of majorities but rather those of minorities, for the former, the majorities, protect themselves naturally through their numbers, through political influence and through the environment they create. That is why protection of the rights of the minorities cannot be left in the hands of the majorities, nor in those, for that matter, of the various legislative assemblies.
Today in 1987, six years later, I wish to set my intervention in the same context and analyze the Meech Lake Accord in the light of constitutional safeguards to protect language legislation for minorities, that is, French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and English-speaking Canadians in Quebec.
Today, six years later, contrary to what I did in 1981, I will vote, Mr. Speaker, for the constitutional arrangement agreed upon in Meech Lake, for the Accord stemming from the Meech-Langevin meetings. However, the critical analysis that I intend to make and put forward about minority rights will prompt me to discuss an amendment that was proposed by my party, the Liberal Party.
First of all, I would like to briefly recap what is contained in the Meech Lake Accord and discuss what is new about it. The first question that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is the following: Why the Meech Lake Accord? The answer is obvious. This accord is the result of constitutional discussions that were initiated at the time of the patriation of the Constitution in 1981 and that were pursued ever since with the aim of putting an end to the constitutional isolation of Quebec. The Meech Lake Accord fulfills this goal and I do not know a single Canadian who is not happy about it. This adhesion of Quebec to the Constitution is a fundamental achievement that will condition my vote and I know that several of my colleagues will vote with me.
In a climate of mutual understanding and of fraternity, the federal government and the nine other provincial Governments have demonstrated at Meech Lake their attachment to Quebec and Quebecers. For that, they must be congratulated.
But who in fact took the initiative? Was it the federal Government or the provincial legislatures? Neither. The Accord has its origin in a document that was prepared in Quebec in June, 1985, in the manifesto that was published by the Quebec Liberal Party under the title Maitriser I'avenir.
That document outlined the five propositions that Quebec deemed essential for joining the Constitution. I would like to briefly review them:
September 29, 1987

1)	The explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
2)	Guaranteed extended powers over immigration.
[DOT]	(1650)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes left on debate plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions between the House Leader of the Government and myself. We have agreed that, if the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wishes a few more moments to complete his remarks, it is acceptable, with the idea that Private Members' Hour would be extended to include a full hour.
[DOT]	(1700)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for this exception.

Mr. Speaker, I continue.
Third, limit the federal Government's spending power; fourth, review of the Constitution amending formula, including a right of veto for Quebec, and finally, ensure Quebec's participation to the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
In August 1986, in Edmonton, the provincial Premiers unanimously agreed that their first constitutional priority was to consider Quebec's proposals before dealing with any other matter.
I remind the House that a little over a year ago, we had no commitment from the federal Government nor any other indication of its position concerning the constitutional dilemma. I suppose that the federal Government wanted to leave the initiative to others. Such was not the case with us, as members of the Liberal Party, for in the spring of 1986, our Leader (Mr. Turner) clearly defined the constitutional position of the Liberal Party in an interview to the Le Devoir newspaper, and in St-Hyacinthe, in the summer of 1986, he spelled out the whole constitutional amendment in a resolution which was almost unanimously adopted by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, some wonder why the Liberal Party of Canada supports the Accord, even if we have amendments to propose to improve it. It is quite simple. This Accord resembles as a twin the constitutional resolution adopted in November, 1986, by the Liberal Party during its convention held here in Ottawa.
I should like to describe in general terms the November 1986, resolution adopted by the Liberal Party. It was suggested to add a preamble to the Constitution which would provide for the following a) maintain and reinforce the linguistic duality; b) recognize Quebec's distinct society; c) recognize the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
multicultural nature of Canadian society; d) recognize the contribution of our native peoples; and e) develop Canada as an economic union. Mr. Speaker, such was the resolution adopted by the Ottawa Convention of the Liberal Party in November, 1986.
Moreover, the Liberal Party agreed to carry out a substantial reform of the Senate, while enshrining the principle of double majority in the Senate for all linguistic and cultural legislation. In the area of immigration, it meant to enshrine the Cullen-Couture agreement and to call a federal-provincial conference to deal with the federal government's spending power in the areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Now, this is all included in the Meech Lake Accord and some of my hon. friends opposite do not understand that the position of Liberal party in this regard is consistent and that we will vote for the Meech Lake Constitutional Agreement. Our position is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) was dead wrong when she said that the Liberals were against it.
We agree with the Meech Lake Accord because it is consistent with our Constitutional resolution of November, 1986. We are introducing amendments to the Meech Lake Accord because our resolution went even further, particularly by amending Section 33 of the Charter, the so-called "notwithstanding" clause-if that clause was deleted, our country would be fairer and safer and the words "where numbers warrant", an assessment of rights, would have to be deleted as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party went much further in guaranteeing the protection of minority rights. I have therefore some difficulty with the Accord in particular with regard to the Federal Government's commitment not only to protect but also to promote the equality of status of both official languages.
In fact, one of the main features of the Accord is the recognition in Section 2 of the language duality as a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian society. That Section recognizes Quebec's claim as a distinct society. But in fact, it goes much further because it not only recognizes the distinct identity of Quebec but it is also a recognition of the official language minorities throughout the country and of the fact that those minorities constitute a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian society. Moreover the role of the provinces, outside Quebec, is to preserve that fundamental characteristic of Canada.
If Prime Minister Trudeau had told me at the time, as reported in Hansard of November 9, 1981, in an answer to a question that with the introduction of the Charter of Rights, and I quote: "to start with, it would be good that Francophones outside Quebec rejoice for a little while-", perhaps not for too long, but for a little while, "-because the rights they have have been fighting for for 114 years are at last recognized."

September 29, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Therefore it can be stated, without any reservation that since then, some progress has been made and that the Meech Lake Accord is indeed promoting minority rights. I do rejoice as was suggested by the then Prime Minister. But just for a little while as he also warned me because I would have liked things to move faster. In fact, what Section 2 is doing is to entrench bilingualism in Canada. Yet, bilingualism is a major legacy of former Liberal Governments. As was mentioned in our minority report, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has always believed in official bilingualism which was first recognized in the Official Languages Act in 1969 and confirmed in the Constitutional Act of 1982. We do not believe that the Langevin Accord might, in any way, jeopardize bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, our amendment must be considered in the context of the amendment to Section 2 of the Constitution. First it should be said that this is an interpretation clause which applies to the Constitution as a whole. But it is more than just a preamble considering the fact that, from now on, because of its equal status with other interpretation rules, the courts will have to take it into account to interpret the Constitution, including the Charter.
However, it should be mentioned that this clause is not binding and by that I mean that because of the provisions regarding linguistic duality and distinct identity the federal or provincial Governments neither gain or lose any power. This is a mere direction for the courts to get a perspective on the intent of the legislators which is the recognition of official language minorities all across Canada in addition to recognizing the Quebec society as a distinct society.
Concerning the recognition of minorities, the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec would have preferred to see the Accord define language duality and by the same token the existence of minorities by recognizing not only the linguistic identity of an individual as in "French-Speaking Canadian" but also the collective rights of that minority. This change which was made after the Meech Lake Accord appears in the legal text, also called the Langevin Accord where the terms "recognition of French-Speaking Canada", were replaced by "the recognition of French-Speaking Canadians".
The argument put forward by the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec suggested that this wording would make it easier to argue before the courts that the Accord protects collective rights. I fully agree. This wording was rejected mainly because of the potential ambiguity of the recognition given in Section 2. The fact remains that I want to draw the attention of the House to this important aspect because we in the minorities will still depend on a liberal court interpretation of the constitutional text. I sincerely hope we will be entitled to that, although I would have preferred explicit guarantees.
So the linguistic duality is recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. To this fundamental characteristic
we must add, in the case of Quebec, the notion of distinct society. Here again the wording of the legislators leaves ample room for court interpretation as to the exact meaning of the concept of distinct society. In Quebec it includes both anglophones and francophones.
The committee heard every kind of analysis according to the various experts who came to give evidence, but there was no consensus, and that is understandable. But even at that the committee gave their interpretation of the section in light of the notion of linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic, and they stated in the report:
It is in light of this fundamental characteristic that the courts will be asked to consider Quebec as a distinct society. As it is the proposed amendment does not describe it as a fundamental characteristic.
But this is where things get complicated and, without our proposed amendment, we are again faced with double standards-different treatment for Quebec's anglophone minority.
Indeed, if we analyze the concept of a distinct society for Quebec in the light of linguistic duality, we find in Clause 2.1(3) that the Quebec National Assembly has the role of preserving and promoting the distinct identity of Quebec. But what is this distinct identity, Mr. Speaker? According to the report of the Joint Special Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, on page 33, this phrase indubitably includes the language and the culture of French-speaking Quebecers, but also those of the English-speaking minority.
If we follow this interpretation, a double imbalance is created between the treatment accorded to our minorities, depending on whether they are English-speaking or Frenchspeaking. If the minority is English-speaking, as it is in Quebec, the provincial Government must not only preserve and promote the linguistic duality, but also preserve and promote the particular culture of the anglophone minority.
The Committee goes even further in its interpretation as it includes the native people in the definition of "distinct society". This is what we find in section 40 of the report:
As already pointed out, to the extent that they reside in Quebec, the native people belong to this "distinct society" just as much as the other residents. They have just as much right to benefit from the application of the interpretation rule as concerns the preservation and promotion of the "distinct society". Moreover, the members of the Joint Committee are convinced that other groups could be defined as distinct societies.
Mr. Speaker, I find this enlightening and important. The Accord therefore goes even further as it introduces, in addition to the promotion element which is absent for French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, the element of the particular culture of the minority, as I have already said, which includes not only Quebec francophones, but also the anglophones and the native people. This is potentially a very strong measure for Quebec anglophones and native people. It is up to them to claim their rights in Quebec and demand that their identity be preserved and promoted.
September 29, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on that, since I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. The Government, since this debate started, is clamouring far and wide that the Liberal Party wants to amend the Accord, because in their view there is a real need for it. But they also keep repeating that we cannot amend the Accord, because this would be going against Quebec's five conditions. But that is not true, Mr. Speaker. If we had simply respected Quebec's proposals, as stated in August 1986, we would never had committed Quebec to recognizing language rights, either in Quebec or elsewhere. But Quebec went away from Meech Lake ready to bind itself to more than was requested. This means we could have asked and obtained a little bit more, if the Canadian Government had not lacked the political courage and had insisted on selling its wares by telling Quebec: You must recognize also that it is our responsibility as the federal Government not only to protect but to to promote language duality.
Mr. Speaker, the way this Government is going about it in the free-trade negotiations with the Americans, the question that arises is how the constitutional negotiations were conducted. The Government told us that any change would mean the end of the Accord because the English-speaking provinces did not want to grant anything more to their minorities.
Mr. Speaker, in my view that is not the spirit that prevails in my country. However, we were able to ask them for a constitutional recognition, an extra obligation, and this is why I support that amended constitution, because we gained something. We now have a clear and specific definition of this country which says that the provinces and the Canadian Government must safeguard the existence of both language groups in this country, the English-speaking in Quebec and the French-speaking outside Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go somewhat further and ask the Canadian Government to assume its responsibilities and actually take over the situation of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and generously accept the amendment we are proposing, namely that the Canadian Government should bind itself to promoting the English and French reality in Canada- throughout Canada-and to do so immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Sir John A. Macdonald Day


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   HOLIDAYS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: that Bill C-260, an Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and obviously very pleased to introduce Bill C-260, an Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day. If Hon. Members agree with and see fit to support this measure, it would create for the first time a national holiday in February to honour Canada's first Prime Minister.
This idea has been discussed by various individuals throughout the years. In fact, there is an organized movement in Kingston, Ontario, the city in which I had the pleasure to attend Queen's University a few years ago. The City of Kingston holds celebrations in February of each year to honour its most famous citizen. I think it is fitting that the movement for a holiday began there. Now I believe it is appropriate that the holiday be extended by Parliament to the entire nation.
Sir John A. Macdonald was born in Glasgow in 1815 of Scottish parents. His grandfather fought for Prince Charles Edward Stuart at the Battle of Culloden Moor in 1745. When Sir John A. was five, his family moved from Scotland and settled in the Kingston area in the year 1820.
Like so many other great politicians, Sir John A. Macdonald became a lawyer and was admitted to the Bar in 1836. In 1844, he continued his political career with his election as the Conservative Member for Kingston in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada. He became joint premier of a Liberal-Conservative coalition in 1858 and it was in subsequent years while he held that position that Sir John A. began his lifelong quest as a result of his deep belief that there should be a federation of all British North American colonies. As a result, he was a moving force in the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences of 1864 and acted as chairman of the London conference in December of 1866 at which he used his great constitutional expertise, knowledge and ability to put the finishing touches on the British North America Act of 1867, the Act which created the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867.
If Sir John A. did nothing else after that time, I believe his place in Canadian history would be secure and he would be worthy of our honour. However, as we all know, he did much more than that. I think all Canadians recognize his importance in the subsequent years until his death in 1891 and the contributions he made to Canada.

September 29, 1987
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
Sir John A. Macdonald recognized very early on the importance of territorial expansion to secure this country's independence on this half of the continent. Under his prime ministership, we saw the expansion of the country to Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. We saw the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the railway which was so vital in securing Canada's unity over the years.
I propose that a national holiday be declared in this man's honour. There will be those who will ask me at what cost we will have another national holiday. It is my understanding that in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia and a whole host of other western industrialized countries, the people celebrate more national holidays than Canadians. I suggest that it has not been to their detriment to celebrate those national holidays, just as I believe it will not be to the detriment and indeed would be to the benefit of Canada.
I suggest that it is impossible to calculate the benefits of a new national holiday in February. All of us have heard stories of the depression suffered by many Canadians during that time of the year. In that stretch between New Year's and Easter, there are presently no holidays. I suggest that there would be a tremendous increase in employee morale and I would suggest, as others have, that there would be a decrease in absenteeism if there were to be a holiday in February. As well, I would suggest that Canadians are now trying to do everything possible to extend our tourist season into the winter months. I believe it would be of tremendous benefit to the tourist industry to have a long weekend in February.
As well, such a holiday would focus attention on a vital chapter in Canada's history. Anyone who has grown up in Canada will have heard it said time and time again that we Canadians do not spend enough time examining our history and celebrating the individuals who helped build Canada. Indeed, as a student at Valleyway Public School, I recall hearing a succession of teachers raise the subject of Sir John A. Macdonald and telling us of his importance to the creation of Canada. I recall that each of them made the comment that perhaps someday Canada will have a holiday to honour this great man. I suggest that the talk you have heard so often from Canadians about promoting our history will remain just that unless we do some of the concrete things necessary to have the opportunity to examine and celebrate our history. I suggest that this Chamber has an opportunity this afternoon to do something very constructive to promote one of the great figures in Canadian history.
One of my colleagues said to me that there are certain partisan considerations in this. This may not go through by reason of the fact that Sir. John A. Macdonald was a Conservative. I should say that, among other things, it is perhaps not well-known that Sir John A. Macdonald was a participant in a number of coalitions. I mentioned already that he was Prime Minister under a Liberal-Conservative coalition.
However, regarding the partisan issue, I remember this House taking time to pass a resolution with the support of all three Parties to erect a statue on Parliament Hill to Lester B. Pearson. Before I became a Member of Parliament the Department of External Affairs building in Ottawa was named after Mr. Pearson, as was the Toronto International Airport. I believe there is a university in British Columbia named after him as well. That is all well and good. All Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, agree with that. I was in this Chamber over two years when a resolution was put forward to erect a statue on Parliament Hill to John Diefenbaker. I participated in the debate and saw this Chamber rise above partisan considerations to honour a man who was perhaps one of the most partisan politicians in Canadian history. I remember as well the day when Tommy Douglas died and this Chamber took the time to remember him. I remember the heartfelt comments out of the mouths of politicians of all political Parties in recognizing his achievements as Premier of Saskatchewan, Leader of the CCF, and first Leader of the NDP. I agreed with those because I think they were appropriate.
Although this Chamber is a very partisan place on a day-today basis, we have seen three examples where we have risen above that. I suggest to Members of this House that this is another one of those opportunities to pay homage to a man whose contributions to this country are recognized by everyone. As an example of that, on his passing in 1891 Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke about Sir John A. Macdonald on behalf of his Party. All his comments were very interesting, but I will bring only a couple of them to the attention of this House in order to demonstrate the point I am trying to make. He said this:
It may be said without any exaggeration whatever, that the life of Sir John A. Macdonald, from the date he entered Parliament is the history of Canada-
Later on he said:
Today, we deplore the loss of him who, we all unite in saying, was the foremost Canadian of his time, and who filled the largest place in Canadian history.
I find it significant that I am asking Parliament to honour a man who did so much to build and unite Canada on the very same day that we commenced debate on a great constitutional agreement which I believe all Members believe to be constructive in our efforts towards uniting Canada. I believe that most people in Canada will applaud the action we might take here this afternoon.
I would like to conclude with words that Sir John A. Macdonald wrote just shortly before his death and which I believe sum up his goals for this country. He said:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them with the legacy:
Whatever you do adhere to the union-we are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. God and nature have made the two Canadas one-let no factious men be allowed to put them asunder.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 29, 1987


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish there were more than 10 minutes available to me to dedicate to this subject. It deserves a great deal more time than that. As well, I would like to add my admonition to that of my friend who introduced the Bill in saying this should not be a partisan debate if at all possible. This subject deserves the consideration of all political Parties and all Members of Parliament, especially those who are proud of Canada.
We all know that when Sir John A. Macdonald entered politics in 1844 the nation that was to become Canada was simply a string of colonies spread out from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic. When he ended his political career there was a nation literally from sea to sea. It was Sir John A. Macdonald who had the vision and the courage to carry it forward. We all know that, if it had not been for his leadership and inspiration, this Canada might not exist today. Indeed, we certainly know that he, with his understanding and determination, was largely responsible for bringing about Confederation. We know it was he who arranged for the purchase of the entire Northwest Territories from the Hudson Bay Company and saw to it that that vast stretch of territory was added to this nation. It was Sir John A. Macdonald who built the railroad from sea to sea. In other words, in this man's achievements we see almost everything that constitutes nation-building and the establishment of this nation.
It is therefore regrettable that we do not have any special recognition of that man and what he has done for this country. Indeed, when he died he was buried in a cemetery in Catara-qui, near Kingston. Interestingly enough, even today there is no special sign or marking to direct people to the grave. The place where he lies buried is relatively unknown to most Canadians.
On October 5, 1979, I introduced a Private Members' Bill entitled "An Act to Proclaim a Day in Commemoration of Sir John A. Macdonald". Again in 1981, about a year and a half later, I introduced a motion under Standing Order 43 calling for recognition of Sir John A. Macdonald and a day to be declared in his honour. As a matter of fact, the motion was seconded by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), which I felt was appropriate. Unfortunately, that resolution was not carried unanimously.
I said earlier that I would not like this to be a partisan speech. However, regrettably, there was a gaggle of "noes" to that resolution, and it did not come from the benches of either the Liberal or the Conservative Parties.
I am happy that the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has indicated his support for such a day. I hope that Members of all Parties will rise above all partisan considerations and give sympathetic consideration to this Bill.
I realize that there are problems involved in proclaiming a national holiday because that would mean another day off work. That might concern businessmen, and I can certainly
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
understand their concerns. That is why when I introduced my Bill and my motion I called for a day to memorialize him, not necessarily with a day off work.
I personally think there is a good argument for a day off work. I think that the suggestion made by my colleague is a good one. A holiday in February is much needed in this country. I think that every effort should be made at least to study his suggestion. I hope his suggestion will be approved by this House in Private Members' Hour, that it will go to committee where further study can be given to it and, if appropriate, amendments made. The Government could even make it its own Bill if that is necessary. I do hope it will receive the support of all Members.
I want to conclude my remarks with a tribute to another man who has been working very hard for many years on this project. His name is Harvey Haber. In fact, an editorial in The Toronto Star was dedicated to him and his work on January 11, 1982, when The Toronto Star came out in favour of a John A. Macdonald Day on that date.
Harvey Haber has pointed out, as he has worked year after year to try to achieve support for recognition of this day, that school children in this country can tell you who was the first President of the United States but often cannot tell you who was the first Prime Minister of Canada. If you ask them whether they have ever heard of the name Macdonald, they will say "Yes, Ronald McDonald".
I hope that through the action of the House of Commons that tragedy will come to an end, that through our action Canadian school children will become more knowledgeable about the history of this great country and of the man who did so much to establish it. I hope that when they hear the name Macdonald they will chime, "Yes, Sir John A. Macdonald".


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate my support and that of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for this proposal. It is not surprising that someone who represents an area like Winnipeg, with the kind of weather we get there in February, would support a suggestion that we have a holiday in February. As has already been pointed out, there is no holiday between New Year's and Easter.
There have been a number of attempts to get Parliament to approve a proposal that we set aside a day to honour Sir John A. Macdonald. There have been a number of proposals made by some of my former colleagues that we set aside a day to be named Heritage Day. In doing that we would be following the example of some other countries such as the United States which has designated both Lincoln's birthday and Washington's birthday as national holidays. For many years we in this country designated May 24, the birth date of Queen Victoria, as a holiday.
I want to talk about Sir John A. Macdonald. The fact is that he was not just one of the Fathers of Confederation. It is likely that without Sir John A. Macdonald the country of Canada

September 29, 1987
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
would not exist. In looking at the map of North America it is very easy to see that the economic lines in North America really run north and south rather than east and west. It was Sir John A. MacDonald's determination that the northern half of North America not become part of the United States which drove him to make two important principles a fundamental part of his political philosophy. Without those two principles Canada would probably not exist.
The first, of course, was his understanding that without a railway which spanned the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Canada could not become a country. The second principle to which he ascribed and which he made a fundamental part of his policy was the national policy. That was traditional Tory policy, similar in Canada to the Tory policy in Great Britain. That was a policy of protectionism for Canadian industry and manufacturing. Sir John A. Macdonald saw that without that we would not be able to keep this disparate nation together.
For the first time we saw assertiveness by Canada on economic matters. We started a manufacturing industry which substituted Canadian-made goods for what was previously imported from the mother country, Great Britain, or from the United States. It was a policy which worked for Canada and for Sir John A. Macdonald.
While I endorse this resolution, I must ask myself what has happened to the political Parties in this country. Sir John A. Macdonald instituted the first protectionist policy, the first tariff system in this country, and he was the Leader of the Conservative Party. He was opposed by the Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
We should all remember that election campaign when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking for his Liberal Party, proposed reciprocity with the United States. The Conservative Party opposed that. Now in 1987 we have had a complete reversal. The Conservatives, the inheritors of the tradition and the ideas of Sir John A. Macdonald, are hell-bent for election to get a free trade agreement with the United States. It does not matter what the cost is or what we have to give up, they will do it. The Liberal Party, which under Sir Wilfrid Laurier was all for free trade, is finally realizing that free trade with the United States would create many problems.
Let us make no mistake, Macdonald found that his carefully founded national policy was a success. I will quote a few sentences from the most Tory of Canadian historians, Donald Creighton, who in his two-volume biography of Sir John A. Macdonald said at page 275 the following:
And yet, as the long, warm, golden autumn of 1879 drew placidly on, he began at last to concede, even to himself, that the improvement was a miraculous certainty.
Everything showed it. The harvest had been bountiful. Prices were going up. The volume of imports slowly declined, while that of exports began to rise steadily upwards. "Trade is recovering wonderfully . . . Lome wrote proudly to Hicks Beach. The ministers gloated. And Macdonald knew that the whole future of his government had been dramatically changed. Within a year of his accession to office, his commercial programme had been vindicated by a
demonstration as convincing as it was fortuitous. The national policy was borne away towards success on the swift wheels of an accelerating prosperity. For a time, while this good fortune lasted, he would be able to do almost anything successfully. He might even succeed-it would be the supreme piece of luck-in inducing a commercial company to take over the whole gigantic project of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Obviously my friends in the Conservative Party, if they ever knew anything about the history of Canada, have forgotten it all. I would suggest quite seriously to the Prime Minister that he take a little time to read Donald Creighton's biography of Sir John A. Macdonald. If he did, he would not be so hell-bent to get this free trade deal. It was an idea he rejected vehemently before he became the Prime Minister. He would begin to think about what is good for Canada, as did Sir John A. Macdonald. If he did, this would be a better country.
Let me conclude by saying again that I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will be very happy to support the proposal we are discussing today.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-260 introduced by my colleague from Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) to designate the second Monday of February as Sir John A. Macdonald Day.
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I should like to make a brief comment and say I found it rather deplorable that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was unable to do as the Hon. Member for Eglington-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) did, as he said, and refrain from taking a partisan approach to such an interesting debate. He concluded by saying that he agrees, that he is in favour of the motion, but throughout his remarks he did manage to criticize Sir John A. Macdonald or the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, Sir John A. Macdonald presided over the birth of Canada as a nation. His administration was witness to Canada's tremendous expansion, from coast to coast, from south to north, as far as the Arctic islands. I am sure all Canadians share the commendable sentiment expressed through the motion before us today. Many things could be said concerning this proposed legal holiday in his honour. For openers, notwithstanding the wishes of many people to have a new legal holiday, we must not forget that we already have July 1, Canada Day, a great holiday for all Canadians. Every year, Mr. Speaker, this holiday gives us an opportunity to honour all our Prime Ministers and, I might add, all Canadian men and women who, before or after Confederation, contributed to the growth, diversity and strength of this remarkable country in which we Canadians live.
Since the name of Sir John A. Macdonald is mentioned on every such occasion, I wonder whether it is necessary indeed to have a distinct legal holiday. There is not doubt that the motion is highly commendable.
September 29, 1987

Yet, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that before setting up a new holiday, it would be better to reconsider its name. For I think that the basic idea is to pay tribute to our Founding Fathers. We should take this opportunity to think of a name which would include all the individuals who, through their efforts and determination, managed to create a wonderful nation, the Canada of 1867.
The names of other people should be included, such as Sir George Etienne Cartier, who worked very closely with Sir John A. Macdonald both before and after Confederation and whose office in the East Block on the Hill is recognized as an historical site, just as the office of Sir John A. Macdonald, which is close by, is recognized as an historical site.
If we think of other great Canadians who came from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or other provinces, the name of Joe Smallwood, who was responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador joining Confederation in 1949, comes to mind. Nearer to us, if we think of the new Constitutional Accord, this historical document which was signed in June in Lange-vin-Meech, we could include without hesitation the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I am sure that, with the exception of a few ill-intentioned Liberals and our Socialists who are constantly hiding behind a screen of hypocrisy, most Canadians would agree that the name of this Prime Minister should be included.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, instead of choosing only one name for this holiday, we should try to come up with a name which would be more "generic" and which would be an opportunity to pay tribute to a great many Canadian men and women for their contributions.
Another point not to be overlooked is that of the cost of such a holiday. A paid holiday would represent a major expense for employers in the form of employee benefits. I have been advised that for the federal Government alone, including Public Service employees, the members of the Armed Forces, the RCMP, etc., one more holiday would cost over $50 million.
Mr. Speaker, although this motion is praiseworthy and means to pay tribute to a great Prime Minister and a great Canadian, I think it would be important for the government to pay more attention to the objectives and the costs of such a holiday and to be able to consider other options for a holiday in February, an idea which all Canadians would applaud.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this important Bill put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). Sir John A. Macdonald was a remarkable man. It is only fitting that we remember him in many ways.
I would like to talk about some of his achievements and that important place from which he comes, Kingston. It was mentioned by my hon. friend from Niagara Falls that he attended Queens University. Queens is a university close to my
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
heart. I have two children who graduated from that university. I suppose that points out the difference in our generations.
As we all know, Sir John A. Macdonald formed the Dominion of Canada by uniting the four provinces. To those four provinces he added the west. He took a huge country and fought a great many people who did not have much vision. Sir John A. Macdonald was a man with a great deal of vision. With that vision he was able to convince those of lesser vision of the importance of having a strong central Canada made up of the provinces he had welded together. He had a great deal of conviction, as we all know, which enabled him and others to put our Confederation together. He brought our country together as a result of the drive which he had to create a national railroad.
We must talk and think about this great Prime Minister, this great father of our country, in many ways and at all times. With respect to establishing holidays, with all due respect, I become somewhat concerned sometimes about the number of holidays that we already have. I have a great deal of work to do in my job, and I would have a problem completing it if we had more holidays. I do not know what I would do if there were more holidays. I ask Hon. Members to look at all the work that is piled up here on my desk.
There are concerns which the federal Government has in terms of establishing another holiday. One of the concerns is with respect to whether or not that would place some sort of pressure on the provinces to follow suit. Then there are the costs to consider.
In talking about holidays, I was in another country recently and it seemed as though there was a holiday there every other day. Productivity falls off when there are too many holidays. I think there are a great many concerns in that respect.
Recognizing Sir John A. Macdonald by commemorating a statutory holiday in his name would be great. I do not know if all here assembled know that the former Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie is from Sarnia. We do not have a national holiday in his name. I have somewhat of a problem supporting the commemoration of a holiday in the name of one Prime Minister when there is not one for Alexander Mackenzie.
Mr. Red way: He also represented York East at one time.


Kenneth Albert James: Yes, he did go to York East where he lost his voice. He was in great form when he was in Sarnia-Lambton. When the Prime Minister went up to the Hon. Member's part of the country he developed some problems.
Those are some matters that I want to comment on. I think we should celebrate Sir John A. Macdonald Day every day. I think we should think about that great man every day. We all think well of him.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been out to your part of the country and I have heard you talk about Sir John A. Macdonald out there, and that is very important. I give credit

September 29, 1987
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
to my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls for suggesting that we single out this great man by dedicating a national holiday to him. However, I would like to suggest that we think about him in everything that we do in terms of our conservatism as we carry on governing this great country.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I want to commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) for his proposal to pay tribute to the man who presided over the building of Canada as we know it, who presided over the recognition of one Canada from sea to sea, and right up to the Arctic Ocean. It is therefore important that we pay him a tribute that is significant. Since I referred to the Arctic Ocean, I would also take this opportunity to pay tribute to someone in my constituency who brought the Arctic lands under Canada's flag-the first Arctic explorer, Captain Bernier, a native of my constituency whose remains rest in my constituency.
John A. Macdonald's main work, excluding Canada's official foundation, was to make this country a reality not only in the geographic sense, but to have it made a reality through union with rails. During the 25 years that Mr. Macdonald was Prime Minister of Canada, tremendous difficulties were also overcome to forge the link that was needed at that point and that is still very important, the link that united Canada from East to West, with the aim at that time to protect it against integration into the United States.
The year 1986 indeed marked the 100th anniversary of this rail link which is approximately 3,200 miles long. Celebrations were held in June, 1986. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, this material union of Canada took place under a Conservative Government, and today, one century later, we Conservatives are again the ones to develop and improve this union, and we now want to provide Canadians with a North-South link. This is why the Conservative Government is trying to ensure a market in the United States for this generation and the ones that will follow. One hundred years ago, we forged our East-West links under a Conservative Government, and today, still under a Conservative Government, we are trying to establish a North-South link to integrate our own economy to the American economy and provide for all our producers an additional market of 250 million potential customers. It is also a good thing to pay tribute to a former Prime minister of Canada and to a French-speaking Canadian who supported him from the very beginning, Sir George-Etienne Cartier, who should also be mentioned when we pay hommage to those who built Canada.
However, in a capitalistic system, something that we must keep in mind is the cost of institutionalizing a holiday, and I believe that Mr. Macdonald himself would object to our making our production even more expensive, especially as concerns our exports to the United States and to the rest of the world. With a gross national product of $500 billion, one day
off work means a loss of $2.5 billion in production, Mr. Speaker.
I therefore believe that we should respect the spirit of Mr. Macdonald, who would not want us to spend this much money if he were still here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Earlier someone indicated to me that perhaps there were other Members who wished to participate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Levis.


Clément M. Côté: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the comment of the Hon. Member is superfluous. Some Members on this side have still not spoken.


Marcel Prud'homme: You did not understand what I meant.
There is no problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is no problem. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis wishes to speak.


Marcel Prud'homme: Maybe 1 should have stated that in French. I am sure that the my hon. friend did not understand a word of what I was saying. I am not surprised, that is usually the case.
I indicated earlier that some Members wished to participate. Therefore, if they would so indicate by looking at me, I will not take 20 minutes. I wish to know if other Members wish to participate before doing so. If no one else wishes to participate, I will have a longer speech.
When I was in the lobby, I saw that tonight we were debating the Bill of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day which would take place sometime in February.
Since we have many new Pages who come from all across Canada, I felt that I should indicate that, of course, anything to honour our Canadian Fathers should be considered by the House. If we wish to build and create a country-I always claim that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that is making itself every day. That is bad English, but I do wish to communicate my sentiments in English concerning Sir John A. Macdonald.
Canada is a country in the making every day. When speaking of February, it reminds me of another great event which took place on February 15, 1965. To educate our young university people, February 15 was the official day when we
September 29, 1987

raised our Canadian flag. 1 did respect, and I still respect today those who saw another flag going to the Archives of Canada and being replaced by a truly Canadian flag. The Bill of our esteemed colleague reminds me that there has been much talk about that type of celebration in February.
I remember a very esteemed colleague from the Conservative Party, then in the Opposition, who wished to make the second Monday of February Fleritage Day to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George-Etienne Cartier, and all the Fathers of Confederation, plus the flag of Canada.
In my evaluation, it is good that from time to time we spend an hour to remind ourselves of the manner in which this country came about, especially now that we are debating the very important issue called the Meech Lake agreement. I prefer to call it the Langevin accord, because Meech Lake has been amended by the Langevin accord. In my humble evaluation, everybody is erroneously calling it the Meech Lake agreement while we should more justly say the Langevin accord. There was an amendment that Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) made to the Meech Lake Accord during this great event that took place at the Langevin Building.
However, as I said, I believe the House should consider honouring Sir John A. Macdonald. Should it be a holiday? Why not? Everyone likes a holiday. I do not know of any Canadian who would not like a holiday in February.


Mr. Darling:: Especially in February.


Marcel Prud'homme: "Especially in February", as my esteemed colleague Stan Darling says. I hope that during Private Members' Hour we can call each other by name and not by constituency. As my esteemed friend, who has been a longtime member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and is from Parry Sound-Muskoka, is saying, anything in February would be good.
Seriously, however, there are many other events which we should celebrate. Perhaps some day we could combine them and do it during February. I am very serious; I do not want to be accused of wandering from the Bill which is being debated. If we want to honour Sir John A. Macdonald in a very relaxed atmosphere, we must ask ourselves what it would represent.
It would represent the beginning of what was then known as Canada. If such a thing were to take place, perhaps we could call it Confederation Day, but we do have July 1 for that purpose. Perhaps it could be the Fathers of Confederation or the National Anthem. It was in 1965, 1966, and 1967 that a committee of the House of Commons-and the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and I are the only two remaining members of that committee-recommended "O Canada" as the National Anthem. It took approximately 15 years before we proclaimed it. It only became official on July 1, 1980, even though some Canadians had been singing it
Sir John A. Macdonald Day
since July 1, 1880 when Calixa Lavallee and Judge Adolphe-Basile Routhier got together and wrote the words and music for "O Canada". That shows how slow we can sometimes be in terms of Canadianization. It was in 1980 that we proclaimed it as the official National Anthem. Some people say that perhaps sometime in February we should celebrate National Anthem Day.
Why should we honour the national flag, the National Anthem, or Sir John A. Macdonald? It is because there are so many millions of new Canadians who should be sensitized to what Canada is all about. Hon. Members will know that I wanted to honour John Diefenbaker by having his image on a Canadian coin. Some people thought it was a direct attack on the monarchy. I had no such sentiments. Canadians, especially new ones, should know what Canada is all about. When they have money in their hands every day, for example a five-dollar bill, eventually they say: "Who is that guy?" To the best of my recollection it would be the image of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the five dollar bill, the image of Sir John A. Macdonald on the ten-dollar bill, and the image of Mackenzie King on the fifty-dollar bill. It is a very indirect way to educate ourselves on what Canada is all about.
I was very pleased and honoured to put forward a proposal to honour John Diefenbaker by placing his image on a Canadian coin. Later we could honour Lester B. Pearson and Louis St. Laurent. Of course we cannot honour people who are still alive; they may use that to come back. Who knows?
If I were asked to vote today, I would be very happy to honour Sir John A. Macdonald. I would go along with it. However, along with that, we should also honour all the others who have done so much. I think that would be great for us, for the new young Pages working in the House of Commons, and for millions of people who recently came to Canada. We must be reminded of what Canada is all about, and a Bill of that kind should do it.

We should congratulate the Hon. Member because as a result of such an initiative, our institutions get to be more widely known. Thus we learn about the early days of our country and what should be revered. In spite of everything, Canada is a country which has weathered many storms and will continue to do. I thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to speak on this piece of legislation. It concerns me that we may not have an opportunity to vote on this Bill today, but I hope that we do eventually.
There is no question in my mind about the intention of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). He put the

September 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
utmost of thought into this Bill which is to dedicate a special day to a tremendous man, Sir John A. Macdonald.
I do have concerns, I suppose, about whether we should celebrate a Sir John A. Macdonald Day or some sort of a generic holiday that could be named for all the Fathers of Confederation. There is no question that Sir John A. Macdonald was the catalyst of this nation and the greatest statesman I can recall. Then again, 1 would love to see a "DiefenDay" or something like that to commemorate some of our other great leaders. Perhaps we should look at the future of such legislation.
There are many concerns about costs and other aspects of declaring such a holiday, but I see, Sir, that you are waving at me so I will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
[ Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that you, and I know for certain that I, very strongly, very vehemently and very unswervingly oppose apartheid. I know that you and I as well find apartheid to be institutionalized racism. We find it reprehensible and we support policies to encourage a peaceful solution and a peaceful end to apartheid in South Africa. Those are positions with which virtually all Canadians agree. However, all Canadians do not agree on what policies we should be following in order to bring about an end to apartheid.
The national polls tell us that a clear majority of Canadians agree with the policies the present Government is following. Those policies include increased sanctions, an anti-apartheid register, an embargo on arms and spare parts sales, a code of conduct for employment practices for Canadian corporations and businesses carrying on business in South Africa and financial assistance to South African blacks through education and training. As well, efforts are being made to get other nations through the Commonwealth, the francophonie and other western industrialized groups to support efforts against apartheid. Of course, there has been a continuing dialogue
between Canada and South Africa with respect to bringing to a peaceful end the policies of apartheid.
Others are saying, however, that they do not agree with those policies. 1 am sure that you get those messages just as I do, Mr. Speaker. I receive many calls and letters from people in my constituency who feel very strongly that the approach that is being taken is the wrong one. It is not because they agree with apartheid or feel it is a good policy to be followed. They feel the approach being taken will perhaps encourage violence and terrorism and Marxism and communism, and bring about the establishment of a Soviet form of Government in South Africa. They do not want to see that. I know you do not want to see that, and I do not want to see it either.
Interestingly enough, I ran a survey in my constituency about a year ago on this question. I asked the following: Do you think Canada should impose economic sanctions against South Africa? Do you think we should increase economic sanctions? Some 37.8 per cent said yes and 52.6 per cent said no. I asked: Do you think we should have total sanctions against South Africa? I had 29.3 per cent say yes and 59.7 per cent say no. That is in a constituency where 51 per cent of the residents come from neither anglophone nor francophone background. There are over 60 different cultural and ethnic backgrounds represented in that constituency. This is a very interesting result in a part of the country such as mine.
As I indicated, I think the crux of the problem lies with the concern about whether or not the policies being followed by the Government are in effect encouraging establishment of a communist form of Government in southern Africa. On the other hand, there are those who say we must follow the policies this Government is following now. One of those persons is the Reverend Johannes Sindano. He is a Lutheran evangelical pastor and I had the opportunity of meeting him here in Ottawa. He comes from southern Africa and he put it to me and others that met with him that it is important for Canada and other western nations to put pressure on the South African Government to bring about an end to apartheid. To remain silent will be to create just the opposite of the desired effect. If the West does not encourage black South Africans, they will turn to the eastern bloc for encouragement and support in their struggle against apartheid. After all, as he points out, because black Africans are in the majority it is inevitable at some point in time that apartheid will disappear. At that stage they will remember who their friends and supporters were, whether they be in the eastern bloc or in western nations.
He also pointed out that, naturally, black Africans look to the West for support and help. He said it is from the West that black Africans received their education. It is from the West they received their religious training, economic development, and the higher standard of living that many of them now enjoy. It is natural for black South Africans to look to the West rather than the East. After all, it was Jefferson, not Lenin, who said all men were created equal. It was Lincoln
September 29, 1987

who took the chains of slavery off blacks in America, and Stalin who enslaved eastern Europe.
Again, it is natural for black Africa to look to the West for support. Again, if the support is not forthcoming, unfortunately the vacuum will be filled, as the Reverend Sindano pointed out to me, by the eastern bloc. That may also bring about the violence which Canadians certainly do not want, notwithstanding the comments of our colleagues in the House, the NDP, who, a week or two ago, indicated that they felt violence was justifiable. I do not think the vast majority of Canadians feel that way. They want a peaceful solution in South Africa.
The Government has heard all sides of the story. It has heard the people who say that we must support South African blacks through more pressure. It has heard those who believe that we should keep our hands off South Africa. It is now up to the Government to respond and tell us what it is going to do in this situation.
I am looking forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary tonight whether the Government is wavering in its stance on South Africa or whether it will maintain the strong policy which it has put in place and keep pressure on the South African Government to bring an end to apartheid.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) met with African National Congress President Oliver Tambo one month ago in Ottawa. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had previously held meetings with senior representatives of the ANC, most recently during his trip to South Africa last month.
These meetings do not convey any form of official recognition of the ANC on the part of the Canadian Government. The Government does recognize, however, that the ANC is an important factor in South Africa. It will be part of the solution in that country, whenever it comes and however it comes. There are also other groups with a part to play in building a post-apartheid South Africa.
The Government's objective is to encourage a peaceful solution in South Africa which results in non-racial representative government. Peace and democracy in South Africa are more likely to be achieved by dealing with the ANC and encouraging it to follow a moderate path.
In their meetings with Mr. Tambo, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs explored the prospects for dialogue between the South African Government and the ANC. Mr. Tambo was encouraged to pursue the path of dialogue as was the South Africa Foreign Minister when the Minister met him in August.
The Government of Canada does not condone violence by any of the parties in South Africa, whether by the state or the ANC. The Prime Minister was very clear on that question
Adjournment Debate
during his visit to South Africa in January and that position has been reiterated on a number of other occasions, including directly to Mr. Tambo. Nevertheless, the Government recognizes that the root of violence in South Africa is the racially based system of apartheid and that such an oppressive system, when peaceful means are closed, gives rise to violent opposition.
The ANC had a history of 50 years of non-violence before it was banned. Its present leadership includes many who are moderate and they are to be encouraged. The danger exists, however, that as the level of violence in South Africa continues to grow, so may the influence of more radical elements of the ANC.
To achieve the goal of a peaceful solution to the situation in South Africa Canada has worked successfully with others in the Commonwealth and elsewhere to put pressure on the South African Government to enter into a dialogue with authentic black leaders, including the ANC, and start the process of fundamental change.
PENITENTIARIES-PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES/ GOVERNMENT POLICY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with regard to the proposed privatization of the health care section of the correctional services. I was not surprised that the Minister's answer was not relevant to my question since the Minister of Justice is not responsible for the correctional system.
My question arose out of a letter which I received from the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service which I believe exposes a very serious situation regarding the provision of services in our penitentiaries. We must realize that the inmates of our penitentiaries have been involved in very serious crimes; rape, armed robbery and murder. You name it and some of the prisoners have been involved in it.
The Government wishes to extend its policy of privatization wherever possible into the federal penitentiaries. I call that policy objective bizarre for the reason I have already indicated. We are dealing with very angry and disturbed people. It is not surprising that the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada Opposed this idea. The union represents these people. There were 1,440 nurses and psychologists and others who signed a petition against this idea of privatization. One would think that the Department and the Government would have at least talked to these people before they proposed such an unworkable idea.
Second, the Professional Institute in a letter written to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), signed by the President of the Professional Institute, Iris Craig, makes the following point which I think is very important:

September 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
CSC claims it wants to save taxpayers' money by laying off its own qualified, well-trained staff and hire contract employees who are simply not equipped to deal with volatile situations in which security is of prime concern.
To work competently in a correctional setting requires a repeated, consistent exposure to that environment. An incorrect decision, or even a lack of a decision, when confronted with a dangerous or life-threatening situation, can escalate into tragedy. There is no substitute for experience.
Surely even this Government should recognize the kind of riots and disturbances going on in our correctional institutions and how important it is to have well-trained, competent, permanent employees who have experience.
I would like to relate an experience my daughter had. She is a new graduate social worker. She received a contract with the John Howard Society. Her job was to work with prisoners in the medium security section of the Stony Mountain penitentiary. One of her clients, as she saw him week after week, was becoming increasingly disturbed, so much so that the last time she saw him she stood with her hand on the handle of the door so that she could get out of the room quickly if necessary. She reported the matter to the prison psychiatrist. He could not or would not do anything about it. A week or two later, while driving her car, she heard a news flash on the radio that a prisoner, her client, had picked up a piece of two-by-four in the carpentry shop, hit the instructor over the head and killed him.
That is the kind of situation which occurs, and this Government is proposing to turn over that work to part-time people on contract whose only interest will be to earn some money, a contractor interested in making a profit.
There are all sorts of questions which must be asked. Who is going to be responsible in a situation like that? Who would the family sue? Would the family sue the Government or would they sue the private contractor? What would be the level of profitability? What rate of return would be considered correct? Once the private sector becomes established will it skim off the profitable and low-risk offenders, leaving the public system with a difficult and unmanageable problem? Will the monitoring and contract requirements ensure business motives do not override the objective rehabilitation and decent prison conditions?
Lastly, I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary who will be answering my questions that a study was done by the Government for the Solicitor General in 1985. It was entitled "Operational and Resource Management, Review 7, Privatization" and warned that privatization could lead to endanger-ment to public, staff and inmates, deterioration of inmates' rights and labour unrest. Clearly, none of us wants this, and that is the burden of my question and my intervention in the House today. I hope the Government can supply some answers today and rethink what I consider to be a totally improper and unworkable idea. It could not be done in a worse set of circumstances than in the correctional system.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to speak further to the issue raised on September 25, 1987, by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that being the presumption that the correctional service will be proceeding to the wholesale privatization of health care in its penitentiaries.
First, let me put to rest the myth that privatization of health services involves the replacement of professionals by "poorly-trained part-time workers", as the Hon. Member puts it. Privatization is not a new concept in the health care field. Approximately 40 per cent of the correctional service's health care budget is now spent on professional service contracts with individual professionals such as physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, and dentists, throughout Canada's penitentiary system. This has been the case for several years. Neither quality of service nor the security of penitentiaries has been compromised by the engagement of such professionals under contract. There is no reason to believe that further privatization in the area of nursing services would lead to such a situation.
I believe that the concern expressed by the Hon. Member may be traced to a review of health care services that has been conducted recently in the Ontario Region of the Correctional Service under the "make or buy policy" of the Treasury Board. Basically, the application of this policy involves a comparison of the costs of providing service "in-house", so to speak, by government employees against the cost of delivery of the same services by the private sector.
This review, which has not yet been completed, is but one part of a major review of the entire field of health care delivery in the correctional service in order to ensure that the level of care provided to inmates takes into account both their specific needs and the level of care offered to society as a whole, and that the means of delivery remains as efficient and effective as possible.
I must emphasize that the only institutions at which nursing services have been privatized are at the new Donnacona Institution in Quebec and Atlantic Institution in New Brunswick. There are no plans at this time to privatize such services further.
The study cited above is restricted to the Ontario Region. Both the Professional Institution of the Public Service and staff in Ontario penitentiaries have been briefed on the objectives of the study. In addition, and most significantly, assurances have been given that employees would not suffer loss of employment if privatization is pursued.
Finally, having emphasized that no further plans for privatization of health services have been formulated, I believe it is also vital that I mention that on any given working day private individuals from the community enter our penitentiaries to provide a wide range of services from dentistry to volunteer literacy training. The qualifications of those persons to enter and provide services is a matter of scrutiny by the correctional service and measures continue to be applied
September 29, 1987

equally to ensure the safety of their persons and the security of the institution at all times.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ACID RAIN-GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
POLICIES TOWARD UNITED STATES/GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, at this stage following a question I asked in the House of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) some months ago, it is clear that the acid rain policy of the Government is in a shambles.
In 1985 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) lost a valuable year by agreeing that the two acid rain envoys prepare a report. In 1986, the same Prime Minister gave the wrong signal to Washington and to the Americans by agreeing to a five-year program on clean coal technology. This indicated to the Americans an implicit willingness on our part to wait for five years. In April of this year in this Chamber the Prime Minister claimed victory when President Reagan made a commitment to consider an acid rain treaty with Canada.
Today, six months later, what do we see on the horizon? It is in this respect that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer. Having claimed victory so many times the credibility of the Prime Minister is now running very thin.
At the same time, it is this Government that has abandoned Canada's role internationally. This is a role which Canada conducted quite successfully until it was abandoned in 1985 by this Government. That international role was intended to generate pressure on the U.S. to come to the table and to agree to a reduction in air pollution through our friends and allies, through those who have adhered to the Helsinki Protocol. Yet unfortunately that initiative was abandoned.
In recent weeks the Americans have accused Canada of not implementing a domestic program to cut acid rain pollution in Canada. The two Tory Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are the only provinces which still have to come on board and sign the National Accord on Acid Rain Abatement. They are still defying the commitment that they made in 1984 and 1985, and even in 1986, and because of sheer neglect on the part of this Government it allows the Americans to criticize us for not maintaining our side of the commitment that by 1994 we will cut our sulphur dioxide pollution by 50 per cent.
Although it is belated, I welcome the conversion of the Minister to the notion that we must do something in the United States, and that he must go to Washington and make important visits to those who need to be convinced that Canada has a case. However, this conversion comes in the fourth year of this administration.
It distresses me to learn about the intention of the Government to spend money on advertising in the United States. Will we complain to the United States about how hard done by we are? That has been done many times. I do not think it will get
Adjournment Debate
us anywhere to complain about that. The Americans may be sympathetic, but they will not be moved by that type of argument. They will be moved by arguments that deal with their economic interest and their own economy.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government is not prepared to prepare a case that would explain to the Americans the cost to them of not proceeding with action in cutting air pollution from their coal fired plants. What will be the cost to the United States for not acting and removing those poisonous gases which are inflicting damage to their buildings, structures, lakes, forests, and agriculture? In addition to the damage they are doing to us, the Americans would be very sensitive to a study that points out the economic damage inflicted on their economy by their pollution.
Finally, I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government at this stage, in the fourth year of its mandate, is not putting together data and information required to prepare a bill that would be submitted to Washington for the yearly damage to our economy that is caused by their pollution. We could start with the bill from the producers of maple syrup in Quebec and Ontario. I am sure that they would be more than glad to quantify the damage caused to the maple forests that is provoked and caused by transboundary pollution from south of the border. It is estimated to be more than $1 million a year.
These are some of the questions that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address in his reply. I am looking forward to his statement.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) raises an important issue. The resolution of this problem is a priority of the Government.
Resolution requires action both domestically and bilaterally. We are working with the provincial Governments and with the Canadian industry to ensure the implementation of an effective acid rain control program. To date, more than 90 per cent of the necessary emission reductions are in regulatory or program form.
Bilaterally we are pressing the United States for early reductions in U.S. emissions affecting Canada. Over the last few years we have seen some progress in the United States.
In 1986, we saw U.S. President Reagan acknowledge the acid rain problem. This represented a breakthrough in the thinking of the U.S. administration. At the same time we saw the President take a step toward solving the acid rain problem by endorsing the Report of the Special Envoys on Acid Rain.
Again, in March 1987, we saw the President propose a clean coal technology program and a bilateral panel to oversee its implementation. None of us has been impressed with either the pace or the extent of the action of the U.S. administration on acid rain. However, as U.S. Senator George Mitchell, a

September 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
proponent of acid rain control legislation, has said, "none of this would have happened without the unrelenting pressure of the Canadian Government".
Our message to the Americans is clear and unequivocal. Canada is putting its house in order with regard to acid rain. We expect the United States to respect its obligations as our neighbour and to control the contribution its sources are making to Canada's acid rain problem.
Based on scientific information, the resolution of the acid rain problem depends on the United States cutting the
transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide to two million tonnes per year. We intend to continue to convey that strong message to the Government of the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 30, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers