1987-10-01

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act.


BILL S-10-PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill S-10, an Act to revive Yellowknife Electric Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
[Editor's Note: For above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


PETITIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present in the continuing series which I have been bringing to the House dealing with the very serious dangers to this country which are represented by the Fermi II nuclear plant in Munroe, Michigan. This plant is 10 kilometres from the border of my constituency.
In this petition 250 residents of towns such as Amherstberg and Malton have pointed out the extended length of time it has taken to get this facility even close to operating capacity. They have pointed out the serious accident record which the facility has. They have suggested very strongly that the Government of Canada must intervene in order to ensure that a safe review process is established by neutral parties to ensure that there is not a danger established by the reactor moving to full capacity without such a review.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, as the next petition in the series I have been tabling in the House for the last four or five weeks, l am pleased to table one signed by the residents of two senior citizens' homes in my riding located at 255 Donald and 800 Saint-Laurent, which reads as follows:
Whereas since September 1984 the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candies and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
Whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low-income taxpayers, youth, and so on;
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. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition signed mainly by residents of Saltspring Island in British Columbia who are concerned about the great danger of accidents while nuclear armed and/or powered ships are in Canadian ports. They point to the threat which this poses to the environment and to Canadian citizens. They call upon the House of Commons not to purchase nuclear powered submarines for Canada.

October 1, 1987
Order Paper Questions AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-55


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I would like to table in the House of Commons two petitions on two different issues.
The first issue is with regard to the legislation currently before the House, namely, Bill C-55, the refugee determination Bill. I have a petition signed by residents of Vancouver, Richmond, Thunder Bay, Mississauga, Etobicoke, Brampton, Bramalea and Toronto. All these petitioners are asking the Government to delete the safe country clause and the prescreening stage and to upgrade the refugee appeal mechanism so that we may have a refugee determination system which is accessible, fair, and expedient and will discourage those who wish to abuse our system and do an end run around our regulations.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the final three petitions come from residents living in the Cities of Burnaby, Vancouver, London, Peterborough, and from my own riding of York West. These petitioners are asking the Government to amend the current Meech Lake Accord in order to incorporate and entrench in the opening clause one fundamental character of Canada, which is Canada's multicultural heritage, as a reality in this country that should be alongside the English-French linguistic duality in defining who Canadians are and what this country is about.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition concerning the Government's proposal to automate light stations on the coast of British Columbia. The residents who signed the petition are concerned that the Leblond report was totally biased and did not reflect the need for public safety.
They ask the Government to impose a moratorium on any action by the Coast Guard in destaffing the light stations and that light station keepers be equipped and trained to do an even more effective job on public information and public safety.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of the House that again I have received an application under Standing Order 29 with respect to the granting of an emergency debate relating to the trade talks. I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you allow me to move a motion at the appropriate time so that the House can deal with a very important matter. We know that the deadline on the free trade issues is October 5. I suggest that you might want to use your judgment and protect the minority interest in the House and, of course, in the interest of the greater understanding of the issues, allow this debate to take place tonight.
I hope you would see the urgency of that request. Indeed, you have asked the Government to use whatever tools it has at its disposal to allow for this debate. The Government has not been forthcoming to date as far as I know, and there is one day left for debate. I hope we could have your consent to have this emergency debate tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier for bringing this matter to the Chair's attention. As I have said repeatedly for some days now, the Chair views it as an extremely important matter. As yet, however, it has not been the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate.
I say again to the Hon. Member that that does not preclude the Chair from having a different view at a different time. For today, however, it is not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate for tonight. I repeat that the Chair knows that it is an important matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hantyshyn:
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;
October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
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
Constitutional Amendment, 1987
temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101B.	(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.
[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1987
Constitutional Amendment, 1987
(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."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament,
Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(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."
October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
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.
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Madawaska-Victoria in the Province of New Brunswick, and as an Acadian and as a francophone outside Quebec, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Today, I would like to comment on one of the fundamental aspects of the Accord, one that has my full support, and I am referring to the recognition of linguistic duality and the consequences for official language minorities.
The patriation of the Constitution in 1982 gave us a chance to recognize and confirm the importance of certain fundamental values and characteristics of our country. At the time, we recognized the rights of native peoples and stated our will to protect our multicultural heritage. We also guaranteed the equality of men and women, democratic rights and major language rights.
However, Mr. Speaker, how can any country be proud of guaranteeing and recognizing rights so fundamental for its citizens, how can any country be proud of such an accomplishment when we all know that the 1982 Accord left out one of the fundamental parts of the Constitution, one of the founding peoples of this country which had legitimate demands, demands which Quebec had presented to Canada long ago?
In 1982, Quebec was left out, and that is why the 1987 Constitutional Accord is so important. In addition to bringing Quebec back into the Canadian family, the Accord takes us even further in our recognition of language minorities. As a result of this Accord, Canada's linguistic duality will now be recognized in the Constitution. It is the first time in the history of this country that all Governments have agreed formally to define this fundamental characteristic of our Federation, and we are not talking about two nations or two totally separate entities but about French-speaking Canadians and Englishspeaking Canadians, living together across this country. I see this as continuing what we have already accomplished in the sphere of official languages. We are finally recognizing, in the Constitution, that which forms the foundation of our efforts to ensure respect for our two official languages.
Furthermore, all provincial legislatures have been given the responsibility to protect this fundamental aspect of our Federation. All provinces have now pledged their support for our language minorities. When we consider how important the
Constitutional Amendment, 1987
full and unstinting co-operation of provincial Governments is to the future of these communities, we can only rejoice in such an undertaking. The Commissioner of Official Languages said that language minorities have now acquired the kind of protection they did not have before. Whatever some people may claim or maintain, this was not a foregone conclusion. And to those who are shouting from the roof-tops that Canada gained nothing and Quebec was the only winner in this spring's negotiations, we should recall what was said by the committee.
As the report points out, none of the five conditions set forth by Quebec sought explicit constitutional recognition of the existence of linguistic minorities in that province or elsewhere, nor was there anything about Quebec having a role to play in the protection of such minorities. The committee also recalls that the provincial Premiers went to Meech Lake to deal with the issue of Quebec being a "distinct society", one of the things Canada obtained in the constitutional negotiations. The provincial Premiers went back home, fully committed to enshrine in the Constitution the obligation to protect francophone minorities in their own provinces. They agreed to the formal acknowledgment of the presence of these minorities as being a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and this is one of the things Canada obtained in the constitutional talks.

Some concern has been expressed about the fate of these minorities as the Constitution simply affirms the role of the provinces to preserve linguistic duality. It is feared that the status quo will be maintained whereas bilingualism still has a very long way to go in many provinces. I agree with those who say that there is still much to be done in the area of bilingualism. On this I believe we fully agree. However, I do not share the view of those critics who state that because the Constitution affirms responsibility for preservation, nothing else will be done, for it is clear that such an affirmation establishes a minimum common undertaking. It does not prevent any Government from doing much, much more.
Affirmation of this role did not prevent the adoption of Ontario's Bill No. 8, nor has it stood in the way of our tabling a new Official Languages Act. The provisions of the new Bill dealing with the advancement of official languages exceed by far all that has been accomplished to date. Clause 40 of that Bill reads as follows:
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The measure also provides that the Government will take positive steps to live up to this commitment, both by working in its own fields of jurisdiction and by encouraging the provinces, the municipalities as well as the major associations

October 1, 1987
Constitutional Amendment, 1987
of the private sector, the labour movement and volunteer organizations to make a special effort.
More specifically as far as the provinces are concerned, the government will encourage and help them promote the expansion of francophone and anglophone minorities, particularly by providing provincial and municipal services in both official languages and enabling them to be educated in their respective language.
Given this firm government pledge and the constitutional guarantee that provincial legislatures will protect this duality, we can indeed look to the future with optimism. This constitutional guarantee is all the more significant that it is spelt out in an interpretative rule. At least that is the view of expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. As Mr. Robert Decary pointed out, the Constitution and therefore the Charter as well as linguistic rights will have to be so interpreted as to ensure the protection of francophones.
On June 3, the First Ministers confirmed the role of all Governments in protecting duality. It may not be much, but they all see this as a giant step forward.
Still, many of them had expected more. Spokesmen for francophones outside Quebec and their supporters would have liked all Governments to be given the role of promoting as well as protecting Canada's fundamental characteristic, namely the presence of francophones and anglophones throughout Canada.
Senator Murray stated that on June 3 the First Ministers had examined-and actually they did-a number of avenues to that end. It had then to be recognized that despite the Prime Minister's personal efforts, the consensus could not go any further than it did.
People will ask, since the provinces will not accept a promotional role, that we at least bind the Canadian Parliament to such a proposal, if only to cast in stone the commitments it made up till now at the legislative level. This is what the Liberal Party is asking for in its series of amendment proposals. We are asked to reopen the Accord to stress the role of both Parliament and the provinces that would so wish to promote our duality, adding that since that commitment only involves Parliament and some of the provinces, it would easily command unanimity.
But to those who make such a suggestion or proposal, I would like to submit two points. First, according to the testimonies produced, the Joint Committee Report, and the comments of those who negotiated the Accord-and I am referring here to all the First Ministers-it is clear that any reopening of the Accord for anything else but the correction of a major error or a substantial oversight would be viewed as a reopening of negotiations. From then on, everyone could propose changes. And in the opinion of many people, that is a recipe for failure. I share that view, Mr. Speaker.
If 25 years of constitutional negotiations in Canada were needed to bring us as a nation to that day of June 3 on which finally, after pondering and negotiating, the First Ministers
finally reached a consensus, and when we say this is a canvas that is weaved together, I believe it would be illusive to believe we could now reopen the Accord in order to perhaps placate concerns that may seem legitimate. If we did that, we would inevitably be asking for an end to the Meech Lake Accord, and if that Accord were to break down we might have to wait another 25 years or more and without being a prophet of gloom, I can assure you that if this time we say no to Quebec, a lot of time will be needed to repair such a serious error.
But the people who propose that Parliament and some provinces only do the promotion of the French culture within their exclusive jurisdictions, could perhaps more importantly think of the impact a commitment by Parliament alone or a few Governments to promote duality could have. Clearly, Parliament is already promoting this duality, and a constitutional commitment would do no more actually than the Official Languages Act already provides. The same goes for certain provinces.
However, we may wonder whether that commitment by Parliament or a few Governments to promote duality could not be interpreted as encouraging the status quo in the other provinces. Indeed, why should a province that has nothing more than a protective role under the Constitution promote duality if that is the responsibility of a few Governments only?
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that under the Constitution French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec would become second-class citizens in some of the provinces and first-class citizens in other provinces. I feel that I cannot subscribe to such a constitutional situation in this country.
Today with the Meech Lake Accord, and the Constitutional Accord of 1987, we have a common role which is to protect our cultural duality and the Government of Canada can encourage provinces to play that role and go beyond that. I am not suggesting that Parliament should not assume the constitutional role and do more but I point out that we have to look seriously at the consequences before compelling it to do so by means of a reconsideration of the consensus reached on June 3.
To my mind it would be highly preferable to take advantage of the forthcoming constitutional discussions to add to the duality already provided for in the Accord.
Madam Speaker, I should now like to deal with another aspect of the Accord which has been discussed. A distinguished critic of the Accord, and I do not mean the leader of the Liberal party in New Brunswick, but rather the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau who wrote on May 27 last: That the Constitutional Accord gave Quebec a competence which other provinces did not have, that is, he said, to promote the concentration of the French culture in Quebec. He saw therein a bad omen for French-speaking minorities.
As a French-speaking Canadian from outside Quebec, I admit that I do not understand his argument concerning French-speaking Canadians from outside Quebec.
October 1, 1987

The FFHQ and other groups told us that it was essential to maintain a strong French culture in Quebec. Mr. Decary stated: "If Canada wants to protect the French element of this country, the province having a French-speaking majority should be given the political and legislative tools needed to promote its language, its genius and its civilization." He added: "Without Quebec, the French culture elsewhere in Canada would be an illusion." However, no one, except Mr. Trudeau ever suggested that it would give Quebec new constitutional powers. Messrs. Beaudoin and Lederman, among others, have clearly stated the opposite. The role of Quebec, as Mr. Beaudoin said, should remain within shared competences. It does not change Sections 91 and 92. It does not give Quebec extraterritorial power nor any mandate to act in a jurisdiction at other government levels. I do not see how the other provinces or the federal Government would have anything to fear.
I see progress in this Constitutional Accord. I see progress for Quebec and for francophone minorities. I see progress for linguistic duality and for acceptance of our policy on official languages. Many, if not the majority, of the witnesses heard by the committee, share my view. It is not perfect in the sense that we could have done more. However, politics is the art of the possible and the heart of compromise. When I say the art of the possible and the art of compromise, it is perhaps even more true when it comes to constitutional matters. I do not believe that anyone who has participated in the constitutional negotiations, including Mr. Trudeau, can say otherwise.
I am sure that the Charter of Rights with the notwithstanding clause, Section 33, is not the type of full, air-tight protection of fundamental rights that the former Prime Minister wanted. The circumstances of the moment forced him to accept section 33, but he did not reject the Charter because of it. No. Instead, he chose to move forward with the Charter because a Charter with section 33 was better than no Charter at all.
The agreement reached on June 3 was also a compromise, but a less dramatic one. Still, I do not consider it a step backward. I see no danger for francophones or for anglophones.

I see progress in this Agreement, Madam Speaker, progress for Quebec and for francophone minorities. What I find deplorable, however, as a representative of New Brunswick in this House, is that during the current electoral campaign in New Brunswick, one of the provincial party leaders is threatening to destroy the Meech Lake Accord under the pretext that, if he becomes premier of New Brunswick, it would be with the mandate of re-opening the Meech Lake negociations.
I am speaking about the leader of the New Brunswick Liberal Party, Mr. McKenna, who is telling two things to the
Business of the House
people of New Brunswick, to Acadians and to women. First, as he knows quite well that the Acadians recognize that Richard Hatfield was an architect of the Meech Lake Accord with the Canadian Prime Minister and that Mr. Hatfield has been promoting and protecting the rights of Acadians in New Brunswick for a long time, Mr. McKenna, the leader of a political Party, to attract the votes of Acadians, is now going through the province and telling people: A vote for me is a vote to re-open and amend the Meech Lake Accord. When he is asked why, he speaks about the rights of women, francophones and the native people, but what he does not say to the people of New Brunswick is what he will do exactly. He says that he will re-open the Accord, but he does not tell the people of the province why. At least, we know where the federal Liberal Party stands. The federal Liberals have proposed amendments saying that these amendments deal with fundamental issues, but that if these amendments are not accepted, they will still support the 1987 Constitutional Accord, which Mr. McKenna refuses to do in New Brunswick.
He is asking the people of New Brunswick, including Acadians and women, for a blank cheque. He asks them to send him to Ottawa, but without telling them what he will do. When such a major issue is involved, Mr. Speaker, you cannot give a blank cheque to someone who does not have the guts to tell the people of New Brunswick whether or not he will really destroy the Meech Lake Accord.
This is an important issue because I would not want the people of New Brunswick, including the Acadians, to be isolated from the rest of this country by the petty political action of a leader who is only trying to attract a specific group of voters in New Brunswick.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think that you will find there was unanimous consent for the following order to be moved immediately:
That consideration of the motion of the Minister of Justice for amendments to the Constitution of Canada (Government Orders, Government Business, Number 14) shall be conducted as follows:
(1)	No later than 6:00 p.m. on Thursday October 1, 1987, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or a member of their respective Parties acting on their behalf, may each give notice of a motion incorporating amendments described in addendum A and B, respectively, of the report of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord, tabled in the House on September 21, 1987, and, when the said Government Order is next taken up on a subsequent sitting day, the Speaker shall, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, declare these motions to have been duly moved and seconded;

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(2)	No later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 2, 1987, other Members may give notice of amendments substantively different from those of which notice has been given pursuant to Section (1) of this Order, and when the said Government Order is taken up on the next sitting day, the Speaker may declare these motions to have been duly moved and seconded;
(3)	No amendment shall be permitted other than as provided for by Sections (1) and (2) of this Order and any amendment or sub-amendment proposed before the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn;
(4)	During the debate on the said Government Order, and any amendments thereto, no Member may speak more than once;
(5)	At the conclusion of debate on the said Government Order, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, all of the questions necessary to dispose of all of the proposed amendments and of the main motion, as amended or not amended, as the case may be, in the following order:
(i)	the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition or a member acting
on his behalf pursuant to Section (1) of this Order;
(ii)	the motion proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party or a
Member acting on his behalf pursuant to Section (1) of this Order;
(iii)	Any motion proposed pursuant to Section (2) of this Order;
(iv)	the main motion;
(6)	For the purposes of this Order, a Whip may request a deferred vote on all questions set out in Section (5) of this Order for 48 hours.
(7)	During consideration of this Government Order, the provisions of Standing Order 9(4) shall not apply.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I should have prefaced my remarks by pointing out to the House that the House Leaders from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have been very co-operative with the Government in an effort to organize and manage the debate so that it meets the wishes of the Parties and also the individuals who may wish to place amendments.
I wish to thank them for their co-operation.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I too wish to offer an observation that on this very historic occasion when the House is dealing with the Constitution of Canada that it was a pleasure to work with the House Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition and the Government House Leader to arrange a package that would permit every Member to have an opportunity to speak to the motion before the House regarding the Accord, or the respective amendments put forward by the various Parties or individuals, and allow for a free and open debate on this very important matter.
I concur with the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) that this has been a very productive exercise. It indicates that when the will is there, all three political Parties in Canada can work together for the good of the country.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that the order which has just been adopted represents the results of consultations. It will permit the consideration of amendments deemed important to the opposition Parties, as well as possibly to individuals.
In addition, it will ensure that those who wish to speak in this debate will have the opportunity to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Following the comments of Hon. Members and the motion which has just been carried, I think the Chair may also express a few comments.
In the special order which the House has just adopted it is provided that certain amendments included in the report of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord shall be proposed to the House notwithstanding that they may be out of order pursuant to our rules and practices.
While this is a most unusual procedure, it is not for the Chair to interfere with the course which the House has unanimously chosen to follow. However, I believe it is my duty to state for the record that the amendments which may be proposed during the debate on this government order should not be cited or referred to as precedents in future proceedings in this Chamber.
The House will now proceed with the question and answer period following the speech of the Hon. Minister.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Hnaty-shyn:
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;
[Stage Direction]

October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Amendment, 1987
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982-
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2) Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
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.
101B.	(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.
[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(0 subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"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:
October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"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.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and, indeed, I share some of his views. We both belong to a minority in our provinces, although the minority in his province is more important than it is in mine. We are part of the Canadian diaspora and we understand each other very well, I think, in terms of our objectives.
I would like to ask him a question because, at the end of his remarks, he mentioned the possibility that, should there be a change of Government-and I mention it only because the Minister himself alluded to it-that Government, headed by someone other that Mr. Hatfield in New Brunswick, might not endorse the Constitutional Accord known as the Meech-Langevin Accord.
We all know that, at the present time, the amendment formula requires seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, but that the Meech Lake Accord introduces a new formula which demands unanimous approval, and that is precisely what the Minister is concerned with. The new method will come into effect when the Accord is agreed upon. The provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) have agreed unanimously that this new formula should prevail. Yesterday, I was asked in the House the question I am going to put to the Minister. 1 do not know whether he read it or not. Would a new partner on the Canadian scene, a new provincial Government which would refuse to endorse the accord, this Meech Lake agreement, destroy the unanimity concept? In the Minister's opinion would such a move jeopardize an agreement accepted by a Government legally elected and rightfully representing the interests of the Province of New Brunswick? I am asking the question because, as far as I am concerned, I consider that a new player must accept the rules presented to him. Those of us who are in favour of the Meech Lake Accord, and I am sure that I am expressing the feelings of many of my Party colleagues, think it would be improper and perhaps even difficult for a new player to change the rules of the game and say: the Meech Lake Accord is no more, for there is no longer unanimity. We will return to the old amending formula which required the support of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population. If I understood him correctly, is that what the Minister meant? He was concerned that a new player, New Brunswick, might change the rules of the game concerning the Meech Lake Accord.


Bernard Valcourt: Exactly, Madam Speaker. That is what is occurring now. There is, of course, the fact that the Leader of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick is involved in an election campaign and that, in an effort to obtain the support of both
Constitution Amendment, 1987
women and Acadians, he claims that he will, all by himself, reopen this dossier in spite of the fact that this document is the result of a consensus between all the First Ministers of this country. But what does he really mean? When he says, for instance, that he wants to improve this document or that he wants to meet the concerns of women, although constitutional experts have abundantly demonstrated that their rights would not be affected, although those who know something about Canadian reality are well aware that some provinces are resisting their constitutional obligations at home, he claims that he wants to promote the French fact and, in order to flatter Acadians, he says that he will reopen this dossier. But what he absolutely refuses to say, it is whether, if elected, he would submit the Constitutional Accord to the Legislative Assembly for approval. What I simply cannot accept, what I deplore, Madam Speaker, is for him to use the concerns of Acadians, women and Native peoples, saying: Of course, I am going to reopen this, but without saying openly that, once the issue is debated, no, it is out of the question, for it cannot be reopened. Are you going to submit it to the Legislative Assembly, yes or no? That is what he will not say. It is because he refuses to show leadership that I, for one, feel that we should not give him a blank cheque. I feel also that he is depriving the citizens of New Brunswick of one of the most basic tenets of democracy, namely, that they should know where their political leaders stand. Is he going to submit the 1987 Constitutional Accord for approval, just as the legitimate and duly elected prime minister of New Brunswick did on June 3 last?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor for a very short supplementary. Then I shall recognize the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, what the Minister has just put forward are facts! Each province has agreed to submit the 1987 Constitutional Accord to its Legislature. I do not see how it could do otherwise. Personally, 1 feel that the newly elected Premier of New Brunswick... I do not share the Minister's opinion on this, for I feel Mr. McKenna has very good chances of being elected-I think that Mr. McKenna will submit the Constitutional Resolution to the New Brunswick Legislature, and we will see what will happen next.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Minister spoke as a francophone from outside Quebec. I think it was very important for him to do that because there are many related concerns.
The Minister is also the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, as such, he has responsibility to aboriginal people. Could he give us his views on the impact of the Accord upon aboriginal people, particularly in respect of that section of the Accord which calls for constitutional conferences that will be dealing with such subjects as Senate

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
reform and fisheries, both of which are absolutely vital to aboriginal people?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, of course, I think the question of aboriginal rights is very important. It is obvious that on June 3 the First Ministers could not agree on putting the question of aboriginal rights on the agenda of the next constitutional conference.
We have had dates agreed to for constitutional conferences on aboriginal rights and it has not worked. Why? As our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated many times, with Quebec at the negotiating table and part of the Constitution the native people stand a much better chance of having the question of aboriginal rights resolved, in particular that of selfgovernment. I understand and appreciate that they would like to see at this stage the issue of aboriginal rights on the agenda at the conference, but experience teaches us that fixing dates for conferences without a consensus does not work. If we had said in 1982 that the Quebec round would take place by October, 1984, or June, 1985, would that have ensured the resolution of the Quebec round? Not at all.
The groundwork the Prime Minister laid down in Sept-Iles was good. He said that we will start consultation and call a conference when there is a chance of reaching a solution. I think that is the best course to follow on aboriginal rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allowed for questions and comments has expired.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I am very excited to be taking part in the process of constitutional development, particularly bringing Quebec back into the constitutional family. I believe the adoption of this Accord by Parliament and the provinces will be an historic occasion on which all Canadians can rejoice.
[ Translation]
I remember well how ashamed I felt when the Constitution was signed and Quebec was not there. The Queen came for the ceremony, but Quebec was not part of the Constitution that was signed that day. So our Constitution and the Charter were launched without the agreement of a major part of Canada.
We will now change this unhappy situation. We will welcome Quebec in the Constitution. From now on, we will work together in one Canada in order to renew our country, our Constitution, and this, in a Canada that recognizes the distinct character of Quebec. Together, we will tackle other constitutional problems such as Senate reform and justice for native people.
We cannot solve these problems without the full participation of Quebec.
While the Meech Lake Accord constitutes an important step for Canada, it is not perfect. We in the NDP have proposed some amendments in order to eliminate the injustice suffered
by our northern citizens and to include more considerations for native people.

We have in particular proposed an amendment. We are not satisfied with the change which means that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would need to have unanimous consent of the provinces in order to become a province themselves. No other region of Canada had to face that. We do not like the exclusion of the Yukon and Northwest Territories from participation in the selection of Supreme Court justices or Senators. We think that should be changed.
The NDP deeply regrets the failure to reach a just settlement with native peoples and we believe the Accord should have included early consideration by First Ministers of aboriginal rights and self-government.
My riding of Broadview-Greenwood contains many citizens whose heritage is neither English nor French. Many are concerned about multicultural heritage and while the Accord does nothing against recognition of this heritage, it does nothing for it either. We recommend that First Ministers give early consideration to the ethnocultural reality of Canada as a fundamental characteristic.
In the course of looking at the Constitutional Accord many people, particularly women and minority groups, raised concerns regarding the application of the Charter. We have not yet begun to deal with those concerns. We believe there should be a very thorough Charter review and these considerations should be treated seriously.
The incorporation of a Charter in our Constitution was a major change for Canada, moving from a parliamentary system to one with an entrenched Charter. That gave an enormously greater role to the courts. Of course we have to review the results of that change. We must adapt where we see that the results are not those desired or intended.
I want to get on to some major considerations raised in the constitutional debate, considerations which make some people worried about accepting the Accord as it stands. I want to begin with the very serious concern regarding women's equality. I am a feminist. I was very actively involved in the Charter fight for women's equality back in 1981-82. Frankly, I am not one of those who was keen on a Charter and thought with some confidence that it would solve our problems. Certainly when we saw that there was going to be a Charter, I, along with other women, acted in a very determined way to ensure that the Charter would be good for the women of Canada. I am very concerned that this Accord respects the gains the women's movement made in 1982.
The first version produced in 1982 was very inadequate. It would have worsened the situation of women. Yet we saw the women's movement come of age, and the enormous force of that movement changed the Charter. The wording was changed. For that reason we can understand why women are suspicious of this new Accord. We have not been treated
October 1, 1987

properly in the past. However, while we should have some amendments, I believe that, even if we did not, we need not be worried about taking a step backwards.
To meet the concerns expressed, we propose that Section 28 of the Charter be incorporated in Section 16 of the Accord. Here we have a need for consistency and symmetry. With multicultural heritage and aboriginal rights being given special recognition it is very important that women's equality not be lost.
What happens if we do not achieve amendment? I still think the security we have in Section 28 is adequate. This gives women that extra recognition that equality is a fundamental part of our Constitution. We have Section 15 as well as the back-up of Section 28. I feel very confident that that will be adequate.
It has been suggested that the distinct society recognition could be used against women's equality. I think that argument is all wrong. In the 1930s in Quebec, when women did not have the rights they had in other parts of the country, that certainly would have been a legitimate concern. However, we are not living in the 1930s. Quebec is a very different society in the 1980s, one in which women's equality is perhaps closer to achievement than in many other parts of the country.
[ Translation]
Quebec was the first province to pass an act providing equal pay for work of equal value. The Regie des rentes in Quebec was more favorable to the participation of women than the Canada Pension Plan. The Quebec Plan includes the drop out measure providing for the inclusion of women homemakers when they have a child of less than seven years of age. That measure was rejected by Ontario for many years which, because of the veto of that province, blocked any move in that direction for the rest of Canada. So the distinct society made possible a valuable difference. Later on, that measure was introduced in the rest of Canada.
Here we see doing something differently was actually beneficial, and the rest of Canada caught up. I do not think we have to worry about distinct society impinging on women's rights. Nor do I think the distinct society recognition is any loss for the rest of Canada. It is simply a fact of life, and the Accord is very clear that most English-speaking people live outside the Province of Quebec but some live in Quebec, most French-speaking people live inside Quebec but others live in all other parts of the country. Minority rights are recognized in our Constitution before and after the Accord. It is not a giveaway, it is simply a recognition of Canadian reality.
Another very, very serious objection that has been raised against the Accord is that it weakens federal powers. It has been stated that the federal power will be so weakened that we
Constitution Amendment, 1987
will not be able to create the social programs we need to face and solve the problems we have as a united nation.
I do not believe that the Accord has that kind of effect at all and I think people are being caught up too much in theory and abstractions. I think the remarks of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau are simply off base. He talks in an academic fashion, in the pejorative sense of the word, being far-fetched, argumentative, theoretical and indeed capricious.
Let us look at the reality. The Accord comes close to the reality that exists. It is a change on paper but it is not really a significant change in how we order our national and provincial shared responsibilities. Indeed, the federal Government for the first time will have a stated explicit constitutional authority to spend in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Again, this is not a give-away, this is not something that any province has lost, because that power was already recognized in fact, thanks to the very significant spending powers the federal Government had. It is not a change in practice but it is constitutionally accepted.
There are about a hundred shared-cost programs of various sorts between the federal Government and the provinces. The really significant ones were achieved by consensus and negotiation. In some cases, it was a 100 per cent consensus. Our great social programs like the old age pension, unemployment insurance and the family allowance were achieved only when all provinces agreed. Then we have a different situation with the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Here we have two slightly different plans set up, but this was not a defeat for Canada, this has actually been advantageous.
The Quebec Pension Plan has done things a little differently, and in some cases I say the Quebec Pension Plan has done things better. In some cases, the Canada Pension Plan has subsequently accepted things begun by the Quebec Pension Plan. We can see that this possibility of having provinces do things differently, as long as they meet national objectives, is not a new departure. We have been doing this anyway and it is a healthy development. It has been good for the country and it will continue to be good for the country.
There have been disputes between the provinces and the federal Government, for example in medicare, and we only got medicare because a province started it, the CCF Province of Saskatchewan. Ontario opposed it, but very soon thereafter when it was brought in on a national basis, Ontario came along.
We need to have some flexibility. We need to have negotiation. I suggest that the next social program that we need and that I hope we are going to have, namely child care, will only be successful if we have federal-provincial negotiation and consensus. These are not matters in which there is any significant change, and indeed the change on paper will strengthen federal powers by constitutionalizing the right of spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Some people have objected to the statement in the Accord that there will be annual First Ministers' meetings. Some people have even suggested that this would work against the federal power. I think this is absolute nonsense. We already have First Ministers' meetings. They are part of our normal governmental life, and they are healthy things to have. We have a shared-responsibility Constitution. Some programs are federal, some are provincial, some are shared. It is normal, natural and healthy for the Governments to get together at least annually to discuss matters of mutual concern to Canada.
The question of power over immigration has been raised as being a diminution of federal power and also a matter which could impinge on women's equality. I do not think either are true. We have already had arrangements with the Province of Quebec for 16 years now and we have not seen inordinate discrimination. There is discrimination against women in immigration, but it is not in any particular province. There is national discrimination.
The safeguards in the case of immigration are quite clear. The Charter still holds. That is made perfectly clear in the Accord and it is made perfectly clear that the agreement arranged with the province must be approved by Parliament, by us, elected representatives, and we certainly would not approve of a discriminatory arrangement. The terms, objectives and nature of immigration policy remain federal. I think that is not an area which will pose new problems, and let us hope that it will provide some new solutions. We want immigration to be handled in a way that is satisfactory to provinces, and it will work much more smoothly if that is the case.
It has been suggested that giving the power to the provinces to nominate Senators, although I hope we do not have a Senate much longer, and judges for the Supreme Court of Canada is a diminution of federal responsibility. Again I do not think this is true. It does not give the power to a province to put someone in the Senate or the Supreme Court of Canada to work against Canada. That simply is not possible. The appointment must have the final approval of the federal Government through the Governor in Council. It means that the provinces will propose people for nomination, and that is perfectly reasonable. This is done in other federal states. If the federal Government does not consider those nominees acceptable, then they will negotiate. Negotiation, talking to each other, reconciling differences is a normal and proper part of life in a federal state.

We must rely on the common sense of Canadians, of the federal and provincial governments, in order to find a solution to these differences.
I am an ecologist and I want adequate federal power to enact regulations in the area of environment. Toxic substances flowing in our rivers and polluting our air, as in acid rains, do not recognize provincial boundaries. Therefore, there must be strict national criteria. I believe the provinces should have the right to demand even stricter criteria but not to lower the established national criteria. Ecologists from Quebec agree on that. Ecologists from all parts of Canada are asking for such
measures. Yet, both levels of governement share the responsibility for environment. Agreements must be negotiated in order to establish adequate criteria. The Accord does not bring any change in this regard. The federal Government is not any more capable nor any less capable to act in this area. Political will is required at both levels of Government in order to bring about a real remedy and this goodwill cannot be legislated. However, I suggest the agreements that are required will become more likely with Quebec's adhesion to the Constitution. The energy that was wasted in bitterness and confusion will be better used if Quebec becomes part of the Constitution. [English]
That, Madam Speaker, is what I am looking forward to. We have to put our past behind us. We have to put behind us those years of confrontation and bitterness. I want further to see many more Canadians involved in the process of constitutional development. The Constitution belongs to all Canadians. It is not government property. Average Canadians should be involved in the next steps as we work toward a fairer Constitution, redressing the injustices to the North and our native peoples, and dealing with the alienation of the west and the east and their proposals for constitutional change to meet their concerns.
I have carefully examined the objections which have been raised. I have studied the committee's work on the subject. The committee worked hard all summer on this issue. It weighed the objections raised against the consequences of not acting. I think we must consider those objections very carefully as well as amendments, but we must also consider the consequences of refusing reconciliation with Quebec. That would be a terrible non-step to take, a terrible dereliction of our duty.
1 believe that by saying yes to Quebec we will also be saying yes to all of Canada and our future together. Let this Parliament and the provincial legislatures make this commitment now so that we can work together creatively, responsibly, and amicably to build the kind of Canada that all Canadians want. [ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I would like to use the time available to me today to speak, first of all, to my colleagues, friends, constituents and fellow citizens in the Province of Quebec. Madam Speaker, as you know, there are supporters of the Constitutional Accord who insist that to be against or to reject the Accord is to be against Quebec; that to reject the concept of Quebec as a distinct society is to be against Quebec itself; that not to accept the Constitutional Accord unamended, despite its flagrant shortcomings, means not accepting Quebec as a member of our constitutional family. That, Madam Speaker, is tantamount to blackmail. However, there are many people who have let themselves be convinced by these simplistic and unsound arguments.
October 1, 1987

If I had more than 20 minutes, I would be able to demonstrate to you, and convince those who listen with an open mind, that this radical change of course contemplated by the constitutional Accord could weaken if not destroy the Canadian Federation. We are embarking upon a dangerous course towards decentralization, a poorly thought-out constitutional dead-end caused by the requirement that the provinces must be unanimous on major constitutional amendments. This is a step backward from the vision of a bilingual and multicultural Canada and a return to what some people call the two-nation concept, one anglophone and the other francophone. To those who say: "Donald, if you vote against the Accord, you are voting against Quebec", I say: To vote for the Accord is to vote against Canada.
I am for a confident and strong Quebec, within a strong Federation.
If I wanted to destroy the Canadian federation, if I wanted to suppress the rights of language minorities, and if I wanted to create a loosely constructed federation, a kind of alliance among 10 provinces, with a distinct society in Quebec, endowed with powers that would not be available to the other provinces, if I wanted to wipe out the possibility of creating jointly-financed national programs like health insurance, if I wanted to do all that, Madam Speaker, I would vote for the Constitutional Accord.
I will therefore vote against it.
Madam Speaker, I am being accused of wanting to maintain the dream of a bilingual country, a dream that does not reflect the Canadian reality that Quebec is a francophone island in an anglophone country.
I am being accused of refusing to accept a fact of life, namely that Quebec is a distinct society within the Canadian federation and that the Quebec National Assembly and the Quebec Government must be able to protect and promote that distinct identity, as described in the Constitutional Accord. Today, Madam Speaker, I therefore wish to concentrate on this particular aspect, namely, Quebec as a distinct society.
First of all, Madam Speaker, to explain my philosophy I must comment briefly on my own origins. I am not originally from Quebec. I was raised on a small farm in the Ottawa Valley, just 12 miles from Parliament Hill. But for more than 40 years I lived in the Province of Quebec, first in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and later in Montreal. My father retired in Vancouver, and my wife comes from Nova Scotia.
And so, Madam Speaker, I feel at home everywhere in Canada but particularly in Quebec where I have chosen to reside. Madam Speaker, I am sorry I did not learn to speak French before my adult years, and that explains my strong accent. I mention these points of personal history simply to tell you that I chose to make Montreal my home. Like many other anglophones in the province-I believe the great majority-we not only accept the promotion of French in "la belle province", but we take an active part in the process. Our children speak French, they work in French and, far from being hostile to the French fact we are proud of it! We are in the Province of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Quebec not despite the French fact but because of the French fact. Although there was an exodus of anglophones after the election of the Parti quebecois, those who remained chose the Quebec option and have no intention of abandoning their province.
Madam Speaker, my problem with the Constitutional Accord lies far beyond Quebec linguistic issues. But I emphasize that the protection of minority rights remains a basic point in this debate, whether we are talking about the 800,000 people who speak English in Quebec and can be found in every socio-economic stratum of society, about the rights of francophones outside Quebec, about women, about native people, about Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Indians, all visible minorities, just to name a few. In my judgment, given the legal scope of the distinct society clause, there is no doubt that minority rights could be prejudiced under the proposed agreement.
However, Madam Speaker, let us get back for a moment to the dream of a bilingual country from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
As I see it, the Accord will indeed put an end to this dream, this dream about a bilingual country where Canadians who speak French or English or are bilingual will be entitled to public services in the language of their choice throughout Canada. A country where education would be available in either French or English in every region. Unfortunately, and there is no doubt on this point, in both its tone and direction the Accord leads toward a French-speaking Quebec in an English-speaking country. Admittedly, it is true that we have not yet fully realized the bilingual Canada of our dreams, but instead of applauding the progress already made and of continuing in the same vein, the Government is telling us that we should entrench in the Constitution what it considers to be the Canadian reality. For my part, I say that you should never enter public life if you are satisfied with reality, satisfied with the status quo.
Did Sir John A. Macdonald accept the Canadian status quo of his time? Or rather, did he dream of a strong and united federal country-a dream which guided his policies? Was the building of a railway across this beautiful country, which is the subject of the book The National Dream by Pierre Berton, not inspired by this dream? Was the vision of Laurier, who said that the 20th century belonged to Canada, not a dream also? Even if it is impossible to make our dreams come true, we must still make sure that our society progresses toward those dreams. As for me, Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the dream of Henri Bourassa, Laurier, St-Laurent, Pearson, and more recently Trudeau, namely the dream of the bilingual Canada which I have described, is a dream which can come true. Indeed, it is essential for this dream to come true if we want to have a strong and united Canada which can compete with the rest of the world. As far as this dream is concerned, Madam Speaker, the Accord represents a disappointing failure.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Faced with this Accord, what would be the thoughts of Henri Bourassa, the great Canadian nationalist who stated the following in 1912:
No, indeed, French, we have the right to be because of our language; Catholic, we have the right to be because of our faith; free, we have the right to be because of the Constitution; Canadian, we are before anything else; British, we have as much right as anyone else to be. And these rights should be ours to enjoy throughout the Confederation.
Let me also quote the words of Archbishop Langevin, who attended a conference in Montreal that same year on the occasion of the first Congress of the French language in Quebec:
We do not recognize the right of anyone to stop French Canadians at the Quebec border to tell them: From this point on, you are no longer at home. We are at home everywhere in Canada.
Now, 75 years later, Madam Speaker, we are abandoning this dream. It seems to me that what has been achieved to date justifies our confidence in the future of the policies which have made it possible for Canada to make such extraordinary progress.
The legal recognition of Quebec as a distinct society represents in my view a capitulation to the philosophy of those who favour the coexistence of two nations on Canadian territory, namely a francophone nation and an anglophone nation. Many people say to me: "Donald, it is obvious that Quebec is a distinct society." There is for instance Professor Beaudoin, and I shall now reply to the comment of my friend, the Hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). As Professor Beaudoin stated before the National Assembly Committee:
Because the language and culture of a majority of its population are French, and because it operates under a French civil law, Quebec is a distinct society.
Well, even if we support Professor Beaudoin's point of view, observation of fact should not be entrenched in a Constitution, because of their legal consequences. As another professor suggested:
Let us suppose the Constitution stated that Toronto is the Financial capital of Canada.
While this may be exaggerated, it makes the point.
There is no doubt that Quebec has distinctive characteristics. Its history, language and culture are different from those of the other provinces, there is no doubt about that. But the other provinces also have distinctive characteristics. Let us take for instance the case of Newfoundland which has a different history and culture; the Acadian population in New Brunswick, the Ukrainians in the Western Provinces; the unique characteristics of British Columbia, and so on. In other words, every province has a distinctive character. These differences are also based on an economy which changes considerably from one region to another, from one province to another, so that each region is different from the other regions, each province is different from the other provinces.
That is why we have here in Canada a federal system which makes sure that the individual interests of the partners in
Confederation are looked after by the provincial Governments, each being independent in its own area of responsibility. If we accept Mr. Beaudoin's definition that Quebec is a distinct society because the language and culture of its majority are French, and because it operates under a French civil law, we must also recognize that all these rights and characteristics are now protected by the Canadian Constitution. Why, then, should we add the notion of a distinct society to the Constitution? Is it purely to give more power to the province-that is to say, to the provincial politicians?
There is no doubt that because of its special status as a distinct society Quebec will enjoy powers which will not be available to the other provinces. Those who suggest this is not the case are frankly wrong. The Joint Committee has taken care not to call witnesses who would have proven that point. For instance, Madam Speaker, is it not strange that the Joint Committee did not insist on the presence of official spokesmen for the Quebec Government to explain their interpretation of that clause? Would Mr. Bourassa's Government be satisfied if Quebec gained nothing with its "distinct society"? I do not think so.
Before the National Assembly, referring to the Constitutional Accord in last June, Mr. Bourassa said: "... It must be emphasized that the entire Constitution including the Charter, will be interpreted and enforced in the light of that distinct society clause. Legislative jurisdiction is the target and this will enable us to consolidate our gains and win new ground." This statement by Mr. Bourassa is in flagrant conflict with the position of the federal Government as expressed on many occasions by Senator Murray.
I would like to accept the government point of view given by Senator Murray but any student of constitutional law knows that many important powers have been allocated through the interpretation of the division of powers. For those who maintain that the distinct society clause is merely a rule of interpretation, I quote, this time with approval, the following comment made by Mr. Beaudoin: "It is a rule of interpretation which has changed Canadian federalism."
In this instance, Madam Speaker, he was right. Therefore it is clear: there is no doubt that there will be a change in the distribution of powers such that Quebec will have powers not available to other provinces. With such an approach, we are setting out upon an extremely dangerous road to an unbalanced federation. A clear consequence of that new approach will be a castration of the role of Quebec's politicians and bureaucrats at the national level, once Quebec takes on important powers not granted to other provinces. And if there are questions concerning the nature of powers that could be transferred, I would be pleased to answer then, Madam Speaker, once I have concluded my comments.
October 1, 1987

To conclude, when the Prime Minister tells us how much the Canadian federation has been strengthened by this Constitutional Accord because Quebec now becomes a member of the family, I remain sceptical. Why? For three reasons at least. First, we are told the Accord with all its flaws is justified because Quebec is adhering to the Canadian Constitution. Is that so? To which Constitution? Not the 1982 Constitution. Rather, to a new one in which Quebec is not bound to submit fully to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which Quebec will have special powers and where Canada will become the head waiter serving the provinces when they meet each year to feast at the expense of the national interest.
Second, we are told that this adherence to the Constitution will permit the evolution of the Canadian Constitution. Is that so? What evolution? Without the ability to amend the Senate or the Supreme Court, to create new provinces or to change other national institutions unless there is unanimous approval by all provinces, how in all honesty can constitutional evolution be considered a possibility for Canada?
Third, the Fathers of this new Constitution have not explained to Canadians that the Quebec Government feels itself in no way bound to remain part of the family. It maintains the right to leave the federation at will. Listen to what Mr. Bourassa had to say on June 18, 1987, when the Constitutional Accord was adopted by the National Assembly, and I quote:
The Liberal Party recognizes the right of Quebec to freely express its will to
maintain the Canadian federal union or to end it.
Furthermore, he confirmed that this policy:
"is not changed or affected in any way by the adoption of the Meech Lake
Accord."
So when Mr. Bourassa said that "Quebec is winning one of the greatest political victories of its history, a victory that is undeniably recognized by most objective observers as one of the greatest in two centuries", Madam Speaker, he was right. But he should have added that it was at the same time the greatest defeat for Canada.


Mr. Berger:: Madam Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member say he would have perhaps a few supplementary comments to make on the powers that could be transferred to the Province of Quebec as a distinct society, and I invite him to make those comments, if he so wishes.


Donald James Johnston: Madam
Speaker, perhaps I could elaborate on the rule of interpretation as explained by Professor Beaudoin. I made the point that if Quebec were to be invested with many important powers, that would unbalance the federation. The communication sector comes first to my mind. True, powers are shared in the communication area, but the role of the CRTC results from the interpretation of the Constitution. Communication is not found among the powers divided between Sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution. It is therefore an excellent example. If, for instance, Quebec as a distinct society becomes responsible for the control or content of communications, would a Quebec Member of Parliament be an appropriate
Constitution Amendment, 1987
candidate for the position of federal Minister of Communications, considering he would not have jurisdiction in his own province? Would it be found acceptable to entrust Canadian policy in the area of communications or some other area to someone who does not have a say in these matters at home, in his own province? Would not all Hon. Members from Quebec in fact be bound by the same constraints? And I may say that the same would hold true for civil servants. Could we imagine, for example, in these circumstances, Andre Bureau from Trois-Rivieres as CRTC President?
There you have it, Madam Speaker. To me, to ask these questions is to answer them. We shall be creating what lawyers would refer to as an asymmetrical federation, an unbalanced federation, where, as I have already indicated in my comments, the role played by politicians from the province of Quebec will be castrated.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member, if he would, to comment perhaps on another area which I do not believe he mentioned in his speech, that is, the area of the environment. I would like to refer to a letter that was sent to the clerk of the Special Joint Committee on September 10 by a group of organizations, The Canadian Environmental Law Association, The Citizens Network on Waste Management, Energy Probe and Pollution Probe. The authors of this letter are concerned that the Meech Lake agreement as presently worded may act as another barrier to the federal Government taking a strong role in the area of environmental protection.
The authors are concerned that the ability of the provinces to opt out of shared-cost programs and to receive compensation therefor will inhibit or may discourage the federal Government from assuming its responsibility to protect the environment, if it can be argued that any federal initiative is in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We have the problem precisely because the environment is not listed as one of the items of responsibility in either Section 91 or Section 92. Concern for the environment was not a matter which was discussed, if you will, or which was a concern at the time of the BNA Act in 1867. So it is an area where there has been considerable ambiguity.
I would like the Member perhaps to comment upon this and to state whether he agrees that this shared-cost provision, the right of the provinces to opt out, would in effect inhibit the federal Government from taking action in this area?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do agree with the representations made by the Hon. Member that the federal Government would be inhibited from operating in these areas by virtue of the new provisions on cost-shared programs, which is one of the few levers left to the national Government to establish national standards in areas which we say fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Of course, someday the Government may try to invoke the peace, order and good government clause to argue that the environment is a matter of national concern, going back and relying on the Canada Temperance case and others. On the other hand, if one is able to argue, say, in the case of Quebec, that it is a distinct society and that the peace, order and good government clause should receive a restricted application of the kind given by Viscount Haldane, namely, national emergency, then one could easily see that a checkerboard would emerge in this country with respect to environmental control programs.
I would also draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) the fact that national objectives are nowhere defined as being established by the Government of Canada. In fact, if one looks at the comments of Mr. Bourassa in the National Assembly-

It is quite obvious that in his heart he considers that national objectives will be established in consultation with the provinces.
One must ask, where are these national objectives to be established? Here in the House of Commons, or behind closed doors at a private First Ministers' Conference, or behind closed doors at Meech Lake? I would like spokespersons from the Province of Quebec to come forward and tell us how they interpret this particular provision. All we have are comments from Mr. Bourassa in Quebec. If we establish our national objectives through provincial meetings of First Ministers, we are stating that the national interest is the sum of separate individual provincial interests. That is not what Canada is all about.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to kow why the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) is so afraid of the promotion of French in Quebec. Why is he so afraid? Are the provinces enemies of the federal Government? Are the provincial Premiers bad boys? Why is he so afraid of Quebec's distinctive character? I understand that Westmount is no different from Toronto. But Saint-Henri is different from Westmount and different from Toronto. Can the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount explain his fear, his fury, and why, in 1982, he did not fight as strongly when Quebec did not support the Constitution?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my honourable friend and colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie was here when I made my comments, because I did explain that we are very proud to have a Quebec in which French is promoted. We are involved in the process. As I said, our children go to French schools. They work in French. So, as I explained, we stayed in Quebec because of the French fact, not in spite of it.
On the contrary! So obviously he did not understand the comments I just made here. But when he asks why I am afraid of the provincial Premiers, I say that we must have a national vision. We are here to stand up for the national interest, not the separate individual provincial interests. The Premier of each province is supposed to look after the interests of his own province. Mr. Ghiz was not elected by the people of Alberta. Only one legislature is supposed to represent the national interest. Its members are elected from all across the country. It is this Parliament. It is up to us to represent the national interest, not the interests of the Province of Quebec in this House. We have been elected to defend the national interest, to promote the national interest. It is not the responsibility of provincial premiers to defend this interest. They cannot do it; they have no incentive to do so. And that is why we cannot leave the management of our country in the hands of 10 Premiers meeting privately behind closed doors with the Prime Minister of Canada. That is not what Canada is all about.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It is important that the first thing I do is to indicate that I spent my summer working as a member of the committee on the Meech Lake Accord, only to discover at the end of that process that my name was not included in the list of members of the committee.
Obviously, this caused me a great deal of concern. I had to go through each of the reasons that I could possibly think of why my name was not included. The first one may have been the fact that my name is difficult to spell, but I do not think that flies. Maybe I am just too shy, quiet, and withdrawn.


Ms. Jewett:: No, that doesn't fly either.


Albert Glen Cooper: My colleagues in the House know that this is not likely to have been the reason. Then I thought that possibly it was some regional discrimination, but after a little homework I had no choice but to rule that out. Finally, I decided it must be discrimination of another type, and that is the fact that I am so short-maybe they just missed me in the line-up.
After checking all those reasons out, I came to the conclusion that it happened as a matter of an oversight. I spent my summer working on the Meech Lake Accord, this historical document, only to be completely forgotten by history. It was a tough time for me, nevertheless it was a time that I thoroughly enjoyed and found most fascinating.
I wish to begin my remarks by complimenting the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), the co-chairman of the committee, who did an excellent job. Together with his cochairman, Senator Tremblay from the other House, those men conducted themselves in a fashion that they can be proud of, and certainly I was proud to be part of the group that worked with them.
October 1, 1987

I also wish to comment on the witnesses who appeared before us. There is nothing like a constitutional debate to bring out people with strong viewpoints, impressive arguments, clearly defined ideas, and an ability to present their case. That certainly was the case in this particular committee. We had experts come forward, and as is usually the case when dealing with experts, they were divided on the manner in which they viewed the Accord. Nevertheless, the arguments placed before the committee were fascinating, well thought out, and they certainly helped each of us to look at the Accord, gain insight into it, and find a perspective. After hearing the arguments, we were able to reach individual and collective decisions.
Today I wish to address three things on the Meech Lake Accord. First, I wish to look at the Accord from the perspective of my own home Province of Alberta and how the Accord affects them. Second, I wish to spend a little time on the process by which this constitutional agreement was reached. Third, I wish briefly to touch on the future constitutional process in this country, how we must examine that, and the importance of the role it will play in Canada in the future.
Let me begin by looking at the Meech Lake agreement from the perspective of Alberta. There are several items we must look at to gain an insight into the manner in which Albertans may respond to the Accord. First, we must look at the question of federal-provincial powers, the distinct society clause, the issue of Senate reform, and in any discussions of Alberta's perspective, we must look at the question of the veto, the unanimity on the amendments to the federal institutions.
First, I wish to look at the area of provincial powers. Several critics of the Accord have stated that the federal Government has sold out the shop and given the powers away to the provinces. Now the provinces are supreme, they will control the national agenda, and the federal Government's hands are tied. In hearing the witnesses, looking at the Accord, and spending time on this particular issue and others, it was obvious to me and to other members of the committee that that is clearly not the case.
I feel very strongly that the federal Government now works within a parameter that defines its powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It cannot holus-bolus move into an area of provincial jurisdiction and stomp on provincial interests. In fact, now there is the ability to draw a consensus, get the various levels of Government to work together, not only to the good of the various provinces and regions, but also to the good of the national Government.
I think back to some of the areas on which Albertans would have reacted angrily if the federal Government had moved in. Albertans would be very angry if the federal Government were to move in with a national program in areas of energy, as was done by a previous Government with the National Energy Program, or in the area of education. They would respond to that in a most negative and critical manner. After the Meech Lake Accord, Albertans have the opportunity to take a look at federal concerns and decisions that may be forthcoming in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
those particular areas; they have an opportunity to participate in those discussions. But they also have an assurance that they cannot have their area of jurisdiction over-examined or controlled by a federal Government.
I also want to look at the area of distinct society. When the Meech Lake Accord was first signed, many Albertans were concerned and said: "We as Albertans are also distinct. Why don't we have a constitutional definition or description which declares Albertans to be distinct as well?"
I spent some time looking at the Accord, and I think it accepts or acknowledges a fact of Canada-the fact that the Province of Quebec is distinct. It is distinct in its language, and it is distinct in its culture. It has a distinctness long recognized by Canadians from coast to coast. What the Meech Lake Accord has done is taken that distinctness, which we accept as a fact, placed it in our Constitution, and described it as such.
In a number of rulings on areas dealing with the Province of Quebec, the Supreme Court has already made reference to the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. We are not charting new ground, and I do not feel that Albertans have to be concerned. The fact is that Quebec is distinct. It is a unique and wonderful part of Canada. Through the Meech Lake Accord and through the description of Quebec as a distinct society, I see Quebec now as a full partner in Canada and a full participant in our Constitution. That in itself strengthens all Canada. It strengthens Alberta and it strengthens Quebec. It builds the kind of nation which all Canadians really want.
There is no way that I could look at the Meech Lake Accord and not talk for a few moments about Senate reform. It is probably one of the most important issues to Albertans today. Certainly it was one of the most important parts of the Meech Lake Accord which attracted the attention of Albertans.
Many have said that Senate reform is now more difficult as a result of the Accord. People such as Dr. Elton of the Canada West Foundation appeared before us as witnesses and argued that, as did other witnesses. However, there were several other witnesses with whom I am inclined to agree who said that that was not the case. They did not see Senate reform as being more difficult now than it was prior to the Meech Lake Accord.
I agree for the following reasons. As the Constitution of Canada presently exists, with Quebec being outside the constitutional framework, not legally or technically but in spirit, the Province of Ontario virtually has a sole veto or automatic veto. Therefore, Senate reform at the beginning of the process was in a very difficult position. With the present amending formula of seven out of 10 provinces and 50 per cent of the population agreeing to any amendment, Ontario is in a very unique spot about which I as an Albertan was very much concerned.

October 1, 1987
Albertans feel very strongly. When they look at the area of Senate reform, they argue for what is commonly called a Triple E Senate-equal, effective, and elected.
I should like to touch briefly upon what that means. The term "elected" is a very obvious one. We feel that Senators at present have the authority of their position but do not have any moral authority. What moral authority do they have? How many people from Alberta, Quebec, or Ontario can name the Senators of their provinces? I am willing to bet that very few can. Why? It is because Senators are not in any way accountable to them. Therefore I argue, as do other Albertans, that our Senators must be elected.
We are also looking for an effective Senate which, as a result of being elected, has the moral authority to act, the right to represent their regional interests, and the responsibility and collective consent of the provinces and the people they represent, not the present situation.
The third area of the so-called Triple E Senate is "equal". As Hon. Members and Canadians know, the Senate is equal on a regional basis right now. Advocates of the Triple E Senate are proposing that we move from not only being regionally balanced but that we start to look at provincial balance. I would argue for that because I think it is important. We have population balances in the House of Commons. For example, Quebec has more Members of Parliament than does Saskatchewan, and Ontario has more Members of Parliament than does Nova Scotia. Why can we not take these balances and put them in the Senate? Why can we not define, represent, and be concerned with regional concerns? Why can there not be equal numbers of people from each province? I obviously support that concept as do Albertans in general. This is why they were so concerned about the Accord and the impact it may have upon Senate reform.
I argue, as I have already said, that the Accord does not diminish our opportunity for Senate reform. I will come back to that in my next point which I think is so crucial, that is, the whole question of a veto with regard to federal institutions or the unanimity which is now required for amendment. This was also very crucial to Albertans. For example, if under present circumstances someone decided to put in place an unelected Senate which would be reformed in some other way, right now seven of 10 provinces might well agree to that, with the Province of Alberta not agreeing and in fact being very angry and frustrated with the proposal. Under present circumstances our hands would be tied. We would have no opportunity to block the process.
However, with the Meech Lake Accord Albertans have a chance. They have an ace in the poker game on Senate reform. I think it is crucial and important to Albertans. It assures us that we as Albertans will see what we want to see, particularly in the area of Senate reform, but not only in that area.
I want to close my comments by paying a compliment to Premier Don Getty of the Province of Alberta. I looked at the Meech Lake Accord and at what resulted there, and I must say as an Albertan that I was pleased to see his fingerprints and his involvement in the process. I was pleased to see how he brought an Albertan perspective to a document which is significant nationally and fundamental to our constitutional history and future. I think Don Getty very much represented Albertans in a way which all of us can be proud of. I think that is demonstrated in the kinds of things about which I have talked in the last few moments.
I should also like to talk a little about process, but I see that it is approaching one o'clock. If I may call it one o'clock and continue at three o'clock, I would feel better than breaking my speech in the middle of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I met with spokesmen for the workers of the Angus shops in Montreal East. They told me that the company has laid off 1,000 workers over the past five years, that unfortunately there are only 1,116 employees left in these Montreal east shops, and that as early as next week 40 jobs will be transferred to western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, CP management did not bother to tell the employees nor the people who live in the neighbourhood of these shops. I would urge the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina) to meet with these workers to tell them that the Angus shops will stay in Montreal east and that neighbouring residents may rest assured that company operations will be maintained.
I dare hope the Minister of State for Transport will heed our advice and get in touch with CP management so as to reassure these people who have had to cope with steadily declining employment in Montreal east.
October 1, 1987



TAX REFORM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation representing Canada's $22 biliibn tourism industry appeared before the Elouse of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs this morning. On behalf of the 60,000 businesses employing over one million people, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada offered its input on the White Paper on Tax Reform. While TIAC is generally pleased with the proposed reform, it voiced some concern in specific areas.
From the outset the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised to consult the people of Canada prior to drafting legislation, and this he has done. After the auto industry, the tourism industry is the largest earner of foreign exchange in Canada, drawing $6 billion from beyond our borders. Canada must continue to be considered an ideal international tourist destination. I am confident the Minister would never place this reputation in jeopardy.
He is acutely aware that Canada suffers from an annual $2 billion tourism deficit. For that reason TIAC and this Government will continue to try to convince Canadians there is no better place for a vacation than here at home. Members of this Government heard the association's concerns loud and clear. TIAC can rest assured that the industry will be vibrant and prosperous as Canada heads into the 21st century.
* * %



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Churchill I am deeply concerned about the horrendous shortage of adequate shelter in the native communities of northern Manitoba. In this, the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, the federal Government should be especially ashamed of this deplorable situation. How can we say we are treating our aboriginal people fairly when we see this level of neglect on the part of the federal Government?
In one reserve in my riding 250 people out of 674, or over one-third, are in desperate need of shelter. In Shamattawa there are only 90 houses for over 670 people. The people cannot even get replacements for nine houses destroyed by fire over the last two years.
I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to rectify this horrid situation. It is his responsibility, as well as that of his Government, to help ensure these Canadians receive adequate shelter. I know all Members would agree with the UN Charter of Human
Rights which says it is the right of every human being to have access to adequate shelter.
I call once again upon the Minister to live up to his obligation and address the crisis facing my constituents, and native people across the nation. Adequate housing is something that our native children deserve.



ABORTION


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have recently been made aware of the survival of two remarkably premature infants. One was born only 141 days after conception, while the other after only 145 days. This is about half the normal gestation period. Each weighed slightly over one pound. I am sure we can all rejoice with the parents of these two tiny human beings.
Unfortunately, Canada's abortion law would have allowed the aborting of both those children who were born after 20 weeks gestation. Statistics Canada records that in 1985, 1,815 babies between the ages of 17 and 20 weeks were killed in Canadian hospitals, and an astonishing 181 were killed after the twentieth week.
The Survival of these two tiny infants is testimony to the fact that human life is a continuum that begins with conception, not birth. Those babies aborted are no less human than those born, regardless of the gestational age at which the event takes place. Abortion kills a pre-born human life in the earliest stages of development. It does not simply "terminate a pregnancy".



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) said he directed the Cape Breton Development Corporation to stop stockpiling coal on the international piers in the Whitney Pier area of Sydney. That statement is misleading. It certainly does not mean the Government is opposed to the stockpiling of coal on the piers, it is merely a moratorium until it deals with the public relations problem caused by President Derek Ranee.
While the Minister was making that statement, Mr. Ranee was meeting with residents of the area Devco will be polluting and telling them the stockpiling will be going ahead and, if Devco is forced to stop, mines would be closed.

October 1, 1987
[DOT] (M05)
Cape Bretoners are being told that if they want jobs, they must take them at any price, and that clean air and the amenities other parts of the country take for granted do not apply to industrial Cape Breton.
I want the Government to state emphatically today that coal will not be stockpiled in the Whitney Pier area of Sidney at any time unless there are safeguards agreed to by the residents of the Whitney Pier area, and that the decision of the Cape Breton Development Corporation to stockpile be immediately overturned by the federal Government.



FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES-NEED TO PROTECT CANADIAN INTERESTS

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the negotiations to sign a free-trade agreement have reached a critical point.
However, at this stage more than ever, I want to reaffirm the need for such an agreement between Canada and the United States since another American bill is threatening Canadian exports, Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian pulp and paper industry is now the target of the protectionist attacks of Congress.
When we know that the pulp and paper sector, which includes the related industries in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, exported for $33.6 million of products in 1986, it is easy to realize the importance of such an agreement. If no agreement is signed, a region such as the one I represent would suffer heavy economic consequences which the other sectors of our regional economy would have difficulty to compensate.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government wants to preserve the economy of our regions and to protect a large number of industrial sectors, and this is why we shall fight to the end to bring the Americans to show a more positive attitude in the negotiation process.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, this spring the Conservative Government launched what many people agree to be a short-sighted and regressive measure to the detriment of the aboriginal people of Canada. I am
referring to the capping of post-secondary education assistance for native students who want nothing more than to learn.
This move was made without any consultation, and was even directly opposed to the recommendations of the Neilsen task force which found among other things that native participation rates in Canada's colleges and universities are far below the national average. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has recently condemned the decision, calling the move cynical and noting that this fall is the first time qualified native students will be denied access to education because of lack of funds.
A society that does not have access to higher education is a society that will continue to face unacceptable levels of unemployment, welfare dependency, and incarceration. In the interests of fairness and a brighter future for so many young native people, I call upon the administration to reverse the damage and to reopen the doors of quality education to native youth.
He *	*



ROAD SAFETY


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, October 11, in Hamilton will be notable for two reasons. The Hamilton Tiger Cats will be meeting the Saskatchewan Rough Riders at Ivor Wynne Stadium. More important than the outcome of that game, however, will be a special ceremony on the field which will launch the Drive Dry Program.
The Council on Road Trauma is the designated committee on impaired driving for the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. Regional Chairman William Sears, Chief of Police Robert Hamilton and I, among others, are supporting this endeavour to cut down on the incredible number of road fatalities involving alcohol impairment.
The most frightening aspect of the nearly 2,000 alcohol-related deaths in 1986 is that the vast majority occurred in the 16-to-24 age bracket. The Drive Dry Program is designed to educate people that it is not cool to drive under the influence. Driving drunk kills people. Driving dry makes great good sense.
O)
I urge the people of Hamilton-Wentworth and all Hon. Members to support the worthy idea of a Drive Dry Program.



AEROSPACE


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian space agency is a subject of constant
October 1, 1987

comment in the media, because the Conservative Government cannot make up its mind about its location. The same is true of the disease control laboratory, where the Government is hesitating between Ottawa and Winnipeg. As we all know, a new space agency will have to deal with various sectors that come under the federal Government and are located in the National Capital, the nerve centre where the decision-making takes place. The National Capital would also be a logical choice because a number of countries have decided to locate such agencies in their respective capital cities.
In any event, whether the Government favours the National Capital region or Montreal as the future location of the new space agency, a choice must be made. The Government will have to decide.
To remove any doubt about the location and to prevent further speculation that might jeopardize the project, the Conservative Government must act. It should table its Bill today and tell Canadians as soon as possible where the agency will be located.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Government of General Pinochet in Chile is completing work on a $1.1 billion copper mine which will eventually process 300,000 tonnes a year. This mine of the Chilean Government will compete directly with Canadian copper mines, particularly those mines in the Highland Valley of British Columbia.
It is of particular concern to the miners and their families in this part of Canada that the Canadian Export Development Corporation has recently offered to extend to the Chilean Government a $70 million line of credit to develop this particular mine. The British Columbia Mining Association has indicated that this will create an unfair competitive advantage for the Chilean mine which has an extremely high rate of copper ore and pays very low wages to miners.
These are tough times in the copper industry. The situation is extremely competitive. I think it is time that the Canadian Government started to support Canadian mines, Canadian miners, and Canadian mining communities as opposed to those of General Pinochet in Chile.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, together with his volunteers and the members of his PC association, the Conservative member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) has successfully completed his fund raising based on a new method, to wit, the refusal of all donations over $1,000, the refusal of all donations from corporations, profit organizations and unions.
The crusade initiated by the Hon. Member for Megantic- Compton-Stanstead is finally bearing fruit and, in agreement with Mr. Denis Lamarche, from Senneterre, the president of my party association in Abitibi, as well as other members of the executive, I fully support this method which we will use from now on in Abitibi.
Since 1984, together with my association and the economic players, I have had to deal with a number of projects and important issues which had not been settled under the previous government.
We are pursuing the economic recovery which is an accomplishment of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Abitibi people. At 7.2 per cent, the unemployment rate in my riding is the lowest in Quebec, compared to 20 per cent in 1983-84. All together we are working towards a more prosperous Abitibi.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan grain farmers export over 80 per cent of their production each year. It is a long way from the primary prairie elevator to Thunder Bay and from Thunder Bay to export position at tidewater ports in Montreal or further east. The distance to our foreign customers is even greater. None of the competitors we fight with for a share of the international grain market have to transport their grain as far as we do.
We must export if Canadians are to continue to benefit from the earnings derived from grain sales abroad, even now during a period of devastatingly low grain prices.
With a one-week rail strike in August of this year, a strike/lock-out at Thunder Bay in September, 1986, and now a strike by marine engineers on ships which who would ordinarily ply the waters of the Great Lakes from about the first week of April until the second week of December, the reliability of the eastern grain transportation system seems to be undermined by labour-management relations between those who are responsible for moving grain to market.
Canadians living in cities, towns, or rural areas all benefit from the jobs and income that the grain sector contributes to the economy every time we sell to foreign buyers. The longer

October 1, 1987
this current labour-management dispute remains unresolved, the harder it will be for Canada to maintain its share of the international grain market.
I encourage all Members of Parliament to use their influence on the two parties in the dispute, the Canadian Lake Carriers Association and the Canadian Marine Officers Union, to bring about a speedy settlement and move our grain.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who watched The Journal the other night saw another example of toxic chemicals from a source in the United States threatening human health. This time, it was not the Niagara River or the Great Lakes, but the St. Lawrence River.
Thousands of tonnes of PCBs have been dumped in the river at the General Motors foundry at Massena, New York, upstream of Lake St. Francis.
The Massena site is a priority site for the United States Environmental Protection Agency but little progress has been made. Already, fish, turtles, birds and other animals are contaminated with PCBs. Therefore, people who eat anything caught in this part of the St. Lawrence may be at risk too.
We urge the Government to make strong representations in Washington to implement a plan to remove this threat to the health of millions of people living downstream from the General Motors foundry at Massena along the St. Lawrence River and the Lake St. Francis basins.



FINANCE


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, we are constantly learning something new about the detrimental effects of the incompetent action taken by the former Liberal administration which had created a tax credit to encourage private research.
The Auditor General has indicated that the Department of Finance had known for at least nine months that the tax credit program, implemented by the previous Liberal minister, was a tax loophole running completely out of control, although it would not admit it.
Since January, 1984, both the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Finance knew for sure, on the basis of ample evidence, that the program had gone berserk and that it would cost much more than the estimated $200 million.
Moreover, when our Government imposed a moratorium on this program one month after our election, this program had already cost $3.5 billion to Canadian taxpayers.
Indeed, we should be grateful to the Canadian people who were clever enough to recognize that something was wrong with this government scheme and to change the situation by bringing to power a Progressive Conservative Government for better management and deficit control.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by reminding you that this was the worst tax fraud in Canadian history and that it should be mentioned as such in the Guinness Book of Records.




Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, tax expenditures have, over the years, become a favourite method of hiding the Government's direction of money into particular sectors of the economy without having to be accountable to Parliament or the people of Canada.
Examples of the Government spending money by not collecting it as taxes are programs such as MURB, the MultiUnit Residential Building Program, and SRTC, the Scientific Research Tax Credit.
One will search long and futilely in the Estimates, in the financial plans and in public accounts for statistics, or even estimates, of the cost of these and other tax expenditures to Canadians. Tax expenditures to large and small corporations are just as much spending of taxpayers' dollars as is the payment of a pension to a senior citizen. It is time that the Government established an evaluation and monitoring system for tax expenditures.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the latest postal strike has the potential to disrupt many Canadian businesses. Labour difficulties in the Seaway will cause damage to western grain farmers. These same
October 1, 1987

farmers were harmed by the Thunder Bay and Vancouver port closures last year and the rail strike a short time ago.
My point is that we in Canada have to find a better way of dealing with breakdowns in the collective bargaining process. We live in a tremendously sophisticated society. We can put men into space, we can transplant human organs, and we can transmit information world-wide in the twinkle of an eye. Yet, when labour and management fail to agree, we find ourselves back in the stone ages with primitive blunt instruments-lockouts and strikes-which ultimately penalize all Canadians. Surely there are viable alternatives.
Once again I urge the establishment of a parliamentary committee to examine the whole area of labour relations with a view to finding a way to resolving these impasses without resorting to rocks and clubs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have always believed in honouring the Cruise missile commitment made by the Government of Canada to the United States and to our other allies, and we have honoured that commitment. I have always believed in honouring the commitments that previous Governments made.
As I said in my speech to the House of Commons when the issue was debated on March 6, we should test the Cruise missile until such time as there are concrete results in the negotiations between the two super powers on intermediate range nuclear weapons.
There have been concrete results, much to the relief of the world, and I say the time has arrived to move forward in the world search for peace and for Canada to suspend Cruise missile testing in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: My question is a simple one. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree with that statement?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I guess we are being exposed to another part of the rehabilitation program of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Take the high road, Joe.


Mr. Foster:: Don't let your 23 per cent go to your head, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: -with dramatic little announcements being made without regard to the cost to the country or the cost to the alliances of which we are part. There has been progress made, very important progress, on arms control. It is not yet complete. Indeed, the agreement in principle has not yet been completed in detail with regard to the INF agreement.
One of the reasons we were able to get the Soviets to the table was that they knew it was not going to be possible to split the alliance. It is important, in our judgment, that commitments made by the alliance be kept by the alliance if we want to continue to make progress on arms control, and we are more interested in progress in arms control than we are in dramatic statements made for effect at home.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I don't think Canadians are going to appreciate the tone of that reply, and I am not going to reply in kind because I am not going to play politics on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am more interested in the peace of the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State may care to use world peace to put on a little performance here in the House, but Canadians don't appreciate that.


REQUEST THAT CANADA REVIEW CRUISE MISSILE TESTING ON OWN TERRITORY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for renewing the agreement on Cruise missile testing if the two superpowers ratify a treaty prohibiting intermediate nuclear arms. Nor is there any reason to test the Cruise missile this winter, since the superpowers have expressed their intention of signing such a treaty. Perhaps the Minister doesn't realize it, but the world is changing, and Canada's foreign policy must evolve accordingly.
Will the Minister persuade or ask the Prime Minister to persuade the Americans not to ask Canada's permission to test the Cruise missile this winter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Leader of the Opposition and I are concerned, our actions are self-explanatory.
As for the question, the suggestion made by the Liberal Party as another attempt to get publicity here in Canada, the suggestion that Canada should now renege on commitments

October 1, 1987
Oral Questions
observed in the past that had made a major contribution toward the ratification of an agreement on reducing levels of nuclear arms, as far as that question is concerned, we do not agree with a policy that could destroy the unity of NATO, and we do not agree with a policy that could be a threat to what we have accomplished so far in reducing levels of nuclear arms.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I too believe in living up to our commitments. The agreement to test the Cruise missile in Canada was directly tied, under a two-track NATO decision, to the negotiations on intermediate range nuclear weapons. Now that the superpowers have agreed in principle to ban intermediate range nuclear weapons, is the Government willing to respond, in a complementary and positive way, to that historic agreement? Or is the Minister suggesting that there is a different rationale for Cruise testing? Are he and the Government shifting their ground on behalf of the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. I am not shifting my ground. A review of the record will see that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact shifting his ground. What he should do is read the record-


John Napier Turner: Read the speech!


Charles Joseph Clark: -rather than The Globe and Mail of Toronto.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-MINISTERS' VISIT TO WASHINGTON
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would also like to present to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I presume that he speaks for the Government.
Last week, when Simon Reisman suspended the trade talks, the Prime Minister said at the time that we were going to wait for Washington to make its moves. We have now had the spectacle twice in a week of cabinet Ministers going to Washington-I suppose the United States Air Force does not fly this way any more-even though it is quite clear that at this late date the possibility of getting a fair trade deal in the Canadian national interest is virtually zero.
I want to ask the Secretary of State this question. Is he prepared to explain to the House what position the delegation
is taking to Washington today? Is it a deal at any price, or is the delegation simply going to deliver an official notice of withdrawal from the trade negotiations?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is neither of those things. The Hon. Member will recall that one of the questions of very real importance to Canada is the ability to put in place some reliable mechanism for the resolution of disputes. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition expressed his view the other day that that was impossible, that that would never happen so he did not want to try. We thought it was worth trying. There has been in fact some slight movement by the Americans.
There has been an agreement more or less in principle to the idea of a tribunal. But there has been no agreement on rules that would guide such a tribunal. In our judgment a tribunal without rules would not provide Canada with the kind of guarantees and security that we require. That is among the items that are being discussed in Washington today.
We think it is better to see if we can make progress to protect Canada's interests rather than simply walk away from the negotiations.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pose a supplementary question to the Minister. When he states that the only issue is really a dispute settlement mechanism, he ignores that there are many other issues of major concern, particularly to Canadians, for example, the right of Canada to decide for itself in its own sovereignty the kind of support programs and subsidies it will have for regional development, and other forms of assistance to overcome disparities in this country are of concern. Are those also part of those negotiations in Washington today?
Would the Minister on behalf of the Government table what kind of correspondence, what kind of statements, and what kind of counter proposals have been made so that, for the first time, Canadians will know what is going on? Are we being sold down the river? Are we negotiating away the right of this country to make decisions in its own sovereign interest?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to those last two questions, as it has been on the dozens of times the Hon. Member has put them in exactly those terms, is no. He has also-and I am sure he did it inadvertently-misquoted me. I said that among the things being considered and dicussed in Washington in this meeting requested by the Americans is the question of a dispute resolution mechanism-it is among the items.
October 1, 1987

We made clear when Ambassador Reisman declared an impasse in the negotiation-


John Napier Turner: Whatever happened to him?


Charles Joseph Clark: -that among the things that had been put on the table that Canada could not accept were some proposals regarding regional development.
If there is progress made on the question of rules, there might then be discussion of that and other questions. Canada's interest, as it has been throughout, will be protected by the Government of Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In the past the Secretary of State for External Affairs has linked the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada with progress being made in the disarmament field. Specifically, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House on March 2 when making the linkage between disarmament progress that, "We will determine Canadian Government policy on the basis of what is actually decided in Geneva".
Since the Soviets and the Americans, fortunately, have now reached a major INF agreement moving the world sensibly toward disarmament, why has the Government of Canada reversed its position on this very important matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party just quoted my words and then distorted them. I stand by the quote and not the distortion.


Mr. Hees:: Way to go, Joe!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, and many Canadians, at the time thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was linking the testing of the Cruise missile with progress being made in the disarmament field.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that not the basic position of the Government. Is the Government saying to the people of Canada that, even if we continue to make at long last significant progress in this world between the superpowers, moving toward disarmament, the Canadian Government will continue to test Cruise missiles here?
Oral Questions
Why does the Canadian Government not clearly live up to the implication left with the people of Canada? Why does it not make a contribution toward disarmament instead of moving in the opposite direction?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my words are clear. They are on the record, and they have just been read by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He drew an interpretation from them that he claims is a legitimate interpretation. I would quarrel with that. I think my words speak for themselves.
Let us come to the question as to how this country contributes to progress on arms control.
It is the position of the New Democratic Party that this country contributes to progress in arms control by breaking up NATO, which is what they would do by running away from NATO obligations.
If that position has been adopted by the Government of Canada, if the Soviets had been successful in finding such a dupe in the offices of the Government of Canada who would take the country out of NATO, then we would not have the agreement in principle that was achieved by Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze.
I do not propose to put those types of agreement at risk to meet some ideological commitment of the New Democratic Party here in Canada.


Pauline Jewett: Oh, Joe, sit down.


George Harris Hees: Way to go, Joe.


Mr. Siddon:: There is no strength in weakness.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all I would say is that one would hope that in a matter as serious as this when there is a specific question on disarmament, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have the courtesy to the public of Canada to deal with the question that is asked instead of raising a red herring.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do not wish to distort the argument of the Minister, because I understood his argument. I will ask him to explain what he meant. On March 2 he stated, in a way that I understood, that there was a linkage to be made between Cruise testing and disarmament agreements between the Soviet Union and the United States. Would he tell us what he meant when he said, "We will determine Canadian government policy on the basis of what is actually decided in Geneva"?

October 1, 1987
Oral Questions
If the Minister did not mean that we would contribute to this process by stopping the testing of Cruise missiles, what did he mean?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the New Democratic Party, my words speak for themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There they are on the record talking about what was actually decided in Geneva. I stand by the record.
I perfectly understand why the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not want to talk about his policy and his Party's policy of pulling this country out of NATO.


Pauline Jewett: Come on, Joe, answer the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Pack it in.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Now we understand why you are not the Prime Minister, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the NDP knows that would jeopardize Canada's and the West's ability to achieve reduction in nuclear weapons. We want weapons down. We do not want that type of false gesture for partisan purposes here at home.
[Translation)


GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr Speaker, the strike is obviously the result of the strait jacket in which the Government has put Canada Post to stop it from making reasonable offers which could lead to a settlement. Why is the Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly, reduced to taking notes during the meetings? Why can he not act as mediator? Does the Government feel responsible for settling the strike or is it simply trying to use the postal workers as political scapegoats?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr Speaker, once more, if the Hon. Member took the trouble to read the press release, he would know exactly why I have asked Mr. Kelly to meet the parties involved.
As for the question of whether or not Mr. Kelly should act as mediator, which he is not doing, I would like to quote the words of Mr. Parrot as reported on page 3 of today's issue of Le journal de Montreal:
The presence of a mediator is useful when both parties have seriously want
to come to an agreement.
This is what Mr. Kelly is now doing, Mr. Speaker, trying to determine the intentions of both parties and evaluating the situation. He will report to me after completing his evaluation.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the postal strike.
Again, the financial strait-jacket that the Government has imposed on Canada Post is giving us a postal strike. If the Government has created it, the Government at should at least try to settle it.
The last time the Government first refused to appoint a mediator, and then it waited one full week before appointing a mediator. Now we know that Associate Deputy Minister Bill Kelly is already involved. What we would like to know is the following: Is Mr. Kelly involved as an observer, as a messenger, as a notetaker, or does he have a mandate to mediate? If not, when will the Government appoint a mediator?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague had read the press release, he would have noted that Mr. Kelly was not appointed at this particular time as a mediator.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we know what he is not, but we still do not know what he is.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PREMIERS' MEETING CONVENED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Premiers of Canada have been called together to meet tomorrow morning on free trade without being told what the agenda is, or without any prior briefing for their staffs.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I just heard deliver a pessimistic speech to Canadian exporters on this subject, why has this meeting been called. Is it in hopes of some deal, or is it in fact to pull the plug?


Mr. Jelinek:: Wait until tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, you would think that after hearing a speech delivered by me the Hon. Member would be in a better frame of mind!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why, Joe? Why would we do that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Just more depressed.
October 1, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: Everyone I talk to is in a better frame of mind. I do not know what is wrong with the Hon. Member.
The reason that the Prime Minister has invited the Premiers to meet tomorrow is that we are obviously at a very critical state in the negotiations with the United States.
In sharp contrast to the policy of former Governments, it has been the policy of this Government from the very beginning to involve the provinces fully in all aspects of the discussions. We intend to carry on that practice. Tomorrow the Prime Minister, and my colleague, the Minister for International Trade will report to the Premiers on our assessment of developments in the trade negotiation with the United States. That is part of the way we make this country work.


UNITED STATES POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that we now have before us an admission of the seriousness of this meeting tomorrow and an admission of the last minute quality of it, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs share with Canadians as well-not just with the Premiers but with all Canadians-what concessions the United States is asking for in return for the dispute settlement mechanism movement about which he talked earlier in his comments?
What concessions is the United States asking for in return for that movement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning we have been trying to involve as broad a cross-section of individual Canadians and elected representatives as possible in the discussion of what we take into and what we might get from the trade negotiations. We wanted to do it in a way which would not mean that Canada's hand would be shown to the United States.
We have had a very good agreement, the one that worked, in consultation with the Premiers. We offered to the New Democratic Party and to the Liberal Party, as a result of the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, in camera briefings so that they could be brought up to date on the developments in the trade negotiations without jeopardizing those negotiations.
The New Democratic Party turned that fair offer down. I do not intend now, as we move toward the deadline the Americans set under their system for these negotiations, to depart from our past practice of not communicating all our positions to the people with whom we have been negotiating, by way of the House of Commons.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Most Canadians are absolutely fed up with disruption in the postal service. In light of the happenings of the past few days, could the Minister tell the House whether he anticipates an early settlement of this strike?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I always hopefully anticipate an early end to all various conflicts. In respect of this particular one, I am awaiting the assessment of Mr. Kelly who, I understand, is still with the parties.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the silencing of the official spokesman of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Could the Solicitor General explain why he has in effect muzzled the official spokesman of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? What is the Government hiding? What is it afraid of?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that his allegation is false. I have not done that. I agree with and adhere to the prime ministerial guidelines laid down in 1984.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY PUBLIC SERVANTS-PRIME MINISTER'S GUIDELINES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in his guidelines dated November 23, 1984, said that the Government's policy was designed "to ensure that public servants who are called upon to comment on government policy are allowed to do so on the record, and in full freedom".
The Solicitor General has instructed the official spokesman of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service not to answer questions from the media or from opposition Members of Parliament. Can he explain how his latest change in policy is compatible with the Prime Minister's guidelines with regard to information being provided by public servants?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, I have not effected any change in policy. I agree with and adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister.

October 1, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. He will know that the conciliator, Mr. Foisey, said that franchising post offices put job security at risk, and that Mr. Dunstan is quoted as saying that there will be no compromise with regard to franchising.
Will the Minister now recognize that the Government's policy on franchising is the major obstacle to having a negotiated settlement at the Post Office? Will he remove that part of his plan so that there can be a settlement at the Post Office and mail can move?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should have completed what Conciliation Commissioner Foisey said. He said that it is certainly up to the Post Office to decide how to organize whether or not it is going to franchise. However, the obligation it has is to ensure that there is no adverse effect on the employees.
Mr. Dunstan has made a commitment to negotiate, along the lines suggested by Mr. Foisey, to ensure that no employees would be adversely affected by this decision, which is most properly a management decision.


REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF FRANCHISING
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the corporate plan of Canada Post is the work of the Government.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he is willing to stop speaking about back-to-work legislation. Instead, would he take an important initiative and leave the franchising concept out of these negotiations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand where the New Democratic Party is coming from. Its resolution F42 says that an NDP Government will move to allow workers the right to negotiate the degree of control which they may wish to assume. CUPW resolution A5 says: "The union views as a primary direction the workers' control of the workplace".
We view it as management's responsibility to manage the Post Office-to do it with sensitivity toward its workers and to do it in a compassionate way, but to manage the Post Office. We do not think Parliament gave a mandate to Jean-Claude Parrot to decide how the Post Office is going to be organized. Apparently members of the NDP do. That is fine. They will have to live with that.


TAXATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance).
Yesterday, the Alliance for Tax Equity, following a study on the Finance Minister's tax reform, stated that the more children one has, the more one is penalized by the Canadian Government's tax reform.
Moreover, the study clearly shows that in 1988 a married couple with four children earning $35,000 will pay $144 more in taxes than in 1986, while a couple with two children in the same income bracket will pay $69 less.
Can the Minister explain to Canadian families why this Conservative Government is drawing up tax policies that penalize families with a larger number of children in Canada?
Why such an injustice?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, he knows that eight out of ten families will be better off as a result of tax reform.
As for that very complicated example he gave, I would like him to table it so that I can study it and respond to it tomorrow.


SOCIAL JUSTICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister does not do his homework.
Moreover, that study carried out by the Alliance for Tax Equity shows that the tax reform favours richer families. An example is provided, with tables to show that a family with a $100,000 income and four dependent children will pay $2,473 in taxes, while a couple with four children with a $35,000 income will pay $144 more in taxes in 1988.
How are they going to explain that to the people? Under what kind of social justice does this Conservative Government penalize have-not families in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, our studies are clear. Those who have incomes of $50,000 or more are going to contribute substantially more to the revenues of the federal Government. Those earning under $35,000 or less are going to contribute substantially less. Those are the facts.
October 1, 1987


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION

James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Sockeye and pink salmon runs trying to get past Hell's Gate in the Fraser Canyon are in danger of being decimated this year because of low water as a result of the long dry summer.
Fisheries officials are now desperately trying to negotiate with B.C. Hydro officials for a release of water from Bridge River to increase the level in the Canyon.
The Minister and his Department have known about this crisis for some time. Why has the Minister not acted until now?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is very simple. It shows the extent to which distortion in a question can seriously miscast an issue.
This morning I spoke to my regional Director General in Vancouver who said, contrary to the distorted video shots shown last night, there is no crisis. Some 430,000 pink salmon are already above Hell's Gate. There is no trouble on the part of either the pink or sockeye salmon in migrating up that corridor. I spoke to the Hon. Jack Davis, B.C. Minister of Energy, an hour or two ago and he offered his full co-operation should additional remedial measures be required.


James Douglas Manly: There very definitely is a crisis and salmon production in future years will prove that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TREATY-SIZE OF AMERICAN CATCH
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, over the past few years the Americans' share of the salmon run on the Fraser has increased, ever since the signing of the Canada-U.S. Treaty. If this year's drought results in a decrease in the salmon run, will the Americans continue to get an increased share, because it is based on an average of previous years?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical. There is indeed a serious drought problem in British Columbia. I am told this is a very infrequent situation. However, I assured the Hon. Member a few moments ago that all salmon reaching Hell's Gate and other narrows in the Fraser Canyon are getting past those barriers. There is no pooling or accumulation of fish unable to migrate towards the spawning beds at this time.


TELEGLOBE SALE-PURCHASE OF SHARES BY MEMOTEC EMPLOYEES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Privatization and concerns the Government's privatization procedure. She should know that in addition to those already charged, four senior management employees of Memotec purchased a total of 27,000 shares of that company on the Montreal Stock Exchange on January 21. The value of those shares increased by over $500,000, representing an incredible profit for those employees.
Why are there no rules as part of the privatization procedure to prevent employees of companies making bids on Crown assets from benefiting from insider knowledge?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, the privatization process in no way precludes anyone in the private sector, or any other company, from living up to their other legislated obligations. It is provincial securities commissions which administer the regulations in this area and the Quebec Securities Commission has done that. The case is before the court and I am sure the Hon. Member knows that.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PRIVATIZATION PROCEDURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows it was her privatization procedure, in particular that which stopped Memotec from making its bid public for at least a month, which allowed Memotec employees, including the four I have mentioned, to make a $500,000 profit as a result of insider information. That is a direct result of the procedures followed by the Minister.
I ask her again, in view of the scandalous profits being made as a result of insider information, is she prepared to change the procedures and allow some decency to be returned to this kind of government operation? Or is there some plan to ensure that friends of the Government are able to benefit because of the procedures laid down by the Minister?


Mr. Beatty:: The Nunziata high road again.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first, the officers of the company to which the Hon. Member refers, as I understood it, bought those shares after a newspaper story about-


Brian Vincent Tobin: A rumour. Two days after a rumour.


Some Hon. Members:: Shut up!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member asked a question and the Minister is attempting to respond. While she is I think Hon. Members might remain silent.

October 1, 1987
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, after a newspaper report concerning the bidders we had a confidentiality agreement which was recommended by the CD1C as part of normal commercial practice when confidentiality is important in a bidding process. That agreement in no way impaired the company's ability or that of its officers to live up to other obligations with respect to telling the securities commission what they were doing. This case is before the courts. The QSC has laid charges. The information which comes before the courts will be very important. I suggest the Eton. Member be a little more restrained when that is the case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The President of Costa Rica issued a widely welcomed peace plan that will hopefully bind up the running sore of Central America. He announced on radio that he would welcome Canadian leadership in implementing this plan.
Has the Minister received any official communication from President Arias? If so, what will the Government's response be?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I asked for and have seen a transcript of the interview with President Arias. We have not received a formal request from either President Arias or others of the Governments of Central America. I think that is partly because they are still pursuing their own processes to see whether they will be seeking support from Canada, the Nordic countries, and others.
Last week in New York I had the opportunity to meet with Foreign Ministers of the Rio group who are acutely interested in this question. We discussed at some length what Canada and other countries might do to move forward the peace process in Central America. I will be visiting the region myself the week of November 23. While the exact arrangements have not been made, I expect to be visiting Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. In their so-called tax reform of June 18, the Minister of Finance and the Conservative Government attacked the tax breaks for flow-through shares, which will have a harmful impact on regional economic development and small businesses and will be disastrous for the economic development of northern regions such as the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Yukon.
My question is this: Are the Minister and the Conservative Government ready to admit their mistake and to recognize the importance of flow-through shares for the economic development of our northern regions such as the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Yukon?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished by the question. First, the Government made it clear in the White Paper that it is going to save all flow-through shares. Second, the Hon. Member's colleagues have been attacking flow-through shares for the past six months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Toupin: The Minister would be well advised to learn more about our regional economic development programs.
My second question is this: Is the Minister not aware of the importance of these tax breaks, first, for the regional economic development of the Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the Yukon, and second, for the financing of small businesses? If he is aware of this, will the Government admit its mistake and make the appropriate changes?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot count how many times the Minister of Finance met with the Prospectors' Association. I have, as well. We are very aware of their position. That is why we have taken the position we have on flow-through shares. As for small business, it, too, is helped through tax reform.
October 1, 1987


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other night Canadians were shown on The Journal a major corporation in Massena, New York, namely General Motors, dumping substantial quantities of PCBs into the St. Lawrence River. Has the Government of Canada made strong representations in New York protesting this action? Has it also sought the co-operation of the U.S. Government in cleaning up this situation which is affecting the health of millions of people in that basin?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has taken not only a very active role but has played, in the achievement of the ozone agreement, a highly successful role in advancing Canada's environmental interests, both in this country and internationally. The important question he raises is one that would fall in the first instance in the jurisdiction of my colleague, and on his behalf I will take note of it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The Secretary of State knows that the Minister of the Environment's record is one of inaction on transboundary pollution matters. My question has to do with dumping PCBs in the St. Lawrence River and I would like the Secretary of State to answer the question. Has he himself made strong representations in Washington? Has he protested the action of General Motors? Has he sought the co-operation of the U.S. Government in cleaning up this mess which is affecting the health of millions of people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as is the well understood custom in this House, I took notice on behalf of my colleague and I will ensure that the question is brought to his direct attention.
I should go on to say, since it has been raised this way, that if we want to make effective representations regarding environmental problems, it is not enough to quote a television program. We also have to conduct investigations to find out, from the point of view of our scientists, what is the exact nature of the damage that is alleged or might be occurring. That is being carried out now by the Department of the Environment on the instruction of the Minister. We will, as we have in the past, take whatever action is appropriate after that evidence has been accumulated.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question and I recognize the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


REPORTED INTENTION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO WITHDRAW FROM SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning our federal-provincial relations with the provinces that I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. I will deal with British Columbia today and its unhappiness with the national approach to marketing agencies which has now arisen to the political level with the Premier's announcement yesterday that the province intends to pull out of the supply management schemes and is prepared to stop cheese and industrial milk products from entering B.C. What is the federal Government proposing to do about that?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, because of our interest in the maintenance of supply management systems in Canada, we feel that any involvement other than another statement at this time from the federal Minister of Agriculture could well be less than helpful. I have expressed disappointment and also indicated that I was not surprised because I am aware of some unrest that has existed in the supply managed commodities sector in British Columbia.
Again I have indicated in conversation with the leadership of the producers of those supply managed commodities in the province that their first choice is to remain within the system. 1 do not think we want to over-react. We do not want to ignore the problem. I hope it would be possible to find a solution to this problem within the supply management system.


HORTICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since another province, Quebec, has effectively disallowed honey shipments from the rest of the country, by establishing its own very stringent sulfathiazole levels, a very effective nontariff trade barrier which the U.S. subsequently copied, can the Government tell us what progress if any is being made toward the arrival of one national residue tolerance level for honey in Canada?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the Province of Quebec has the provincial authorization and authority to do this, so we have to respond. At that point, of course, we had no tolerance levels. The action by that particular province necessitated that we make a request to Health and Welfare to establish tolerance levels. Those tolerance levels were established by the appropriate federal authority, National Health and Welfare, and we are carrying that out.
We must recognize that if we are to have a market within Canada for Canadian honey, then we have to meet those

October 1, 1987
Business of the House
tolerance standards established by the province. If we are to have a market for honey outside Canada, not only in the United States but also in Japan, then of course we have to meet the tolerance levels established by those countries.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of State to state the business the Government intends to call for the coming week.
Hon. Doug Lewis Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)): Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to advise the House that tomorrow and Monday we will be continuing the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. For the remainder of next week we intend to proceed with and hopefully complete that debate and also deal with Bill C-55, the amendments to the Immigration Act, which is at third reading stage, and Bill C-74, the Environmental Protection Act, which is at second reading stage, but not necessarily in that order, in order that we may complete the business and accommodate all Parties in the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 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.
October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Amendment, 1987
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
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 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."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
''XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
''40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(0 subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new
provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(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, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) had the floor.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, when I finished at one o'clock, I had just given a brief overview of the Accord from the perspective of an Albertan and tried to relate some of the concerns that I thought Albertans might have with the Accord and to address some of the concerns we may have
as to the impact it would have on our particular province. In the few minutes that I have left, I want to talk a bit about the process and I want to touch finally on the future of the constitutional process.
It was not uncommon, as we went through the constitutional hearings, to hear criticisms of the method used to bring about the Meech Lake Accord. People were critical of this so-called marathon negotiation, these in camera meetings. The implications of that, of course, were that Canadians were shut out of the negotiation process, did not know what was going on and therefore were not legitimately represented at the table.
I want to speak to that criticism because I think it is important that Canadians understand that this process is probably the only process that would have allowed us to get this agreement. It is very simple. The reason the agreement came together was that in marathon negotiations, people do not have an opportunity to walk out. They do not have an opportunity to change their minds, to go off and think about all sorts of things that might distract them from the issues before them. They are also under a lot of pressure to sit at the table, work out a compromise, work out a deal with which everyone can live. I feel it is absolutely essential that that type of marathon negotiation be used in all sorts of difficult consultations such as that which we had at Meech Lake Accord.
The other thing I want to talk about very quickly is this problem of in camera meetings. I find it really difficult to understand why the Prime Minister particularly would be criticized for holding these meetings in camera. We do this in all parts of our lives. We do it in business, we do it in day-today existence, we do it in all sorts of negotiations. The reason we do it in camera is that we do not want people playing to the audience, playing to the cameras. We want them to disucss seriously the issues before them. I think that was a major factor in bringing about this unanimous accord on the Meech Lake that no one thought was possible.
I feel that that process was the right one and it is one that should not be criticized. In fact, I would go even further. I would say that if more of this type of approach had been used in the aboriginal conferences on Indian self-government, we would then have had a better chance for a deal. I would advocate that in future negotiations this type of process be considered and, where possible, utilized.
The last point I want to touch on is the future process for constitutional reform. As you are aware, after hearing all of the evidence and studying the past process and that which we anticipate for the future, the committee recommended that there be established a joint Senate and House of Commons committee, the mandate of which would be to hold public
October 1, 1987

hearings on constitutional issues. It would examine the evidence arising from the various issues before it and would have an opportunity to study the implications of each of these issues. It would, of course, allow public participation, public debate, and public input into the constitutional matter which is on the agenda of the First Ministers. The committee would do the ground work for the First Ministers in a very public way before the First Ministers met for final negotiations.
I obviously support this proposal. However, Mr. John Holtby appeared before the committee and made a proposal which I think is the father of the committee's recommendation. He recommended a committee process and went one step further. He recommended that the committee be made up of members of the various legislatures across Canada, federal as well as provincial and territorial.
It was a radical approach and I am sure it caused some concerns because of its newness. Even though the committee has recommended a joint House of Commons and Senate committee, 1 think the Holtby proposal deserves future consideration. The advantage of it would be that we would draw in all levels of Government and give them the opportunity to discuss the issues. In that way we would get a national perspective rather than a provincial or territorial approach to the issues.
There are a number of issues which will have to be dealt with in the future. I do not have much time so I will merely outline them. One issue which I spent a lot of time discussing in my remarks prior to one o'clock is that of Senate reform. The concerns which were demonstrated by the women's groups which appeared before the committee must be addressed at a First Ministers' conference. Aboriginal rights and the issue of self-government must be addressed. Effort must be put into the definition of self-government. Effort must be made to reach a compromise in order to bring about agreement in that important constitutional area.
In conclusion, I really do believe that the evidence which was put before the committee studying the Meech Lake Accord showed that the Accord is in fact a seamless web. It is a very delicate fabric. Due to that there is, at this time, no room for amendment. That does not preclude future discussions, nor does it preclude First Ministers making important decisions on important issues. However, it does mean that the Meech Lake Accord must proceed in the form in which it exists today.
I think this agreement is good for my Province of Alberta. It is good for Canada. It is a document which Canadians can be very proud of. It will serve as a fundamental document for the future of constitutional amendments and process in this nation.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Member's remarks with great interest. I thank him for the solicitous manner in which he addressed the situation of Quebec in the Constitution. He said that it was important to reach this agreement because with Quebec outside, Ontario had a sole
Constitution Amendment, 1987
veto. The argument put to Canadians was that we had to do everything necessary to get Quebec to sign this agreement.
This ignores the fact that although the Quebec Government did not sign the agreement in 1981, Quebec was not outside the agreement. There were probably 70 Members of Parliament from Quebec who voted for the agreement. In order to get the agreement of the Quebec Government we did not have to agree to anything. Every single item in the Meech Lake Accord was not necessary to get the agreement of the present Government of Quebec.
I want to ask the Member about Senate reform. Does he think that Senate reform is realistic with the requirement of unanimity now that the provincial Premiers will be proposing lists from which Senators will be named?
The Member said that Albertans now have a veto on Senate reform. That was the proposition put to Israel Asper in the constitutional committee by the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Mr. Asper said:
Yes, that is true. Meech gives Manitoba a veto. It is a veto we do not want.
We want an amending formula that is truly workable. Seven provinces
representing 50 per cent of the population is-
-truly workable, he suggested. He went on to argue that we have years of history in this country which suggest that we will not get unanimity, that we are putting ourselves into a constitutional straitjacket, and that Senate reform will be a dead issue. Would the Member care to respond to these concerns?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Member's comments and questions. First, with regard to Quebec being involved in the Constitution at the moment, I was careful in my remarks to say that Quebec is legally and technically part of the Constitution of Canada right now. That is not disputed.
The problem, which I think is well accepted by Canadians, is that by the spirit of the Constitution Quebec has not considered itself a participant. The best example of that of which I know is the most recent round of constitutional negotiations on aboriginal rights. Quebec sat in on them but did not view itself as having a vote or being a participant. As a result of that Quebec has not been a participant in the spirit of the Constitution. I think that is what the Meech Lake Accord is trying to achieve. It wants not only the legal and technical participation of Quebec but wants to bring Quebec in, in a spiritual sense, which I think is much needed in Canada.
On the issue of Senate reform the Member asked whether Senate reform is realistic after the Meech Lake Accord. He asked whether it is possible to get a compromise and what kind of impact will result from the Premiers having the opportunity to name Senators.
I believe with all my heart that Senate reform is still a realistic option. Not only is it a realistic option, I think it is a necessary option for the maturing of our country and the healing of some of the wounds which exist between the

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
different regions in the nation. I think it is rightly placed as an item of high priority for the First Ministers.
Mr. Asper, when appearing before the committee, responded to the issue of a veto. As I said earlier, a number of witnesses appeared who had different perspectives on different things. The beauty of the veto which Alberta and Manitoba now have on issues such as Senate reform is that when every player at the table has a veto they also have a lever with which they can apply pressure for a compromise. That is a lever that Manitoba and Alberta never had before. I think that is essential and one of the things that gives us a better chance for Senate reform.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Hon. Member that he is ignoring at least 50 years of constitutional history in this country, because it was felt for at least that period of time that we could not patriate our Constitution if we did not have the agreement of the provinces and the federal Government.
Certainly that was the assumption under which people were working for a long time, until the previous Government decided in 1980 to put forward a proposal, with the support of only two of the provinces. It was impossible to get the agreement of all the provinces on an amending formula and charter of rights. For years we struggled over the question of an amending formula.
I suggest that the Premiers at that time had that kind of practical veto. They could have compromised but did not, and 50 years went by when we were unable to make progress and get unanimous agreement on an amending formula.
It is fine for the Member to say that because of some perceived good will we will get unanimous agreement in the future, but is that the kind of situation we should leave for the future of this country and its Constitution? Is that the kind of straitjacket we should put on ourselves?
Let us face it, none of the provinces gave up anything in this agreement. There was no give and take between the provinces. All of the provinces received something and only the federal Government gave something up in this particular agreement. There was no power that was transferred to the federal Government from the provinces and there was no exchange of powers between the provinces.
In order to get an equal elected Senate, some of the provinces will have to give up something. I suggest to the Member that it is the height of irresponsibility to put a formula in our Constitution that will require unanimous agreement. Perhaps it could be nine out of ten provinces so that we can ensure that at least the country will proceed even if one province objects.
I respect the Hon. Member's opinion, but I think he is living in a dream world to suggest that we need the agreement of all 10 provinces when there will have to be give and take between the provinces.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the Member makes some rather strong assertions. He accuses me of ignoring 50 years of Canadian history. My response to him is that he is ignoring immediate history.
It was thought that it was impossible to bring about a Meech Lake Accord because we could not get the unanimous consent of the provinces on such a fundamental issue. The fact is that we have managed, through the work of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his efforts with the First Ministers, to bring about unanimous agreement. I think that speaks very well of the constitutional future of Canada.
We are in a new atmosphere which is not based on confrontation, as was the case under former Prime Minister Trudeau when, rather than compromise, negotiations and discussions with the provinces, there was confrontation and the heavy hand of the federal Government. No one felt it more than those who live in Alberta and the rest of western Canada. I believe the Meech Lake Accord is the very demonstration of the kind of attitude that can and should exist in a mature nation.
I believe this Accord speaks to the great steps Canada has made in the last few months toward maturity of a people who are united by a common vision and goal.
I know the Hon. Member's position on this issue. I think the unravelling of the Meech Lake Accord will be more destructive to Canada as we see it now and in the future than almost any other issue that exists for parliamentarians today.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this very important debate on proposed changes to the Canadian Constitution, and to speak in support of New Democratic Party amendments which will be proposed to provide fairness to northern Canadians, open up the constitutional process for Canada's aboriginal peoples, and provide constitutional assurance that sexual equality will be protected under the new Accord.
It is easy to find a number of flaws in the Accord, but we do not want to do that. We believe that this Accord represents a very important step in Canadian constitutional history, so we have not been so much interested in looking at flaws as in looking at the important things that the Constitution does.
At the same time, the three areas I just mentioned are ones where we believe the Government can make changes without jeopardizing the Accord. We urge the Government to consider them, and we enter into this debate in good faith trusting that the Government will do so, in spite of some of the statements it has made in the past.
The Meech Lake Accord tackles the unfinished work from 1982 when we patriated the Canadian Constitution. Two major problems remained unsolved: first, bringing Quebec fully into the Constitution; second, adequately defining the rights of aboriginal people.
October 1, 1987

The question that we face today is how we say yes to Quebec without saying no to aboriginal people. I want to look at both of these issues separately.
First, let us consider the question of Quebec. It has been pointed out that legally, Quebec has been a member of the Canadian federation all along and that the 1982 Constitution included Quebec whether or not it signed. However, the report draws a distinction between legality and legitimacy.
Perhaps it is best stated by Mr. Yves Fortier, former President of the Canadian Bar Association, who said:
From a strictly legal point of view, of course, the 1982 Constitution Act applies to Quebec. But in this area, as in many others, lawyers must show some modesty. The fact is that politically, and even morally, the 1982 Constitution Act does not apply to Quebec. Those who claim it does are guilty of constitutional heresy.
With the patriation process, many people within Quebec felt that the promises of a renewed federalism that had been made at the time of the referendum debate in Quebec had been betrayed. Perhaps no one stated that more eloquently than Solange Chaput-Rolland who testified before the committee. I want to read at length from her testimony. 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, father 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.
It was that sense of betrayal that has kept Quebec out of the Constitution from that time until this. All the time that Rene Levesque was the Premier of Quebec, it was impossible to make any progress. When Robert Bourassa became Premier, he put out the five points he said were necessary as conditions for Quebec to come into Confederation; first, recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, second, a greater provincial role in immigration, third, a provincial role in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, fourth, limitations on the federal spending power and, fifth, a veto for Quebec on constitutional amendments.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
These conditions were agreed to as agenda items by the Premiers at Edmonton in August of 1986. They formed the basis for the Meech Lake Accord. The demands of Quebec were well known and they formed the basis for debate by a number of organizations, including the New Democratic Party when it met at its convention in Montreal in March of this year.
Again, it is hard for Canadians from other parts of Canada to understand the joy that was felt by most of the people of Quebec when the Premier signed the Meech Lake Accord. I can remember the sense of elation that Members of Parliament from Quebec tried to share with the rest of us, both publicly and privately, on the day that Accord was signed. "Now I am a Canadian again", I remember one of them saying to me.
In 1945 when Hugh MacLellan wrote his classic novel about Quebec, he called it Two Solitudes. Since that time the phrase has become somewhat of a cliche when talking about Canadi-an-Quebec relations or relations within Quebec. MacLellan took his title from the words of Rilke who said:
"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect
and touch and greet each other".
With Meech Lake it seems as though Quebec and the rest of Canada can protect and touch and greet each other in a new way. All Canadians should be able to rejoice in that fact.
Perhaps the most important idea in Rilke's statement is that the two solitudes would remain solitudes, the one would not seek to absorb or assimilate the other. Two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other, and is that not what we are attempting to do when we enshrine in our Constitution "the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society"?
As so many witnesses testified before the joint committee, this is not creating a new situation but only recognizing a historical and sociological fact.
If MacLellan's Two Solitudes is an Anglophone account of English and French in Quebec, perhaps it should be looked at next to Felix-Antoine Savard's Menaud: Maitre-draveur which looks at the relationship from a strong Quebec nationalist perspective. Both novels are set in the context of a Quebec where English-speaking capital has moved in to exploit Quebec's resources and its people. Savard's novel begins with Menaud hearing and meditating on the words from Hemon's Maria Chapdelaine:

. . . Maria Chapdelaine:
Nous sommes venus il y a trois cents ans et nous sommes restes ...
Nous avions apporte d'outre-mer nos prieres et nos chansons; elles sont toujours les memes.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Nous avions apporte dans nos poitrines le coeur des hommes de notre pays, vaillant et vif, aussi prompt a la pitie qu'au rire, le coeur le plus humain de tous les coeurs humains:
il n'a pas change.
Nous avons marque un plan du continent nouveau, de Gaspe a Montreal, de Saint-Jean-d'Iverville a 1'Ungava, en disant:
Ici toutes les choses que nous avons apportees avec nous, notre culte, notre langue, nos vertus et jusqu'a nos faiblesses deviennent de choses sacrees, intangibles et qui devront demeurer jusqu'a la fin.

Of course, some things have changed, but at the heart of Quebec is a people who know themselves to be distinct and, together with the English speaking minority in Quebec, they constitute a distinct society.
In the referendum of 1980, the majority indicated they wanted to remain within Canada but as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) pointed out, the balance in favour of Canada was only achieved after the then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had promised a renewed federalism. A very high percentage, particularly of young francophones, voted for some form of sovereignty association. So we ignored the legitimate demands of the people and Government of Quebec at our country's peril.
Indeed, as the Lion. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) pointed out to former Prime Minister Trudeau, this recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is not a sop the rest of Canada is giving to make Quebec feel good, it is something we have always known, a fact in which we have always taken pride.
It was something important to me when I was growing up in western Canada, even when I did not understand it, and, of course, I do not pretend to understand all of its ramifications even today. But Quebec is a distinct society, is an essential part of what makes Canada Canada, and not part of the United States. Rilke says "love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other".
As Zebedee Nungak, co-chairman of the Inuit Committee on National Issues told the committee, there is a third solitude in Canada, the aboriginal solitude, and aboriginal peoples feel more isolated than ever before by the Meech Lake Accord. They do not feel protected. They do not feel touched by it nor do they feel greeted by it. They feel isolated. Zebedee Nungak said:
We know what it is to be on the outside looking in, so Quebec being made part of the Constitutional fabric of Canada was to us a necessity that was better dealt with sooner than later. However, in saying that, we object quite strongly to what we see as being shut out of any future process in constitutional discussions.
In their struggle to achieve even the most basic recognition in the Canadian Constitution, aboriginal people faced a very difficult time in 1980 and 1981 when we were patriating the Constitution. They appeared before the committee and made their case, pointing to the nature of their treaties, or pointing to unextinguished aboriginal rights in the case of those who had no treaties. They had support from church and solidarity
groups. I remember the many questions that we as New Democrats asked the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and the difficult bargaining the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) went through to get aboriginal rights included in the Constitution.
I still remember the day, January 30, 1981, when the big breakthrough was made and Jean Chretien, the Minister in charge at the time, said: "Lets do it". So wording was put in recognizing aboriginal and treaty rights and defining the aboriginal peoples as Indians, Metis and Inuit.
Even then an amending formula was proposed that would have meant that Parliament could have unilaterally changed those rights for aboriginal peoples living in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, or that Parliament and the legislature of one province could affect the rights of aboriginal people in that province.
Then, on November 5, 1981, the nine provinces agreed on a constitutional package that left Quebec out. It also left out any reference to aboriginal rights or to the rights of women. Only after weeks of bitter struggle were sexual equality rights put back in, along with a very much weaker version of aboriginal rights. Aboriginal people were told not to worry about this weaker wording because they had the guarantee of a First Ministers' conference in which they would be invited to further define those rights.
A conference was held in 1983. But all that came out of it was a decision to hold three more conferences. These were also held with a great deal of rhetoric and fanfare in 1984, 1985, and the last one just this past spring.
What have the aboriginal people got out of all this work and all these conferences? A big fat nothing. These conferences have dominated their agenda for the past five years. They have absorbed the time and effort of the aboriginal leadership. After all the conferences are over, what do they have to show for them? Nothing, Mr. Speaker.
Poverty and powerlessness continue to characterize the lives of most aboriginal people. In all but one case land claims settlements have been stalled. As more aboriginal young people see the value of education and want to move on to university and college, the Government has capped the amount of money that is available for higher education. Only the prisons seem to be able to expand to meet the challenge.
Can we blame aboriginal people if they become bitter after all this struggle when they see the First Ministers reach a quick settlement with Quebec? They feel that the provinces lack the political will to deal with aboriginal rights. They feel that the Prime Minister has not given the kind of leadership and commitment to their cause that he did to getting Quebec back into the Constitution.
The aboriginal people are very worried that this new Accord promises further constitutional conferences on such items as
October 1, 1987

fisheries, which are absolutely essential to aboriginal people, but the aboriginal people and their leaders will not have a place at the table when fisheries are being dicussed. So they feel that this Accord leaves them further behind than ever.
The Special Joint Committee suggests that they do not need to worry about this. If I have one complaint with the report, and I have a few, this is perhaps the major one. It says that the joint committee takes the view that for these purposes aboriginal people, like other Canadians, are appropriately represented by the leaders of the federal and provincial Governments that aboriginal peoples helped to elect.
Aboriginal people have seen how their interests have been sold out. They were sold out on November 5, 1981, by the provinces and the federal Government when they wanted to cobble together a deal. They know how easy it is for their issues to be pushed to one side. This statement in this report is not something that aboriginal peoples can put any credence in whatsoever. How can we expect them to have any confidence in the federal and provincial Governments when they remember such days as November 5 when they were pushed aside? When push comes to shove in the fisheries, do any of us seriously believe that this Government will stand up for aboriginal rights if it were to jeopardize its relationships with the provinces?
The Prime Minister has continued to use rhetoric about his support for aboriginal self-government. But, last week when he was asked, he would not give a commitment to place aboriginal self-government on the agenda at this specific time. He would not give a commitment to restore constitutional funding so that aboriginal organizations could do the necessary preparation. This is in spite of the kind of recommendations that the committee made.
I would just like to read some of these items from the conclusion of the report. It affirmed the view that the First Ministers and representatives of aboriginal people must continue to work toward a satisfactory resolution of the constitutional issues brought forward by the aboriginal peoples, especially the issue of aboriginal self-government. It recommends that the federal Government restore funding to aboriginal organizations at an appropriate level to enable them to continue to participate in the preparatory work. It recommends that a timetable and serious work plan be established by the federal Government in consultation with the provinces and the aboriginal organizations to prepare for a further constitutional conference or conferences on aboriginal self-government. It recommends that consideration be given to holding these conferences in closed sessions, and that the first such conference take place no later than April 17, 1990.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this Accord insofar as it enables Quebec to come back into Confederation, not only as a full partner but also with recognition of its distinct character. But I urge the Government to accept New Democratic Party amendments that would not damage the Accord but would prevent the Accord from doing an injustice to
Constitution Amendment, 1987
aboriginal people, prevent it from doing an injustice to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and that would assure the women of Canada that their rights are protected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


David Berger: I would like to compliment the Hon. Member on his contribution to this debate, although I take issue with his way of describing the reality of the Accord and the reality of what I believe is Quebec and Canadian society today. I would like to ask him this.
He referred to the quotation from Rilke, I believe, "two solitudes which protect and greet each other". I would like to ask him: Why not promote? Of course that was not in her quotation. She did not say "promote" the linguistic minorities around the country. If we are so caring about the French fact and the English fact, and if there is such goodwill, which he seems to believe there is, why would we not out of the goodness of our hearts, then, take the step of stating in our Constitution that we are prepared not only to preserve the status quo, to preserve the linguistic minorities wherever they may be in the country, but that we would be willing to promote these minorities? Is that not a very clear indication that the language of the Accord does not indicate the kind of goodwill which he seems to believe prevails?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. As I indicated, I think it is easy enough to see areas in which this Accord could be improved. Personally, I have no objection to seeing the word "promote" included. I think that might be a helpful inclusion.
What I am saying is that it is important for Canada at this particular stage of our history to say yes to Quebec. I weigh a number of factors about the Accord which I do not particularly care for, but I place those in the balance. I also place the question of saying yes to Quebec in the balance, and that weighs very heavily.
I also want to remind the Government that these other three issues which we have raised of justice to Canada's northern citizens, opening the door to constitutional participation by the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and giving an assurance to Canadian women that the Accord will not affect sexual equality in Canada, are weighing very heavily in the balance, not only for Members of Parliament but for the Canadian people. I urge the Government to take those issues very seriously.


David Berger: Again, I wish to return to my question to the Hon. Member. He states that this agreement meets with the approval of the Government of Quebec. That is true. I would suggest to him that the Government of Quebec has the responsibility for its own prerogatives and concerns for the territory of the Province of Quebec, but I would suggest that the Hon. Member and his Party, and the Members of the House, have a responsibility to the entire country.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The Province of Quebec may feel that it is satisfactory to state that we will recognize the existence of minorities, which in a grudging fashion are described as being present but not necessarily a whole or integral part of Quebec society. It may very well suit the Governments of Alberta and Manitoba to say that minorities are only present in that part of the country, but again we have a responsibility for the national perspective.
The head of the Federation des Francophones Hors Quebec appeared before the constitutional committee and certainly was not happy with the status quo. Only last week the head of the Franco-Albertan Association stated that to them the Meech Lake Agreement meant assimilation. Is the Hon. Member happy to support an agreement which will probably mean the assimilation of the French minority outside Quebec, and God only knows what it means for the English minority in Quebec.


James Douglas Manly: I have heard Members in the House who belong to francophone minorities outside Quebec state that they are concerned about the continuation of their language outside Quebec, and indicate to the House that they did not feel that this Accord threatened the continuation of the French language outside Quebec. I believe that they are much closer to the situation than I am, and even closer to the situation than the Hon. Member. On that basis, I am prepared to accept their assurance that the Accord does not threaten the continuation.
I note that the colleague of the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de Grace-Lachine East who is an Anglophone from within Quebec, will support the Accord. 1 have some trust in his concern for the anglophone minority in Quebec, and some of the concerns raised by other Members from Quebec, even though the Hon. Member disagrees with his colleagues from Quebec.
In conclusion, I do not claim that I am an expert on the question of language within Quebec, or the rights of francophones outside Quebec. But at this time I am prepared to take the assurance of Members who represent those groups that they are protected, even though I recognize within the anglophone minority in Quebec there is some division on this question.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who is not from Quebec whether he made his decision to support the Meech Lake Accord as a Canadian Member of this House, as a Member of the Parliament of Canada, to ensure that all the component parts of Canada are indeed a part of Canada? This is not strictly a Quebec decision. I think the decision is one to be made by all Canadian Members of Parliament who must ensure that Quebec is part of Confederation.
My next question is as follows. In 1982 we had an imperfect accord. If I remember correctly, the Hon. Member supported the 1982 Accord. He knew perfectly well that Quebec was not in Confederation, and despite warnings by prophets of doom
and gloom, similar to what we have heard today, Quebec has now become a member of Confederation. Is the Honourable Member-I want to congratulate him on his decision- confident that the next generation, tomorrow's generation, will be as generous in dealing with the proposals and groups that have been left out as the people who were left out in 1982?


James Douglas Manly: Certainly, if I was going to look at the Accord from the narrow point of view of a British Columbian, I would have a lot of trouble with it. For one thing, it does not deal with the Senate which, as a British Columbian, I feel very strongly about. With a population of 2.8 million, British Columbia has six members in the Senate, whereas Provinces such as Nova Scotia or New Brunswick have 10 Members in the Senate, so there is a great imbalance. If I was looking at this issue strictly from a parochial point of view, I would have a lot of difficulty with the Accord. I am not denying that I have some difficulty with it even so.
The question of including Quebec is absolutely crucial. Equally crucial is the question of providing justice to aboriginal people. The aboriginal people were the original inhabitants of Canada, and for us to ignore them and to continue ignoring them in our Constitution, is unconscionable. It is on that basis that I voted against the 1982 Constitution on the basis that it did not give adequate recognition to the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, many of us are in a catch-22 situation with respect to this important constitutional resolution.
In 1980 we in the Liberal Party fought hard and in great numbers against the sovereignty association proposal at the time of the Quebec referendum. That was a pseudo-separatist proposal that was put before us in Quebec. We fought hard and won; a majority of francophone Quebecers voted against that proposal, and a majority of anglophone Quebecers voted against that proposal.
At the time of the referendum, the people of Quebec stated that they wanted to be fully part of Canada, and they rejected any type of quasi-separation. Unfortunately, in the constitutional talks that followed in 1981 and 1982 when we patriated the Constitution and added an amending formula and a Charter of Rights, the Quebec Government of the day, which was the Parti Quebecois separatist Government, did not agree to it. They voted against it. We may have expected them to do that because we know that the Parti Quebecois had no great interest in the unity of Canada, in a new Constitution, or in an amending formula. We expected that from them, but I should remind the House that the Liberal Party in Quebec, which is a moderate federalist Party, also voted with the Parti Quebecois in the National Assembly against the Constitutional Accord of 1982.
October 1, 1987

Since that time, Quebec has not been a full participant in constitutional discussions in Canada. Many of us regret that. We want Quebec fully participating in the Canadian constitutional process. We need Quebec, we love Quebec, and we want them with us 100 per cent.
In 1985 with the election of the Bourassa Liberals, this federalist Party made a new attempt to adhere to the Constitution of 1982, and to the full constitutional process.
Mr. Bourassa laid down five proposals for adherence to the Constitution: Quebec should be recognized as a distinct society; Quebec should have increased power in immigration; there should be a limitation of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction; there should be a revision of the amending formula to recognize Quebec's long standing veto power; Quebec should be allowed to participate in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. Those were the five conditions or proposals that the Quebec Government laid down for rejoining the constitutional family in Canada. The federal Liberal Party was the first to respond in a positive manner to those five proposals.
In the summer of 1986, in an interview in Le Devoir, our Leader responded in a positive way to the five proposals. In November, 1986, the Liberal Party of Canada, at its national convention, passed a resolution which responded in a positive way to the five proposals. A little later the NDP passed similar resolutions which responded in a positive way to them.
Finally, on May 1, 1987, all the provinces and the federal Government agreed unanimously to the Meech Lake Accord which contained the five proposals. It was an historic moment, a moment of great national reconciliation. What was interesting was that we had nine provinces with a majority of anglophones saying "yes" to Quebec after Quebec had said "yes" to Canada in the 1980 referendum.
Among those nine provinces we had three with Liberal Governments, one with an NDP Government, one with a Social Credit Government, and five with Conservative Governments. Some of those provinces were rich. Some were poor. Some were large. Some were small. It was amazing that the 10 provinces and the federal Government should respond in a positive way to the overtures which Quebec had been making.
However, it was unfortunate in a way that not only did the Meech Lake Accord and the follow-up Langevin agreement respond to the five proposals laid down by Mr. Bourassa, but they went beyond that. They included other matters which were not originally raised by Mr. Bourassa. In addition, there were certain ambiguities and unclear parts. It was not sure whether or not, in agreeing to what Mr. Bourassa had requested, we were touching in a negative way on the rights of others in the Constitution.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, some of us are in a bit of a dilemma. We want to say "yes" to Quebec. We want to say "yes" to this agreement. We think it is extremely important to do so. However, we do not want to do anything which would diminish already existing rights in the Constitution or to block the development of other rights in the Constitution. It is a bit of a dilemma.
We in the Liberal Party say-and the joint committee on the Constitution said it as well-that there are certain flaws in the agreement. Everybody recognizes that. However, the joint committee, having recognized that there were certain flaws, said that we should not try to amend it, that we should pass it as it is, and that in the next round we should try to correct the flaws. We say that that is not the way to go. There are certain flaws which can be corrected without denying, in any way, the five conditions laid down by Mr. Bourassa. We are not suggesting for a moment that we should introduce or pass any amendment which would fly in the face of the five original proposals of Mr. Bourassa.
We have formulated nine amendments to correct serious flaws which we think need to be corrected. We do not believe that correcting any one of the flaws by way of any one of our nine amendments will in any way take away from the five conditions of Mr. Bourassa.
One amendment is already before the House. It concerns the fact that the aboriginal peoples of Canada make up part of the fundamental characteristic of Canada and that the multicultural heritage and make-up of Canada must be considered. It is a misconception to think that the fundamental characteristic of Canada is simply a question of anglophone and francophone. That may have been the case in 1867, but if we look at Canada today, we see that it consists of anglophones, francophones, aboriginals, and a large number of people who have come from many other countries and cultures. In our amendment we wanted the interpretive clause which defines the fundamental characteristic of Canada reworded in that way.
Another amendment would have the federal Government and the provinces not only preserving minority language groups but also promoting minority language groups, such as francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.
In a third amendment we want to extend the non-derogation provisions of Section 16 to the whole Charter, not simply to the questions of aboriginal rights and multicultural rights.
We have also proposed in a further amendment that when there are vacancies in the Senate they should be filled by an election in the province where the vacancy occurs, not by an appointment by the provincial Premier. We think that is a good interim measure on the way to a fully elected Senate.
In a further proposal we are suggesting that the territories should have a say in the nomination of candidates for judgeships to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not know whether when the provinces sat down with the federal Government to

Some people feel this part could be used to remove existing language rights. It has been suggested in my own province that in some way or other, by recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec society and giving the Government the right to promote that distinctiveness, it could remove the rights of the Anglophone minority. I see nothing in the Accord that will do that. To the contrary. If you read the document, it very clearly states:
-and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also
present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada-
It goes on to say:
(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.
In other words, in signing this document Quebec pledged itself to preserve the English-speaking fact in Quebec, and there is nothing in the document anywhere which takes away any of the other entrenched rights which are found in our constitutional documents, Section 133 of the BNA in 1867, or Section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Nothing. I challenge those people who say there is a derogation of anglophone rights in Quebec to show me the clauses that will do that.
What they are doing in many cases is drawing a scenario and exaggerating it in the extreme. It is mainly speculation. We have had attacks on anglophone rights in Quebec for a long time, especially under the Parti Quebecois. There was no Meech Lake Accord then. Whether we have one or not, there will be individuals and political Parties in Quebec who want to attack minority rights. I agree with this Accord but I must remind Mr. Bourassa that he made a promise to anglophones in Quebec to amend the sign legislation to bring about justice with respect to bilingual signs. We expect him to deliver on that promise.
As I say, there is nothing in this Accord that will derogate from the rights of minorities in Canada. To the contrary, I think there is a small but meaningful contribution to the entrenchment of minority language rights. My colleague from Saint Henri-Westmount was in the Cabinet in 1982. So was my colleague from Davenport. My colleague sitting behind me from Laurier was in the caucus. It was at that time I voted against that document because there was a reduction of anglophone rights in Quebec. I must remind Canadians of that fact. I voted against that document because there was a very specific reduction in Section 59, and my colleagues agreed to it. I do not know where the great spirit they have shown today in defending minority rights was at that time. They were in the Cabinet but they did not resign in protest, that is for sure.
You are giving me the sign that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. Yet there is so much in the document to discuss. Let me say that if anyone can point out to me one clause in this document that leads to the reduction of minority language rights, I will vote against it. I challenge them to show me one clause that does that. They cannot.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
On balance, despite its flaws which I would like the Government to correct by accepting some of these amendments, it is an historic document of reconciliation. After nine provinces have said yes to Quebec, it is very difficult for us in this House to say no to the reconciliation which brings all Canadians and all provinces together.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to humbly try and respond to the Hon. Member's challenge. He is very well aware of the distinct society provision in the clause and I suggest that if any clause could affect the rights of Quebecers and minorities in Quebec, it certainly would be that clause. I suppose by his reasoning he believes that clause has no legal significance. Is that his conclusion, that it means nothing? I suppose if that is the case, we are talking about nothing. Yet it clearly has to mean something, or it must mean nothing. I put it to him that it does mean something.
He is a lawyer. I also had a bit of legal training. I think one of the first things we learn in law school is that the-

The legislator never speaks to say nothing.
Therefore, I would suggest to him that the clause must have some significance. I would refer him to the comments of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa.
[ Translation]
-who had this to say to the National Assembly last June 18: "Henceforth the Constitution of the country will have to be interpreted in accordance with this recognition". He was referring to the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. He said, and I quote: "It must be emphasized that the whole Constitution, including the Charter, will be interpreted and applied in light of this distinct society section. This relates to the exercise of legislative powers and will enable us to consolidate acquired rights and make progress."
So I respectfully suggest to the Hon. Member that Mr. Bourassa should know what he is talking about, and that the words of this provision should normally mean something.
Does he believe that Mr. Bourassa is right or wrong, and that in the end this does not mean anything?


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I never suggested for one minute that this clause means nothing. The Hon. Member should not put words in my mouth. Of course it means something. It is an interpretive clause. It starts off by saying that the Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fundamental characteristic of Canada and the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Of course the clause means something. It is similar to Section 27 of the Constitutional Act of 1982 which says that the Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. The opening words of the distinct society clause are almost exactly the same as those of Section 27.
What does it mean to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada and that Quebec has the right to promote that? I think it means exactly what the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in the signs case. In the signs case, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Bill 101 was unconstitutional when it said other languages could not be used on signs. It ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid other languages but it said that if Quebec wanted to pass a law requiring the use of French on signs, that was its right.
What was proposed by Mr. Bourassa in the election was a new option whereby Quebec would require French on all commercial signs but not forbid the use of any other language, whether it be English, Polish, Chinese, Italian or whatever. There they are promoting the distinct society but not taking away rights from others, because in my opinion, they cannot do that.
The previous clause says there is an English fact in Quebec and it says it is the role of the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada and the provincial Legislatures to preserve that fundamental characteristic. Quebec has committed itself to preserving the anglophone minority in Quebec, not just in 133 or in Section 23 but also by virtue of the Meech Accord.
Sure the clause means something. When I promote my own distinctiveness, my own career or my own family, I do not need to do it at the expense of others. I do it to further my own causes. I think that is what that clause is saying. Unfortunately, some people in Quebec and across Canada think that in order to promote one's own causes, one must take away from others. That is not the case.
I can build and improve my own home without stealing lumber and bricks from my neighbour next door. I can make it the best home on the block, but I do not have to detract from anybody else. Promoting one's distinctiveness does not take anything away from anybody else, including the minorities in Quebec.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague across the floor. I think I personally as an Ontario anglophone have a better understanding of what the distinct society means to a person who lives in Quebec, such as the Hon. Member.
Going back into history and bringing us up to date, it would seem Quebec has always been a distinct society, but that has only been recognized at this particular time. The Hon.
Member did not discuss, though I know he has some familiarity with it, immigration and how it affects Quebec. My understanding is that Quebec has always had a say in immigration. There will be some changes under the Accord regarding immigration. Does he have any trouble with that particular clause?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members know, the responsibility for immigration under our Constitution has been a joint federal-provincial responsibility since 1867, although the provinces did not exercise any legislative power under that right for many, many years. I think Quebec was probably the first province to want to exercise that power.
It is a joint power. Unlike some other powers, it gives both the provinces and the federal Government the right to pass legislation with respect to immigration. However, it also says that the federal power will prevail over the provincial power. By the way, so does this document.
Clause 3(2) says about immigration that an agreement that has the force of law under this subsection 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. The Province of Quebec and other provinces can pass legislation in the area of immigration as long as it is not repugnant to the federal legislation. It has been that way in more general terms since 1867 but never spelled out this way.
When the Liberals were in power, we made an agreement with Quebec which has been followed since that time, and it has not caused any great harm. As a matter of fact, I think it has helped Quebec and Canada in selecting immigrants for that province. To put it in the Constitution would not cause any great harm. Not only would it not cause any great harm, if it settles old wars, all the better.


Jean-Claude Malépart: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) for his remarks. From a legal standpoint I think he showed clearly that the question of distinct character in facts has always existed, but that at last Canada agrees to put that in the Constitution and protect the future.
Those who are opposed to the distinct character provision of the Meech Lake Accord accuse others who endorse it to be provincially oriented Members, narrow-minded people who stand up only for the interests of Quebec. The Hon. Member has been in this House for a good many years-and I share all his views concerning the amendments, I can blame the federal Government and all provincial administrations for failing to add other things-he is not afraid to stand up and, as an anglophone, he agrees with the distinct character provision. That being the case, does he feel like a provincially oriented Member here in the House of Commons, or does he feel he is on the same wavelength as all other Members because he
October 1, 1987

agrees with that, because he is a Member who stands up for the rights of all Canadians?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I defend that provision because I think it serves the unity of all Canada. It is good for all of Canada. As I said, Quebec said yes to Canada in the referendum of 1980, but we had to wait until this Accord with the nine other provinces of many political backgrounds and the federal Government saying yes to Quebec. To me, that was a great act of national reconciliation because we need and want Quebec at the constitutional table. Something was missing without Quebec, and it is fantastic to have it back.
I think it is for the good of all the country. When I support this, it is not because I am from Quebec or because I am a provincialist. If the Hon. Member supports it or somebody on the other side supports it, I think it is because they are very concerned with the unity of Canada and the epanouissement of Canada. It is for the good of all of Canada that this be done.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-External Affairs-Nicaragua-Funding of Contra forces by United States-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar)-Public Service-Recognition of principle of wage parity-Adjustment mechanism; the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins)-:-Immigration-Arrival of Hondurans at Vancouver International Airport.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 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;
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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.
[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101B.	(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."
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.
October 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"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."
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(0 subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"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:
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. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to take part in this debate today, not because of the simple fact that I am a native and come from one of the Territories but because I was elected largely on a constitutional platform.
In my area, the Inuit homeland of the Northwest Territories which we call Nunavut for the time being, constitutional rights such as land claims, regional councils, regional boards of all kinds, et cetera, et cetera, dominate our discussions. Our people have always searched for a way in which our territory can become part of Canada and enjoy the full rights of the Constitution.
I wish to make it very clear that while we are seeking our own constitutional goals we do not deny others their rights. The Meech Lake Accord was a remarkable achievement by governments among which any agreement is usually remarkable. It provides protections which have enabled the population of Quebec to re-enter the national life. I can only applaud that and I can only hope that all northerners will also applaud that.
We are in a very dangerous situation in Canada if the victory of one group becomes the envy and resentment of others. Sharing is perhaps the most sacred value in Inuit society. Our people wish to achieve certain things and that does not mean we begrudge the good fortune of others. On the other hand, the achievement of this Meech Lake agreement shows the way. It provides a demonstration of how agreements can be reached when there is political will. In the North we need a lot of political will now. Part of that agreement is to hold further conferences, which I support.
In those fora we cannot doubt that items of concern to northerners will be discussed. I have no fears about us being left out as some people in the North have been saying recently.
The report of the special joint committee makes some specific recommendations. On aboriginal rights the report recommends a process and funds for work which I support. The following chapter on the impact of Meech Lake on the northern Territories highlights the question which must concern us all-how the aboriginal homelands of northern Canada and the Metis, Indian and Inuit people who live in them can be reconciled with provincial-type structures. I will have more to say about that, too.

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The Meech Lake Accord is a piece of nation building. There are other pieces of our nation which must be completed. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon we have 40 per cent of the land area of Canada but not the political and economic rights taken for granted in the south. For example, northerners have no control over their lands and resources. Northerners have no control over what goes on in our inland seas even though Canada's Inuit provide the national argument our lawyers take to world bodies to claim those ocean waters.
Inuit use of the seas and sea ice are the basis of that claim. I noticed that before the Venice Economic Summit President Reagan spoke of our unique Inuit claim. He said that he thought it could provide a basis for agreement between Canada and the United States about those waters.
Of course the North is larger than just the Territories. Northern Quebec and Labrador have vast Arctic areas inhabited by Inuit. Five other provinces also have large subArctic areas. Outside of a few boom-towns like Tuktoyaktuk on the Beaufort Sea or Iqaluit on South Baffin Island, the permanent residents are aboriginal in nature.
There are two approaches to constitutional development in the North today. Members of this House have heard submissions by Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon which, by the way, I sympathize with. The problem, as they see it, is a conventional one. For example, by being promised provincehood in the future they say they can deal with the social and political problems. As a Member representing a predominantly native riding, specifically an Inuit riding, this is where I part company with the political views of my fellow territorial residents in the Mackenzie area. That is, of course, with all due respect to the views of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). As a result, I have been accused of not supporting the position of the Territories by both the Government of the Northwest Territories and by the media in the North.
The Inuit approach to our social and political problems has always been a complete overhaul of the political system in the North. Specifically, one has been the settlement of aboriginal claims to the land and resources and the right to govern ourselves by the modification of a territorial form of government, the creation of a Nunavut territory out of the existing one. Unfortunately, this view is opposed by our present colonial masters, the settlers of Canada residing in the Northwest Territories.
Consequently, and in view of the situation in the North, I can only envy the two so-called founding nations-the English and francophone nations, who have resolved their co-existence through the Meech Lake Accord. As a result I will support this Accord because it paves the way for other peoples of Canada with different political and social goals to one day resolve their own differences.
I do not know a great deal of constitutional law, but I was working on constitutional matters for many years before my election. Constitutions are social documents written in legal
fora by lawyers. However, first, a constitution must express a social truth.
I headed the Nunavut land claims project at one time. For those people who do not yet understand, land claims is really the aboriginal peoples' constitutional approach. Our people know that the land and waters which provide our life are the basis of everything so it is natural for us to identify ourselves with them. We build our ideas of society up from there. We have ways of life carefully suited to the land we live in. That land, the Arctic, is a very special place. I am glad that many southern people have the chance, through television and photography books, to learn about it now. However, ultimately, we Inuit believe that we have a special responsibility for our land. We wish to exercise that responsibility through management systems and self-government.
Therefore, we continue to negotiate land claims and at the same time we work to create a Nunavut government. Ottawa, in its wisdom, long ago decided that these two processes must be separate, although to Inuit they are one. Therefore, we have two sets of offices and two sets of staff, but they work closely together. Sometimes we think that the southern negotiators like the two processes so that they can play one off against the other. However, we Inuit are very clear about what we want.
If I have a criticism of the Special Joint Committee report it is that the northern chapter thinks strictly in terms of provincial status. It is very conventional. Gordon Robertson, among other experts on northern policy, has written a book about the fact that more flexible arrangements would be more workable. He, like we, wants arrangements which do not force Inuit into a southern mould. Nunavut is our answer.
1 do not understand why the special joint committee does not mention Nunavut. Perhaps they did not listen to the Inuit. Certainly they did not understand us. Indian groups also have ideas for self-government but the special joint committee has not spoken for native northerners; the Metis, Indian, and Inuit people who are the permanent residents of the North, when it discusses the future purely in terms of the provincial path.
That section is too conventional, too rigid. It totally ignores the fact, for instance, that in the Northwest Territories two constitutional fora have been working for the past five years and in fact reached an accord last winter. This northern accord has yet to be put to a referendum.
Those forums, the western constitutional forum and the Nunavut constitutional forum are bringing aboriginal and white legislative members and aboriginal association leaders to a social and political census on new governments. Nunavut is the Inuit proposal.
I must raise this subject because there is some evidence that people in Ottawa and in the south generally do not understand the issue. The modern history of the Northwest Territories is not a happy one. The feelings among the regions and peoples have not always been friendly. If federal policy ignores the
October 1, 1987

regional reality, the cultural reality, and the long stated demands of Inuit through land claims, through talks on a Nunavut Government, through the national constitutional talks, then there can be no progress. The northern chapter of the report briskly assumes northerners can be quickly marched into a southern parade. I would suggest that policy-makers not be quite so certain of that.
Just as I support the spirit of commitment and creativity which led to the Meech Lake Accord, so I look forward to another such process to deal with Inuit and other northern and aboriginal issues.
If almost half of Canada-the North-is in limbo as some people have said, that is serious. We need a more active commitment in Ottawa to assisting northern people sort out the remaining problems in creating new territorial governments. Nunavut is an opportunity for Canada. It is the best answer to anyone in the world who thinks that Canadians treat aboriginal people like South Africans treat blacks.
I want to take this opportunity to elaborate on the concerns raised by the two territorial Governments relating to provincial status. If the two Territories are so concerned about this issue of provincehood, there is a practical way to resolve it even though it would involve a major constitutional conference involving all the First Ministers of this country, with the two Territories involved this time.
Given that both the non-native and aboriginal residents are similar in political and cultural persuasion, why not merge the territory of the Yukon and the western part of Northwest Territories to make one territory and, consequently, an eleventh province? They would then have the appropriate political maturity, including the raw numbers to warrant it. We could then have only one Territory left in the Canadian Confederation, a native territory which could then become Canada's showcase to the world.
I urge all Hon. Members, as well as the First Ministers, to study this alternative as a viable way of satisfying everyone's political aspirations, including the two territorial Governments which have felt left out so far.
The reason there has been a move for the creation of two territories is that there are two almost equally divided groups of people. One group wants to work toward provincial status while the other wishes to safeguard its culture, its land and its people through the creation of their own territory. This is where I said I have parted company with the views expressed by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The northern political constitutional question is not a provincial question. It is largely an aboriginal question. Inuit have always made clear that our proposals for Nunavut welcome the white people who live among us. We have no desire to discriminate against anyone.
While Ottawa is turning over powers and budgets to the Yellowknife Government, territorial officials, including the politicians in Yellowknife, are delighted but will not admit it.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
They believe that this will kill Nunavut, but it will not. Nunavut will not go away because it is the way we Inuit think of our land. Nunavut means "our land". We will not be happy living in a Yellowknife-dominated territory.
This summer, Nick Sibbeston, the NWT government leader, said that having more power in Yellowknife means that Nunavut is no longer needed. That could not be farther from the truth. He certainly does not understand Inuit or the eastern half of the territory over which he is territorial premier.
Inuit need a government which speaks our own language. We need a government that takes on the hard issues of resource management and development, and which helps us restore peace and stability in some of our villages which have grown too fast. That government is Nunavut.
In conclusion, we can identify with the people of Quebec to full political participation in Canada through the Meech Lake Accord. We know what it feels like to be left out. It is these problems which aboriginal and northern people bring to Ottawa in the hope of justice. I call upon the House and Canadian people to complete the infrastructure of nationhood. I call on you all to work to make the North part of Canada.


Ms. McLaughlin:: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my hon. colleague from the North for stating a very important point that I believe was not made well during the discussions at Meech Lake. It concerns the diversity within Canada both of the traditional concepts of government and the aboriginal concept related to self-government, aboriginal rights and meeting the needs of those areas such as the one represented by my colleague, which is largely made up of aboriginal people. Those views are of great benefit to this discussion because I believe Canadians are not aware of them.
On the other hand, I disagree with some of the positions taken by my colleague. Originally I thought the boundary extension clause in the Constitution may have referred to the south, but then I was told that the States may not like that. I then had to assume that the boundary extension clause referred to the North, but now the Member says that it means east and west, with the Yukon becoming part of the Northwest Territories or vice versa.
It is an interesting concept and probably one of the best original thoughts we have heard in this debate. While the Member receives high points for originality, I do not believe that concept will be welcomed with great rejoicing in the Yukon.
The Hon. Member mentioned the aspirations of the Inuit. Those of us who live in the North, while not Inuit, hopefully understand some of the issues and empathize with those aspirations.
I am concerned about how the Member believes the Meech Lake Accord contributes to the advancement of Nunavut, for

October 1, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
instance. Upon review of the process to date, does the Eton. Member know ijf the Inuit were consulted before, during or after the First Ministers' conference that resulted in the Meech Lake Accord?


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, the short answer would probably be no, considering that the two territorial Governments Were not consulted.
On the other hand, I believe that we in the North, especially the Inuit and the Inuit Committee on National Issues, do not oppose the two major founding peoples, the francophones and anglophones, settling their differences first. Like it or not, the Inuit is a very small minority within those two systems, and to be quite frank, in order to be successful in our aspirations, we have to co-operate more with those nations than perhaps some of the other aboriginal peoples in Canada.
The short answer is that, as an aboriginal Member, I certainly was not consulted, but I think that is beside the point now. I had earlier mentioned that I was elected on the issue of resolving some major questions which affect all of us. I think the Meech Lake Agreement required something very strong, and that is the only answer I can provide at this time.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I thank the Hon. Member for that answer. I think that has clarified some of my question. I very much agree that the concept of self-government for aboriginal people is absolutely essential to the development of this country, that there needs to be a much greater understanding of that concept within our society, that it will not undermine provincial status or territorial legislatures, that it is the right thing to do and that it is something that will work. We have to deal with what is being done here. How does my colleague see the Meech Lake Accord resolutions helping to further aboriginal self-government and the creation in the Eastern Arctic of NunaVut? How does he see the Accord facilitating that? My concern is that I see it detracting from that.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in two ways. First, according to the summary of the joint committee on the Senate and House of Commons, the Accord itself would require future First Ministers' conferences on constitutional change to deal with any other outstanding concerns, and I would have to rely on that. The other part of the answer would be that up until now the federal Government has allowed the NWT, in particular, to be able to resolve its political differences on its own at the very outset. We are getting very close to that.
I mentioned earlier that there is in fact a political accord which, unfortunately, has not yet been put to a plebiscite or referendum, but we expect that after next Monday's territorial elections, our representatives are going to make sure that this issue of resolving the boundary dispute will be put to a referendum. That is my second answer.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member in his comments referred to the question of provincial status. He suggested that there may be a practical way to resolve this. I think he referred to a constitutional conference in which the Governments of the Territories would participate. I would like him, though, to perhaps add a word or two about the question of unanimity. How does he feel about this particular provision of the Meech Lake Agreement that will require the unanimous agreement of the provinces, and the federal Government, in order to create new provinces?
As the Hon. Member knows, the western provinces were created by an agreement between the Governments of those provinces, the Territories that were to become provinces, and the federal Government. There is probably something to say for giving the provinces a greater say in creating new provinces because it will affect the amending formula. So the two questions are certainly linked.
However, does the Hon. Member not feel that by requiring the unanimous agreement of the provinces it is really condemning the Territories to territorial status forever because it will be unlikely we will be able to obtain the agreement of all the provinces?


Thomas Suluk: I think, Mr. Speaker, there has to come a time when we stop talking in conjecture and speculation and really put some of the things to the test. Considering the fact that there has been a lot of criticism coming from the two Territorial Governments, and from the residents of the North, and that there has been a lot of sympathy from the press and so on, we have to see if in fact this will be really so. The only way to find out whether there would in fact be unanimity or whether one province might not agree, is to not wait and speculate but to go ahead and try it.
I think that many of the provincial premiers, perhaps even the federal Government, are now ready to take into consideration the concerns of the two Territories and the residents of the two Territories in general. So I would wish to have the First Ministers, including the federal Government, look very seriously into what I have suggested, and that is to merge the two, one half of the other territory and the Yukon together. I think that is a very novel thing. I cannot think of why any of the First Ministers would really wish to stop the aspirations of the rest of the population of Canada. If they do, then I would say they deserve all the criticism that has been heaped upon them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. May I call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

October 1, 1987


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Dave Nickerson: that Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of Bill C-211 is very simple, it is to remove the monopoly presently enjoyed by the Crown corporation, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and allow it to act as a normal fish marketing company would, without the benefit, if that is the right word, of the monopoly. This is not a new idea. It is something I have been pursuing for 15 years, both in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and in the House of Commons. Other people were pursuing it long before that, in fact, ever since the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was set up by statute in Canada in 1969.
The last time this Bill came before Parliament, it was numbered Bill C-235. It was dealt with in June or July, 1985, at which time it was referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and apparently died on the Order Paper of that committee when that session of Parliament came to a close.
In order to understand what we are trying to do here, one has to know a little bit about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, how it came into being, where its operations are, and how it conducts its business. It is a federal Crown corporation and operates within the prairie provinces, within the Northwest Territories, and within a small part of Ontario just west of Thunder Bay. It has a head office and principal plant in Transcona, which is just outside the City of Winnipeg.
In 1986, there were total landings of about 45 million pounds of fish, which in general is not a great deal of fish when compared with the East Coast or the West Coast of Canada. The value of that catch, the sales of the corporation in that year, were some $48 million. This information puts it in a kind of context.
When the corporation was established in 1969 it fitted in with the ideology of the day. Shortly after the election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada-in the days of the so-called just society-the idea behing it, I guess, was good. It wanted to give the fishermen a better deal. The idea was that instead of having a number of small fish companies trying to sell their fish to American buyers in Chicago and New York, which at that time, and even today, were some of the biggest principal markets for freshwater fish, there would be one organization that would set the terms of trade. However, it did not really work out. The commercial
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
clout that was supposed to have been given to FFMC never really materialized in fact. Things have gone from bad to worse in the freshwater fish marketing business.
The industry, unfortunately in western Canada, continues to decline, although, and I will get to this later in my presentation, in Ontario where there is a private marketing system, the industry is on the up-ahd-up. Before FFMC came into existence there were a number of relatively small firms in the business, or relatively small, privately-owned firms. There were fishermen, co-operatives, and generally speaking there had been an increase in the amount of fish produced and sold over a number of years until FFMC came into business.
The industry today is hardly what you would call selfsufficient. A number of people describe it as a social industry.
I know in the area that I represent, were it not for something like a 10 cent or 15 cent a pound subsidy given by the territo-fial Government the industry would virtually collapse. That ought not be the case. I am sure it can be a viable industry. It does not have to be looked at as a form of social welfare. It can be a thriving industry that can stand on its own feet.
We have a series of plant closings. That was not suppressed to happen with FFMC, but it does. Over the last few years, on an almost annual or biannual, there are amendments to the FFMC Act which come before Parliament asking for authority to borrow yet more money from the Government of Canada. So it is not really a financially viable operation.
The problem is with Sales. The fishermen know how to catch fish, but what we apparently do not have is somebody who knows how to sell the fish. FFMC has been unable to fulfil its mandate of selling fish. It just does not seem to be able to do it. The last annual report of the company refers to continuing high inventories and the inability to place that fish on the markets. It has resorted to all kinds of techniques to get rid of this supply that is overhanging the market. Sometimes it sells it off at cut-rate prices. It even enters into what I quite frankly think are unlawful agreements to cut down on the supply.
In return for the monopoly the FFMC is supposed to undertake to buy all the fish delivered to it by the fishermen. That was tit for tat. But it is not working out that way. It is putting pressure on fishermen to sign agreements, which I do not think would stand up in a court of law, to restrict the amount of fish to be delivered to the Corporation. Or it can reduce the prices to such a low level that it is just not worthwhile fishing. Or it can close down receiving stations, as it did with the Wool Bay receiving station in my area this summer. There is no place for the fishermen to take their fish, so it can get around the responsabilities that were put onto it by virtue of the Act.
Because of the trouble in the industry a number of studies have been undertaken. I do not know if anybody has any good ideas as to how to make FFMC as it stands work. I do not think they have.

October 1, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
The best study, and one of the most recent, on the marketing of freshwater fish in Canada, was the one done by the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries under the chairmanship of the Hon. Jack Marshall. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know anything about the freshwater fish industry, particularly the marketing aspects thereof, in Canada. It is an excellent document. It makes some good but timorous recommendations. It will not go all the way that is really necessary.
It did recommend, however, a certain degree of private initiative being allowed in the market. Recommendation 13B, which is a rather lengthy one, and I will not read it all into the record, suggest that certain private buyers be licensed and allowed to operate in competition with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. That is a good recommendation, one that ought to be put into effect immediately. But in my opinion it does not solve the whole problem. It does not go far enough.
It is interesting to note, Sir, that there is a duplicate freshwater fish marketing system in Canada. We have in the West, including the North, a Crown corporation holding a monopoly where the industry is in decline. On the other hand, in Ontario, which is the other major freshwater fish producing area, we have private enterprise. Anyone is allowed to get into the business of buying and selling fish. There is a free market. This situation would make a wonderful study for professors of economics because here there are two areas in one country. On the one hand there is a socialist system of marketing. On the other hand is a free enterprise system. It is like night and day between them.
In Ontario, the fish business is booming. It cannot keep up with the demand for it. The problem in Ontario is that they are up against the total allowable catch in all these different areas. They cannot get that stuff to market quick enough and in big enough quantities, whereas in the west there are a great number of fish. We never take out the total allowable catch on Great Slave Lake but the problem is that no one can move that fish. They cannot sell it. So it is a wonderful demonstration before our very eyes of the two marketing systems. What I want to do is not to get rid of the FFMC but to revoke that monopoly so that some of those good things that are happening on the Great Lakes of Ontario can also take place in western and northern Canada.
In my opinion, if this Bill is passed into law we will liberate the market, and liberate marketing initiative. FFMC, as I have said before, will continue to exist. But it will have to be competitive. It will have to go out and sell that fish. Fishermen will no longer be at the beck and call of this Crown corporation. They will be able to look around and see if there is somebody else who is willing to pay them a higher price for their product. I do not see that there is anything wrong with that. The fishermen ought to be able to sell the fish that they catch to the people who are prepared to give them the highest price for it.
Although it is not proposed in my Bill, it is quite possible that at some time the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
will be a candidate for privatization. It is bad enough having a Crown corporation with a monopoly. But it is absolutely unthinkable that a private corporation should have a monopoly. If it is to be privatized in the same manner as Pecheries Canada Incorporated and Fishery Products International Ltd., then the passage of this Bill and the revocation of a monopoly is a required first step.
What type of people are likely to get into the marketing of fish and into competition with FFMC if the business is opened up? Initially, it will not mean direct competition with FFMC. We will see people who are interested in specialty products. One that comes to mind is burbot. That fish is excellent and it makes the best fish and chips that anyone could possibly want to eat. FFMC cannot handle that fish because of Jewish dietary law. If a plant is processing whitefish for the Jewish market, it cannot process burbot, which is a scaleless species, in the same plant. Each year, thousands of pounds of burbot are thrown overboard because FFMC are unable to process that fish. If that market was opened up, private entrepreneurs would be able to handle that particular species in a specialized market.
In my constituency there are certain areas, for example, Great Slave Lake, which produces a high quality product that previously was sold for premium prices, and now it is rolled in with all the other product from Lake Winnipeg and other prairie lakes that FFMC deal with. If the product from Great Slave Lake was dealt with on its own and marketed separately, quite properly a higher price would be received for that particular type of high quality fish. People would initially enter into specialities in species and products, and specialities in areas.
It is likely that fishermen's co-operatives would be revived. They existed in the past, but no longer do. I know a number of fishermen have thought it would be a good idea to get together and form co-operatives to sell their fish. Certain large retailers would also like to be able to buy directly. Lapointe Fish Ltd., a company that has been in Ottawa for many decades, and is a highly reputable fish dealer, would like to be able to buy char directly from fishermen and get it into the stores in Ottawa. Those retailers could pay the fishermen a better price than they are presently receiving from FFMC. In law they are prohibited from doing that. That fish has to go from Baffin Island, to be sold to FFMC in Winnipeg, return to Ottawa, and bear that extra expense. Of course, then the product cannot be sold in Ottawa for a reasonable price. Those are a few of the areas where new people would enter the business.
Efficiency and effectiveness of marketing operations would definitely be increased. There would be much greater over-all marketing effort. As a result, we would end up with larger over-all markets. The Senate study points to vast untapped markets for freshwater fish, particularly in the United States. Markets exist that are much more than we could ever fill. But because of the very limited marketing effort, we are not able to take advantage of that. So there are huge untapped markets out there. With this new marketing effort we could take advantage of them.
October 1, 1987

In my opinion, the end result is that both the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the new private or cooperative entrepreneurs would both do better. In that manner, the people who work for FFMC in the plant in Transcona would not be put out of business. There will be an increase in the over-all business and everybody will benefit from that.
In the final analysis, the fishermen, the people that we are worried about, would benefit from higher prices and better returns for their effort.
My final point is why should Canadian citizens be forbidden by law to engage in the honourable profession of fish merchant? Why is that the case? By what right does the Government of Canada prevent anyone from offering a fisherman $2 a pound for his product instead of forcing him to sell it to a government Crown corporation for 20 cents a pound?
I urge all Members to support this Bill, and thereby do justice to the hard-working fishermen of Canada's west and north.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to speak on fisheries issues. It is a pleasure that I have had almost yearly during my seven and a half years as a Member of Parliament to speak on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
The Bill that is presented in the name of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), Bill C-211, could be entitled "an act to really gut the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation". This is the second time that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic has raised this specific item in Parliament. I refer to his former Bill, Bill C-235, which was debated in the House on June 7, 1985. As the Hon. Member mentioned, it was then referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The present Bill is no different. The Hon. Member is once again seeking to remove the monopoly provision of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
I must say that I give the Hon. Member much credit for consistency. He has been consistent with his position on this issue since I became a Member of Parliament in 1980. Of course, I cannot say that for all Members of Parliament of the Conservative Party. Certainly, when they became the government that consistency failed.
I am tempted to recall a debate in the House on Private Members' Motions once again on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation as reported in Hansard on July 10, 1980 at page 2762. I wish to quote from the debate of an Hon. Member who was then in the Opposition and is now on the government side. He stated:
That original concept was recommended by the Mclvor commission in the late sixties and advocated by the Conservative Government of Duff Roblin in the Province of Manitoba. What that concept of a marketing board has become is, as I said a moment ago, a monopolistic, vertically integrated Crown corporation, like so many of our Crown corporations, which handles the product from the lakeside all the way to the consumer, whether the consumer be in the fish buying markets of New York State or Poland.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
He went on to say:
I suggest what we have now is a system of monopolistic dominance in the fish marketing industry, in the prairie provinces in particular, which is a far cry from what I understand to be the principle of democratic socialism where free enterprise and the private sector can operate in competition with one another. What we have is virtual communism in all of its forms in the example and illustration of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Perhaps some Hon. Members will remember who made those comments and may realize what position that particular Member now holds in the House. He now happens to be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), so he has all the powers today to do something about it.
I never forgot the debate which occurred in the House on July 10, 1980, because I participated in it. I had never heard such nonsense or such ideological stupidity from a Member of Parliament. I wonder what the Minister has done to reconcile his past convictions with his current responsibility for the corporation.
As I said earlier, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic has been consistent in past debates. I certainly give him credit for that. In a few years from now I suppose writers will be calling the "Mulroney" Government the gang who could not shoot straight. Although the Hon. Member may be a good shot himself, I believe he is shooting at the wrong target today. Very little has happened in the last two years since the Hon. Member spoke on a Bill which, in my opinion, would justify gutting the corporation.
The Hon. Member suggested that the removal of the export monopoly could inject some competition in the prices paid to freshwater fishermen. I am sure all Hon. Members support higher prices for our primary products, but history tells us that the Hon. Member's proposal could do more harm than good.
I certainly support private enterprise in every way possible. In my own riding there is a number of co-operatives which operate very effectively and efficiently. They are owned by the producers and are subject to good management, but when the market is in a downturn, co-operatives suffer as does any other corporation.
I want to comment on the statement of the Hon. Member when he said that there were different species and specialty products for private enterprise. On the surface that is very true, but I would like to refer to what happened when some of my co-operatives were in competition with small private Fish buyers in tough times. If we take lobster as an example, it could be shipped in frozen or raw form to a special market in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Montreal, or the United States. They were able to pay fishermen a higher price because they did not have the overhead. However, when fishermen tried to sell smelts, mackerel, or some other species, the cooperative could not pay anywhere near the price and of course did not have the facilities to process the product.

October 1, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
The Hon. Member is absolutely correct that certain private enterprises can win on a particular specie or product by having a special market for a special quantity and obtaining a higher price. However, larger co-operatives or companies must sell all fish, all species, or all products produced by fishermen and, therefore, it is an averaging situation.
In the past we have seen, in my province for instance, where some of the fishermen went for the higher price, only to be caught at the end of the day with a specie which they could not sell. Over all they were not better off.
Once again I praise the Hon. Member for his consistency in bringing the matter forward, but he did not comment upon the Senate report on marketing freshwater fish in Canada. It is an excellent report with which I agree.
It is not an easy problem. I know there are isolated areas of the Hon. Member's riding in which some very small plants are located, and that it is very difficult to get fish to the major processing plant and then on to major markets. However, we must average over all for the good of all.
I would ask the Hon. Member to think very seriously about those situations. I know what he wants to do and I appreciate that his will is good. However, I ask him to think seriously before proceeding much further with this Bill, before doing more harm to fishermen than good.
We in the Official Opposition cannot support the Bill in its present form for those reasons.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks about Bill C-211. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who is sponsoring this piece of legislation, has a number of fishermen in his riding who must deal with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
A minority of the freshwater fishermen in the Northwest Territories, specifically those who are fishing for whitefish, northern pike, and lake trout on Great Slave Lake, are very unhappy about the way in which the corporation operates and markets its fish.
However, we must remember that fishermen in Manitoba, particularly those in northern Manitoba, as well as those in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, see the need for the existence of the corporation even though they are not completely satisfied with the way in which it operates at all times. The explanatory note to the Bill indicates that its purpose is to revoke the monopoly which the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation presently has in respect of interprovincial and international sales of such fish. In effect this would eliminate the main function of the corporation. I hope that the Bill was not introduced solely from some ideological desire to dismantle the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in favour of some form of private enterprise. The Hon. Member said that that was not his intention, but that certainly seems to be the total effect of the Bill.
We need to remember the reason the corporation was established in the first place. It was established because of the failure of private enterprise to sell the catch of freshwater fishermen and because some of these fishermen were in fact being ripped off by some private buyers. These workers needed the support of a marketing agency which was able to expand into alternative markets and to ensure orderly marketing.
The corporation was established in 1969 by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act for the purpose of marketing and trading in fish and fish products. In the Northwest Territories today more than 300,000 pounds of fish are produced. The corporation has licensed fishermen to sell within the Territories to local businesses, but obviously the market is too small and there is a need to bring the product to outside markets, whether they are provincial ones in Canada or international ones.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have changed their legislation to allow fishermen to sell to other than the final consumer. There is no doubt but that the work of the corporation could be and should be improved. However, most provincial Governments support the concept of a single selling desk operation and would be very leery of any changes which would harm the future incomes of fishermen.
These are some of the changes which need to be looked at. There is a need for more processing to take place in the home community. Fishermen themselves should be given the opportunity to play a more active role and have more control in the running of the corporation. This could be accomplished by having a board of directors with fishermen in the majority. The Senate committee interim report on the freshwater fishery made a number of recommendations for improvements to the marketing board and I would like to highlight some of them.
First, recommendation number five. Because of the high cost of storage, when a surge of fish comes in at a particular time the committee recommends variable pricing be implemented on a large scale to control surges in delivery as well as quality levels. That is already being practised to a limited extent. The fishermen affected should be fully informed of the pricing changes as well as the reason for implementing them.
Recommendation number seven says that a permanent interprovincial freshwater fishery committee composed of provincial and territorial government representatives, corporation representatives, fishermen's elected representatives, and DFO personnel be formed for the purpose of co-ordinating interprovincial fishery policies, sharing information on matters of provincial domain, and taking the responsibility for matters of common concern and common potential benefits. In other words, let us have more territorial and provincial involvement in the operation and a little more co-ordination.
October 1, 1987

Recommendation 13(b), which I think perhaps begins to meet some of the desires of the Hon. Member opposite, suggests that the territorial Government, in co-operation with the federal Government, license a few carefully selected individuals or groups to purchase species from the territorial harvest to be sold in international markets. This would be a pilot project designed to assess whether private enterprise is capable of participating actively in revitalizing the declining fishery of the Territories. The participants must be prepared to market all of their catch. Recommendation 15 is that the corporation and provincial and territorial Governments jointly pursue concerted efforts to stimulate the expansion of the domestic market for freshwater fish.
We recognize that some individuals may not be satisfied with the activities of the corporation. We recognize that some changes are needed. However, what concrete change does this legislation suggest? I am not convinced that the corporation should be stripped of its powers before other mechanisms are put in place. The best interests of all freshwater fishermen must be served, not just a select few of his constituents, so we are unable to give our support to this Bill.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a point of view as a Member from Manitoba. This Bill brought forward by my colleague from Western Arctic once again highlights freshwater fishing activities in Canada and some of the problems the corporation has faced from its inception. There is no better forum than this to discuss his proposals and the importance of the industry to Canada. I would like to add my comments to the discussion and perhaps express some difference of opinion.
First, a good portion of the freshwater fish caught on the Prairies is caught in my riding. As much as 60 per cent of all the freshwater fish going to the Transcona plant is caught in Manitoba lakes. In fact, you might say the fishing capital of the west is Gimli, Manitoba, to which Icelandic settlers brought their fishing trade. They adapted very well. In fact, they made substantial economic gains for themselves, their families and their communities because of the tremendous quantities of whitefish in Lake Winnipeg.
At the time the federal Government looked at this situation of freshwater fish marketing, because a lot of the lakes involved were Crown property, there was quite a mishmash of selling agencies involved. That might be argued by some, yet the Government in its wisdom decided to put together a Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. It may sound somewhat strange but I am not a great follower of marketing boards. I have had a lot of experience with them in agriculture. We all know we have a Wheat Board which has been fairly successful, but despite that you will always find some people opposed to boards in general, as well as others with other ideas.
With respect to this board and the idea of opening up processing and sales to other areas as suggested by my colleague, I would suggest that before I support this Bill I would go back to my 1,400 commercial fishermen and ask
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
them what they think of this idea. This will affect them- My colleague suggested it will affect them for the better. He says it will be more efficient and prices will go higher. We have heard these wqpderful stories about how prices will go higher. We have heard how Members of this House can do wonderful things with different Bills. Yet we are not necessarily the experts. It is only an idea and it would have to be tested before I can support it.
If the Hon. Member looks at the statistics for the last five years, prices have risen. Fishermen tell me they are getting quite a good run for their product and I think the facjs bear that out.


Dave Nickerson: Maybe in Manitoba.


Felix Holtmann: All the fish sold through Manitoba. The question I would like to put to the Member is if someone in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories started processing fish and bypassed the marketing board, I suppose he would go to the same customer that the board has in Chicago. I suppose a good portion of his catch would be whitefish, although it might be some others. What would he do? Offer it at a price higher than the board does? I suppose he would get sales at a higher price. However, that kind of idea requires second thought because if I was the fish buyer, I would go to the lowest price.
It is a big market down there and it needs a continuity of supply as well as continuity in quality. Certainly if someone else entered that market they might have to cut the price just to get their foot in the door. Is that going to bring higher prices? I think the logic needs to be re-examined.
A new slaughterhouse in Manitoba thought it could enter the market at a higher price. In fact, it undercut everyone to get into the market. Consequently, it has almost gone bankrupt. If one looks at the problem very deeply, it might not be the answer.
I would also like to add that I think the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board does need to be examined and that new ways ought to be found to assist those production sectors my colleague represents. Maybe we should give them mandates to process, but we should find totally new markets for that product, without going into competition with a large corporation that represents a good number of fishermen in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. One must really examine that potential.
The Hon. Member made a statement with which I tend to agree. He said that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, possibly because it has had a monopoly, is not the most aggressive sales agency in the world. It does not necessarily have to be when it has the entire production at its fingertips. Perhaps we should allow it or make it become more accountable or take a portion of that sale activity and let somebody broker that product out on behalf of the fishermen.

October 1, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
To suggest that now we can allow a co-operative to be established in the Northwest Territories and possibly bypass all the activities of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and end up with a higher price is something about which I have reservations. Would such activity in fact generate the kinds of dividends and revenues the Hon. Member suggests? I would like him to show me the statistics that show that this would in fact happen. I think we also ought to consider the expansion of processing rough fish. In my area, all of it gets discarded at the source, which does not help the polluting of the lake and further expansion of the fish stock. Hundreds of tonnes of this could be processed. I think we as a Government ought to support some of those initiatives because in fact a good amount of this material is being brought into the Prairies as animal feed from other areas. One would wonder why we would not make a real concerted effort to do further processing of rough fish product. I support that and I am sure the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would support it.
I do not at this time fully support my colleague's way of handling a problem which I will admit exists. I have to first consider what impact this might have on the people 1 represent. Certainly, before I make a decision, I will have to visit with my constituents who are quite large in number and great contributors to the freshwater fish industry, and they do complain.
The former Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands indicated we ought to put more fishermen representatives on the-


James Douglas Manly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member is speaking about the present Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, not the former Member.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am a bit of a soothsayer and can predict what might happen in the future, but I do apologize.
If the Hon. Member would check with the annual report on the advisory committee, the likes of Ed Isfeld, Helge Jones and William Cordel and people like this are in fact all fishermen and have had a great history of fishing on the Prairies. Just to correct his concern, we do have people who have some experience in the area on the board. Maybe we should add more, and I think that is a very good point.
I am still out on this one. I would certainly like the Hon. Member, after my time is is up, to show me how he can get a far greater return bypassing the board and in fact increasing the price of fish on the board. If he does, perhaps I could support this motion.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I too am interested in speaking to Bill C-221 introduced by my colleague from Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). However I should like to address the House in the context of the new federal-provincial co-operation era which now prevails in
Canada and praise the positive commitment and the spirit of initiative of the provinces and the Northwest Territories, in cooperation with the federal Government, with respect to the establishment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Office.
I would express the view that the current market success of the office can be traced back to the federal, provincial and territorial association which led to its establishment.
It has to be a unique association in the history of freshwater fish and, in my estimation, it simply cannot be ignored. I will discuss this historic association in my speech. I intend to support my comments on the unique and dynamic character of this form of co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces with references to an interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, tabled in September 1986.
One of the report's conclusions was that one should not support the centralized marketing system that is the very foundation of the Corporation. The Corporation cannot be considered as an organization that merely carries out the initiatives and objectives of the federal Government. In fact, the history of the Corporation has shown that we have here a model of consultation, co-operation, co-ordination among the six Governments that have an interest in our fresh water fisheries.
As a result of a decision unprecedented in the history of Canada's fisheries, the provincial Governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories decided to concentrate on the problems that were making life terribly difficult for the individual fisherman, and in a show of unity and cooperation, they passed additional legislation to provide for the subsequent establishing of a centralized marketing corporation.
Obviously, unilateral action at a time that has seen significant progress in federal-provincial relations would not only run counter to the very clear signs of co-operation that we are seeing across this country but might also seriously debilitate the fisheries and jeopardize the well-being of our fishermen.
When we say that the Corporation is the result of cooperation by four provinces, the Northwest Territories and the federal Government, it should be added that even before the five Governments passed legislation recognizing that fisheries constitute a specific area that required specific measures, the Government of Manitoba, in a presentation made at a national fisheries conference, stressed that fishermen received only a meager share of constantly fluctuating prices, and that processing and packaging facilities were notorious for poor equipment and poor quality control.
The Manitoba Government added at the time that it knew of no better solution than to create a regional marketing corporation to solve the marketing problems of the industry.
October 1, 1987

It is thanks to such creative leadership on the part of the Governments involved that the Corporation was created. Such an attitude reflects the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation which resulted in a new level of profitability for the freshwater fishing industry and an unprecedented income for the fishermen.
I also wish to underline, Mr. Speaker, that many of the problems, the solving of which was one of the major objectives in setting up the Board and many of which had been identified by the provinces or in the course of the exhaustive study carried out jointly by the provinces and the federal Government, were to a very large extent solved because of the centralized marketing system used by the Corporation.
The problems which had been mentioned by various Members of this House and which had also been the subject of an exhaustive study by the provinces were described after extended consultation with the provinces by Mr. George Mclver in his 1965 report.
He summarized the situation of Canadian fishermen in these terms: They are neither happy nor satisfied, they are very discouraged.
The situation has changed for the better, Mr. Speaker. This remarkable co-operation between the provinces and the federal Government, which is probably still not perfect, has enabled the fishermen to have more influence and to make a profit on the market. The Corporation is a financial success. This success is due partly to the links between six Governments which are at the very source of the sustained and unprecedented record of profitability of the Corporation and the increased income of the fishermen themselves.
The Corporation also succeeded in solving the problems in the industry which had been identified by the provinces. The Corporation has a very good record of taking action to meet the concerns of the provinces and the federal Government. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are fortunate to have such a Corporation at this time and that it will be able to meet the new challenges of the future. Especially since these new and complex challenges were defined by the provinces and more accurately and specifically described by the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries in September 1986, in its interim report on fresh water fisheries.
These issues are in addition to those concerning pricing and proper marketing procedures previously described by the six Governments.
The very existence of these issues which were dealt with in considerable detail in the report is further proof of the need to continue and refine the work done by the Corporation.
The new situation is self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker. The Corporation is now a financial success and appears to remain
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
so, bringing prosperity to communities where the fresh water fisheries are a way of life.
The Corporation has just finished the best year it ever had. Last year, total payments to fishermen increased from $28.1 million to $36.6 million, and in an industry that has always been seasonal, it has been possible to maintain sustained growth over the last five years. The provisional report on freshwater fisheries, tabled in September, 1986, by the Senate Standing Committee, despite the apparent success of the Corporation in stabilizing the marketing of Canadian freshwater fish, raises a series of shortcomings that threaten the future of freshwater fisheries. Those dangers relate partly to the forthcoming advent of high techonology in the area of fisheries. Those challenges are just as real as those of an inordinate marketing and the unduly weak share of profits going to fishermen, whose existence has been acknowledged through federal-provincial co-operation.
The new challenges to say the least are more complex than the former ones. They relate to the arrival of capital-intensive technologies and the economic aggravations of product replacement by consumers, as well as the availability of proteinated substitutes on the international market.
1 do not believe fishermen should be the only ones to take up those challenges. That view is shared by the authors of the interim report. They deal especially with the problems, concerns and opportunities in the area of freshwater fisheries, and conclude that it would be more valuable to improve the present system than to replace it outright.
That conclusion is clear. Canadian freshwater fishermen should not be deprived of a protector that has proved to be effective on rapidly changing markets.
In conclusion, I believe that with our provincial counterparts we have forged new ties and written a new page in the history of freshwater fisheries in Canada. Our approach, involving six Governments, and the courage shown by Canadian fishermen have meant success for us on the markets. Therefore, the time is ill-chosen to change the ties that bind us together and to perhaps threaten that co-operation and success in exchange for the uncertain future of a weakened corporation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the Order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
May I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the Elouse under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NICARAGUA-FUNDING OF CONTRA FORCES BY UNITED STATES/MINISTER'S POSITION
['It being 6.17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on September 17 I asked the Elon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) if he would speak up on behalf of Canada clearly and explicitly and indicate Canadian opposition to any further funding by the United States of America of Contra forces in Nicaragua.
In the past Canada, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), has indicated general opposition to foreign intervention in that area and to military funding and so on. However, we have not been specific, we have not specified that the major culprit in that area is the United States which has funded its so-called freedom fighters in Nicaragua who, in fact, are waging a war on development.
When the Prime Minister spoke to a gathering of newspaper people in Vancouver a year ago and indicated this, it received almost no attention in the United States. We spoke too softly. Teddy Roosevelt used to say that America had to speak softly and carry a big stick. Canada does not have a big stick so we should speak up a little more loudly.
That is particularly important at the present time when the five nations of Central America are desperately trying to achieve peace. On August 7 the five nations met in Guatemala and reached a peace accord which calls for such things as an amnesty, a cease fire, the removal of all foreign troops, and the cessation of foreign funding for guerilla movements. When I, along with other people from Canada, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), visited Nicaragua in the early part of September as part of the Mission for Peace, we met with a wide variety of people, from Campasinos and co-operatives, up to Vice-President Sergio Ramirez.
Everywhere we went we found that people were tremendously concerned. They wanted peace and were concerned that Nicaragua should meet the conditions of the Guatemala accord. For example, they have appointed the reconciliation commission, at the head of which they placed Cardinal Obando y Bravo who has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Nicaraguan Government, the Sandinistas. This indicates a real desire to try to bring together the different elements within Nicaragua and meet the peace conditions.
Everywhere we went, people were discussing the question of amnesty for Contras. For example, people in co-operatives were engaged in this debate. We also talked to a group of
mothers who had lost their children in the war. One of them said: "As Christians and as revolutionaries we believe that it is necessary for us to forgive these people and welcome them back into our communities". We heard the same kind of answer at all levels in society.
We saw the re-opening of La Prensa, the newspaper, even at great cost to national security, in accordance with the idea of freedom of the press. Canada would never accept the idea of printing material that could endanger the country's Armed Forces if we were at war.
The major obstacle to achieving peace in Central America is very clear, and has been made clear by everyone to whom we talked. It is the continued funding of the Contras by the United States. We are dealing with an obsession on the part of President Ronald Reagan. He is carrying on a vendetta against the people of Nicaragua and is doing it by funding a group of mercenaries who are not interested in any kind of military encounter with the Army of Nicaragua but in attacking cooperatives, health centres and educational facilities. A school that was built by a group of Canadian volunteers was burned down. A farm funded by ''Farmers For Peace" from Alberta was destroyed by these Contras who were funded by the United States. It is time that Canada speak up along with other countries and indicate that no decent country in the world approves of what President Ronald Reagan is doing and that he is completely isolated in world opinion.
Canada has indicated that it is willing to support the peace process by verification support and perhaps by some help in terms of finances. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated today that he will be going to Central America. That is good and we welcome that kind of initiative. Most important, Canada must speak up and make very clear that the fundamental obstacle to peace in Central America is continued funding of the Contras by the United States and the Reagan administration.
I urge the Government to find the courage to stand up and state that clearly and explicitly.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I know that the Minister shares many of the concerns that have been raised by the Hon. Member and his colleagues, as well as members of the Official Opposition.
When this matter was dealt with in Question Period, the Minister said that he genuinely welcomed the active initiative taken by the Hon. Member, his colleague, and others and this is the reason why he is trying to do whatever will turn out to be practical.
The Hon. Member suggested that the Government of Canada take strong action in this area. I can assure the Hon. Member, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs,
October 1, 1987

that the Government in fact has been doing just that. The Canadian Government's position on Central America has been made very clear on innumerable occasions in the House, in public statements and speeches, to the media and to the various governments involved in the Central American conflicts. We oppose third-party intervention in the region no matter what the source. That includes support for the Contras in Nicaragua.
I would like to point out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the Canadian position very clear in his address to the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 22. He said:
Canadian aid to the region has been steadily increasing, as has our funding and acceptance of refugees. We have expressed our view that the root problem in Central America is poverty, not ideology; that the real need is development assistance, not military activity; and that intervention by outside powers will only aggravate the tensions. We have supported the Contadora process, and have made available to Contadora the expertise Canadians have acquired in the techniques of peacekeeping.
He went on to say:
Canada supports the initiatives of the Central American Presidents. We are prepared to provide our expertise mechanisms which, once peace is possible, can help it endure.
The disputes must be resolved by those actually involved in the conflict, but Canada is prepared to contribute to that process in any direct and practical way open to us.
The Government of Canada shares the kinds of concerns the Hon. Member has, has taken a strong position on this issue and, I can assure the Hon. Member, will continue to do so.



Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some further comments on the question I raised in the House on September 1. At that time I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) if he would consider imposing visa requirements on Hondurans. I was very pleased that in his response he indicated the Government would be prepared to look at this issue and, indeed, on September 18, when I asked if he had a chance to review this matter and had made a decision, he was then able to announce that as of September 18, visa requirements would be in place for Hondurans coming to Canada.
I wanted the chance to make a couple of comments about the story behind this. There has been some misunderstanding about it. Over the past number of months there have been about 1,000 Hondurans come to Canada, the majority of whom have claimed refugee status. Prior to September 18 there had been an increasing number coming to Vancouver on a flight pattern that brought them from Honduras to Mexico City and from Mexico City to Vancouver. Each Thursday a group of approximately 22 Hondurans arrived at Vancouver Airport and indicated they wished to claim refugee status.
It appears that possibly there was a bit of an organized arrangement involved in all this and that a travel agency in the
Adjournment Debate
Honduras had been either aiding or suggesting to people that this would be a way in which they could come to Canada and perhaps gain certain benefits such as being able to work here and resettle here merely by arriving and claiming refugee status. Indeed, it may have been the case that some of these people paid an amount of money to agents to enable them to come to Canada in this manner.
I think it is important, first, that there is no reflection at all on the Hondurans involved. I am sure they are hard working, genuine people who were seeking a better way of life and improved economic conditions. However, it comes back to the basic issue, can we allow our laws to be abused? We are now, fortunately, finally putting in place new laws dealing with refugees to address this kind of situation.
Certainly in my mind and in the mind of my constituents- in fact, in the minds of all Canadians-what we have heard is that they do not want to deny the opportunity to genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution to come to Canada. But they get very angry when they feel that the system is being abused, people are coming here using the guise of the refugee system to gain entry to the country when they should be properly using the regular immigration stream. There are many people who wish to come to Canada. They have to apply, meet the criteria and qualifications. They have to wait in line for that opportunity. So it is not fair that people are using a different way, commonly known as queue-jumping, to get ahead of the line.
I am pleased that the Minister has responded by imposing visa requirements. We all know that visas are not a long-term answer to dealing with this problem. We recognize that they do impose some difficulties for genuine business travellers and tourists who have to go through the extra time and, perhaps, expense of getting a visa before being able to come to Canada. Often that leads to the imposition of visas on Canadians travelling back to the country in question.
Given that Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 have not been completed and given, indeed, the frustration that I think we are all still feeling that Bill C-84, which has been dealt with appropriately in this place, is now going at a very slow pace through the Senate, those tough, new, fair laws are not yet in place. We needed a measure-hopefully only an interim measure-to control the flow of persons from Honduras coming into Canada in an inappropriate manner.
In this respect I am very pleased that the question I asked on September 1 was responded to favourably. The Government took action to address this problem, not only in the specific case of the Hondurans, but it is taking action to address the larger problem of illegal refugees who are trying to come to this country. When we see Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 receive Royal Assent and proclaimed into law, I think many of us will

October 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
feel easier, more comfortable. At that point we will be able to get back to addressing the larger and vital issues of immigration policy for Canada, for now and in the future.


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). When the Hon. Member raised the question a short while ago in Question Period she pointed out, as she has again today, that these Hondurans should be applying through the regular immigration process. Of course, the Minister responded at that time by saying that he was seriously considering imposing a visa requirement in the near future. He went on to say that if the number of arrivals does not decline he will certainly consider the possibility of imposing visa requirements on Hondurans.
The Hon. Member has recognized in her remarks that the Minister has already taken direct action to deal with the concerns which she has raised on behalf of her constituents and on behalf of many, many Canadians. I can only confirm and report the action the Minister has taken. In fact, following consultations with the Department of External Affairs, a visitor visa requirement was imposed on citizens of Honduras effective September 18, 1987.
I would like to emphasize, too, that neither this requirement nor visa requirements in general are implemented for the purpose of preventing genuine refugees from coming to Canada but, rather, to provide the Immigration Commission with the means of deterring bogus refugee claimants from reaching Canadians ports of entry. Of course, this matter of queue-jumping is something which the Government has said it wants to alleviate so that those who go through the regular
channels and follow the regular process will have a fair determination, in turn, following their initial application.
The present refugee determination system permits anyone coming to Canada to make a refugee claim. In fact, we saw that between January 1 and August 30, 1987, 973 Hondurans were reported at Canadian ports of entry as being inadmissible to Canada. As their cases proceed through the immigration system, these persons are likely to make refugee claims.
The inability of the system to quickly distinguish between persons with a potentially valid refugee claim and dispose of those who are in reality economic migrants, coupled with universal access provided by law, has caused our system to be overwhelmed. Increasing numbers of people have recognized that coming to Canada and making a refugee claim can result in an indefinite stay in Canada.
While the number of countries whose citizens require visitor and transit visas has increased, additional problem groups have emerged. Therefore, it has become necessary to impose additional visitor and transit visa requirements in order to prevent the development of a further large backlog of refugee claimants.
In conclusion, I am pleased to report and to confirm that the Minister has taken action, as he indicated to the House he would, in response to the Hon. Member. I am sure that the imposing of visas will accomplish the objective intended by the Minister and the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.17 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers