1987-06-08

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-63, an Act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the said 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 the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, Members of Parliament who are very interested in today's motion will recall the recommendation in the McGrath report that motions, unless they are declared such, are considered not to be motions of confidence in the Government. I want to make it very clear that, as a member of the caucus of a Party which supports the constitutional Accord and wishes today to make some fine tuning comments, we consider the motion before the House to be not a motion of confidence-no reflection of a non-confidence vote-if it is voted in the affirmative. I just wanted to make it very clear in the spirit of the McGrath report that this motion has nothing to do with confidence in the Government.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in responding to my hon. friend's point, I know the motion is well intended and that my hon. friend wishes to have a full and complete debate on the matter, but he will remember that while the Government responded favourably to many parts of the McGrath Committee report-and you will know, Mr. Speaker, as will the House, that this is the first day under which the new rules have been brought into full force without any provision-I would point out to the House that the confidence convention was considered by the Government, and we did not feel that we were able to put the confidence convention into play as suggested by the McGrath Committee.
The Government will be considering today as an allotted day and the motion as a matter of confidence. That does not mean we cannot have a full debate on the matter or have it explored fully.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I gave my friend notice that I wanted very briefly, without interfering with the debate which shall go forward, to make a point of order with respect to the Opposition Day motion. I suggest that the Hon. Member's motion deals with two distinct propositions. One is the rights of Canadians in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and the second is a request for a First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights.
There is no doubt in my mind that it is appropriate to put a complicated question before the House, but I am concerned in that the first part of the motion deals with the constitutional

June 8, 1987
Supply
rights of Canadians residing in northern Canada, a matter which is now sub-judice. The Government leaders of both Yukon and the Northwest Territories have recently filed petitions in the Supreme Courts of those jurisdictions which seek judicial declarations that certain constitutional measures which the Meech Lake agreement anticipates are in contravention of the Constitution of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in their anticipated impact upon residents of the Territories.
The Yukon petition is scheduled for hearing on June 1 5, and the Northwest Territories petition on June 22.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 335 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which indicates that, pursuant to the sub-judice convention:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the
courts or tribunals which are courts of record.
This is a matter which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) raised in response to questions during last Thursday's Question Period. I understand the reluctance that the Chair has shown in the past in ruling opposition motions out of order, and I support that principle. In this case, however, I would suggest there is a possible solution; if you were to find one part out of order, that you give consideration to splitting the motion and proceeding with that portion which is not barred by the sub-judice rule-I am referring to the latter part of the motion.
I would ask you to consider this point of order, Mr. Speaker, and whether or not you might properly find that since the matter of the rights of Canadians in Yukon and Northwest Territories is, in fact, before a court of record that you should properly amend the motion. That amendment could take place by deleting all the words after the word "should" in the second line, down to and including the word "to" in the fourth line so that the motion would read:
That the Government should make a commitment to hold a First Ministers'
Conference to discuss aboriginal concerns, in particular self-government.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there Members rising on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion but I think it is an important point. The motion as it presently reads affirms that the question we are discussing is a political question and it is a matter quite appropriate for the House to discuss. We have sought advice on the appropriateness of the particular wording and consider it to be appropriate. It is certainly a political question and goes far beyond any restrictions that the court would place on such an initiative by the House of Commons.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, this resolution and the debate on it, in my opinion, in no way impinges on the court action taken by the Territories with respect to their rights under the Constitution.
We are not in this debate or by this resolution trying to resolve that court action or anticipate the court action. We are
dealing with the political will of this House to decide on the Meech Accord and what is in or not in it. We are not in any way trying to deal with the court action. I do not think that this resolution can be ruled out of order on those grounds.
There have been, I believe, many precedents where Parliament has passed legislation dealing with an issue that is before the courts and resolved it once and for all. In passing such legislation, Parliament has not attempted in any way to impinge on the rights of the litigants in the case. They have settled for the future once and for all and what would then be the situation.
With respect to the other point, I am deeply disappointed that the Deputy House Leader for the Government has refused to accept this resolution as a motion other than one of nonconfidence. When the Government brought in the new rules suggested by the Committee of the House, chaired by the then Hon. Member for St. John's East, this was supposed to be a new era of putting more meaning into opposition resolutions before the House. I do not think the Government has accepted one opposition resolution as a motion other than one of nonconfidence, even though opposition Parties have, time and time again, asked that they not be considered questions of confidence.
I would like to know from the Government, if this is not accepted as a motion other than one of confidence, what will the Government accept as such a motion in an opposition resolution? The Government is making a farce of the new rules which the Government itself has proposed that we continue, to which we have agreed. I cannot see what is meant by that provision in the rules if the Government will never accept any resolution put forward by the Opposition as a motion other than one of non-confidence. This is one which the Government should certainly accept on that basis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add one further point to this important debate. I am referring to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition Citation 336(1) which reads:
The sub-judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
It then goes on in Citation 337(1) to read:
No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the
convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
This is clearly not a criminal case that we are considering and, therefore, I think the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) is simply not appropriate.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have two additional points which I will make briefly because I do not wish to impinge upon the debating time.
First, with respect to the point which my hon. friend has just made, there is quite a difference between Parliament commenting on a civil case between two individuals or two different parties and Parliament commenting on a case which is being brought to a court of law by a territory which involves Parliament. For that reason, simply because we want to have
June 8, 1987

the matter heard by the courts without any question, a decision by Parliament should not impinge on that.
The second point I would make is that my friend may say that this is a political matter, but in the motion the reference is that the Government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord, 1987. I do not think there is any question that we have not diminished in any way the rights of Canadians in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I think we should try to separate what is properly the matter which should be dealt with in Parliament and properly the matter which should be dealt with by a court of law.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion, 1 would like to reply very briefly to the Government's arguments and to support what our House Leader has just said. The wording, as is my wont, was chosen with care. The words at the outset are that the Government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord, 1987. It does not say legal rights nor does it say moral rights, it simply says rights.
With foresight, I thought the Government might try to make even what on legal grounds I would regard to be a spurious argument, but certainly if the House gives the wording of the motion the latitude of interpretation it deserves, we may be talking about moral rights. That is one case that can be made and I will make it.
A stronger kind of case could be made that in addition to moral rights that are being infringed upon there are certain legal rights. If the wording had been "legal rights", the Government's case might be somewhat stronger than it is now. It certainly would not have been persuasive, but since the word "rights" is used and can be interpreted as meaning moral rights, I think that slight degree of credibility the Government had in its argument falls completely to the ground.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address two issues which have come to the attention of the House in the last few minutes. First, Rule 337 of Beauchesne's as it applies to sub judice refers quite clearly to the fact that no set practice has been developed in relation to any civil case. Certainly, the civil case convention does not apply after it reaches trial stage in any event.
It is quite different, of course, when dealing with criminal cases because then Rule No. 336 applies. Rule No. 336, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader indicated quite truly, indicates that debate at that point would be inappropriate if this were a criminal case, which it is not.
Finally, discussions about existing rights or rights of any other kind is a point of debate and not really central to the point of order, or to whether Rules 336, 337 or any other rule applies. Whether or not rights have been taken away or
Supply
whether they have been taken away morally, legally, constitutionally or otherwise is a point that could be raised during debate, but that discussion does not in any way affect whether or not Rules 336 or 337 of Beauchesne's apply in this particular case.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one very brief point. I would suggest that the precedent which the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to establish would in fact be a very dangerous one in that it would significantly limit the powers of Parliament to debate issues of public concern.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the mere issuing of a writ in the courts would cut off parliamentary debate and discussion. Surely Members of the House would recognize the implications of that. I know Your Honour recognizes the very serious implications of that. The Parliamentary Secretary sought then to shift ground. He probably recognized that the soil was eroding rapidly beneath him so he then started to suggest that perhaps the nature of the litigant made a difference. He said that it was a territorial Government that was suing and somehow that made it different. I would ask Your Honour to recognize that the fact that a writ has been issued and a civil action is under way should certainly not preclude a discussion by the House of the very important issues that have been raised by my leader.


Mr. Speaker:: In the interests of not holding up debate, the Chair has decided that, rather than reserve in this matter, the Chair will rule immediately.
In the interests of Hon. Members and of the public watching and listening, I want to be sure that everyone understands the issue that has been raised here. It is an issue that is always likely to be raised in the House, especially with respect to a matter being debated here which may be the subject of consideration by the courts.
I would say at the outset that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary raises a matter of concern to Hon. Members and a matter upon which the Chair has had occasion to comment in the past. In order to make the issue absolutely clear, I will read the motion. Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Riis, moves:
That the government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in
Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord, 1987; and
further, to make a commitment to hold a First Ministers' Conference to
discuss aboriginal concerns, in particular self-government.
One of the points the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has made is that the view of the Government is, and I think I have his words correctly, that it has not diminished the rights of Canadians in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. That may very well be, but that is of course a matter of debate. However, I have taken the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's point.
The reason that there has been throughout the centuries the admonishment by Speakers, contained in the learned comments on procedure, with respect to debates which concern matters before the courts is of course fundamentally to ensure that the rights of those who are before the courts are not prejudiced. Again, so that all Hon. Members and the public

June 8, 1987
Supply
will understand, I would like to refer to Rule No. 335 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads as follows:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record.
There is no question that in this case the action that has been taken with respect to Yukon and the Northwest Territories is before a court of record. The rule goes on:
The purpose of this sub-judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Rule 336 goes on to say:
The sub-judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases- The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered-the convention is applied again when an appeal is launched.
In the view of the Chair, this clearly is not a criminal matter. Rule 337 goes on to say:
(1)	No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
(2)	In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage.
[DOT] (M30)
I think it is common knowledge that even were the rule to apply in this particular case the matter has not reached the trial stage.
1 also draw to the attention of Hon. Members Citation 479(2) of Beauchesne's. It reads:
The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
In this case the issue which has been raised is a matter of public debate and a great deal of comment on both sides. No trial has yet commenced and if indeed it ever comes to trial it will certainly be treated as a civil matter.
Therefore, the case against proceeding with the debate is not strong enough on procedural grounds to move the Chair to set aside rule 479(2), that the use of the allotted day ought not be interfered with except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
Having said all that, I know Hon. Members will want to support the Chair in the suggestions and admonishments that I have made in the past with respect to comment on cases before the courts. I have urged Hon. Members to be very careful and to extend the principles of fair play, which is the basis of this place. I do want Hon. Members to understand that nothing I say in this ruling takes away from the very paramount necessity for all Hon. Members to guard with great care the rights of any citizen who may be involved in a court case, most especially, of course, a criminal case, which this is not.
I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for raising a matter which does warrant the consideration of the House and the Chair. I regret that I have not had time, under the circumstances, to give as extensive a ruling as I may have
wished to in this case, but under the circumstances this morning the Chair will allow the debate.


John Edward Broadbent: That the government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in
Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord, 1987; and
further, to make a commitment to hold a First Ministers' Conference to
discuss aboriginal concerns, in particular self-government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, following the historic meeting of the First Ministers last Tuesday in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers of the provinces reached an accord on a variety of propositions designed to amend the Canadian Constitution we in the New Democratic Party expressed our pleasure. We were happy with two things; first, that with the great diversity of political backgrounds and Parties of the Premiers and Prime Minister, representing the highly diverse country of Canada, they were able to come together on an agreement, and that ought to be an indication to those of us in this House who had to express a final opinion that we should likely be able to find ourselves in agreement with what was proposed, and second, we were pleased because we had said as a Party, following the Meech Lake meeting, that although we liked the process up to that point, and that in principle the Meech Lake Accord seemed to move in the right direction, we wanted to see the final wording. Last Tuesday we saw the final wording.
I am pleased to say on behalf of my caucus that we had the longest discussion that my caucus has had during this session, on a matter of great importance to the future of Canada, not only for the next five or ten years but, one hopes, for a few decades to come. Such a matter requires a most systematic and thorough discussion by all political Parties, about all of the elements and their implications to the Accord. My caucus spent over four hours discussing this matter in what I thought was one of the most constructive, useful and informative discussions we have had on any matter. Frankly, I would have welcomed public observation of a serious group of men and women actively deliberating upon a very serious matter.
At the end of that meeting I announced, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, our support for the resolution. I did so with great confidence that people from one end of Canada to the other-

Quebecers and other Canadians as well, when they examine this document, will find that the resolution is an excellent one. It is good for the federal Government and it is good for the provinces, because thanks to this Accord, the provinces will start to play a more positive role within our federal system.
Third, for the first time in our history, the Province of Quebec, as a result of a decision made by the Government of Quebec, will become a full participant in the Canadian federation. As I said before, this is a historic moment.
June 8, 1987



We are pleased that all the elements which needed to be considered were considered by the First Ministers. We think the package is a very positive one for the federal Government's role in our society, for greater participation by the provinces, and particularly because it constitutes an opening up to the Province of Quebec which was acceptable to the Government of the Province of Quebec.
I said that while accepting the Accord we would have more to say about the process of its consideration by Parliament and, very important, about the right of Canadians to learn in greater detail about what is involved and their right to make constructive suggestions about some of the details of that Accord.
Second, we said that we would have constructive suggestions to make about changing the Accord which would be consistent with its purposes and which we hope the federal Government and, in turn, the provincial Governments, will be able to reach final agreement upon and accept as positive.
I want to say something important on behalf of my colleagues with regard to the process. We want the Government to announce soon what it plans to do in terms of establishing a committee to look into the Accord and provide an opportunity for input from the people of Canada and Members of Parliament. The Government has an obligation to get this under way and to do so soon.
Today I want to talk about two groups of Canadians who are quite unhappy with the Accord. They are northerners and aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal peoples think they are doubly jeopardized because in addition to fearing that certain losses in terms of aboriginal rights could occur, since a majority of Canadians living north of the 60th parallel are aboriginal peoples, they believe that they lose once again in terms of discrimination against rights of people who live north of the 60th parallel.
I want to stress to Members of the Government that today's motion is fully consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Accord.

As a country, we wanted a process of renewal so that the founding partners of Confederation would feel both legally and morally comfortable within our federation. It would be most unfortunate if in the course of this process, two major groups of Canadians were to feel left out.
Seventy-five thousand people live in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, in an area that represents one third of Canada's territory. At a time when we are talking about the importance of Arctic sovereignty, the Accord as it reads today confers on northern Canadians a status that is somewhat inferior to that of the residents of other provinces. I am sure that we all want to try and improve the situation so that people in the north will not feel like second-class citizens. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said last week that the
Supply
process will enhance our ability to achieve that goal, the goal being to realize more fully the aspirations of northern Canadians. Canadians in the north want a strong voice in the decisions affecting their future in Confederation. They want a strong voice in areas that affect them.
The leaders of the Governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories believe that they should be able to consider the option for their territory to become a province. They have expressed serious doubts about the success of such an option, since now the approval of all provinces will be required for the two territories to become provinces.
Although there is no doubt that the central purpose of the last two First Ministers' meetings was to bring the people of Quebec, through their Government and in a positive way, to acceptance of a federal Canada, it was also desired by everyone there I am sure to do this without jeopardizing the rights of other Canadians. It would be very unfortunate if this accord, which is such a plus for so much of Canada, ends up doing injury to other Canadians. The changes I am proposing today are intended to avoid that possibility. They are intended to meet with the purpose and spirit of the Accord and I hope they will be listened to and accepted by the Government.
The people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories have two central complaints. First, they object to the amending formula which requires unanimity in order for them to obtain provincial status. This requirement is a departure from the history of the evolution of Canada. When your province, Mr. Speaker, as well as the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland became part of Confederation only the federal Government was involved in the decision. Certainly the other provinces played no role whatsoever. In 1982 this principle, which held sway up until then, was changed to require at least seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population to agree to the establishment of a territory as a province. With this Accord a more regressive step has been taken and, if adopted as part of our Constitution, all 10 provinces plus the federal Government have to be in agreement. This is quite unacceptable to the NDP.
The people in Yukon and the Northwest Territories simply want the restoration of the situation to what it was in 1982. They are not asking us to go back to the situation prior to 1982, they are simply asking us to restore the formula of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population plus the federal Government being in agreement.
I hope the Government has an adequate answer to the question I am going to ask. Why have we changed the formula to require unanimity? It goes against our history. It goes against logic. It goes against fairness. The people of those two territories want the right to make up their own mind about becoming a province and they do not want one province alone to be able to say no. That is what is involved. Now is the time in this debate for all the Parties to make clear that what has

June 8, 1987
Supply
been fair for other provinces in the past ought to be fair for Yukoners and people in the Northwest Territories today. We should all commit ourselves to Part 1 of this motion.
I would say parenthetically about the former Member for Yukon, a former Deputy Prime Minister, a man with whom I did not agree about an awful lot, and he would say the same thing if he were here today, that Mr. Erik Nielsen fought hard for the goal of Yukon eventually becoming a province. He made many speeches on that subject, both in this House and in Yukon. I have a suspicion that were he still a member of the Cabinet this kind of unacceptable proposal would not have been made. I will not say anymore on that.
The other point is that not only is there discrimination against the north in this respect, there seems to me to be an infringement of their legal rights in the provision in this Accord for the selection of new Senators. Far be it from me to praise the Senate and I certainly will not praise it as it now exists. However, if we are going to turn over to the provinces the right to select future Senators from their regions, then it seems to me logically, and I would have thought legally, necessary that those regions participate in the selection of their Senators in exactly the same way as the provinces.
1 am not a lawyer. I have many other faults but that is not among them. However, I would think the legal case being made about differential rights in the Charter of Rights by the Northwest Territories and Yukon is a solid one. It seems to me that what is involved in this provision is a different set of rights. If you are a Canadian living anywhere other than north of 60, you have the right through your provincial Government to participate in the selection of Senators. Yet if you live north of 60 you do not have that right. I believe that discrimination ought to be corrected by this Parliament before the resolution is adopted.
I want to talk about Canada's aboriginal peoples. In March, we saw the conclusion of the fourth constitutionally required attempt by the First Ministers to deal with aboriginal rights. It was the last in a series of meetings that have been designed to redress a very important and profoundly sad historical wrong. As all Canadians know, that meeting ended in failure. It was indeed a sad day for Canada.
It was both sad and poignant for many of us who were not participating in the conference but saw the wind-up session and saw, in particular, the very distinguished, committed and very moving statements made by the leaders of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. They were speaking as leaders of aboriginal peoples, but also were making it clear that they were speaking in a fundamental way as Canadians. They were saying that they wanted to be brought in as part of the Canadian family.
I say that we should not at this time continue to ignore their claims and that we should positively make a commitment to resolve what failed to be resolved in March. We should be
making a commitment to have a First Ministers meeting on aboriginal rights, particularly on the question of self-government for aboriginal people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Following the failure of that meeting, the Prime Minister said: "It was with the greatest sadness that this was a moral obligation that has been unfulfilled by Canada, by the federal Government and by the provinces". He was alluding to the failure to establish within the Constitution the principle of aboriginal self-government. It is important that we deal justly with the ongoing injury of unfulfilled rights for our aboriginal peoples, particularly the right of self-government within Canada.
On behalf of my colleagues I said to the aboriginal leaders' conference in Toronto on February 5, that as a nation we ought to be proud of our federal system which, in historical terms in the modern world, is one of the earliest democracies. We were the first to really combine the principle of responsible government and federalism. We have had a positive, at times exuberant, history in terms of resolving constitutional differences which, in effect, are by-products of differences within society.
There is now an important opening of considerable historic significance to the Province of Quebec. We are adjusting our federal system in a realistic way that accords with the human reality as it exists in Quebec and Quebec's relations with the rest of Canada. We have shown that flexibility in our federal system. In this regard, we ought to be energetically committed to the ideal that the federal system in Canada must be further amended to incorporate within it, the aboriginal peoples of Canada with their own form of self-government.
1 wrote to the Prime Minister on March 5, expressing my Party's desire for the Government to take the lead at the First Ministers' conference on aboriginal rights to be held later that month, and to work vigorously for an agreement. While I understand the Government's strategy of playing a consensus role, we wanted it to put a set of propositions forward that could have provided the foundation for the support from a number of provinces which could then jointly deal with the dissenting provincial Premiers. We know that rather than pursuing such a strategy, we saw a strategy of consensus building.
It is time that the federal Government took a more vigorous position, one that is clearly worked out and discussed with the leaders of the aboriginal peoples. It is time the Government took the initiative rather than wait for all ten provinces to be in agreement. It must formulate a package of proposals with the support of the majority of provinces who are on side in this important issue, significantly the Province of Quebec, and then work on the other provinces. I am sure that with the support of the vast majority of Canadians we can win.
June 8, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), but is there unanimous consent to give the Hon. Member some extra time?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we agree to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to continue his remarks. Of course, we take it that he will be reasonable and take into consideration the fact that members from our Party want to speak to this important motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank Members of the House for their consideration.
Following the Meech Lake agreement, I questioned the Prime Minister about the need for a specific commitment by the First Ministers to be put in the Accord to have additional meetings to deal with the question of aboriginal rights, particularly the right to self-government. At that time, the Prime Minister responded with openness and said that he was prepared to rethink the position that was taken at Meech Lake. I hope that rethinking process is taking place with great seriousness.
An appropriate metaphor has been used with reference to the inclusion of the aboriginal peoples with their rights in the Constitution. It is the metaphor of the circle. The circle of our Constitution simply is not complete. I am convinced that after the appropriate decision is made in the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec, for the first time Quebec will be openly making a positive decision to be part of the Canadian federation. That is an important part of closing the circle. However, we must now include the aboriginal Canadians. It is unthinkable to close the circle without them because the Canadian family must include all of its members within the circle.

Mr. Speaker, native leaders, the Prime Minister and the Opposition are agreed that if during the past five years, Quebec had taken part in the struggle for constitutional recognition of native peoples, our chances of success would have been greater. Now that Quebec has signed the Constitution, we must try again.
The Prime Minister has stated that genuine co-operation is necessary to see that justice is done to Canada's native peoples. We can give these words muscle by adding to the Accord a constitutional conference of First Ministers on native rights, especially the right of self-government.
We can respond to the concerns of native peoples and the citizens of Canada's North.
On May 4 this year, the Prime Minister said that the Meech Lake Accord was not about the possibility of creating new provinces but about bringing Quebec back into the Constitution.
Supply
Native leaders and leaders of the Governments of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are glad to see that Quebec has been brought back into the Constitution, although they do believe that the Accord could have disastrous consequences for native peoples and the people of the north.
We now have the time and the opportunity to improve the Accord in such a way that it enhances and does not restrict the aspirations of Canada's native peoples and the residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Now is the time to complete the circle of confederation. Supporting this motion will move us clearly in that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments? There being no questions and comments, debate.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate which follows a very historic event in the history of our country, that is, the unanimous agreement and signing last week of the Accord with respect to an amendment to our Constitution which says: "Welcome back Quebec. Welcome to Canada as a full and participating member of our Confederation".
I think it important at this point to reiterate, and again from time to time as we discuss the matter, not only here on the floor of the House of Commons, but generally in Parliaments of the provinces of our country, that we have taken this step to make our country whole, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has said, and to have a most important part of Canada feel at home and part of this union.
I was gratified to hear, not only from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) but from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) as well, in their formal responses on behalf of their Parties their unequivocal approval of this Accord. I say to them that the position they took was positive and constructive, coming as it did at a time when it seems to me we are moving towards a Canada that does in fact constitutionally reflect the realities we face. It is in that spirit that I address this debate.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has, in his motion, raised a couple of issues which bear full debate and consideration. Let me say at the outset that I want to deal with these issues as best I can in a non-partisan way, because I believe that is the kind of debate we should have with respect to constitutional matters. However, I have to say that I do not share the basic premise of the motion put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He is dealing with two elements in his motion, the position of those important citizens of our country who reside in the Territories and our aboriginal people, and that the position we have taken as a Government and as a Parliament with respect to these people constitutionally has been anything but supportive. In fact we are making progress, and I want to deal with the realities of what has transpired and what we now face. I want also to give my

June 8, 1987
Supply
assurance to Members of the House, on behalf of the Government, that in these two important areas our commitment remains to achieve progress and to work towards that priority.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa alluded to the process which is taking place with respect to this particular matter. I think it is important for us to put this into context. Some people have said that this particular Accord is not receiving the kind of debate it should. I think the facts are that this particular Accord has and will receive by far the most complete and intensive consideration of any political accord with respect to our Constitution in the history of our country.
I want to remind Hon. Members that in 1980, 1981 and 1982, we were in an evolutionary period with respect to constitutional change. They will recall that until 1982 the whole question of constitutional change in law, practice and convention was really a unilateral function of the federal Parliament. There was reference in some judicial pronouncements that there should be some consultation and agreement where actions were taken that might impact on the legislative capacity of a province but, in reality, when the last province was added to our country this was a unilateral action taken by the federal Government without consultation with other provinces. So I think it is important to note that we have progressed in constitutional terms to 1982 when the inclusion of additional provinces was in fact a matter which required the consensus of provincial legislatures, and also the consent of those legislatures representing over 50 per cent of the population of Canada.
Therefore, I take it that the New Democratic Party is not taking the position that when we deal with matters of national institutions and the creation of new provinces, and when we talk about giving self-government to aboriginal peoples, we should move back to the point that unilateral action can be taken by the federal Government. I take it that indeed the NDP supports the idea that provincial participation and consultation in these important issues is fundamental in modern Canada.
I wanted to put that in context, because it seems to me that when we debate this issue, we need to remember that the last time we had a constitutional amendment, in 1982, there was no debate by the provinces and no debate with respect to any provisions which took place, except on the floor of the House of Commons and in the Senate of Canada. The agreement was finally put together, as history tells us, in a kitchen, with the exclusion of the important Province of Quebec. It was negotiated in the dead of night between the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, and manifested itself in an Accord which was not signed by Quebec. It was simply put to us in Parliament and we were asked "yea or nay". There was no subsequent discussion about the elements which went into the compromise arrived at in the night without the participation of Quebec. There were no debates in the provinces with respect to that matter because all that was required was a joint address of the Senate and the House of Commons with respect to that particular amendment.
We are now moving to a point where we not only will have a discussion here on the floor of the House of Commons, but there is also a provision-this will be negotiated between the House Leaders of the various Parties in this place, that is an appropriate method of dealing with this matter-for each of the provinces, in all regions of Canada, to debate and discuss this matter. A more complete process has never been undertaken for constitutional change in Canada.
On the political side, and I do not want to get myself involved in the legal arguments which will be addressed with respect to matters before the court, but speaking in terms of the interests of people who live in the Territories, I want to say that the matter we have before us is a matter arrived at by unanimous consent in trying to reflect the realities of Canada today. I do not think anyone can challenge the fact that my Party and this Government have taken a leadership role with respect to devolution in the Territories and with respect to ensuring that, as quickly as possible, we move forward in this area of the Territories controlling their own destiny and attaining provincial status.
In terms of what we have before us, the reality is simply this. Part of this arrangement, which was in effect a discussion of what will happen in the future, is a constitutional recognition that whenever one talks in terms of additional provinces within our country, regardless of the government in power at any particular time, there must be the fullest understanding and consensus of all provinces with respect to such admission or creation. Indeed, the provision for unanimity addresses the reality of today. We are entering into a new phase in federal-provincial relations.
When was the last time in Canada that we could have attained such accord? When was the last time we saw representatives from all political Parties moving forward cooperatively to strengthen our country and to give a proper recognition to all its regions? Could one have visualized two or three years ago constitutionalizing a process by which every year there would be a meeting of First Ministers with an agenda regarding constitutional amendment?
What an opportunity for Canada to move forward in terms of the development of the north! In the Northwest Territories there is an internal discussion going on now with respect to boundaries and the division of the Northwest Territories into two separate Parties. I simply say that we now have an opportunity to move forward in this area. We have a new spirit of co-operation, a new spirit of confederation. I say to Hon. Members opposite in the New Democratic Party that this is an opportunity for us to move forward in this spirit of cooperation to serve the legitimate and proper aspirations and purposes of the people within the territories of our country.
I should point out that there is also a protection built into this unanimous provision in the Constitution, inasmuch as it will not be possible for intrusion into the Territories by existing provinces wishing to expand their boundaries into that area of
June 8, 1987

our country. That would require unanimity as well. Thus there is a protection to people in the territories built into this Accord, which I recommend for support on the floor of the House of Commons.
We have an opportunity to go forward on this matter and, indeed, with respect to the matter of aboriginal rights on a formalized basis. We have now agreed for the first time in our country to have constitutional amendment as an annual process, to work together to try to develop a country which will be not only more sensitive to the concerns of all its residents and citizens but, indeed, responsive to all areas and regions of the country.
I wish to deal briefly with one or two items that have been raised with respect to the 1987 Accord and some of the misconceptions that may have been brought forward. I think that this is a strong and solid document which recommends itself for the unanimous support of all Members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, if I may be permitted to refer to the other place. This is an opportunity for us to go forward and to say to Quebec, "Yes. We want you as part of Canada to play an important and integral role".
Before we start to become involved in a discussion of the wording or some element that some Hon. Members might have preferred to be in the Accord, I ask all Hon. Members this. Consider the consequences of having failed over the course of the long and protracted negotiations that have taken place over the last three years, which negotiations have culminated in the Meech Lake Accord and subsequently in the agreement signed formally by all Premiers and the Prime Minister last Thursday. What kind of country would we have faced today if we had come out of those meetings saying no to the Province of Quebec? This has to be an underlying consideration. I cannot as a western Canadian visualize as a western Canadian the type of insular attitude that would be taken by some who would say to an important part of our country, "It does not suit our convenience right at the moment, therefore we are not going to pay attention to your legitimate concerns and your wish to become part of Confederation".
If that was the attitude prevalent with respect to the part of Canada which I represent, then my attitude toward Confederation would be severely limited and negatively impacted. Instead of standing in our places and saying that we wished that the Constitution contained this word or that word, let us be forward-looking. Let us be generous. Let us support what I say and suggest is a solid supportable document which, in fact, strengthens Canada and all parts of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Accord has two essential characteristics which reflect the Canadian federation. The first is the incontestable fact that a fundamental characteristic of Canada is the existence of persons who speak one or other of our official languages, together with the fact that Quebec, within Canada, possesses a distinctive heritage. This is a feature which is indeed recognized by our founding constitutional
Supply
document of 1867, which singles out Quebec's civil law system, the use of both official languages in the law, courts and legislature of that province, as well as at the federal level. The second is the affirmation of the basic nature of a federal system of government wherein the component units, that is, the provinces, have a legitimate, shared interest in the establishment and composition of the central institutions of government. These bodies do not exist for the sole interest or benefit of the central government.
This is a point that was made very clear by the Supreme Court of Canada when, in 1980, it struck down a unilateral attempt by the federal Government to reform the Senate. This is equally true with respect to areas such as immigration,about which the provinces already have a concurrent jurisdiction with Parliament. It is true about spending power with respect to which the provinces take an obvious interest in shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Nor is it surprising that the provinces be viewed as standing on a basis of equality when decisions are being made about the fundamental alterations in the central institutions of the nation or in the evolution of its political structure. These are the essential features of the Canadian federation which are the heart of the new constitutional Accord, a translation of basic facts into legal reality.
At the same time the central government and its capacity to govern as a strong government have not been impaired. Its full powers to ensure a united and strong Canada with English, French and multicultural dimensions are fully protected. Its essential powers over immigration remain undiluted. Its spending power is civilized but undiminished. Indeed, this power is now explicitly recognized in the Constitution by the Accord. The ultimate authority of the central government over the Supreme Court and Senate remains, and no amendment to the Constitution can be made without its consent. So where are all these alleged so-called losses in federal authority that have been stated to be at peril?
As the preamble to the 1987 Accord states, the purpose of the amendments are,

-to bring about the full and active participation of Quebec in Canada's constitutional evolution and provide new arrangements to foster greater harmony and co-operation between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces, and would require that annual First Ministers' conferences on the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate be convened and that annual constitutional conferences composed of First Ministers be convened.
There is a second misconception about the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment gives as much, if not more, precision in its language as any previous set of constitutional amendments we

June 8, 1987
Supply
have seen and, indeed, as some of the concepts contained in the original BNA Act and the Constitution Act.
Let us look at the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Is there anything more general one can state in a constitution or a charter than those words?
In Section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Those words outline principles which we all support and which we would want to be interpreted in the proper Canadian way.
Let us go back to Parliament's powers in Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. It allowed Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. The Privy Council and the Supreme Court together have been moulding and remoulding that expression for 120 years. We still have no certainty about its meaning, whether it is a residual or an emergency power.
I think the wording of the proposed amendment is in comparative terms most precise and supportive. I do not think any of us would want to have such restrictive and constrained wording in the course of a constitutional amendment that it would not allow for expansive, creative, evolutionary development of a united Canada which recognizes the interests and the uniqueness of the country; one which can in fact be developed as time goes by.
Since questions have been raised in respect of allegations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but he too is about to take up a few extra minutes. I hope he will get unanimous consent to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I want to touch upon the second part of the motion because I believe it is a very sustainable-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Here again I must remind the House that we have Members on all sides who want to speak in this debate. This is an Opposition Day. If government Members could take their 20 minutes, plus the 10-minute Question Period, I would appreciate it. If the Minister could give us an undertaking that he will not take any more than three minutes or four minutes to finish his speech, I would appreciate that also.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will try to take no more than four minutes or five minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: All right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In respect of appointments to the bodies in question, there has been no limitation of the ability of the
federal Government represented in Parliament to make the appointments in question. However, there has been a new process in respect of consultation, not only in terms of appointments to the Senate until Senate reform is a reality, but also in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada. I suppose the impact is more pronounced in the Province of Quebec than in the rest of Canada. Consultations can take place with the provinces in respect of the other positions in terms of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I want to deal with the latter part of the motion before us by pointing out that we are in fact moving forward in terms of our consideration of constitutional amendments in the interests of aboriginal peoples. I share the disappointment. I think all Hon. Members of the House felt that we were unable to strike an arrangement on aboriginal constitutional amendments at the last First Ministers' meeting. However, the federal Government gave leadership. I hate to take issue with a statement by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, but the reality is that the federal Government was in a position of leadership to bring forward, in all stages of the discussions over the course of the last three years, a proposition which would have allowed for self-government in Canada. We felt that it should have been acceptable and sufficient, not only to the aboriginal peoples but also to the provinces, to bring about an amendment. All of us agree that the objective is one toward which we all want to work. However, it became a question of whether or not we would be able to bridge the gap which unfortunately existed between a number of provinces and the aboriginal people over the question of the inherent right to self-government existing for aboriginal peoples. We tried every device and every initiative to bridge that gap. It was not consensus making which was at stake; it was a fundamental principle in which the federal Government said that self-government must always be within the context of Canadian confederation.
If we consider that basic principle, then any other position on the part of the federal Government would not find acceptance by Members of Parliament, let alone the population of Canada. We wanted to allow for a position which could be evolved and developed, and for a commitment to be made to sit at the table with the aboriginal people on a mandatory basis to move forward with self-government, but it did not work.
However, that was not the end of it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated at the conclusion of the First Ministers' meeting that it was not the end of it and that we may not call a First Ministers' meeting in order simply to go over what happened in the past, but that we would want to see some indication that we would make progress. Therefore I have met, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in an initial way with three aboriginal representative groups. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has been in communication on an ongoing basis with the AFN. We are asking for their input into what would be an appropriate mode to proceed in respect of aboriginal self-government. I have had very helpful discussions with representatives of the aboriginal groups. I am now consulting to determine what will
June 8, 1987

be the most appropriate way to maintain the priority to move toward the ultimate constitutionalization of the concepts of self-government and aboriginal rights within the constitution.
It seems to me that it would be unrealistic for us to convene meetings which would take place on a formalized basis until we were able to examine with aboriginal groups the appropriate way to proceed at this point in our history.
As far as the federal Government is concerned, I assure Hon. Members that our commitment to aboriginal peoples and people in the territories of Canada remains. We believe that their rights are protected under the Accord and that there is a new prospect for movement in a constitutional way which did not exist prior to the Accord.
The final result of this meeting of minds in a unanimous way was to give us the prospect-and a happy prospect it is- that in the months and years ahead Canada will make progress and serve the best interests of its citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are still two minutes remaining in the 20-minute plus 10-minute total, so I will allow a question or comment by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, 1 enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Hon. Minister and essentially agreed with much that he said. However, I missed any precise explanation from him about why he is opposed to the motion. What are the objections of the federal Government or any of the provinces to maintaining the system that now exists in allowing new provinces into Confederation? I do not understand who would object to the existing system. Why necessitate having ail 11 provinces in agreement?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief and to the point with respect to those two elements put forward by the Hon. Member. I do not find it possible to sustain and support the motion because I do not accept the premise. It is not a question of restoring the rights of people in the Territories. I have explained with respect to the aboriginal people why a First Ministers' conference at this point may not be the best method. There is an understanding among aboriginal peoples that there has to be emphasis on a little different approach before a First Ministers' conference is called on aboriginal constitutional matters. That is not to say that these are not legitimate matters for First Ministers' meetings, but what we want to do is look at the most appropriate way to make sure we will have success. It is one thing to have a meeting but it is another thing to have success.
I do not think the New Democratic Party wants to go back to unilateralism on the part of the federal Government. I think New Democrats believe in the phrase co-operative federalism.


Mr.   de Jong@: Yes.
Supply


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think we all agree with that. When we get involved in the policy question, a legal question has to be asked. If you add new provinces to our constitution that would affect such programs as equalization. Are we to move ahead without first having an understanding and consensus with all participants in our confederation on these issues, even with the positive merit of devolution of the Territories to provincial status in Canada?
Secondly, this does impact on the amending of our constitution. When you bring in new provinces, a new dimension is brought to the amending formula which, in another section of the present Constitution, requires unanimity having two-thirds of the provinces of the country representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada? If, by way of example, you create three new provinces in northern Canada, do you not first want to understand what the implications are for Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia or any province or region? What are the implications of such change, Mr. Speaker?
I am trying to suggest to the Hon. Member that these concerns are shared. The desire is to move ahead with the Territories in full consultation with them, but there are a number of considerations in our modern confederation which have to be taken into account, that cannot simply be overlooked for the sake of political rhetoric. We have to look at some real problems to see how we are going to address them realistically, recognizing that certain important constitutional elements will be affected if we do not have that unanimity for the establishment of new provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask you how questions and comments can be terminated when they started only a few minutes ago?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member realizes that the first speaker spoke for close to a half an hour. I am trying to balance the time for the first three speakers. The Minister took 32 minutes, to be exact, of his allotted time. I am now going to the Liberal Party. I would like to balance things off before the end of the day. If there is a problem and if the Hon. Member wishes the Chair to do something differently, would he please so advise?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Minister had sought consent of the House to finish his remarks. I believe in the exchange he would take four or five additional minutes to the 20 minutes allotted to him, then there would be a 10 minute question and comment period which would give us in the Opposition, both the New Democrats and the Liberals, a chance to question the Minister. We agreed to that, Mr. Speaker. I find it difficult now that you have combined the 20 minutes plus the additional time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not find any problem with that at all. The Chair is the servant of the

June 8, 1987
Supply
House. If there is agreement here to allow an extra eight minutes for the Hon. Minister to answer questions, I am easy. Is there unanimous consent to allow an extra eight minutes for questions and comments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reasonable approach in this matter and that of my colleagues in the House. Actions often speak louder than words. I observed that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the First Ministers met during a series of meetings regarding aboriginal rights ,there was no fruitful outcome, that the meetings ended in the early afternoon with statements of regret. But when it came to bringing Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family, which is a legitimate matter and one we all support, the Ministers met throughout the night and produced results. What can the Minister do now to reassure Canadians and the aboriginal peoples that the same kind of commitment will be demonstrated with regard to aboriginal peoples and selfgovernment for them?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts speak for themselves in this regard. We had, unfortunately, in the aboriginal constitutional conference what I would call wide apart positions on the part of the representatives of the aboriginal peoples and certain of the provinces. We had been able to garner for the federal position very substantial support, but it was not sufficient to get the kind of consensus that I think would be essential under our Constitution, which provides for an amendment with two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. Significant agreement was also required by representatives of the aboriginal peoples present. A realization came that we were not able to bridge the gap and that more work had to be done. More work will be done because the federal Government is prepared to give leadership in finding areas of common ground.
The Prime Minister has stated perhaps the obvious, that one can keep people together at a First Ministers' meeting, but at some point in time, whether having to do with aboriginal peoples or other matters of such immense importance-as was the case in bringing Quebec back into the constitutional process-an assessment must be made as to whether or not it is possible to get consensus. Happily, in terms of the developments that have taken place concerning the agreement signed last week, there was not only consensus but unanimity. That state did not exist with the aboriginal constitutional conference. We did not have unanimity. We had some very sharply stated differences which emerged after many, many months, weeks, hours and days of discussion and negotiation, not only with ministers but also with officials.
Over the course of the last year I have spent a very substantial period of time trying to get a constitutional amendment on behalf of the federal Government for the aboriginal peoples of our country. We have tried to give leadership. We have tried to bring the provinces and the aboriginal peoples toward a position that we think will serve our country and the aboriginal
peoples well, by having a constitutionalized provision for selfgovernment. We continue to believe that we should have that constitutional provision. We are now canvassing the suggestions of representatives of aboriginal groups as to how we should proceed. As well, I will be consulting with the provinces to obtain their views.
Until we can develop an alternative regime, I do not think, as suggested in this particular motion, that it would be fruitful or helpful to convene a First Ministers' conference at this time. This is an item that can be placed on the agenda at the annual meetings on constitutional amendments. I believe at this time we should have an ongoing and continuing exchange, particularly with the aboriginal peoples, as to how they think we should develop this. That is what I am now in the process of doing.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House of Commons today deals with two important matters. First, it deals with a request made by Yukon and the Northwest Territories that we change the provision in the Meech Fake Accord which requires the unanimous consent of all provinces to establish new provinces. Second, we are discussing the request of the aboriginal peoples that we hold further federal-provincial conferences to entrench aboriginal self-government.
The Liberal Party supports both requests and will vote for this resolution today. In doing so, we do not believe that the passage of this resolution will in any way detract from the principles agreed upon in the Meech Fake Accord and in the Meech Fake-Fangevin resolution.
I would like to say a few words about the process which allows for further discussion and for amendment of the Meech Lake Accord. It seems to me that the basis of the Meech Lake Accord is the adherence of Quebec to the constitutional document of 1982. The thrust of the Accord is to meet the five conditions laid down by Quebec in May of 1986 for adherence to the Constitution.
What were those five conditions laid down by Quebec in May of 1986? They were: first, the explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; second, a guarantee of increased powers for Quebec in matters of immigration; third, a limitation of the federal spending power; fourth, revision of the amending procedure including recognition of Quebec's right of veto; and fifth, Quebec's participation in appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We believe that the Meech Lake Accord and resolution responded to those five demands. However, very often when dealing with certain matters we must then examine what has been agreed upon to see how it touches on other parts of the Constitution and on other rights. As we do that, we see that this agreement could possibly touch on other matters such as aboriginal rights, the rights of the Territories and linguistic rights. We can maintain what was agreed upon in response to
June 8, 1987

Quebec's five demands, but we must make certain that in agreeing to those demands we do not detract from other rights that were in the Constitution and were not necessarily discussed by the people who met at Meech Lake and in the Langevin Block last week.
While the principles of the Meech Lake Accord must remain sacrosanct, or else we will scuttle the whole agreement altogether, I see no reason why every detail of the Accord must remain sacrosanct. Let us look at what was done in 1981 and 1982 when we patriated the Canadian Constitution and provided for a Charter of Rights and an amending formula. That whole process took more than one year. It began on October 6, 1980, with a constitutional resolution similar to the one in the Meech Lake Accord tabled in the House. The final vote was taken on December 1, 1981. In the interim, there were three debates in the House and three votes. There was a long debate which terminated on October 4, 1980, at which time a vote took place. Then the resolution was sent to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons where it was improved upon. Amendments were made with the agreement of the committee and, if I recall correctly, all Parties agreed to many amendments made by the Special Joint Committee.
Once the committee had finished its work in February 1981, the resolution was returned to the House where it was again debated and another vote was held on April 24, 1981. Then it was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, there were further discussions and there was a Federal-Provincial Conference on the resolution as it came out of the House of Commons.
At the Federal-Provincial Conference, certain things were changed. When the Ministers signed that Accord in the fall of 1981, they took out provisions Parliament had put in with respect to women and aboriginal rights. Having signed the Accord, it returned to the House of Commons for the third time and Parliament, despite the fact that the Accord had been signed by the provinces, put back in the aboriginal rights and women's rights clauses, though they were not entrenched as well as they had been in the first place.
That is the process that was followed in 1981-82. It entailed much discussion, three debates, three votes and the work of a Special Joint Committee which heard the evidence of groups from all over the country.
The importance of the two matters we are dealing with today is that neither of them are mentioned in the five conditions put forward by Quebec. There is no mention in the proposals put forward by Quebec in May, 1986, of the rights of the Territories to become provinces, or of aboriginal rights. Consequently, 1 cannot see why there is any objection to dealing with these two matters as proposed.
Who would object? Obviously Quebec did not object. We do not know what went on in the chamber where the Meech Lake Accord was discussed, but it is hard to understand why the unanimity rule was put into the Meech Lake Accord when it was not part of Quebec's proposals. It does not seem to me that
Supply
it had anything to do with the agreement to Quebec's five proposals. While we want to respect the principles on which Quebec and the other provinces and Governments agreed, we must ensure that these principles agreed upon do not derogate unintentionally from other existing rights.
The first matter raised by the resolution which is to change the provision in the Meech Lake Accord that requires unanimity of all the provinces in order to establish new provinces was never the rule in Canada. When the federal Government carved the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, it was done by a statute of the Parliament of Canada with the agreement of the Assembly in the Northwest Territories. The other provinces were not involved and two important provinces were established in that way. The same was true with the admission of Newfoundland in 1949. That was an agreement between the Newfoundland or colonial legislature of the day and the Parliament of Canada. The other provinces were not involved.
In 1981-82 when we patriated the Constitution and put in it the requirement for the creation of new provinces of the agreement of at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, the two Territories objected at that time because we were departing from the rule we had followed in the past. If they objected to that provision in 1982, they are certainly upset with what is being proposed now. As a matter of fact, they are now saying let us at least stick with the 1982 provision. They see no reason, nor do we, why we must have unanimous consent of all provinces, especially since that was not part of Quebec's conditions for entry into the constitutional agreement.
As was noted by other Hon. Members, the Northwest Territories and Yukon have evolved over the years. I can remember the day when those two Territories, especially the N.W.T, were run by a bunch of mandarins from Ottawa. In due course Assemblies were set up in the N.W.T. and Yukon, much earlier in Yukon, in a move towards a system of responsible Government.
There was also a time when the Governments of those two Territories were almost completely non-Indian or non-Inuit. Now Indians, Metis and Inuit are very much involved in the Governments of those two Territories. As you know, an agreement in principle has been reached to divide the Northwest Territories in two. One would cover the area of Nunavut populated principally by Inuit. The other, in the Western Arctic along the Mackenzie, would have a mixed population of Dene, Metis and non-native people. Those areas are evolving and it would be unfortunate if we stick with this unanimity provision in the Accord for the creation of new provinces.
As far as I can see, that provision is not necessary. Certainly if we agreed to what is in this motion today, that would not be a barrier to the acceptance of the other conditions put forward by Quebec. I want to point out that when the Liberal Party

June 8, 1987
Supply
was in convention last November we passed a resolution to completely withdraw Article 42(l)(f) of the 1982 Constitution. That is the provision which requires agreement of seven provinces plus 50 per cent of the population. It was the feeling at the convention that we should return to the traditional way of doing things whereby it would be a matter between the federal Government and the new province concerned.
Another issue is that in drafting the Meech Lake Accord the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) completely overlooked the appointment of more Senators for those two Territories. They provided that each province provide a list of names for appointment to the Senate and forgot that we have a Senator from Yukon and a Senator from the Northwest Territories. If in due course we have a third territory we will probably have three Senators. That is with respect to that part of the resolution relating to the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
With respect to other parts of the resolution, which deal with aboriginal rights and the aboriginal right of self-government, once again I believe we can provide in this Accord further constitutional conferences on aboriginal self-government without impinging at all on Quebec's proposal. There was nothing in the Quebec conditions which dealt with aboriginal rights, and as far as I can see you can completely agree to the distinctiveness of Quebec's society and the promotion of that distinctiveness without being prevented from recognizing aboriginal rights and aboriginal self-government in the Constitution.
It is interesting to note that there was some movement between the Meech Lake Accord and the Langevin resolution. The Accord did not refer at all to the question of aboriginal rights or the rights of the multicultural heritage in Canada. However, in the resolution they at least put forward in Section 16 a non-derogation clause whereby the new Section 2 of the Constitution would not derogate from those rights entrenched in the Constitution with respect to the aboriginal people and multicultural heritage. That indicates that there was some goodwill there. Yet we know they did much of that in the middle of the night, after a long, long meeting, and probably it was not completely thought through.
In Section 37 of the Constitutional Act of 1982 they provided for further First Ministers' Conferences to discuss and take action on aboriginal rights, and in particular aboriginal self-government. Four conferences were held as required, one each in 1983, 1984, 1985 and this year, 1987. Alas, no agreement was concluded. The aboriginal peoples of Canada are saying to us that we went through four First Ministers' Conferences on aboriginal self-government and we could not agree. That shows we did not have the same political will at those conferences that we had when we sat down to discuss the Meech Lake proposals where we agreed unanimously to the
conditions put forward by Quebec. We have now moved forward quickly on the resolution. They are saying if we can demonstrate that political will with respect to one group of people in Canada, surely we can do it with respect to another which was here for thousands of years before the Europeans came.
It is also interesting to look back on those four conferences. The objection of several provinces was that they could not agree to entrenching aboriginal self-government in the Constitution because they did not know what it means. They said "It must be more precise." They want to make sure they know what they are agreeing to. Isn't it interesting that in the Accord all the provinces and the federal Government agreed to a distinct Quebec society without that being precisely defined. They also agreed to a provision with respect to the spending power without that being precisely defined. I agree that we need not precisely define those two things. On the other hand, if there is no need to define those provisions in the Meech Lake Accord, surely that should not be used as an objection against aboriginal self-government, which I also believe need not be precisely defined in order to agree to it.
There is an additional reason to request in the Meech Lake Accord a commitment to another First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal self-government. That is, Quebec is now in the process and there is now a much greater chance of something being agreed to. It will be easier to get agreement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. I refer to Section 16 of the Langevin resolution which is a non-derogation clause for aboriginal people and the multicultural heritage of Canada. While that was a step in the right direction, it is not complete. If we think this thing through, I think we should admit that the non-derogation clause should not only apply to Article 2 but to the entire Accord. In other words, I think it should read that nothing in the Meech Lake Accord should derogate from the rights of aboriginal peoples as set out in Section 25 and Section 35, and so on, of the Constitutional Act of 1982.
I note it is one o'clock. I believe I have some time left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate resumes, the Hon. Member will have two minutes in his debate and 10 minutes of questions and comments.
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.
June 8, 1987

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, continuing with some thoughts on the Constitution here are a few questions Canadians are beginning to ask. What is a distinct society? What powers does a province have when it has a distinct society within it? Does a provincial Government's power override a citizen's right under the Charter? If it does, should it?
When you single out one distinct group, what else constitutes a special group? Why lock aboriginal and ethnic communities into their current status rather than improving their status? Why go down this path of separating groups of Canadians? Where does the man or woman who does not speak a word of English or French fit into this new scheme of things?
On spending powers, how is the word "objective" to be interpreted? Who is to establish national objectives? Why is Parliament now left out?
On immigration, what happens to two immigrants to Canada who enter the country under different immigration policies? What happens when they move from province to province? If the words of the Accord were left vague on purpose, why saddle judges with the political job of sorting out what the politicians really meant?
These are questions which Canadians would like to have answered.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, last week I sent the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a petition signed by 200 people in my riding of Guelph. They urged the Minister to make a personal appeal to Chairman Gorbachev of the Soviet Union for the repatriation to Israel of long-term refuseniks Vladimir and Maria Slepak.
The Slepaks have been trying to exit for 17 years without success. Surely these decent people should be allowed to leave the Soviet Union to be reunited with their children. I appeal to the people of the Soviet Union to join with others around the world and urge the Government of the Soviet Union to allow the repatriation of the Slepaks to Israel.


S. O. 21 ENERGY PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA-PAYMENTS TO DOME OFFICIALS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, three senior executives of Dome Petroleum will receive a total of about $3 million if and when that company is sold to Amoco. The chairman, whose annual salary is just over $600,000, will get a lump sum of $1.5 million U.S. One vice-president, who makes $247,000 a year, will get a lump sum of $600,000 on top of the interest-free housing loan of $225,000 he has received. Another vice-president, who has been paid $222,000 a year, will get $600,000.
This is taking place when ordinary workers are getting pay increases even lower than the increase in the cost of living.
It may make sense to reward company leaders when the company they lead is a winner, but this is a company which would have been declared bankrupt if it had not received hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies, if it was not carried for years by Canadian banks which will now get only 75 cents on the dollar owed to them although Dome did not even meet its interest payments on its loans, and while hundreds of unsecured creditors to whom millions are owed will get nothing.
Surely there is something wrong with our income tax laws and business morality which permit such unconscionable payments to those officers of Dome who helped bring this corporation to the brink of bankruptcy.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a time for tough decisions. Canadians must decide whether we want Quebec in or out of Canada. We must decide whether we should contribute to our own defence or leave it to the Americans and, very soon, we must decide whether Canada's population should increase, decrease, or remain the same as it is now.
In making the population decision Canadians must bear in mind that, if present trends continue, by 1990, less than three years from now, the total number of people dying and leaving Canada will exceed the total number of new births and immigrants.
We must also bear in mind that there are 15 million people in refugee camps around the world, that thousands of Canadians want their families abroad to be allowed to immigrate to this country, and that our aging population means there will be a shrinking number of wage earners to support a growing number of senior citizens.

June 8, 1987
In these circumstances is a stable or lower population really practical? The time for decision is drawing near.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are constantly worried about the welfare of friends and relatives living in eastern bloc countries must also live with the frustration of knowing that their efforts to keep in touch by mail can be disrupted by Soviet authorities who do not deliver letters and gift parcels, but merely return them to the Canadian senders without explanation.
This violates the Universal Postal Union Regulations. However, Canadian postal officials say that they cannot investigate unless the sender provides full details. My constituents say that to do so could expose a friend or relative to the risk of retaliation.
It is encouraging to know that the Government of Canada has raised the matter in bilateral meetings with the Soviets, as well as at meetings of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Under the terms of the Helsinki Accord, the 35 member states of the CSCE have a mutual obligation to maintain open lines of communication among their citizens. This obligation is not being met, and the Government of Canada should be doing all it can to see that the eastern bloc respects the integrity of postal and other forms of communication.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: On June 5, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) I attended the official opening of the new Val-d'Or regional air terminal in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, a project which local residents had been waiting for for 14 years.
The new air terminal is a major component of the regional airport redevelopment project valued at more than $10 million. The project got under way in late 1984 and I did appreciate the work of the airport director, Mr. Daniel Bleau, and of Transport Canada in this case.
With respect to air transport, the Val-d'Or regional airport is the turntable of the entire development of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, James Bay, and Northern Quebec. Indeed this is what prompted the Conservative Government of Canada and Transport Canada to invest $10 million.
The main air carriers are: Air Canada, Canadian International, Nordair Metro, Quebecair Inter, Voyageur Airways, Are Creebec and Helicopteres Abitibi.
Mr. Speaker, this new air terminal meets the needs and wishes expressed by the business circles and the traveling public of Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the northern regions of Quebec.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), today introduced a motion before the House that seeks to advance the rights of northerners and aboriginal peoples.
One, if not the most important, indicator of one's rights, is the ability to protect and enhance one's own language.

The people of Quebec were right to identify the language as being the true spirit which reflects a distinct society.

For the aboriginal people of Canada, the indicator is not only a matter of principle, it is one of necessity.
Of Canada's 53 indigenous languages, it has been estimated that only three have strong chances of survival into the next decade. The Museum of Man study found that eight languages are now facing extinction, 29 are in a state of deterioration, and 13 are moderately endangered.
The three languages given the best odds of survival are Cree, Ojibway and Inuktitut.
The languages found to be in the most danger, measured by the rate of change in the number of speakers and the age of the speakers, are those in British Columbia. They include the Haida, Tlingit and Kootenay languages.
On behalf of my Party I call upon all Members of the House to support the motion presented today. For those of us fortunate enough to have our native language not only thrive, but also enjoy constitutional protection, we must make every effort to ensure that the aboriginal people of Canada will retain their languages for future generations.
June 8, 1987


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, a true north strong and free! We will now be able to say that with greater conviction, with greater confidence, since the release of the White Paper on National Defence Challenge and Commitment.
The Government has no aggressive intentions toward any country, but, as the White Paper pointed out, we can and will deter the use of force against Canada and Canadian interests.
The proud men and women of our three services, in their distinctive uniforms, now know that they will have the tools to do the job, to carry out those responsibilities which the Government has imposed upon them.
Well selected, well trained, and finally well equipped, they and all Canadians can share the satisfaction that we, in concert with our friends and allies in NATO, are making our contribution to world peace and harmony.
The introduction of a White Paper was a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Government. We all take heart at its deliverance.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a poll released over the weekend shows that 70 per cent of Canadians believe the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) lifestyle is too lavish. Even Tory supporters believe that the Prime Minister should conduct himself in a more down to earth fashion. In other words, Canadians are saying no more $3,000 per night suites, no more butlers, no more maids, no more people to watch their luggage, no more closets to hold 80 pair of Guccis, no more back-up planes and, finally, no more podium to travel around with.
Canadians expect their Prime Minister and members of the Government to live well, but do not want their money to be wasted in a manner which is more synonymous with the rich and elite. Will the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) now say to the Canadian people that they are guilty of muckraking too, because that is what I asked the Deputy Prime Minister last week in the House of Commons? The people of Canada believe that the extravagance and the excess must come to an end. Let us see if the Deputy Prime Minister will make accusations against them too, now.


SPINA BIFIDA WEEK
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, June 8 to June 14 of this year is Spina Bifida Week in Canada. Spina bifida is one of the leading disablers of newborn children in our country, and is known by most experts to happen more frequently than muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, polio, or cystic fibrosis combined, yet until recently most people had never heard of it.
Prior to the early 1960s, the majority of babies born with spina bifida died. Today, thanks to medical advances, nearly all new-borns with spina bifida survive and, with aggressive medical rehabilitation, they can become contributing members of our society.
The Spina Bifida Association of Canada will be making a special effort this week-and I repeat "this week''- to encourage greater awareness of this pre-natal condition. I would urge all Members of this House, and all Canadians, to participate in these activities. We must join in the spirited efforts led by a great Canadian, Mr. Rick Hansen, to increase awareness of spinal cord and related defects and ultimately to find a cure for these disabling conditions.


EFFECT OF U.S. FARM BILL ON CANADIAN HONEY EXPORTS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, American farm policies, using their "buy-back" scheme, have virtually closed the doors on Canada's beekeepers.
Historically, this nation's apiculturists have shipped over one-quarter of their annual production southward. This figure has risen dramatically in recent years with more than 8,500 tonnes of honey enjoyed by American citizens last year, putting $12.5 million into the honey jars of Canadian beekeepers. But the Farm Bill has soured things.
A Canadian beekeeper selling into the U.S. today would net 40 cents to 44 cents a pound Canadian, which is equivalent to the U.S. buy-back price. Cost of production on the Prairies, however, is 58 cents a pound. As a result of this, no Canadian honey flowed southward in 1987. About one-third of the year's production was in storage until beekeepers began to sell off at fire sale prices to get badly needed cash.
The Farm Bill is also damaging our traditional markets. U.S. producers are quoting honey into European markets at 8 cents to 10 cents a pound below Canada's prices. In light of the hurt being done, I feel the Canadian Government should consider the Honey Council's request for $15 per colony compensation for their losses.

June 8, 1987
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is important that the terms and conditions attached to the cash flow freeze announced in respect of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion be clarified as soon as possible. Many DRIE programs are of a continuing nature and potential recipients, on the reasonable expectation that funds would be forthcoming, have entered into contracts and sometimes even borrowed and have already spent these moneys.
A case in point is the Travel Industry Association of the Northwest Territories which will find itself in severe difficulties if promised funds are now withheld. When the Department wishes to cease funding an organization, it ought to give reasonable notice and not do this in the middle of a multi-year agreement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are all directed to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I will direct them to the Deputy Prime Minister. My questions concern the White Paper on Defence. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quoted as having said that the issue of sovereignty in Canada's Arctic is essentially a legal question. Yet the Government is about to spend $10 billion to acquire nuclear-powered submarines in a military response to what is essentially a legal question.
What does the Minister expect a nuclear-powered submarine to do when it encounters either a Soviet sub, an American sub or a British sub in what he considers to be Canadian waters but which they consider to be international waters?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Acting Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of deterrents and the whole reason for our expenditure on them is to make it obvious to potential adversaries that we have the capability of knowing if they are in our waters and of doing something about it if it should ever come to that-and Heaven forbid that it should ever come to that. Without the capability of going into our northern waters with nuclear submarines, we do not have that capability. Therefore we potentially invite intruders. By having that capability there is no such implied invitation. People undertaking that act would be doing it knowing that it is an act of provocation.
So in fact the giving to us of that capability through nuclear submarines improves our capability of deterring that kind of action, therefore improving the capability of the over-all NATO alliance to keep the peace.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the action of the Government precludes any other option other than a military one, and there are others, if proper foreign policy initiatives are followed. Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs called the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines something like science fiction in a response to questions before the Standing Committee on National Defence.


UNITED STATES FORWARD MARITIME STRATEGY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my second question deals with what I find to be something that is curiously silent in the White Paper on defence. There is no mention at all of the U.S. Forward Maritime Strategy, yet many military experts consider that the Forward Maritime Strategy is a very dangerous one. I want to make sure, and I would like to have the Minister assure the House, that no Canadian submarines will ever be sucked into the vortex of U.S. Forward Maritime Strategy now or in the future.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we are, we have been for a long time, and I think we are likely to be for quite some time in the future members of NATO and committed to joint defence activities on the part of NATO. In that context we have undertaken, on behalf of NATO, certain responsibilities in the North Atlantic, responsibilities in terms of patrol, in terms of presiding, letting potential adversaries know that we know they are there, and patrolling that area. We would expect to continue that.
As we bring on these nuclear submarines we will then be in a position to undertake the same kind of activity off the Pacific coast where there is a growing threat, one we cannot meet. Of course, we will be able to do the same in our own Arctic waters. It will always be done in the context of NATO policy until such time as Canada withdraws from NATO, which I do not think will be in the near future.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, prior to my concluding question 1 want it perfectly understood that the Liberal Party remains committed to our participation in NATO and in NORAD. There should be no misunderstanding that position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SIZE OF PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, we have now had the opportunity over the weekend to read the White Paper on Defence. I think all of us have come to the same conclusion. Would the Minister not agree that the total dollars promised in the White Paper are based on the assumption that military or defence spending will increase by only 2 per cent over the next 15 years, totalling $183 billion? Would the Minister not admit that that is $25 billion less than what had
June 8, 1987

been projected under the previous Liberal Government's defence expenditures? All the Government is attempting to do, besides engage in an exercise in smoke and mirrors, is to make less look like more.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, no. As a matter of fact the fiscal plan, and it is in the budgets of the former Finance Minister, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, called for no increases in defence spending after 1983. I think the Hon. Member should check that out before making an accusation.
This is the first time that a long-term commitment has been made in terms of defence expenditures, which will allow the military to engage in long-term planning and ensure that we get full value for the money.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. According to the 1987-88 Budget estimates of the Minister of Finance, regional development funding has been cut by 32.4 per cent or $4.4 billion in the 2.5 years since the Government has come to power.
The Prime Minister's announced $200 million per year, or one-fifth of one per cent of the federal Budget for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, pales beside the regional development funding cuts which have already been made over the last 2.5 years.
How is it that the Prime Minister of Canada, with all the sombre seriousness of the face of a robber's horse, can go to St. John's, Newfoundland, and announce new money and new initiatives when regional development funding over the last 2.5 years has been cut to the bone?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced on Saturday-and I would have thought that Hon. Members from the Atlantic provinces would have received this with great joy, but apparently not-$1.05 billion in new money for a new approach to overcoming regional economic disparity in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is $200 million in new dollars in each year for the next five years.
It is not true that there has been any diminution in regional development spending under our Government.
I will give the hon. gentleman some facts. For example, in Newfoundland in 1983-84, which was the last full year under
Oral Questions
the last administration, the Government spent $32.9 million under GDA and ERDA.
In the year 1986-87, that had increased by $43 million to $75.9 million. We more than doubled the spending of the hon. gentleman's Government.
The prelude to his question was entirely false and fallacious. We have already doubled regional development spending, and we are pledging to continue regional development spending in Atlantic Canada at its present level over the next five years while we add $1,050 million to that total.
If my hon. friend does not rejoice at that news, he should at least keep his facts straight.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is playing a mug's game. It is the equivalent of a Canadian citizen being held up on the sidewalk by a mugger who takes $100 out of his pocket, returns the next day and gives him $50 and tells him that he has $50 of new money. Atlantic Canadians will not fall for that kind of mugwash, foolishness, and flimflam.


ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given that the projections of the Minister of Finance for 1987-88 show that you have cut some $4.4 billion out of regional development funding, and given that you have now had this pale announcement of new initiatives, can-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to put his question through the Chair.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Can the Minister, who is now responsible for this initiative along with fish, transport, and everything else, assure the House that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion is not about to fade out of existence as a result of the paltry statement this last weekend in St. John's, Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would spend some time reading the information which is put out, he would know that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion will continue to administer national programs, while in Atlantic Canada the new Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will take over certain of those programs and will lead the battle to overcome regional disparity.
Might I quote to the hon. gentleman what was said: "What this announcement means is that over the next five years we will maintain this year's level of spending"-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Which has been cut.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not cut, Mr. Speaker. It is $258 million, approximately, under ERDA and GDA in Atlantic Canada this year, a great increase over 2.5 years ago.

June 8, 1987
Oral Questions
We will maintain this year's level of spending. In addition, we are committing $ 1.05 billion to the region through this new agency.
In the last year for which we have figures, that is the year 1985-86, per capita spending under regional development in Newfoundland was $122 per year as compared with $4 per year per capita in Ontario. Those are the facts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions on the Government's White Paper on Defence, but I think it is absolutely deplorable that the Minister of National Defence is not here to defend his paper, that the Associate Minister is not here, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not here.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: You wouldn't be here if anybody had any use for you somewhere else.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brant, I know, has a serious question. I would tell him that reflections on Members being here or not being here is, of course, improper. Members often have other very pressing matters to attend to, and that applies equally to cabinet Ministers.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I will put my questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, not to the Minister responsible for the Post Office, of all things, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of National Defence has only given an estimate of the sail-away cost for nuclear submarines. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now inform us or reveal the total cost of the program, which includes new training facilities, two crews per submarine, and the infrastructure needed to service each of the nuclear subs?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of National Defence is away from Ottawa on government business. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is attending the Summit in Venice.


An Hon. Member:: What about the Associate Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister in charge of the Post Office, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is quite capable of answering all of the Hon. Member's questions.


COMPARISON OF OPERATING COSTS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence heralded the nuclear submarines as the greatest thing imaginable for Canada's defence policy. Is the Minister aware that a Canadian Defence Quarterly appraisal said of conventional submarines "That the cost of the capability gained"-that is the return on investment-"is better than for any other major warship" and that "the defence of our waters in the Arctic can be achieved without going into the enormous expense associated with the large nuclear attack type submarine"?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence acknowledged that nuclear submarines cost 1.6 times as much as conventional submarines. For that expenditure you get at least three times the capability in defence commitments, as a platform. It was on that basis for maximizing the defence capability per dollar of expenditure that the decision was taken to look to the acquisition of nuclear submarines. They are a very effective weapon system. For our commitments to NATO they will be very, very useful, and they will give good value to Canada for the money.


TOTAL COST QUERF
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary goes back to the first question that I put to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Can the Minister in charge of the Post Office inform the people of Canada what the total cost of this program will be? I am not talking about the sail-away cost of some $500 or $600 million per boat, I am talking about the total cost of the nuclear submarine program, a figure we could not get from the Minister of National Defence on Friday. Maybe the Post Office could tell us.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as a result of this White Paper at least the defence people will soon have more people in uniform than I have in the Post Office.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I don't doubt that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: No one can obviously give the detailed cost of expenditures-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Somebody has to pay for them.


Harvie Andre: Of course they have to be paid for. The expenditure plan was laid out in the White Paper-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No it wasn't.


Harvie Andre: -the minimum of 2 per cent real growth over the next 15 years. Within that context the equipment required, including surface ships, tanks, minesweepers, minor war
June 8, 1987

vessels and so on will be purchased in an orderly fashion. The rough figure to know is that a nuclear sub costs 1.6 times that of a conventional submarine. Support facilities are about 1.8 times more for nuclear than for conventional. For that, one receives several times more capability.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, finally the Prime Minister announced the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on the weekend. We are told that one of the key architects of the program was one Dalton Camp and it is to be headed up by the Ambassador to West Germany, Donald McPhail. The Minister responsible for the new agency is Senator Lowell Murray.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Of all the Members of Parliament in this Chamber on the government benches, was there not one man or woman who the Prime Minister thought was capable of being the Minister for this new agency? Is the Government not even concerned that not one Member of Parliament can ask even one question of the new Minister responsible for this agency because he is not here, he is in the Senate? That Senator is responsible to no one but his maker, the Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my hon. colleague that I have been appointed to answer in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am quite willing to change places with Senator Murray if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It may be true that Liberal Senators are answerable to no one, but PC Senators are answerable to the Prime Minister and to their cabinet colleagues. Our Prime Minister is a maker, not a faker, or a shaker as is the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I will do my best to answer to the House for this very important agency, hand-in-glove and in tandem with Senator Murray who will be answering in the Senate. Both of us together will see that the $ 1.05 billion is spent on new activities and new money for new projects over the next five years. I thank my hon. colleague for his interest.
Oral Questions FEDERAL FUNDING


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can appoint whatever mouthpiece or loudspeaker he wishes. The fact remains that DREE is now a distant dream and DRIE has dried up. Now the entire future of industrial development in Atlantic Canada is left in the hands of the Prime Minister's new troika, Camp, McPhail, and Murray, the bureaucrat, the diplomat, and the old school chum.
Does the Minister not realize that $1 billion over five years divided up into four provinces makes about $50 million a year to replace the $65 million Newfoundland used to get under DREE? Now the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program of $250 million will be terminated by the Government at the end of the month. Will the Minister not admit that this is simply a recycling job with less money, no parliamentary control and total control by a single, solitary Senator?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we all understand that our hon. colleague is very touchy today. His brother Winston did not make it at the leadership convention on Saturday. Winston Baker got it good, like a battered baker should.
With respect to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Minister intended to say: "With respect to the question", and with respect to the question, the Hon. Minister will answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I might say that they had a farewell tribute to their departed leader, Leo Barry, on Friday night. The only trouble was that their battered former leader, Leo Barry, did not turn up. Having been stabbed to death by his colleagues, he did not bother to go. This is a precedent for the Leader of the Official Opposition.
With respect to DREE being dried up, DREE was in a drought with $32.9 million spent by DREE under ERDA and GDA in Newfoundland in the last full Liberal year, 1983-84. That amount was more than doubled last year to $75.9 million and that will continue. There will be added to that and to the other spending in Atlantic Canada another $1.05 billion, $200 million per year, and that ain't hay. If it is hay, it is the kind of hay we can use plenty of in Atlantic Canada.


CREATION OF JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made some disparaging comments about the brother of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate. All I would say is that I hope, unlike the Minister, he will not decide to join the Conservative Party now that he has lost the Liberal leadership.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was an NDP member.

June 8, 1987
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: You will get your chance, Mr. Minister.
My question is for the Minister. The Government could not find among 24 Conservatives who were elected from Atlantic Canada one person apparently capable enough to be a Minister, and disgracefully appointed a Senator to account for this important work.
The Government has allocated $200 million per year for this important work, and according to the press release it is to cover procurement, training and skills development, technology infrastructure, local investment promotion and, finally, job creation. Will the Minister tell us, out of these many things that have to be done with this $200 million, precisely how much will go for job creation and particularly how much will go to Newfoundland where, under the Conservatives, unemployment has risen 2 per cent in the past year?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I know that Winston will not be as offended as the Leader of the NDP. Winston used to be a member of the NDP. No wonder the hon. gentleman is so sensitive on his behalf.
The question is why was Senator Murray appointed to look after the agency. One reason is that the Government of Newfoundland recommended in a brief to the Government of Canada that the Minister responsible for federal-provincial relations should look after this agency and Senator Murray is the Minister responsible for federal-provincial affairs. In addition, the Prime Minister did not want to appoint a Minister having line department responsibilities which might interfere with him giving this agency most of his time and attention. Those are the reasons.
The agency will not have to finance procurement. The hon. gentleman knows that if he has read the statement. The principal function of the agency is the design and delivery of programs for small and medium-sized businesses and industries within the region. In addition, the agency is responsible for bringing regional perspective to the design of national economic and social programs that affect Atlantic Canada. That is what it will do.
For the first time there will be a regional input into national programs for Atlantic Canada, and the four Atlantic Premiers have reacted positively, and strongly in favour of this. The hon. gentleman sings from his own song sheet as usual.


UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I prefaced my last question by saying that people in Atlantic Canada are happy with the decentralization program but they want something other than a few cents per citizen to create badly needed jobs. That is the issue. They want money, real money.
Since the Government has cut about $4 billion out of the Atlantic regions, specifically from regional development programs, will he tell us how much of the $200 million will go
specifically into job creation? Since unemployment in Newfoundland has risen by 2 per cent in the past year, when will the Government move to bring down the unemployment level? That is the issue.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. gentleman gets his figures. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland in September, 1984, was 23.8 per cent. It has gone down to 20.1 per cent. Total unemployment has fallen by 9,000 in the last two and a half years. These are strides. In 1980-84 unemployment rose by 27,000 under the Liberals. I could go on and on but I will not.
Spending in Atlantic Canada on programs to overcome regional disparity will be about $258 million this year. We are going to just about double that. The $200 million going to this agency will be used for economic development, job creation, and long-term improvements to business and industry in Atlantic Canada. The other programs will continue to be financed by their present sources. That should reassure the hon. gentleman who is worried about what is going to happen to his candidate in St. John's East, not about what happens to the people of Atlantic Canada.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in my years in this House I have never seen such disrespect for Parliament as we are witnessing here today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down then!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: On Friday the Government brought in a 15-year program for defence spending in this country amounting to $183 billion. We have got two Ministers. Neither one of them is here to answer questions. That is an insult to Parliament.
I will pose my question to the Acting Minister of National Defence who promised a 6 per cent real spending in the last election campaign across this country and all the Government has come up with is 2 per cent. The Minister is aware that the Canadian military and civilian personnel in Canadian Forces Europe receive a cost of living exchange rate allowance to protect their income and purchasing power while serving abroad. Bank of Canada records show that the Canadian dollar has lost considerable value against the Deutschmark in the last year, reaching an all-time low on May 4.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate!
June 8, 1987


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I ask the Minister why in the face of this evidence why did his Government cut the allowances of Canadian Armed Forces personnel in Europe by 15 per cent on May 1? How can this Government take a White Paper ego trip while at the same time pulling a cheap stunt like that on our military personnel serving abroad? Is this the way the Minister is going to create good-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, salaries and benefits, including overseas allowances for Armed Forces personnel, are set by Treasury Board at a level to ensure that Armed Forces personnel are remunerated at the same level as permanent members of the Public Service. That is the formula. If he has a complaint perhaps he can show up at the appropriate standing committee and look at the policies of Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member had a very extensive preamble and I would ask him to make his supplementary question direct and to the point.


TREATMENT OF PERSONNEL
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister review StatsCan's procedures and bring in a decision on the cost of living and the exchange rate allowances for our Armed Forces personnel abroad that will be fair and just to the lower ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces in Europe who are the hardest hit? Surely fair treatment of our personnel and good morale are as important as equipment?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I can assure the Hon. Member that nothing will be more beneficial to the morale of our troops than to have good equipment for the first time in many years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I realize the Hon. Member had his supplementary prepared before he heard my first answer, so I think he should re-examine the "blues" in that regard and, as I suggested, examine Treasury Board policies which establish these remuneration and expense levels. If he has a suggestion to make I am sure the President of the Treasury Board would be willing to hear it.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the unprecedented overspending in his
Oral Questions
Department in the last couple of months. I want him to answer two specific questions today.
First, can he make a commitment to this House that he will make public the finding of two investigations into his Department's spending, namely, the internal investigation now being conducted and the audit by Price Waterhouse?
Second, can he now confirm that as of last Friday the overspending in his Department reached an astounding level of almost $100 million?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, last week I announced I had been informed that expenditures for the 1986-87 financial year may have been in excess of our budget. I also said that both internal and outside reports would be forthcoming. As soon as I have the reports and have examined their findings, I will act accordingly, and I will then be in a position to let the Hon. Member know whether I will release them or not.


SPECIAL PROJECTS BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm today that as of last Friday the overspending in his Department for the first two months of the year is approaching $100 million? That was my first question and surely he knows the answer.
Since Treasury Board approved on Friday the shifting of money from the special projects part of his Department to regular programs can he tell us if there is a shifting of money from one pocket to another? Can he tell us whether or not any special projects will now have to be delayed, cut back or cancelled? Can he please answer those two questions?


Michel Côté: As to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of figures so I am not prepared to comment on any of those until we receive the reports we are supposed to receive.
Second, I can tell the Hon. Member that the Department and the Government remain committed to helping regional development. It was exactly in this regard that we announced last Saturday some big programs that will help reduce regional disparities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week StatsCan revealed the Government is presiding over the worst decline in agriculture

June 8, 1987
Oral Questions
since the 1930s. Young farmers are being driven off the farm in record numbers. Fully 30 per cent of farmers are in serious financial difficulty. When is the Government going to take action and bring in new debt restructuring instruments to assist farmers in staying on the land?
[ Translation]


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the Elon. Member's question, I may remind him that since we came to power, with the Minister of Agriculture we have been working very hard to restructure agriculture and provide for future generations of farmers. There is the 6 per cent program, for instance. We have the shared-cost mortgage. If we look at the situation the Liberals left us, with farm credit rates at nearly 20 per cent, and at the present rate of 10 per cent, we have a real success story, that will have an impact on farming and on future generations of farmers in Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that 97 per cent of farmers, or 50,000, rejected the commodity-based mortgage.


REPORTED OVERCHARGING BY CHARTERED BANKS-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He knows that banks overcharged hundreds of farmers by switching their notes from a fixed rate of interest to a floating rate, a higher rate, during the 1980s.


Mr. McDermid:: When the Liberals were in power.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Since the Inspector General of Banks has refused to take action, is the Government prepared to set up a public inquiry into this overcharging by the chartered banks in the face of serious financial difficulty for our farmers?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter has been brought up in the House a number of times in the last two months by Members on both sides of the aisle. The Inspector General of Banks is preparing a report and expects to have it in my hands this week.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and is a follow-up to the question I asked him on Friday. As he knows, the aboriginal
people feel that they were left out in the cold as a result of the Meech Lake Accord.
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister on Friday whether he, the Prime Minister, or the Minister responsible would call the Governments of Quebec and the other provinces and ensure that there will be agreed-upon First Ministers' conferences on aboriginal rights. Will the Government undertake to do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member, with his vast parliamentary experience, would have recognized that this issue is being debated on the floor of the House sponsored by the New Democratic Party as an Opposition Day motion. Surely the points which he has raised in Question Period today and on Friday can be raised and responded to during the course of that debate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, that may be possible, but I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister a question as to government policy.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the native people feel offended because there is no guarantee that there will be a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal rights. Will the Deputy Prime Minister call the Government of the Province of Quebec and the Governments of the other provinces to ensure that a First Ministers' conference is agreed upon and that aboriginal rights will be a main topic on the agenda?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Justice has participated in the debate today and has answered that question. If the Member was not here to hear the Minister of Justice, I would invite him to read Hansard.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last week the Sheller-Globe Company said it had closed its Windsor plant putting 200 workers out of work overnight because of the Government's policy of allowing offshore automotive manufacturers unlimited access to the Canadian market with regard to auto parts.
Why is the Government refusing to establish a policy now that offshore automobile companies which want to manufacture or import in the Canadian market must follow the same
June 8, 1987

rules with regard to Canadian content and jobs as do the North American manufacturers?
Flow long will the Government stand by and put at risk tens of thousands of automotive jobs? Will it not accept its responsibilities and act on this matter now?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to set the record straight. The products manufactured at Sheller-Globe include steering wheels, which are now recognized as being less and less competitive.
Consequently, the company was in a position that it had to close the plant to which the Hon. Member was referring. However, it decided to maintain the plant in Kingsville which employs 350 workers.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that the Government is very much aware of and concerned about such plant closings but the company in question has never asked for federal assistance.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister and the Government continue this attitude the predictions of the Canadian based automobile manufacturers and the representatives of the workers will come true and more than
40,000	jobs will be at risk.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Minister another chance. Why will he not establish a policy now that companies which want to manufacture in Canada or import into Canada must meet the same rules for Canadian content, jobs and production as do the North American manufacturers? Why does the Minister continue to sit idly by when we see these problems arising because the Government is allowing companies to establish themselves here without meeting the same requirements as the North American manufacturers?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Government will continue to issue policy which will continue to create the numbers of jobs that it already has created. More than 840,000 jobs have been created and the unemployment rate is going down. Those are the kinds of decisions which Canadians expect from the Government.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In a working paper released last week the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended a
Oral Questions
more open criminal justice system, including experimental TV coverage of criminal trials.
Will the Minister of Justice advise the House whether, in order to assist the Law Reform Commission to come to final logical recommendations, the Minister will permit experimental television coverage of criminal trials?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As he pointed out, this is a working paper of the Law Reform Commission. We will, of course, continue to carry out consultations with those people who are primarily responsible for the administration of justice. There is federal responsibility and jurisdiction with regard to a certain number of courts, but the provinces themselves are essentially responsible for the administration of justice and the utilization and provision of rules of court.
I will carry out discussions and examinations with my provincial colleagues in conjunction with the Law Reform Commission. It is conceivable that some of the suggestions which the Hon. Member has made will commend themselves to either level of Government.
1 appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this matter. We will continue to examine whether television enhances judicial proceedings. We have some experience in the House of Commons, but I will not comment on that.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. My question is with regard to the Hamilton Industrial Training Centre which has a better than 90 per cent success rate in getting its trainees into the job market and yet has experienced cuts from 200 to 120 places thanks to cuts in the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
What does the Government intend to do to alleviate the current waiting list of 400 people, which will be added to with the impending closure of Otis Elevators? What action can we expect to ensure that this successful program will be able to do its stuff?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the Hon. Member's very important question, I have to take it as notice and get back to the Hon. Member, perhaps later this week.

June 8, 1987
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT FUNDING


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, since these cuts do come from the Canadian Jobs Strategy, will the Government undertake not to forget about the people of Hamilton but to restore the $1 million which was cut from this program so that this very successful program can go ahead?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government has no intention of forgetting about the people of Hamilton or those of any other part of Canada for that matter. As I said, the comments which the Hon. Member has made are very serious. I would like to look into them and get back to her as soon as I possibly can.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I am pleased that the renovations to the Ottawa International Airport are almost complete, as I am sure are all Members in the House. The renovations are on budget, albeit a bit behind schedule.
However, the maintenance of the grounds around the airport, especially in the parking area, is a mess. Visitors coming to the capital for the first time do not receive a good impression. Will the Minister of Transport crack his transport whip, shall I say, to ensure that the grounds are better maintained immediately?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make a commitment to the Hon. Member to that effect. With regard to parking, I understand that there are 1,600 parking spaces provided. The contractor was occupying about 100 spaces until 14 days ago but they are now available to the public. I will look into the question of landscaping and maintenance of airport grounds.
We are all pleased, of course, that the renovations and improvements to the airport are now being completed. We will certainly look into the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the utter hypocrisy of the NDP in asking a question about the Canadian Jobs Strategy when they know that they would not even allow opposition Members of Parliament to have access to information on this issue. However, that is not my question.
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for supermailboxes and deals with a promise made by the Minister of National Defence in the House last week. Last week the Minister promised that women would be marching in the Black Watch march last Saturday. In fact, women were not allowed to march. Apparently the so-called order of the Minister of National Defence was overruled. I want to ask the Minister responsible for superboxes, who is acting on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, just who gave Perrin Beatty his marching orders anyway?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that type of question, considering all the admonitions in Beauchesne, should be answered. However, because it is an important question when stripped of all the ridiculous garbage surrounding it, let me say that women participated in the Guard of Honour which met Her Majesty on June 4. They participated in the quarter guard on her departure on June 8. Between those two occasions there were seven other occasions when women and men participated together in respect of the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The fact is that female cadets were not allowed to march and that their participation occurred when one of the male cadets fainted and a woman had to come out to recover his rifle.


NON-PARTICIPATION IN MARCH
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday in the House the Minister of National Defence promised the House that women would be marching in the Black Watch ceremony. Last Saturday, those women were pulled off parade. Who gave the Minister his marching orders, and who is running this Department anyway?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I have just told the Hon. Member, I am informed that on nine different occasions in parades of various sorts in association with the Royal visit-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not trooping the colours.


Harvie Andre: -men and women participated together. There was one occasion in which only the infantry and not the rest of the regiment participated in one parade. It so happens that
June 8, 1987

there are no women in that infantry group. The Hon. Member keeps her mouth so open that it is no wonder she cannot hear what I am saying.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Will he acknowledge that his plan for the Post Office, which includes job cuts of some 8,700, privatization, and service cuts, puts the Post Office on a collision course with the postal unions? Will he not reconsider that plan and delay the date for financial self-sufficiency by next spring so that he can give some elbow room to the Post Office in order to negotiate a collective agreement and maintain service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the plan calls for an improvement of services. Eight thousand new postal outlets will be opened over the next few months.
Elements of the Hon. Member's comments are subject matter of negotiations before the table now. If he is interested in avoiding a strike, he would stop raising these issues in the House in that context, making it look as though the Post Office intends to cut back on employees. He knows that is not the case. He knows that the intent is to improve service in a fiscally responsible way.
He ought to let the negotiations carry on rather than try to foment the situation and thereby contribute to a possible strike.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister appears to have denied that his own plan includes cuts of some 8,700 jobs at the Post Office. Does he not recognize that a plan for such deep cuts in employment at the Post Office will obviously be provocative in the present situation and that if he wants a negotiated settlement he must put service at the Post Office first and give the employees some job security? Will he not reconsider his plan in this light, to continue service in the Post Office for Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that service is the first priority. I mentioned in the House on several occasions that this service will be independently audited and there will be reports made to Parliament on a quarterly basis.
The Member would like to leave the implication that there will be 8,000 people laid off, but he knows that is not the case. There are plans for lay-offs. There are plans for opening new postal outlets and privatizing some of the activities, but in a
Business of the House
way that treats the employees with the respect they deserve and will receive.
The Hon. Member seems to want a strike. That is why he keeps raising these issues in a way that implies that some ill is being done to the people affected.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties with respect to the order of business for tomorrow. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to be put to the House and passed unanimously. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, when the Order for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, is called and is disposed of on that day, it shall stand referred to a Committee of the Whole;
That the House shall continue to sit, if necessary, beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, to complete all stages of the Bill;
That not later than 10 o'clock p.m., on that day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings, and put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill;
That should a recorded division be demanded on the motion for the third reading and passage stage of the Bill, it shall stand deferred until 3.15 o'clock p.m. on the following day;
That Private Members' Hour and proceedings on the Adjournment Motion pursuant to Standing Order 66 shall be suspended; and
Provided, that when the proceedings on the Bill pursuant to this Order have been completed, and if the House has gone beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have unanimous consent to move his motion?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I agree in general with the motion that has been proposed by the Hon. Deputy House Leader. However, I am confused about one point. If there should be a reasoned amendment on second reading, it seems to me we would have to dispose of that reasoned amendment by a vote before moving to Committee of the Whole, rather than waiting until the next day. I do not know whether that possibility has been considered.
If there is such an amendment on second reading, we would certainly facilitate the taking of such a vote almost immediately-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you have my copy of the motion, but I think from listening to my hon. friend's question that the motion does not preclude the taking of a division on a reasoned amendment during the course of the day. The motion calls for all questions to be put at 10 p.m.

June 8, 1987
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there has been an understanding that if there are reasoned amendments put forward, they would be dealt with during the proceedings of the day.
I also want to indicate that there have been discussions between the Parties and in an effort to facilitate passage of Bill C-50 and expedite the business of the House we will be cooperating 100 per cent.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That the Government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in
Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord, 1987; and
further, to make a commitment to hold a First Minister's conference to discuss
aboriginal concerns, in particular self-government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) had two minutes remaining in his speech plus a ten-minute question and comment period.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I referred to some of the concerns of aboriginal peoples with respect to the Meech Lake resolution. I mentioned that the aboriginal peoples want the resolution amended to provide for further First Ministers' conferences which would entrench aboriginal self-government. Section 13 of the Meech Lake Resolution provides for further conferences on fisheries and the Senate but does not mention aboriginal self-government. Surely aboriginal self-government is part of the unfinished constitutional business of this country and should be included in Section 13.
Second, the aboriginal peoples want Section 16 of the Meech Lake Resolution amended so that none of the Meech Lake Accord-not just Section 2 of the Act-will affect other aboriginal rights provisions.
Third, the aboriginal peoples ask the following question. If precision of definition was not necessary to entrench Quebec's distinctiveness and the spending power as set out in the Meech Lake Accord, why is precision of definition necessary to entrench aboriginal self-government, as was demanded by several provinces when they met to discuss aboriginal selfgovernment and the Constitution? The aboriginal people say
there is a double standard on this matter and that should be resolved.
Fourth, the aboriginal peoples cannot accept that the fundamental character of Canada, as defined in the Meech Lake Resolution, be expressed to simply include French and English speaking Canadians. Certainly the aboriginal peoples are part of the fundamental character of Canada and should be included as such.
In conclusion, we support this resolution. We support that part which relates to the concerns of the northern Territories and that part which relates to the aboriginal peoples. In supporting the resolution, we do not believe that it conflicts or contradicts the five principles put forward by Quebec and which form the basis of the Meech Lake Accord. We do not see any good reason for refusing these requests made by the northern Territories and by the aboriginal peoples. The Government, I believe, has agreed to hold hearings on the Accord and to the possibility of amendments. Why does it not say yes to these kind of amendments right now?
Finally, I want to reiterate what was stated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), that this motion should not be considered a motion of confidence or nonconfidence in the Government but simply as an expression of will on the part of this House. As a result, I would ask Hon. Members, especially those on the Government side, to consider this motion in the terms put forward by the proposer, that they should express their will with respect to these matters and not be concerned about want of confidence in the Government. The measures proposed in the resolution are justifiable and will not derogate from anything in the Meech Lake Accord proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments? Since there are no questions or comments, debate.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise to support the motion of my Leader concerning the constitutional aspirations of aboriginal people and territorial residents. As my Leader stated, we in the New Democratic Party, after extensive, exhaustive and, indeed, exhausting discussion, reached the conclusion that we could, in broad terms, support the principles on which the Meech Lake Agreement was founded and that we would be prepared to extend our every effort and commitment to improve that Accord by the process of amendment, committee hearings and open public discussion.
When we talk about the Constitution of our country, we talk of the basic, fundamental and supreme law which governs all of us, which binds our allegiance and commitment and which defines our institutions; which must enshrine our aspirations, and very much recognizes the inspirations from which this country has sprung.
The Meech Lake Accord provides the framework of the latest amendments to this Constitution. They are amendments of considerable import and great weight. They bring into full
June 8, 1987

participation, within the Constitution, the Province of Quebec, the second largest province in terms of size and population, and the home and birthplace of francophone culture on this North American continent.
I am proud to have the opportunity to be part of the beginning of the process of parliamentary discussion and, we hope and trust, eventual modification of the Meech Lake Accord to reflect as fully as possible the consensus which we are able to obtain right across this country and the aspirations and inspiration from which it springs.
The Meech Lake Accord, when initially announced in very broad terms, with its wording as yet unspecified, was greeted, unfortunately, by a salvo from a person who used to sit in this place, a person I could perhaps most politely describe as driven to petty invective and personal imprecations which have no part in a national debate of such major proportions. Those comments were, of course, picked up and spread across the country by members of the media, as is its duty and, indeed, its right. However, in spite of that kind of interest, there have been some intelligent, persuasive and very deeply felt objections and criticisms to the contents of the Meech Lake Accord.
We are continuing in a constitutional process which will take some time, but it is worth devoting time to. It is a constitutional process which will reframe the Constitution. If our amendments are not accepted through the process of constitutional adaptation, it will then again have to be subjected to further amendment. It is worth while remembering that this is not the first Constitution which has held sway in Canada even dating back to the year 1867 when Confederation was formed. That distinction belongs, of course, to the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee, the six nations of the Iroquois, who now inhabit the southern part of Ontario but who previously were spread across the eastern half of this entire continent.
The Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee was not simply understandings on an oral basis. Those understandings were essential to the life and spirit of a document, which infused and united the six nations. It was a genuine constitution in the sense of being codified by means of the wampum, and by the ability of those who could interpret the wampum. Those who have read the transcription, shall I say, of the great law of peace into the English or French language, have found that it is a document of considerable complexity, but one which is obviously infused and marked by the need for goodwill, good intentions and fair understanding in order to make it work.
Thus it is with the present Constitution of Canada, be it in its unamended form or with the addition of the amendments we are contemplating today. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), said that actions speak louder than words. Indeed, they do, and this should be a key to the understanding of the Constitutional context in which we propose amendments to recognize the self-government rights of the native people of Canada.
Supply
The aboriginal people have had to put up with much, they have had to put up with dispossession, displacement, the stripping of their culture and the imposition on them of the myth of two founding peoples in this country, whereas there were in fact many peoples before even one of the so-called founding peoples came.
In more recent years they have had to put up with being dragged through the process of four First Ministers' conferences, seeming to have the goal within their grasp and then having it snatched away by intransigence and an unwillingness to recognize the centrality of their role to this country and to this society. They had to put up with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) not accepting their invitation-and we know that he was busy with other matters-to come to discuss before the final Meech Lake meeting in the Langevin Block the claims and the requests of aboriginal peoples and their just demands. They have had to put up with a double standard.
I could recite the history at some length. However, I think briefly outlining some of the wounds that the aboriginal people of this country have felt through the recent constitutional process will suffice. They went through four conferences in five years. They had the most recent conference adjourned on them early. They were not given the opportunity to sit up until five in the morning to reach an agreement. We know that if an agreement had been possible they would have sat far beyond that. We all know that the best decisions are not taken at five in the morning. Regrettably, they did not even get a mention in the closing speech of the most recent conference in the Langevin Block.
The prediction of Mr. Jim Sinclair, the Metis leader for Saskatchewan, that it would be awfully easy by comparison to bring Quebec in because Quebec was seen by the Premiers and by those involved in the constitutional process as being one of "our own" was sadly fulfilled. The native people did not have that courtesy extended to them. The aboriginal people of this country have consistently supported the inclusion of the Province of Quebec in the Constitution. Their magnanimity in that regard is also to be commended.
Their objections to the Meech Lake Accord do not extend to a desire to see it rejected. They know that political will rather than merely supportive language will be the ultimate instrument by which aboriginal self-government rights will be entrenched. I am glad to say that that political will exists in my Party at all levels. When we form the Government of Canada we will ensure, if it has not already been remedied, that the insulting omission of the entrenchment of aboriginal self-government rights is included.
While it is said that the inclusion of Quebec in the constitutional process radically strengthens the opportunity to entrench aboriginal self-government rights, that is a conclusion for the long term. It is not the way that aboriginal people or, I believe, the majority of Canadians would have wanted to see it. I say that because it offers the hope of bringing aboriginal

June 8, 1987
Supply
people in, but by a process of coat-tailing, a process by which they are subordinated to the wider constitutional process.
The territorial governments, and all the people of the Northwest and Yukon Territories, are disappointed with the Meech Lake Agreement. They felt that there was an implied commitment on behalf of the Governments of Canada that they would be admitted to Confederation when the time was due. There is a unanimity of territorial opinion on this point. The Territories have seen the amending formula slide from the pre-1982 position, that only the federal Government's say-so was required, to the 1982-87 position of the seven provinces, 50 per cent rule, to the 1987-onward position which seems to say that there must be unanimity to allow a new territory into Confederation.
The Government Leader in the Yukon said "We have become second-class citizens". Others have compared the situation now to that of foreign countries that might seek admission into the Canadian federation. Therefore it is not surprising that the governments have filed, in their own Supreme Courts, actions designed to object to and to state their objection to the Meech Lake Accord.
The letter that I saw recently from the Prime Minister concerning the admission, eventually, of the Territories, whether it be after, or concurrent with, the division of the Northwest Territories into Nunavut and Denendeh, seems to equate the admission of new provinces with a de facto constitutional amendment. That surely is at variance with our history, and at variance with the process that brought Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba into Confederation. Indeed, I feel that it is somewhat sad that we do not have the sort of oral history within the majority cultures in the country that would have provided us with some examples of the hopes and aspirations of what were then the Northwest Territories and which are now Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Canadians are very disturbed by the social and economic inequities that aboriginal peoples face. The average family income is much lower while unemployment is much higher. Indeed, no statistical social measure seems to be positive in the case of the comparison between the aboriginal people of the country and the wider society.
Those conditions can only be alleviated by providing a framework under which aboriginal people will be able to develop their communities as their own centres of cultural integrity, of economic opportunity and of administrative and political development. These are the goals of aboriginal selfgovernment.
The letter that the aboriginal summit, the four major national groups, sent to the Prime Minister contains the aboriginal peoples' commitment to constitutional development within Canada, a commitment that is there despite all the problems, a commitment that is part and parcel of the emerging and encouraging renaissance that aboriginal peoples and aboriginal communities are undergoing in this country. Despite all the rejections it states "We believe that the
Constitution must stand as a symbol of hope and inspiration for aboriginal peoples, as well as for other peoples of Canada". The aboriginal commitment to the Constitution of Canada is there. They only desire to be part of the circle of Confederation.
It is obvious, and not only through hindsight, that the Meech Lake Accord could not of itself bring aboriginal people into the Canadian Confederation because they, after all, were not represented at that meeting. What is most insulting and most discouraging to aboriginal people and their leaders is the apparent omission of any framework, any hint of the process, that will eventually bring them into the Constitution. Aboriginal self-government rights in the Meech Lake Accord are relegated to the level of "other matters". Surely, that must be a profound criticism of the lack of a continuing high priority awareness that all our leaders should be bringing to the situation of aboriginal people in this country.
On May 27, 1987, the aboriginal summit wrote the Prime Minister outlining eight points. I will go through them briefly. They are: explicit constitutional recognition; a guarantee of non-derogation and non-abrogation; a guarantee that opting-out provisions will not prevent aboriginal people from delivering national programs through their own governments; a guarantee that the Territories will be admissible on the same basis as before; that aboriginal people will be able to participate directly on matters that affect them such as fisheries; that they will be able to negotiate constitutional provisions that might arise out of the Meech Lake Accord and affect them; and, finally, a timetable. Out of those eight legitimate claims that the aboriginal people made, only one, the non-derogation clause, was actually recognized.
We have from Le Droit of Ottawa:

-the headline:


NATIVE PEOPLES ASTONISHED.
[Stage Direction]
And they have every reason to be, Mr. Speaker, as Konrad Sioui, regional leader for Quebec of the Assembly of First Nations pointed out:
"The federal Government is handing over to the provinces areas that until now were under federal jurisdiction. And from now on, the provinces will be free to opt out of certain shared cost programs. This means that federal programs for native peoples may be turned over to the provinces, which may decide either to change them or drop them altogether."
That is a major concern of aboriginal people who, after all, are in the early stages of being able to offer those programs through their own Governments.
I should like to refer to the fisheries. The number two item in the Meech Lake Accord after Senate reform-and I do not want to get started on it because I could say so much-is the fisheries. Surely that is something on which the aboriginal
June 8, 1987
[Stage Direction]
people of the country must be consulted. Surely their leaders must be heard and their concerns must be recognized.
We have had situations which have even gone to violence in which the aboriginal people have a vital stake because it affects the economy of their communities. We have the salmon fishery on the B.C. coast. We have the salmon fishery in the Restigouche River in New Brunswick and Quebec. We have the situation in my own riding of Kenora-Rainy River where, because of the lack of attention to the definition of the rights of aboriginal people, there are grave concerns being raised and in many cases played upon by others for their own advantage. We have the situation at Rice Lake in southern Ontario.
I raise these examples not to say that the aboriginal position on all these questions or issues is correct, but to point out the depth and gravity of the concern which aboriginal people have for the regulation of both the freshwater and the salt-water fisheries in virtually all provinces and territories in Canada.
An entrenchment of the inherent rights of self-government for which the aboriginal leaders of the country sought and strove so valiantly at the First Ministers' Conference is, as I have said, something that cannot be included in the Meech Lake Accord. However, it seems that the First Ministers of the country met without considering the unfinished business, which was left before them as recently as some two months ago when they came together in the Langevin Block. Surely any conference, any consultative body, or any deliberative assembly, when meeting again, should be considering what was left undone from its most recent meetings. Surely that is something which was a grave omission from the Meech Lake Accord.
In the last couple of minutes which I have, I should like to turn to the situation regarding the Province of British Columbia and the way in which aboriginal rights and aboriginal aspirations are continually denied, derogated from, and devalued under a Government which I should not like to try to describe in analytical terms when related to the democratic system of Canada. We have a situation where the aboriginal people are essentially considered as not having a communal interest, not having communal aspirations, not possessing cultural heritage that they share among each other, and not being worthy of explicit recognition, even though everyone concedes that it is their ancestors who were here first and extended so much co-operation and welcome to the interlopers.
I should like to refer to a letter from the Assembly of First Nations to the Prime Minister which outlines the situation so clearly. It reads:
It appears that the federal Government has not been able to muster the
political will necessary to deal with aboriginal and treaty issues in a way that
would provide clarity and certainty.
As Mr. George Erasmus, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said, "the political will that was demonstrated over the last couple of days"-and he was referring to the first of June-"by the First Ministers was just not there in March".
Supply
"Consider the glaring inconsistencies of the double standard employed by the provincial delegates at the aboriginal rights conferences", says Tony Hall who is on the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Sudbury.
The Meech Lake Accord requires revision and amendment if it is not to leave the aboriginal people of the country in the limbo which they have so long inhabited. As my Leader said, reconciliation of the people of Quebec with the Constitution is essential. My Party and I say that reconciliation of the aboriginal people of Canada with the Constitution is equally essential.
Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, my Party is inspired to hope that the Meech Lake Accord can produce an optimistic future for Canada based upon the inclusion, at long last, of Quebec in the constitutionalized family. However, there are some who share the concern, as reflected in the motion before us, that certain sins of omission leave the Accord flawed. I agree with that proposition.
I would ask the previous speaker whether there is not another area in which the Accord is flawed. Is there not the danger that the deliberations involved in leading up to the Accord have not seen so far too much debate between the two founding peoples? Is there not another sin of omission which should be addressed?
I call attention to the fact that Sections 7 to 15 are subject to Section 33, the non obstante or the notwithstanding clause. I am particularly concerned that there is a large portion of the Canadian population which sees in Section 15 guarantees of rights to those who are neither English nor French nor aboriginal.
Is it not another important omission which must be addressed that Quebec, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982, invoked Section 33 and applied it to all of its future legislation? Should we not be speaking on behalf of an increasingly significant portion of the Canadian population in ensuring that all provinces will be bound to respect in perpetuity the rights of those who are neither English nor French? Should we not ensure that rights accorded to people irrespective of race, colour, creed, and religion should not be subject to override?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is a far more learned constitutional scholar than I am. I will do my modest best to respond to him.
I think it must be said that the multicultural and multiethnic dimension of Canada is as central as any other proposition or fact to an understanding of what makes the country live, move, breathe, talk, and co-operate; sometimes we struggle but we always finally get along together.
One of my initial fears in reviewing the Meech Lake Accord was the provision on immigration. I think its intent is something I would certainly want the Government to devote some time and effort to clarifying. I wonder-and others have expressed the same fear-if there is not some element in there

June 8, 1987
Supply
where provinces would eventually gain the power to be very selective over the origins of people they admit to the country.
Although there have been, certainly in the past, stains on the immigration policies and practices of the country, most notably right before and in the first years of the Second World War, by and large we have an excellent record. That was celebrated and recognized by the United Nations in the awarding of the Nansen Medal.
We want to keep that record and I believe we as Canadians want to build on that record, not by adopting a policy which will exclude large numbers of bona fide refugees. I saw a cartoon based, I believe, on Jacques Cartier's landing. People were being greeted by the Indians and one of the native people was looking over his shoulder saying "they lied to get in too". We do not want to see a refugee policy that rejects those who are legitimate refugees, and we do not want to see an immigration policy, nor does the Minister-if we are to believe the news reports-want to see an immigration policy that unduly restricts immigration into Canada. Let us remember that in, 1 believe, 1910 under the policies led by Sir Clifford Sifton Canada saw an influx of some 400,000 immigrants, some of whom today would qualify as refugees. This was a country then with a population of 7.5 million. I would challenge any Member or anyone anywhere to say that those people and their descendants did not integrate, participate and become fully part of Canadian society. Any notwithstanding clause that cuts off that sort of opportunity for the future would be something against which I feel we would have to speak out.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate on the Constitutional Accord, and I can only say that we as parliamentarians are indeed privileged to witness this turning point in Canadian history: one chapter is closed and a new chapter commences. We rejoice in Quebec's return to the Canadian constitutional family. We have formally drafted the principles of the Meech Lake Accord in terms agreeable to the eleven First Ministers. We can now proceed with the task of building the Canada of the next decade and the next century.
The constitutional question is undoubtedly the most oldest one in our federal-provincial relations. It is a complex, emotionally charged issue which encompasses so many divergent interests. It is a question that has shaped the last 100 years of our history and our society and that will shape our future. It is a question that has always spoken to the hearts and minds of Canadian politicians who realize the importance of what is at stake here. It is also a question we have given centre stage on our political platform, first of all because we intended to deal with a problem that goes back to 1927 and which was not satisfactorily dealt with in 1981.
In the historic speech given by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at Sept-Iles during the last election campaign, it was on August 6, 1984, he made a commitment to conduct discussions with a view to bringing Quebec back to the Canadian constitutional family. We left nothing to chance, we
worked very hard and now we are reaping the benefits. Mr. Speaker, without wanting to make this a partisan debate, I must say that we have our Prime Minister to thank for this achievement.
I am proud and pleased that the Meech Lake Accord which in itself was a major achievement has been formally made into a constitutional agreement endorsed by all Parties. I am proud because the initiative which led to this outcome did avoid ambiguity and improvisation; because Quebec will join the constitutional family with honour and enthusiasm; because the democratically elected Quebec Government, with its openly federalist program, has expressed full satisfaction with the response to its demand; because nine other provinces as well expressed their satisfaction with this statement of principle of the equality of the provinces; because this new opening will eventually make it possible to launch discussions on other questions of general interest to all provinces, and of particular interest to some of them; because the 1987 Constitutional Accord is synonymous with national reconciliation, one of the major planks of our Prime Minister's election campaign; because, as a Quebecer and a Canadian I consider it is fair to and equitable for Quebec and Canada as a whole.
When the First Ministers met at Meech Lake it was the first time since the April, 1982, patriation of the Constitution that they got together to review the concerns which had prompted Quebec to refrain from participating fully in our country's constitutional evolution. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are witnesses to the improved federal-provincial relations, particularly between Quebec and Ottawa, which have prevailed since our Government came into office.
Each of the five propositions of Premier Bourassa's Liberal Government was the object of serious considerations and of the April 30 agreement in principle. The 11 Governments were able to draft a constitutional amendment project which was endorsed on June 3.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on certain aspects of this project. First, the acknowledgement of Quebec's distinct society and the Canadian duality. In this House last October 3 the Prime Minister had this to say about Quebec, and I quote:
It is indeed a province with a difference! We have different roots, a different
culture and the French language which is different. . . Thank goodness, it is a
language which contributes to our Canadian identity.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Quebec, a distinct society, enriches the very nature of Canada and gives it a unique character. As this century is drawing to a close, when as Canadian men and women we seek to establish a clearer definition of the values we share to confirm our common identity, by the same token we become aware that Canada's unity is closely linked to respect for its diversity.
Since the Canadian Constitution was patriated in 1982, most of our basic values and features that give Canada its essential identity have been recognized and protected by this country's supreme law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom is an integral part of the Constitution. Of course the Charter mainly enshrines individual rights, but the Constitutional Act, 1982 also includes some collective rights.
June 8, 1987

Indeed aboriginal rights in Canada are recognized and affirmed even though a lot of progress is still needed. One provision states that the Charter shall be interpreted in a matter consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multi-cultural heritage of Canadians. Finally, the Constitution urges Parlement and provincial legislatures to promote and develop Canada's regional energies.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution Act, 1982 is more than a constitutional document, it is to a great degree a statement of the features that make Canada unique. It is my conviction the constitutional recognition of vital components of our society will remain incomplete as long as we do not recognize in the Constitution the existence both of Frenchspeaking Canadians centred in Quebec, and English-speaking Canadians centred in the rest of the country, but also present in Quebec. If those basic realities are not recognized, how can we understand or explain for instance the language provisions of the Charter or the special protection afforded Quebec by the Constitution civil code?
I believe that that part of the agreement dealing with Quebec's distinctive nature strikes a fair balance between the principle of equality between all provinces and the need to protect and strengthen Quebec's uniqueness and contribution to the Canadian identity. And the agreement reaches that goal while guaranteeing that nothing will infringe upon the rights of aboriginal people and our multi-cultural heritage.
Let me now refer, Mr. Speaker to immigration, an aspect of the agreement that is closely connected to the matter of a distinctive society, its survival and developmenet.
Section 95 of the 1867 Constitutional Act gives Parliament and provincial legislatures concurrent powers to make lows in relation to Immigration, with federal lows taking precedence over conflicting provincial ones. In practice, it is essentially Parliament which has taken upon itself to legislate in this area, essentially through the Immigration Act. Throughout the years, however, the federal Government has signed administrative agreements for immigration with seven provinces to address their particular concerns. The most complete of the kind is the Cullen-Couture Agreement, signed with Quebec in 1978. Under this agreement, Quebec has considerable power to apply its own selection criteria to the choice of immigrants coming from abroad. The federal Government, however, continues to set the national standards and objectives in the area of immigration especially because of its authority to establish classes of immigrants.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to be too hard on the Hon. Member but I thought the resolution before the House today dealt with the rights of the Northwest Territories and Yukon and aboriginal rights provisions in the Accord and not the Accord generally. It seems to me that the Hon. Member is involved in debate on
Supply
the entire Accord, but this resolution is restricted to only two very specific points.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hon. Member is getting to the point.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I would like also to confirm to my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) that, before integrating our aborigines to the Constitution, we must first adopt the Constitution.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, concerns vary from one province to the next. Quebec is concerned first and foremost with the implementation of an immigration policy which would favour the development of vigorous francophone communities and allow it to select every year a number of immigrants in proportion to its population.
British Columbia seems to be interested mostly in immigrants likely to create their own businesses. Other provinces have at present no objection to the federal Government assuming full responsibility in the area of immigration, but they wish to retain the possibility of signing such agreements in case of any change in their situation.
Although Quebec and the other provinces seem generally satisfied with the administrative agreements signed with the federal Government, Quebec wanted to have its agreement entrenched in the Constitution to prevent the federal Government from eventually cancelling the provision by using its own legislative powers.
Other provinces have also indicated that they would want to entrench any such agreements with the federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, all the provinces agree that the federal Government should continue to assume its general responsibility for setting national standards and objectives in the area of immigration, especially in terms of defining the various classes of immigrants, determining who is not eligible, and setting up comprehensive immigration quotas. The Government of Canada will retain the ultimate jurisdiction over family reunification and assisted relatives, matters of particular interest to Canadians who have recently settled in this country and to anyone who understands the importance of humanitarian reasons.
Mr. Speaker, the Accord signed on June 3 will enshrine in the Constitution an expanded version of the Cullen-Couture Agreement with Quebec, an agreement that has produced good results since it became effective ten years ago and whose principles have proved satisfactory for both parties.
The need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the federal Government and the provinces with respect to immigration arises from the fact that Quebec wants to be responsible for protecting and promoting the distinct identity of its society. The Government of Canada shares this concern, aware that the existence of a Canadian French-speaking entity, concentrated in Quebec but also present in the other provinces and territories of this country, constitutes of one of the fundamental characteristics of Canada.

June 8, 1987
Supply
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that thanks to the proposed constitutional amendment signed on June 3, federal-provincial relations in this area of shared jurisdiction will become more harmonious.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to say that as a parliamentarian, a Quebecer and the Member for the riding of Chambly, I take great pride in the fact that on April 30, at Meech Lake, and last week in Ottawa, the First Ministers were able to meet the incredible challenge of reconciling the specific needs of Quebec with the interests of the provinces and the common good of the entire country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins).


Mr. Desjardins:: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to commend my colleague from Chambly for his remarks before making a brief comment and asking him a question.
The Opposition motion under consideration reads as follows: That the Government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the Constitutional Accord of 1987; and further, to make a commitment to hold a First Ministers' Conference to discuss aboriginal concerns . ..
Unless I am mistaken, and my colleague may correct me in his response, there was a conference of aboriginal people here in Ottawa a few months ago, the fourth one, and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) is an unfailing supporter of their rights. It was not him who created a problem during the conference of aboriginal people here a few months ago. Not at all.
Given the motion under consideration today, my question to the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) is this: Can he tell us how it had become imperative for both Quebec and Canada to do something about getting Quebec into the constitutional fold to repair the blunder of 1982?


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) for a very relevant question, especially as we know that the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue is deeply concerned with aboriginal matters in the vast Abitibi-Temiscamingue area. As we all know, there is a large population of Quebec native people in that area.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, following the comments by Members of opposition Parties, and again while trying to keep partisan considerations out of this debate, it is quite clear, from what the Members of other Parties have said, that there is a desire to reach a unanimous position and an attempt by opposition Parties to claim the merit of this historical achievement, namely the signing of that constitutional agreement by the ten Premiers and our Prime Minister, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, an agreement by 10 provincial Premiers representing four different political parties.
Let us think of the extraordinary conciliatory talent which was required to get those political leaders to reach an agreement. That is obvious, as was shown recently by the failure to reach an agreement here in Ottawa at the conference on aboriginal rights, when 25 per cent of the Canadian representation was missing from the negotiating table. How can we as a Parliament reach an agreement, how can we as a Government reach an agreement representing the whole of Canada and establish a unanimous position when 25 per cent of those concerned are missing in the debate, in the negotiation?
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously concerned with aboriginal matters. That is a fact. Indeed, the Prime Minister had organized that meeting of aboriginal people to try and reach a consensus on that matter. Unfortunately, the Province of Quebec was absent from that negotiation.
Why should we therefore try to put the cart before the horse now? In the first place, the Province of Quebec has to become part of that constitutional process, has to have its own fundamental right to speak at that table. When that is done, it will be much easier, Mr. Speaker, to invite aboriginal people as well as the Ministers of the 10 provinces to meet once again and ultimately to achieve an impossible task because our Prime Minister has a record of achieving what seems impossible, and once again 1 am satisfied that he will succeed eloquently.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to look at page 6 of the Accord. I am referring to Section 41 (i) which deals with the establishment of new provinces. In the present Constitution, that was dealt with under Section 38. In the Meech Lake Accord, that was moved to Section 41. Amendments under that section require unanimous consent. Nowhere in the five conditions laid down by Quebec is there reference to the entry of new provinces into Confederation. Those five conditions do not even imply that we must have unanimous consent to admit the Territories as provinces in Confederation. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell the House why the admission of new provinces should come under Section 41 which requires unanimous consent rather than remaining in Section 38 which requires the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population?
[ Translation]


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, it is amusing to hear the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). How awfully hard it is to accept something of benefit to everyone, not only Canadians but also Quebecers!
June 8, 1987

They are comparing cabbage to carrots. They would like to revert to the good old times of 1982. We are now in 1987. Pierre Elliott Trudeau is no longer Prime Minister. The Liberal Party of Canada is no longer in government in Ottawa, and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has difficulty realizing that. We have been here for almost three years. He has been in opposition for three years, and still he grasped nothing. He is struggling to understand and compare the 1982 constitutional agreement and the 1987 one, when even today he cannot realize he has been in opposition for three years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather evasive answer, to say the least! I would like to come back to it because there is a difference between the 1982 proposal, which provided that the federal Government would sit at the table with provinces and discuss the matter. There have indeed been four federal-provincial conferences on the matter of aboriginals. I am asking the Hon. Member this clear and nonpartisan question: How come-Canadians are listening-the 1982 agreement required the concurrence or support of seven provinces comprising 50 per cent of the Canadian people, either to amend the constitution or to include a new province- if you wanted to admit a new province, it took seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, when today unanimity is required. All provinces! I am hearing the Northwest Territories and the Yukon say: This is unfair! So, can he give me a reason? Does he know or did his government tell him, did his Prime Minister explain to him in caucus or elsewhere why today they are insisting on unanimity, when it used to be 50 per cent of the people, seven provinces? That is clear!


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I realize my time has almost expired, and I will be very brief. I repeat, what is more important? The contents of the 1982 agreement which Quebec did not sign and with which Quebec did not agree, or the 1987 agreement with the five recommendations by Quebec which were accepted, and which Quebec did sign? For the first time since 1927, Canada's 10 provinces are part of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. That is the important thing. And that is the agreement that was signed on June 3, 1987. The Liberals don't seem to understand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it seems fitting that I have a chance to speak after hearing diatribes from those who are trying to make this a fight between Quebec and the native people in Quebec and the Territories. Obviously no Member of this House believes that is the case. Leaders of all three Parties have spoken in favour of the Accord. They expressed their wish to have Quebec feel it is a full partner in Confederation.
Supply
The purpose of this motion laid down by my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), was to go past that point. To recognize that Quebec now accepts the constitutional amendment process and has been brought into the family does not mean constitutional amendments have ended.
Obviously two groups in our society feel they have been left out of the process. Not only that, they were not invited to Meech Lake or the meeting last week in the Prime Minister's Offices. They were left out because the Accord effectively limited their rights. That is a concern and that is why we brought this motion forward. That is why, in introducing the motion, the NDP made it very clear that this is not a matter of confidence in the Government and that all Members have the right under the new rules to vote according to their conscience.
As I said earlier, when the Accord was reached and the final wording accepted, we said we were grateful to have this historic constitutional Accord. We were glad to see Quebec brought into the constitutional family. However, as 1 also said, there are groups of men and women who feel left out, namely, the northerners and aboriginal people. It is important to realize that the majority of people living in the Northwest Territories are also aboriginal people, so they have been doubly affected by the constitutional sleight of hand so far as natives and northerners are concerned.
It is important to remember that the federal Government should have been standing up for native people. It is important to remember that the federal Government should have been speaking and working for those people because the federal Government has that direct constitutional responsibility. I consider it a failure by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) not to have adequately dealt with the rights and concerns of those people. It was not the responsibility of the Province of Manitoba and of Premier Pawley to defend aboriginal people, although I know he tried to. It was not the responsibility of any other Premier. Constitutionally, the responsibility lies at the feet of our Prime Minister, and he failed.
I do not criticize him out of hand for that. There was the major task and responsibility of getting Quebec to accept the Meech Lake Accord. However, I believe that if he had worked harder he could have found a formula acceptable to Quebec and the other provinces, and at the same time moved us further along the road to having the concerns of aboriginal and other people in the north met by the Accord.
This motion requires that we move back to the existing rights of the people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories to be able to form their own provinces. My Leader, the Member for Oshawa, stated that, although it is not perfect, the old amending formula of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population and the federal Government agreeing to a constitutional amendment makes a lot more sense than the proposal which will be before this House as a result of the Meech Lake Accord. The Meech Lake Accord requires the agreement of all ten provinces and the federal Government to form a new

June 8, 1987
Supply
province. Since this situation was not faced by any other province in order to enter the Constitution, it is a threat to the people of the Territories and Yukon.
We should not pretend that there will not be a province or provinces formed in the north. It was not that many years ago that people did not believe that provinces would be formed from the old Northwest Territories, the old Rupert's Land, and now there are more than three provinces formed by what used to be the Hudson Bay Company's land. Changes in population patterns and mineral development policies in the north may well mean that there may be even more than two or three new provinces in the future. It is important that when we change our Constitution we do not do so in such a way as to make it almost impossible to get the necessary agreement to form new provinces.
The aboriginal people of this country feel that they were left out of the circle. They believe they were not listened to at Meech Lake or last week. Their demands were quite simple. They wanted and still want a guarantee that there will be more First Ministers' meetings to try to make some constitutional amendments which will bring in self-government and answer other concerns of aboriginal peoples.
The aboriginal peoples recognize that there is no guarantee that we will find wording acceptable to all the provinces. They recognize that the federal Government may not consider this to be a high priority item on its political agenda. However, why could the Premiers and the Prime Minister not agree, as part of this process, that there will be more meetings on aboriginal rights, that the First Ministers will sit down with the leaders of the aboriginal people and the leaders of the Territories and work toward fully entrenching and fully explaining aboriginal rights in our Constitution?
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Prime Minister have said that having Quebec in the Constitution makes it easier to have aboriginal rights entrenched. In the Prime Minister's speech last Thursday evening to the people of Canada he said in part that four attempts to bring justice to our aboriginal people have failed, in large part because Quebec was not there to vote on behalf of our native people, and perhaps next time, with Quebec's help, we will succeed.
Those were the words our Prime Minister spoke to the Canadian people, including the aboriginal people. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice were serious in their remarks, why has the Government refused to act to ensure that there will be a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal rights?
If the Government does not act, we must question its sincerity. On Friday in the House of Commons and only an hour ago in Question Period we asked questions on this issue. We are not asking for a guaranteed constitutional change. We wanted the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, or some Minister speaking and working on behalf of the federal Government, to call the Premiers and ask whether they can agree to have a
First Ministers' conference on aboriginal rights, preferably within the next year.
We did not request a constitutional amendment or an amendment to the Meech Lake Accord. We only requested that the Government take the initiative to work toward solving the question of aboriginal rights. It would have taken only a certain number of phone calls, yet the Deputy Prime Minister would not even confirm that he would go that far.
That lack of a very simple action by the Government is the reason that native people are very concerned. They have to be concerned when the Deputy Prime Minister will not say that the Government will take the initiative and do what it can to ensure that aboriginal rights are recognized and self-government is proclaimed under our Constitution. As you know, Mr. Speaker, prior to the last meeting of First Ministers on aboriginal rights the Prime Minister was criticized for not taking a very active role, for acting as a chairperson of the meeting rather than as one of the leading instigators of action at that meeting. As I watched the part of the First Ministers' conference which was televised, that impression was further entrenched in my mind because I did not see the Prime Minister making suggestions, pushing the Premiers, or trying to get an agreement.
In the dying hours of that meeting which, by the way, did not continue all night, the Prime Minister was offered an option by the native people and the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley. That option was that rather than adjourning the meeting forever they should recess it only for three, six or twelve months until the officials of the provincial and federal Governments and the native leaders could work out a deal. At the end of that meeting the Prime Minister said: "This is the end". He put down his gavel and said that the meeting was over and that was it.
Contrast that with what happened with regard to Quebec. The Premiers worked until dawn to resolve the issue. There were two meetings of the First Ministers within a five-week period. The action was quick, concentrated, and very serious. I have commended the Government for that, as have the native people. We now need that same type of leadership and concern from the Prime Minister and his Ministers to ensure that we do not forget about the aboriginal peoples.
It is fine for the Prime Minister to say that now that Quebec is in the Constitution we will be in a better position to resolve this issue next time. Those are fine words and they may well be true, but they are meaningless unless the federal Government is willing to take the initiative to ensure that there is a meeting of the First Ministers with the aboriginal leaders and the elected leaders of the Territories. He must take that initiative and that is the intent of this motion. It calls for that initiative on behalf of the aboriginal peoples of this land and to ensure that the people of the Territories do not feel like the new second-class citizens of Canada.
June 8, 1987

Earlier, my Leader talked about completing the circle. Lie said Quebec has now come into the constitutional family but that there are aboriginal people and people in the Territories who still do not feel part of that circle. It is time that this nation took that leap of faith and that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet showed a sense of leadership on behalf of the aboriginal people and the people of the Territories by calling that meeting.
While the Prime Minister can call a meeting without consultation, our motion suggests he go one step further and consult with the provinces and make sure there is a First Minister's meeting to resolve these problems and reassure the people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories that their concerns are being heard.
They are the ones who were left out of Meech Lake. They feel that their issues and concerns were ignored by the Prime Minister, the person who is constitutionally responsible for representing their interests. They must next be brought into the constitutional family. I urge Members of the House to pass this motion. It does not speak against Meech Lake, but urges the Government to take action for the aboriginal people of this land and for the people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories who believe they are part of the constitutional family of Canada.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who is talking about native rights. If I look at the wording of their motion, I find that the New Democrats always try to project the image of people who are concerned about problems that are, in fact, non-existent.
The first paragraph of their motion says: "That the Government should seek to restore existing rights of Canadians in Yukon ... ", How are we supposed to restore rights if the rights are already there in the Constitution? I mean, we are not going to reinvent the wheel.
The Meech Lake Accord does not say that the people of Yukon or the Northwest Territories have lost something. They were already included in the 1982 Constitution which you, the New Democratic Party and the Liberals, ratified while excluding Quebec, and you did not object to Quebec's not being included.
You were talking about native rights in Canada, but by excluding Quebec, by excluding 25 per cent of the Canadian population, by excluding a provincial Government which was able to negotiate an agreement with native peoples in Quebec . . . Remember the agreement signed by the Government of Quebec with the native peoples of James Bay? Those agreements were made by Quebec within that province, and on that province's territory, by the politicians who were there at the time. But the 1982 Agreement excluded Quebec from the Canadian constitutional accords and today, they are saying:
Supply
Yes, but it wasn't important for the native peoples to have Quebec in the Constitution. That is what you did in 1982. And today, you are trying to reinvent the wheel.
What I want to say to my New Democratic Party colleague is that it was through our Party, independently from the Meech Lake constitutional agreement and well before it was concluded, that the Indians, the Sechelt band, gained selfdetermination. Thanks to whom? Thanks to the Government now in office. It had nothing to do with the Constitution. Nothing in the Meech Lake Accord says that native people will be forgotten, on the contrary.
This is why I should like to know on what grounds your motion calls on the Government to restore the rights of northern residents, considering that these rights were never removed from the Meech Lake Accord, and then explain to me why it was not important for Quebec to get aboard to help all native people of Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, first, I think I should correct some of the inaccuracies in the Conservative Member's statement. He said that the Liberals and the New Democratic Party endorsed the 1982 Agreement. Had he been here at the time he would have known that all three Parties, and again all three Leaders, endorsed the 1982 package. I do not think he can pretend that this was some Liberal and New Democratic Party attempt to ignore the reality of Quebec.
In fact, I know that my Leader, the Member for Oshawa, made some suggestions to make sure that Quebec was in the Constitution. One of the amendments we suggested is now part of the Meech Lake Accord. It would have allowed Quebec to be compensated for any shared-cost program in which it did not want to take part. That was a specific recommendation that we made at that time because we felt strongly that Quebec must be brought into the constitutional family.
The Hon. Member denies that existing rights are being changed. While I do not come from the Northwest Territories, my riding of Churchill is as close as one can get to the Northwest Territories. I spent some time in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The 1982 constitutional Agreement requires seven provinces and the federal Government to agree to the creation of a new province. This has been a very difficult problem for people in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Previously, the federal Government could create provinces by itself, as it did for Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland. After the 1982 constitutional Agreement, the opportunities of people from Yukon and the Northwest Territories were being restricted, but they accepted that.
As a result of the Meech Lake Accord and its successor, we now have a situation in which it takes the agreement of the federal Government and each of the 10 provinces for the creation of a new province. There have been times in our constitutional history when a province or provincial Premier may have had disagreements, sometimes justifiably, about a

June 8, 1987
Supply
particular issue. Therefore, if the Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or perhaps Manitoba are not satisfied about an issue which may have no relation to the creation of a province of Yukon or Provinces in the Northwest Territories, there may not be unanimous agreement.
While there are those who may say that this will not happen, I suggest that the history of our country has proven that it is quite possible that one or more provinces may say no.
The people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories want at least equal treatment as is the case for most constitutional changes. If they can make their case to the federal Government and seven provinces, with 50 per cent of the population of this land, then they should be able to form a province. That is the existing right that is being taken away by this Accord.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member keeps trying to raise the point that it is impossible to obtain unanimity in Canada. The 1982 option recognized implicitly that it is impossible to obtain unanimity in Canada. The Meech Lake Accord has proved the opposite to be true. And I do not see how the Meech Lake Accord, with the undertakings it contains, how those negotiations, and the new political will we have seen emerge in Canada, which reflects the Canada of 1987, a Canada that has evolved since the time, five years ago when they said that unanimity was impossible- So we have to have 50 per cent of the people agreeing because of the assumption that it would be impossible to get unanimity-
How could there possibly be this fear it would be impossible? Can you imagine ten First Ministers refusing to let Yukon, already a territory, become a province? What do the Premiers have to lose by having a new province in this country? What do they have to lose as Premiers? Are they going to lose anything? Not at all! They will lose nothing. And the new provinces that will be created have everything to gain, in that they will not be accepted by a certain proportion but by all. That is the difference between 1982 and 1987. Not accepted by 50 per cent and rejected by 50 per cent. This time, they will be welcomed by the entire Canadian family, not by five but by all 10 children of the Canadian federation.
[English \


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Churchill for a short rebuttal.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think the important thing is to realize that there may be unanimous agreement right now with the 10 Premiers and the federal Government, but that does not mean it is going to be there forever and a day. What the people of the Northwest Territories are saying is to please make the constitutional amending formula flexible enough to recognize there may be some problems in the future. After all, my Province of Manitoba came in at a time when I suspect the
Province of Ontario may have said no to Louis Riel. Unfortunately for the people of Manitoba and fortunately for the people of the Red River Valley, Ontario did not have a veto.
What we are saying is that there may be reasons in the future which would result in one province, for whatever reason, saying no, even though nine other provinces said yes and even though the federal Government said yes. Absolutely no one will claim responsibility for being the father of the amending formula. No province will claim it insisted on this. The federal Government will not claim it is the father of this change. But obviously someone pushed for it. Someone in that closed room pushed for this particular amendment, and the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories want to know why, just as the native people want to know why they cannot have a guarantee of at least one more conference with all the First Ministers in attendance to discuss aboriginal rights,


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, probably the worst thing about the debate today is that it is necessary. I wish we had not been called upon to debate this issue today. I wish that the 11 First Ministers who gathered in the Langevin Building some days ago had had the common decency to treat Canadians living north of 60 degrees as fellow men and women and not as some kind of creatures beyond the pale.
I am unable, Sir, to stand idly by when the interests of the people I represent are disregarded and when their heartfelt aspirations are cast aside. After having given the matter a great deal of reflection, I have come to the decision that I will support the motion before the House today. I have been here long enough to know that the introduction of such a motion was, in all probabilities, motivated by partisan considerations.
I am sure that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is not unmindful of the by-election which is coming up in the Yukon in a few days' time. I know that today's proceedings are part of the Business of Supply and, under normal circumstances, Members would be called upon to vote along Party lines. But I am going to treat today's motion at its face value, and it makes sense.
Perhaps it is time we did take cognizance of the suggestions made with respect to parliamentary procedural reform. Perhaps there is an occasion when a good idea can be brought forward by members of the opposition Parties.
There is no way that my vote is to be construed in any way as a vote of non-confidence in the Government. It is true that rapid advancements in constitutional development have taken place in the northern Territories under the Progressive Conservative Government. Far faster changes than ever took place previously when we were stalemated under the previous Government. I recall an example of that, and this goes back to the time the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He gave letters of instruction to the Commissioner of the Yukon which were challenged in this House by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who now presents himself
June 8, 1987

as a great proponent of territorial rights. We made practically no progress during the time the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister. However, we have made great progress very quickly in the last couple of years. For that reason, I am proud to be a supporter of the present Government.
Let us look at the recent developments, going back just a few weeks, in the constitutional Accord and the perceptions of these in the Territories. We have heard a lot about how this has been perceived in Quebec and Ontario and southern Canada, but let us look at the perceptions which have come about in the Territories.
When the Meech Lake Accord was reached on April 30, we in the Territories were equally pleased, along with other Canadians, that a mechanism had been found for bringing Quebec into Confederation. This is something we wanted to see as much as anyone. However, we were bewildered and disappointed that we had not been invited to, and were not part of the Meech Lake Agreement. We could not understand why. Being a kind of gracious people, we assumed it might be an oversight. Therefore, we made every effort to see that elected representatives of the people of the Territories would be at the meeting to be held a month later when the ratification of the final draft was to take place.
I want to read into the record a letter I wrote at that time to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I think it properly reflects the feelings of my constituents. It reads as follows:
Congratulations on your successful negotiations with the provincial premiers towards bringing Quebec into the Canadian Constitution.
Once this has been done then the only Canadians excluded from voluntary participation in this great confederation will be those living in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory.
We must therefore redouble our efforts to extend full provincial rights to Canadians living north of the 60th parallel.
In that the proposed Meech Lake constitutional amendment dealing with the changes to the amending formula for those items contained in Section 42 of the Constitution Act which include the creation of new provinces or the extension of existing provinces into the territories are of immediate and direct concern to the territories 1 solicit your untertaking that pursuant to Section 37(2) of the Constitution Act elected representatives of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory shall be invited to the contemplated First Ministers' Conference which is to deal with these proposed amendments.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, Sir, I have to report that I have not received a written reply to that letter.
Similar importunities were made by the First Ministers of the Territories to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the provincial First Ministers. Apparently, these also fell on deaf ears.
We now come to June 3. This time things were a little different. This time the exclusion is deliberate-the denial is deliberate. Why this was so we do not know. We probably will never find out until some of the participants publish their memoirs in the years to come. We might suspect that Manitoba covets parts of the District of Keewatin, or that the
Supply
Province of British Columbia has its eyes on parts of Yukon. We do not know. But what happened was that this cosy little club of southern provinces got together and made their own cosy little rules while other Canadians, those living north of the 60th parallel, just sat outside in the cold.
I think that all political Parties must bear some of the blame for this. Certainly, the provincial Premiers represented three federally-represented political Parties at that meeting. They all signed the agreement. They must all bear part of the blame.
The feeling in the Territories is that somehow the system has let us down. If this agreement goes forward, if goodwill is not shown in the future by the provinces and by the federal Government, then what will happen is that two classes of Canadian citizens will be created. We will have those enjoying full rights of citizenship below the 60th parallel, and above that line we will have second-class Canadians. That, of course, is not acceptable. What happened on June 3 is that disappointment turned to disgust. Bewilderment turned to revulsion.
There is a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories for whom I have a great deal of respect. His name is Mr. Robert MacQuarrie. He is not a member of any political Party. He is noted for his logical analysis. He is not given to hyperbole. This is what he had to say of the Langevin agreement. "It is a scandalous travesty of democracy". I think that he reflects the views of his constituents, who are also mine, in so saying.
I was back home in the Northwest Territories last week. As I walked around the streets of the various towns and settlements in my riding, carpenters would put down their saws and hammers, labourers would put down their shovels, and they would come up and ask me: "Why have they done this to us?" Sir, it is taken as a personal insult to those people who live in the Territories. The territorial Governments on behalf of the people they represent are taking these matters to court, and I think quite rightly so. They want judicial intervention into what they say is a denial of their rights, supposedly guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would now like to go briefly through the agreement and outline the complaints that we have with it. First, there is the question of the Senate. Had we been there, the amendment to Section 25(1), I am sure, would have been worded differently. I think that this is an oversight. What this new section does is to deny any further appointments of Senators from the Northwest Territories or Yukon, although they are supposed to be guaranteed representation under other parts of the Constitution Act. But because they have no provincial Government to put the name forward on a list, when Senator Adams or Senator Lucier resigns, dies, or whatever, there can be no replacement until an over-all constitutional change is made. That is wrong. We ought to have representation in the Senate. I cannot see why anybody would deny that.
A very similar sort of situation arises with respect to the Supreme Court. No person in the Territories, no judge, can aspire to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada

June 8, 1987
Supply
because, under the proposed Meech Lake-Langevin Agreement, that will be denied to them, whether or not that is an oversight on the part of the drafters, I do not know. Had we been there, that would have been clarified.
There are annual First Ministers' conferences to be convened under the agreement. One is to be held on the economy and the second on constitutional matters. We were previously invited to constitutional conferences. We were to be there by virtue of Subsection (2) of Section 37. But that is something that has been taken away from the Territories now. There is no mention, no requirement, not even a possibility of them being there as participants at constitutional conferences when things of evident, direct interest to the people who live in the north are to be discussed.
The other matter of great concern that we have heard a lot about today already is the changes to the formula by which new provinces are created. In my way of thinking the evil deed was done in 1982. Prior to that time the creation of new provinces, whether, as we have seen, was the case with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or Newfoundland, was a matter between that area and the federal Government. The change came in 1982 when Pierre Elliot Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada.
1 do not know about the practical results of the proposals here. I suspect that it will not make that much difference. If we are going to get seven provinces, we are likely to get 10. But we should have been there at Meech Lake. We should have been there in the Langevin Block when these proposals were being drawn up and discussed.
What could be of more direct interest to the people of a part of Canada as a discussion as to how they can become a province, how they can join this great Confederation?
In summing up I want to say that the Meech Lake-Langevin Agreement as it stands, as much as we like to see Quebec coming into Confederation, is unacceptable to the people of northern Canada. They have seen provinces kind of bending over backward to accommodate the reluctant bride, Quebec. But they themselves who have only wanted, and always wanted, to be part of this family of Confederation, have found themselves cut out. They have been left outside of the circle of Confederation.
The question that we have on our minds, the question that we want an answer for, is quite simply this. Why, under these agreements, is it to be proposed that we who live north of the 60th parallel be excluded from the Canadian family of Confederation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) state that he would support the resolution today. I think his action is a natural consequence of the new rules and the statement by the proposer that the motion should not be considered as one of confidence in the Government.
I accept fully his statement that while he supports the motion, this does not stand for non-confidence in his own Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). While I congratulate him on that, I want to take him up on one point.
He said that he was surprised by the position taken by the Liberal Party today because in 1979 the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Liberal Party opposed the proposals made by the then Conservative Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time for more responsible government in the Territories.
I know the Hon. Member wants to be fair. I recall very well that while this Party stood for more responsible government in the Territories, we did not want those proposals to move ahead unless there was assurance that the aboriginal people were involved with that movement toward responsible government in the north and there was some mechanism to provide for the settlement of land claims at the same time.
I must say that we tried to make the point that these measures for responsible government should not go ahead without some assurance of involving the aboriginal people. In fact, the Government acted on that, both the Conservative Government of 1979 and the Liberal Government of 1980, so that we now have in the north a quite significant evolution toward responsible government with the aboriginal people involved. We now see in the Northwest Territories the Inuit and Dene involved in the Government. It is the same thing in Yukon. We fully support that.
The only reason we took the position we did in 1979 was not that we were opposed to that development in the North but that we wanted to ensure that the aboriginal people would be fully involved.
I wanted to make those comments. As I say, I appreciate the position of the Hon. Member, but I want the record to be clear on that.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I think to a certain extent the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is trying to rewrite history. I was in the House at that time. If I remember the arguments presented by his Party and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, they did not have too much to do with social justice. However, they had a lot to do with strict legalities and whether the letter of instruction sent by the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Commissioner of Yukon was legally correct and proper. That is my recollection of the arguments presented at that time.
One small but positive development toward constitutional development in the time the Hon. Member enjoyed the portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-and I compliment him on it-was that in 1976 or 1977 he allowed the elected executive committee of the territorial Government to be increased by one additional member.
It just so happens that when this took place, the member of the Legislative Assembly who was chosen to take this new
June 8, 1987

portfolio at the territorial level was myself. I have never really come to the conclusion as to whether I should thank the Hon. Member for doing so or whether what should take place is entirely the opposite.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I support the constitutional Accord signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers of the provinces last week. I believe it is good for Quebec and good for Canada.
I also said that it needed improvements and that I hoped public debate and public hearings involving the participation of Canadians from one end of the country to the other would, over the course of weeks and months, achieve those improvements. I believe the motion before us represents such improvement, and we support that motion.

I therefore support the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The motion is entirely compatible, to borrow a term from the constitutional Accord, with what members of my Party and I myself have already said on this issue. 1 am therefore happy to see that the members of the NDP now agree with us in this respect.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who spoke earlier. This motion does not detract from the Meech Lake-Langevin Accord. I agree that the principles of the Meech Lake Accord should remain sacrosanct. There is no reason, however, why every phrase in that agreement should remain sacrosanct or why the First Ministers, the Parliament of Canada, and the legislatures of the provinces should not yield to improvements which can be justified to those respective jurisdictions.
With regard to the admission of new provinces, I have pointed out to the House on more than one occasion that I believe one of the flaws in the constitutional Accord signed by the Prime Minister and the First Ministers is that the eventual admission of Yukon and the Northwest Territories as new provinces is now subject to the unanimous consent of all provincial Governments.
While I agree that existing provinces should indeed have something to say about the admission of new provinces, we should remember, as has been pointed out already in the debate, that this rule did not apply to any current provinces brought into Confederation since 1867.


Mr. Benjamin:: Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland.


John Napier Turner: What about Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, Manitoba in 1870, and Newfoundland in 1949?
Therefore, 1 believe that an exception should be made in the case of Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I believe that they should be governed by the current formula, which would be seven provinces and 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
Supply
Since I was not in the room when the constitutional Accord was reached, I do not know whether it was merely an oversight on the part of the Prime Minister and the Premiers pressing forward to get an agreement. However, as has been pointed out, there is also no provision for consultation with the Territories on the appointment of northern Senators.
We have yet to hear from either the federal or provincial Governments a satisfactory explanation as to why it was that the First Ministers wanted to make it more difficult to admit Yukon and the Northwest Territories as full partners.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said this morning that it had implications for equalization payments. I do not find that argument at all persuasive.
In the 1982 amendment enshrined in the Constitution, the commitment of all levels of government to regional equality is set forth quite clearly. Does the federal Government really believe that that provision would be weakened or changed because of the admission of new provinces? We do not think so. We are not getting very clear reasoning from the Minister of Justice on what is a very important and indeed a vital issue for northern Canadians.
The Government of Canada was the only Government at the negotiating table to speak for the interests of northern Canadians. I therefore urge the Prime Minister to take the lead with the provincial Premiers in seeking agreement to change that section of the constitutional Accord.
I support the Accord. I support the agreement reached over that marathon session in the Langevin Building despite its flaws because it represents a reaching out to Quebec and to our French-speaking citizens. I also believe we should reach a little further and extend our hand to Canadians living north of the 60th parallel and to our aboriginal peoples as is set forth in this motion.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East pointed out earlier that there was some movement from the statement of principles set forth in general terms at Meech Lake to the Accord signed last week in terms of the recognition of aboriginal rights and the multicultural nature of our society. Section 16 of that Accord will bear a good deal of scrutiny, hopefully in this House, in committee and by provincial legislatures. I believe that the Government should capitalize on that good will and bring it a step or two further.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I presented a motion to this House, together with the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, which sought to correct what we believe to be an historic injustice to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. We sought the support of all Members at that time to recognize in the Constitution the inherent right to selfgovernment of aboriginal Canadians. We also urge the Government of Canada to abandon its insistence that the right

June 8, 1987
Supply
to self-government should be contingent upon negotiated agreements.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the First Ministers' Conference with aboriginal leaders held in Ottawa in March was the last such conference that Ministers were obliged to hold on this issue under the terms of the Constitution Act, 1982. That conference failed to produce an agreement to recognize aboriginal self-government. I believe the reason for that failure was the lack of political will and leadership of the federal Government on that issue.
Again this morning the Minister of Justice repeated the argument that until such time as there is significant agreement among the provinces to entrench aboriginal rights and aboriginal self-government there will be no further meetings. In other words, what the federal Government is saying to the provinces is, "Show me where you want to go and I will lead you". We consider that to be a vacuum in leadership. We consider that to be a derogation from the position the federal Government should take-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: An abdication.


John Napier Turner: Abdication is a good word-in furtherance of the historic rights we believe to be inherent of our original peoples. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Quite simply my intuition is that the Government does not believe in the concept itself of aboriginal selfgovernment. The Minister of Justice complains that he has to know right down to the last dot and comma what precisely the concept of self-government means before the federal Government would ever pursue it.
We believe that those rights should be included in the Constitution first as a general statement and affirmation of the rights of our aboriginal peoples, rights which we consider to be inherent, never having been extinguished.
The federal Government, on the other hand, believes that all the details of every application of that right should be worked out first, and only then should that right be included in the Constitution.
Part of the constitutional Accord calls for further First Ministers' meetings to discuss the Senate and the fisheries. We believe that since the fishery is an important aspect of aboriginal rights, native leaders should at least be part of those meetings, along with the First Ministers. I go even further. I would like to see this Parliament add to that agenda to the Senate reform issue, to the fisheries issue, a commitment listed specifically to aboriginal right to self-government and the inherent rights of our aboriginal peoples. That should be added specifically to the agenda by this Parliament and the legislatures as part of the Constitution.
I believe, together with my colleagues, that the right of the aboriginal peoples to self-government has existed for centuries. It existed well before this continent was explored and colonized by Europeans.

We believe that this right to political autonomy has always existed and was never abolished. It still exists. It should therefore be written into the Constitution of Canada. At our convention last November our Party passed a resolution asking that self-government for aboriginal peoples be expressly acknowledged in the Constitution.
The Liberal Government headed by my predecessor, Mr. Trudeau, had also acknowledged this right. The Penner report, named after the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, which recommended working towards the inclusion of aboriginal peoples' political autonomy in the Constitution had been commissioned by the Government of Mr. Trudeau. As a result of the report this same Government had also introduced a legislative measure designed to guarantee political autonomy for Indian nations.

Aboriginal rights were included in the Constitution of 1982 along with the guarantee that those rights apply equally to men and women. There was also the recognition of the existence of rights acquired through both future and existing land claims agreements.

Several of these agreements have been negotiated, among other with the Cree-Naskapi of the James Bay region. The federal and provincial Governments were also committed to hold three new conferences-one in 1984, another one in 1985, and the third in March of this year 1987-with a view to reaching an agreement on this question which is of crucial importance to the native people of Canada.
In fact, the present Government is moving backwards, going back to 1982. It simply wants to start all over again. How can the present federal Government think that the aboriginal people will have faith in it? In our opinion, it is simply not satisfactory either for the native people or for the Party I represent in the House of Commons, nor can it be either for the other Members of the House.
We in the Liberal Party are in favour of a constitutional amendment which would take into account the very right, the historic and never abolished right of native people to selfgovernment.

Our First Ministers, we believe, should show faith in the ability of the aboriginal peoples to make their own decisions. They should not take refuge in the status quo, a status quo which has served the aboriginal people so badly and in such a frustrating manner in past decades.
I believe that not only should we have an acceptable amendment enshrining the right to self-government, we must also have a commitment from the federal Government to provide the fiscal resources necessary for the effective exercise of self-government and a commitment to negotiate the necessary agreements and infrastructure.
June 8, 1987

I believe it is not too late to improve this Accord to include aboriginal peoples and, as I said when I began, northern Canadians.
The federal Government has an opportunity to lead the way in convincing all provincial Premiers to make an historic gesture and, at long last, recognize the inherent right of our original peoples to self-government and to ensure that they be welcomed fully into the Canadian family as our original citizens, worthy of our respect, worthy of the friendship of their fellow citizens from one end of this country to another.
The purpose of my brief intervention is to urge the Government to listen to what the House has to say and to support the motion that was introduced by my colleague from Oshawa. We believe the amendment process should be more flexible along the lines I have suggested for admission of the two Territories should they eventually want to become full partners in our Confederation and to put onto the agenda of the recognized Constitution, the right of our aboriginal peoples to self-government and self-determination within the Canadian Confederation.
Those are two improvements I believe that could be made without in any way sacrificing the full purpose and intent of the constitutional Accord which, after all, is to bring Quebec fully into our Confederation politically, psychologically and emotionally. I believe that it merits the sincere and deep consideration of every Member of this House and, if we can look across the country, of members of our provincial legislatures who will have a duty, as we do, to seek improvements to this historic Accord.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and ask him for his opinion, and I mean this in a totally non-partisan manner. British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland came into Confederation without the unanimous consent or the consent of a number of provinces. I would like his view, and I mean this quite sincerely, on why it would be necessary at all to have even the consent of seven provinces if a Territory of Canada requests admission into Confederation as a province. Would he agree that that is an item of business between the federal Government and that Territory and no one else?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can say to my hon. friend from Saskatchewan, whom I have known for a long time, that while 1 recited the fact that historically the admission of a new province had been a bilateral matter between the then territorial concern and the federal Government or the self-governing dominion of Newfoundland, within the context of the 1982 Accord we had moved on to a more collective style of confederation. I would be satisfied if the seven provinces having 50 per cent of the population would be able to pronounce themselves upon the admission of either Territory. I think the necessary flexibility would exist and the
Supply
chances of either Territory becoming a province would be enhanced as a result.
Since the 1982 Accord, we have had an amending formula that we did not have before. When Newfoundland, the last province brought into Confederation, was brought in, there was no definition by the Supreme Court of Canada nor by the British North America Act as to what the amending process was. I would be satisfied with the 1982 arrangement which would be flexible enough to obtain what northerners are seeking.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But seven provinces can stop it.


John Napier Turner: I do not want to bind either leader of either Territory, but it is my understanding, after talking to each of them, that the arrangement I have put forward would be satisfactory to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no more questions or comments, we will go on to debate.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak today. I would like to review the progress the Government has made in promoting the political development of the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Self-government and political development in the north has been one of the most important foundations of the policy the Government has followed since its election. A great deal of progress has been made in transferring powers, programs and responsibilities of a type normally exercised by provincial Governments from the federal Government to the territorial Governments in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. The process is continuing and will continue to receive our unreserved support.
Our commitment to this course of action is based upon both principle and practicality. It is our belief that those providing public services should be as close as possible to the people being served. A better understanding of local conditions, a sensitivity to local aspirations and hence more accountability and improved services thus becomes possible.
I would like to outline some of the measures the Government has taken in support of northern political development. To begin with, formula financing for the territorial Governments was introduced in 1985. Under this system, about two-thirds of the funds required by the territorial Governments for the provision of public services are provided in the form of grants. In the current year, the Northwest Territories will receive $465 million and the Yukon $155 million under formula financing.
Before formula financing was introduced, grants were negotiated on an annual basis between the two levels of Government. This was a short-term approach that made longterm planning difficult and created some tensions between the federal Government and its territorial counterparts. Territorial Governments can now plan ahead with a predictable cash flow.

June 8, 1987
Supply
Consistent with its approach to financing arrangements, the federal Government has made extensive progress in transferring specific programs to the territorial Governments. The transfer of the Northern Canada Power Commission to the Yukon was completed within the established target date of April 1 of this year. Discussions have also been approved with the Northwest Territories concerning the transfer of the NCPC. Responsibility for forest management in the Northwest Territories has also been transferred involving the transfer of about $24 million to the territorial Government from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Nursing stations on Baffin Island were transferred to the Territories and similar transfers in the Keewatin, Central Arctic and Mackenzie regions are scheduled to occur early next year. Considerable progress has also been made in discussions concerning the transfer of health services in the Yukon. Discussions are also under way between the Yukon Government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the transfer of responsibility for the management of inland fisheries.
The timing, conditions and nature of such transfers are developed together with territorial Governments and reflect territorial priorities. At the same time, such transfers must take account of the particular concerns of aboriginal groups, especially insofar as such transfers may affect land claims matters. Consultation with aboriginal groups is thus an important requirement in the transfer or devolution process and is fully supported by the federal Government.
The settlement of claims arising from aboriginal title in the Northwest Territories and Yukon is intimately linked to the processes of northern political development. By establishing certainty in relation to the ownership of land and resources, the settlement of comprehensive land claims will create a more favourable climate for investment and development, thus strengthening the economic basis which must provide the foundation for political development and self-government.
Further, the development of a constitutional framework through which aboriginal groups can participate in the management of wildlife and secure a say in environmental management more generally requires the participation of territorial Governments to arrive at arrangements for the participation of claimant groups in institutions of public Government. Thus, one of the greatest challenges for the federal Government, the territorial Governments and claimant groups in the north is the development of institutions and structures of public administration that accommodate the interests of aboriginal people, are accountable to the Legislative Assembly of the Territory and are responsive to the needs of all northerners.
Settlement of comprehensive land claims is a personal priority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) and of the Government. In this regard, last year the Minister secured the approval of Cabinet for a revised comprehensive land claims policy that took
account of many of the concerns over the old policy voiced by aboriginal groups.
Under the revised policy, the old practice of extinguishing in a blanket fashion all aboriginal rights, titles and interests is discontinued. The scope of comprehensive land claims negotiations includes a broader range of self-government matters. There is clear recognition of the aboriginal interest in marine areas, a matter of great concern to the Inuit in particular. Resource revenue-sharing arrangements may be negotiated to provide to claims a percentage of the federal Government's share of resource revenues. The revised policy will, together with other steps taken for the better management of the negotiating process, greatly facilitate comprehensive claims negotiations. We may expect some real progress in northern comprehensive claims over the next two years.
Of course, aboriginal people have insisted that for their aspirations to be fully met, there must be the negotiation of new political arrangements as well as the settlement of their interests in lands and resources. The process of claims settlement and of northern political development are thus intimately related.
In this regard, the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic have for the past several years advocated the division of the Northwest Territories to create a new eastern territory, Nunavut, in recognition of its distinct linguistic, cultural, geographic and economic status. A plebiscite conducted by the territorial Government in 1982 showed an over-all level of support of 56 per cent of residents of the Northwest Territories for the division of the Territories with the support for this division especially strong in the Inuit communities.
The Legislative Assembly of the N.W.T. subsequently set up a constitutional alliance, which is organized in two forums-the Nunavut Constitutional Forum and the Western Constitutional Forum-with participation by aboriginal organizations. In February of 1985, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development affirmed his support for division, provided that a territorial consensus could be developed on the issues of a boundary, the location of administrative centres and the distribution of powers between local, regional and territorial levels of Government. To assist in the development of this consensus, the Government provided $4.4 million to the constitutional alliance. A great deal of progress has been made by the two forums that make up the alliance, culminating in the negotiation of a "boundary and constitutional agreement for the implementation of division of the Northwest Territories", signed in Iqaluit on January 15 of this year.
There has been some disappointment that the failure to resolve some claims-related matters related to the boundary proposed in the Iqaluit Agreement has not led to the referendum on division anticipated for the spring of this year. There have also been suggestions the federal Government should intervene directly to settle this matter. But it is northerners
June 8, 1987

who will have to live with the decisions taken, and it is they who must resolve these questions. Matters like the establishment of a new territory and the determination of its boundaries are necessarily complex and involve many careful considerations. Some set-backs are inevitable in such a process. Personally, I am very impressed by the way northerners have approached this issue and the progress they have made. The federal Government will continue to support the principle of northern decision-making in this crucial area of concern to the future of the Northwest Territories.
Northern political development is important to all Canadians because it is linked to the key issue of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Elon. Members may recall that in September, 1985, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced a strong package of federal actions aimed at strengthening Canadian sovereignty in our northern regions. These actions included legal adoption of straight borderlines around the perimeter of the Arctic archipelago, creation of an Act dealing with Canadian offshore application, increased surveillance flights by the Canadian Armed Forces, and the construction of a polar Class 8 ice-breaker. The intention to deploy a number of nuclear submarines in northern waters reinforces these steps. But our sovereignty can also be strengthened through the day-to-day activities of Canadians working and living and establishing political institutions in our northern regions. Mr. Nick Sibbeston, the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories, has expressed this idea forcefully as follows:
The recognition of the rights of Canadian aboriginal peoples who have
traditionally dwelt in the North, the formation of a strong northern
Government and the active development of the North as an integral part of the
Canadian economy will affirm the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic far
more completely and effectively than any other measure.
This approach, Mr. Sibbeston said, was very much in the Canadian tradition. Not with loud statements but with quiet action. Not with conflict but with co-operation.
There are many sound reasons for this Government to continue to encourage and facilitate the move to full responsible Government in our northern Territories. Like all Canadians, northerners have the right to participate in making decisions affecting their future. Political devolution will also speed the process of economic development and renewal in the North. It will simplify the regulatory structure in the Territories, create political stability, and encourage economic development. This will help the North and benefit all Canadians.
Finally, political development will help to assert the sovereignty of Canadians over our vast lands north of the 60th parallel.
This Government will continue to work with territorial Governments, native groups and northern citizens to ensure that the orderly political devolution now in progress proceeds to its logical conclusion.


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


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, particularly because I was not sure I would get the chance. I want to outline why we have chosen to support this Accord and at the same time work to keep open the possibility of improvements. I want to do this for my constituents and those other Canadians who I know continue to have a lot of questions about the so-called Meech Lake Accord. I know the intervention by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau raised a lot of questions about the Accord. Certainly, after my own first reading of it I had a lot of questions. I have taken the time to examine the Accord in detail and consult with others, so I want to outline my views.
Up until now there have been some extreme views put forward in the public debate on the Accord. On the one hand, there is the kind of standard government line, the Brian Mulroney hyperbole.


John Barry Turner: Order!


Cyril Keeper: Excuse me. I will not mention the name of the gentleman.


John Barry Turner: Try Prime Minister.


Cyril Keeper: I respect the rules of the House. I was referring to the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Mulroney).


Maurice Brydon Foster: What is his name?


Cyril Keeper: He is the gentleman who has been Prime Minister for a short period of time and will be for another year or so. After that the people will judge.
He says the deal he and the 10 Premiers cooked up overnight will result in harmony in the Canadian nation. This is an end to the conflict between federal and provincial Governments. From now on everything is going to be sweetness and light. Premier and Prime Minister will walk smiling, hand in hand, arm in arm. That is the kind of vision he presents. It is a Pollyannaish view and belies much of the reality of Canadian politics and the sociology of Canada. We have strong regional interests and a decentralized federation in which the provinces have considerable power and influence. When they feel they have to speak up for their people, they speak up strongly, and you are bound to have real differences between federal and provincial Governments.
Another view is that the Accord is a complete disaster for Canada. Somehow the agreement worked out at Meech Lake and in the Langevin Building is the end of an effective and powerful federal Government. From now on federal Governments will have their hands tied behind their backs. They will be impotent and unable to respond to the needs of ordinary Canadians. They will be unable to bring about the kind of national programs people need. The view is that we have abandoned the vision of one Canada and a common citizenship from sea to sea. The view is that there will be no more national programs. Progress towards a bilingual nation has been

June 8, 1987
Supply
stopped in its tracks. That is a disastrous scenario regarding the Meech Lake Accord which, upon reflection, 1 do not share.
Is there an alternative to those two views? I think it is possible to take a much more studied and balanced view of the constitutional Accord. I think it is important to have a more realistic view.
I want to focus in on a key element of the Accord which has concerned me, that being federal spending power. There is an interesting clause in the Accord which says that provinces will have the right to opt out of federal programs if they choose to put in place a compatible program. We will have national programs out of which the provinces can opt out. They can receive federal dollars to establish their own programs.
That is a key element of the Accord. I want to be sure that with this clause in the Constitution we can still create new national programs which will serve the needs of ordinary Canadians. We in this Party have a long and proud history of fighting for the social needs of Canadians. It was through the efforts of our predecessors in this Party that the medicare program came to be. The national pension programs are dear to our hearts. It is important that the capacity of the federal Government to initiate remains.
I took the time not only to read the words in the document but also to consult with people who have negotiated between the federal and provincial Governments. I asked them whether they thought we could still establish national programs such as a day care program. I took the time to speak to constitutional lawyers who have a handle on the legal aspects of the Constitution.
I must be frank and say that I got quite a variety of points of view. You get different points of view from different experts but in the final analysis, as an elected representative, one must reflect on all the data and make a judgment. I made an evaluation of this clause.
I think that this clause fundamentally writes in constitutional language that which has become the constitutional practice in the country. That is, when a federal Government chooses to establish a social program it will sit down with the provinces and negotiate the program. That is fundamentally what has happened in this country. The federal Government has not unilaterally established new programs and imposed them upon the provinces regardless of what the provinces said.
In the past, provinces have had a say in the way in which programs were developed. The extent to which they have had a say varied depending upon their financial capacity. The influence of the federal Government results from the fact that it was willing to put money on the table to establish new programs. Therefore, a province such as Ontario could be much more independent in its point of view. It could tell the federal Government to keep its money, that it is not interested in what the federal Government was proposing.
However, provinces like Manitoba or the maritime provinces which do not have the same kind of revenue need federal dollars and will be more inclined to negotiate to have the needs of their people met. Such underlying sociological realities will continue to affect constitutional negotiations for the establishment of new programs.
Fundamentally, the effectiveness of federal spending power to create new programs will remain. In the past, the federal Government had the spending power and the provincial Governments had the jurisdiction. The two bodies sat down together and negotiated to create a national program. In the future the federal Government will have a constitutional right to establish national objectives and the provinces will be asserting their right to establish standards for programs within their areas of jurisdiction. There will still be a process of negotiation to establish new national programs.
I contend that nothing fundamental has changed with the Accord. It is still possible to create new national programs and it still must be done through negotiation. We have written into the Constitution that which has been the practice over the last few years.
I think things will depend upon the quality of leadership in the country. If we elect political Parties which are committed to establishing programs that will meet basic human needs and which follow through on those commitments when elected, we will have good national programs. They will, of course, have to be negotiated with the provincial Government. While some provincial Governments may be able to hold out and weaken a program in some cases, other provincial Governments will be creative and find ways to improve programs.
I would like to make a point about the positive aspects of this Accord and another about how the Accord could be improved. We have established that the Accord does not make this country ungovernable, that we can still, with good political leadership, establish national programs. One of the advantages of the Accord is that it completes the circle, with Quebec signing the Canadian Constitution. In addition to that, it demonstrates to Canadians who live in Quebec that people across Canada have opened the door to them. Provincial leaders from across Canada have devised an Accord which makes room for Quebec in the Canadian Constitution. There has, therefore, been an opening of spirit to Quebec.
The Accord also recognizes the sociological reality that Quebec is unique, that the majority of its population speaks the French language. In this country we must celebrate our differences, we must recognize that our differences add to the value of our culture. We must do this while recognizing that we have a common Canadian citizenship of which we are proud.
My final point is that this Accord can be improved. The Premiers have said that the amending requirements of the Accord, such as the unanimity principle, do not put constitutional change in a strait-jacket. Let us call upon the Premiers to demonstrate that. If that is true for the future, it must also
June 8, 1987

be true for the present. After we have had public hearings on the Accord, the Premiers can get back together and improve the Accord in ways in which Canadians have identified.
Parliament will be holding hearings on this Accord and unless they are to be viewed as a complete farce, the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must be prepared to consider any change to the Accord on which a consensus develops in the country. Aboriginal rights and self-government are issues to be considered.
The Premiers met on four occasions to discuss aboriginal self-government, with no results. The final meeting broke early in the afternoon with the Premiers tearfully saying they tried their best, but with no results. Elowever, a few weeks later they met to discuss the Province of Quebec. Obviously, Quebec is an entity in this country with much more political clout, and the Premiers stayed to negotiate seriously and demonstrate a commitment to meet all night in order to produce results. I ask them to show the same kind of commitment to aboriginal people in this country that they have just shown to the people in Quebec.
That is how the Accord can be improved, by building upon the consensus that the Prime Minister and the Premiers have been developing through this Accord. I call upon the Prime Minister and the Premiers to be open to suggestions made by Canadians who appear before the parliamentary committee. Canadians will have a greater opportunity in the weeks to come to examine the Accord in more detail. They may discover weaknesses in the Accord that are not yet apparent and which the Prime Minister and Premiers must be ready to correct.
The Accord can be improved by identifying and correcting the weaknesses. One immediate improvement to the Accord would be to make a serious commitment to address the question of aboriginal self-government.
Parliamentary hearings can be creative. We have heard a criticism that the lists of Senate and Supreme Court appointees that the provinces will present to the federal Government will tie its hands or make the appointments of Supreme Court justices secret. Perhaps parliamentary hearings could be conducted before the Prime Minister approves the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.
Changes in the rules of the House have allowed Order in Council appointments to be examined by a parliamentary committee. Rather than conducting such a hearing after the appointment, perhaps it could take place before the Prime Minister approves the appointment of a Supreme Court judge on the recommendation of the province. Such hearings could ensure the input of Canadians.
Perhaps such input to this Accord would encourage Canadians to make positive suggestions rather than simply to try to scuttle the Accord.
The Accord provides an open door for Quebec to enter the constitutional family. It leaves with the federal Government
Supply
the capacity to establish new national programs such as child care. It is important to improve this Accord, and I believe a good beginning would be to take the strong initiative in the area of aboriginal self-government. We must remain open to the suggestions of Canadians so that the hearings do not become a farce.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9). The question is on the motion of Mr. Broadbent.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was in my place. I intended to vote in favour of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
* *
*


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
(b) which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special Committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders'', with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
and on the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p.5331).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Mr. Robinson moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" in line 1 up to and including the word "that" in line 2 and the words "on reinstatement" in line 3 in the first paragraph.


ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REINSTATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a) which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what circumstances;
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that Your Honour would find agreement in the House to treat this vote as a free vote as we did last week and that the count would start in the front row of the government benches and then go to the other side to have the same thing done on the opposite benches.
June 8, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House in agreement that the division be taken by rows?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will then proceed as follows: As is customary, Hon. Members in favour of the amendment will be asked to indicate their position first, followed by Hon. Members who are opposed.
I will ask all Members in the first row to my right who are in favour of the amendment to rise together, whereupon their names will be called by a Clerk, beginning with the Hon. Member seated closest to the Chair. When the name of a Member in the row has been called and recorded, that Member will resume his or her seat.
When the taking of the names of Hon. Members in the first row to my right has been completed, I will ask Members in the second, third, fourth, and fifth rows on my right to proceed in a similar manner.
I will then ask Members in the first row to my left, regardless of their Party affiliation, who are in favour of the amendment to rise and remain standing until their names have been called. We will carry on similarly with other rows on my left.
Once the votes of Hon. Members supporting the amendment have been completed in this manner, I will then invite Hon. Members in the first row to my right who are opposed to the amendment to rise. I will proceed similarly through the remaining rows to my right and follow the same procedure for Hon. Members to my left.
Order, please. It has been a long day. This is the first time that this type of voting procedure has taken place-


Some Hon. Members:: It is the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is the second time, but I was not here the first time.
It bears repetition that the taking of names of Hon. Members in every row will begin with the Hon. Members seated closest to the Chair and will continue consecutively to the far end of the row. This will be so to my right, regardless of rank. It will also be so to my left, regardless of rank or Party affiliation. The question is on the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.24 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 9, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers