1987-10-08

Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Our Committee examined the document entitled:

"Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada", and has agreed to report it without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


POSTAL SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Pierre Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May 1 suggest that the House Leaders meet and discuss the possibility of dealing with this Bill today at all stages as of three o'clock.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the Minister's invitation. I will transfer that message to my House Leader. We will meet as soon as possible.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, we wish to indicate that we will not be making any arrangements to start the debate today.
We believe that the person who seconded the motion indicates that this is a management Bill. We do not believe that all other methods of resolving the dispute have been looked at.
I myself wrote to the Minister asking that he appoint a mediator. He has not done so. We will start debate on this Bill in the normal manner.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the Hon. Member-and this is a friendly suggestion-that he wait until he has looked at the Bill before making his decision, in that part of this request may have been satisfied in the particular legislation.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Minister has made a helpful suggestion. I will be in a position to meet with the other House Leaders and perhaps, after everyone has had an opportunity to read the Bill, we will all be in a better position to advise the House on when we might go forward.
Also, and not to belabour the point, the Bill could have been seconded by anybody. It is obviously a matter of cabinet solidarity that anybody can second it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize, if there is a Bill here, that this is one of the few times we have had back to work legislation when there has been no attempt ahead of time to speak to the opposition critics and to the House Leaders of the opposition Parties. If the normal courtesies had been extended, some phone calls, arrangements could have been made first thing this morning. Those things were not done, but should have been.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other Members rising?

October 8, 1987
Order Paper Questions
I have consulted with the Table on the procedure and I think, given the position taken by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), that the Chair really has no choice in the matter except to put the usual question to the House.
When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present petitions from the residents of the Yukon Territory in relation to the Meech Lake Accord. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to seek agreement to change the Constitutional amendment both in respect to the unanimity clause for the admission of new provinces and to include aboriginal rights in future First Ministers' conferences.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 181 and 182.


Mr. Nunziata: How many inmates in the federal correctional system have been diagnosed as having (a) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (b) AIDS Related Complex (ARC) (c) Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Up to
September 8, 1987, a total of 10 cases of AIDS-related conditions among inmates in the federal system have been reported.
(a)	One inmate with AIDS was released on parole in late 1986. One inmate on day parole died on August 25, 1987 as a result of an AIDS-related illness.
(b)	Two inmates with AIDS Related Complex are currently incarcerated.
(c)	Four inmates have tested seropositive (the carrier form of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and are currently incarcerated. Two inmates have tested seropositive and are on mandatory supervision.


Mr. Nunziata: In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986, how many native offenders were incarcerated and what percentage of the total did they constitute in the (i) Atlantic region (ii) Quebec region (iii) Ontario region (iv) Prairie region (v) Pacific region (vi) Correctional Service as a whole?


James Francis Kelleher: as of December 31, of each year
1984	1985	1986Region	Native Offen- ders	% Total Population	Native Offen- ders	% Total Population	Native Offen- ders	% Total PopulationAtlantic	49	4.03	43	3.59	35	3.02Quebec	16	0.47	20	0.57	28	0.77Ontario	158	4.93	152	4.61	134	3.99Prairies	729	29.66	797	30.74	845	32.34Pacific	201	11.09	215	11.74	209	11.43CSC Total	1153	9.54	1227	9.86	1251	9.92


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Minister have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 8, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 7, 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 (1 )(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,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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.
[Stage Direction]
October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to 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;
(/) 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.
and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
October 8, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province or territory and are qualified under section 101B. for appointment to that court.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
(e)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (1) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"106A.(1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by
Constitution Amendment, 1987
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and (0 an amendment to this Part.
42.(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(0 by adding to paragraph 13 subsection 50(2) the following new paragraph:
"(c) aboriginal rights, in particular self-government;"
(g)	by adding to paragraph 13 section 50 the following new subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50 subsection (2)(c) representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."
(h)	by deleting paragraph 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27 or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution.- Mr. Broadbent.
and on the amendment of Mr. Caccia:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a) by deleting Section 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
[Stage Direction]
October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b) by deleting Section 2.(3). and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding
immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to make submissions on this issue. I would like to begin by making some general observations and then proceed to indicate my specific concerns on the Meech Lake Accord.
A constitution is a body of fundamental principles according to which a state is governed. Changes to a state's constitution, as Machiavelli once advised, must be made with the utmost care.
In my view the Constitutional Accord signed by the First Ministers is not in the best interests of Canada or Canadians. It does not accurately reflect what Canada is or what it ought to be. It does not reflect in my view what I consider to be the views and aspirations of a majority of Canadians. The Accord, if enacted with its present provisions, will result in a weaker federal Government. It will set in motion a series of changes which, over time, will render the federal Government irrelevant.
Quebec's participation in the Constitution is essential. Nevertheless at some point we have to ask ourselves whether the price of obtaining Quebec's unconditional approval of the Constitution is too high for the Confederation as a whole. In my view, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers went too far in order to gain Quebec's participation. In the "real politik" of federal-provincial negotiations, Premiers cannot be faulted for negotiating on their own particular agendas. They have electorates to satisfy, constituencies to placate and political objectives to obtain.
It is the role of the Prime Minister in this process to ensure that, while every reasonable effort is made to accommodate provincial aspirations, the federal Parliament retains the power to enact and act in the national interest. The Prime Minister must ensure that Parliament has the power to set national standards and objectives for important social and economic programs, to assist smaller less advantaged provinces and to speak clearly for Canada in foreign affairs.
Of course, in a vast and diverse country such as Canada, a certain amount of decentralization is both healthy and inevitable. Federalism was and is the only system of government able to accommodate the distinct character of each province and the rich diversity which makes Canada unique among nations. The Fathers of Confederation recognized this
fact in drafting the British North America Act and it is as true now as it was then. Canadian federalism has always been characterized by a healthy tension, a fine balancing act between central and provincial power.
In some respects, the debate over the recent constitutional Accord has become obscured by the simplistic notion that somehow we are debating a polarized vision of whether Canada should be a highly centralized or decentralized federal structure. In fact, Canada is already a highly decentralized federation.
The debate on the Accord, if it is to reflect reality, must centre on whether or not we wish to tip the delicate balance considerably further with respect to an even more decentralized federalism with fewer constitutional powers for the central Government and weaker national institutions. To appreciate how decentralized our federation has become, one only need examine the trends with respect to who spends the money.
Between 1968 and fiscal year 1987-88, the total amount of transfer payments made to the provinces by the federal Government rose from $2.8 billion to $29.8 billion. This represents a real increase of well over 100 per cent even if one takes into account inflation.
In addition, the federal Government's share of public revenues in Canada decreased from 47 per cent to 37 per cent between 1962 and 1986. In the same period the provinces, and municipalities, share rose from 53 per cent to 63 per cent, from just over one-half to almost two-thirds of all public revenue.
From a fiscal standpoint, Canada ranks with Switzerland as one of the most decentralized federations in the world. Given, the ascendancy of provincial power over the last 25 years, it is now time for Canadians to ask themselves whether we wish first, to push the pendulum even further toward more provincial authority and even greater decentralization, second, to maintain the status quo; or third, to seek to reassert federal authority. The constitutional debate will afford Canadians an opportunity to articulate their vision, their view and their dream of what Canada should be.
We already know the views of one prominent Canadian who has spoken out many times on the subject of Canadian federalism. In 1984, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau warned Canadians that:
With too much decentralization in the name of cultural security and
provincial autonomy, the country risks fragmentation and disorderly
competition in a world where, to an increasing extent, only the strongest and
most disciplined can survive and prosper.
This is the crux of the issue. At the very least, federal power must be maintained to allow the federal Government to pursue national, social and economic objectives. Living in today's world economy has become in a very real sense survival of the fittest. The Japanese, the South Koreans and the West Germans, with their integrated and disciplined economies, have achieved a competitive edge in world trade based on cohesive national strategies. Their economic success which can
October 8, 198V

be measured in their huge trade surpluses has been marked by a national unity of purpose and a commitment to foster economic excellence in certain sectors of world markets. Important political decisions have been made in these countries not to support industries which cannot compete.
How does all this relate to the present constitutional Accord? I see the Accord as the thin edge of a large wedge with which the provinces can and will acquire more power to pursue their own economic, social and even political objectives, irrespective of any larger national purpose. The dangers of fragmentation and disorderly competition against which Mr. Trudeau warned three years ago are now coming to pass, albeit gradually. Like some constitutional Trojan horse that has been pushed inside our gates by the Prime Minister and the Premiers, the Accord looks good but its contents will cause no end of trouble in the years ahead.
Traditionally, the Liberal Party has always stood for a strong Canada in which Parliament has the necessary powers and jurisdiction to formulate public policy. Indeed, the Liberal Party in the 20th century has been one of the greatest nationbuilding institutions in Canada. We have consistently rejected concepts of special status, deux nations and the community of communities or any other doctrine which would weaken Canada.
At this juncture, I sincerely believe that it is the role of the Liberal Party to lead the way in ensuring that everything for which we have stood and fought over the years is not signed away with the stroke of a pen. Those Liberals who do not support the Accord have an obligation and indeed a duty to make their views known.
I have a number of specific concerns. Over the last number of months, prominent Canadians have expressed concerns with respect to particular provisions in the constitutional Accord. My concerns particularly relate to the clause dealing with a distinct society, the effect the constitutional Accord will have on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the clause which deals with Senate appointments, the clause which deals with appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, the clause dealing with spending power, the amending formula which would require unanimity on certain matters in the Constitution, and finally, my main concern deals with immigration.
Regarding my first concern, I have asked myself, as have many Canadians, why it is necessary to give special status to Quebec. There are those who argue that Clause 2(1)(a) of the constitutional Accord is simply an articulation of today's reality, the status quo in Quebec. If that is the case, why is it necessary to recognize that in the Constitution?
There are those who argue that this particular clause will give some special constitutional power to Quebec. I suppose if this Accord is ratified by the federal Parliament and the by the provincial legislatures, ultimately it will be left up to the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Supreme Court of Canada to decide what is meant by the distinct society clause.
Even though I fail to understand why it is necessary to have recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in the Accord, my concern is over what is excluded by this clause which reads as follows:
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;-
My mother, an immigrant to Canada, does not speak fluent French, nor does she speak fluent English. Under this clause, the characteristics of my mother are not fundamental characteristics of Canada. By implication, those who are not English speaking or French speaking do not possess fundamental characteristics of Canada. In my view, this clause is a betrayal of my mother and of the millions of others who have come to Canada from other countries.
The distinct society clause does not adequately recognize the multicultural community in Canada, the eight million or nine million Canadians whose origins are neither French nor English. If the purpose of the first clause in the Constitution of Canada is to articulate what Canada is all about today and what we want Canada to be in the future, then surely a fundamental characteristic of our country today is the multicultural heritage of our communities. However, that characteristic is not present in Clause 1 of the Constitution; nor is the recognition of aboriginal peoples.
Surely when trying to describe what Canada is all about, one would have to recognize the aboriginal peoples as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Therefore, it seems to me that on the basis of Clause 1 alone, the constitutional Accord cannot be supported.
That clause goes on to say that it is the role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in the first paragraph. However, it goes on to say that it is the role of the Legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in the distinct society clause. Canadians are asking themselves what that means. Why is Quebec required under the constitutional Accord to preserve and promote the fundamental characteristic, while on the other hand it is a duty of the Government of Canada and the other legislatures to simply preserve it? Is it any wonder that some of those right-wing Premiers from western Canada chose to support this provision? They do not want to promote in any way the fundamental characteristics of Canada, they simply want to accept what exists which is very little and not be required by the Constitution of Canada to do anything more.
My next concern is over the effect this particular Accord will have on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my view, the Charter must, and I emphasize, must be supreme.

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
No law from the Parliament of Canada or from any of the legislatures should in any way affect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we truly believe that there are certain rights and freedoms that exist for all Canadians, then surely we must all agree that the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures cannot in any way abrogate those very basic and fundamental rights.
In the last number of months, experts have indicated that the constitutional Accord threatens the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the women of Canada have made a very persuasive case indicating that the Accord will turn back the clock over that for which the people of Canada fought seven or eight years ago. As a result of this Accord, which was signed in a 10-hour or 15-hour period, those rights for which the women of Canada fought will go out the window. It is possible that sometime in the future the Supreme Court will decide that the distinct society clause, for example, might be used to take away rights for which the women of Canada fought. That ought to be of concern to each and every Member of the House.
My next concern deals with appointments to the Senate of Canada. It is obvious that Senate reform will be impossible as a result of the constitutional Accord because of the amending formula that exists in the Accord. Unanimity will be required to reform the Senate. It does not take a brilliant mind to conclude that Senate reform will be impossible in the future.
Premier Getty indicated at the time the Accord was signed that somehow Alberta and western Canada were winners because of the provision dealing with Senate appointments. All that has happened is that the patronage, if you will, has been transferred from the federal level to the provincial level. A Triple-E Senate will be a dream for centuries to come because of the unanimity requirement in the Accord.
Right now the power to appoint Senators rests with the Parliament of Canada. The Senate of Canada is a national institution. There are safeguards to ensure that Senators reflect the views and aspirations of the different regions. Over a period of time, it seems to me, when we have a Senate completely dominated by provincial appointees, it is obvious their first concern will be for the provinces who appointed them. They will in effect lose track of the national interest.
We have serious concerns over this provision in the Accord. The Liberal Party has called for an elected Senate and I truly believe that if the regions of Canada want equal representation, that is the route to take.
Regarding Supreme Court of Canada appointments, in my view the court is a national institution. The Government of Canada must retain the ultimate authority to make appointments to that court. I ask myself why it was necessary to transfer that authority from the Government of Canada to the provincial Governments. It is obvious the provinces wanted that power because they believed if they had it, over a period
of time provincial appointees would be more concerned with provincial interests rather than the national interest. It seems to me the Supreme Court of a country must reflect the national interest. Therefore the national Government must retain the ultimate authority to make appointments.
Much has been said about the spending power provision in the Accord. I agree with those who argue that that provision is ambiguous. Very little is known about how a future Government or future Supreme Court will choose to define what "reasonable compensation" means; what "program" or "initiative" means; what the word "compatible" or the words "national objectives" mean. I agree with those who argue that in future it may be impossible for the Government of Canada to implement a national program such as daycare when one or more of the provinces might decide to opt out and receive compensation.
As to the amending formula, it is obvious, as I indicated earlier, that Senate reform will be impossible. However, there are other concerns flowing from the unanimity requirement. Others have argued in a very persuasive fashion that the unanimity requirement would make it impossible to create provinces from the Territories in future because one or more of the existing provinces might decide to vote against that and the dilution of whatever authority they might have. I believe that is a serious concern.
I note that you are indicating my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. Let me say in closing that this Accord in my view is not in the best interests of Canadians. It cannot be supported and I do not intend to support it unless the Government in its wisdom decides to adopt the amendments presented by the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) spoke with very strong convictions about his view of Canada. The debate over this matter is one in which the Members will hold different views and hold those views strongly. However, as a westerner, I believe the kind of Canada he proposes in his notion of a different Constitution would serve to rip this nation in half.
He fails to understand the geography of this land, the second largest nation in the world. There are more Members of Parliament from Toronto and Montreal than there are from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and all of British Columbia except for the lower mainland. Two cities have more votes than those people who live on 70 per cent of the land. Yet the Hon. Member says that is just fine. He supports a centralist notion of governing Canada. That concept would work well in England, Belgium or some other geographically small nation like Switzerland, but it defies reality in a country of some four and a half thousand miles from ocean to ocean.
It is a fact that it is our history that makes westerners and Atlantic Canadians and others feel deeply and strongly about
October 8, 1987

regional strength. The Hon. Member should know that when the first four provinces of this country, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, were formed, they were granted the right to govern their resources. When Prince Edward Island joined one year later it was given the same right. When British Columbia came into Confederation it, too, was given the same right. Yet when the three prairie provinces became part of Canada, they were denied the right to their resources. That was not under their jurisdiction. I remember the old-timers in my province who had fought for 25 years from 1905 to 1930 to obtain the right to their resources. Not in one of those years were they able to raise enough money to pay for provincial needs such as roads, hospitals and schools. The best they ever got was about 30 per cent, this because of a centralist view which believed their resources belonged to Canada.
More recently a Liberal Government put in place the National Energy Program, ignoring the fact that Ontario sold its iron and steel at world prices. It ignored the fact that Quebec and Ontario sold their hydro power at world prices. Every product in every province was able to be sold at world price. However, the Liberal view, and I presume the view of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, is that a centralist government can impose, irrespective of jurisdictional consideration, a centralist view.
I wanted to make some comments on the Senate but, unfortunately, will not be able to. In conclusion, if we had a Canada such as the Hon. Member proposes we would have no Canada at all because that would tear the map to pieces.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 am a westerner. The Member laughs, but British Columbia is the province of my birth. 1 grew up there. 1 understand the problems in western Canada and Atlantic Canada. It is precisely for that reason that we need a strong central government to protect the regions.
The Hon. Member seems to indicate that a strong federal Government is synonymous with Quebec and Ontario, that when we talk about a strong federal Government we are talking about a Government which is more concerned about Quebec and Ontario. That is not the case. The Parliament of Canada exists to represent all 10 provinces and the territories. If the goal is to have equal recognition of the regions, surely we must reform the Senate. With regard to this Chamber we all believe, to a certain degree, in representation by population. Therefore, the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec will have, perforce, greater representation in the House of Commons.
That is not to say that a reformed Senate cannot create a better balance in representation in the two Houses of Parliament by giving more equal representation to the regions. That is only possible if we reform the Senate. Under the Meech Lake Accord it will be impossible to reform the Senate because of the unanimity requirement. If we are truly concerned about
Constitution Amendment, 1987
equal representation and, as the Member put it, regional strength, the route to go is to reform the Senate by moving toward an elected Senate in order to give it more power.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Member and I do not separate on the need for changes in Senate reform. We separate on the Member's notion that the unanimity clause absolutely guarantees that the Senate cannot be reformed. It may make it more challenging but there are examples of very major decisions, including Meech Lake itself, being brought about because of unanimity.
To make the presumption that Canada could never reach a compromised and all-inclusive conclusion among the provinces and the federal Government is to presume that there is a Government of the past in Ottawa which views the provinces as someone to fight against. If you are looking for reconciliation and a federal Government which can work with other Governments, you will see that unanimity is not only possible but has been demonstrated.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I believe that unanimity was achieved with the Meech Lake Accord because the Prime Minister gave everything away. Is it any wonder that the Premiers accepted what was given to them? I do not blame the Premiers for signing the Meech Lake Accord because they received so much in return for so little.
On the subject of Senate reform and unanimity, surely the Hon. Member will agree that the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone will never agree to giving Prince Edward Island equal power in the Senate of Canada. Let us not be naive. There is no way a stronger or more populous province will give equal representation in the Senate of Canada to a less populous province. That will never happen. There is more likelihood of reforming the Senate under the present amending formula which requires the agreement of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, many of the people who have spoken in this debate on the Constitution have said that there was bad process involved and that the document itself is flawed. I agree with both of those comments, but must also say that every other time we dealt with constitutional amendments, whether in 1981 or earlier, the process was bad and the resulting document was flawed.
It is ironic that many of the amendments being proposed by Liberal Members of Parliament, many of whom were here in 1981, ask for things for which they did not ask when they formed the Government. For that matter, many of their amendments are counter to the very spirit of what the Liberal Government of 1981 was trying to accomplish.
When I look at the list of amendments presented by the Liberal Party I wonder where those Members were in 1981 when a joint committee studied the document of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau. A number of amendments were moved, some of which were passed and some of which were

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
defeated. These Liberal Members did not move those amendments in 1981, nor did they argue for them. It is somewhat hypocritical for them to say that these amendments are essential in 1987. Having said that, I agree with the content of many of those amendments because they ask for some of the things we were calling for in 1981.
The document with which we are presently dealing is flawed. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories have been hurt by the Meech Lake Accord. It does no good for Conservative Members to say that when the time comes all 10 provinces will be on side. We do not know when that time will come, but we do know that the Yukon and Northwest Territories will have to go through a process which no other province has ever had to go through in the history of our nation. That process will be most difficult.
The provisions which the Liberal Government introduced in 1981 required the consent of the federal Government and seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population before a new province could be created. Now all 10 provinces must agree with the federal Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If Members wish to have conversations I would appreciate if they would go into the lobby or behind the curtains. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The process for the Yukon or one of the territories to become a province will be very difficult. From the history of constitutional changes I know that Premiers, provinces, and the federal Government have their own agenda when they come to First Ministers' Conferences. If a majority of provinces are willing to allow the Yukon in as a new province, it is likely that one, two or perhaps three of the provinces will have other items they want included in the Constitution. Perhaps they will use oil, property rights or another particular cause which genuinely might be important to them as a bargaining chip in supporting the entry of the Yukon. That has been the history of our country in terms of constitutional amendments.
No Prime Minister and no Premier has gained everything they sought. In the future, the Premier of Nova Scotia may have some concerns that she wants addressed in the Constitution and may use the Yukon as a bargaining chip. That is not acceptable.
The other group about which I am concerned with regard to the Constitution is the aboriginal people of Canada. I stated during the special debate on the Meech Lake Accord in June that we have again forgotten the native people of this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that with the Meech Lake Accord, we have completed the circle of Confederation. He was again neglecting the native people of Canada because that circle is not completed as far as they are concerned. There is no process in this Constitution guaranteeing
that their rights will be on the agenda of future First Ministers' meetings. The Government has been unwilling to even guarantee that there will be a meeting in the future to deal with aboriginal rights.
We have asked for this guarantee in questions during Question Period and have suggested amendments to that effect. However, the Prime Minister has not even been concerned enough to write a letter to native leaders or the Premiers indicating that he will put this item on the agenda of a future meeting.
The Prime Minister said in answer to questions in the House that with Quebec as a full-fledged member of the Constitution as a result of Meech Lake we would be in a better position to expand the definition of aboriginal rights in the Constitution to reflect more than the very narrow present definition. The Prime Minister has used that as a reason why we should support the Meech Lake Accord. Yet he will not even guarantee that there will be a meeting on aboriginal issues next year, the year after, or even three years from now.
I consider that to be a failure of the Prime Minister and not of the Premiers, even though the Premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan were reluctant to move on this important matter of aboriginal rights during the final rounds of negotiations. They are not the ones primarily at fault because it is the federal Government's obligation to represent native people according to the present Constitution and the Indian Act.
The Prime Minister was the chairman of the Meech Lake meetings and should have been representing the native people of this country. The Prime Minister could have at least guaranteed that aboriginal rights would be included on the agenda of the next meeting of First Ministers if they could not have been dealt with at the Meech Lake meeting itself. He should have at least made that effort on behalf of the native people.
My colleague, the Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), reminds me that the joint committee which studied the Constitution during the summer and into the fall recommended that aboriginal rights should be on the agenda, and that it would not breech the spirit of Meech Lake. It would not create any division among the provinces that would result in the elements of the Meech Lake Accord being broken.
The Prime Minister is always willing to go to Washington or attend international conferences. I might say that he speaks with some eloquence on the rights of the oppressed majority in South Africa. Yet he is not even taking a small step on behalf of the native people of this land. He could do so without upsetting the Meech Lake Accord or causing resentment within the population of Quebec. Yet he will not take that step.
I believe his reluctance to do so will hurt him in the next election, because native people have a strong sense of trust in a Prime Minister. They strongly believe in the relationship
October 8, 1987

between the federal Government and native people. When 1 visit the many reserves and other native communities in my riding and talk to native people, especially the elders, they talk of John George Diefenbaker and all the subsequent Prime Ministers as the people who were responsible for making sure that the Government looked after the interests of native people. I am sure the Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) has the same experience when she visits native people in her riding. Native communities have always had much respect for Prime Ministers. They are among the last to become involved in snide politics and personal contests when it comes to the Prime Minister.
When I have occasionally made nasty remarks about one of our Prime Ministers, they have told me they were offended because such remarks are inappropriate.
Native people feel especially grieved by what has happened. They see that the Prime Minister, the chairman of the Meech Lake meeting, is not willing to make any effort to guarantee that the next First Ministers meeting or even the one after will deal with aboriginal issues.


Mr. McDermid:: He answered that in the House fully.


Rodney Edward Murphy: One of the Conservative Members says that the Prime Minister has answered that fully. He only said that he will get around to it. What does that mean? It does not take much to write a letter. The Prime Minister writes letters to the Premiers constantly It does not take much to stand up for the native people of this land and guarantee that native rights will be on the agenda of the next First Ministers meeting or the one after. He has not done that.


John Horton McDermid: He explained why.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I challenge the Conservative Member to read Hansard to see if there is such a guarantee.


John Horton McDermid: He explained why.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You will have a chance to speak in a few minutes when I sit down. Start looking.
I am concerned about a number of other issues in the Meech Lake Accord. I have said that I will support the Accord because I believe it is important that the people of Quebec become partners in Confederation and share in the process of amending the Constitution in the future. I think it is even more important that they know that there is the willingness, on the part of those of us who are from outside of Quebec, to bring them in, to work with them, to accept the flawed package. I say that because we realize the value of having the mood in Quebec pro-Canada. We recognize the value of that. We are very happy to see that Quebec also agrees that this is an acceptable process.
We are willing, I guess, to swallow some of the things we do not like in the Accord, just as we swallowed things we did not
Constitution Amendment, 1987
like in 1981. It is a flawed document. There are concerns on the part of women's groups, natives, and people in the Territories. There are concerns on the part of people who want to guarantee that the national Government has the ability to act on issues of national concern. But, after having looked at the report of the committee, which represented members from all Parties, I believe that the flaws, and they are there, are not so drastic that we cannot support this constitutional Accord.
We recognize the problems. We have some constructive amendments. We hope that the Government will give due consideration to those amendments. We hope that in the future, when these issues are before the House and when the First Ministers sit down each and every year, we will have a better process, that we do not have the First Ministers, when they have their yearly meeting on the Constitution, sitting until six or seven in the morning and coming up with another amendment to the Constitution, one which the House of Commons has to accept.
It is time that when we deal with the Constitution we have a better process, a process by which people can feel that they are actually in a position to make amendments, in which people who are left out of the process, like the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the aboriginal people of this land, will have a chance not only to have their voices heard but to have a chance to make the type of amendments that are necessary.
My time is up. I want to say that for someone who has been interested in the Constitution for many years, and as someone who took a course, I guess it is over 20 years ago now, on Canada and French Canadians and the history and all the problems that we have had, it is very important, and I am very glad to see that we have a document, although flawed, that does bring Quebec into the family.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?


John Horton McDermid: I cannot let this moment pass without commenting on my hon. friend's remarks regarding the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the native peoples of this country. As he knows, I was Indian Affairs and Northern Development spokesman for our Party for a year and I became very involved and very interested in the entire scope of problems facing the native peoples. I think what the Prime Minister said in the House should be repeated because to me it made abundant sense. It is fine to schedule meetings. It is fine to say that we will have a meeting next month on it, and another the next month, and so on and so forth. But if nothing is accomplished at those meetings, if they are held just for the television cameras and for everybody to state their positions, they do not achieve anything.
What the Prime Minister said very clearly in his explanation is that the next time they have a meeting-and the sooner the better as far as he is concerned-he wants something accomplished. There is a great deal of work going on now behind the

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
scenes with the native groups and the provinces, who play an integral part in our Constitution, to assure that when we do bring the native situation to the Constitution in a meaningful way that it can be accomplished and that it will be good for everyone involved, especially the native peoples.
The Prime Minister said that there is no sense in calling a meeting just for the sake of having a meeting. We should have successful meetings, and we should accomplish something. That is exactly what is being worked on now, toward that end, for the native peoples of Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, what the Conservative Member has said is fine, to a point. We have guaranteed that the subject of fish will be on the agenda at the next First Ministers' meeting. We have guaranteed that the topic of the Senate will be on the agenda of the next First Ministers' meeting. We have no guarantee that we will resolve fishing issues at the next meeting. We have no guarantee that we will resolve the problem of the Senate at the next First Ministers's meeting, unless we bring some big shovels.


Ms. Jewett:: So we can bury it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, so we can bury it. But why not at least have the native issue raised as a guaranteed item at that meeting? Native people will feel there is at least that much commitment. Now they know that they will not be considered at that meeting. It is fine to say that there is work going on behind the scenes, but the Flon. Member also knows that because there is no guarantee of a meeting of the First Ministers on aboriginal rights the funding for native groups has not been increased. For that matter it has been cut. So it is fine to say that there will be meetings of officials but the funding has been cut. It has been made more difficult for native people to prepare their case so that they can get on the agenda of some future meeting. That is the truth.
It is not good enough to say that the Prime Minister has good intentions, that he does want to see it work in the future. He has to do more than that. There has to be some guarantee that that will happen. That is not there, and it is regrettable. But the Prime Minister has not taken the leadership in that area, which is very obvious to the native people in my riding and right across the country.


John Horton McDermid: I have a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I will just take a moment because I want to follow up on what my friend said. The native people have had three meetings. They were disappointed at each one. Should the Prime Minister schedule another meeting and disappoint them again without having anything accomplished? Let us make sure that at the next meeting we can accomplish something. That is why he is doing it.
The Hon. Member talks about the scheduled meetings ahead. That is right, there are scheduled meetings on certain topics. Those have not been scheduled before in the constitutional conferences. The native people have met three times. I
sat through those meetings and I sat through the native peoples' conferences on the Constitution. The NDP are going around saying the funding has been cut. That is very unfair. The funding ran out on-


Mr. Heap:: It is unfair.


John Horton McDermid: It is unfair for the NDP to say it has been cut. What happened is that the program ended and the Government is now looking at a new funding program. It is examining a new way to fund the natives on the constitutional matter. To say it has been cut is untrue. The program ended; that is not cutting the funding.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Will they guarantee to renew it?


Ms. McDonald:: Did they have any funding?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are many ways of looking at programs being cut or programs ending, but the net effect, expressed in the Hon. Member's own words, is that there is nothing happening at the present time.-


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -because the program has ended. It means that native groups are down to a very skeleton staff in terms of trying to develop constitutional positions. It is very hard for them to have meetings in order to discuss these matters with each other. The research cannot be done. Here we are, over six months since the last meeting of the First Ministers on aboriginal rights, and there is still no funding program in place. To say that because there have been three meetings on native issues in the past and they were not successful is not quite true, because they were successful. They brought native issues to national television. There was a population of native people and white people who got to hear for the first time about aboriginal self-government. They got to hear about the problems on the reserves. They got to hear about the concerns of native people. That was a success in itself.
I can tell Hon. Members that in my riding people in native communities were glued to the television sets for each and every one of those meetings because it was so important to them.
It was important for them to hear their national spokesmen speaking articulately to the Prime Minister and to the Premiers. That was very important, and I do not think the Hon. Member argues that point. However, to say that because it has been done three times without success we should not guarantee a fourth meeting at this time is wrong, because it takes away the attention native leaders deserve.
Also, there have been many more than three meetings on the Senate in the House of Commons and in the Senate itself. I think former Prime Minister Trudeau had about 15,000 different proposals on the Senate at which the House looked. We sent committees on the Senate across the land time after
October 8, 1987

time and, God help us, it is not any better now. It is guaranteed as a topic at the next meeting, and it is certainly not for any lack of attention. It has had too much attention; it does not deserve any. It is a guaranteed topic.
Yes, the aboriginal people have had three attempts, but they are not being guaranteed a fourth attempt because they might be disappointed. I think the native people are willing to risk that disappointment. They want a chance to be heard. They want a chance to be able to negotiate their position. It is being denied them, and that is worse than a disappointment.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary may not have read the concluding chapter of the joint committee report. I doubt if he has read it because, if he had done so, he would know that, unlike the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and unlike himself, his colleagues on the joint committee recommended a reinstitution of funding. He did not do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would direct her questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke. I am really not too concerned about what the Parliamentary Secretary said. Her questions should be directed to the Member who just finished his speech.


Pauline Jewett: Also the joint committee recommended a planning process, leading up to the renewal of meetings on aboriginal rights, particularly self-government.
Does the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) realize that there was a unanimous recommendation concerning the meetings of First Ministers, a work plan, and a refunding process? Does he know that the joint committee recommended that a new parliamentary joint committee should be established on a permanent basis to conduct hearings on these and others matters before the First Ministers met?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has a minute or so in which to answer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. She asked whether I was aware of the document. Yes, I am. The reason I am aware of it is because she gave a very detailed report to our caucus and explained that process.
I believe it was her intention to make sure that it was on the record yet again.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I was profoundly shaken by the constitutional crisis, and that is why I am delighted to see a peaceful solution to this problem, a solution that respects the values we hold most dear.

I ran for office because I was hoping that I could do directly what I had failed to do indirectly by being involved with citizens' groups. I wanted to find a peaceful solution to the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
problem we had in terms of the aspirations of the Frenchspeaking people of Quebec who wanted to find their place in the sun, their place in the country, and to be able to live as first-class citizens in their own country, speaking their own language and enjoying their own culture. I could not do it through citizens' groups because too many counter-currents were stopping us from really focusing on what was our purpose.
I also felt that the solutions which were being made available through the political process at that time were going to lead to violence. I believe that the use of violence is not acceptable under any circumstance, in any cause whatsoever. Contrary to what some Members of the House might say, that it could be used to help certain causes, I do not believe so.
I think the saddest day for peaceful persons is when they must defend their lives against an aggressor and perhaps kill the aggressor in the process. To me that is a use of violence which is essential but is a very sad one.
Having rejected violence, we had to find an accommodation. Of course accommodations are not as spectacular as the use of violence or the use of aggressive political ways to impose one's vision of the country on other people. However, it would lead to a solution which would be acceptable to me and would be one that would last.
I attended primary school in my native city of Montreal during the 50's. In school, nationalism, our culture and our language all seemed to be wrapped up in the Catholic religion. We were subjected to a type of parochialism which gave us a certain poverty of spirit and a narrow vision of our social, religious and even economic life. I rejected this parochialism because of this vision. In the dictations that we were given to practice our linguistic skills, for instance, we were told that the federal Government was the enemy because it was trying to interfere with our school system, that, because the federal Government was Protestant and Anglosaxon, we might lose both our religion and our language, and that we should therefore not allow the federal Government to interfere with education in Quebec.
This vision robbed us young Quebecers of a modern education system which would have prepared us for the future in a modern country where we had to compete against very sophisticated businesses. By rejecting this parochialism, I also rejected the leadership role which the Catholic church had assumed in the nationalist movement. I therefore had to look elsewhere for a means to achieve my goals, which were to develop as a French-speaking Quebecer, and also as a modern woman in North America who would be able to choose a career either in business, in science or in the arts if I wished, instead of being restricted to certain fields judged appropriate for francophones. In my opinion, the fight of the clergy was

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
too narrow and too focused on their own personal interests. We had to look elsewhere.
By rejecting this parochialism and this narrow vision, I also rejected the vision of the Trudeaus, the Chretiens, the Johnstons, and even, 1 regret to say, the Sheila Finestones. I wanted a country where we could show generosity to all members of our society and to our two cultures. I wanted a wide-open country. I therefore accepted the English fact from a very early date. It might seem strange that I would speak about the English fact because we mostly hear about the French fact. However, for us, in Quebec, the English fact represented the minority. I welcomed this concept with pleasure and I also welcomed the American fact as part of the reality and the vision I had of my own identity as so deeply rooted in my language and culture that it could recognize the beauties of other cultures.
Mr. Speaker, I fear neither the Americans nor the Englishspeaking Canadians. I feel quite confident, but I am always prepared to fight against threats to my language and my culture.
Throughout the 1950s there was something else threatening our language and our culture besides this Jansenism which advocated a much too limited universe for us: economic poverty, or the fact that francophone Quebecers made up most of society's poorer segments. So we had to find a way to fulfill our economic expectations while preserving our language and our culture. With the 1960s came the quiet revolution, and 1 stress the word "quiet" because it was not marked by violence, and the purpose of this quiet revolution was to make us a strong economic people. Then a member of the Lesage government, Mr. Levesque was among those who believed in economic nationalism. Hydro-Quebec was a telling case. I might point out that Mr. Levesque never condoned violence, but he was convinced that we would be able to fulfill our aspirations through the economy. So the quiet revolution yielded an economic lever to remove the obstacle to our development as francophones of French culture in Quebec.
As PQ leader Mr. Levesque also paved much of the road to Meech Lake. Some people are concerned over the weakening of Bill 101 precisely because, in our efforts towards nationalism, both economic and political, because language of work became an issue, that is where we made great progress, but in terms of economic nationalism people also had in mind the question of commercial signs which was part and parcel of the environment in Quebec's society. And today we are concerned that Bill 101 might be weakened because we do not want to lose what we managed to gain during the 1960s and 1970s and the few years after, which is to secure a truly francophone environment in Quebec. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that an honourable solution will be found to protect in Quebec our English-speaking minority, while maintaining the benefits obtained through Bill 101.
The very first explosion of violence occurred in the 1960s. I was still living in Montreal at the time. The first bomb was
placed in front of the U.S. Consulate. At the time, there was a connection with the extreme Left which was very active because of the Americans' involvement in the Vietnam War. There was a leftist infiltration of the nationalist movement which resulted in violence in Quebec. Later on, unfortunately, there was a lot of blood shed by our best young people, because this ideological violence was continued to further nationalism. For us, it was the greatest tragedy. That is when I felt deeply the sadness of living in a violence-prone society: bombs which exploded in residential letterboxes; children who had to remain inside their schools because there was a bomb in a letterbox outside; bombs in department stores or supermarkets. Those were really the darkest pages in our history.
What solution were our politicians suggesting at the time? They were suggesting, it is sad to say, confrontation. They would say: "Let us beat the hell out of these people. Let us smash this nationalistic movement which has gone berserk and become violent", instead of asking why violence had spread among us and was so much a part of our lives.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord is the right way to deal with this pervasive climate that owed its existence to the fact that we let violence and aggressive politics become part of our lives.
As for the economic poverty that prevented us, Frenchspeaking Quebecers, from becoming a modern and prosperous society, the Quiet Revolution changed all that in the 60s. Many of us in the Conservative Party are nationalists who fought during the 50s and the 60s for recognition of the French fact in Canada, and we are now in a party that still believes in economic change that will help francophone Quebecers prosper in this country.
I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart), who gives Mr. Bourassa all the credit because, according to the Hon. Member, he formulated the conditions that lead to the Meech Lake Accord. In fact, the way that was paved by Mr. Levesque was finished by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who worked so hard to bring us to Meech Lake where, if we had not had the negotiating process, Mr. Bourassa's conditions would have made no difference at all. People must communicate, negotiate, and consult. They have to talk about what they want to implement.
All the nationalists who decided to run under the PC flag in 1984 met again in Ottawa, where they have worked in their Party under a leader who had the courage, the vision and the power to gain acceptance for his vision of this country, which is very similar to mine, Mr. Speaker, and to do so calmly and peacefully.
And that is why I am very proud to be part of this Government and to serve under a Leader who has had the courage to go on, despite the many pitfalls. There were times when he was asked to consider specific interests that would have made his ratings rise in the polls, suggestions which he refused to entertain. For instance, he took part in a very fair and very
October 8, 1987

generous debate on the demands of franco-Manitobans. He refused to take the easy way out, to heed the advice of those who told him: Don't get involved, the subject is too controversial, and you will get into all kinds of trouble. Ignore these issues and go on to other things. Just ignore the franco-Manitoban demands. However, he did not take this advice, and he put the experience acquired with the Manitoba question and franco-Manitoban demands to good use when considering the rights of francophones in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, people who accuse the Prime Minister of being lacking in generosity, vision and courage are grossly unfair. I had the same experience as Brian Mulroney who started out with a party that was looked upon as the pariah of Canadian politics because 100 years ago, when Louis Riel was hanged, the Conservatives were in power. Mr. Chapleau told his leader, Sir John Macdonald: If you do that, French Canadians will never vote Conservative again. There was a century of history and tradition to overcome. The Prime Minister, who believed in the economic drive of Canadians, who knew that without a strong economy, a people cannot nurture its language, its religion and its culture, the Prime Minister continued his struggle within the Party.
He could have taken the easy way out and become a Liberal. My riding was Liberal ever since Confederation. The same was true in his riding. He could have decided to become a Liberal like Mr. Trudeau, who left the CCF and the Socialists when he decided the Liberal Party could bring him to power. He changed his stand, but Mr. Mulroney did not. He stayed with the Conservatives, he kept his vision and he led us to the Meech Lake Accord. He has given all of us pages in history which are certainly an improvement over those of the 70s, and he brought to me personally the realization of his dream and the results I had hoped for when I became involved in politics. We found a peaceful solution, a solution respectful of our most cherished values, and I am proud today to speak in this debate which, like the debate on the death penalty, will contribute to our self-actualization.
In conclusion, I would like to tell my Quebec colleagues, and especially my friends such as Don Johnston and Sheila Finestone whom I have known a very long time-I knew him when he was my Member of Parliament in Westmount: Good luck, I respect your ideas, but please remember that we now have a more generous vision of Canada thanks to the Meech Lake Accord.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will allow the Hon. Member to complete her speech, but I would hope that she would refer to Hon. Members by their riding when speaking about them. It is something of which new Hon. Members should be aware.
Questions or comments?
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord provides for the protection and promotion of minority rights in Quebec, but not in the other provinces. Why is the Conservative Party not willing to protect and promote the rights of minorities outside Quebec?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, it is not because the Conservative Party is not ready, but rather because discussions leading to the Meech Lake Accord were aimed at integrating Quebec into the Canadian Constitution. That was the goal of the discussions. At that point, the purpose was not to look at other details and other matters, whose time certainly will come. Among other things, the rights of francophones outside Quebec is a matter of major importance. So are aboriginal rights, the rights of individuals such as the right to own property. There are a lot of things still to be done. The rights of the provinces, the Northern Territories. We still have major matters to look at, but the aim of the negotiations that led to the Meech Lake Accord was to integrate Quebec into the Canadian constitutional family. That was the root of all the violence during the 60s and 70s. So that is what we discussed.
But we did not close the door-to the contrary, the door is now open. If Quebec had not been integrated, we could not have pursued the constitutional process because without the presence of Quebec it was not decent even to sit down and discuss the country, because to me at least the core of the country was absent from those discussions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, one of the basic features of this country is linguistic duality. But I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) whether she has a definition of the concept of a distinct society. Certainly she must be aware of my interpretation. And I know that many Quebecers have a definition of what a distinct society is all about that is different from mine.
I wonder whether she, as a Quebecer, could give us today her definition in a few words. In order to refresh her memory, I personally will suggest to her that Quebec is different from other provinces because it is the province with a Frenchspeaking majority. But it also has an important Englishspeaking minority and a native component, or anyway a native people that is equally important. That in my view makes it distinctive, that is what Quebec is all about-a Frenchspeaking majority, a very large English-speaking minority and a large native minority. Is her definition different from that?


Claudy Mailly: The distinct society clause in the Meech Lake Accord is quite clear. Its purpose is to enshrine the special character of Quebec and its francophone majority which until now had to be protected by all kinds of legislation because otherwise it could not maintain and enhance its position. As I see it, the Meech Lake Accord is quite clear in that it refers to the francophone majority and the Anglophone minority which is already protected by our institutions and has its own schools, and in fact has a lot more rights than francophone minorities

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
elsewhere in this country. Those are well-known facts, Mr. Speaker. I am not afraid of the terms: "Distinct society", the way some Liberals are, and I fail to see how they restrict the rights of the anglophone minority. In fact, as I said earlier, I am delighted with the diversity of my society. I am delighted by the fact that we are part of North America. I do not feel threatened. I feel strong in the knowledge that I have my own culture and my own language.
I agree that we have a distinct society because we have a francophone majority. We also have an anglophone minority, and we have our native people, who I think are better treated by the provincial government than by the federal Government, for many reasons, because since the provinces each have their own particular problems and priorities, it has been difficult to harmonize the federal policy for our Native Peoples across this country. In Quebec, I think our native people are treated very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allowed for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate with a background that has, I think, bestowed on me a very special privilege. First of all, I belong to the franco-Ontarian minority. I was not born franco-Ontarian. I was born in Quebec, and one of my parents was a franco-Ontarian and one was a French-speaking Quebecer.
Mr. Speaker, at a very early age I moved to Ontario with my family, and from then on, we always lived in this province which I call my own. The name Boudria in Quebec goes back to at least 1689, and so I feel my roots are there, although I have no personal memory of having lived there myself.
The question I imagine all Canadians are asking today is, which Members are going to vote for or against the Meech Lake Accord. Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I intend to vote for the Constitution Amendment, 1987. I am not doing so because it is the best agreement that could be made. In fact, I think there are still a number of shortcomings, and I would say major ones. The fact is not whether the agreement is the best possible one. It is not. But the question we ask is this: Is it better to have an agreement or not to have one? I think that as Canadians, we are better off with the Constitution amendment, 1987, imperfect as it is, than without one altogether.
Mr. Speaker, it would be even better if Parliament were to adopt the amendments proposed by my Liberal colleagues. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and all my Liberal colleagues who took part in the debate in committee and who drafted the amendments.

The amendments our Party is proposing to the 1987 constitutional Accord would make the document better, in my opinion. The amendments would make it better because they would include in the Accord as a fundamental characteristic of Canada the aboriginal people, the multicultural and regional identities and the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union. They would also make the agreement better by offering more protection to official language minorities in Canada outside Quebec. It would also again improve the agreement by ensuring that all provisions of the Charter, not just Section 25 and Section 27, have been included with regard to certain clauses. It would make the agreement better because it better addresses the issue of Senate reform. It would allow for the appointment of Senators from the Territories.
Our amendments would also provide for a deadlock resolution mechanism in the event of disputes. They would ensure greater national consistency in programs available to Canadians. Not least, the Liberal amendments would provide for bilateral agreements between Canada and a potential new province. I am referring of course to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. My colleagues have also indicated we want an amendment to restore aboriginal rights to the constitutional agenda.
Needless to say, I am of the opinion that these amendments would make the constitutional Accord better. I do not believe any of them are offensive to any of the provincial Governments. We have not heard any provincial Government say they would be offensive. I therefore conclude they would not be. In any event, I ask what would be wrong in proposing these amendments to the provinces?
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) decided we were not to entertain amendments and therefore I am led to the conclusion that the committee process we went through was certainly not as useful as it could have been. Granted there was some benefit in the fact that we received positive input from a number of Canadians, but it would have been that much better had we been able to fully utilize the information provided to us and which we, the Liberal Party, have used in our proposed amendments.
I want to speak briefly to the unanimity issue. In certain respects I am not quite as frightened of are some people. What we are trying to achieve is a means by which our Constitution can be amended in future. The process cannot be so flexible that one group can have almost free access to changing the Constitution. If that happens it is really not a Constitution, it is just like any other Bill. On the other hand, if it is totally inflexible then it is no longer a living document. We have to try and achieve a balance between the two. That is what makes a good Constitution.
How do we achieve that? The 1982 document with the requirement for agreement by seven of 10 provinces was a
October 8, 1987

good compromise. Etowever, there are perhaps issues on which we would want unanimity. Certainly the admittance of new provinces should not be one of those, in my opinion. That should remain bilateral. Neither am I of the opinion that unanimity is impossible. The fact we have a Meech Lake Accord certainly disproves that theory.
Whether we like it or not, we had a form of unanimity clause even before the constitutional Accord was signed. I say that for the following reason. Only one province did not sign the 1982 Accord. We all recognize that although that province was legally bound by the Accord, there was a certain moral authority missing in our Constitution because Quebec had not signed it. Therefore, we can say in retrospect that, although it was not legally there before, there was still a moral requirement for unanimity. Otherwise, why would we all agree that it was necessary for Quebec to sign the Accord? All the interventions 1 have heard so far, some against and some in favour, have agreed it was necessary to have Quebec sign. Therefore, I conclude that unanimity on that issue was at least a prerequisite to making our country whole again.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there was a long debate as to whether Quebec was a distinct society, as to what a so-called distinct society was. As a Canadian born in Quebec but who has spent most of his life outside Quebec, I can readily see that it is indeed somewhat different from the other provinces. Whether it is the fact that Quebec's linguistic majority is not the same as the linguistic majority in the rest of Canada, whether it is the fact that Quebec has its own particular legislation, and I am referring specifically to Quebec's Civil Code, whether it is the fact that Quebec has Senate designations-this is peculiar to that province for, as we know, Senators in the rest of Canada represent their province, whereas Quebec Senators represent a specific region-whether it be for a number of other reasons, we all know that Quebec is a society which differs from the rest of the country to a certain extent. Quebec is neither better nor worse for that, but the fact remains that Quebec is a different province. I might single out the fact that traditionally Quebec has had three judges on the Supreme Court of Canada, another element which is certainly distinct or, if you will, peculiar to Quebec as a province.

However, having said that, I think the document would have been improved if we had said that the minority language outside Quebec has an equal status with the minority language inside Quebec. In other words, the document we have now refers to the distinct society of Quebec as having a role of promoting and protecting itself, one of its components being the minority language. The role of this House and the provinces is to protect the minority language and not to promote it. At least the word "promote" is not there. That leads me to believe there is a difference there which is certainly not justified. If that difference in the document were corrected by one of the Liberal amendments, it would take
Constitution Amendment, 1987
nothing away from Quebec but it would make many other Canadians feel much better.

Being a franco-Ontarian I feel that the document might be improved along the lines I have just described without taking anything at all away from francophones in Quebec or from the anglophone majority in that province.
Mr. Speaker, in the past some people said in other speeches that Canada was a country with decentralized powers, and so it is. It has been said that Canada comes second only to Switzerland as far as decentralization of the taxation power is concerned. I find such a statement rather strange since Switzerland is one of the most stable democracies and one of the countries with the highest standard of living in the world, and this comment would seem to suggest that a country which has something in common with Switzerland is deficient in some way. Naturally, this is not be the case, Mr. Speaker.
It is also important to remember the origins of this country. At the Constitutional conferences during the 1860's and even before, at the time of the Union in 1840, the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada joined together under the name of the United Province of Canada. At the time, a majority from both regions was necessary to ensure that the voice of the two components of this United Province would always be heard. We all know that this formula was not practical and it was amended by the British North America Act in 1867.
We must also remember, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is a union of provinces and not a country divided into provinces. Sometimes, my constituents ask me why education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Why did the federal Government give the provinces jurisdiction over education? To such a question, 1 reply: You have the right question, but you are not asking it properly. The fact is that, when the provinces united, they delegated certain powers, including residual powers, naturally, to the federal Government, and kept those which were appropriate for them or which they believed necessary to govern their affairs. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question 1 asked earlier is this. We cannot change the fact that the provinces have large powers in our system. They had these powers before and they will still have them after the Lake Meech Accord.
What is also important is to emphasize that, without the Meech Lake Accord, repatriation of our Constitution was incomplete, as 1 have already pointed out. As a Canadian, 1 want my country to be complete, I do not want it to be divided as it has been historically on several occasions. I do not want my country to remain under the threat of separation; I want it to be a cohesive and powerful entity. I therefore ask myself this question: Was such a thing possible without the agreement of Quebec, without its joining the Constitution? The answer is no.
A second question which some people ask me is this: Have we paid too much for this agreement? But have we paid too

October 8, 1987
much compared to what? EIow can we make such a comparison? I was not at the bargaining table. The agreement was not negotiated by myself or by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am therefore unable to say whether or not something better could have been achieved during the negotiations. I trust that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would always be able to negotiate better than the Prime Minister. This is probably true. However, I have to congragulate the Prime Minister for having succeeded in signing this agreement with the Canadian provinces to achieve unanimity and make our country a cohesive and united entity.
Unlike those of many countries, our Constitution is not comprised of only one document. We are sometimes quick to point out that it took us a long time to repatriate our Constitution, from 1931, with the Statute of Westminster, to 1982. However, we should not believe that we have not evolved constitutionally over that time. Our Constitution is made up of 24 documents; 13 Acts of the British Parliament, seven Acts of the Canadian Parliament and four British Orders in Council. The combination of all those documents has gradually amended our Constitution to its present form.
1 hope that that process will not come to an end, that we will continue to evolve and change the document through a slow and gradual process which will ensure that our country is made stronger. Our country will not be made stronger only because more power is given to the central government. It will not necessarily be made weaker because less power is given to the federal Government. Our country will be made stronger if we all work together to keep it the great country that it is. Granted, if we reach a stage where the federal Government has no power and the provinces have it all, that would effectively mean the end of our country. I do not believe that we are doing that with this constitutional Accord.
I would like to speak briefly about Senate reform, something which the Fathers of Confederation probably wanted since the day after the British North America Act was enacted. We have tried to reform the Senate for a long time but have had only very modest success so far. However, that does not mean that the task has ended.
For instance, I do not think it is necessarily wrong that Senators should be nominated by the Premiers. There are those who say that the people nominated by the Premiers will be accountable only to the Premiers. That is not true because Senators are appointed for the rest of their lives. That would be the same as saying that Senators appointed by federal leaders are accountable only to them. We know that that institution has maintained a certain independence in any case.
I know that the time for this debate is drawing to an end. I am happy to have had the opportunity to participate. This is one of the most fundamental issues we will ever discuss. I am of the opinion that the document is not the best one that could
have been signed, but it is certainly better than the status quo. It would be even better with the amendments which our Party has proposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next speaker will be the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). I will call it one o'clock.
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. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians I very enthusiastically welcome Quebec's inclusion in our Constitution which is of primary importance. However, I am shocked and appalled by the Government's failure to provide adequate opportunity for debate and voting on proposed amendments to the Meech Lake Accord. I believe the amendments put forward by Liberals are both sound and vitally important.
These amendments relate to the following: first, the recognition of aboriginal peoples, multicultural and regional identities and the advantages of lower trade barriers between the provinces; second, more protection to official language minorities; third, ensuring that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is paramount and that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians are not diminished by potential conflicts with any section of the Accord, including equality rights of the sexes; fourth, accelerating the move toward an elected Senate; fifth, that Supreme Court appointments must be made via a mechanism ensuring a full complement of Supreme Court justices at all times and protecting the basic rights of northern Canadians by giving their Governments the same rights as the provinces to propose candidates for the courts; sixth, clarifying the opting out clause where the provinces may opt out of national shared-cost programs, thus ensuring greater national uniformity in programs available; seventh, eliminating the rigid unanimity provision for Senate reform and returning to the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population formula.
It is absurd that the federal Government will not give these amendments the proper consideration they deserve and take steps to implement them in the Meech Lake Accord.
October 8, 1987



GENEOLOGY


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to seize the opportunity I am given today to draw attention to an important event for the 180,000 people on this continent who proudly bear the Tremblay surname.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on October 17 and 18 next, more than 2,000 Tremblays will assemble in Charlevoix to celebrate the three hundred and fortieth anniversary of their ancestors' arrival in Nouvelle-France: Pierre Tremblay and Ozanne Achon.
Pierre Tremblay came to Quebec City on August 6, 1647 and settled in 1659 at I'Ange-Gardien where he had four sons. A statue was unveiled in his honour, in 1974, by the mayor of L'Ange-Gardien, Mr. Lionel Tremblay, my father.
Like some other families, the Tremblays came to Canada to settle in the regions of Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver and the Maritimes, and from there populated the rest of the country and part of the United States.
It has been said that more than 20 million people living in Canada and in the United States originate from Quebec and that more than 15 million people living in the United States have Canadian origins.
It would therefore be a good idea, Mr. Speaker, so people could learn about their origin and their roots, to set up information centres that would be better located in the Cities where came the majority of those newcomers, such as Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
Besides being used as an information instrument, those centres would be an excellent historical and cultural tourism instrument for ethnic groups who came and populated Canada, and from here, the United States.
What do the Tremblays think about that? The matter is open for debate, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this is National Family Week. While this symbolic recognition is important, it is not enough.
Today's families face tremendous social and financial pressures, and we must provide people who comprise Canadian families with more than one week of recognition a year.
We need a cohesive, comprehensive policy for Canadian families. Instead of inadequate piecemeal programs, we need a strategy for fair taxes for our families, for affordable housing, for accessible child care, for education, training and work opportunities for our young people.
Most important, we need a strategy to fight family poverty. One-fifth of Canada's poor are children. The lack of such a strategy to fight poverty has resulted in food banks becoming one of Canada's fastest growing industries. This is coupled with a disgraceful number of homeless families in Canada.
As an important step I appeal to the Government to announce today that it will drop plans to impose a tax on food. Canadian families have it hard enough without worrying about this possible added burden. I make a special request for those living in the North, where food costs are already between 30 per cent and 50 per cent higher than those in southern Canada.
Northerners in particular, and Canadians in general, do not need and certainly do not deserve a Draconian food tax. Let us help families where it really counts, in the pocketbook.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-ENERGY INDUSTRY BENEFITS

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, last year Canada exported over $1 billion worth of electricity to the United States. The Americans have unwisely boxed themselves into a corner. Excessive environmental zeal and over-regulation in that country have prevented the necessary construction of new power stations to fill any new demand or even replace aging plants. They will be virtually at our mercy.
The free trade agreement assures the freest possible bilateral trade in energy, and ensures non-discriminatory access to the U.S. market for our electricity. These developments, together with the Minister of Energy's instructions to the National Energy Board to reduce regulation of electricity exports, will ensure a growing and prosperous trade in electricity between the two countries, one which should prove to be very much to Canada's advantage.



INDUSTRY


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we saw the spectacle of the Minister responsible for the Firestone situation respond to a set-up question from one of the Hamilton-area Conservatives by saying that he was

October 8, 1987
personally going to involve himself in the dossier of the 1,300 workers who are about to lose their jobs at Firestone. However, when cornered outside the House, the selfsame Minister actually refused to say that he would even pick up the phone to talk to either of the two companies involved. Instead, he promised that he would send a letter-send a letter, Mr. Speaker, when we are in the middle of a national postal dispute.
The Minister knows that 1,300 jobs are involved. How can he stand in the House with the kind of hypocrisy that I have not seen in many years and claim that he is going to fight for workers, jobs, buttress the point made by the other Conservative Member in the House, and then turn around and say he will not pick up the phone, contact the parties involved and get them back to the negotiating table?
If the Minister wants to have a shred of credibility left tell him do not use the mails, get the parties together and save those jobs. Otherwise he has misled the House, he has misled the people and, in particular, he has misled the people of Hamilton.



THE LATE WILLIAM SKOREYKO

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret to inform the House, particularly those Members who have served for a considerable period, of the recent passing of former Edmonton East Member of Parliament, Mr. Bill Skoreyko.
Mr. Skoreyko came to this place for the first time in 1958 and, overall, won election seven times, serving the people of Edmonton East for the next 21 years. He was able to do so because of a deep commitment to the people of his riding; a commitment which superseded the pursuit of personal, more prestigious goals. He was, in short, a constituency man who knew how to get things done for his constituents.
I know that I can speak for all Members of the House when, in expressing condolences to Mr. Skoreyko's wife and children, I say that an elected representative can have no finer example to emulate than Bill Skoreyko.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is currently host to an International Conference on Implementing a Global Chemical Weapons Convention. The conference is co-sponsored by the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmment and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The work of this conference is occasion for us in
the House to take note of how important it is to conclude a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons production and the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons.
Canada has a particular reason to be as interested in this issue as we are. It was Canadian troops at Ypres who were the first to suffer from the use of chemical weapons in the form of mustard gas.
I urge the Government to spare no effort in doing what it can to secure an agreement on chemical weapons and, in so doing, make a truly historic contribution to international security and disarmament.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have just witnessed the signing of a truly historic free trade agreement, one that history will reveal was a giant step forward for the economic prosperity of Canadians. While the agreement, I believe, was historic, what I hear from the Liberals and the "Old Democratic Party" is hysterical and purely partisan politics, rather than looking at the agreement in the best interests of Canadians.
Let us see what the public is saying about this agreement.
Congratulations on the signature of the free trade agreement. We're really glad now that we have often spoken out publicly in favour of such a pact. We are truly optimistic that 3M Canada's 2,000 employees across the country will benefit from its promise of increased exports and lowered import costs.
On behalf of all these employees and all Canadians from coast to coast we say: great that you pulled it off. And again, congratulations.
John Myser,
President and General Manager 3M Canada Inc.
The telegram says it all. I say to my friends in the Liberal Party and in the "Old Democratic Party": get with it and join with us in moving boldly and with vision into the 21st century.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, people in northern Ontario are very disappointed in the free trade deal which has been signed between Canada and the United States.
In the steel industry we have not gained guaranteed access to the United States market. Even the anti-dumping duties
October 8, 1987



DECENTRALIZATION

[Stage Direction]
which have been imposed on Algoma Steel are still in place. We are still subject to countervailing duty and dumping duty. There is no dispute handling mechanism in place, only an appeal procedure.
The softwood lumber deal is costing northern Ontario $40 million per year in export tax. It has been enshrined in the agreement, and we are still subject to countervail duties should the Americans decide to impose them.
Most of all, in terms of the uranium mining industry and refining industry, the policy of further upgrading of uranium within Canada before sale to the United States has been abandoned. This policy will return us to being hewers of wood and drawers of water.
I point out to the Government that I think it has made a very bad deal for northern Ontario.

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the big winners in a free trade arrangement between Canada and the United States is the Atlantic coast fishery. Enhanced access to the eastern United States market will assure full sales and top prices for Canadian fish and fish products, already a billion dollar industry.
This very year, fish plant workers were demanding government action to remove United States import barriers to restore jobs and employment to Nova Scotians.
Now those barriers will be removed and the fishing industry will benefit, so what does the new guardian angel of East Coast fishermen, Bob White, say? He says that the trade pact will destroy our economy and produce a "dog-eat-dog" society.
Mr. White and the Canadian Auto Workers Union promise to improve the employment conditions of fishermen and plant workers, but they want to destroy and defeat the very initiative which will assure that employment-free trade.
There will be a plethora of disinformation on the Canada-United States trade pact from its opponents, but Bob White better come clean with Nova Scotia fishermen and workers if he wants to retain his credibility as a labour leader. He should leave disinformation about free trade to his friends in the NDP.



LABORATORY CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL-OPPOSITION TO RELOCATION

Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express serious concern over today's announcement in Winnipeg that 85 jobs and a major portion of Canada's National Disease Control Research Centre are to be transferred from Ottawa to Winnipeg.
As the Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre I want to say that there is a great deal of concern among people in my community that closed door decisions to transfer existing federal facilities and jobs to other parts of Canada are not fair. Their basic objection and mine is that this decision was made with no opportunity for public review of the impact on Ottawa, nor of the costs or benefits of this transfer.
I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to express my objections and to ask for such a public process that would end this secret bidding game between communities. 1 am particularly perturbed that this transfer to Winnipeg may substantially increase the operating costs for the Disease Control Centre, because that only can mean reduction in other areas of research at a time of federal spending cut-backs.
It is not good enough just to move a few political plums across the landscape and call that economic development. What we need is a real commitment to jobs in which every Canadian community can be a winner.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like personally to congratulate the Quebec Premier, the Hon. Robert Bourassa.
His offer to travel throughout the country to promote the free trade agreement shows that he can rise above partisanship. Mr. Bourassa has said that he is willing to fight within Quebec and outside Quebec to help the passage of the agreement.
After all, Mr. Speaker, we have to choose between a strong and open Canada willing to compete with the other nations of the world during the forthcoming decades, or a Canada which keeps a more traditional, closed and protectionnist approach.
Also the Quebec Premier has chosen the open approach, the one chosen by the Government of Canada. What a difference, Mr. Speaker, with the traditional, protectionist and closed approach formerly taken in Quebec. Well done, Mr. Bourassa!

October 8, 1987
Oral Questions



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WATER RESOURCES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, after reading the energy section in what actually is an economic union rather than a free trade agreement, I have to conclude with great reluctance that energy in the long term could mean water. Electricity is generated using water. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that 20 or more years from now Canadians could be asked by the United States to ship our water south by way of diversions as the inevitable extension of the continental energy policy the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is committing Canada to through the proposed free trade agreement.
This section looks like the Trojan horse of the agreement, disguising demands for water by the United States in the next century, a possibility that cannot be discounted.
I invite Canadians to let their parliamentarians know their views. The question is this: Is the Government of Canada ultimately committing us, under the disguise of a continental energy policy, to share Canadian waters so as to meet future needs south of the border? If so, is this what Canadians want? And if not, does the Prime Minister of Canada have a mandate to proceed?



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-WINNIPEG FREE PRESS SUPPORT

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Winnipeg late last night. I would like to put a few quotes on the record from an editorial entitled "Free Trade Hysteria" which appeared in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press. For example:
John Turner's fears for the future are scarcely worth dealing with because they consist of little more than the ritual recital of almost every protectionist cliche ever devised by man.
Mr. Broadbent's argument is more serious, more subtle and every bit as wrong.
The NDP Leader is forced now to concede that all of his fears about Canada agreeing to destroy its social programs, wipe out regional development policies and crush its cultural industries were unfounded. Instead he argues that greater trade with the United States will lead to the erosion of the Canadian view of society that led to development of medicare, old age pensions, et cetera.
The editorial continues:
In fact, all these Canadian social, political, economic and cultural innovations were being developed at the very time when trade with the U.S. and investment from the U.S. were increasing rapidly.
In closing, the editorial states:
The real danger to social programs and cultural industries is not free trade but a stagnant or declining economy. Clinging to the status quo in a dangerously protectionist world would have risked economic stagnation or decline.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. In November 1985, the Prime Minister promised to the provinces that he would not sign a free trade agreement without their approval if it included matters under their jurisdiction. Last night, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. James Baker, said to some American Senators that there would be no agreement without the approval of the Canadian provinces.
Considering this statement from the Secretary of the Treasury, is the Minister still claiming that she does need the approval of the provinces to go ahead with free trade?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I explained in the House that the Prime Minister has consulted widely with the provinces. He has addressed their concerns in the negotiation of the free trade agreement. He has made it explicitly clear that this is a federal treaty which is within federal jurisdiction, and consent of the provinces is not required.


APPROVAL OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making a very serious and grave error of judgment. The United States Secretary of the Treasury has now declared in front of the American Senate that Americans will not go along with the Accord unless there is full approval of the provinces. The Minister well knows that in the agreement there are a number of areas that touch directly upon matters under provincial jurisdiction, including the licensing of professionals in the service areas, the regulation of the wine industry, the pricing and allocation of supplies of energy, and the list goes on.
The fact is that the agreement does touch the provinces. The Americans have said that they will not sign an agreement without provincial concurrence. Why does the Minister, standing before that evidence, reject that reality? Is it not required that the provinces give unanimous approbation and approval to this agreement if it is to go ahead?
October 8, 1987


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that the provinces have been taken though every element of this agreement. Their concerns have been taken into the negotiations. I see no reason why they would not proceed with an agreement which is in their interests and which they acknowledge is in their interests. I would put the onus on the Hon. Member: deliver us a Premier who will not sign, before he makes those allegations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when we become the Government, we will be glad to carry out all negotiations with the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Until that time, it is the responsibility of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We are hearing comments from those who are worried about their pension plans.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister. Mr. Dick Self, the chief U.S. negotiator in the area of services, said today in Washington that the Canadian Government had assured the U.S. during negotiations that the provinces would implement the free trade agreement.
A November study done by the Government of Ontario showed that in the area of services alone there would have to be 16 different provincial statutes amended to provide for the kind of access included under this agreement. That clearly means that the provinces have a responsibility, and in effect have a virtual veto right. We want to know when the Government will clearly define and establish the responsibilities and the role of the provinces under this agreement before we go any further down this misbegotten path.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has indicated what the role of the provinces is, and the provinces have acknowledged that there is the need to be fully consulted and to have their needs taken into account.
It is very interesting that that kind of allegation would come from a member of a former Government which never consulted the provinces on the Auto Pact.


POSSIBLE JOB LOSSES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the past two days when I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance to give us their official estimates of jobs to be lost to free trade, they did not answer. Yesterday, outside the House, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said
Oral Questions
that there was a possibility of losing more than 500,000 jobs to free trade, a much greater number than the 350,000 jobs to be created as predicted by the Economic Council.
The Government owes it to business, to unions and to individuals, to make these official forecasts available so that we can all plan for the future. If the Government can make known to the public its estimates for job creation, surely it can make known its official estimates for job losses. Will the Minister do that today?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to explain exactly to my colleague what I meant, and what I mean when I speak of free trade in relation to employment. I think that the agreement with the United States will translate in outstanding opportunities for Canada and, in the months ahead, we will see tens of thousands of jobs being created. I will go even further than that. Contrary to what you might think, without the mechanisms contained in this agreement, we would be losing thousands of jobs. Consequently, the situation is very clear for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The free trade agreement is a wonderful opportunity to continue the magnifi-cient job already done by the Government in terms of employment. There is no question of jobs being lost because of this free trade agreement.


READJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister is continually contradicting himself as are other Ministers. Yesterday he said outside the House that there was the possibility of 500,000 jobs being lost, and many people heard him. If that possibility exists, how can the Minister say nothing should be done about it until January 1, 1989, as he did yesterday? We already have 1.2 million unemployed, 4.5 million functionally illiterate, and at the same time a shortage of skilled workers. It takes five years to train an engineer and three years to train an electronics technician.
Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Allmand:: Would the Minister make some decisions today and put on the table his readjustment and retraining plans for the many workers who will lose their jobs as a result of this agreement?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just told my friend what I think about a free trade agreement and the jobs created in the future. Canadians are tired of hearing the Liberals for three years complaining about the fact we do not create jobs. We have had close to one million jobs created in this country. You can cry and cry and cry, but you have never been able to create so many jobs in 20 years.

October 8, 1987
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON HYDRO RATES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In the last few days we learned that Canada lost sovereign control over the price and security of supply of petroleum. Today I want to ask a question pertinent to our loss of control over our hydroelectric resources.
The Minister will know that in the agreement the Government produced there is a clause which says there is agreement to assure the freest possible bilateral trade in energy, including non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies.
Will the Minister confirm for the House that what this means is that no province will have the right as a matter of policy to charge hydro rates to the citizens or industries of that province lower than the export price to the U.S?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should make it very clear that what we did in the energy negotiations in the free trade agreement was to enshrine our energy policy, not the NEP. The Hon. Member is suggesting we go back and leave the door open to that kind of program.
As to electricity, I am not sure of the thrust of the Hon. Member's question but I can assure him that the powers of the NEB remain in place and the pricing policies of Quebec and other hydro-producing provinces remain in place.


RIGHT TO DECIDE ENERGY PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister has read the agreement. It is her responsibility to answer to the House of Commons about an agreement her Government has signed. She should know what is in it.
Hydro resources are of profound importance to many provinces. Therefore, will she tell us if the provinces will continue to have the right to decide as a matter of policy that citizens in those provinces can have lower energy prices than U.S. citizens will pay for that same energy? Yes or no, answer the question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it might be possible to answer the Hon. Member if he asked the question in a way one can respond to. Shrieking across the floor of the House is not conducive to answers.
I can only repeat that in our energy negotiations we secured access for all forms of energy which this Government has put in place. I can also assure him that any rights the provinces had before this agreement concerning their own policies, they will have after this agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: In that case, Mr. Speaker, the United States officials who have been saying something to the contrary have been profoundly misled.


PROVINCIAL RIGHTS TO DECIDE RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to get this clear from the Minister. Is she now saying, not only to the people of Canada but to the United States officials who were involved in these negotiations, that the Province of Manitoba or the Province of Quebec, for example, can charge a lower rate for hydro electric energy to the citizens of their provinces after this agreement goes into effect than they will be charging the United States? Will she answer that yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that any rights the provinces had in this area before this agreement was initialled, they have now.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the free trade agreement with the United States.
On Monday, the Prime Minister stated in a speech before the Canadian Exporters Association that massive programs will be needed to protect Canadians who will lose their jobs because of the free trade agreement. On Tuesday, the Minister of Finance stated in this House that there would be no need for such programs after all and that he did not expect massive adjustment programs to become necessary. Wednesday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated outside the House, according to a report in this morning's issue of Le Journal de Montreal: "The most pessimistic scenario on free trade is that 500,000 Canadians will lose their jobs during the 10-year period when tariffs between the United States and Canada are being phased out".
Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to ask you which of these three contradictory statements is the right one, that of the Prime Minister, that of the Minister of Finance or that of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Who speaks for the Government?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I gave the same reply earlier to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East. This is not so far from Laval for the Hon. Member not to understand what I said. I believe that it is quite clear that the agreement with the United States represents an extraordinary opportunity for Canada to create tens of thousands of jobs. I believe that this is very obvious and the Hon. Member recognizes this fact as well as I do. The Prime Minister simply said that if there are adjustments to be made, and we shall find out in due time if there are, the Government will act accordingly. As for the Minister of Finance, he simply confirmed that Canada is now spending $6 billion for employment adjustment programs. We shall assess the situation and take action based on the results of the agreement with the United States when
October 8, 1987

these results come into effect, that is beginning in January, 1989.


REMARKS OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, labour training programs have been slashed by 32 per cent since this Government took office. The Prime Minister mentioned massive programs. Obviously he was referring to something new. Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to the loss of 500,000 jobs. 1 would like to ask the Minister whether he denies this morning's report in Le Journal de Montreal to the effect that 500,000 Canadians would lose their jobs? If we look at press clippings concerning the survey made by the City of Montreal, or the car parts industry, or textile workers, those are the thousands of jobs which correspond exactly to the Minister's remarks. Will the Minister be telling us now that what he said yesterday to Le Journal de Montreal and to other newspapermen is a lie and that people in the press gallery reported falsehoods?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say to my colleague. First, I too read Quebec papers: yesterday's La Presse, yesterday's Le Devoir, yesterday's editorial by Alain Dubuc. Second, Mr. Speaker, once again I gave him the answer a moment ago. I told him a moment ago: 1 am telling you that the agreement with the United States will create tens of thousands of jobs. The Economic Council of Canada puts it at 350,000. I can quote major sources. Once again, Mr. Speaker, things are clear. Annoyingly enough for my friends opposite, the Government is saying that the agreement with the United States will give Canadians the unbelievable opportunity to find tens of thousands of jobs. And, once again, you were never able to do something concrete to put Canadians to work!


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER ON POSSIBLE JOB LOSSES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Would he try to come to terms with the statements which he made yesterday and on which he has still not provided the House with a straight answer? Does the Minister in fact deny that he said yesterday that up to 500,000 jobs could be lost? Does he deny that report? Does he deny that studies have been done by his Department on this issue?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created as a result of the agreement with the United States.


INQUIRY IF REPORTS CONCERNING JOB LOSSES ARE FALSE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we cannot let the matter rest.
Oral Questions
Could the Minister state quite simply and frankly whether reports that many jobs will be lost are falso? Are those reports false? Could you just answer the question, please?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, Canadians want to know how many jobs will be created by this agreement with the United States. I have said that thousands and thousands of jobs will be created.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. On August 24 in this House the Prime Minister stated, in response to a question about the 15 per cent export tax bn softwood lumber and about free trade, as follows:
If we are successful, as a necessary follow-up we would want to try to deal
with each one of these irritants to make the situation even better than it can be
under a trade arrangement.
The free trade agreement does nothing at all for softwood lumber producers. In fact, the agreement locks in that 15 per cent export tax. Therefore, how can the Minister for International Trade honour the Prime Minister's commitment to make things even better for softwood lumber producers?
While she is on her feet will she tell us how she is going to be able to rescind this punitive tax, especially in those regions of Canada where stumpage fees are already sufficiently high, such as northern Ontario and the Province of New Brunswick?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that when we brought in the softwood lumber tax the Opposition said that we would lose thousands of jobs and devastate the industry. In fact the industry has enjoyed record production and record profits. The industry's shipments are up in a wide variety of markets and provincial treasuries have gained hundreds of millions of dollars.
With regard to the memorandum on softwood lumber, we are working within the terms of it. We have given the provinces room to increase their stumpage as they desired. We are working to conclude that MOU arrangement.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I advise the Minister that in my constituency five sawmills were closed down because of the 15 per cent export tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, why did the Government do nothing at all in the free trade agreement to help softwood lumber producers? Since the Americans still have the freedom to bring countervail action against Canadian products going into the United States, what can the Minister now say to the pulp and paper industry to

October 8, 1987
Oral Questions
assure it that it will not be a target of U.S. protectionism in the near future?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we can say to the pulp and paper industry and to the softwood lumber industry that if there are any future actions of that kind, any countervail actions, or anything in that whole area which we perceive to be unfair, we can take it to binding dispute settlement and have a fair hearing.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the pleasure to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom led by Mr. John Hunt, Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. After she imposed this punitive 15 per cent tax on the Canadian forest industry, she said that as soon as a free trade deal was arranged the Government would deal with this 15 per cent tax. We did not think that she meant entrenching it in the agreement so that it is there forever.
Will the Minister explain why she not only betrayed the industry once, but has betrayed it a second time now by entrenching this punitive 15 per cent tax in this agreement in perpetuity?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the only betrayal is on the part of the New Democratic Party which is betraying the union that supported this tax on the basis of saving jobs, which is betraying the provincial New Democratic Party in British Columbia which supported this on the basis of saving jobs. The only betrayal has been the misinformation that that Party has put forward on this issue.


INCREASED STUMPAGE RATES-RETENTION OF EXPORT TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the Minister stood in her place and
indicated that as the Provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario and others, particularly British Columbia, increased their stumpage rates this tax would be phased out. That is what she told every Member of the House, particularly those Members from the wood-producing areas of the country.
Stumpage rates are being increased and some are up to the appropriate levels. The Province of British Columbia is increasing its. Not only are the stumpage rates up, this punitive tax remains in place. If that is not betraying the forest industry, what is? Why did the Minister agree to an agreement that entrenches this 15 per cent tax on exports?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the objectives we had in mind in dealing with softwood lumber in the face of a U.S. countervail are being met. The provinces have had an opportunity to increase their stumpage as they planned to do. The revenues have been returned to the provinces as they so desired, and officials are now having discussions on the replacement measures required to terminate the MOU.


FREE TRADE-AGRICULTURE-MANAGEMENT AGENCIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Agriculture tried to be reassuring about supply management and the marketing boards. The Minister of State (Agriculture) forgot to mention that with the Free Trade Agreement, his Government is gradually going to dismantle every marketing board, and the most obvious example is the removal of tariffs on TV dinners, breaded chicken shipped in bulk, yogourt and ice cream. All these products will now enter the country duty free.
I want to ask the Minister how he can claim that marketing boards will have no problems, when their markets and products will be directly affected by this agreement?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the processing industry has always had to purchase certain products outside the country every year, because Canadian production was not adequate. There were quotas. Those quotas have been maintained at the same levels, so that producers are protected. They are in the same situation they were before.
As for tariffs, if products were to invade our market, as you said, we would still have the option of putting those products on the protected list, so that Canadian production would not be disrupted. I do not think producers have anything to worry about. We have met our commitments in this respect.


SALE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, dairy producers have no reason to feel reassured, because the Government had told them agriculture was not on the table and would not even be mentioned in the Agreement, however
October 8, 1987

there are whole sections dealing with it. Nobody, therefore, will accept any reassurance from this Minister. Mr. Speaker, the Minister said "if there are increases"; yet, according to page 11 of the Agreement, increases of up to 10 per cent will be allowed. This means, therefore, in the case of yoghurt and ice cream, the import levels may be increased by 9.9 per cent, without any action being taken by the Government. I therefore ask the Minister: how does he think he can reassure dairy producers who must absolutely sell their production on the domestic market?


Pierre Blais: If my
hon. friend had taken the trouble to contact the president of the Canadian Federation of Dairy Producers as I did, he would know that the president has made no untimely statement. Quite the contrary! As a matter of fact, I am meeting him again tonight. He has made no statement. He was quite pleased to see that as our Canadian dairy products are of top quality and often of better quality than American products, he will have access to the American market. He was quite unconcerned about a possible tariff reduction, because if subsidized American products were to flood our market, we would still be protected under the GATT. The Hon. Member should do his homework before raising such questions.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister and the Government promised that there would be the removal of a softwood lumber tax with a free trade agreement. Why has this tax not been removed?


Pat Carney: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, because we have not signed that free trade agreement. It was initialled just on the weekend. As I have told the House, we are working on replacement measures now.


REMOVAL OF EXPORT TAX
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be very precise in indicating to the House and to the people whose lives depend on the harvesting and processing of softwood lumber in this country exactly when this tax will be removed from this industry?


Pat Carney: Hopefully soon, Mr. Speaker.


EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT ON PURCHASE OF FIRST HOMES
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Far be it for me to change the subject, so I will remain on the question of free trade.
Oral Questions
Young couples in my riding are apprehensive about some of the ramifications of free trade, especially young couples who have not yet purchased their first home.
Will the Minister clarify for Canadians and Members of the House what effect this free trade deal might have on a young couple purchasing their first home?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Economic Council said, a free trade deal could result in Consumer Price Index savings of 5.7 per cent to 7.5 per cent. When one considers the low end of the scale, 5.7 per cent, it means an additional $1,000 in spending power for the average worker in Canada. If one considers the 5.7 per cent in terms of setting up a new household in Canada, the potential savings are approximately $8,000. That is an enormous saving to ordinary Canadians who can see in this free trade pact a real opportunity to raise their standard of living, and perhaps the opportunity to set up that household.


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Public Works deals with the sale of lots in the Mirabel Industrial Park. Could the Minister explain to the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Not again!

There is nervousness already, Mr. Speaker, and I have not started.


Don Boudria: Could the Minister explain to the House why, according to a CBC documentary, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation has sold for two cents a square foot to some friends of the Progressive Conservative Party property in the Mirabel Industrial Park? And why did the Government give a $750,000 subsidy to these same friends of the Progressive Conservative Party?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the question, would the Hon. Member be good enough to clarify if he is referring to the park where the previous Government spent $15 million in the 1970s and $2 million in advertising for tenants? When this Government came to power the only tenants we found were cows grazing on the grass. Could he clarify that situation?

October 8, 1987
Oral Questions


INQUIRY CONCERNING PURCHASE OF LANDS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am referring to the $15 million property that was given to Tories for $160,000. That is true, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the question that I am asking.
Is it not also true that one of the principals buying this property is Mr. Gervais Desrochers? Is this the same Gervais Desrochers who benefited from the Met Life sweetheart deal? Is this the same Mr. Gervais Desrochers who benefited from the Joliette Airport? Is this the same person? Is this kind of deal being made to benefit the Tories at the expense of every single Canadian taxpayer? Is that what is going on?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Way to go, Adolf.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Government gave $1.2 million in grants to two companies-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Adolf, is that what you said, Joe?


Stewart Donald McInnes: -which in turn brought an investment of $8 million and 42 jobs. That is the activity that we were able to generate, compared to nothing when we came to office.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the Minister of State for Agriculture. The comments made this week by the President of UAP in Quebec are of concern to me and to farmers in my constituency. The President stated on television this week that the signing of the Free Trade Agreement would endanger the joint programs, that is the existing marketing boards. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if those comments are warranted?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I for one was very disappointed that the President of such an important group as UAP should make such devastating comments. I feel that UAP's President, who himself sat on the Sub-Committee on Agriculture, during the negotiations, ought to have been more cautious, taking the time to sit down and examine the facts before making such a statement. I much prefer the statement made last night by Premier Bourassa of Quebec, who was very reassuring to farm producers, and I think people know that marketing boards are here to stay and we will continue supporting them, Mr. Speaker.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. We want to give her one more opportunity to make clear what the Government's view of the position of the softwood tax is vis-avis the free trade agreement. In the early part of the Question Period the Minister refused to answer the question. She then implied that if the agreement were to be signed that the tax would somehow be removed; and then when she was asked for a time on that she said "hopefully soon".
Is the Minister now saying, because the rest of the world is under the impression that that tax is entrenched in the agreement, that this agreement is amendable? That would be another change in the interpretation that the Government is giving to the House with respect to the agreement. Is the agreement amendable? If not, how can she stand in her place and maintain that the softwood tax will somehow be removed when the agreement is signed, when it is entrenched by that very agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, because if the Hon. Member were as familiar with the softwood agreement as he should be, he would find that it provides for replacement measures to be put in place. We made sure that it was in the free trade agreement so that it could not be reopened and new countervails put in place to attack the industry.
I have said that the provinces have been able to increase their stumpage as they planned. We have returned $230 million worth of revenues to the provinces, as they desired. Production is at very healthy levels. Prices are high. Profits for many companies are at high levels.
Discussions are now taking place with the officials of the provinces, which own the resource, to see whether or not replacement measures can now be enacted. That is what the softwood lumber MOU provides. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to retain, and have successfully retained, the right of the provinces to maintain a resource they own and manage without American interference. That is why it is in the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LEVEL OF STUMPAGE FEES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether she is now backing away from the claim she made just a while ago that as soon as the agreement was signed this tax would be lifted and/or is she telling the House that New Brunswick, for example, will have to raise its stumpage fees even higher to have the burden of this tax lifted?
October 8, 1987


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is misrepresenting my position. I have said very clearly that the discussions are taking place. I have pointed out that the agreement, in fact, has not yet been signed. It will not be signed until January. The provinces are continuing to work on their resource in the manner that they desire, very well. All the proper steps are being taken.


UNITED STATES DEFENCE CONTRACT MARKET
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and. Services. Under "National Security" the free trade agreement states:
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed-to prevent any Party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests-relating-to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment-
This means that Canada has not gained free access to bid on the billions of dollars of defence-oriented small business contracts in the United States. If this free trade agreement is such a great deal, why did the Government not convince the Americans to remove their protectionist Small Business Set-Aside Program which would have opened up the American defence contract market to Canadian small business to supply non-lethal defence-oriented material and equipment made in Canada, particularly at a time when Canada has a $2 billion deficit in military purchases from the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the House that the Canadian negotiators put on the table a full procurement package covering all procurement in federal, provincial and civil fields. It was the Americans who took it off the table. In the final negotiations a modest procurement package was put back in the agreement. It is one, as the agreement states, we can build on in the future.


ACCESS TO U. S. DEFENCE CONTRACTS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that that kind of answer will not wash. In view of the fact that this Government has given away our energy resources, it has negotiated away our-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the hour I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question directly.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, why would the Canadian Government not insist that the huge defence contract market for non-lethal military equipment be opened up for Canadian small business? I repeat, particularly when we have a $2 billion deficit in defence trade with the United States, why would the Government not do that?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Liberal Party is against free trade.
Oral Questions
This Hon. Member wants more free trade. I will certainly take his suggestion under consideration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HORTICULTURE
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is almost a year now since the first anniversary of the problem in honey caused by the Quebec Government. This anniversary is not exactly cause for dancing in the streets by myself or the honey producers of Canada. Will the Minister inform the honey producers of Canada when the laboratories will be accredited to test honey so that the pressure on producers who want to sell their product will be lessened?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to commend the Hon. Member for Mackenzie for his work in this regard. And I know how important it is to him. I can assure him that normally, today, there are five new laboratories across Canada that will be licensed to test honey. Those five new laboratories, located across Canada-in Moncton, Saskatoon, Grande-Prairie, and Chatham-will be accredited and will complement the existing ones. This should, at least in my view, help expedite inspection and testing operations.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Why is it the Government's position that we should be taking women's jobs with good salaries and making them part-time jobs for women at minimum wage? Why is that government policy?


Pierre H. Cadieux: It is not
government policy, Mr. Speaker.


POSTAL STRIKE QUERY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, if it is not government policy, why do they insist upon doing it time after time after time, and why are they doing it in the postal strike?

October 8, 1987
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in the postal strike. There is no such issue on the table.
The postal strike is kind of ironical because the Post Office would like to negotiate job security, treatment of its workers, and so on. The union, on the other hand, wants to negotiate management matters-how the Post Office.shall be organized. It would be useful if there were a reversal of roles.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ATLANTIC FISH PRODUCTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The people of Newfoundland came to know the Prime Minister when he was president of an American subsidiary called the Iron Ore Company of Canada, in Labrador. They now greatly fear that he is attempting to become the Prime Minister of an American subsidiary called Canada.
This morning all three political Parties in Newfoundland and their leaders, including the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland, formally condemned the free trade agreement, because of no guarantees for access of Atlantic products to U.S. markets, because of its impact upon regional development, and because of its impact upon procurement policy for Atlantic businesses to access federal government work.
Given that the Government could hardly fail to understand, in view of the controversy over the Canada-France fish talks, the importance of Atlantic Canada's fishery to our region, why did the Government sign a free trade deal which does not guarantee in any way, shape, or form the access of Atlantic Canadian fish products to the U.S. market? In fact, we are left as exposed as we ever were, under this free trade agreement.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland are and will be supporting this agreement, because for a hundred years they have been waiting for a free trade arrangement between Newfoundland and the United States and now they will have one between Canada and the United States of which they are a part.
One of the great advantages of the free trade arrangement is that Newfoundland fish products can be processed to their final, fully value-added form, because tariffs will be removed on fish products sold into the United States.
It is a magnificent deal for Newfoundland, and one which will be supported by the people of Newfoundland, believe me.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The only thing the people of Newfoundland trade freely in these days are anecdotes about the Minister's tomfoolery in the House of Commons. There is no guaranteed
access for Atlantic Canadian fish products, specifically Newfoundland fish products, under the free trade deal.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in face of the declaration by all three political Parties in Newfoundland, including the Minister's colleague, Conservative Premier Brian Peckford, how can he stand in the House and support a free trade agreement which is not in Newfoundland's interest and will in fact damage Newfoundland and all other Atlantic provinces?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can try to cod the people of Newfoundland, but they will not be codded by him or anyone else who opposes the free trade arrangements which we are entering into hopefully with the United States that will be approved both by the House and by Congress.
In addition, the hon. gentleman is incorrect. This does not interfere with procurement matters. It does not interfere with the policy that was brought in by this Government to encourage procurement in Atlantic Canada. It does not interfere with regional development assistance to Atlantic Canada. It does not interfere with subsidies to Atlantic Canada. It does not interfere with any of the things the hon. gentlemen opposite said would be interfered with.
Now they are looking for something else to carp and crab about.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The Canadian publishing industry is concerned about how the free trade proposals might affect Canadian magazines and periodicals because of the lower postal rate they now enjoy.
Could the Minister please clarify what impact these proposals might have on Canadian magazines and periodicals?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the subsidized postal rates on foreign magazines that are printed in Canada are, on average, about 1.5 cents more than on Canadian magazines. What is proposed is that that 1.5 cent differential will be phased out over a period of 10 years.
What I want to make very clear is that we have not agreed to phase out the 35-cent differential which exists between magazines printed in Canada and magazines, which are unsubsidized, printed in the United States. That 35-cent differential will remain to the benefit of Canadian magazines.
I know, Sir, that there has been a great deal of concern about this, and I am very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to clarify it.
October 8, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House during debate, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) referred to my wavering voice. I would like to make a short statement about my medical situation in this context. 1 have a condition that is termed "familial tremor" which accounts for this wavering. That condition is inherited from one's family and is most often restricted to a trembling in one's hands.
In about 50 per cent of cases, my doctor tells me, at some stage this transfers to one's voice as well, which happened in my case close to four years ago. It is possible to take medication for the condition, and that is what I have been doing for two years. The medication improves but does not completely solve the voice problem. Speaking more slowly also assists the problem.
This condition is not something which has been easy to accept, even though it is stable and permits me to serve my constituents, I hope well. I hope, however, that by accepting and coping with this physical disability as a Member of Parliament it will help others in our society who have physical disabilities and wish to serve their communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and I spoke yesterday in the House after the exchange. He knows full well that as a result of the private conversation between the two of us that there was absolutely nothing personal intended in the remark which took place in the heat of an exchange in the House.
I apologized to him then personally and I have absolutely no hesitation in doing so now publicly. I meant nothing by the remark of a personal nature in any way. I certainly apologize and would be prepared to withdraw whatever the Hon. Member took as being offensive, because there was absolutely nothing on my part that was meant to be so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As your Speaker and with your support we have been emphasizing the whole question of opportunities for those who are disabled in one way or other. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for his courage in making the statement he did and for the great restraint with which that statement was made. 1 also want to thank the Minister who has responded in the best tradition of this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Boudria PRIVILEGE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise on this question of privilege, particularly after the issue which was raised only moments ago. It is not that I want to seize in any way that opportunity to raise another issue which I consider serious.
During the course of Question Period and in the heat of debate, as it is sometimes understandable, we sometimes make references that we should not. I overheard a member on the government side, namely, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) refer to me on at least three different occasions as "Adolf'. I do not know the reference that was made but I do know what the name "Adolf' means to me, to many of my colleagues on all sides of the House, and I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Right Hon. Secretary of State seizes the occasion to perhaps correct the record.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that everyone in the House would understand that I was thinking of Adolphe Fontaine who I last saw in Cumberland in the Hon. Member's constituency.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is sick.


Charles Joseph Clark: The New Democratic Party's House Leader who tried to leave his Party to join another when he thought things were getting difficult is shouting from his seat.
If that remark led to any other interpretation in the House that gave offence, I naturally withdraw it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on this very, especially bad occasion when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister responsible for Human Rights for Canada, yells "Adolf' across the floor at a person and continues to laugh at the suggestion-


Charles Joseph Clark: At you.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think this is a very sad day.


Mr. Shields:: You are sanctimonious.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It has nothing to do with being sanctimonious.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition identifies a number of words as being unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the complaint of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). The Hon. Minister has unequivocally withdrawn what he has said. That being the case, perhaps I should have recognized the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 8, 1987
Business of the House
Riis) before recognizing the Minister. 1 apologize to the Hon. Member for that because I know he had a contribution to make. 1 think we have the point of the Hon. Member. In view of the complete withdrawal by the Minister, that closes the matter.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I ask the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), the Government House Leader, to give us a statement of the business which the Government intends to call for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on the Meech Lake Accord.
We have suggested to the opposition Parties that if they find themselves in a position to commence debate on Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, at any time up to 6 p.m., we would be prepared to adjourn the Meech Lake Accord debate and commence debate on Bill C-86 and continue through this afternoon and into the evening, if necessary, in order to pass this important legislation at all three stages. If that is not possible, then we would call Bill C-86 tomorrow with the same point of view in mind, namely, that we would complete debate at all stages on Bill C-86 tomorrow. We would, however, prefer to do that this afternoon.
On Tuesday we shall either continue to debate Bill C-86 or recommence debate on Bill C-55, the refugee determination legislation, and Bill C-74, the environmental protection legislation. We are also considering the possibility of an opposition day once we have Bill C-55 completed.
The House will know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and other Ministers are involved in the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver which will bring great credit to our country. For that reason we will recommence the debate on the Meech Lake Accord during the week of October 19.


POINTS OF ORDER
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period the Leader of the New Democratic Party in a question to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) advertently or inadvertently mislead this House.
I refer you, Sir, to page 9764 of Hansard at the top of the page, second line:
According to a study produced by Statistics Canada and released just over an hour ago in Edmonton-
That statement is totally and absolutely false. The study referred to was prepared and released by Mr. Mel Hurtig on behalf of the Council of Canadians. To my knowledge, Mr. Hurtig never has been or is he now an employee of Statistics Canada.
Misleading statements of that nature which include misuse of material obtained from Statistics Canada reflect on the credibility of Stats Canada and cannot be tolerated by this House of Commons.
I am sick and tired of the self-righteous, sanctimonious, deceitful use of Question Period by the Leader of the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members and as the public knows sometimes the Chair has to wait a few minutes to determine where an intervention is going and whether it is a point of order or a question of privilege. Perhaps the Chair should have risen a moment or two before it did so. The Hon. Member has made a point. It is not a point of order, it is a matter of debate.


Jack Wendele Shields: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member if it is the same point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to co-operate with the Chair.


ALLEGED USE AT UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising out of the remarks of the Member who has just spoken. I thought I heard him say that the Leader of the New Democratic Party had advertently or inadvertently mislead the House by the question he asked yesterday. 1 also heard him use the word "deceitful", apparently making reference to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
It is my understanding of the rules and practices of this House that you cannot say that a Member of this House deliberately, that is advertently, mislead the House. Also, Mr. Speaker, if you look at Beauchesne's rules of order at page 106 you will see that Beauchesne states that the words "deceived" and "deliberately deceived" have been ruled on a number of occasions to be unparliamentary. If the word "deceive" is unparliamentary then I respectfully submit that "deceitful" obviously must fall within the same ruling or the same context. I respectfully ask you, Sir, to call upon the Hon. Member to withdraw his remarks with respect to the charge that the Leader of the NDP advertently mislead the House and further that the Leader of the NDP was deceitful in his remarks.
October 8, 1987

There may be many things on which I take issue with the Leader of the NDP, but I think he is entitled to the same protection from you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to unparliamentary language as is any Member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the House, perhaps the Chair rose just a moment or two too late on the intervention of the Hon. Member for Athabaska (Mr. Shields).
There are two aspects to what the Hon. Member said. First, he said that things said by the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday concerning a certain report were-let me put it this way-inaccurate. They may or may not be, that is a matter of debate. Second, he went on to say, at which time Hon. Members will know that the Chair did rise to interrupt the Hon. Member, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party had advertently or inadvertently mislead the House. That in itself one might let go. However, I regret to have to ask the Hon. Member to recall that he also used the word "deceitful". The word "deceitful" is certainly a word that is improper in this place as it denotes a deliberate attempt to do something that is less than honourable. I know that the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) would want to withdraw that part of his remarks.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 could clarify exactly what I meant. I do believe that the Leader of the NDP reflected very badly on Statistics Canada by announcing in the House that he was quoting from a study that was released by Statistics Canada in Edmonton an hour previously. 1 believe that is the way it appears in Hansard.
Statistics Canada has a reputation worldwide, and particularly in Canada, for the accuracy of its statements and figures. When an institution like Mel Hurtig's Council of Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair is in is that the Hon. Member is bringing a complaint to the Chair, and it may very well be a very proper one, by way of a point of order. I have indicated that it is not a point of order and that it is a matter of debate and can be dealt with in another place and in another way.
i have also, as is my obligation, responded to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who has pointed out, correctly as 1 have indicated, that at least one part of the intervention of the Hon. Member for Athabasca crosses the fine line between what is appropriate in this place and what is unparliamentary. 1 am afraid that procedurally I am in the position where the proper thing for the Chair to do is to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that particular word "deceitful", because in the view of the Chair it is unparliamentary in the context in which it was used. I know that the Hon. Member would want to co-operate with the Chair.
I say to the Hon. Member that there are other ways and other places in which to raise the question that he has raised, and it could be done tomorrow or another day. Of course, if
Points of Order
the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members need any assistance in understanding where and under what circumstances these matters can be raised, Table Officers and the Chair are always prepared to co-operate.
I would ask that the Hon. Member indicate to the Chair that he withdraws that particular word, and I would hope that the matter would be closed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it has just been drawn to my attention that a question of privilege has been raised about what-


Jack Wendele Shields: A point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, rather, has been raised-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am very sorry, but it is not a question of privilege. A complaint has been made as to what the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said or intended to say yesterday. It is not a point of order, it is a matter of debate. This could go on for quite a long time if the Chair does not move to bring it to an end.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa, however, having had many years of experience in this place, wants to say just a little short something.


John Edward Broadbent: Your Honour, I appreciate your consideration and it will be short indeed. What 1 said in the House as reported at page 9764 of Hansard was that the study was produced by Statistics Canada, which indeed it was. It was produced by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada was hired to do it and it produced the study-


Jack Wendele Shields: Not true.


John Edward Broadbent: I stand by the words that were used. If the Hon. Member wants to dispute them, he may do so here, he may do so outside the House, he may do so next week and he may do so forever, but he will be wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair takes the position that neither Hon. Member will dispute it any longer this afternoon. I would hope that the Hon. Member for Athabasca would indicate to the Chair that he withdraws the word "deceitful".


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, at your direction and in deference to you, although I find it difficult to do, particularly after the last statement, I will withdraw the word "deceitful".


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member and I want to say to all Hon. Members, and also to the public, as I have had occasion to say at other times, this place is not a tea-party and feelings can run high. It is my task to ensure that the rules are followed. I think Hon. Members will say of their colleagues and of this incident that the Chair has been supported and the rules have been followed. I thank all Hon. Members for their forbearance and co-operation.

October 8, 1987
Royal Assent


MINISTER'S COMMENT DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rose to withdraw remarks made earlier in the House. On reflection, I believe that the nature of my withdrawal was more equivocal than it should have been. I think we are at a stage in the deliberations of this House where all of us are showing some signs of weariness and fatigue.
I certainly accept that those of us who have the privilege of ministerial responsibility and who have had long service in the House have upon us a particular obligation to try to respect the rules of the House. Therefore, I want to make clear that 1 withdraw categorically and absolutely and that I regret the implications of the remark uttered in the heat of Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I speak for all Hon. Members when I thank the right hon. gentleman for his gesture which again is in the best tradition of this place.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, without amendment.
* *
*



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Since there are no more questions or comments, before I recognize the next speaker it is my duty to announce the questions for the adjournment debate.\nConstitution Amendment, 1987']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
October 8, 1987
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 8th of October, 1987, at 4:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot, Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the 1987 Constitutional Amendment (p. 9422) and the amendments thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644) and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the House took recess at one o'clock, the Chair had recognized the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am glad that I can finally rise to my feet and that we can return to the ordinary business of the House. After the little to and fro that has just occurred, I feel the need to take a large breath of fresh air and relax a bit so that we may focus our attention on the national issues of the day.
The question we are now focused on is that of the Canadian Constitution, the rules by which this country is governed, as well as the Meech Lake Accord and the efforts made by the First Ministers to amend the Constitution. Like most Canadians, I have heard a great deal about the Meech Lake Accord. I have heard many different things about it. It is often confusing when listening to the debate on this question and reading about it in the newspapers because the people that one would consider authoritative have very different views on this matter.
For me, it was important to boil the question down, to try to get at the essence of the matter. For me as a Member of Parliament, it really boils down to whether the Meech Lake Accord is worth supporting, whether or not it has value and whether it is good for Canada. Along with that, I must ask whether the Accord can be improved. Is there any possibility of amending the document? Can the document be further improved? Those are the essential questions for me.
I want to say straight out that I answer in the affirmative to both questions. Is the Meech Lake Accord worth supporting? Yes. Is it possible to improve it? Yes. Of course, I want to elaborate a bit upon how I came to those conclusions and share with other Members, Canadians generally, and my constituents in particular, some of my views on this Accord.
There are a couple of important points which I think need to be dealt with. First is the distinct society clause and second is the spending power clause. The distinct society clause is the gold nugget of this Accord. It has made it possible for the First Ministers of this country to welcome Quebec back into the Canadian family. There are those who have said that from a legal point of view Quebec is a part of the Constitution. It has never been outside the Constitution. In a strict legal sense that
October 8, 1987

is true. Quebec is a part of the Constitution and functions within that framework. The problem is that if you extend that analysis to its logical conclusion, then we do not need to do anything about the fact that Quebec did not sign the 1982 constitutional package. Yet if you do that, you miss the whole point. You look at the Constitution strictly from a legal perspective and forget the question of national identity and whether people feel a part of Canada.
If we are about anything in this Elouse and this country, we are about continuing the process of building a Canadian identity. One unique aspect of that identity is the existence of the Province of Quebec. It gives a special flavour to Canada. One reason we have a level of tolerance for different cultures is because of Quebec. That province, the majority of which is Francophone, has, over the course of Canadian history, had to fight for its rights, its culture, its language. Because the people of Quebec are such a significant part of our country, roughly one-third of our population, although I do not know the exact statistics, they have not only been able to fight on the basis of moral justice but also on the basis of political power.
Let us face the fact that political power makes a difference. If you have political power then you can put into practice your principles and beliefs and bring about good results. It is therefore my fundamental belief that one of the reasons Canada is a mosaic which respects its native peoples and is committed to the preservation of the culture of all ethnic groups is because there is a province called Quebec. The French fact is the reality. Should we ever lose the Province of Quebec then Canada will be that much poorer and we will have a tendency to drift in the direction the U.S. has taken. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the vision of nationhood carved out in the United States. It is simply not the approach we have taken. It is not the Canadian vision. We have not adopted the melting pot approach. We have formed a cultural mosaic. In large part we can thank the Province of Quebec for that.
What this Accord means to me is that Canadians have opened their arms to Quebec. Canadians have said we want a country tolerant of different cultures and one that respects distinct groups. At the same time I want to say that while I respect cultural differences, while I respect my own heritage as an aboriginal person, while I respect the native groups who live in my riding and throughout Canada, and while I respect the francophone people of this country, that respect does not exist in a vacuum. It comes from the things we share as Canadians. Some may choose to attack the vision of Pierre Trudeau and John Diefenbaker of a one Canada. However, I say that there was an element of truth in what those men said about this country. Their vision has truth in it. Not the entire truth but it has truth. That is why it had the ability to move people. While we respect the cultural differences in this country, and that is important, it is crucial that it be seen in light of the things we share in common. We share a common citizenship. We share a common political structure in which we can live and grow and
Constitution Amendment, 1987
fulfil our potential. A necessary part of that is the capacity to respect the cultural differences which exist among us.
We can say that it is fundamentally important to this country that it has decided to move forward by saying to Quebec: Welcome back to the Canadian family. We want you to be a part of this country. We are willing to stand up and articulate that desire and put it in this country's laws.
Again, when I ask myself the question "Is this Constitutional Accord worth supporting?'' I say yes because it deals with the fundamental nature of this country. It deals with what it means to be a Canadian.
I now want to go to another aspect of the Accord, as I said earlier, which deals with federal spending power. That needs comment because so many people have said that the opting out provision scuttles the capacity of the federal Government to establish national programs. If this Accord had been in place, they say, we could not have had medicare. We could not have pensions. We could not have the fundamental social programs that the Party of which I am a part, the NDP, and before it the CCF, fought for. We could not have those programs which Canadians have adopted not only because they are good but because they express fundamental values that we share as Canadians.
I have taken those criticisms and comments very seriously. I have talked to people who have that point of view and considered what they had to say. When you listen to expert advice from people who have negotiated at the highest levels of government and from constitutional experts who have profound knowledge in this area, you hear a variety of opinions. You must finally make your own judgment, as I have done.
My understanding of the opting-out provision is that if the federal Government wishes to establish a new national program, it will consult with the provinces and if the provinces do not want to buy into the national program, they can opt out and be financially compensated as long as they establish a parallel program. After considering that I have concluded that the opting-out provision does not impair our capacity to govern the country. It does not weaken the central authority or weaken the ability of good, strong political leadership to establish new national programs to meet the needs of Canadians.
This is an area in which I fundamentally disagree with the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. There are some aspects of his vision of Canada which I share, one being our common citizenship from coast to coast. However, I think he is wrong in his judgment on the Accord.
I will explain why I believe that the federal spending power is still intact. Before the Accord when the federal Government and the provinces sat down to establish a national program, each party had something in its pocket. The federal Government had federal spending power and the provinces had

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
constitutional jurisdiction. They each had something to bargain with and when they made a deal, we had a national program for all Canadians. It happened that way because Canadians wanted those programs and there was the political leadership to bring it about. There were the Tommy Douglases of this world who wanted to move in that direction.
I do not believe that the Accord has fundamentally changed that situation. When we want to establish new national programs, whether for day care, the environment, the elimination of poverty, or the development of a strong Canadian economy in which all people can work, in addition to its unchanneled spending power, the federal Government will have the capacity to establish national objectives. On the other hand, provinces will have jurisdiction and the ability to opt out if they so choose.
Therefore, we still have two parties with something in their pocket and they will negotiate. If the people want a program and the political leadership exists to establish it, a deal will be made and Canadians will have a new national program. Therefore, let us not say that this Accord scuttles the capacity of political leadership. Political leadership is scuttled by cowardice and a lack of commitment to human need.
This Accord will assist us in addressing the fundamental needs of Canadians. The Accord requires that a strong Prime Minister with a set of objectives and ready to act consults with the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction. He would use all of his political muscle, but he would seek co-operation. We will, therefore, create new national programs in a way more sensitive to the regional and local needs of the country. Therefore, I believe that this Accord is worth supporting.
The second question which 1 asked myself about the Meech Lake Accord is whether it can be improved. I have spoken with some conviction about how I see the document. However, I do not want to mislead anyone. This is by no chance a perfect document. We have not arrived at the final objective. The document is not complete. I challenge those who say that we must accept this package without making any changes. There are several specific areas in which this document can be improved. They include the areas of women's rights, the North and aboriginal people.
Not only can the Accord be improved by way of constitutional conferences after it becomes law, it can be improved before. Why wait until it becomes law before improving it? Why not make specific improvements now? The perfect opportunity is fast approaching. A provincial election is soon to take place in the province of New Brunswick. We should take advantage of that occasion to bring to the table items which will improve the constitutional Accord.
I choose the word "improve" because I want to make it clear that I am not speaking of things which would scuttle the Accord. I am not speaking of things which are simply a mask or excuse to try to destroy the Accord. This Accord is valuable and can be made even more valuable.
Eleven political leaders sat in a room together until late at night because they were committed to bring something about. They can do that again. If it means they have to stay there all night, so be it. However, let them improve the Accord so that when we bring Quebec back into the Canadian family other people do not feel left out and resentful, so they do not feel that the only time the political leaders of this country act is when it concerns Quebec while ignoring women, the North, and aboriginal people.
In spite of the value of this Accord it is folly to risk the allegiance of Canadians to this new constitutional arrangement by refusing to improve it. If we can bring Quebec into the Canadian family now we can also bring in aboriginal people, women, and the North.
I believe that fundamentally this Accord is a sound document and that it is good for Canada. We are taking an historic step in nation-building. The step is not complete. If we are not to stumble we must make some changes in the Accord in order to improve it. Let us be clear that we are trying to improve it and not scuttle it.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I want to say that I think it is very important the Meech Lake Accord has given Canadians a chance to open the door to Quebec and to French Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Canadians to be part of our Constitution. And today we are very happy that the political leaders of our country are willing to say to Quebec: Welcome to Canada! We are on your side!


Mr. Berger:: I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his strong speech. There is no doubt that he stated his views with a great deal of conviction for which the House should commend him.
I want to ask him about the so-called generosity with respect to Quebec that he feels lies at the base of this Accord. When we talk about what constitutes Canada, surely he would agree that it is not only because Quebec, a French-speaking province, is part of Canada but that there are French-speaking Canadians throughout the country as there is an English-speaking minority in Quebec.
In my opinion, the Meech Lake Accord does not go far enough in recognizing the fundamental characteristic of Canada because the federal Government and provincial Governments are only willing to preserve this characteristic of Canada rather than promote it.
The Hon. Member is from Winnipeg, Manitoba. He knows that there is a substantial French-speaking minority in his province and his city. I am sure he heard the testimony of the President of la Federation des francophones hors Quebec before the Joint Committee on the Constitution when he said
October 8, 1987

that mere protection is insufficient to prevent or stop the ravages of assimilation.
I would like the Hon. Member to address that particular point. Does he not believe that when we are talking about recognizing this fundamental characteristic of Canada we must go beyond what I consider to be platitudes and undertake to promote this fundamental characteristic?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question and I want to give it the attention it deserves.
First of all, as far as the Meech Lake Accord is concerned, I do not think we have finished working on the Constitution in this country. We are about to enter a new stage. I think the Hon. Member is very sincere and has made some very important points, and that it is really up to him to support amendments that will improve the Accord.
Personally, I think it is very important, for instance, for the French fact in Manitoba to be strong and flourishing. 1 remember that when I was a child in Manitoba, when the school inspector came to visit a school, the Catholic students, teachers and sisters had to hide the French books and put English books on their desks. That happened when I was a child in Manitoba, which is not so long ago. However, we have come a long way since that time, and there have been some difficult moments. For instance, we had a very serious debate in Manitoba on how bilingualism in the province should be allowed to develop. A debate that was lost by people like me who were in favour of bilingualism. We were beaten because of a fierce attack by the Conservative Leader at the time, and I can inform the Hon. Member that it is not always easy to progress' as fast as we should wish. And when we can make some progress, I think it is very important for us to do just that.
Perhaps 1 should point out that the Government of Manitoba has just appointed a minister responsible for promoting services in French. I think this is something we can build on for the future. I hope that in the future, we will see greater respect for the French fact in Manitoba. Like the Hon. Member, I am doing what I can in this respect. But quite frankly, this Accord is incomplete where it concerns protecting, promoting or establishing the presence of the French fact outside Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no more questions or comments, before I recognize the next speaker it is my duty to announce the questions for the adjournment debate.
Constitution Amendment, 1987



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Stnading 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 Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin)-Air Transport-Proposed transportation of plutonium through Canadian airspace-Territorial sovereignty; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada Post Corporation-Request for reinstatement of certain postal services-Provision of service-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the Constitution Amendment, 1987 (p.9422).
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p.9644), and Mr. Allmand (p.9644).
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, as a Member of Parliament, to be able to speak on a subject of as great importance to our national future as that which is before the House today. The whole question of how we will amend our Constitution is a subject which is at the very heart of our nation.
In commenting on this Accord, I think one must first stress the importance of the effort which has been made to bring about an accord that would seek to accommodate the full participation of the Province of Quebec in the mainstream of the life of our country. I believe all Canadians felt that the country was incomplete without the ability of Quebec to fully participate at the table when constitutional matters were being discussed. There was a great loss to the country as a whole while Quebec remained outside the Canadian community.
Quebec is indeed a distinct community in many ways. It has not only played a unique role in Canada's history, it plays a unique role in the life of Canada today. Therefore, I and I believe all Canadians are pleased that an accord has been struck whereby the Province of Quebec can take its full part in the life of this country.
When we gave approval to the Constitution, it was not possible to have the participation of Quebec because the Premier of Quebec at that time, Rene Levesque, led the separatist party that was in fact seeking to separate Quebec from this country rather than join it. It would have been a

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
total anomaly for that Government to have allowed Quebec to become part of Canadian constitutional life, and the full life of this country. It was therefore not possible at that time for Quebec to become part of the entire process of the country and its constitutional making.
We felt this loss and now, since there is a Government in Quebec that can in fact accept and in fact participate fully on behalf of the people of Quebec in the life of the country, we want to grab that opportunity. We do not know, as we have not known in the past, when a Government might again come into power in Quebec, a Government which might detain or defer that possibility of Quebec having its full role. In fact, it might then be argued by successive Quebec Governments that, "Look, no progress has been made. Canada does not care whether we are part of it or not". They could appeal to the very fact that Quebec was not able to take its full part as an excuse for why Quebec should feel that it had no future in Canada. That is one of the great reasons why I think Canadians are relieved and rejoice that now Quebec and its Government have passed a resolution through its Legislature giving their support to this Accord.
We know that when a proposal was made to the people of Quebec that they should begin to consider separating from Canada, they were appealed to by Mr. Trudeau and by Jean Chretien at that time and asked not to vote in the referendum for the move to separate Quebec from Canada, but rather to vote against such a separation. When Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chretien implored the people of Quebec, as Quebecers themselves, they said, and promised, that there would be a renewal of federalism. That promise was solemnly made. I think there is now an opportunity for us to show to the people of Quebec that that promise was not made in vain. That promise was made on behalf of those of us who were members of the Liberal caucus at that time. Mr. Trudeau spoke on behalf of our caucus, on behalf of our Party, stating that that effort would be made. So I rejoice with other Canadians that now through this Accord the Province of Quebec can play its full role.
Having said that, and with all my sincerity and all my ability to express how delighted I am about that facet of it, I do think that one has to say that no Constitution is ever perfect. It certainly means, too, that when we start making changes to the Constitution we are dealing with the most fundamental law of the land. It is the most important law. It is the basis of all the rest of the laws of our country. Therefore it is a law which should receive the most careful scrutiny, and the most thorough debate and the greatest opportunity for people throughout the country to make their views known and to express their encouragement of it, or their misgivings.
I also want to say with all the powers at my command, and I only wish that I had the tongue of an orator to persuade my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House that the way that they have approached this matter of looking at and
discussing this very important resolution on the amendment of our Constitution, known by some as the Meech Lake agreement but which also was the Langevin Accord of June 3, 1987, deserves far more attention, far more serious thought, and far more debate than the Government is allowing to the Parliament of Canada, or for that matter to the rest of the people of Canada.
The motion which is before us has not much more importance in the parliamentary procedure than would a Bill put forward by a Private Member. It is appalling to think that a motion is being put before us in the House which affects the very foundation of our country, the Constitution, but that the way in which it is being treated in Parliament is no better, or hardly better at all, than that which can be accorded to a serious Bill that is put forward in Private Members' Hour.
I think Canadians realize that a Bill that has to do with St. Lawrence Seaway funding, a Bill that has to do with the protection of wildlife, or whatever Bill may be put before this House goes through a whole series of complicated processes to ensure that the democratic process takes place. With almost all Bills in the House of Commons there is first a debate in principle. That debate can go on and, usually, unless some kind of time allocation is brought in, every Member of the House has a chance to talk about it in principle. Then it normally goes to a committee. It goes either to a standing committee or to a legislative committee where the Bill is looked at, discussed and talked through. Amendments are proposed at committee. Then, having had a vote first of all in the House on principle, having been before the committee, it comes back to the House for another debate. There, in that debate, is an opportunity in the House itself, to put forward amendments and for each one to be considered and voted upon. Then, after those votes are over and that stage is passed then still another debate is held. In that third stage there is still an opportunity for more discussion and further thought before a final vote is taken and the Bill is passed.
I think that shows that in our democratic process we want to make very sure that in Parliament anything we decide has been given deep and due consideration, in fairness to all concerned. It shows that we have given an opportunity to the people of Canada to make their positions known through the committees, to give them an opportunity, in time, to write to their Members or communicate with their Members as to their views so we do not make any mistakes.
That is what happens with any normal Bill, a Bill that deals with perhaps some of the less important matters of the country in the House, at least less important than we would say is the Constitution of Canada. Yet the Constitution of Canada is being amended. It is being put before us with a time span and a way to deal with it far, far less democratic and far less thoughtful than would even an ordinary Bill in this House of Commons receive, or a Private Member's Bill for that matter.
We have placed before us one total package. We are able to give one kind of amendment, as a Party, to this Bill. In short,
October 8, 1987

we have but one debate on it. It went of course, to a committee over the summer, and then one debate. Then, when it is passed that is it. That is what the House of Commons can do with the Constitution of Canada, with the amendment of the most fundamental law of all, the Constitution of this country. It is amazing. It is bewildering that this is the only way in which we can proceed.
I think that if we look back at how the constitutional debate was carried on in the past, we would realize that a great deal of thought and a great deal of time was given to that debate- months and months and months. There were discussions among the provinces. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for its opinion, to test out whether what we were doing was the right way to proceed. The views of the Supreme Court were taken into account, and changes were made.
I would like to point out further that when people or groups came to Ottawa, or sent their views to Ottawa about changing that constitutional Accord, their voices were finally heard. We saw that when the voices were lifted on behalf of the women of this country, in terms of their misgivings about the language or what was being taken out or what was in the Constitution, their views were listened to, perforce. That is the way it should be.
Changes were made again, with the provincial Ministers giving consideration to those proposals. Meetings were held, bringing them back again to see if further changes could be made. I remember very well the indignation of members of the Conservative Party who were in opposition at that time at the thought that they were not being given enough time to discuss such an important issue as the Constitution of Canada. Day after day they rose in their places and extolled the virtues of democracy, the importance of openness in Government, the importance of full participation, and the importance of opportunity to debate. I think many of us listened to their concerns with some sympathy.
In this particular debate we find amendments being made to the Meech Lake agreement which in fact might greatly hobble future changes in the Constitution.
It is true that the Constitution is and will evolve. However, because of the Meech Lake agreement or Langevin agreement in some cases the Government of Canada has made such evolution practically impossible in that the formula for amendments requires unanimity. It can be said that sometimes it is possible to obtain unanimity from the provinces. When we consider the fact that it will be possible for a province, because of someone like we had in Quebec, to prevent the approbation of what is reasonable and good for the country, to stand in the way interminably of progress which may be needed immediately in terms of changes to the Constitution as a result of some unforeseen problems.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
This is why we in the Liberal Party feel that the Government should be open and should be listening not only to us as a Party but to the people of Canada who also have grave misgivings about this formula and about other matters. This is why the Liberal caucus has come forward, through the motion of our Leader and through the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), to indicate that the Meech Lake Accord should be amended to deal with some serious matters.
In my view one of the most serious matters concerns a return to a formula whereby we have seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population voting for an amendment to the Constitution rather than total unanimity of the provinces as the Meech Lake document suggests.
Time after time the Tory Government has proven its unfortunate proclivity to talk in very fine and glowing terms about democracy and about parliamentary reform. However, on the most important issue upon which we could possibly be focusing, it provides for us and for Canadians little opportunity to give proper thought to and debate on these matters. We cannot move each amendment one at a time as we should be able to do. We should be able to look at it, discuss it, and honestly reflect upon it because it is so important.
Since the Government has a tremendous majority in the House of Commons, I do not deny its right in the end, after debate, to decide that there will be no amendments. I would not deny that the Government has that right, but it should not deny us the right to make amendments and to have each one of them carefully considered by the House and by the people of Canada. We should be able to go through first, second, and third readings, to vote on each section, to look at the amendments carefully, and to give the most important law of the country clause by clause consideration.
There is not enough time for me to deal with all the amendments which have been put forward by my Party as very positive suggestions. Large segments of our population, such as women, who represent over 50 per cent of the population, aboriginal peoples, multicultural people, and those concerned about the future of the territories, have expressed misgivings about the present text of the Accord. They wish it to be improved or amended so that there will be no doubt about the matters which concern them. While I cannot deal with each of the amendments we have proposed to deal with the concerns expressed by these people, I call the attention of the House to some of them.
One concerns the future of the Senate, which I believe would be strengthened and made more meaningful if it were an elected Senate. Clearly this is the position of our Party.
Rather than continuing with a formula which entrenches the future of the Senate as an appointed body and provides a situation wherein the provinces may feel that they have some kind of investment in keeping the formula as it is in the Meech Lake Accord, let there be freedom, let there be breath, let there be life; let us breathe a new life into the Senate rather than stultify it along the lines of the Meech Lake Accord. Let

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
there be a move at this time to have future Members of the Senate elected. Then the process can be worked out in further conferences between the provinces and the federal Government. Further consideration could be given by the Elouse and the Senate so that the Senate would play an even more dynamic and more important role than it does now.
Another of my concerns is in the area dealing with equality of the sexes, the rights of men and women being guaranteed and protected. We want to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is paramount, and that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians are not diminished by potential conflicts with any sections of the Accord, including sexual equality rights.
It would be wise if the Conservative Government would wake up to the realities which exist. There has been an example of this before. When the women of the country expressed concern, the Government of Canada under the last administration paid attention by making changes to the Constitution which took into account the solemn and sincere concerns expressed by them. Why does the Government minimize the importance of the concern expressed by women and their representatives, as well as by men concerned about the rights of women? They wonder whether the Meech Lake Accord perhaps puts into jeopardy the rights which were presumably obtained in the last go-around on the Constitution.
Those are some of the matters I wanted to bring to the attention of the Government. I ask it to consider them as being not only the views of my Party but the concerns expressed by the people of Canada. Will it not listen? Will it not open its ears to the concerns of Canadians who are happy to see Quebec being involved and being brought into the full life of the country?
They do not want to be accused of being unhappy about this, ungrateful or lacking a sense of patriotism because they want to bring up matters and points which they feel are very important for the future life of Canada, points which concern them and therefore life in this country as well. It is not an act of treason. It is not an act of lack of patriotism to be concerned about other issues in this Accord. Just because one expresses a concern about it, that does not mean one is not happy about the fact that Quebec is now brought into the full life of Canada.
Let us try and, in a spirit of understanding, move toward the possibility that the Government may still consider going to the provinces in the light of these proposed amendments which we have made with full sincerity and let them respond to the people of Canada and, in the same spirit, discuss with the provinces the way in which we can amend this Accord without trashing the Accord in its entirety. I do not think we need to throw out the baby with the bath water. I think we can try to amend, improve and repair what could be a much more perfect document so that future generations will say that we gave
them something which they could change in the light of their future, that we did not deliver something that was a fait accompli which closed out any future evolution of the Canadian Constitution.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) was in this House in 1981 when we voted on the patriation of the Constitution which included a Charter of Rights. That Charter of Rights in Articles XVI to XXIII provided citizens with services in the official language of their choice. It dealt with minority language education rights. What we did in 1981 was to put in the Constitution in some respects the official languages policy which had prevailed for a period of 10 or 12 years prior to 1981.
As I understand it, those policies were based on the principle of linguistic equality, namely, that we were trying to achieve an equal status for the English and French languages for persons who speak English and French as much as possible throughout the country. In my opinion, the Meech Lake agreement goes against this principle of language equality because rather than having the same rights in Quebec as we have in Ontario or British Columbia, the possibility arises that rights may be different in one part of the country to the other.
Does the Member not agree with my interpretation that we are really retreating from the principle of linguistic equality with the Meech Lake agreement?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I believe the subject which my colleague has brought forward is most important. The fact that he is concerned about it, as all Canadians should be, is clear that we are putting into language in the Meech Lake Accord matters of concern to people regarding their right and their children's right to be able to function fully in one of the two official languages of their choice and thus function fully throughout all of Canada.
I believe the intention on the part of those who signed the Accord was to achieve that. The question is, have they? That, first, is a matter which involves a great deal of legal expertise and interpretation. I am not going to propose that I have that constitutional expertise to give a wise opinion on the matter. If there is some doubt, it would not be a bad idea for us to incorporate in the language of the Accord that kind of reassurance. I have been pleading with my Government colleagues in this House for the Accord be made that much clearer so that people who have anxieties about it, not just for themselves but for the country and future generations, can understand it. We could then have legal experts conclude that yes, this is what it says. Unfortunately, we heard a wide variety of opinions in the committee. Therefore, that gave us reason to look at the proposed amendments made by our Party. We should talk about them, not just have concerns. We should be promoting the protection of languages in the provinces. Governments have a responsibility to promote and protect them as well as to acknowledge their existence.

October 8, 1987


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment which will be followed by a question to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)
My colleague mentioned his support for an elected Senate. I recall reading a statistic which pointed out that something like 99 per cent of all Canadians would never run for elected office. If that is true, one would have to question whether, in fact, not only federally but provincially, the country is being well governed.
In that sense I have always felt the Senate does have a good role to play. Very talented, experienced and dedicated Canadians have a chance to serve their country by being appointed to that august body. Would the Hon. Member give me his views? An appointed Senate could be devoid of partisanship but it would not if we had an elected Senate.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, there may be some people in this august Chamber who are looking for an appointment to that other place. 1 do not want to be facetious, but I had to make that remark. There are probably a fair number of people who might look at that other place as being a good place to which to be appointed.
When my colleague said that 99 per cent of the people of Canada would not run for office, while they may not want to in the sense that it might be difficult because of leaving families-which many of us have to do to come to Ottawa or to go to some other place if one were a provincial Member- when the time comes and people are approached by fellow citizens and asked to run for office, even though they may have said no, that they would never run, they do respond. This reluctance to serve occurs with jury duty. I do not think anyone pounds on doors to get on a jury panel. But people serve because they feel it is genuinely important to make that contribution for their country.
As for the other small point, 1 do not have the time to enter into a debate about an elected as against an appointed Senate. I have expressed my views, and I think it is an important point. In general, the people of Canada feel that it would be a good thing if a chamber with such powers as the Senate presently has were also elected. They would then know that these people are there because they were elected by the people of Canada and not because they were appointed into a political position.


Marcel R. Tremblay: If I were to give my remarks a title, Mr. Speaker, I would call it the legitimacy of the Constitution. First of all, I should like to set the constitutional Accord in its proper context by saying that, together with a great many Quebecers, including Mrs. Chaput-Rolland who appeared before the Parliamentary Committee, I felt deeply hurt when in 1982 the Constitution was patriated without Quebec's consent.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
1 was certainly for the patriation of the Constitution combined with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But I deeply regretted and even objected to the fact that these political decisions were forced upon Quebec; as much as I objected to the decision of the Imperial Parliament in 1840 to impose the Union Act and to ban the use of the French language.
Although, as Hon. Jack Pickersgill reminded the Committee, the Parliament of Canada with its English-speaking majority insisted in 1867 on re-establishing the linguistic rights of French-speaking Canadians, the latter will always remember the attempt made in 1840 at depriving them of their rights and they are looking for assurances that such an experience will never happen again. Together with a great many others, I feel that it did happen again in 1982. Once again, Quebec was ignored.
In a speech he made on April 15 of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) clearly indicated what was at stake at the Meech Lake meeting, and I quote:
"With the Constitutional Act of 1982, we have now a fundamental law governing our country, a social contract which is binding upon Quebec without the consent of its National Assembly.
It is unacceptable that recent wounds have not yet healed. Quebec, as a distinct society which enhances Canada, has to join the constitutional family.
For that purpose, we have to find a fair balance between the concept of equality among all provinces and the need to protect and strengthen the unique character which Quebec gives to Canada.
The isolation of Quebec was a problem we had to assume when we came to power. We cannot bequeath it to another generation which would perhaps have to resolve it under more difficult circumstances and in less propitious times.
The Prime Minister knew that the problem had to be solved quickly. He knew that the country, that Quebec could not go on living with a constitution which had not been accepted by all the partners in Confederation. He knew more particularly that values could not be imposed to a community and that a document as important as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to gain its true worth had to be freely accepted by Quebec. This Charter of Rights and Freedoms represents common values shared by the people, it is a definition of its collective will. The real strength of a charter is based on the intensity of feelings for it shared by the citizens.
Therefore, as long as Quebec will not freely adhere to the Canadian Charter, it will remain weakened.
The Parti Quebecois Government was ready to negotiate a constitutional agreement in May, 1985, provided that the greater part of the Charter did not apply to Quebec. It was an unacceptable condition for those who believe that Canadians can share the same ideals of justice and equality.

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Finally, a federalist Government in power in Quebec since 1985 is getting ready to adhere to the Charter of its own free will and to acknowledge its legitimacy.
And now Canada, through its First Ministers, says it is ready to welcome Quebec under conditions that are good for Quebec and for Canada. Parliamentarians and citizens across the land are asked to join together for that purpose.
I am pleased with the consensus of the three leaders- including our Liberal colleagues-who view Quebec's return to the great constitutional family as a significant national goal. This clearly shows that the First Ministers' appeal has been heard by our parliamentarians.
The Parliament Committee has also shown that the appeal was equally heard by politicians, former civil servants and well-known English-speaking academics. The Committee Report suggests that nearly all the witnesses who appeared at the hearings unanimously recognized the importance for Quebec to resume its place of its own accord within the Canadian constitutional family. Those Canadians who appeared before the committee also insisted that it was most important to solve the dispute between Quebec and the rest of the country; the Accord struck a remarkable balance between Quebec's own interests, the principle of equality between provinces and the national interest; the Accord in no way infringed upon the rights of Canadians, and this opportunity should be taken to adopt the resolution that will open the second round.
That was the view voiced by Gordon Robertson, who was Cabinet Secretary from 1963 to 1975 and Cabinet Secretary on Federal-Provincial Relations from 1975 to 1979-he is one of the most experienced negotiators on constitutional affairs in Canada.
That also was the view of Robert Stanfield, who led our fellow-citizens in Nova Scotia before coming over to the federal scene.
This is also the opinion of Peter Meekison, former Deputy Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs of Alberta.
Moreover, it is the opinion of the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, who served with distinction under four Prime Ministers of Canada as a Minister and as a public servant.
It is also the view of Professor William Lederman, one of our most eminent constitutional law professors. It is the opinion of Peter Leslie, Richard Simeon and others, who have a very open minded and sensitive attitude toward Quebec.
I have every confidence that the appeal of the Premiers, who have the support of Quebecers and of many Canadians, will be heard by the Parliamentarians. Moreover, by repairing past mistakes, the 1987 Constitutional Accord will open the door to a new era in Canada by recognizing a fundamental characteristic of our federation.
By entrenching linguistic rights in the Constitution in 1982, we legislated to put behind us once and for all past attempts,
such as in the Union Act of 1840, to make French disappear from Canada.
With the 1987 Constitutional amendment, all Canadians are giving their enthusiastic support to the concept of linguistic duality as a basic characteristic of Canada, the role of all legislative assemblies and of Parliament to protect this characteristic is being confirmed and the distinct society of Quebec joins the Canadian family.
Finally, our linguistic rights find new grounds for existence in our Constitution, Canada finds its soul and Canadians rejoice in their diverse character.
I believe that we cannot be indifferent to the fact that the Constitution was imposed on Quebecers, that they rejected its legitimacy and that Canadians do not at this time share freely accepted common values. The First Ministers did not remain indifferent to these facts this year, and neither did the distinguished Canadians I mentioned earlier.
A country is more than a series of abstract and rational concepts. To develop, it needs a soul. I believe that by voluntarily joining the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, Quebec is giving back this soul to Quebecers and Canadians. Quebec is finally telling Canada that it is willing to share in the dreams and aspirations of our great country and that it also shares its values in its own way.
This is why I believe that the signing of the Meech Lake Accord was an event of great moment for Canada and why I ask the House not to make it necessary for us to go back on this Accord.
In conclusion, I would recall the words of the committee and urge people who refuse to listen to the First Ministers' appeal to reconsider their position. To them the committee is saying:
If one is to maintain that the terms of the 1987 Contitutional Accord should not be accepted because they exact too high a price in terms of their vision of Canada, then one must be prepared to accept that at least in the foreseeable future Quebec will remain officially estranged from the Constitution and that a Constitution without Quebec will continue to limp along without the willing participation of one of the key parties to Confederation.
That is the kind of future the opponents of the Accord envision for Canada. That is what most Canadians want to avoid by supporting the Constitutional Accord of 1987.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the agreement commonly known as the Meech Lake Accord. I want to point out some very serious concerns which I think many of our colleagues have been expressing.
It seems to me that Constitutions of countries are very much like those of organizations which reflect the basic beliefs of, and establish over-all objectives as well as legal requirements for, its Members. They are rarely perfect but must be tested against experience and continuously adapted to reflect the
October 8, 1987

concerns of the entire organization as well as its component parts. Therefore, in a country as complex as Canada we must entrench national concerns and obligations as well as our historic concerns while responding to the very diverse needs of different regions and ensuring through our Charter of Rights that the rights of all our citizens are adequately protected.
It is interesting and significant to note that the Canadian Constitution is only about five years old. A very immature Constitution it is. I am sure all of us who have gained from this current review and analysis-those who were on the committee, of course, are now experts-would agree that there are very serious flaws, particularly in the Charter, which must be redressed. Some Members have felt that it is perhaps flaws in the Charter rather than flaws in the Accord which need further attention.
There are amendments that we want to see to the Accord itself. We all agree that the overriding flaw in the 1982 agreement was the fact that Quebec was not part of the Constitution of Canada. That was the primary objective of this round of negotiations toward constitutional review and amendment provided that it did not diminish any other rights.
This Accord brings Quebec to full and active participation in the patriated Constitution for the first time. We in the NDP are very pleased that this is the case. In our view it acknowledges that Quebec is a distinct linguistic and cultural society within Canada. It reflects resolutions which the NDP adopted as a priority at our 1987 convention in Montreal. We acknowledge, however, that there are a number of flaws in the Accord and we strongly urge the Government and the First Ministers to correct those flaws before it is passed into law.
It is important to recall that the process involved in this round of constitutional reform leaves very much to be desired. In my view it did not reflect the democratic process. We should remember that in the decisions made behind closed doors at Meech Lake there were no natives, northerners, women or the disabled represented. These decisions were made by 11 men, all white, who drafted a Constitutional Accord to be applied to all of us in Canada. There is no question that they did a remarkable job as far as they went, but after further study and consideration, particularly by the groups I just referred to, there are indications that serious flaws exist. We believe those flaws can be corrected with three simple amendments without jeopardizing the Accord itself.
I want to concentrate my remarks on two areas of particular concern, but before doing that I would like to quickly review the amendments we have put forward and which were expressed in a letter from our Leader to the First Ministers.
There are three essential amendments and they are consistent with the objectives of the 1987 Constitutional Accord. Our first amendment concerns fairness for Canada's northern citizens. We believe First Ministers should immediately remove the anomaly of Canadians living in the territories being denied the opportunity available to other Canadians of serving on the Supreme Court of Canada and possibly in the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Senate as well. Of course, we as a Party are not as concerned about the Senate. As well, First Ministers should address the injustice of requiring unanimous provincial approval for the creation of new provinces, a degree of concurrence not required for any of the existing provinces.
Second, we believe the Accord should include a commitment to hold a First Ministers' conference to discuss aboriginal rights, in particular self-government. It should be amended to ensure that representatives of aboriginal peoples and the territorial Governments can participate fully in these discussions.
Third, we do not believe the linguistic duality-distinct society interpretative clause abrogates, supersedes or overrides sexual equality rights, or any other rights guaranteed in the Charter. This is the conclusion which our representatives on the committee came to after very thoughtful analysis of the expert testimony. However, there is doubt across the country and therefore we say the same abundance of caution reflected in Section 16 when it was added can be applied to sexual equality rights without jeopardizing the Accord. Therefore, we urge First Ministers to amend the Accord by adding Section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, as we all know, would reaffirm the equality of men and women.
We also recommend a complete Charter review, particularly regarding minorities, including visible minorities and disabled persons, in the very immediate future. We should give greater consideration to recognizing ethnocultural realities. We do not agree with the process that took place and we are very strongly recommending that any future process must be much more democratic with an opportunity for public input. This should be done through a standing committee of the House of Commons.
I want to concentrate my remarks on two areas of concern, particularly from the point of view of social policy. Those two areas deal with federal spending powers and the protection of equality rights. Both areas have been raised as concerns by social policy advocates and many women's organizations. In fact, women's organizations continue to raise these issues.
As to spending power, the Accord specifies that provinces will have the right to opt out of national programs but may still have costs shared by the federal Government provided the programs are compatible with national objectives. I must confess that as a strong advocate of federal leadership in social programs and with a very major concern about a national child care program, I was very concerned about this question.
Would it weaken the impetus for a national child care program which is urgently needed in Canada? Would it have prevented medicare from being established as a national program with enforcement of the five national principles which are implicit in medicare? Would it allow provinces to do what they wish with federal dollars as they have in the past with

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
federal moneys which have been transferred for post-secondary education?
There is no more urgent need in Canada today than the need for a comprehensive national child care program which will ensure the availability of a range of quality, affordable, flexible child care services in both rural and urban communities. The child care situation is a crisis. This has been documented repeatedly.
A national child care program was promised in very strong terms by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but it is obvious that no action is being taken on this. I cannot help but wonder whether the delays are in any way related to the process of this Accord. Under the new Accord the federal Government has the right, in our view, to establish a national program of child care with clearly defined objectives which must be the criteria for provinces if they are to receive federal funding for child care.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, the National Anti-Poverty Group and others spoke strongly of the need for the Government to establish right now these national objectives and to outline the requirements for any national child care program which will receive federal funding. These organizations expressed fear that there would not be clear objectives established.
I share these fears, but I have concluded, as have my colleagues, that these fears are not related to the Accord so much as to what the Conservative Government will or will not do with regard to child care. We see it as a very important political issue. The Accord definitely obligates the Government to state national objectives which reflect its philosophy and will establish clear principles for provincial programs which receive federal funding.
We conclude that the problem is political rather than constitutional. A New Democratic Government will make child care a top priority and will establish clear, progressive objectives as a requirement for any provincial programs which enter into cost-sharing arrangements.
Medicare was started as a provincial program by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan and became a national program. We strongly agree with the revisions to the health Act which were brought in by the past Minister, Monique Begin, which enforced the five principles of medicare with penalties. Such provisions should be included in all programs which receive federal funding. We are convinced that this kind of federal authority over spending powers remains under the new Accord. In fact, experts believe that the Accord strengthens the use of federal moneys provided that the federal Government defines these national objectives.
A national child care program will be the test of this section of the Accord. It will be the test of the Government as well. I have repeatedly asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to establish national child care objectives
which will designate quality, affordable, accessible child care services as a base for any federal financing arrangements.
Finally I come to the aspect of the Accord which continues to be a very major concern to women's organizations across Canada. This concern, rather than diminishing, is escalating. We cannot ignore it. I implore all Members of the House, the Government, and First Ministers to give it major consideration. After major analysis, including analysis by legal experts, women's organizations still have a fear that sexual equality rights may be at risk under the new Accord.
1 do not want to refer again to the many presentations which were made to the committee. I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), who contributed a tremendous amount of energy and expertise to that committee and our caucus. There is no one more concerned about equality rights for women as her history and record show.
I think I reflect her opinion when I say that we may not have the same concern about this as far as the Accord is concerned. However, we do agree that the concerns of women across the country must be dealt with. They must have the opportunity to express their concerns and have them reviewed as they have been requesting.
In summary, I would like to refer to two very recent letters which implore the Government of Canada and the First Ministers to consider their appeals. The first letter is an open letter of October 4 to Members of Parliament from the Ad Hoc Committee of Women on the Constitution. I will read an excerpt from that letter. They state:
-governments want women to accept their assurances that the Accord's risks to gender equality are minimal; women are adamant that any risk is unacceptable, no matter how small.
Accordingly, they ask us to support recommendations made by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women on September 23. The letter continues:
Specifically we seek your support for:
funding through the federal Secretary of State for a women's national constitutional conference.
It is hoped that this conference would find a way to amend the Constitution without re-opening the discussions on the Meech Lake Accord in a way which endangers Quebec's recognition in the Constitution.
No women, and I am sure no Canadians, want to jeopardize that aspect of the Accord.
They further state:
-that an urgent federal reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is detrimentally affected by the Meech Lake Accord-
-be undertaken.
The federal government must undertake to consult the CACSW on the question and should guarantee that the CACSW-
attends at the hearing.
Subsequent to that we today received, as I imagine other Members have, a very urgent letter from the National
October 8, 1987

Association of Women and the Law dated October 6. This is a very reputable group comprised of outstanding women lawyers who have expertise in constitutional matters. The letter reads in part as follows:
We urge you to consider our concerns. In our brief submitted to the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the 1987 Constitution Accord on August 4th, 1987, we raised a number of concerns relating to the status of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in particular women's equality rights.
We continue to be concerned that by enumerating some rights in Section 16 and in specifically mentioning the Charter in other sections, the courts may interpret this as excluding or giving less scrutiny to other rights, including women's equality rights. This may create a hierarchy of rights.
In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning Ontario's Bill 30, pronounced on June 25th, 1987, would seem to create a hierarchy of constitutional documents, by making some sections of the 1867 Constitution Act immune from Charter review. The Department of Justice has used these arguments in the challenge from the Yukon Territories.
In order to ensure that this is not the effect of this set of constitutional amendments, we believe that the Accord must be amended to clarify the relationship of the Charter to these clauses, in particular to the new s.2 of the 1867 Constitution Act dealing with language duality and Quebec as a distinct society.
It is important to note for the record that they advocate a women's national constitutional conference with the objective of developing an amendment to the Accord which would not endanger the Accord or Quebec's recognition in the Constitution but would protect charter equality rights. Our Party strongly believes that this would be helpful. We advocated the inclusion of Section 28, but we would certainly support an improvement on that.
They also ask that the resolution in the House be deferred until this convention can take place. That might be very difficult. They go on to say: "We ask you to support a Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada from the federal Government. In this way, we can all receive a judicial interpretation of the impact of the Accord on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". They go on to ask for the assurance that an intent not to harm the Charter is clear in the words of this historic Accord. Surely the First Ministers, the Government, and all Members of the House would agree that we do not know that this will happen, but we must deal with the concern that it may affect 52 per cent of the population.
My colleague who sat on the constitutional committee requested both the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the status of women that funding be made available from the federal Government, and that all possible support be given by the provinces and the federal Government to the proposed women's constitutional conference. It would present another opportunity for experts to consider all sides of the question.
It has been very difficult for groups to achieve a consensus in the form of one conclusive amendment. While we have proposed the inclusion of Section 28 of the Charter as an
Royal Assent
amendment, this would help reaffirm equality rights beyond a doubt.
There may be further suggestions from such a constitutional conference. I urge the Government and First Ministers to support this request and facilitate it. I also strongly urge the First Ministers not only to consider but to accept and implement the recommendations that were referred to earlier. If any group must not be left out, it is certainly the native people.
We support the primary objective of this Accord, which is to bring Quebec into the Constitution of Canada. While we support that objective strongly and joyfully, we cannot agree that this should be done with any diminution of rights for other people. That is why we believe that a constitutional conference for women should be supported.
I urge First Ministers to agree to amend the Accord as we have recommended and as a women's conference may recommend so that aboriginal people, northerners, minorities and women can have no further doubt that their rights will also be fully protected under our Constitution and Charter of Rights.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that one of her colleagues from Vancouver was stripped of his responsibilities in the New Democratic Party because he is voting against the Accord. Does she agree with her leader on that action?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not know how my colleague from Vancouver will vote on the constitutional Accord. We have not yet voted. I certainly support my leader in almost everything he does. However, I think people have a right to their own opinions.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski) with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (foreign spouses), to which the concurrence of this House is desired.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour, the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General, in the Senate Chamber Her Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 38.

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act-Chapter No. 39.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (foreign spouses), to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the Constitution Amendment, 1987 (p. 9422).
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) I believe had a question for the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that the NDP has been quite critical in the past of the divisions and different positions in the Liberal caucus with respect to Meech Lake, I would like to ask the Hon. Member how her leader can justify what he calls an exemption, or dispensation, for one Member to vote against the Meech Lake Accord.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I understand why these questions are being asked, of course. But as far as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) is concerned I think it is important, as surely the Hon. Member realizes, that the Yukon had no voice at all at the constitutional table. The people of the Yukon had no vote of any kind on the matter. The only vote to express their deep concern about being excluded from deliberations concerning the amending formula, which could perhaps preclude them from becoming a province unless the agreement of all 10 provinces is received, is the vote of the Hon. Member for Yukon. Therefore we feel very strongly that that is a view that should be heard in the House. That is why we support the Hon. Member in expressing her view.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the explanations of the New Democratic Party are at the height of hypocrisy. It is all right for the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) to run an election saying that she will fight the Meech Lake Accord when every other single member of her caucus is forced to vote for it for fear of sanctions by their leader. I would like an explanation as to how members of the New Democratic Party can be so hypocritical.


Pauline Jewett: Don't be so silly! Don't even bother answering that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no further questions or comments, resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Vancouver characterizes me as childish. There is one thing I can say. It is that within the Liberal Party, unlike the jackboot treatment of the NDP, we permit our members and our leaders to express a number of views without necessarily squashing them by stripping them of caucus responsibilities, et cetera.
Frankly, I found it rather astonishing to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party say that he was issuing a special dispensation to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) so that she could vote against the Meech Lake Accord when everyone else in his Party is being forced to toe the Party line for fear of being stripped of their responsibilities. Indeed, it has been a difficult struggle for us in the Liberal Party in terms of issues and positions. I know the NDP has been very vociferous in pointing out the divisions that exist in our Party. Those divisions do exist. I think the speeches that have been made in the House are testimony to that.
I believe that there are divisions internally in the Conservative Party, as there are in the New Democratic Party, which have been characterized in recent days by statements by various NDP Members that they will vote against the Accord. I cannot imagine how the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) could go across the country and say that he supports the Accord in every single province and the territories, except the Yukon, when he will allow one of his Members to take a postion different from the position of his Party simply to win an election. Either he believes in it or he does not believe in it. Either the Party believes in it or it does not believe in it.
If it is the position of the leader that he is in favour of Meech Lake, then how can he say in the context of the House of Commons that one single Member will have a dispensation? Is a new Member of Parliament in a better position to represent her constituents than is a Member who has been around for a while? Should we start discriminating just because someone happens to win an election?
It was unfathomable to me that the Leader of the NDP would make that type of statement when he knew full well that the intention of the Hon. Member for Yukon was simply to get elected. If she is going to come here and vote against the Meech Lake Accord singly and solely, it is obvious that the Accord will pass. I think it would have been far more honest of the Leader of the New Democratic Party to say, as has the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), that there are divisions in the NDP caucus, divisions based on regional concerns and of ethnicity and based on other concerns as opposed to the approach which he has taken. He has stated, instead, that he will offer dispensation similar, presumably, to what comes from the Pope in Rome. The Leader of the New Democratic Party will offer dispensation to a single Member and everyone else is supposed to fall in line. I think it is about time that the people of Canada started to recognize that.
October 8, 1987

I have heard, for example, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) make a very strong speech today in favour of the inclusion of women.
I know that the NDP will be sending out speeches across the country talking about all the wonderful things it will do to have women included in the Constitution. However, it seems to me that at least in the Liberal Party-and it has been a very tough time for us this last number of weeks-our leader is prepared to say that there is a variance of view, that there is a divergence of view, and that in the context of our Party and our caucus we will allow a full debate of all issues surrounding Meech Lake.
For me as a Liberal and as a Canadian it has been a very difficult experience to explore the number of issues surrounding Meech Lake. I think in particular of the exclusion of our aboriginal peoples. I think in particular of the concerns relating to provincial spending powers and how they might be applied on a national basis. I think in particular of the concerns expressed in my community about the possibility that we are relegating our multicultural groups to a second-class status.
However, I also think that in the context of the Meech Lake Accord the overriding belief of Canadians that when the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec, in particular, said "Yes" to Canada, they said it because they believed that they were on the start of a new road to federalism. They said "Yes" because they thought they would see a follow-up from the referendum which would include a recognition of the distinct society in the Province of Quebec.
I believe on balance that Meech Lake has actually achieved the objective of the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, and I embrace that particular recognition. As a Canadian and as a Liberal I am not afraid of the distinct society clause.
I think one of the joys of our country is that we have been able to embrace our differences and to celebrate our differences. We have been able, in the course of our history, to embrace multicultural groups, to embrace francophones and anglophones, and to bring people together.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to work in the Province of Quebec more than 12 years ago. That was the time when the Parti Quebecois was in opposition against the Liberals, a time when the people of Quebec were experiencing what was called the "quiet revolution". And I could see for myself that my Quebec friends, men and women alike, did live in a distinct society which had evolved over a few centuries, a society which was still in evolution despite certain religious standards, despite the legislative standards of the Canadian government, or despite the standards of religious groups in the Province of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Quebec. Things have changed since the time when the first francophones came to settle in Canada. And to me it is important, as a country-
I can still vividly remember the night of the referendum when everybody-even in the riding of Hamilton East where there are not many francophones-was watching television, waiting-I was not feeling very well myself as I waited for the referendum results. At that time I was extremely pleased when Quebec, with its distinct society and its distinct character, with its history and its French culture, chose Canada. I was very glad as a Canadian.
But unfortunately, at the time I think a good many anglophones thought: Well, fine, that is the end of the francophonie chapter. Now we can deal with other problems. That is exactly what happened when Quebec refused to sign the Constitution.
Canada was not Canada without Quebec in the Constitution. And I think that the Meech Lake or Langevin Accord, with all the amendments made to try and accomodate changes in financing, jurisdictional issues and what not, means that Canada, for the first time, says yes to Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are open-minded enough to be able to say yes to the distinct society in Quebec and do it wholeheartedly, I think this Government should be just as open-minded for our native people and for Canadian women who are concerned because, according to certain legal opinions, this Accord may affect their equality rights.
If, as a member of this House, I try and have an open mind and be receptive to this notion of distinct society in Quebec, I suggest that we should have this same attitude toward minority groups in other provinces.
The majority in Quebec managed to survive for 200 or 300 years despite the invasion of foreign media, and of English or American radio and television. You did survive. All we are asking for is that the same opportunity be given to minorities outside Quebec. Unfortunately, if the Liberal amendments are not accepted, especially those concerning the promotion of cultures, and the promotion of minorities outside Quebec . . . You all know that the 10 Premiers, and I know some of them, were willing to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec and the rights of minorities in Quebec. But they were not all willing to accept the same rights for the minorities outside Quebec.
It is for that reason that no consensus could be found regarding promotion of culture for the minorities outside Quebec. It is sad to see that, as a Parliament, we are willing, even glad, to accept the distinct character of Quebec, but opposed to protection of minority rights in other provinces. Why is it so? Even the Government of Quebec and Mr. Bourassa, I believe, think that accepting amendments would somehow contribute to a reduction of rights. I believe, and that

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
is the way I tried to live my life, that respecting and even promoting the differences between people in no way reduces our own rights. We are not a society like the American one, where everybody should be the same, should drive a car and keep up with the Jones. We are not like that. After the battle of the Plains of Abraham the decision of our soldiers to let the vanquished practise their religion and use their language started a new society. That is in fact the way the distinct society started. After that, we constantly had forces in our country who wished to make French disappear.
I know that even in Hamilton changes over the last 10 years have been tremendous. We can see students lining up till midnight to register their children in schools where they will be able to learn French, a fact which attests to extraordinary changes over the last 10 of 15 years. So I think the people and the mentality have changed, there is greater openness, less fear, due to the fact that anglophones and francophones better understand and know one another, whether that is on account of the quiet revolution or the referendum that forced us in the anglophone community to face a new reality in Quebec. All we in the Liberal Party ask for is that Members of Parliament be prepared not only to ally the fears in Quebec as far as the francophone community is concerned, but similarly outside Quebec. I know the Government will echo the words of its legal advisors and say: "We will look after the aboriginal people at the next conference; as to women, do not worry, there is no problem. There is no problem either with multicul-turalism, because we will make appointments to some commissions or other." Unfortunately, to bring Quebec back as an equal partner, we have no choice. We must accept the Meech-Langevin Accord, pass it. At the same time, I think that we missed what could have been a real challenge for the Canadian Parliament because we could not widen our spectrum enough to be able to consider the first inhabitants of our country, our native people. We are not ready to consider the concern of women who really had to fight hard when the Constitution was written to get an equality rights clause that some premiers rejected. We know who they are, and at least one of them was trounced out of power because of his decision to drop the equality rights for women.
We proposed some amendments, on Senate reform for example. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, because the Prime Minister frequently tells us in this House that the Senate is only a bunch of Liberal bagmen he would rather do away with. Now, the Liberal Party proposed an amendment which says that in the future the Senate will be elected, and that has been our policy since the last Liberal Party Congress in November, 1986. We should also note that it is supposed to be the policy of several Conservative Premiers, in particular the one from Alberta. We now have the opportunity, through some amendments, to start with an elected Senate: Why not agree to that change since the present Senate has often driven Conservative Members and even the Prime Minister himself to talk about its abolition. Unfortunately, because of the decision to reject any
kind of amendment, "possibly" because some Premiers might not accept them, the Parliament and the Prime Minister leave us with an agreement which is an improvement over what we presently have, but which is not what we could have had in the circumstances. Even if I admit that some Premiers might "possibly" say that we cannot touch what has been agreed upon, the notwithstanding clause for example, there is nothing in our amendments which would prejudice the rights contained in our Charter. That isn't so hard. Everybody here believes in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So why not accept an amendment that guarantees, once and for all, that any changes arising from the distinct society concept will not derogate from any of the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That isn't so difficult.
Unfortunately, the Government did not have the courage to proceed with such amendments, fearing they would be rejected by the provincial Premiers. Mr. Speaker, I think that is why many Members in the Conservative Party have trouble supporting the Accord in its present form, and not because they are against the distinct society concept. In fact, they embrace that concept as I do, as a Canadian. I realize it is an essential point and that whether or not we put it in the Constitution, the fact is there. It is a point that cannot be denied by anyone. However, since the Government has rejected native demands, has refused to consider women's concerns, and will not consider changes to protect the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, some of us on this side will not vote for the Langevin Accord in its present form. I intend to support the Accord. But in doing so, I make the same mental reservation made by Quebecers who voted for Canada in the referendum. They voted for Canada, that is to say, they said no to sovereignty-association. They said yes to Canada. They said yes "maybe" with some apprehension about what the future would bring, hoping that further measures would be passed by Parliament and the legislatures to protect their distinct society. And if that is done, I hope that all Governments in Canada will understand that to develop and create a society with no fear, we have to enjoy the differences between our multicultural groups, the differences between the sexes, the differences with the first Canadian community, the native people, and that the Government will consider the Langevin Accord whether it is accepted or not as the first step in the right direction. We feel it is not enough to create a Canada where everyone can live knowing that our differences and our common bond are acknowledged. With the Langevin Accord, the Canadian link is a fact but I think that to continue to celebrate our differences, whether we are a minority in Quebec, or a majority outside Quebec, or a majority in Quebec, many more amendments as suggested by our Party should be approved. I should like Messrs. Mulroney, Bourassa and other Premiers who have promised to amend the Constitution to try to attain the purpose put forward by the Liberal Party.
October 8, 1987

[DOT]	(1730)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I have to tell the Hon. Member that her time has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to say a few words on the resolution before the House today concerning the Meech Lake Accord. This issue has been with us for many months now but this debate will be winding up in a few more days.
It seems to me that this is an important and historic debate for the House. Some of us had a chance to be here for the debate back in the early 1980s when we made the historic amendments to the Constitution which patriated the Constitution and installed a Charter of Rights in the it. Those were very historic days. It was a time which a country like Canada could only go through once.
[DOT]	(1740)
British parliamentary law does not provide for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many of the countries which have adopted the British Commonwealth, Westminster system of government have adopted a Charter of Rights, and it certainly was an historical occasion when we in Canada adopted one.
The Meech Lake Accord builds on that achievement. It provides for the Province of Quebec to join the Constitution. Of course, as long as Quebec is left out of the Constitution, it is not whole. Quebec represents some 28 per cent to 30 per cent of the population of Canada. It has a special position in our country because of its language, its culture and its different laws which were put in place in 1867.
This debate is an important one. It flows from those conditions Premier Bourassa set down in 1986 for Quebec's joining the Constitution. Of course, a great deal of work was done on those conditions in 1986 by members of our Party, by government Members and by Premier Bourassa. There were negotiations across the country.
Premier Bourassa's conditions included the recognition of the distinctive character of Quebec. He wanted to see some input from the provinces in the appointment of Supreme Court judges. That is perhaps to be understood because the Supreme Court governs both provincial and federal law in Canada. Premier Bourassa wanted to see the Cullen-Couture agreement on immigration put into the Constitution and he wanted to retain the traditional veto which Quebec had had up until the 1982 constitutional amendments. As well, he wanted to see some limitation on the spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Meech Lake Accord meets most of those requirements. There has been a great deal of debate over whether Quebec should be described as having a distinctive character or as being a distinctive society. What concerns many Canadians is
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that the Meech Lake Accord as it was presented to Parliament seemed to go way beyond those five provisions which Premier Bourassa had suggested. It seems to deal with areas relating to the Senate and it constitutionalizes the federal-provincial First Ministers' Meetings.
Those of us who have been around here for some time would eventually like to see an elected Senate which represents in a more democratic way the regions. The constitutionalization of federal-provincial conferences seems to make the Premiers the representatives of the regions forever and a day.
There are those in this House, certainly including members of the NDP and perhaps others, who want to see the Senate done away with. I personally do not think that that will ever happen. I do not think it can be done without the consent of the provincial Governments. Clearly the provincial Governments in the Maritimes and in the west are opposed to that. Therefore, I do not understand why the federal-provincial First Ministers' Meetings were constitutionalized. That has been done and, of course, how much they are used depends on the Prime Minister of the day.
There was a great deal of concern over the extension of the veto to the amendment of the Senate. Many provinces do not want to see an elected Senate. It is hard to imagine that we will see total unanimity for an elected Senate in Canada. The extension of the veto power on that issue is especially unfortunate at this time because of the tremendous drive that exists in western Canada for an elected Senate.
Certainly the meetings I have attended in Saskatchewan and Alberta have indicated to me that there is a strong desire there for an elected Senate and our Party, at its policy conference last November, passed a resolution calling for the establishment of an elected Senate. It is part of our Party's policy and we will certainly work toward that.
The rigidity which has been introduced by the Meech Lake Accord with regard to the establishment of new provinces or the extension of existing provinces to the territories was in my view an unnecessary clause. Of course, that has been emphasized by northern Members who are all opposing the Accord because of that unanimity provision.
I think there is always a danger in a federal-provincial meeting of this type which brought in the Meech Lake Accord. There are 10 Premiers, and everything else being equal, they would all just as soon have more power. It is really up to the federal Government to defend federal powers. In this case, it seems that so many things beyond the original conditions of Premier Bourassa have been given away by the federal Government. It is not clear to me exactly why so much was given away.
The Premiers will now nominate people for appointment to the Senate. Although I think many provincial Premiers are just as capable of nominating representatives to the Senate as anyone else, their view tends to be more the provincial view. I personally feel it is better that appointments come from the

October 8, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
federal level where there is a national point of view. That is why our Party has put forward an amendment suggesting that on an interim basis until we have a fully elected Senate, we elect new Senators rather than have them nominated by the provincial Governments which tend to nominate people who have provincial points of view rather than the national point of view.
As I said, the Accord goes far beyond the original request of Premier Bourassa. The over-all tendency is toward the decentralization of power. Important changes were made at the second meeting of the First Ministers in that there would be no change in the federal and provincial powers under Section 91 and Section 92 of the Constitution Act. That tends to ensure that the power of those two levels of Government is not changed by the Accord, but the over-all tendency is toward greater decentralization and a greater rigidity in the Constitution. That is why we have moved our amendments.
For example, instead of the unanimity clause we would have the requirement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population for the establishment of new provinces or changes to the Senate.
The other amendment which I feel is quite important is the provision of a national standard for federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We probably will not have many more new social programs such as the Canada Pension Plan or medicare or the Canada Assistance Program, but who knows. At some time in the future we may have a guaranteed income program. We may have agricultural programs which will meet the new standards of the OECD.
Where provinces opt out of national programs, the Liberal Party believes that not only should that province establish a compatible program, but one with a minimum standard equivalent to that provided by the federal Government. Certainly in the Langevin discussions there seemed to be a provision that those standards would be national standards, but for greater certainty we would like to see the amendment we have put forward adopted by the House.
That brings up the whole question of amendments. Clearly, this is an extremely undemocratic procedure that we are going through. There have been two all-night meetings where the Premiers were locked up with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and a deal was hammered out. That deal was brought to the floor of this House with the Government saying we will have discussions and public hearings but we will not accept amendments. I hope we never have that kind of a constitutional amendment again. It is simply not in keeping with the way you govern a democratic country like ours. It is an extremely backward step. That is why we put forward our amendments. We know the Government will vote them down but that is not the last word. There are provincial Governments which will deal with this, I believe in a more democratic fashion. If they adopt some of the amendments we are putting
forward, which we believe are more democratic, less rigid and more desirable, we would welcome it back to this House. In any event, I certainly hope that when constitutional amendments are next adopted it is done on a more democratic basis.
The fact that the Government has not provided constitutional amendments to deal with aboriginal problems is a gross blunder and great disappointment. Not only the native people but the people of the North are severely grieved by this document. Our amendments provide greater certainty that the rights of native people and women will not be overridden by this Accord. We would also like to see an amendment relating to the multicultural nature of our country. I do not for the life of me know why the Government has not adopted that amendment. I hope one of the provincial Governments will, so that the multicultural nature, which you, Mr. Speaker, and so many others represent in this House, will be fully recognized in the Constitution.
Despite all the problems I have outlined with this Accord, we still come down to the basic question of whether we want to adopt it now or wait for another day to see Quebec in the Constitution. My belief is that with all the difficulties, and I hope some of them will be corrected, if not by this Government then by one of the provincial Governments, it is important that this matter be dealt with now. We have a federalist Liberal Premier in Quebec with a Party in a strong position to work out a deal. It is not the deal we want but it will bring Quebec into the Constitution. It means we can go forward as a nation. Therefore I hope the Accord will be adopted, in amended form if possible. However, we should not miss this opportunity to make Canada whole by seeing Quebec become a part of the Constitution.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to co-operate with the Chair as usual. It is six o'clock and I just want to make sure that we all understand the point made by the Government House Leader and that the next discussion of Meech Lake will be on Monday, unless of course unpredictable circumstances arise.
I would like to make it clear on the record that that will be the case unless an unpredictable event takes place. I just want to make sure that we will still have the floor for the 10-minute question and comment period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next time the Bill is called there will be a 10-minute period for questions and comments.
With regard to the ruling of the House, the Government can give notice at any time.


George Albert Proud: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very important. I know that many Members would like to participate in the debate. We take the House Leader's word that the earliest time will be October 19.
October 8, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no problem.


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, is the House not sitting until 6.06 p.m. tonight?


George Albert Proud: No, that was yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House is sitting until six o'clock and it is six o'clock right now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
AIR TRANSPORT-PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM THROUGH CANADIAN AIRSPACE/TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on August 21 I asked the Government what it was doing to ensure that reprocessed plutonium would not be flown from Japan to France across Canada's north. I was told to be reassured that the Government would be acting in the best interests of Canadians. I and many other Canadians do not find that reassuring as we watch what the Government is currently doing in some of our other best interests.
I would like to point out that 1 was not the first to raise this question. On March 24, March 31, August 11, August 13, August 17 and August 28 Hon. Members asked the Government for some answers and received such reassurances as "well, no one has asked us formally and when they do we will respond", "we'll do the right thing", and the most insightful answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), "relax".
I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and other Canadians will feel relaxed knowing that, first, according to current information, the plutonium will be in such a fine particle state that one speck inhaled will be carcinogenic. Two, the composition of the particles is such that they would be suspended in the air if they were released. Therefore, in the event of a crash or mid-air explosion it would be absolutely impossible to clean up.
Three, standards for casks capable of withstanding either a mid-air explosion or a crash which are currently set by international standards are set on the basis of impact at 30 miles per hour. I do not think the planes will be flying over Canada at 30 miles an hour.
Five, the plutonium which will be transported will be of such a toxicity that its toxicity will be increased by 60 per cent over several decades. There will be a legacy for our children and our children's children should there be a spill.
Adjournment Debate
Six, the agreement proposed between the U.S. and Japan is for 30 years. The U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute states that it will take one flight every two weeks over a period of 10 years in order to transport this plutonium to Japan from France. On each flight there will be enough plutonium to make 15 to 20 bombs, each the size of the Nagasaki bomb. It is important to note that the plutonium is in such a chemical state that any high school student could easily and readily make a bomb.
Now that you are relaxed after having heard these facts, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about some people who are not relaxed. Certainly John Polanyi, Nobel prize winner, has expressed his concerns. He said that should there be a spill, the environmental hazards both to persons and the environment will last for thousands of years.
The State of Alaska is also concerned. It is currently suing the United States federal Government over the issue and is calling for a full environmental assessment review.
In addition to those concerns, there have been articles in newspapers throughout the country, including the Vancouver Sun, La Presse, Le Devoir, The Globe and Mail, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Windsor Free Press. Editorials throughout the country have stated that the Government should have dealt with the issue since it was first raised in March.
I want to summarize the three areas of concern. The first is the obvious environmental hazard in the event of a crash or mid-air collision. Second, should we allow these flights when there is a potential contribution to nuclear proliferation in the event of a hijacking. The third issue is sovereignty. Will the Government simply accept this proposal without the appropriate early intervention? Will the Government allow the United States to fly over northern Canada, which, incidentally, has been suggested as a route because it is uninhabited? That will be a big surprise to the people who live there. There is an alternate route across New York and Washington, D.C., but that does not appear to be a route being contemplated.
Other Members of the House have tried to bring these concerns to the Government, but without satisfaction. Daily I receive letters about this issue from my constituents and residents of the Northwest Territories, Ontario and other provinces.
Will the Government finally take some action and state an unequivocal no to this suicidal scheme? Will it take action now before the President and Congress ratify this agreement? Will it undertake the common sense solution and propose that Japan build its own reprocessing facilities?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), I can only reiterate assurances already provided by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on numerous occasions in the House.

October 8, 1987
Adjournment Debate
First and foremost, I would emphasize that while a draft agreement has been negotiated between the United States and Japan, it has not yet been signed. No decisions on the potential routing of these shipments have been made at this time. Indeed, it may all be hypothetical as other routes are certainly possible.
If and when an agreement is signed, however, I again remind Hon. Members that the movement of all dangerous goods by air is subject to both an international convention and domestic legislation.
In the international arena, Canada is a signatory nation of the International Civil Aviation Organization and as such has a number of options available. We can request that prenotification be given and that approval be received prior to any overflight being undertaken. In this case we would insist that the most stringent requirements for safe packaging be met as well as all safety and inspection requirements. As well, we can deny any overflight by filing a state variance with the International Civil Aviation Organization based on Canada's concern with any inadequate safety measures of such flights.
This Government has made representation to the United States Government in May and August of 1986 and again in April of this year, expressing our deep concerns in this matter. We have also spoken to Japan about the same concern.
This Government is monitoring the situation very closely. The permission of the Canadian Government would be required on a case-by-case basis before any such overflights could take place. I can assure Hon. Members that no such overflights would be carried out without our express approval. Canadian safety standards are among the highest in the world and any proposal would be fully scrutinized to ensure that these high standards are fully complied with, particularly in the area of safe packaging. Any decision taken by this Government would make the safety of Canada and Canadians the most important consideration.



Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: On May
21, 1987, Mr. Speaker, I directed the following question to the Minister responsible for Canada Post: Why is he doing everything he can to stop the postal service?
When the Canada Post Corporation was created by Parliament in 1981, Mr. Speaker, its mandate included the following: Firstly, to improve the postal service; secondly, to improve its industrial relations; and thirdly, to reduce its deficit.
Since then it has lived up to its mandate. It has substantially reduced its deficit. It was improving relations with its employees to the point that we had had no strike since 1981;
the first one occurred in May 1987, and now, three months later, we are faced with a second strike. Mr. Speaker, even if Canada Post had been slower to improve its service, slower than with the other two parts of its mandate, it did improve its service.
We should not forget that we had been faced with nearly 20 years of conflicts at the time the Corporation was a department. We could not expect some 20 years of conflicts to be forgotten overnight. It will take a number of years. Therefore, we were making progress.
But in February, 1986, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance clearly indicated in his Budget that effective March 31, 1988, Canada Post would have to become self-financed, meaning that it would have to operate at a profit, for the Federal Government would no longer soak up its deficit.
That is when our problems started, Mr. Speaker, for Canada Post turned around and said: Well, we are going to fulfil our mandate, present a corporate plan which the Government will accept and we are going to balance our books. And that is what happened, Mr. Speaker. This corporate plan provides for two systems of postal delivery in this country: one is home delivery of mail, which had been the general custom in Canada until then, and the other is delivery of mail to superboxes.
Since that plan was tabled, I can assure you that many communities have had neither door-to-door delivery nor temporary green boxes or superboxes, and many thousands of Canadians have to get their mail once a week, because they are away at work and cannot always drop in at the post office.
The current situation is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Now, after all those fights, those negotiations, the Government stands behind Canada Post-the Government gave that mandate to balance the books by March 31, 1988-and labour relations have been deteriorating. When Canada Post was established, we even appointed labour representatives to the Board of Directors of Canada Post in order to create a link, a work relation, in order that they might themselves take part in the management of the corporation and become aware of the difficulties-to create a climate of understanding.
However, Mr. Speaker, in-fighting has set-in. The Government has replaced those people. The situation now is that the Government has hired strike-breakers during the strike last May.
In 1987, a government that allows its own corporations . . . We are the shareholders of that corporation, Mr. Speaker. The Government as shareholder allows Canada Post to hire strikebreakers, to provoke violence in the workplace, and last May after many requests to appoint a mediator immediately, to solve that problem, the Government took 10 days, then the mediator needed only two days to solve the problem. This time, Mr. Speaker, we are not solving the problem. The strike has been on for a week, but the Government does not want to appoint a mediator. And now back-to-work legislation has
October 8, 1987

been introduced-so much for our collective agreement settlement procedure.
You are signaling that my time has expired. I should like to conclude by reading two paragraphs of the October 2, Halifax Chronicle-Herald editorial.
Privatization has brought us to the current strike situation. Neither side is yet prepared to back away from their fixed positions. That is understandable in the sense that what is at issue is the future capability of the Canadian postal system.
We doubt that either a national strike or back-to-work legislation will help much to attain that goal. It might be more helpful, however, if the post office Act is amended to more fully define the nature of the postal service and to blend the many views of what such service is and how it is to be provided.

Mr. Speaker, time has come for a new debate so we might at last define what kind of postal service we want to offer Canadians.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office in Canada has a long and proud history. Canadians were proud to receive mail from Canada Post in its former shape. As well, people were proud to work for Canada Post. However, in recent years there is no doubt that they came upon hard times and problems. As times changed, as management changed, and as unions changed, it led to problems.
A particular problem was that past Governments interfered in the operation of the Post Office. The result was that
Adjournment Debate
management could not manage and unions could not work for the workers. We faced the situation of unions actually trying to manage the Post Office. That just cannot work. Managers must manage.
Parliament tried a number of experiments to see what would work. The most recent one when the Hon. Member's Party was in Government was to create a separate Crown corporation. That has worked. Now, under the new President, Mr. Donald Lander, there is a postal corporate plan. I have looked at the plan and I have gone to briefings on it until I have been blue in the face. The plan is clear. Management changes have been made, because not all the faults were union faults. Working place changes have been made. It has clear goals in respect of service and independent auditing and checking of those goals.
I have absolutely no doubt that there is better postal service today than there was six months ago, 12 months ago, or 18 months ago. If we stick with the plan and let management manage and unions do what they are supposed to do in terms of their job, I can tell the Hon. Member opposite that we will be very proud of the result. I have no doubt that within a year or so Canadians can be once again proud of the Post Office, and people who work for the Post Office can be proud to say that they work for Canada Post.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 9, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers