1987-10-05

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to report to the House on the outcome of the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. I am pleased to inform the House that we have concluded an agreement in principle for a comprehensive trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is good news for our country, and good news for our people. The agreement responds to our needs and conforms to our requirements. It meets the objectives we set for Canada when we entered into these negotiations.
On September 26, 1985, Mr. Speaker, now more than two years ago, when we formally undertook this initiative I told the House that, and if I may quote from Hansard:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.
That is what I said two years ago and, Mr. Speaker, this agreement delivers on that pledge exactly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: These vital questions were not and are not affected by the negotiations.

On the same occasion, Mr. Speaker, I also said:
"Economics, geography, common sense and the national interest dictate that we try to secure and expand our trade with our closest and largest trading partner".
Mr. Speaker, we now have this tool that is so essential to our prosperity.
This Agreement reflects respect for the integrity of the Canadian people and a determination to give Canadians a more prosperous future.
We embarked on this initiative with a number of important goals in mind. Our main objective was to conclude a mutually beneficial and binding agreement that would guarantee and expand access to U.S. markets for Canadian exporters and would also have the effect of eliminating trade barriers between our two countries. That is exactly what we have done.
We wanted to make our trading relationship with the United States more secure and more predictable, and the Agreement does that. We wanted a gradual phase-out of tariffs between our two countries, and the Agreement does that. We wanted rules that would regulate the important areas of government services and procurement, and the Agreement does that.

We wanted an agreement that guaranteed fair and impartial application of U.S. trade remedy laws, and this agreement does all of those things.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Experts in the area of international trade have been commenting since yesterday that this is the largest trading agreement ever entered into between two sovereign nations. We have agreed to the following measures that will expand opportunities for Canadian exporters and secure access in the world's largest two-way trading relationship: a phase-out of all tariffs between the two countries by the end of 10 years; creation of a unique dispute settlement mechanism with binding powers, one that guarantees predictable and impartial rules of the trade relationship-this is something that Canada has needed, this is something that Canada has achieved-freer trade in agriculture, wine and spirits, and energy products; enhancement of the Auto Pact; expanded access to purchases by Governments; an unprecedented code to set rules of the game for trade by the services industries; and greater access for each other's investors. Culture and social programs are exempted.
Mr. Speaker, while not perfect, the trade agreement meets our requirements and meets all of the fundamental objectives of Canada. It meets our bottom line. This agreement will open and secure our access to each other's markets. It improves prospects for Canadian manufacturers to produce larger quantities of goods in Canada to ship to the entire American

October 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers
market. It creates a code unlike any other yet in existence which will govern the rules of the road for our service industries. It phases in reduction of trade barriers to ensure that our workers and our firms have all the time required to gear up for the opportunities in the changed environment and to protect workers against dislocation that inevitably occurs as society changes.
O)
It is an agreement that gives new assurance to our resource producers in the Maritimes and western Canada, and increases opportunities for business in central Canada.
This agreement, Mr. Speaker, will lead to lower prices for consumers and higher real wages for Canadian workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the Economic Council of Canada and other authoritative bodies have predicted, the agreement will also lead to a significant number of new and durable jobs. The council, in its most recent report, referred to some 350,000 new jobs in Canada resulting from such an agreement.
This is something, Mr. Speaker, which promises such benefit and such hope to the youth of Canada and to our regions of Canada. If Canada is to remain united and to prosper, equality must be the hallmark; there must be fairness and growth from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and this provides our regions with a unique opportunity to share in the growing wealth of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The challenge from the Canadian perspective is what it always is and always has been, to reconcile regional interests and sectoral concerns with the national interest.
The trade initiative was launched by this Government with no guarantees, no indications that success was guaranteed, not by a long shot. We indicated that to the House before we began. Such an undertaking was recommended in 1985, following great study and reflection, as a vital national concern by a royal commission chaired by a distinguished Canadian, the Hon. Donald S. Macdonald. In the process, and pursuant to a splendid report by Mr. Macdonald and his colleagues, we reached out to Canadians from every walk of life, from every corner of our country.
I have met with the Premiers no less than eight times, meetings that have extended up to seven, eight, and nine hours. I will again meet with them later this week to brief them on the outcome of the negotiations and to seek their views.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, when we were starting the final and crucial round of negotiations, Canada's Premiers informed us directly of their confidence in our approach and our
strategy since the beginning of our trade negotiations with the United States.
The First Ministers' Conference, formerly an occasion for sterile confrontation, has become a forum for effective cooperation, conducted with the interest of all Canadians in mind.
I want to thank all the Premiers for their solidarity and support throughout this difficult process.
From start to finish, Canada has maintained a united front. We closed ranks on all crucial issues and settled our differences privately, although there were the usual mishaps and communications problems.
Mr. Speaker, I shall table the complete text of the Agreement as soon as the wording is finalized. It will then be referred to the appropriate committee of the House for analysis, study and debate.

Meanwhile, today, I am tabling the "Elements of the Agreement" concluded and signed by representatives of both Governments. I am advised that there may be a minor typographical error in this document, but that the document itself represents the fundamentals of the agreement arrived at by the parties.
These elements are the agreed basis for the agreement and will be translated into a legal document, as agreed, in appropriate time frames by the negotiating teams.

The Ministers and the members of the Canadian negotiating team will be glad to help the standing committee in its work. They will appear before the parliamentary committee, and Members will, of course, have every opportunity to consider the contents of the Agreement in the House. In the House of Commons there will be a special debate on this question that is of major importance to us all.
Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a host of mechanisms for consultation between the Government and the private sector, and it seems to me that the latter is becoming an important factor in the conduct of public affairs.

We created, for example, the International Trade Advisory Committee, calling on the acknowledged expertise of leading Canadians in fields of important national endeavour. We created 15 sectoral advisory groups, to assure ourselves that the concerns of all Canadians in all of the vital areas of our national life were reflected at all times, to the best extent humanly possible, in the negotiating process.
Literally hundreds of Canadians, under the brilliant over-all chairmanship of Walter Light, participated directly in this worthy endeavour. This represents another indication of a fundamental approach to the manner in which public policy is developed and articulated in Canada. I think it is a beneficial
October 5, 1987

change, because it brings Canadians into the decision-making process on decisions that affect their lives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The talks were not easy, but nothing that is worth while ever is.
The initiative was not undertaken from dusk of one day to dawn of the next. While the final elements of the agreement came together only at the eleventh hour, the general framework of the agreement is the result of three years of very hard work.
We have been at this since November, 1984, when my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) presented the Government's strategy paper entitled A New Direction for Canada; since January, 1985, when we put out a Green Paper on securing and enhancing export markets; since March, 1985, at the Quebec Summit, where President Reagan and I made our declaration on trade in goods and services; since September 26, 1985, when I informed this House of the parameters and the philosophy of our initiative. Since November, 1985, Canada's most experienced international negotiator, Ambassador Simon Reisman, has been heading the Canadian effort.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Since June, 1986, Ambassador Reisman and his colleagues have been at the table with their American counterparts. This has been a most demanding and challenging experience.
Mr. Reisman has once again rendered great service to his country. He and his colleagues in the trade negotiations, including Ambassador Ritchie, who is in the House today with Ambassador Reisman, and their colleagues, have all lent a new and impressive dimension to the expression of public service. I know that all Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of Party, will wish to convey warm congratulations to Ambassador Reisman and his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want very much, and in a very special way, to underline the principle and indispensable role played in these successful negotiations by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I point out as well, with the indulgence of my colleagues in the House who have witnessed this for the last two years, the most significant contributions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Finance, and my own chief of staff, Derek Burney, in bringing these arduous negotiations to a very successful conclusion.
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With challenge, attack, criticism, and the uncertainty that great initiatives bring, for 16 months our team stayed with it. They left no avenue unexplored in their efforts to obtain a good deal for Canada. At all times they were mindful of the firm but direct instructions of this Government and of this Prime Minister-it had to be a good deal or there would be no deal.
This is a good deal, a good deal for Canada and a deal that is good for ail Canadians. It is also a fair deal, which means that it brings benefits and progress to our partner, the United States of America. When both countries prosper, our democracies are strengthened and leadership has been provided to our trading partners around the world. I think this initiative represents enlightened leadership to the trading partners about what can be accomplished when we determine that we are going to strike down protectionism, move toward liberalized trade, and generate new prosperity for all our people.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Agreement will expand our access to the world's largest, richest and most dynamic markets. The result will be an increase in productivity, research and development, a significant improvement in our competitive position and enhanced product quality. The result will be lasting jobs and sustained prosperity. I believe certain components of the Agreement will set an important example for the multilateral negotiations being conducted in Geneva, where Canada and the other 91 GATT members are trying to lower barriers to international trade and enter a new phase in the liberalization of international trade.

Canada and the United States will apply the same vision to the MTN Round. This new arrangement will bring us to a new decade and a new century, on the leading edge of the world's trade and commerce. So this nation, founded by explorers and developed by traders, begins another phase in our national evolution.
Several hurdles remain before implementation, including of course the approval of Congress, but this is a major step toward implementation of an accord that will be fair and beneficial for all regions of Canada.
We go forward with confidence in our future, confidence in our country, and, most of all, confidence in the youth of Canada. We have set a course for a stronger, a more united, and a more prosperous Canada. It is not a path-it never was and it never will be-for the faint of heart, but this country was not built by timid souls. This is a path for the daring, the innovative, and the nation-builders who are now called upon to make a firm decision on behalf of a strong, united, and prosperous Canada.
For those who follow this path, we share the intrepid spirit of the pioneer generations, and hopefully it will be said of all

October 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers
of us, as it was of them, that we left this Canada, this beloved country, a better place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did when he was sworn in as Leader of the country was to go down to the United States and tell our American friends: "Canada is open for business again". Today, the Prime Minister has put Canada up for sale.
All we have seen so far is a statement of principles, and we ask him: Where is the document? Indeed I received a copy of his remarks this morning as I was coming down to the House. All we have so far in this beautiful package put together by the Government is:	"Canada-U.S. Trade Negotiations, A
Chronology"; "Canada-U.S. Trade Negotiations, Glossary"; "Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Elements of the Agreement"; and a synopsis.
Where is the document, or is it still being drafted, and is that why the Prime Minister has not been able to deliver anything but a vague series of generalities, stuffed with rhetoric, but no details for the Canadian people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We want to tell him and the Government that Canadians will want to see the fine print. Canadians will want to examine this agreement, as well the House of Commons, clause by clause. We expect that to be done because we have a mystery here. We do not have a document. We do not have the agreement. Neither Parliament nor the Congress of the United States has anything officially before it.
[ Translation]
All we have, Mr. Speaker, are summaries from both parties. We do not even have an official text. Most of our information-as was the case throughout these negotiations-comes from Washington, not from this Government. Where is the document? When do we get an opportunity to study the document? The Prime Minister did sign something, so where is the document? The Prime Minister wrote a blank cheque and I can assure him that we on this side of the House do not endorse this cheque.
Mr. Speaker, how can we be expected to debate a mystery in the House? How can we debate a document which may not even exist right now but which is being drafted? We must see the fine print. We must scrutinize it clause by clause.

Already we have major differences in interpretation on either side of the border as to what is in the agreement. We have differing interpretations from Washington and those emanating from the Government as to what the agreement actually means.
The Senate and the House of Representatives apparently do not have details. Naturally enough they will look at it in terms of their American interest and in terms of the United States Constitution.
We have an opportunity and an obligation, when we finally see the document, to look at it in terms of the Canadian interest and the Canadian future and, in particular, in terms of our sovereignty and independence as a nation.
The Government operated throughout these negotiations on the naive assumption that the very fact of an agreement with the United States would somehow magically exempt us from U.S. protectionist sentiment, particularly from the protectionist sentiment in the Congress and that somehow we would automatically be exempted from the United States Trade Law, 1974, and particularly from the omnibus Bill already passed by the Senate, passed by the House of Representatives, and now in conference between the two Houses.
That naive assumption would only have been borne out if two conditions had been met. First, if there has been a meaningful exemption from U.S. trade law and unilateral remedies that the Americans so effectively, from their point of view, exercised and imposed against us. But there was not. Second, what about a mechanism to enforce that exemption in terms of a dispute mechanism between the two countries? What about a binding mechanism to withstand the nature of the United States Constitution? But we are far from sure there is a mechanism. What we have is a dispute mechanism, not that will regulate disputes between Canada and the United States on an agreed definition of subsidy, on an agreed definition of countervail and anti-dumping, but a dispute mechanism, so far as we can read it in these vague generalities, these principles of agreement, which will apply national law on either side of the border. In other words, all this dispute mechanism will do is to apply American trade law against Canada. We have substituted an American tribunal for an international tribunal. American law will still apply to Canadian exports into the U.S. market. What the Prime Minister has given us today is an absolute fraud. There is no exemption from American trade law.
Take the case we all know negotiated so pitifully by the Minister of International Trade (Miss Carney), the softwood lumber case. There was final offer after final offer. We can remember that. Even though we suggested that the law and the facts had not changed, she yielded. That case, were it decided today, would be decided under the same legal principles. But instead of those principles being decided by the American administrative system, they will be decided by an international tribunal between Canada and the United States-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -but applying American law. The law has not changed.
October 5, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our Government got suckered in. Our Government got taken, and we are not yet sure, because certain remarks were raised this morning in Washington. It may be, under the American Constitution, that that tribunal cannot be binding against the American court system. There may still be appeals through the federal court system to the Supreme Court of the United States on anything decided by the tribunal. In other words, we are not sure about the binding nature of it. One thing we are certain of it is not arbitrating any mutually agreed definitions between Canada and the United States. It will be applying American trade law against Canada.
We do not know yet whether this tribunal and the arrangements beneath it excludes Canada's remedies to the GATT. Under GATT where we have, over the past seven years, won eight of the nine cases brought before that international tribunal, GATT has the right to challenge the relevance in international terms of national law. This tribunal set up and agreed to by the Government does not challenge American law; it applies American law. We do not know whether we have lost our right to go, as we have in a sovereign way, to the international tribunal of GATT. Our only purpose, according to the Government and those who support a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States, was to gain exemption from American protectionist sentiment. We have not gained that execution. We are still bound by American law and we have agreed to a tribunal which may or may not be binding that will apply American law against Canadian lumber, potash, steel and fish. That is what we have, and that is less than an achievement, it is an absolute insult to the intelligence of the Canadian market.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, many of the aspects of what little documentation we do have are a source of concern. What in fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is telling us is that ever more economic barriers are being raised between Canada and the United States. From here on the Americans are quite free to invade us: all our investment markets, all our financial institutions, our insurance companies, our advertising firms, our transport companies are now wide open.
The Americans also have ready access to our natural resources, our agriculture, our car industry and the Auto Pact.

The principles we have before us-and that is all we have, we do not have the document-are a minefield for Canada. Let us look at some of the items. Let us take a look at investment. Let us call it "takeover unlimited". All of Canada is now open to American proprietorship. Takeover fever will go northward. This country will be a satellite of the United States. We will become the number one takeover target of American business. The Americans already own too much of
Statements by Ministers
us. Now it is "Open Sesame". It is "Open doors. Come on, we are ready. Come and take us". That is what the Government has done.
We ought to look at the nature of what has happened to the sovereignty of this House of Commons. In the Yeutter document-we get most of our information traditionally from the American side-here is what Mr. Yeutter says: "Under this agreement, Canada commits to make permanent its recent policy of not screening new business investments". In other words, it will be a permanent deal. There is no way a future Parliament can play around with it, modify it or amend it. No, Mr. Speaker. We have yielded on the floor of this House of Commons the sovereignty of our nation to control investment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We have known for some time that the Americans want to exercise their empire over services world-wide, and particularly in an avaricious way to Canada. Services are now wide open, financial institutions, banks, trust companies, insurance companies, advertising and investment banks. But what reciprocal rights do we get? Transportation. All the advantages that we may have in terms of investment grants, subsidy or tax incentives to new high technology industries may be out of the window. How will we be able to assist new industry to compete with the United States?
Let us take a look at the Auto Pact. It is hard to read from the statement of principles what is done to the Auto Pact. The statement is deliberately vague. On a first reading it appears that the Auto Pact may have been gutted.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: At best it has been phased out. As the tariffs affecting automobiles and auto parts are reduced to zero, the whole basis of an Auto Pact disappears or is put in jeopardy. Where are the production guarantees? Where are the employment guarantees? All those hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, yet we do not have details. The Prime Minister said all along, his Ministers said all along, in response to repeated questions in the House of Commons about the Auto Pact being on the table, they said to your Honour, "No, Sir, it is not". The Prime Minister mislead us again. The Auto Pact is on the table. It has been gutted and diluted by this agreement.
One of the first responsibilities I had in this House several years ago under the late Arthur Laing was to defend a Canadian water policy and Canadian water from the thirsty glances of our American friends. I always believed that there was no such thing as a North American water policy, a North American resources policy, or a North American energy policy. There is a Canadian energy policy and an American energy policy. We should never yield our sovereignty on those. This Government has, and so we have now become a storehouse of the United States.

October 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Americans are already gleefully saying: "We have secured our resources forever. We have Canada up there, do not worry about the Middle East any more, do not worry about these problems, we have our good friends sewed up forever. We have made Canada a hinterland, a storehouse for our resources. We have turned Canada into a satellite of resources".
We have always tried to resist being seen as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the Government has returned us to the status of hewers of wood and drawers of water.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us turn to agriculture. We have not much time but you will give me the time, I am sure. Agriculture and marketing boards, this Government said they would not be touched. The Prime Minister said they would not be touched. He said that agriculture was sacrosanct, that no changes would be made.
The Wheat Board is in jeopardy. Two-price wheat may be gone. The inability of the Wheat Board to manage import licensing strikes at the very powers of the Wheat Board. Tariffs moving to zero in agriculture means that supply management could be out of the window.
So here we have the family farm in jeopardy. The family farm is struggling under the lowest commodity prices in recent times, and this Government sacrifices the Canadian farmer to make itself look good.
This Government has also accepted the principle of the Western Grain Transportation Act being an export-related subsidy. We are now open to challenge on the movement of grain to our ports and to American ports. Every other country will now challenge the basis of our freight rates.
Culture was another area the Government said it would not touch, but it has made changes. Again, Mr. Yeutter says Canada has agreed that the cultural measures it takes will not impair the benefits the United States would otherwise expect from the provisions of this agreement. What does that mean? It looks like a Mack truck clause to me, you can drive anything through that.
What are we giving away besides differential postal rates favouring Canadian periodicals, tariffs on print and recording and publishing? What else have we given away? How about our film industry? It is clear that Time Incorporated is back taking over Canadian culture.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this agreement in principle is bound to play havoc with Canada's employment market. We simply must provide adjustment programs designed for the workers who will be affected. Where are the adjustment programs to
protect underprivileged regions or workers who will be shifted right out of their jobs as a result of this agreement?

We have yielded too much. The concessions are too deep. Our economic independence has been threatened. Our sovereignty as Canadians has been diminished. We have lost the ability to control and manage our own economy. Why? Because the Prime Minister and the Government were too anxious for the deal. They went into this deal unprepared. They had no plan. They had no agenda.
Before the negotiations, the Government gave away the Foreign Investment Review Act. It really did a job on that one. The National Energy Program, softwood lumber, drug prices, publishing, all this was given away in the course of the agreement in the final coup de grace to the economic independence of this country.

We have already made a good many concessions, Mr. Speaker, enough to jeopardize our economic independence. We have already dropped the Foreign Investment Review Agency, our national energy policy, lumber, drugs.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want Canada to become a satellite of the United States. We want a full parliamentary debate as soon as we lay our hands on the official documents. We want a committee to travel from coast to coast and listen to what Canadians have to say. We want to study the substance and form, the principles and the fine print, clause by clause, of this deal with the Americans.

The Prime Minister had no mandate for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. Indeed, all his past pronouncements, particularly those made when he was running for the leadership of his Party, were against the free trade arrangement because he was worried about Canadian sovereignty. He was right then. He should have stuck with his instincts and intuition. He has now become the architect of the yielding in the most massive way possible of our sovereignty as an independent nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Canadians will want us to look closely at this arrangement. We want a parliamentary committee to study it carefully. We want Canadians consulted from one end of Canada to another. We want a thorough clause-by-clause analysis.
This process will not be hurried because Canadians have no idea yet, after just a preliminary glance, what they have really lost as a nation. What is the regional impact of this Accord? What is the future impact of this Accord? We will want to know what jobs, what companies, what regions will be hurt in this arrangement, because throughout this debate, throughout these negotiations, the Government has talked about benefits
October 5, 1987

and has not been clear with Canadians as to what the costs will be.
Where are the adjustment programs? Where are the adjustments for those men and women who may be laid off as a result of this agreement? Where are the adjustment programs to protect the regions less able to stand up to this agreement? Canadian sovereignty is on the line. From what we have seen so far, we cannot accept an agreement which sells out Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the history of Canada, every Prime Minister from the beginning to the present has asked and answered, either quietly in the dead of night of himself or frequently in public in serious debates affecting the future of the nation, these questions. What kind of Canada do we want and whose Canada is it to be?
Every significant Prime Minister of Canada from Sir John A. Macdonald through John Diefenbaker to Pierre Elliott Trudeau has well understood that in answering those questions in the Canadian interests, it was absolutely essential for Canada to have the maximum degree of economic sovereignty. They understood that.
Each in his own way, from Sir John A. at the outset, understood that a tough set of laws emanating from the Parliament of Canada, in the interests of that sovereignty so that we could build the kind of nation we desired, was absolutely essential, and keeping in place a framework of all-encompassing laws was necessary for us as a people to be able to achieve that mandate.
Having read the American reports on the document that has been agreed to-regrettably, once again, they were the first ones we had access to-and the summaries of the documents provided by Canadian officials up to this point, I can tell you that for the first time in the history of Canada, we have a man who is Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has, without even being asked, volunteered Canada to be the 51st state in the United States. We reject that perspective of this country.
I want to spell out what I mean. The Prime Minister said before the last election that he was opposed to free trade because he thought of the implications then of the relative economic strengths of these two countries of ours on this part of the continent. He said in Sherbrooke, Quebec, during the election campaign, that it would be a mistake for us to enter into this kind of an agreement, presumably because he was then thinking somewhat about the long-range future of this nation. Yet in the last 48 hours his Government entered into an agreement with the U.S. for which it had no mandate. The long-range implications are that Canada, an independent nation able to set its own priorities, would go down the drain. I say to the Prime Minister of Canada that if he had any integrity on this point he would go to the people of Canada today and wave the election banner on this issue.
Statements by Ministers


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Tories sit there laughing as Canada dribbles away.


Mr. McDermid:: We are laughing because you are silly.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the case for what I have just said in some detail. What we have seen from the Government in the last 48 hours, the people of Canada have seen incrementally over the last three years, and it has led to this final negative decision.
Just after the Tories came to power, they proudly boasted they were going to get rid of FIRA, and they did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: They are still clapping.


John Horton McDermid: You told us we would lose 100,000 jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: They do not know that every other industrialized country in the modern world has the equivalent of FIRA. In their ignorance they got rid of it and they are still boasting.
Since the Tories came to office there have been more than 2,000 takeovers of Canadian firms by American firms. Once again the Conservatives, who have forgotten the legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald, think that is a good sign.


Miss Carney:: Any investment in Oshawa, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: In their first move on FIRA we saw the forerunner of what was to come.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What about Oshawa, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: I listened to your Prime Minister, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), and perhaps you will have the courtesy to listen to what is said on this side.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Tell us about Oshawa, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: You will have your opportunity later on. We have had virtually wiped out any provisions which would ensure greater protection against takeovers of our industry by U.S. firms which are invariably much larger and have greater capital resources. They have been gobbling up companies in takeovers in the U.S. over the last few years. Just watch that expand north of the border now.
The Tories said that not only did they want to get rid of FIRA and expand the whole range of investment opportunities, as they described them, they are increasing the threshold where takeovers are reviewed from that of companies with assets of at least $5 million, all the way up to $150 million. Goodbye all small and medium-sized Canadian businesses which are doing well. They are now open to takeover bids from the U.S.
Statements by Ministers Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The voice of fear.

October 5, 1987


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, another sign of what was to come was the takeover of Dome Petroleum.


Some Hon. Members:: A bankrupt company.


John Edward Broadbent: Dome Petroleum was the largest Canadian-controlled firm in the energy sector. The Americans said, "Do not move to stop that takeover", and of course the Government did not move. Once again we see in the document we are asked to consider an extension of that policy to the whole energy field. I was in Montreal yesterday and I watched an American television program with Mr. Yeutter saying they got their continental energy deal. That is what the Americans wanted, that is what they got, and that is what the Government sold out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We see something else in the U.S. document. Ever since the Prime Minister sat down with the President of the U.S., not once but twice, and when Mr. Bush, the Vice-President, visited Ottawa and talked with the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and myself, what did they have on their agenda? Changes in our pharmaceutical legislation. What do we see in the American document? With great pride they say they got the change in the pharmaceutical industry regulations that they wanted. Another capitulation which we saw in draft form a few months ago is now being consummated in an international agreement. A shameful act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cote (Langelier):: Sit down, Ed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try the truth, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: The U.S. has indicated for some time that it wanted greater access to our cultural industries. People in this field in Toronto and Montreal, and to a lesser but real extent nevertheless on the West Coast, have long known about the American desire to move in on them. We see once again, not just in this agreement but in the Prentice-Hall decision some time ago, that the Government is moving clearly in the direction of giving greater American access and control in this field. Once again it is being consummated in the document agreed upon this weekend.


Miss MacDonald:: Read the document, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Then we have the softwood decision. In that particular instance the U.S. had the nerve to say to our provinces that they did not have the sovereign right to decide at what level they were to impose a royalty. That is at the root of that decision. Forget the economics of whether a high level or low level of royalty was desirable. What is beyond question, or was until this Government came into power, was that it was the sovereign right of our provinces to decide what level of
price they were to charge. It was not up to the U.S., the Japanese, the Europeans or anyone else to tell us what price we were to charge for our resources until the Conservatives came along and said, "Right on, United States, you can tell us what price to set for our products". We reject that outright. Once again you see the reasoning of the Conservative Government in that decision consummated in this agreement.
Running through the agreement, for the resource sector as well as every other sector, is the idea that the pricing policy we decide on in Canada ought not to be related to some long-range regional development strategy for a given province, which may cause it to have very low prices for a given period of time, or to some long-range national strategy which may cause us to decide what we want to charge for our resources.


John Napier Turner: Or even to the market.


John Edward Broadbent: Or even to the market. What is accepted by the Government is the idea that market principles as the U.S. defines them, are to apply even to the sale of Canadian resources. We reject that out of hand.
Similarly, you will find in the approach to deregulation in transportation and service sectors of this agreement a major American agenda item for some time, especially since the Reagan administration came to power. We have seen it in laws proposed in this Parliament dealing with transportation and other services. We see it once again in the document before us.
The point I want to make is that in all these matters of national policy what we are seeing from the Government in this agreement is not something new. What we are seeing is something the Tories set under way the moment they took office, whether we are talking about FIRA in particular, foreign investment in general-


Charles Joseph Clark: National Energy Program.


John Edward Broadbent: -energy programs, publishing, or the selling of our natural resources.


Some Hon. Members:: Nine hundred thousand jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: The conclusion of the Conservative Government was specifically rejected in the House of Commons by John Diefenbaker who had the same view of nationhood as had the founding Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald. The gang of Tories that has now taken over the Government of Canada sees this country as nothing but one large cash register which should be part of the United States, and that is a betrayal of Canadian history.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's a lie. The statement is a lie.


John Edward Broadbent: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is, as usual, getting carried away by his own rhetoric. He has always been a master of rhetoric if not
October 5, 1987

substance. He may indulge the House with a thoughtful speech on the subject later on.


John Horton McDermid: It will be a lot more interesting than this one.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will have noted that when the Right Hon. Prime Minister was speaking there was great courtesy extended. While I know that the debate which is taking place is one of great importance and strong feelings, I ask all Members to give the appropriate courtesies to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you. I now want to touch upon some of the very specific aspects of the agreement. I hope the Government will reply. Instead of indulging in generalities 1 hope the Government will explain the agreement sector by sector and show us where we are wrong.
With regard to agriculture, the concessions have been made overwhelmingly by Canada. A range of agricultural tariff and import licences will be eliminated on wheat, barley, oats and grain. I am sure that everyone on the Prairies will read the news of this agreement with absolute horror. The Government has abandoned a 50-year tradition central to agriculture, not only on the Prairies but in the Okanagan Valley, many parts of Ontario, Quebec, and the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. Agriculture in all these areas and more will be negatively affected. This is a Canadian concession of considerable proportions in agriculture.
With regard to the automotive industry, the language is by no means clear but it looks as though the tariffs in the Auto Pact will be phased out completely. No one has denied that yet. If the tariffs are phased out completely we will lose the stick which played an effective role in getting investment decisions in Canada.
This is not abstract talk. Had it not been pointed out to the Chrysler Corporation that it was not living up to its investment commitments under the Auto Pact and told that if it did not live up to them it would have to start paying a duty on products imported into Canada, there would not be a new van plant in the City of Windsor. The Government was intellectually dishonest when it said that the Auto Pact was not on the table. Without the tariffs and enforcement mechanisms the pact is absolutely destroyed and the Government should have the honesty to say that to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If I understand the information which we have so far with regard to this agreement, in addition to dealings with the North American car makers, our sovereignty has been restricted in terms of making deals in our interests with non-North American producers. As I understand it, we can no longer have an independent automotive policy which would apply to Datsun, Volkswagen or Honda. They will now come within the framework of a new North American policy. If North American content provisions are applied as opposed
Statements by Ministers
to Canadian, instead of being located to meet Canadian conditions of production these companies will no longer come into Canada but will more likely be located in the larger market in the United States and will export their products into Canada.


John Horton McDermid: You have an inferiority complex.


John Edward Broadbent: Not at all, my friend.


John Horton McDermid: Sure you do.


John Edward Broadbent: I will not cite Tommy Douglas or David Lewis, I will just indicate to my Conservative friend that Sir John A. Macdonald would think he is talking through his hat right now.
The Auto Pact is in total jeopardy and our ability to control other automotive decisions independently has been thrown out of the window by this agreement as I understand it.
With regard to the service industry, the rule is that any law which we apply here to Canadian firms will have to be exactly the same as those which would apply to American firms.


Pat Carney: Not true.


John Edward Broadbent: I read the document that was produced by the United States which the Americans say is the official document.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We now hear some of the cabinet Ministers laughing about this. Let them get to their feet later in this discussion and correct these observations if they are wrong. This happens to be what the Americans think they have got from this deal. In bargaining between this Government and the Americans, the Americans have come out on top without exception in recent history, as I am sure they did this time.


John Horton McDermid: Inferiority complex again.


John Edward Broadbent: We'll leave the noise-makers down there.
Not in my worst nightmares did I think that the Government would betray us completely on the protection of our cultural industries. Since we have not yet received a text from the Canadian Government I will quote from the U.S. document on this subject. It says:
-The United States wants to ensure that Canadian cultural policies do not
constitute a discriminatory and unnecessary barrier to U.S. trade.
The document goes on to say:
For its part, Canada has agreed that cultural measures it takes will not
impair the benefits the United States would otherwise expect-
In other words, if anything we do to ensure the growth and vitality of Canadian culture flies in the face of U.S. practice at home and their commercial expectations, it will not be accepted. We reject that approach to the protection of Canadian culture.

October 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers


Charles Joseph Clark: Straw man.


John Edward Broadbent: With regard to investment policy, to use an old phrase, one can only say that there has been a total sell-out of Canadian interests. As 1 mentioned earlier, there has been a change in the threshold for screening purposes. It has been raised to $150 million. A company has to have a minimum of that amount of value before it will be covered by any review process whatsoever. This opens the door completely to takeovers from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, British Columbia.
Another area of policy that I want to touch on, because it has been of particular importance to our provinces and our territories, deals with procurement policies. Governments at the provincial and the territorial level have sensibly used, for their economic development purposes, in a way duplicating what we did as a nation as a whole since 1867, government procurement policies as a means of enhancing employment growth for their own people and their own regions. That, too, will be seriously jeopardized by this agreement that has been entered into, in principle, between our Government and the Government of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the particular impact of this agreement on Quebec.
Many components of this agreement are extremely important for Quebecers. First, in the farming sector, the elimination or reduction of tariffs on poultry and eggs will mean disaster for Quebec producers.
As concerns culture, we have made major concessions which will prevent Canada from guaranteeing the promotion of our cultural industries.
According to the Americans, "Canada has agreed that the cultural measures it takes will not impair the benefits the United States would otherwise expect" from this trade agreement. This is what the Americans have said.
As for the Auto Pact, the recent decision of General Motors in Sainte-Therese was a positive decision for the residents of that region, but as everyone knows, until quite recently, this plant had many problems on the North American market. In my opinion, if the Government supports a decision to abolish tariffs in this sector, any future decision for new investments could be negative for a small plant such as the one in Sainte-Therese.
As concerns regional development subsidies and policies, I simply want to point out that the so-called dispute settlement mechanism proposed in the agreement poses a very serious threat to our regional development policies.
The agreement states that over the next three to five years, the American Government plans to discuss with the Canadian Government certain changes to our regional development
policies. This could be very dangerous for development in Northern Quebec, other regions of Quebec, and even in other provinces.

I want to conclude with one particular item, that is, the dispute settlement mechanism. It has been said by the Prime Minister and by the Minister who is responsible for international trade at various times that the number one goal in these free trade talks was to get a dispute settlement mechanism that would be fair, take into consideration the interests of both countries and be binding, they said, on both countries. What has been produced in this agreement is a dispute settlement mechanism that will not necessarily be fair, and not take into account the interests or rules of subsidies developed jointly by both countries.
What has been produced is an agreement adhered to by the Government of Canada that will see this new mechanism making judgments in a negative way only if they contravene American law. They did not even get their minimum demand, which was an impartial, fair binding dispute settlement mechanism. That is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I conclude with this comment. The future of Canada, like that of any other nation, cannot be reduced to its commercial relations. A people have a deep interest in developing its own cultural policies, its own social policies, and its own regional development policies. In short, it has an interest in making all those decisions that are central to what ought to be called a civilized life. Among those decisions are commercial, economic decisions, that is true. Commercial and economic decisions are important. But we in this Party say that a nation cannot be reduced to commercial and economic decision-making.
In particular, we say that if we turn over ultimate authority for economic decision-making to the North American market forces, our capacity to develop a healthy, creative, humane, and just Canada will be severely impaired. We say that this decision reached by the Government of Canada is a bad decision now, a bad decision for the future. We believe the Government has a moral obligation to go now to the people of Canada for a confirmation or rejection of this betrayal of Canadian history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not part of that standing ovation.
I indicated in my speech some moments ago, Mr. Speaker, my intention to table the elements of the agreement which have been included and signed by representatives of both Governments. I am honoured to be able to do so.
I table with you, Mr. Speaker, the document that constitutes the essential elements of a free trade agreement between the
October 5, 1987

United States and Canada, which document was signed on behalf of Canada by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), Derek Burney and Simon Reisman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair felt that under the circumstances it probably would be acceptable to the House if the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled those documents, having made reference to an intention to do so in his original remarks. Perhaps I should put this question to the House: Is it agreed that the documents be tabled?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have both the duty and honour to present a petition signed by residents of Calgary, Langdon, and Slave Lake, Alberta, and of Ottawa, which calls upon Parliament to act upon the problems with refugee determination in Canada, and to restore to the system fairness, justice and expediency by supporting Bill C-55. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 should advise the House that I have received from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) an application under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate tonight. I have also received, in order of receipt, a similar application on behalf of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
1 will hear the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as you indicated, earlier today I gave you notice of my intention of rising under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing what is an issue of vital national importance.
The issue is that of the agreement in principle that has been entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States in the broad area of free trade. In our view, this agreement goes to the root of the question about what a nation is all about.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, if you should rule in my favour, at the appropriate time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in making application under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate, first we were motivated by the important substance of the issue. Perhaps there has been no more important issue brought forward to the House in decades.
For the past week we have not had an opportunity to have a debate in the House concerning this issue.
I also wish to draw to the attention of the Chair that the announcement and the documents tabled today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are called, "Elements of the Agreement". Many of the important consequences and details surrounding that are missing. We presume that that can only be achieved or attained by the opportunity to have a full exchange and dialogue in the House. The impact upon agriculture, the Auto Pact, and others are such that there are many interest groups and major constituencies in the country which, this morning, are in deep concern and uncertainty as to the meaning of this agreement. They will only be able to achieve understanding if the House has an opportunity to debate the issues at the first and earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to assure the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and other Hon. Members that the Chair, of course, takes the matter as one of great importance, as has been indicated in the House, as do all Hon. Members, although there may be some division on the support for the measure or opposition to it.
However, I note that we have now had an extensive debate. There will be Question Period following this afternoon. The Government has indicated that the documents which record the understanding are going in front of a committee.


An Hon. Member:: When?


Mr. Speaker:: I hear an Hon. Member ask, "When?". Perhaps the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leaders could discuss that. At least for today, we should probably let the usual course proceed. Of course, I would imagine there will be extensive discussion during

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Question Period on some of the matters to which both Hon. Members have referred.
I would ask that the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister assist the Chair in making it clear to both the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party when these documents will be in front of the committee and, of course, which committee will be hearing them.
At this time the Deputy Prime Minister may not be prepared to do that, but I hope it will be done at the very earliest convenience.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may respond for the interim. My response will be fully consistent with that which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has indicated all along. This issue will be subjected to full parliamentary debate. He came to the House as soon as physically possible to make a statement on the issue. The documents have now been tabled with the Clerk. This matter will be referred to a parliamentary committee. My colleague, the Deputy House Leader, will be meeting with the House Leaders early this week to attempt to work out the logistics. We hope that that could be proceeded with forthwith, with the very minimum of delay.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 2, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on w hich Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
October 5, 1987
[Stage Direction]
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
" Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
101C. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
101 D. Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
101 E. (1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to
Constitution Amendment, 1987
make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
And the amendments thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra, p. 9585) and Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586).
Mr. Speaker:: Before debate continues, I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 72 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.
Pursuant to the order made Thursday, October 1, 1987, the following amendments are deemed to have been moved.


Mr. Caccia moved:: That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a)	by deleting Section 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b)	by deleting Section 2.(3).


Mr. Allmand moved:: That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate because I am among those who believe that, if we want to maintain and promote Canadian unity, it is essential to make Quebec an integral part of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Under Prime Ministers Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, and Turner, the Liberal Party, when in power, has always stood for constitutional policies to affirm Canada's sovereignty and political independence, to protect the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians, to recognize the French fact throughout Canada, and to respect the federal system of Canada.

In 1971, after long and delicate constitutional negotiations, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), then Minister of Justice, had achieved a consensus in Victoria. However, because of the political climate in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa was unable to ratify the agreement.
I well remember the evening of November 15, 1976, when a separatist Government was elected in Quebec. There was sadness on Parliament Hill and we had a lot of fears about the future of our country, which fears lasted until the 1980 referendum, and finally, the election of a Liberal Government in Quebec.
While we celebrated the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, our joy was somewhat tarnished by the fact that the separatist Government in Quebec had not signed the agreement.

In November, 1986, the Liberal Party of Canada at its biennial policy convention adopted, by an overwhelming majority, Resolution No. 8 which reads as follows:
Be it resolved that:
(a) a preamble be added to the Constitution of Canada to recognize:
(i)	the commitment of Canadians to maintain and reinforce across Canada the linguistic duality of the Canadian federation,
(ii)	the distinctive character of Quebec as the principal but not the exclusive source of the French language and culture in Canada,
(iii)	the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that help shape Canadian society;
(iv)	the contribution of Canada's aboriginal peoples,
(v)	the advantage of developing the Canadian economic union;
October 5, 1987

If a Liberal Government had been negotiating constitutional change with the provinces, that resolution would have been our basic negotiating position. In contrast, the arrangement negotiated by the Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has a number of flaws which, in my view, should be corrected before the resolution is adopted.
The Government has refused to accept any amendments, allegedly because of fear the agreement will unravel. This attitude shows a great lack of faith in the Members of this House, in the provincial Premiers, and, indeed, in the people of Canada.
A full and open debate can only strengthen the Accord. The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which sat prior to the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 held public hearings for a year. This Government allowed only a matter of weeks for the joint committee to hold hearings and refused to allow any hearings outside Ottawa.
Referring to the amendments which my Party proposes now, first we want to include as fundamental characteristics of Canada the recognition of our aboriginal peoples, the recognition of the multicultural mosaic of Canada, the recognition of the regional identities, and the advantages of lower trade barriers between provinces.
We want to offer more protection for official language minorities by ensuring that Parliament is responsible for promoting, as well as maintaining, official minority language rights.
We would also like to see a firm commitment that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence, in order that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians are not diminished in any way by possible conflicts with other clauses in the Accord.
We believe in an elected Senate, and our proposal would accelerate the move from an appointed Senate to an elected Senate by electing Senators now when vacancies occur rather than appointing them based on provincial lists.
Also, our amendment concerning the Senate would recognize the right of the citizens of Yukon and Northwest Territories to senatorial election, because the current Accord before us leaves a gap in that Canadians living north of the 60th parallel would not be entitled to any future representation or appointment to the Senate.
These are responsible and reasonable amendments which meet the concerns of women, of aboriginal peoples, and of Canadians whose first language is neither English nor French. Representatives of these interests all made very moving presentations before the joint committee, but unfortunately their words fell on deaf ears, as the Conservative majority refused to consider any amendments.
If the Government had been prepared to accept these amendments, the resolution before us would have been strengthened, and the joy we all feel at Quebec's accession
Constitution Amendment, 1987
would not have been marred by our awareness that many thoughtful Canadians are uneasy about the unseemly haste and the undemocratic manner in which the issue has been handled.
Prior to the 1980 referendum, Liberals undertook to the people of Quebec that their vote for Canada would be followed by a commitment on our part to renew federalism. The motion before us today goes part way to meeting that commitment, and therefore I must vote for it. However, I wish the Government had been prepared to take the time and trouble to get it right now, instead of leaving it to future Governments to bring about a real consensus.


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I suppose today is a day of historic debate and historic happenings. I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate in respect of the so-called Meech Lake Accord, in particular the debate on the report of the Special Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
I, like a number of Members of the House, have had an opportunity to read the report. For those people who have not yet had an opportunity to read it, I commend it to them. It is very well written in an extremely balanced manner. The cochairmen of the committee, Senator Arthur Tremblay and the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), did an outstanding job both in terms of the conduct of the committee and the report.
The report itself carries with it an uncommon amount of agreement and support, because not only was there a process where people came before the committee and offered their views and their briefs, but, most important, standing behind the process of the committee was an historic event, that is, a continuation of the understanding of the role of Quebec in Canada. That is what the Accord is about, I might say.
Much of the public discussion has dealt with other important matters, but sometimes we have forgotten in the debate that the Accord is about the role of Quebec. There is no issue in Canadian politics over 200 years which has occupied our time more than this. Indeed, there is no chapter in Canadian history which does not include in it, as it turns the page, a new understanding or a refined understanding of the role of Quebec in the Canadian family.
From 1760 to 1763, to the Quebec Act of 1774, to the constitutional Act of 1791, to the implementation of the Durham report in 1840, and to the British North America Act of 1867, each one of those parts of Canadian history carried with it an understanding of the role of Quebec. I do not want us to misunderstand, therefore, the purpose of the Accord. It is to deal specifically with the role of Quebec in the 21st century in Canada.
In our own time that debate began with the so-called Quiet Revolution of 1960. We were treated in the 1960s and 1970s to new phrases to try to capture the question of the day-what

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
does Quebec want? We were treated to the following new phrases: maitre chez nous, equality or independence, sovereignty association, and the referendum debate. Those of us who listened to the radio, read the newspapers, and watched our television screens were involved in a fairly tumultuous event, that is, a country redefining itself as the Quebec society in the Province of Quebec began to redefine itself in the latter part of the 20th century.
Events began to pick up by 1976 with the historic election of the Pequistes in the Province of Quebec. By 1980, Quebecers found themselves involved in an historic debate, an internal struggle between opposing views within regions, cities, towns and families. During the debate in the referendum it was clear that those of us who supported the federalist side were promising Quebecers that there would be a renewed federalism. This was not simply saying no or yes to sovereignty association. This was a positive thing, and it also said to Quebecers that we would engage in a process and at the end of it we would have a renewed federalism. By 1982, part of that was delivered in the 1982 constitution amendment, much of which was taken up by the patriation, the question of the amendment and the question of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But while the rest of Canada said yes to the 1982 constitutional amendment, all political Parties and the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec said no because the 1982 constitutional amendment did not deal with the historic question of the role of Quebec in Confederation. There the matter sat. We had in a sense gone part way, with the Charter, the patriation, the amendment, but responsible leadership and the majority of the people in the Province of Quebec said no.
In 1984, the newly elected Leader of the Conservative Party who became Prime Minister in 1984 said that he was willing to step forward and engage a process which would bring Quebec into the constitutional family with full heart and mind, and I quote: "with honour and enthusiasm". That was followed in June, 1985 by the Quebec Liberal Party coming forward with a document called Maitriser iavenir describing what in its view Quebec wanted in terms of a definition of its relationship to the rest of Canada. The Party was elected on the basis of that document. That document became the official position of the new Government in Quebec City. In August, 1986 the Premiers of all the provinces and the federal Government agreed that the first constitutional priority would be the five proposals made by the Province of Quebec. Those five proposals are worth noting.

First, recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Second, the guarantee of increased responsibility for immigration. Third, participation in appointing the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. Fourth, restrictions on the federal Government's spending power. Fifth and last, recognition of veto rights for Quebec on amendments to the Constitution.

Those five proposals became the basis for the constitutional initiative beginning in August, 1986. By April 30, 1987 the historic Meech Lake Accord was established, with the federal Government and the provinces agreeing in principle to those five proposals, the basis upon which Quebec could see its new role in Canada.
On May 11, 1987 an historic resolution was brought into this Flouse by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicating that the provinces and the federal Government reached a constitutional Accord fully on those five proposals. On June 17, the joint committee of the House and the Senate was established, and on August 4 until September 1 that joint committee began to hold public hearings. On June 23, 1987 the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec voted yes to Canada on the basis of those five proposals.
The reason I dwell on the timeframe, Madam Speaker, is not because I simply like to quote dates, but it is important to understand that this is not something that came out of the blue or was thought up in a morning. The role of Quebec in Canada is fundamental to the understanding that the country has of itself. Any discussion in any debate of substance on it must constantly recognize the historic context and certainly the events of the last 10 years. It is on the important understanding of making sure that the measure and level of support for this Accord is maintained.
It is not easy to get agreement in this diverse country. When you have three political Parties and 10 provinces willing to support conditions which allow Quebec to play its full role in Canada, we have an historic Accord worth defending. That is why our Government, and I am happy to say other political parties and ten provinces support it.
It is also important, when we go through such an historic event when we change the Constitution in that way, to understand its impact, certainly in two ways. First, what is the impact of the Meech Lake Accord in relation to the Canadian institution, Canadian values and Canadian unity? Second, what is its impact on Canada and on the other partners within the Canadian constitutional family?
Let me deal with the first question, Madam Speaker. What is the impact of the Meech Lake Accord on Canada? Imagine if we did not have this Accord. Imagine where we would be in the 1990s and in the 21st century with a new generation of Canadians without Quebec with heart and mind within the constitutional structure. As the Prime Minister has said on a previous occasion, without Quebec adhering to the Constitution of 1982 through these five proposals we would have the growth of two Canadas; one that followed the 1982 Accord, and one that did not. We would also have a growing disenchantment on the part of the people in the Province of Quebec because we failed to match with our words and action what we put into the referendum debate, because we said there would be a renewed federalism and that we would talk about the role of Quebec in Canada. The 1982 Accord failed to do that.
October 5, 1987

Some people who came before the committee talked about that sense of disenchantment. They told us they had fought hard within their own towns, villages, neighbourhoods and within their own families and had hung on to the promise of a previous Prime Minister and a previous Government that there would be a renewed federalism.
That is why the first point to make with respect to the Accord's impact is to understand that without it we would be in great trouble and increasingly that trouble would grow and grow.
Does the Accord strengthen or weaken Canada? Let me say at the outset that in my judgment it strengthens Canada. Considerable debate by many groups as to whether or not there has been a strengthening or a weakening as a consequence of the Accord has taken place but part of it depends on one's perspective of what this country actually is. Many good people came before the committee offering their views as to whether Canada is strengthened or weakened by the Meech Lake Accord. Let me offer the views of two. Mr. Gordon Robertson, former Clerk of the Privy Council, came before the committee and said-
[ Translation]
Another question is whether the agreement weakens the federal government in any significant and important way. Here one has to note that the accord does not change the distribution of powers in any way; nothing is changed in Sections 91, 92 and 93.
During the constitutional negotiations in 1968 to 1971 and later up to 1979, it was fully expected that there would be changes in the distribution of powers. Quebec sought a number of changes in the distribution of powers. This accord does not change that distribution in any way.
Indeed, it is important to note that because Sections 91, 92 and 93 provide the fundamental divisions of power in Canada and, as a consequence, as Mr. Robertson pointed out, the Accord does not affect the powers in Sections 91, 92 and 93.
Eric Kierans spoke on the matter. You may recall, Madam Speaker, that he was a Liberal cabinet Minister, an economist and former president of the Montreal Stock Exchange. I thought he offered considerable wisdom when he talked about the Accord in light of the original spirit of 1867. He said:
Meech Lake is not new. It is simply the closest thing we have come to following the original intent and meaning of the British North America Act since Confederation itself. It reflects more accurately the view of what the original Fathers of Confederation thought they were agreeing to in a Confederation. They lived with each other, quarrelled and wrangled in debates, assemblies and conferences for years. They knew what was possible and what the different colonies would accept. They never intended that the provinces should be as dependent as they, in fact became. Above all else, they knew that a centralized Canada would not work.
I know that all of us want Canada to be strong, but some people confuse a powerful central Government with a strong Canada. That has not been my experience, and I do not think it has been the historical experience of this country. If we do not have strong sides, we cannot have a strong centre. If there are not strong regions, there will not be a strong country.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The key thing to understand about the Meech Lake Accord, as Mr. Kierans points out, is the re-establishment of a balance in Canada, a balance that says that all provinces and all regions, along with the federal Government, make up the strength of this country. That is why, when I ask if the Accord has maintained a strong Canada, I have no doubt that it has maintained a strong Canada.
I want to deal in the remainder of my time with those groups that came forward to deal with another impact of the Meech Lake Accord. They were concerned about the impact of the Accord on their particular situation as members of the Canadian constitutional family. I am referring particularly to aboriginal people and those groups concerned with multicul-turalism.
Let me make a general point. I said to those people, some of whom I have known for many years, that anything that contributes to the understanding of the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity contributes to the goals of those people who see Canada as contributing to their diversity. Aboriginal people, people concerned with multiculturalism and any group of people who depend on the concept of diversity should support the Meech Lake Accord because the Meech Lake Accord is the historic, the current and the future understanding of Quebec's role in Canada which speaks first to the tolerance required with respect to differences of culture and language. I think that aboriginal people would understand that first of all.
Those of us who participated in the constitutional debate involving aboriginal people in 1985 well remember the impact of Quebec's absence. We well remember the importance of Quebec to those talks and, indeed, the absence of Quebec helped contribute to the lack of success.
Mary Simon, a Quebec Inuit leader and past president of the National Committee on Inuit Issues, spoke eloquently on that matter. She said that it was important to understand that constitutional amendment would not benefit aboriginal peoples of Quebec as long as Quebec was not part of the Constitution. It was difficult, she said, to achieve enough provincial support to meet the requirements of the amending formula, seven provinces and half the population.
She, along with Robert Stanfield and many professors, came before the committee to outline the importance to the aboriginal communities that they be involved in a process of constitutional change, and this Government has always supported that. Now that Quebec is part of the constitutional family in a full way, aboriginal people will benefit as a consequence because they will have a constitutional process involving 10 provinces and not nine.
Finally, let me say that many members of multicultural groups came forward. Multiculturalism is the oldest reality in Canada. It gained constitutional recognition in 1982 with Section 27. Section 27 says that this Charter, the law of the land, will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. In

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that spirit, we have adopted programs and policies which support integration, retention of cultures and languages, race relations and community relations. In that spirit, we established in 1985 a Standing Committee of the House on Multiculturalism. In that spirit, we will be bringing forward the Multicultural Act this fall, Canada's first.
It is also in that spirit that the Accord brought in through Section 16 a protection for multicultural rights contained in the Constitution. Section 16 says that Section 27 of the Constitution dealing with multicultural rights will have equal legal status as the courts interpret the Constitution. In short, Section 16 shelters Section 27.
The committee recommended that there be a standing joint committee that would allow those groups who want further constitutional change beyond that which the 1982 amendment gave them to seek it in the second round. That should be a good opportunity for those groups to come forward.
I have tried to point out to the House that the role of Quebec through this process has been put in train for the next decade and the next century. It is an historic achievement. Second, its impact has been to strengthen Canada. Third, it supports all of those other members of the constitutional family who so much depend on this country's continued recognition of the importance of diversity and tolerance.

When we say that we support the joint committee's report, we say yes to Quebec. When we say yes to Quebec, we say yes to Canada.


Mr. Berger:: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is to be commended for his speech, although I do not entirely agree with everything he said. Since I was not in the House throughout his speech, I wonder whether he referred to the concerns of groups such as the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec, the Societe franco-manitobaine or Canadian Parents for French, who, I found, were very eloquent in expressing their concern that, in the Meech Lake Accord or as a result of that Accord, the Governments do not undertake to promote the cause of language minorities. The Accord merely maintains or protects minorities, which, according to the groups I mentioned, merely means maintaining the status quo, something they find unacceptable. The Federation des Francophones hors Quebec said that the wording of the Meech Lake Accord was entirely inadequate to put a stop to the ravages of assimilation. That is what they said when they appeared before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I therefore wonder how the Secretary of State, who, if I am not mistaken, has a responsibility for language minorities, responds to the concerns of these groups.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I did meet many groups from outside Quebec and especially the Federation des Francophones hors Quebec.
When they raised questions with me regarding their concern about Meech Lake I said, as indeed I have said on other occasions, that it seems to me the important thing to understand about the Accord is the first part. It speaks for the first time about the importance of the relationship of dual languages and a distinct Quebec within the whole of Canada. It makes clear-

the role of Quebec and the role of both official languages and that it is an important one which lies at the very heart of Canada. And the Accord reflects that reality.


David Berger: I would like to refer the Minister to the speech made by the Quebec Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs on May 9, 1986. He said that one of the three principal objectives of the Government of Quebec was to improve the situation of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. He referred to the need to change Section 23 of the Charter to provide for management, if you will, of their schools by French-speaking Canadians. He also referred to removing perhaps the criteria of "where numbers warrant" prior to availing oneself of the right to minority language education under Section 23 of the Charter.
Quebec says that this was their objective. Presumably it was an objective of the federal Government. Therefore, why did the federal Government not insist that these changes be made to the Charter in order to improve the situation of Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I do not think it makes much sense to go behind the agreement. It was made by Quebec, the Government of Canada, and all the other provinces. It may well be in the give and take of negotiations that there were some things a particular province may not have been looking for, or they were unable to obtain something that they were looking for. That could apply to the federal Government as well. All that has to do with the essential way in which we go about Constitution-making. It does not involve some kind of ideological purity. It is not some kind of academic event flowing only from legal classrooms. It has to do with the blood and guts of the country. It has to do with compromise. That is why I spoke about the historic role of Quebec. It has always been part of the give and take over the nature of this country.
The Hon. Member asks why something did not happen. In my judgment it is part of the realism and magic of federalism. It is a product of compromise, not some kind of ideological event.
The second point I would make with respect to the question of French outside Quebec is that this Government, and I might add this Minister along with two others, brought to this House
October 5, 1987

for first reading the first changes to the Official Languages Act in 17 years. Included in those changes were the promotion of French outside the Province of Quebec, and this involves a strong role for the Secretary of State. It therefore seems to me that the Government understood that plea and responded in a very impressive way. In that respect I do not think this Government needs to make any apology. We brought forward changes to the Act which would allow us to expand the opportunities for French outside the Province of Quebec.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, the Minister has specific responsibility for minority language rights. He talks about amendments to the Official Languages Act. Why does the Minister not put the obligation to promote minority language rights into the Constitution and not just preserve the status quo?
He talked about the give and take of negotiations. We are all well aware of that and of the so-called negotiating prowess of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Yet when we are drafting the Constitution, is it not fundamental that the federal Government should take its responsibilities to heart, not compromise, and insist that at least its obligation in this area is put into the clear language of the Constitution?


Mr. Mantha:: What did you do when you were in power?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, with respect to the responsibilities for the promotion of French outside the Province of Quebec, the Government is not promising to do it. It is doing it! That is the difference between this Government and the Government of which he was a Member. That is why I mentioned that for 17 years there was no change. We brought in changes to the Act, and those changes will expand the opportunities for the use of French beyond Quebec. It is an excellent Bill. Indeed, the Commissioner of Official Languages recently wrote an essay commending the Government for it. It is the delivery of those programs which is needed, and that is what we are doing through the Official Languages Act.
[DOT] (BIO)
Second, I think it lies idle in the mouth of the Hon. Member to suggest that the Prime Minister was not up to the mark with regard to negotiating skills. I remind him that when it was his turn in 1982 he was quite capable of supporting a resolution which did not even include the Province of Quebec. Many of us did that in order to support the Charter, but to use this now as a political tool to say that the Prime Minister did not negotiate well is unfounded. This negotiation was inspired by the Prime Minister and has the support of all three Parties and the 10 provinces. That is why it is historic.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise today to speak on the Meech Lake Accord which is an historic agreement. I believe that we have had a period of great injury in this country and that a healing process is now taking place. That process is very important. I do recognize, however, that there are compromises in this Accord. I believe that Canadians have the ability to bridge some of the difficulties and will do so in the future.
So often we lose track of our historical roots. This country has the great benefit and privilege of having been conceived, not out of civil war, but out of partnership and compromise. People said that they could respect our different cultures and different religious backgrounds and were willing to protect them so that we could join hands and come together as a country.
I noted with sadness that some of the previous debate in this House weakened that resolve to form a strong country different from the country south of the border. It is sad to realize that the agreement put forward earlier this morning may weaken the union that we formed.
Some of the things which happened in the Meech Lake Accord are not dissimilar to things which happened in 1867. A group of people came together and said that it was very important that we respect the differences of others. As in the preliminary Charter, women were forgotten in the Meech Lake Accord, and I believe that that happened in 1867 as well. Through the Persons case, that was amended in the Supreme Court in London. However, the New Democrats believe that the rights of women are not eroded in the Accord. We would like women to be included in the abundance of caution which Senator Murray identified for aboriginal and multicultural people.
The Meech Lake Accord celebrates the fact that our country is becoming whole, and that is very important. We do recommend some very minor amendments. We believe that the major amendments which are being put forward are irresponsible because they can unravel the Accord. We believe that the Accord is precious and must be nurtured. We must look forward to the future with it.
Whether through oversight or not, Yukon and the Territories were ignored with regard to appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and to the Senate. We believe that must be corrected.
The amending formula which ignores the right of the Northwest Territories and Yukon to become provinces must also be amended. No other province in this country had to have the unanimous support of all other provinces for that. There may be some flexibility there. Perhaps the political will of the people will convince the First Ministers that this slight amendment can be made without unravelling the Accord. These are the kinds of things that are very important.

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
As a feminist and a woman I have been very concerned about the rights of women in the Accord. I have become satisfied in my own mind that the rights of women will not be weakened by it. National women's organizations, including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, have suggested that in some circumstances the Accord's recognition of Quebec as a distinct society might lead to court judgments which adversely affect the Charter of Rights. The Quebec Charter of Rights has set an example for us all in the way that it has addressed equality rights for women.
As a New Democrat I do not believe that sexual equality will be adversely affected. We know that the charter guarantee of sexual equality was an important achievement for Canadian women. 1 am very proud to say that 1 was active in organizing women across Canada in that regard.
We support the compromise that has been arrived at between the National Action Committee and the Federation des femmes du Quebec, the leading Quebec women's organization. The same abundance of caution that prompted guarantees that the Accord would not affect aboriginal rights or multiculturalism should be applied to sexual equality. That is one of the amendments that we are urging the First Ministers to support.
We would certainly like to see an agenda put forward for a national conference on aboriginal rights. It seems ludicrous that we would make an agenda for the First Ministers without including a specific time for a conference on aboriginal rights. Such a conference would put our aboriginal people in a better position than they have ever been in before. With Quebec at the table it will be more feasible to get seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population to support that amendment. Those are some of the reasons for which we think it is very important to recognize that becoming a family is more important than studying every detail.
We must recognize that the nomination of Supreme Court judges by the provinces has taken place in name in the past anyway. We are really legitimatizing some things which are already taking place. We must recognize that a strong federal Government without strength in the regions is not really a strong federal Government. The heart is really what the roots are all about. If that is recognized it will be a good thing for Canada. In many aspects the Meech Lake Accord represents the coming of age of our country.
Those things are important, but we must not erode other things which are equally as important. I speak, of course, about equality rights, the rights of the aboriginal people, and of the North which is so precious to all of us. The very small amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party are not meant to unravel the agreement. We wanted our amendments to be recognized as intending to help the Accord and strengthen the Canadian Constitution.
The Meech Lake Accord was long overdue. The fact that we repatriated the Constitution while leaving out a very strong
element of the country always seemed to me to be in contradiction to what Canada was all about. It was certainly not the way that Canada came into being in the first place. It seems to me that the time for that healing has taken place. I certainly think that we are in a position in which we can certainly support that.
I urge the Government, however, to think seriously about the amendments that have been put forward by the New Democratic Party. They have been put forward thoughtfully, looking at the fact that, historically, the women of this country have been ignored many times over in the legislative process. What they are really asking for is to have the same concern, the same abundance of caution taken as far as their rights are concerned, as are taken with the aboriginal people and members of the multicultural community.
I also feel that most of the attributes of the Accord and the changes that are taking place are positive. They legitimatize some of the things that I have mentioned that have already taken place. But if we also look toward the future of the country we will recognize that with the Accord, if we are going to have regular constitutional conferences, if we are going to have all the provinces at the table on an ongoing basis so that we can look at the process, the Canadian people will become familiar with what their Constitution is all about.
There is a recommendation that a parliamentary committee be set up so that Canadians can have constant input into what the constitutional amendments are all about. One of the saddest things is that we do not as a people understand our history well enough. That is why some of the debates have taken place in the past in our communities, when there has not been a respect for each other, our cultures and our rights. I think that more and more as we understand our history, the possibility of understanding and having ownership of our Constitution, there will be an ongoing committee that can handle that matter.
Too often constitutional amendments have been seen as something that take place in the back room or, may I be so bold as to say, in a kitchen of a restaurant. It is not really the dignified way that Canadian people want to participate in the process of amending their Constitution. Certainly, we can set up a committee that will have ongoing jurisdiction for constitutional amendments, in which Canadians are encouraged to participate. The young Canadians that we heard about earlier today would be able to participate in the process instead of looking where their jobs will come from south of the border. They can participate in amending their Constitution so that they have ownership of it. They can have pride in that. They will have the ability to develop their own economy and their own jobs and sovereignty. That is the kind of thing we are really talking about when we talk about the Meech Lake Accord.
October 5, 1987

The Meech Lake Accord is bringing us up to 1987 legitimately in terms of what we can do in a legalistic way, but I like to think that out of this debate and out of these discussions will come a true vision of the future in which we Canadians can amend our Constitution, own our Constitution, and really have a vision about what our country is all about. I think that is why it is so important that the Meech Lake Accord be supported.
I would certainly ask the Government to take seriously the very small amendments that have been put forward just to give the Canadian population, the aboriginal people, the northern people and the women of this country that sense of security that they long for so dearly. I do not think it would unravel the Accord at all. I think it is really important that the priority be there, that we become a family as a whole, that Quebec be at the table with us, and that, once again, as in 1867, we can say: "Yes, we do respect each other. We understand how we were built. We know what our foundations are all about. We want to be strong and make sure that our true North strong and free is also participating in the whole debate".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member, recognizing that she is a new parliamentarian, of recent vintage if I may say. I listened to her comments about the need for participation by the citizenry, by the average citizen, in the process of constitutional reform, which, as she said, would, hopefully, take some of these decisions out of the back room. Does she not feel, though, that the Meech Lake agreement will make inevitable decisions in the back room?
I say that looking at the fact that, first, there are to be annual First Ministers' conferences, and the First Ministers will be sitting down at a table. Mr. Trudeau has called this a Directoire which will be deciding things for our country.
When we look at the appointments to the Supreme Court and to the Senate, these decisions will be made by the executive branches of Government, by the Cabinet, by the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers, presumably. There is no say whatsoever for the legislative branch, for Parliament, in this process of appointments. This is a far cry, I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize, from what is happening in the United States at the present time. In that country Congress, or the Senate at least, and perhaps both Houses, but the Senate certainly has the right of veto of appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States. We can see the magnificence of that kind of process. I am not suggesting that we have to go that far. But the Meech Lake agreement, I would suggest to the Hon. Member, rules out any meaningful input by parliamentarians, let alone citizens, the ordinary citizens of this land. I ask for her thoughts on this subject, which is a very disquieting one to me.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I think that if one looks at the recommendation that deals with a parliamentary committee that will travel across the country before the First Ministers' Conference, that will certainly give more input and more legitimate participation to Canadians than has ever happened before. I hope that the Hon. Member's question does not suggest that there has been a more open process in the past. I was very much a part as an ordinary citizen of trying to get input after 1980-81 when the women of this country were trying to organize and say: "Do not ignore us again". Certainly, when the Meech Lake Accord took place, it took place with the First Ministers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) without there having been a lot of previous discussion across the country. And the Accord is now in front of us.
I think the positive part of the Accord is that now the committee report is recommending a procedure that can include Canadians before First Ministers' conferences. What we are talking about with the First Ministers and the Prime Minister is people who are duly elected by the people in the provinces, which is a democratic process. We are not in the form of a republic. We have to recognize that our Charter is a Charter that is in the context of a parliamentary system.
In that process the methodology that is recommended by the committee is a very good one because it allows for Canadians to participate. It will finally put an end to the boys having their little conferences and then, all of a sudden, things being brought forward and our reacting to them. I think the potential to have that procedure in place is very much there in the committee report.
I think the committee report is a very comprehensive one and a very good one. It was done in a very short time, I must say. 1 was quite pleased when I looked at it because I had thought that maybe it would be just a rush job. I do not think it is. I think it is thoughtful. The recommendations in it are very good. I think that the potential for building a stronger and better country is there, if we listen to those recommendations.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question in another area to the Hon. Member. It is in the area of the spending power. The Hon. Member, who is a former Mayor of Ottawa, over the years has demonstrated a concern for social problems. She is probably familiar with some of the recommendations that have been made in recent years for reform of our social programs, notably the recommendations of the Macdonald Commission to establish a comprehensive income security program.
[Translation\
In French, I believe it is called a "regime universel de securite du revenu".
I wonder if the Hon. Member listened to the testimony of Professor A1 Johnson before the joint committee of the Senate

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and House of Commons. Professor Johnson is knowledgeable in this area, he has been a Deputy Minister in Saskatchewan and in the federal area, and he reminded the committee members and parliamentarians that a long, hard battle had to be fought to establish medicare. Some of the provinces fought this tooth and nail, particularly the Province of Ontario. Professor Johnson suggests that giving the provinces the right to opt out of shared cost programs, and receive full compensation without having to meet any national standards, will ensure that it will be all but impossible to reform our social programs, to institute a guaranteed annual income, or to undertake many of the other social reforms that are badly needed in this country.
Will the Hon. Member comment on Professor Johnson's ideas?


Marion Dewar: Certainly, one of my concerns was the spending powers. For the first time we may even have strengthened our federal spending powers. In the Meech Lake Accord we are setting national objectives and not standards. Anybody who has evaluated programs in a variety of places, and I am sure that the Hon. Minister would recognize the same thing in looking at what happens in an urban setting versus what happens in a rural setting, when the Government becomes the instrument of delivery of programs the standards become very different. The objectives can be the same. We now have the ability to be able to set national objectives instead of standards.
That is exceptionally important for the simple reason that Canadians will begin to understand what values are being put forward when there is a national objective for a program.
For instance, if a child care program is to be accessible and delivered by a non-profit co-operative, or by a Government, there can be a variety of standards. But the objectives are that it is accessible and not profit making. Therefore, that national objective can be there. It could be very different in northern Canada, in southwestern Ontario, and on the Prairies, but the objective is there for the children. If a national Government wishes to privatize all service deliveries and it does not wish them to be accessible to everybody, it may wish to have a test for those people who are deserving, and those objectives must be stated. Therefore, there will not be that national program.
Certainly, in regard to the medicare system, A1 Johnson validly stated that it was the Liberals in Saskatchewan who fought it to no end at that time. The Conservatives in Ontario were talking about the erosion of any type of health care delivery to people in Canada. It had to be negotiated by the federal Government and the provinces to be able to be implemented. At that time there was no ability in the Constitution to be able to set a national objective and to go in and do the spending.
It was the political will of the people that eventually brought it to bear. In that manner we achieved the health care system that we have today. It may have all types of warts and
problems in it, but I challenge anyone because I think it is second to none in the world.
That was done in our funny Canadian way. We look at things, compromise, and negotiate. Now we are looking at it and we have matured to the point where we are stating in our Constitution that the federal Government should have the ability to set national objectives. When it sets national objectives, the provinces must come along. If they do not come along, they do not become part of that program. Therefore, they do not receive the moneys for it. As a municipal politician, I certainly recognize that those are the levers that really work.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, it is very pleasant for me to be able to enter this debate following the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).
As one old-timer to another, we recognize experience and the necessity to be moderate and lucid. The speech of the Hon. Member today delighted me to no end. For those who have been around for a good many decades in the field of government, it is very clear to us that there is no such thing as a perfect law. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, whether it is called Meech Lake or anything else. We can only do our best and hope that it is general enough to cover all the points. The Hon. Member clearly made the point that when one gets down into details, one gets lost and into all types of extraneous fights.
There is the feeling in the House that the new Member for Hamilton Mountain deserves the congratulations of those of us who are listening today. It is a good example of Parliament at its best.
I am ashamed to say that I am going to do what is called a "school teacher operation". In the question of Constitutionmaking, I belong to a generation that heard nothing else but. In the 1930s all we heard is how are we going to solve this terrible disaster that is upon us. There was not only a Canadian recession, and bad weather in areas of the west for 10 years, but across the whole country we heard about how we could cope with this problem. We had the tremendous royal commission report, the Rowell-Sirois report, after 10 years of study.
In the university class that I belonged to was a person who has been mentioned today, one of the ex-senior civil servants, Mr. Gordon Robertson. I have engaged in debates with him for 50 years. We both came to the conclusion that a long road is before us. He went through the Civil Service, and I went up through the political ladder. I was defeated seven times in my political career before I was elected, and you learn the hard way that you have to get along with people.
I wish to throw into the debate today a few observations that may help the people who may be watching this debate understand what is going on in their language. As parliamentarians talking about things we know quite a bit about we go
October 5, 1987

into great details, and tend to forget that the great majority of the people of Canada keep asking, "What does all this mean?" There is nothing new in the Meech Lake Accord. It has all been said by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. It is simply putting into written form what we have been practising for decades, more so at some periods of time than at others.
One of the first things that confronted me as a then young National Resource Minister was a problem that had been before the Governments of the United States and Canada for 10 or 15 years. That was how could we develop the waters of the Columbia which are shared by the two countries? Finally, after four years we reached an agreement. Then the academics, particularly in western Canada but also all across Canada to a degree, began to write article after article with all the facts and figures delineated in great detail in order to prove that Canada had sold out to the United States. Across the line equal numbers of academics-and my personal word is "nitwits"-began to write articles proving that the Americans had sold out to the Canadians. This went on for about eight years or nine years, each one copying the other fellow's paper and making it stronger.
Finally, a professor from Simon Fraser came to me and said: "You were in charge of this operation for three years at the beginning". I said: "Yes, there were three of us on the committee". Then he said that he could not understand how these fellows could say that it was no good but for opposite reasons.
We set up a series of meetings, called "Academics Together", and brought in the people who had actually negotiated the agreement or treaty. In a few weeks everything died down. I am guilty of having said, when I first mentioned it in the House, that we would never know for 50 years who got the best in that deal.
Ten years afterward I had it reviewed quantitatively, and it showed that Canada was a little ahead in dollars and cents, $100 million or so. The treaty was to last for 60 years and, if that trend continued, we would probably be ahead by half a billion or a billion at the end of the 60 years. In the meantime, large areas of both our countries were to have tremendous increases in power and a much lower rate than they could have got if they worked separately. It was good to both sides, but the interesting thing was that all these people quit writing about the thing. They never uttered a peep since.
I think-and we are half way through the deal now-that in another 20 years or 30 years they will want it renewed. The agreement was arrived at after careful consideration, and we worked under the International Joint Commission, which was set up in 1909 to ensure fair play in terms of the water which flows over our borders, and now air.
When we reach a major agreement or understanding such as this one, I would like to think that the same will prove true if we do not get caught up in the details and in trying to settle every problem in a single agreement. I think the Meech Lake
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Accord, 1987, may well become one of the steps along the way to running a federal system and co-operating with other countries which have federal systems. There are a few federal systems in the world. The Americans were the first. I think Australia and Canada were second. However, that is not the point. It is a very unique form of governing large countries with many diverse interests.
All we have to do when we hear the words "Meech Lake Accord, 1987" is simply say that it is a political agreement among the provinces and the federal Government in general terms which are aiming in the same direction. We will quarrel a little back and forth on the division of powers, but if we work co-operatively it will work. In other words, the main significance of the Meech Lake Accord is for it to be a written document as opposed to the traditional way in countries with British background of simply going by custom and precedent and letting the courts move us forward slowly.
I repeat that the agreement is simply a written document on what we have been doing for the last 20 years or 30 years with various forms of success.
Turning to the argument that we can never have a perfect Constitution or agreement, I should like to indicate that 1987 is the two hundredth anniversary of the American Constitution. I know something about that Constitution in that I spent a whole year of my life working on a thesis on it.
Two hundred years ago they took leading intellectuals and politicians representing the 13 states in the Confederacy and put them in a little village several days or hours away by horse and carriage from the big centres. The village was Philadelphia. In fact, it took three days or four days to get to New York where the action was. They were isolated. In the five months or better which the politicians spent in daily discussion with the greatest collection of intellectuals, which certainly the United States and maybe the world had ever seen, they came up with what is now known as the American Constitution. These men were highly educated in the classical school of government particularly Confederations, over 3,000 or 4,000 years and, mixed in with some politicians who were practical, they finally came up with the Constitution. They tried desperately to make it perfect, but at the end of that time, Madam Speaker, you should have heard the howlings by participants warning of all the dangers.
However, the fact remains that 200 years later the Constitution is still in place, even though there has been over a score of amendments. It was set in general terms. All I can say today- and I know that they had to make amendments approximately 30 times-is that the Canadian British North America Act, which followed the American Constitution 100 years later, tried to be more centralist in control, but we too have survived over the years.
If we look carefully at the American Constitution and at where the power lies, we see that there was more power in the hands of their states than in the hands of their central Government. However, over the years they spread across the

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
continent, and nowadays we hardly even know at the national level if the states exist. They are always there with their powers, but the great spending power of the central Government has brought it into the field of state jurisdiction, yet their Constitution goes on.
I should like to refer to the winter 1987 issue of The Public Interest magazine. It is entitled The Constitutional Order, 1787-1987. I think one library in town gets this book, and I think I have the other one. However, it contains nine articles by some of the leading intellectuals in the United States. They criticize and praise their own Constitution. I think the House will recognize the name of one of the writers, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He talked about it being an intellectual Constitution, all for the individual, and so on. However, part way through the article he wrote:
-the great object of the constitutional arrangements we thereupon put in place was that the government should leave the citizen alone ... Thus the thundering prohibitions of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law"; "No soldiers shall"; "no Warrant shall".
These were mandatory commands that no army or Congress could do anything to hurt individual rights. He continued:
Fair enough. That was the problem then. The problem now is that citizens won't leave government alone. They now plunder the State as the State was once thought to plunder them.
That was the conclusion of an experienced thinker and politician. He was not running down the Constitution. He was simply suggesting that for the next 200 years we will slowly have to find some way to keep the special interests, or these small groups which get everybody stirred up, off the back of government because we are destroying the right of the group to proceed in the best way.
I put those comments before the House for consideration, but I must repeat that we are simply enshrining in written form what has already been happening. In my day and in the Diefenbaker administration we called it co-operative federalism, as opposed to confrontational federalism. In my own case as Minister of National Resources and Minister of Agriculture I made over 80 agreements with the provinces. I found that I could achieve success by making each deal different with each province as long as it fitted into the federal objective. That was the main point which I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was making. If you have a direction, why should each province not do the thing that best fits its needs and wants?
Those agreements still stand-some of them have expired- in spirit today. I am rather proud of the fact that people still remember my Roads to Resources, my Pine Point Railway- which everyone said was crazy-and still remember bringing in education into the new areas of the North, for example, the Northwest Territories. Sure we failed in the curriculum that we set up which was based on the provincial background and not on the native background, but at least there was progress. I would like to think that in pioneering this concept of cooperative federalism, not only my name is there but also that of the Hon. Mike Starr who got the provinces to co-operate on education. How as Minister of Labour he did it, I do not know, but he was very persuasive in a small room. One day a few months ago we honoured him here by mentioning his name in the House. He was one of the few fellows who taught me how to get along with Quebec. He said, "Never put anything in writing".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It was a beautiful lesson and everybody laughed. But when you have people sensitive about their sovereignty, do not stick them with written documents. We did co-operate to the benefit of Quebec and to the benefit of the whole of Canada.
The public should understand that all Members here are trying to put forward their clear-cut description of this Accord, but they will fail if they do not realize that all the public wants to know is whether it is better or worse than what we had before. It is the same as we had before, but in written form. I would think that is the simplest way to describe the Meech Lake Accord.
A lot of issues have been brought up, for example, the power of the provinces. Forget it, Madam Speaker. The provinces know how to use their power and they do not have any more power now than they had before-witness the United States.
Concerning women, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain pointed out, they are doing all right. If people continue to be normal at the government level, they will continue to do all right. God help them if they do not. It will be a long, hard struggle for the aboriginal groups to get what they want, namely, some form of sovereignty within the overall sovereignty of the provinces, the Territories and the federal Government. As for the question of the Territories not being mentioned, I think it is fair business, but at the same time nothing detrimental will happen to the Territories if we can get them into a financial position where it pays them to become a province. I do not think any province, unless in a fit of pique, would suggest they should not come in. We just want to get them to having enough of a financial base that they have some chance to run their own affairs.
We heard minority language discussed today. Putting into general written form the practice of co-operative federalism is just a step up from the previous practice of confrontation as a technique. I recall when the Pearson administration came in in 1963 and announced it was all for co-operative federalism something that we had been following. The first thing that that administration did was to call all the provinces together and put them on one side of the table and the Prime Minister on the other. When you have a murderers row of all the provincial Premiers sitting opposite a new Prime Minister, it is not a fair fight, so it ended up as a confrontation. It all depends on the individuals concerned. If an individual wants to work cooperatively, I think you can succeed. People are tired of this
October 5, 1987

fighting because of different political Parties with one belonging to this provincial Government or that and the federal Government. People want an end to the old fights and arguments. That is why I say, let us go forward in the common interest.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I do not have the experience that the Hon. Member has in this House of Commons. I was quite astounded when the Member said that there was nothing new in this agreement and that this is what we have been doing for the past 20 years. The Member also said that the provinces are getting no new powers in this agreement. When I say I do not have the Member's experience, and if the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) does not believe me, I could say I could refer to somebody like former Senator Eugene Forsey who has a bit more experience than I do and who matches the Member's experience in some areas. I was looking at one of Eugene Forsey's comments while the Member was speaking. He talks about admitting new provinces.
Would the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain not agree that there has been a dramatic change when it comes to admitting new provinces? For many years it was the federal Government alone with the concurrence of the provinces to be, that decided whether there would be a new province. In 1982, under the amending formula it became seven out of 10 provinces that had to agree with the decision of the federal Government. Now we are talking about requiring the unanimous agreement of all the provinces and the federal Government. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that this, indeed, is something new.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. This is something new. It is just putting into practice what we have always done. Former Senator Forsey is quite right. This is quite new. Ex-Senator Forsey is very experienced. His love of law and writing is well known. What I am trying to say, not just to the Members of Parliament but through you, Madam Speaker, to the whole country is that this is no time for lawyers. This is a time for honest-speaking politicians to tell these intellectuals-what shall I call them- the rationalists who believe that science and common sense will conquer all. There is such a thing as instinct and civility that makes a government, a country and a family work. Yes, exSenator Forsey is absolutely technically correct. But we are not talking about technicalities here, we are talking about building a nation in a spirit of compromise and co-operation and, quite frankly, we have a long history ahead of us in this form of attitude.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Since it is now two o'clock p.m. and pursuant to the Standing Orders, the House must proceed to other business. The remaining 12 minutes of extension resulting from the ministerial statements will be added to Government Orders later on this day.
Consequently, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business will begin at ,5.12 p.m.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the opening of Family Week. When talking about the family in the years 1990s, we are referring to the traditional family, the single-parent family, the reconstituted family, and the single mother. We know that one child out of five is poor. We also have a draft tax reform which was tabled in the House in June and which does not seem to give full consideration to the needs of low and middle income families. The gap between rich and poor families grows wider, to the extent that on the occasion of Family Week I again urge the Government to reconsider its approach to the tax field, to let families survive, and especially to give support services to young couples anxious to bear children. I think that ever since this Government took office we have been told that it has a policy to help families. Perhaps time has come indeed for the Government to implement the measures it has been telling us about for three years.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post should not be hiring scabs during the current series of rotating strikes in Canada.
When Canada Post management hire scabs they create a climate of violence, and we must all keep in mind how Bill 45 has made labour relations in Quebec more civilized.
Sooner or later Canada will have to find a solution to avoid such violent incidents.
Quebec's experience is rather unique: labour conflicts in recent years have been practically devoid of violence because Bill 45 has introduced better balance between forces.
On June 23, 1987, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to rise in this House and suggest that Canada Post officials ought to draw inspiration from the Quebec legislation.

October 5, 1987
If our Government feels that postal services are essential, it should amend the Canada Labour Code so that henceforth any strike be nothing more than a symbolic gesture.



NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the federal Government during National Family Week to announce positive programs that will benefit families year-round. Despite Throne Speech promises, there is no comprehensive family policy in Canada. Instead, Tory tax policies have added an extra $500 annual burden on families.
National policies must recognize that more parents of young children are working, more single parents are raising children alone, and one in five children still grows up in poverty. A comprehensive family policy must provide tax measures to improve family incomes, reindex the family allowance and increase the child tax credit. The long delayed national Child Care Program must be implemented and we must have maternity and parental leave benefits that are extended and enriched.
The first objective during Family Week should be to establish an active program to eliminate poverty so that every child in Canada can grow in health and with equal opportunities.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the fact that U.S. claims of unfair Canadian trading practices through subsidies to business have prompted numerous American countervail tariffs and anti-dumping measures against Canada, one can imagine the feelings of one of my constituents, Mr. Louis Borsook, the Chairman of Dorothea Knitting Mills, who received the following letter from the Mississippi Power & Light Company:
Dear Mr. Borsook:
In 1986, 506 new and expanding industries invested more than $1.2 billion in Mississippi. These industries took advantage of many programs currently available to manufacturers, such as Tax-Exempt Financing, State Income Tax Credits, Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions, and Free Start-Up Training-
During the week of October 19-23, I will be in Ontario meeting with industries considering expansion. I would appreciate the opportunity to briefly meet with you to discuss the many advantages Mississippi has to offer. Indal, MacMillan Bloedel, Ivaco, and other Canadian companies are aware of these advantages and have made substantial investments in Mississippi.
It appears that the new Canadian-U.S. trade dispute mechanism will soon have its first claim of unfair trading to settle, and it will not be a claim against Canada.



FISHERIES


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express once again my disappointment at the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and particularly of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to withhold the renewal of licences for scallop fishermen.
In order to qualify for new licences, fishermen must have landed scallops valued at $350 during any of the last five years. However, this ignores the fact that many fishermen in Atlantic Canada simply do not sell their catch. Many fishermen keep the scallops for their own consumption, thereby significantly augmenting their over-all income which is very limited at best.
I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reconsider this policy and to change this unfair decision affecting the inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic region. Many fishermen like those from a community called Main a Dieu find this decision to be particularly upsetting. I urge the Minister to reconsider this policy.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade pact between Canada and the United States is good news for all Canadians. Not only does this pact protect Canadian sovereignty but it recognizes our unique Canadian culture and maintains the safety net of our social programs.
Despite what Bob White, Vice-President of the New Democratic Party, and his minions, both in this Chamber and in the provincial Legislatures, are saying, the end result will be lower prices for Canadian consumers and higher wages for Canadian workers.
This is a mutually advantageous economic agreement for both countries. With the dispute settling mechanism firmly in place, many of the obstacles that now hinder trade are removed.
This agreement will take us into the next century and beyond and will build a better Canada, not only for us today but for future generations as Canadians take their rightful place in the world community.
October 5, 1987



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that it will come as a surprise to most Canadians to learn that Canada Post is a part of the free trade agreement. This will not be welcomed by Canadians. We are not giving away Canada Post, but we are giving away postal rate subsidies used to support Canadian magazines and periodicals. These include small professional journals, Canadian specialty magazines, and even magazines with mass circulations like Maclean's.
Canadians have found with this free trade agreement that it is illegitimate for them to use the Post Office to support Canadian culture. From now on, Canadian magazines will have to play to a North American market. They will have to forget about their Canadian roots and their Canadian audience. What the Mulroney Government has done has been to sell out Canadian culture just after it had said it would protect Canadian culture.
* *
*



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are ecstatic about the Government's free trade deal. They know that it means jobs. They know what the addition of 250 million customers will mean to the Canadian market-place. They know that more trade means more opportunity to expand economic horizons.
What western Canadians do not know is why the NDP and the Liberal naysayers are nattering negativity. Members of the Opposition are not consistent. They were negative when we began negotiations, they were negative when we broke them off, and now they are negative because we have a deal.
Three-quarters of what we produce in the West is sold to the Americans. Unfettered access to the huge U.S. market-place means that we have opened the window on the world. We are good traders now; we will be even better traders tomorrow because of this agreement.
British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, now know who leads and who follows. Progressive Conservative Government means strong initiatives and concrete results.
I say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP that we are leading Canada into the 21st century; they are not. We are improving the Canadian economy; they are not. We will be governing this country for a long, long time, and they will not.



CRITICISM OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to Washington to tell the Americans that Canada was open for business and up for sale. The midnight madness sale is over and Canada has been sold out to the United States. We learned today that in spite of the free trade deal the softwood lumber tax is to remain in place, the duties placed on shakes and shingles, steel, fish and other commodities will also remain in place, and that duties on our products will be allowed in future.
Not only will the duties and softwood tax remain on British Columbia products, but the Okanagan tree fruit industry will be wiped out, cottage wineries will be destroyed, vineyards will go, and the struggling family farm has been skewered. B.C. farmers will be overwhelmed by heavily subsidized U.S. agricultural products.
Now that the federal Government has agreed to purchase its goods and services from American suppliers, western Canadian companies which looked forward to participating in government procurement programs have been abandoned.
Sir John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker, if they were with us today, would be calling out in despair. They, like most Canadians, believed the federal Government should work in Canada's interests, not those of the U.S.



FREE TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT-IMPACT

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, this Government achieved a historic agreement between Canada and the United States. We had promised Canadians access to the American market of 240 million consumers, and we kept our promise.
Canadian manufacturers are now assured that they will keep their present export market of $95 billion a year and increase it thanks to their creativity and dynamism.
This gigantic success for our two countries will result in the creation of 350,000 new jobs in Canada. Because our plants will produce on a larger scale, consumer prices will decrease by nearly 6 per cent according to the Economic Council of Canada. Our farm product marketing system will not be affected by the agreement, and neither will Canadian culture, contrary to what the socialists are saying today.
Today, we pay tribute to our negotiators, to our Conservative Parliamentarians, to our Ministers for International Trade

October 5, 1987
and External Affairs and to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). This marks the beginning of a new Canada under a Conservatives Government.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-DIFFERENCES IN SUMMARIES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, a few observations on the so-called free trade agreement are in order today. The summary published in Ottawa by the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says one thing, while the summary published by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President, in Washington, says another. For example, the Americans say Canada agreed to change postal rates for U.S. periodicals. The Canadian summary is silent on that. The Americans say we have agreed to the elimination of tariffs on printed material and recordings. The Canadian summary is silent on that. The Americans claim we have agreed to allow the U.S. non-discriminatory access to Canadian energy supplies. The Canadian summary is silent on that.
For page after page the summary released by the Office of the Prime Minister differs in content from that of the summary issued in Washington. We would like to believe the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement but, as we have learned on acid rain, what Washington says is what Washington does. With this agreement, unfortunately, what the Prime Minister tells us is not what Washington says. Canada is therefore in great peril.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 1985, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) embarked on a bold, creative and risk-taking initiative-negotiation of a comprehensive trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. Last Saturday such an agreement was reached. It will create new opportunities and new jobs for the young people of our country. It is historic in its scope and will launch Canada into the 21st century, assured of secure markets for our goods and services.
Over the past few years we have heard the wailing of the Opposition and the fear-mongering of the labour unions whose
views of the future of this country and its potential are so narrow that they would turn their backs on prosperity and languish in nationalistic jingoism. Yet 50 years from now, when my great grandchildren are studying the history of Canada in the 20th century, they will remember October 3, 1987, as a key date in Canada's development, and our Prime Minister, indeed, Brian and Joe and Pat and Mike will join the Fathers of Confederation as great Canadian statesmen who had the vision and courage to make a deal and ensure a bright and prosperous future for all Canadians.



Mr. John Oostrom (Wiilowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 3, 1987, history was made in Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in a bold and far-sighted move, ensured that present and future generations of Canadians can look forward to prosperous economic conditions well into the 21st century.
The business community has solidly endorsed the agreement for it will bring economic stability to Canada. The most bizarre reaction is that of the President of the Canadian Auto Workers. Mr. White called the Canada-U.S. agreement "ludicrous". How can this be when the agreement enhances the very industry he represents? The Auto Pact has been strengthened, thus ensuring economic security for Canadian auto workers.
1 strongly urge the President of the CAW to stick to the job of representing and protecting his members' interests, for his political pronouncements are contrary to the interests of the Canadian auto worker.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SAUDI ARABIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to Members' attention the presence in our Gallery of His Royal Highness Prince Saud A1 Faisal A1 Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Salaam alaikuml
October 5, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave up Canadian sovereignty without a single shot being fired.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions
Is it not true that United States law has not changed, that it is still applicable to Canadian exports, and that we have received no exemption from it? Will he not admit, therefore, that he has not achieved the key element which he sought to achieve and promised to achieve, an exemption from American protectionism?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that my right hon. friend chooses to quote, as he calls it, the American summary. Why does he not start quoting the Canadian summary?


John Napier Turner: He sold out our farmers, textile workers, auto workers, cultural industries, natural resources, economic independence and sovereignty. What did he get in return? Did he get an exemption from American trade law or U.S. protectionism? All he got was a statement from the Executive Office of the President of the U.S. which says:
The U.S. anti-dumping law . . . will remain intact and unchanged. Hence,
U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under existing U.S. law.
In other words, Canada will get the same rotten deal in the future that we got on softwood lumber, potash, fish, and even raspberries. Why did the Prime Minister give away the store and get nothing worth-while in return?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously the premise of the right hon. gentleman's statement is inaccurate and very misleading. With reference to the dispute settlement mechanism he refers to something from the Executive Office of the President. I refer him to a document 1 tabled this morning which says that the decision of the panel shall be binding on the parties. That is an important step forward, one of many.
Since he concerns himself specifically with that point and raises the question of softwood lumber and potash, to illustrate what has been achieved I can tell him that in future softwood lumber and potash would not be subject to arbitrary U.S. action. The issues would now go to a binding dispute mechanism for resolution, and that is a very important gain for Canada.


John Napier Turner: Because you didn't give us one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Stand up for Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why does someone who dislikes the Americans so much not stand up for Canada for once?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Rather than quote an American summary, why does the Hon. Member not quote a document which was tabled on the floor of the House of Commons this morning which says:
The decision of a panel shall be binding on the Parties and their investigating authorities. The panel may uphold or remand the decision to the relevant
investigating authority for action not inconsistent with such decision.
The application of the arrangement represents a major departure from existing traditions and a substantial gain for Canada in terms of security of access to the great American market that we have been seeking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the dispute mechanism may be binding if it is in accord with the U.S. Constitution. Whether it is binding or not, it applies American law and American rules. That's what kind of deal this is.


BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister confirm that according to the summary provided by the U.S. trade representative, the dispute settlement panel will apply American law and rules and leave us in the same weak position as we were when we were so badly treated on those issues I have mentioned? To quote the American summary:
-the decision of the American Commerce Department and the ITC can be overturned only if they are not supported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with U.S. law.


INQUIRY WHAT GOVERNMENT HAS OBTAINED
[Stage Direction]
Righ Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, have the Americans changed the rules on subsidies? No. Have they amended their foreign trade laws? No. Have they made Canada exempt from their countervail measures? No. Have they made us exempt from their antidumping law? No. What, then, has the Prime Minister obtained in return for sacrificing our automobile and textile workers, our cultural industries, our natural resources, our economic independence and our Canadian sovereignty? What did he get in return?
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1987
Oral Questions
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks what this document contains and what Canada got out of it. Here is one answer. According to the Hon. Robert Bourassa, the free trade agreement is excellent economic news for Canada, will significantly restrict the growth of American protectionism and is in the best interests of Canada and Quebec. That is what the Canadian Government has accomplished for Canada and Quebec.


COUNTERVAIL DUTIES-CONTENT OF AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question tb the Prime Minister. On March 15 of this year the Minister for International Trade said in an interview, of which I have the transcript, that the result of having a trade dispute mechanism in place would be the elimination of countervail by both countries.
Is it not true that the power of countervail still exists, that the power of anti-dumping still exists, that those laws will still be applied, and that the only function of the mechanism that has been put in place is to provide a review similar to that provided by the U.S. courts? Is that not the basic essence?
The position of the Minister for International Trade has been overturned, the promise has not been fulfilled, and the Government has given up major concessions on investment, energy, automotive trade, and agriculture to get nothing but a Trojan horse.	'


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, apart from the exaggerations and excessive language, there is absolutely nothing to sustain the enthusiasm of the hon. gentleman for his own point. On the contrary, my hon. friend may want to give some consideration to this serious matter. The statement was made today that "all considered, the free trade pact between Canada and the United States is the beginning of a golden era for Canadian business and workers", by the Hon. Donald Macdonald.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Come on. Get real.


John Edward Broadbent: Grant Devine will be quoted next.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the heckling from the Liberal side means that they hold Mr. Macdonald's opinion in low regard, but I can assure you that he is held in very high regard by the Government and the people of Canada.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. friend, this represents a substantial gain for Canada and in no way represents anything other than a major advance in this area.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not that we hold Mr. Macdonald in regard or disregard, it is that we hold in
contempt the Prime Minister who will not answer questions directly but simply quotes from newspapers to defend something which is so essential to this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSITIONAL COSTS
Lloyd Axworthy: I prefer to quote from a cabinet document which the Government put together when it started the free trade negotiations. It says that whatever transitional cushioning devices are built into the agreement, the adjustment process would be costly in both financial and social terms and these costs will be higher in Canada than in the United States. Hundreds of thousands of workers will be losing their jobs as a result of this agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The Government has no adjustment procedure, nothing to deal with the costs. When is the Prime Minister going to start showing some concern for the hundreds of thousands who will be victims of his agreement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada has addressed the effects of an international trade agreement on-


Lloyd Axworthy: What do they say about countervail?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked a question but cannot wait for the answer before wanting to put another question. Surely he should be interested in the answer to the question he just asked.
The Economic Council points out that five million jobs are changed from one company to another each year. We have a vast number of programs-I think it is $3 billion in total-that apply to this. However, the Hon. Member should understand that adjustment in a growing economy is much easier than in a stagnating economy.
The Economic Council also tells us that a trade agreement will create 350,000 more jobs than exist today. The adjustment process will be much easier in a growing economy than it would be if we do not enter a trade agreement and find that we are in a stagnating economy.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CALL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Government promised the people of Canada that it would pursue a binding dispute settlement mechanism. The-people of Canada will be surprised to learn that the Prime Minister had in mind a mechanism which would bind Canadians to countervailing laws passed in the United States. Canadians will be upset by that.
This proposed agreement, the biggest in world economic history as I believe the Prime Minister modestly described it, affects wood producers in British Columbia, farmers on the
October 5, 1987

Prairies and elsewhere, auto workers, cultural industries and investment levels in this country. As it was not discussed in a single speech in the last election campaign, would the Prime Minister do the proper, democratic thing and go to the people of Canada to seek a mandate for this before he signs it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: How confident are you now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to call an election-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Now, now!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -but it might inconvenience some people in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Look behind you.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There are some pretty glum faces behind you. You scared those people behind you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we believe this agreement is a bad one for farmers, for remote areas, for our culture and for investment control. If the Prime Minister wants to be really democratic, why doesn't he call an election right away?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the agreement reflects-in fact, it deals with the issue to which the Hon. Member was referring, with problems specific to Quebec, for instance. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, has declared that according to him, the proposed agreement means significant gains for Quebec, for Canadian unity and for Canada's integrity. That is the opinion of the Premier of Quebec, who is as concerned about Quebec and Canadian issues as my hon. friend. The Hon. Member is calling for an election. We shall see what happens between now and later today.


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


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 can inform him that the Canadian Government, as the Minister of Finance just mentioned, has already created more than 900,000 jobs. The proposed free trade treaty provides for several hundred thousand new jobs, and I believe that finalizing these negotiations is truly in the interests of Canadians and Quebecers.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we believe that if this agreement is acted upon by the Government of Canada in conjunction with the United States it will have absolutely disastrous consequences for the future of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is what you said about the Auto Pact. Have you ever been right, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the Prime Minister himself has said that this is one of the largest deals in Canadian history-indeed in world history-and considering it does fly in the face, in our judgment, of everything Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, and other Canadian Prime Ministers who were interested in the sovereignty of this nation stood for, I repeat: will the Prime Minister do the proper and democratic thing and go to the people of Canada and defend what he says he believes in?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that my hon. friend referred to the free trade agreement as "absolutely disastrous". That is exactly what the NDP said about the Auto Pact 22 years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: No, it is not.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as my hon. friend is engaging his credibility as a prophet, I would remind my hon. colleagues in the House that when the Minister of Finance brought in his first Budget my hon. friend predicted that it would result in the loss of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. It created hundreds of thousands of new jobs.


John Edward Broadbent: What are you afraid of? Go to the people.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asks me to call an election. I can assure my hon. friend that when I do he will wish I hadn't.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister speaks of the Auto Pact. It is clear from looking at the document he tabled in the House this morning that the Government has broken its promise not to allow the Auto Pact to be part of the free trade negotiations. This document shows, Mr. Speaker, that tne present requirement for 60 per cent Canadian content on cars and parts sold in Canada by United States-based

October 5, 1987
Oral Questions
companies will be changed to only 50 per cent North American content.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Does this not mean that not one car-in fact not one part in one car-sold in Canada by a U.S. based company has to be made in Canada by a Canadian worker? If this is the case, as it is, I ask him why he sold out Canadian workers and Canadian jobs in the auto industry in this shameful way?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the rhetoric of the Hon. Member is getting a little overblown. What he should realize is that there is no change in the Auto Pact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a statement here that the provisions of the free trade agreement will provide for, in relation to third countries, a requirement for 50 per cent of direct cost of manufacturing. In other words, what we will be doing as a result of this will be creating jobs for Canadians by asking those companies that have established here, which are owned by companies with head offices outside North America, for a 50 per cent value added requirement. Surely my hon. friend would realize that that is a good step forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT-CANADIAN CONTENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance to read the document tabled in the House this morning by the Prime Minister and not the Government's propaganda. The document headed "Automotive Trade" has this statement:
The Parties have agreed to apply a new rule of origin for vehicles traded
under the provisions of the FTA agreement based on 50 per cent of direct cost
of manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is between, if it goes through, the United States and Canada and not between Canada and third countries. If that is the case, it means that not one part in any car sold in Canada by a U.S. based company and not one car sold in Canada by a U.S. based company has to have any Canadian manufacturing by any Canadian worker at all. I ask the Minister and the Prime Minister this again. Why has the Government so shamelessly sold out Canadian workers and Canadian jobs in this way?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this question comes from a man who represents a number of auto workers. Surely this country should have more confidence than the Hon. Member has just expressed in the ability of Canadian automobile workers to attract business to this country and create the employment that is so important to his riding.


John Edward Broadbent: You're out to lunch.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party is sounding off again. Let me direct the second half of my answer to him.
About two years ago, General Motors announced, I think it was, a $2.5 billion expansion-


John Edward Broadbent: $2.4 billion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -without any pressure from the Auto Pact, without any need to meet the Auto Pact rules. The reason why is because the workers in his constituency are good workers. They are able to build a car in a very competitive way in competition with their counterparts in the United States. The result of that $2.5 billion investment by General Motors will create the largest single automotive manufacturing facility in North America.


John Edward Broadbent: Right on, in Oshawa. What about the Chrysler decision in Windsor?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That demonstrates clearly that we should have and can have confidence in our automobile workers to win business away from the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTATION OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURED AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up that question on the Auto Pact by pointing out very strongly to the Government that if it had not been for the Auto Pact provisions some plants in my constituency would never have been established. Why has the Government backed off the provisions which existed and operated successfully so that we have reached a situation now where a U.S. based plant, such as Mazda in Detroit, will be able to export to Canada without a single bit of Canadian content? Why this sell out of the auto industry in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is the Party of yester-year.


John Edward Broadbent: You are reading history wrong, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Here is an example of the New Democratic Party not being able to get their minds out of the 1960s. In 1965, Tommy Douglas, the New Democratic Party Leader- I might remind my hon. friend-in an article entitled, "Douglas Raps Canada-U.S. Auto Pact", stated that the Government should not be moving ahead without certain assurances.


John Edward Broadbent: Right, improvements!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are saying the same thing today.
October 5, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Just relax.
Those assurances were put in the Auto Pact in the 1960s because we were not confident then-


John Edward Broadbent: Now you are taking them out.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We were not confident then of our capacity to win business in this country in competition with other countries.
In the 1980s we on this side of the House have that confidence in the people of Canada to win business against the Americans, against other parties, and that is why we can move into this agreement with confidence that we are moving into the future, not resting in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ELIMINATION OF TARIFFS
Steven W. Langdon: There is a certain sense of sanctimonious idiocy-


An Hon. Member:: Yes, indeed.


Steven W. Langdon: -about a Government that has just sold this country out and comes to us to talk about confidence.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Speaking of confidence, who has confidence in you guys?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been fairly patient. Hon. Members will know that a preamble is setting facts upon which to ask a question; it is not only assertions. I would also ask Hon. Ministers when they are answering to direct their minds to the question and not reply by assertions.


Steven W. Langdon: 1 wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister, since he is responsible for this deal. Why is it that he has accepted the elimination of tariffs which will have the effect of stripping away the safeguards which protected and extended the jobs of thousands of auto workers right across Ontario and Quebec? Why that sell-out? Why was it done?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to me as being "sanctimonious".


An Hon. Member:: We want Carney.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do not think that I have ever been sanctimonious.
I was trying to demonstrate to the Hon. Member that this Government has the courage, the conviction, the vision, and the understanding of where this country can be-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's the problem.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -looking into the future and not into the past.


Mr. de Jong:: It's a nightmare.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New Democratic Party asked a question this morning in his remarks, and I listened carefully.
He stated that there is a major question that must be answered-what type of country do we want to have? I think the line was drawn this morning. We have indicated the type of country that we want to have is looking forward into the future-


Nelson Andrew Riis: The fifty-first State it's called.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and not being mired in the past and all the shibboleths of the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Any Parliament worthy of the name will not tolerate agreements that would put restrictions on the sovereignty it is supposed to maintain. My question is specifically concerned with one major aspect and that is investment. In the documents we received, the section on investment contains some glaring contradictions. For instance, at page 7 of the document- in English- published by the Prime Minister, we read the following:

"Canada retains the right to review the acquisition of firms in Canada by U.S. investors".

In the document published by the United States, we see the following:

"Under this agreement Canada commits to make permanent the present policy of not screening new business investment".
[ Translation]
According to the Americans, after the agreement Canada undertakes to maintain its policy not to review American investment. My question to the Prime Minister is: Since this is an agreement signed by two countries, and we seem to have two contradictory versions, who is telling the truth?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member not go to the Americans-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: You went there, Mike.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You don't trust them?

October 5, 1987
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: Look whose talking.


Ms. Copps:: You signed the agreement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, I signed the agreement. I say to the Hon. Member from Hamilton that I did sign the agreement. That is what I wish to quote from rather than from what the Americans may have said, or from what we have sqid. Let's go to the truth. Let us go to the agreement.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Who has got the real agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The agreement states that we will continue to screen, and we set out the thresholds of screening. We also say that the parties agree that all existing laws, regulations, and published policies and practices not in conformity with any of the obligations described in the agreement shall be grandfathered. The protections that we have had in the banking system, in transportation, in energy, in culture, all of these will continue to be protected by the agreement, not by anybody's interpretation.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT PERMITTED PUBLICATION OF A DOCUMENT PRESUMED FALSE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the document to which the Minister is referring it becomes clear who is telling the truth ... 1 would very strongly suggest that the United States is telling the truth in this case because, on page 24 of his document, it is clearly indicated that after the third year following the signature of this agreement there will no longer be any kind of investment review concerning what they call the review of an indirect acquisition.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Finance why he allowed the Prime Minister's Office to publish a false document.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Member states that for indirect acquisitions after the third year there will be no review. For direct acquisitions there will be review. This illustrates a fundamental difference.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What value?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Windsor West will never understand the response that I am going to give now, so I will direct it to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Mr. Foster:: Don't be sanctimonious.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is because you are never very clear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What this does is demonstrate the difference between his Party and this Government.


Mr. Tobin:: The difference between your statement and the American agreement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are saying that this country must become more outward looking, more forward looking, and not look inward and into the past.
There is a significant amount of Canadian investment going to the United States these days because people do not have the confidence that we have the access to the U.S. market. For that reason, investments are being made in the United States rather than in Canada.
This agreement will give them that confidence, they will invest their money in Canada, creating a stronger Canadian economy and moving forward.


AGRICULTURE-ELIMINATION OF SUBSIDIES
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the document tabled by the Prime Minister today states that the parties have agreed "to achieve, on a global basis, the elimination of all subsidies which distort agricultural trade and agree to work together to achieve this goal".
Have the Americans now agreed to cease selling their grain into world markets, and into the Canadian market, at less than half the cost of production? If so, how soon, and what assurances do we have with respect to this?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the many achievements which will benefit Canadian agriculture in the bilateral trade arrangement.
I am sure the Hon. Member knows that our most urgent and pressing problem in Canadian agriculture is the state of Canadian grains and oilseeds as a result of the continuing high level of support by the U.S. and the EEC, and the trade war continuing between the two.
This is a commitment to consult with us prior to extending the Export Enhancement Program into our traditional markets. It is also a commitment to work with us to bring about some common sense and some sanity in the international market-place through working together in the multinational trade negotiations.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: An agreement to talk.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDIES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, as well, the agreement tabled today talks about Canada agreeing to eliminate its Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies on agricultural products shipped to the U.S. through western Canadian ports.
Why did Canada give up this last vestige of the Crow rate? Does this mean the end of a subsidy and the end of a program which have existed in this country for nearly 90 years?
October 5, 1987


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, it does not mean anything of the sort. It means that because of the quality of Canadian product, particularly canola, we will have a chance-and the Americans have said that by agreeing that they will not invoke Section 22 of their Agricultural Securities Act-at a multibillion dollar market in the United States.
The Hon. Member should know, because he comes from an area which produces very high quality oilseed, that Canada presently has less than half of one per cent of that market.
We have the capacity, the knowledge, the people, and the product. We have everything that is needed to increase our market there, except we have not had to date an assuredness that the market will be open.
This agreement gives us that assuredness, and it gives us very much of a future for our oilseed industry on the Prairies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POWERS OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, although she does not seem to be answering many questions today.
Canadians know that the Government has sold out farmers by removing all tariffs, by reducing quotas, and by removing transportation subsidies. Why has the Government taken away the power of the Canadian Wheat Board to restrict imports of wheat, oats, and barley?
Could the Minister explain why this power of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is essential to it continuing its invaluable role to Canadian farmers, has been taken away by this agreement?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that this agreement does absolutely nothing of the sort. It preserves our import permitting responsibilities. It maintains the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board for exports. It keeps the ability of the Canada Grain Commission to preserve our licensing agreement and our varietal distinctions, which are second to none around the world.
It gives the Canadian Wheat Board a chance to be truly competitive in the American market with our wheat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: They laugh at the quality of Canadian wheat. They should talk to some of our American customers. They like the quality of our spring wheat. They like the quality of our Durum wheat for pasture products. This agreement will give the Canadian Wheat Board a chance to sell unfettered in that market, which is good news for western farmers.
Oral Questions DOMESTIC PRICE FOR WHEAT


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that if we take away the power of the Canadian Wheat Board to limit imports of wheat, oats, and barley from the United States, we destroy the power of the Canadian Government to have a domestic price for wheat.
The domestic price for wheat has provided some $300 million per year in benefits to Canadian farmers. Why has the Government taken away the power to provide that much benefit to Canadian western farmers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that this agreement does absolutely nothing of the sort.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, yes it does.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Read Yeutter's statement.


Charles James Mayer: They laugh, but they should listen to what it does. It provides that when support levels across the border equalize, import permit restrictions will be eliminated, which makes entirely good sense.
If Canada had the opportunity right now, we would sell in the American market where their support prices are higher. The Americans are preventing us from doing that.
Just to say it again, so that the Hon. Member understands, the agreement provides that the Americans will not reintroduce Section 22 of their Agricultural Adjustment Act which, up to now, has been like a lever over our heads so that we cannot sell into that market unfettered.
The Hon. Member should know that the Canadian Wheat Board is a very good sales agency. With the elimination of Section 22, as I said, it gives the Wheat Board a better chance to sell additional quantities of our high quality wheat in their market, which American consumers would very much like to get.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY-FILM IMPORT LICENSING
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to focus on the cultural area where the giveaways have been particularly devastating to Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is laying the groundwork for a question. However, while these assertions are interesting, may very well be the subject of debate, and, may well be the tactics of debate, this is Question Period.
I would ask Hon. Members to respect the long-standing approach to questions in this place, that is, that the preamble should set the facts upon which the question is asked, not just be an assertion. As I said, I expect that Ministers when responding will exercise the same good sense.

October 5, 1987
Oral Questions


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, is Canadian ownership in the film distribution industry an objective of the Government and, if so, will the Prime Minister say so?
If outright ownership is not an objective, is film import licensing at least an objective of the Government and, if so, will the Government prove it by bringing in a Bill on film import licensing, a Bill which is ready, or must we believe that the Government has reneged on this policy?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, from the outset the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, and the Government have stated that our cultural industries would be protected in any trade negotiation, and indeed they have been.
1 thought the Hon. Member would be congratulating us on the fact that Bill C-58 has remained intact, that our Canadian content regulations have remained intact, and that our simultaneous substitution has remained intact. All these things have stayed intact as we said they would.
The Government has indicated that it is prepared to create a Canadian market for film distribution rights and that Canadian independent distributors should have access to those rights. There is nothing in this agreement that prevents the implementation of that policy.


BOOK PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is on book publishing. Would the Minister tell us if the so-called Baie Comeau declaration is still operative, including the ban on indirect takeovers? If it still is operative, is all cultural investment to be exempted, without any exception, in takeovers of Canadian corporations?
If so, would the Government show some good faith on this issue by implementing that Baie Comeau declaration in the cases presently under study of American takeovers which have been sitting there and have not yet been turned down?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again I thought the Hon. Member would be moving to congratulate the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and I mean that quite seriously.
The document says that the parties agree that cultural industries are exempted, excluded, from the investment chapter. However, it goes on to say with regard to indirect acquisitions in the cultural field that the Canadian Government will, at a fair market value, buy those industries and then resell them to a Canadian purchaser. That is a big step forward. It really is.


UNITED STATES ANTI-DUMPING LAW
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Members are witnessing the strange spectacle today of seeing the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board disavowing and disowning the American interpretation of what was arrived at Sunday night. That causes Members to worry a great deal.
The U.S. trade representative in his document released today says:
The U.S. anti-dumping law-defined as U.S. statutes, legislative history,
regulations, administrative practice and court decisions-will remain intact
and unchanged. Hence, U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under
existing U.S. law-
Does the Prime Minister agree with that interpretation of what was signed on Sunday night?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the U.S. interpretation of our agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: You better.


Pat Carney: I prefer to read our interpretation of the agreement, and I prefer to read our agreement itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Members have waited 45 minutes for me to speak, Mr. Speaker. Possibly they would like to hear me at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard some whispered desire by some Members to hear the Hon. Minister. The Hon. Minister is answering a question and I think the usual courtesies should be extended. The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the point of the dispute settlement mechanism is that any decision, in the area of countervail and any decision in the area of anti-dumping and also in safeguards, can be taken to an impartial and binding hearing. That is what is important.
Earlier a question was raised in the Question Period about a statement of mine on March 16 saying that we would seek to eliminate these laws. That is where the negotiations broke down because neither side could develop the new laws in time to be effective for us.
What we have done in this case is to agree to give both countries time to develop this new law that is historic, that is unique, and that has never been done. In the meantime in the seven years-five years with a two year extension-each country will use its own law. Our problem is not in the law. We have good Canadians laws in this area. The Americans have good American laws in this area.
October 5, 1987

Constitution Amendment, 1987 Mr. Axworthy: Tell us how you can bind us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Remember the softwood deal.


Pat Carney: Our problem is when we believe that they are unfairly applied. Canada wins more anti-dumping cases against the U.S. than the U.S. does. We want to preserve that right. What we have done is to agree that during the period we develop this new law-that has never been done anywhere- we will each use our own laws and we will have binding impartial review to ensure that the application of the trade laws in both countries is fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will not mistake the applause of her colleagues for the approval of the people of Canada. I can't say she was worth waiting for because she has just now formally admitted in the House of Commons that Canada, quoting her own criteria and the Prime Minister's, did not get a binding dispute resolution mechanism.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In fact Canada continues to be subject to U.S. trade law.


SCREENING OF BUSINESS INVESTMENTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask another direct question. The U.S. trade representative said in his briefing document this morning with respect to investment:
-Canada commits to make permanent its recent policy of not screening
new business investments and it agrees to reduce screening of direct
acquisitions"-
Does the Prime Minister intend to make permanent his Government's investment policy when in so doing he will deny the right of future administrations and future Parliaments to exercise, in a sovereign manner, any Government's right to make investment policy? How does he intend to do that?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the reasoning behind this is not to discourage new investment. This country likes new investment. Trade needs new investment. One of the things that we have agreed to do is to phase up the thresholds for monitoring direct investment over time. Those levels will increase.


An Hon. Member:: After three years there will be no review.


Pat Carney: It is our hope that billions of dollars of new investment will come into Canada. The fear of the Americans, that driving fear of the Americans, is that a future Government will reimpose those terrible investment controls that led to the outflow of investment money in this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Right.


Pat Carney: Should any future Parliament wish to get away from this, it can break the treaty.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the House that we are now well over the time for Question Period. I hope that the Hon. Member who is rising will be able to rise tomorrow, and I will be very pleased to recognize her during Question Period.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
October 5, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(/') notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Citation
17. This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment. 1987.
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: As each Member of this House rises to speak to this Meech Lake Accord we, the federal legislators, are not addressing an ordinary Bill. We are not examining credits or settling the social or business issues of the day. That is why the process of this statute is so important and should be subject to the most open and democratic process, but it is not being so treated by this Government, amendments are being lumped together and there is no real debate for the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have said that it is irrelevant what Members have to say. Their minds are made up. We cannot strike or add one word or change a comma. The fragile web could fall apart, say they. It is my profound belief that this is wrong for we are talking about our vision of this country, Canada, and Quebec did not ask for all that. The Constitution is a reflection of our heart and soul as a people. It is what distinguishes us as a sovereign nation.
I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that what we are concerned about are rights, and rights are rights for all Canadians across this land. No individual Canadian should be placed in a situation of doubt as to his or her rights and freedoms in our Constitution under our Canadian Charter. This is why we cannot be silent. We are not indifferent, and so call upon the Government of Canada to honour its obligations to all legislators. Its lack of openness to amendments diminishes it in the eyes of all fair-minded Canadians and its actions deny justice and reasoned truths.
I have followed with close interest the Meech Lake proceedings. 1 very much feel that Canada wanted to say yes to Quebec and that we need Quebec as a full participating partner. I feel that way profoundly. Quebec is the key dimension to this bilingual, multicultural, unique country of Canada.
At first blush, I was absolutely delighted at the very significant accomplishments of the Government. I felt that all the political and personal heart and soul that I had invested as an Yvette along with billions of other Quebecers in May of 1980 during the emotional referendum period would finally bear fruit.
I was very proud of our Liberal Leader and our Party for the preparatory groundwork we had laid out as the first federal political Party to propose positive answers to the five conditions for signature laid down by Quebec. Our resolutions seemed logical and fair for all Canadians. Meech Lake was flawed, but I felt sure that reasoned improvements through amendments would be considered, that logic and fairness would prevail, and that Quebec would then become a full partner, which I wanted as much as anyone in Canada.

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I make no pretense at being a constitutional expert. Nonetheless, 1 followed these discussions closely. There is great ambiguity and division of opinion. 1 am not so naive as to suggest that the Constitution of Canada attempted to spell out in detail each and every item within it. To do that would make it as lengthy and incomprehensible to read as our Income Tax Act. I am suggesting that the Constitution must be clear on basic structural matters and clear as to its intent on the fundamental principles and values, and Meech Lake fails that test.
After reviewing the testimony given before our joint committee and that of the Quebec National Assembly, after listening to and reading the comments of those intimately involved in the negotiations like Mr. Gilles Remillard, Senator Lowell Murray, Premier Robert Bourassa and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), one thing became clear. Either they have not agreed on certain basic principles and have resorted to ambiguity in order to achieve a so-called historic agreement, or they have agreed on certain principles but, fearing public reaction, have chosen to obscure these principles, or worse still, both.
As to structural matters, the spending power concerns me, as does what would happen if there was a deadlock in Senate and Supreme Court appointments because we are effectively making it almost impossible to change. As my time is limited and 1 want to make some very important points, I would like to move to the next level of my concern outside of the structural ones, the level of values. Let me raise four issues.
First, with respect to economic values, it is astonishing that while the Government views free trade with the United States as fundamental to the future welfare of Canada, Meech Lake is totally silent on the strengthening of the Canadian economic union. I find that unusual and unacceptable.
Second, with respect to aboriginal people, the 1982 constitutional amendments called for a series of conferences to deal with the status and rights of aboriginal people. The conferences ended in failure. Why would Meech Lake, which sets forward an agenda, not include aboriginal rights on that agenda? I think that needs to be reviewed.
Third, with respect to the status of our official languages, Meech Lake stipulates in Article 2(1 )(a) that the Constitution of Canada should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada. The Government has explained that this embodies its commitment to so-called linguistic duality and it describes this characteristic as fundamental to Canada and that Meech Lake then defines the role of the federal Government and all the provincial Governments in Section 2.2 as being to preserve this fundamental characteristic.
It is essential to note that the choice of the word regarding a fundamental characteristic is mere "preservation", not
"promotion". Meech Lake is therefore saying with respect to a fundamental characteristic of our country, that is, linguistic duality, that we can agree on nothing more than its preservation, not its promotion. I say that that is for pickles and jams, not for people.
One need only read the annual reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. Our linguistic minorities, be they French-speaking or English-speaking, are under serious pressure. In some instances, certain communities face challenges to their very survival. Others face challenges as to their vitality or ability to remain stable, to say nothing of growth.
Over and over again, 1 heard un cri d'alarme pour les francophones hors Quebec. These groups, and it is well documented, are under-served and undernourished. It is also well documented that the English-speaking community of Quebec over the last 10 years, has suffered an over all population decline in excess of 150,000 people. That is more than the population of Prince Edward Island.
If our 11 First Ministers could agree that linguistic duality is a so-called fundamental characteristic, how is it that they could not agree to promote that which is fundamental to Canada? Does national unity not depend on our will to support, encourage and promote those qualities which are fundamental to our identity and make this country so special? The answer to that question is, obviously yes. It is our responsibility as Members of the national Parliament to do just that. If Meech Lake is adopted as is, we will have failed in this responsibility.
Why would the role of promoting our fundamental characteristic not be enshrined in Meech Lake? It is possible, in fact probable, that there are certain provinces that are less than enthusiastic about bilingualism. This political reality may have caused the Prime Minister in negotiating the Accord to decide that he was not prepared to risk losing the agreement by forcing the issue of promotion. Perhaps that was not so wrong, but why does the Accord not at least recognize the role of the federal Government in promoting this fundamental linguistic duality?
In the wake of the tabling of a very progressive reform of the Official Languages Act, this question becomes all the more acute. Undoubtedly, this must and should be one of the federal Government's roles if linguistic duality is really a fundamental reality in Canada. On the face of it, therefore, it would appear illogical for the Prime Minister to resist amending Meech Lake to recognize this role.
The answer to this mystery lies in a closer analysis of the effect of the proposed amendment. It would mean that the provinces would be agreeing to the role of the national Government to promote linguistic duality across this land, including not just the preservation but the promotion of linguistic minorities within the various provinces.
Did the provinces refuse to recognize the role of the federal Government in promoting official language minorities? This is
October 5, 1987

truly unacceptable. As Members of the national Parliament, it is our role to promote the fundamental characteristic of this country. In the current context, the silence of the Meech Lake Accord puts into question the legitimacy of this role, and that is unacceptable.
Finally, there is this question of fundamental rights. Here I reach my absolute bottom line. The litmus test of a democratic society is how it treats its minorities. The balancing of the democratic principle of majority rule with the protection of the rights of the individual is always a sensitive issue. Once you have a society that agrees to govern itself by the democratic vote of the majority, what safeguards have been provided for the rights of the individual? As I see it, the primacy of individual rights is fundamental to democracy. Individuals may choose to exercise their rights with others to address collective concerns. This is legitimate so long as these collective concerns are not then invoked to justify the withdrawal of fundamental individual rights. The right of individuals lie at the roots of collective action. Undermining individual rights undermines the ability of a free society to respond to the changing needs of its constituents. Believe me, I heard plenty about that as I travelled across this land in committee when we dealt with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights.
In 1982 we chose to counterbalance majority rule by enshrining a Charter of Rights which protects basic freedoms such as expression, religion, association, mobility, equality and non-discrimination. We gave the individual redress to the courts when Governments representing the majority interests infringed upon those rights.
It is true that the Charter is not perfect. I have noted in this House Section 33, the notwithstanding section, which allows the Government to override the Charter. That is an aberration and should be repealed. Mr. Eric Maldoff, to whom I am indebted for his help, put it so succinctly:
That is precisely when those rights are most needed.
Downgrading of rights is rarely justifiable and we have the protection of Section 1 of the Charter for just such a situation. There have been many significant decisions in this respect and I would be pleased to list some of them if a Member asks me to.
Meech Lake undermines the whole principle of equality rights. Clause 1 stipulates that the entire Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, is to be interpreted in light of Meech Lake. Clause 16 provides that only multicultural and aboriginal rights under the Charter shall not be affected by Meech Lake. These specific exemptions lead to the clear conclusion that the remainder of the rights under the Charter may be affected by Meech Lake.
Senator Murray and other witnesses argued that the courts already take Quebec's distinctiveness into consideration in interpreting the Charter. Yet it is a well-known principle of constitutional interpretation that the legislators are deemed to
Constitution Amendment, 1987
have meant something when they speak. Consequently, if it is true that the Charter was already being interpreted in light of the distinctiveness of Quebec, then Clause 16 must have meant something else. It is because of this that virtually every minority group who appeared before the committee expressed grave concern. The experts who appeared were divided. I find it unacceptable that an amendment to our Constitution should render basic rights more uncertain rather than clearer and stronger. In Clause 1 the amendment says:
(4) Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces-
Unlike Clause 16, the operative word is "derogate", not "affects". In other words, the Governments have gone out of their way to ensure no diminution of their prerogatives but they have not done the same for ordinary Canadians. Yet a Constitution is for the people. That was also why women's groups, visible minorities and unions were worried, and rightly so. Neither Meech Lake, nor the Government, nor the process, has provided any tangible assurances.
Senator Murray stated in his testimony that neither the Charter nor the duality distinctiveness provisions would be paramount one over the other. Unfortunately, if that is true, there is an egregious error. The amendment in Clause 1 clearly states that the entire Constitution, which of course includes the Charter, is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with this part. If neither is to be paramount, as the Senator says, then this motion should be amended according to the proposals tabled by my Leader.
Furthermore, we must either amend Clause 16 to make it clear that the Charter and the amended Section 2 are on an equal footing and are to be interpreted one in light of the other, or amend the amendment to Section 2 to state that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition of the commitment of Canadian society to the fundamental rights and freedoms and equality of all Canadians.
To those who argue that Meech Lake does not diminish the rights of Canadians, I refer them to the report of the joint committee, page 51, paragraph 91, which says that Meech Lake is unlikely to erode in any significant way the existing entrenched constitutional rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. The committee says "unlikely". It does not say "does not erode". It does not say "unlikely to erode any rights". It says "significantly" erode any rights. Shall we debate the meaning of the word "significantly"? Absolutely not. The price of Canadian unity must not be the erosion of the rights of any Canadian.
That finding by the committee is all the more shocking in light of the proposed Section 2(l)(a) which says:
The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a) the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The Constitution is to be interpreted in this light. How is it possible for the document to recognize duality as constituting a fundamental characteristic of Canada on the one hand, while on the other, as found by the joint committee, permitting the erosion of the rights of English-speaking Quebecers? It is totally illogical. If this is not an egregious error, then perhaps the word is devoid of meaning and shoul4 be striken from the Canadian vocabulary. One could also conclude, however, that perhaps it was intended. If that is the case, it is unacceptable to me.
If the proposed Section 2(1 )(a) does not have the meaning the Government tells us it has, that it does not really stand for the equality of our two official languages and the right of English and French-speaking Canadians to feel fully at home and secure across Canada, then that, too, is unacceptable.
There are those who have attempted to stifle debate by branding all those who question the Accord as being anti-Quebec. I resent this tactic. I am a Quebecer as much as any other person who lives in my province. I have fought for my province and my country. The linguistic community of which I am a member is as integral to our province, its social, cultural and economic fabric, and well-being, as any other individual or community.
It may not be popular these days to speak to the concerns of my English-speaking community, but when dealing with the Constitution and individual rights it is principal which must take precedence. It seems many are unaware of the evolution of my province. They still believe English-speaking Quebecers are a privileged and pampered minority whose rights may be sacrificed on the altar of so-called political imperatives. Is this the spirit of Meech Lake?
The past is past. Let us deal with the future. It is time this myth was put behind us. You must understand that Englishspeaking Quebecers are in rapid decline. It is inconceivable to me that in my province, my language, one of Canada's two official languages, is prohibited for use on public signs even when accompanied by the French equivalent. In a country that prides itself on multiculturalism, the use of languages other than the two official languages is also prohibited, with few exceptions. It is totally inconsistent and unacceptable to entrench linguistic duality and at the same time to permit the erosion of rights of the official language minorities in Quebec.
There are those who have argued that Quebec should be as French as Ontario is English. Look at the facts. Ontario is becoming increasingly bilingual in its courts, legislators, school system, government and health services. This is no time to consider the possibility of erosion of minority language rights in Quebec. Furthermore, if our goal is the achievement of linguistic equality throughout Canada, let there be no misunderstanding-the erosion of minority language rights in Quebec will do nothing to advance French language outside
Quebec. On the contrary, it will undermine the efforts to improve linguistic rights outside of Quebec.
In conclusion, Quebec is strong, Quebec's society is strong, Quebec's culture is strong. It has provided Canada with outstanding social, political, and economic leadership. While the challenges to the French language in North America are great, Quebec society is not so weak as to require resorting to the erosion of basic rights to meet that challenge. We must not encourage the use of such measures by amending the Constitution so as to permit them.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) in that those who are opposing the Meech Lake Accord, as I am, are not anti-Quebec. Indeed, we all think that we need a strong Quebec. I, personally, think that we need a distinct society clause for Quebec. We just have to be careful that we do not overrule the Charter of Rights and the rights of minorities which are protected in that Charter, including the English-speaking people of Quebec.
Is the Member voting for the Accord? I think there is a little hypocrisy going on in the House, although I am not accusing the Hon. Member of that. People are putting forward amendments, as tokens. In fact, they are not prepared to follow them up with real jam, if I can use that term, that is, to vote against the constitutional proposal because it is flawed. Instead they are moving amendments knowing that they will not be accepted because the Government said from the beginning that it would not accept any amendments.
Would the Hon. Member tell me whether she agrees with my latter analysis? Would she tell us which way she will be voting on this motion?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I pointed out that I hoped we would accomplish the goal of nation building and making Quebec a signator at the constitutional table without in any way reducing the rights of any Canadians. Although I am aware of the narrow-mindedness and mean-spiritedness with which this debate was brought to the House, it remains my hope that the amendments moved by my Party, particularly the first amendment moved by my Leader, will be given serious consideration and will be voted on in the affirmative. If it is not and if the minority rights of English-speaking persons in Quebec are in jeopardy, I, as their spokesman, will vote no.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is probably familiar with the speech made by Gil Remillard, the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in Quebec, at Mont Gabriel in the spring of 1986. In that speech he set forward Quebec's conditions for signing the Constitution.
He stated that the Government of Quebec had three objectives, one of which was to try to improve the situation of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. In particular, he referred to Section 23 of the Constitution and expressed the hope that it would be possible to remove the qualifying
October 5, 1987

provision which says that minority language education rights would only be provided where numbers warrant.
He also expressed the hope that it would be possible to strengthen that section additionally by giving minorities the right to manage their own schools in addition to having the right to an education. English Quebecers have this right, notably through the Protestant School Board system.
1 am astounded that the Quebec Government was presumably, therefore, willing to promote the rights of minorities. I imagine this would also have been the position of the federal Government. Given this position of the Quebec Government, how is it that the Government of Canada was able to accept an agreement which did not provide for a strengthening of French-language minority rights?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, there was a sense within the document that it was the first time that French-language minority rights were being accepted as a right by the other provinces. The best that the Prime Minister could do was to preserve the status quo and, I presume, use the official languages and a little bit of encouragement and coercion so that it would be improved.
I see across the floor my hon. colleague who was at that time co-chairman of the official languages commission. He was with me in Saskatchewan where we spent two and one-half days talking about francophone rights outside of Quebec.

We have all heard cries of alarm, and cries for help for francophones who have no services at all.

In response to the question of my hon. colleague, I suggest that giving minorities the right to manage their schools is an absolutely fundamental procedure. We in Quebec remember Camille Laurin and Bill C-40 through which, less than 10 years ago, Quebec tried to unify the school system and remove English rights to it. I recall to this moment Section 23(1) which says that English-speaking children from anywhere in Canada who come to Quebec may not attend English-language schools. I believe that is a matter which could have been negotiated and which a government of good will in Quebec should adopt because it is waiting to be adopted.
It is vitally important that while we rejoice in nationbuilding, it cannot be predicated on linguistic duality being suppressed anywhere. No official minority can accept the price of the reduction of its rights at any time. If Mr. Gil Remillard is prepared to promote that I am equal as an English-speaking Canadian in Quebec and that I contribute to the fabric of that society along with the Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese, Hondurans and El Salvadorans who live in my riding, I am all the more comforted. However, let them say it and let them put the Charter into the Constitution.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), for questions or comments.


Mr. Hamelin:: I have a question and, of course, a comment.
The Hon. Member has stressed, and I think s(ie is one of the Members of this House who has taken a very broad view of Canada's linguistic duality and the need to promote-not just protect but promote-that duality. In the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, we put the sapie question to various witnesses, and some of them felt that this Accord was the most we could obtain at the present time, considering the state of mind of the provinces.
We must not forget, in fact, that is the question I wanted to ask the Hon. Member: Isn't it true that considering the present situation in Canada, it would have been almost impossible to require our provincial partners to be realistic and promote Canada's linguistic duality on equal terms?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member from the bottom of my heart for asking this question. In my view, the rights of Canadians are the same for each and everyone of us across Canada. It makes no difference where we happen to be, and that is what 1 was driving at. You were on the committee. Look at page 52, item 91, and read it carefully It says:
"The Joint Committee accepts the advice that the "linguistic duality" clause is a constitutional step in the right direction for French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and that in law the "distinct society" clause is unlikely to erode in any significant way the existing entrenched constitutional rights of the English-speaking minority within Quebec."
I don't want to be eroded at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a real delight to have an opportunity to participate in this historic debate. I remember vividly the debate of 1981-82 when we patriated the Canadian Constitution, which included the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Seven years ago we participated in a very positive way with the political Parties of the House of Commons co-operating to a large extent. We rose above, in a sense, partisan political differences to address the needs before us at the time. Of course, that was with respect to the patriation of the Constitution.
I recall from the joint committee hearings into the Meech Lake Accord, and certainly from studying the transcripts of the hearings, that what became very evident, in pointing out the very positive nature of the committee work was, again, the non-partisan nature of the discussions and of the work. The committee members, on balance, sqt aside petty, and perhaps

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
not so petty, political differences to ensure that a thorough hearing was conducted and an excellent set of recommendations was provided.
I must say it was with a somewhat heavy heart that I listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) make his opening speech on behalf of the Government. Essentially, he ignored the thoughtful recommendations put forward by the joint committee. He gave us the impression that perhaps he had not even read the text of the very thoughtful committee report. That was a bit disappointing. The first speaker for the Government failed to react to the recommendations. Perhaps we can look forward to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he makes his speech to indicate just what action the Government plans to take in terms of those thoughtful recommendations.
I believe that when one sees something that results in a consensus on behalf of the three political Parties and the fact that the 10 Premiers unanimously agreed to the Meech Lake Accord, that really says something. While we all have concerns about what it does not include, or what it did not include, or what it overlooked, and perhaps even some flaws within the existing Constitution, that is the reality. This is not a perfect document. 1 do not think constitutions are ever perfect documents. They are fluid documents, ongoing documents. They are alive and everchanging.
I think that what we must do now is to identify those areas within the Accord and the Constitution that are still lacking and that require further work in the future. Of course, that is the primary reason why we put forward some amendments. We did so in the hope that the Government would accept them and include them. But if that does not take place, if the Government decides not to do that, it should at least see these areas of amendment as flags for the First Ministers to consider at the earliest opportunity.
Again, some have indicated that the process could have been better. Indeed, it could have been. But I think we are now in a position where we must make the best of it, which is what we are attempting to do.
It is important that we see the Meech Lake Accord as not the final decision, that there will be other opportunities. This is only the second opportunity we have really had to consider the Constitution of Canada. I think that what has been accomplished here will be recognized by historians as providing a major building block in the building of our Constitution.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, in 1982 when we finally agreed, at that time there was a major flaw in the agreement. There was a major gap in the agreement. Quebec did not sign it. Here was a fundamental part of the Canadian family not part of the constitutional signatures that went on to the final document. That has now changed. Quebec has now indicated that it is willing and prepared, and perhaps even enthusiastic, to become part of the Canadian family, both constitutionally as well as politically. I suppose as an ongoing result it will also be emotionally and psychologically.
I must say that when I look through the debates, and while 1 was not there physically on that particular day, I think one of the most moving witnesses was Madame Solange Chaput-Rolland. She said the following about the Meech Lake Accord:
I think none outside Quebec knew the reality of the referendum. I travelled throughout Canada, about a few months after. It was all over, eh? Good. It was not exactly all over. Families against families, towns against towns, fathers and mothers not speaking to their children.
(During the Referendum) we spoke with thousands of Quebecers. Women wanted to leave their children a country as big as the one they had received from their father. That was mainly the article that reached the heart, because you are right: In this country if we put a little more heart into what we are doing, maybe we would be aware of the hurt we inflict on others.
And then we came home. We went back to the National Assembly, back to our villages, back to our houses, back to the friends that were no more friends; they were on the "yes" and we were on the "no". It was not a picnic, it was not a social gathering, it was not a think-tank, it was a battle between brothers, a dangerous, divisive battle, and we still feel it. It was not 100 years ago, it was seven years ago that we lived that referendum.
English Canada could not care less one month after, and it stung me and it stung all of us who fought so hard to remain in Canada and to find ourselves outside of Canada. You know, it was a very dramatic gesture when Mr. Levesque put the flag of Quebec at half-mast on the day you were all celebrating here.
But our hearts were at half-mast too that day, because we were out of a country we had chosen to remain.
So the Accord of Meech Lake brought us something incroyable as a gesture of friendship-
And I would really like people to know that for us Quebecers, as for all the others here and everyone else, the Meech Lake accords are not an end, but the beginning of a grand process, I think. But I must tell you that for me it is really the first time that I have felt, YES, I won that referendum.
But surely by now, surely, you all know that if Meech is to fail for whatever reason, there can be no more negotiations, no more justifications.
If Quebec is once again to realize that it is more difficult to opt in Canada than to stay out of Canada, then surely, you know that the roads of tomorrow can only lead to another form of independence, but this time not chosen by any political party in Quebec, maybe chosen and imposed on Quebec outside Quebec.
This testimony was very moving. It explains the situation that existed during the period of the referendum. At that time, as we all recall, on May 20, 1980, the people of Quebec, as others have said, said "yes" to Canada. We now have the opportunity to say "yes" to Quebec.
On May 22, 1980, two days after the referendum, the New Democratic Party placed the following motion before the House of Commons:
That this House welcomes the result of the referendum in Quebec and pledges itself to interpret that vote as a clear call for constitutional change.
In my estimation, the Meech Lake Accord provides an opportunity for that constitutional change that was promised back in 1980.
We welcome Quebec's return to the constitutional family. Since its very beginning, our Party has always recognized Quebec as a distinct society. We have always recognized and acknowledged the linguistic duality of Canada, and the fact
October 5, 1987

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the ethnocultural reality of Canada. There have been some major oversights when it comes to the area of the ethnocultural reality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. I reflect that with a heritage from Norway. Yet we have the feeling that while we recognize the advances made by the Accord and the Constitution in terms of reflecting the various fundamental characteristics of our country, the ethnocultural reality has yet to be addressed.
We must address the future of the overriding part of the Charter. Section 33 certainly ought to be reviewed, especially when it comes to minority rights. We all feel that any discrimination on the basis of sex, colour, or ethnicity ought not to be the subject of an override. Again, much work must be done in this area.
Finally, in terms of identifying concerns, we certainly must identify the process as a major concern. We have been rushed in terms of dealing with this matter. Canadians feel that they have been left out. 1 would only hope that future changes to the Constitution will not be left only to First Ministers, Members of Parliament, MLAs, MNAs, and MPPs, but in fact to the people of Canada as well. It is for that reason the committee suggested that a joint Fiouse of Commons and Senate committee should exist on an ongoing basis to hold hearings across the country so that suggestions could be made on constitutional changes in the future, including changes to the Senate, changes to the rights of aboriginal peoples, changes to the equality rights of all groups, and so on. Someone must do it in an ongoing way which involves more people than were involved in the last round.
We all feel uncomfortable with the process, but it is history now. We must get on with dealing with the future. While we have concerns about some of the shortcomings of the Meech Lake Accord, on balance we believe that it is a major step forward. We want a commitment to constitutional change in the future which involves all Canadians.
1 believe that a very important page in the constitutional history book of Canada is about to be turned.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague and friend. Fie is prepared to say "let Quebec sign on now and we will fix it later", if I heard him correctly. 1 also heard a series of real concerns in his comments in respect of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal peoples. He also talked about equality.
We are talking about nation-building, and it is predicated upon linguistic duality as a fundamental aspect of Canada. I am sure the Hon. Member is well aware of the article in which it is indicated that the rights of English-speaking Quebecers may be eroded in some significant fashion.
As the Hon. Member does not live in Quebec and is not an English-speaking Quebecer, 1 wonder whether he gave some
thought to how, where, and in what way he might be able to define "significant", "may", or "erode".
It may be too late to fix that if we do not do something about having a sense that this is a true, egregious error. One cannot have an imbalance on one scale. If one is part of a linguistic duality of a country, and there is a potential for erosion of rights, then there is not fairness across the land, according to the analysis of the committee.
Turning to whether we can fix it later-and my hon. colleague says that we should sign them on right now-is he aware that point nine amends Section 40? Section 40 allowed for compensation of provincial legislative powers when they related to educational and cultural matters. Now, with the amendment, it will allow such compensation for any transfer of legislative powers. Is the Hon. Member not concerned about the implications of that transfer of legislative powers and compensation?
Does the Hon. Member believe that it is important for English Quebecers to have the same rights and for minorities to have the same rights, and that they can be protected adequately without the total Charter being alluded to as on an equal footing with Clause 2?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, those are very thoughtful questions. I suspect that I will not respond as thoroughly as the Hon. Member would like. However, let me do my best to say a few things at least.
Regarding the matter of fixing the Constitution and fixing the Accord, it is important that we view this process as a major step forward in terms of the recognition of Quebec and the role of Quebec and the recognition of our linguistic duality. It is not so much that we "fix" things but that we recognize some of the shortcomings with which we must deal in the future.
I notice that the committee placed a great deal of emphasis upon recommending how this would be accomplished in the future in terms of the process to ensure that some of the concerns the Hon. Member has raised would be addressed.
I recall the committee recommended that one of the first items the First Ministers might address when they come together again is not only to preserve the linguistic duality, which is part of the Accord, but to promote it.
According to my recollection, the transcripts of the hearings included a number of points that people made regarding the fact that it was important that it be promoted, not only preserved in terms of the status quo.
While I am not from Quebec, one of the surprising elements of the process-quite frankly, it amazed me and gave me a great deal of encouragement in terms of supporting the Accord-was the position of the Premier of British Columbia. Some of us might recall some of the views he held not long ago in terms of complaining about the fact that there was some French on his corn flakes boxes in the morning which aggravated him. He was involved in some editorial cartoons
October 5, 1987

which were uncomplimentary to the French-speaking people of Canada. This individual sat at the table and agreed to the Accord to preserve-


Ms. Jewett:: French on corn flakes boxes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -French everywhere. I think it is an amazing step forward.


David Berger: Doesn't it make you suspicious, Nelson?


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, it does not make me suspicious. It gives me a great deal of encouragement because here was an individual, whom I had given up on in a whole variety of areas, who had been moved considerably to join with his fellow Premiers to preserve linguistic duality in the Accord.
I am encouraged, but it does not mean that it is the end. This is why I am encouraged by the recommendations in the joint committee which say that the next step is to promote linguistic duality. Certainly I am a strong advocate of that, as 1 suspect all of us are.
I think 1 forget the other questions, but I hope I have at least made a reasonable effort to answer the points raised by the Hon. Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise with some trepidation because the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and I are close friends-


An Hon. Member:: Were.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, we are close friends. We have been in the House of Commons together and have agreed on everything so far. However, we disagree on this issue. We come at it from different aspects.
I think we both believe in recognizing the five conditions or demands of Quebec and the distinct society. However, quite frankly I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave away the store. He went far beyond recognizing the five demands of Quebec and made it so fundamentally flawed in my view that it is not worth supporting. I know my friend has a different view which he enunciated today, and 1 respect it.
However, I should like to ask him about something related to that. He is a westerner, and I am wondering whether he is familiar with the argument made by Don Braid, a western journalist, when he talked about the serious erosion of federal authority and how it would affect the West.
What Mr. Braid said was very interesting. He said that if we in fact give too much power to the provincial Governments and take some of the power which the federal Government is exercising to kind of equalize things for weaker provinces, it would affect the West. He even went so far as to say that in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
fact the West could suffer as a result, and he gave some examples. I quote:
Westerners need to think very carefully about that message ... If federal authority wanes and the provinces take on the full authority offered by the new agreement, they will sooner or later be left to fight each other directly when problems arise. There will be no federal mediator powerful enough to intervene.
Imagine what would happen in a direct fight between Ontario and Alberta over oil prices .. .
Imagine, for instance, that Ontario decided it didn't like a new program to aid grain farmers ... It could simply withdraw, set up its own policy to help Ontario farmers, and demand full compensation from Ottawa.
Westerners would face competition funded with their own tax dollars.
Imagine too the fate of a federal policy meant to distribute industry evenly across the country. Quebec and Ontario would opt out in an instant and use federal money to maintain their advantage.
What Mr. Braid goes on to say is that westerners have objected to federal power because it has been exercised by this Government capriciously by patronage and so on. In fact, federal power is needed for western Canada if the federal Government is to act as a mediator because some of the strong provinces like Quebec and Ontario could damage some of the weaker western provinces. It is a novel and a very interesting argument. The Hon. Member is very thoughtful about western Canada. What is his response to that question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Unfortunately there is only a short period of time left.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am glad there is a short period left because I must admit that I did not totally comprehend the question. When I look at the Accord I certainly appreciate that no legislative powers have been given away. In terms of setting national objectives for various programs, it is clear that provinces will have to be meeting them to receive funding.
Somewhere there was probably a good question but I think I missed it, with all due respect to my hon. friend. No doubt questions are posed. However, having read most of the journalistic views from western Canada on the Meech Fake Accord, on balance they come out in support of it. While Mr. Braid and others point out what could be problems-I suppose what he says is possible-


An Hon. Member:: Hypothetical.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And as my friend says, very hypothetical, we should to be cognizant of that. Again, this is not a perfect document. Constitutions never are. We have to see it in that light and be committed now to identifying ways and means of improving the Constitution over time. The committee has recommended a procedure to accomplish just that.

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture- Loss of meat inspection stamp at Kitchener plant-Reduced number of inspectors; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Visible minorities-Acknowledgement of injustices-Amendment of War Measures Act; The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Hazardous substances-Presence of dioxin in paper products-Departmental responsibility.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (1 )(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the
October 5, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
" Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
101 E. (1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"XI1-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(z) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
[Stage Direction]
October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act. 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act. 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment. 1987.
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I cannot say that I am overly happy to participate in this debate because in view of what I am going to say, about which many of my colleagues in caucus know, I am taking a position which does not find favour with my Leader or my Party. Listening today and following the debate in part last week, I appreciate the different comments of various Members. As has been said here in the House this afternoon already, the debate has basically not been partisanly political.
I have not felt so exercised about an issue, 1 do not think, since I have been a Member of this august Chamber as this one. If there was ever an issue where all Members, regardless of political stripe should have their input, it is on the Constitution of the land. While I know I cause distress and some embarrassment and frankly feel uncomfortable myself with colleagues with whom I have worked for many years and many other colleagues in my caucus whom 1 have met in the last three years and who perhaps find it even more difficult for a veteran Member to speak out on something, I do not apologize in any sad sense. I must say that I am not happy but I feel very committed in what I am going to say about the Constitution.
This morning 1 heard the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the fundamentally historic trade arrangement and new agreement with the United States. I, too, with other Members will be interested to see the agreement's fine print. The Prime Minister made a tremendous contribution here.
We heard, 1 thought, one of the better speeches from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) which I think so flummoxed the Leader of the New Democratic Party that he did not get on track on the free trade debate in the way he has been doing this last little while. I was glad for the interest in the free trade issue and 1 hope that interest will continue.
While the free trade issue is fundamental to the economic fibre of the land and affects the pocketbook of taxpayers, the constituents and Canadians from coast to coast, the Meech Lake Accord affects the constitutional framework of the land and is not quite as exciting. I am the first to admit that
because of all the factors that have been combined-I will not say there has been deliberate collusion-in a most interesting way that they almost prevent meaningful debate on something which to me is even more important than the economic trade arrangements with the United States.
It is somewhat ironic that we have these two parallel pieces of legislation or resolutions before the House at the same time, one affecting the Constitution forever and a day. Without casting stones-I will not get political-I respect my colleagues who worked hard during the slumber of summer on the joint committee, but I really believe that many who have spoken and many who participated on the constitutional committee have forgotten that what we are proposing here is not a law or a statute that can be changed by another Parliament. We are, however, already talking about changing a free trade arrangement by breaking a treaty. You can do that in another Parliament relatively simply with a vote but you cannot change the Constitution easily because it is in constitutional stone.
For instance, the Meech Lake Accord has a unanimity rule, something which has been the plague of constitutions all over the world. Again, it is ironic 200 years after what the Americans did at Philadelphia with their Constitution. One of the reasons the 13 colonies came together at Philadelphia, having tried something before and after the Revolution, called the articles of Confederation, was the rule of unanimity. A big state and a little state completely boxed themselves in because they could not move to the changing times.
Quite frankly, I listened to what I thought was a very considered address this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Then came the more political, in the best sense of that word, but thoughtful address by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr Riis). He reasoned that he would support the Accord. Some of us used to think NDP meant no damn principles but 1 will not get political on that, but now NDP means "No one disturbs polls. Nothing disturbs polls". The House Leader for the NDP from Kamloops-Shuswap in a most even way-1 will not get partisan here because I am more against my own people than anyone else in this House-gave the generalities of what was good about the Accord. Constitutions are not perfect. We know that. They are supposed to be living documents. That is what the BNA Act has been. That is what Lord Sankey said in the Person's case of 1931 when he compared the BNA Act to a living tree.
Members have talked about the rights problem, be it women, the aboriginals or the multicultural people who have made this country into the country it is to help complement the two founding races. 1 have fought battles on that and supported every bilingual Bill that has ever been in this House. We have all that. Yet we have the Constitutional amnesia of the Person's case which went through the Supreme Court to the judicial committee of the Privy Council as to whether a woman was a person to be appointed to the Senate of Canada under the BNA Act. That was just 1931, I believe. That was a pretty
October 5, 1987

definite word. Yet in the Meech Lake Accord, my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap and others take their generalities and try to hide their inner selves with naivety, to put it kindly, or for other political reasons.
They can pretend that in the justified afterglow of Meech Lake, there was a miracle. There was a mild miracle, and I give full credit to the Prime Minister for bringing together 11 First Ministers and coming up with a unanimous agreement on principle. However, they are getting away from the principles of Meech Lake.
Yes, groundwork had been done and had been done well by Senator Murray, Senator Tremblay and officials who went across Canada talking to Premier Bourassa and other premiers. The groundwork was done and perhaps that is why there were not the expectations for the Meech Lake Agreement.
There was agreement on principles and that is a mild miracle. I am prepared to call it that because there is not usually unanimous agreement. How contradictory are we, though? If we think it is a mild miracle to have 11 agree at Meech Lake when there had been years of preparation, how can we stumble into the strait-jacket of a rule of unanimity that will affect federal institutions and sterilize them?
Oh, yes, provinces are equal because they all have a vote. Without trying to cast any aspersions on the Chair, Madam Speaker, eunuchs in a harem are equal too but they really cannot produce very well. I suggest that there will be the same sterility in any meaningful constitutional amendments under the rule of unanimity.
Any premier worth his political salt who thinks there will be meaningful Senate reform under a rule of unanimity is whistling Dixie and had better get on his horse and head for the Rockies. There will be no such reform.
I know that my time is limited. I have so much to say and there is so little time in which to say it. I would like to point out to the House, though, that we are not talking about a law or a statute that can be changed by Parliament. Three of my friends from the committee spoke to me during the hearings as though we were discussing a labour contract. They said that they knew it was not perfect now but that they could change it next year. They meant that. I told them that this is not a labour contract or a statute and that we cannot change it that easily.
I have a fundamental problem with the Accord. I have mentioned the problems with aboriginal rights and with new Canadians who have made this country the way it is, thank God, but I suppose there is one fundamental aspect of the Accord over which I go the other way from my Party and my leader. It is not about protecting the distinct society or preserving the distinct society. I am all for that and have voted in this House for Bills that do that. However, what I cannot do
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and am not prepared to do because I think it inadvertently sows the seeds of separatism is to promote a distinct society.
As far as I can see, aside from what professors, academics, Senators and Members have said, one never knows what the Accord will do. In Philadelphia, 55 founding fathers met for over three months, not for 20 hours in the Langevin Block in the locker-room camaraderie of that intense, incestuous atmosphere. They were not exhausted and did not come up with decisions they thought and believed would be good for the country but perhaps did not quite have the crystal light of purity, fresh air and time to digest what they had done in principle.
How many Members appreciate that the words "We the people," the first three words in the United States Constitution, took three weeks to debate? Before Hon. Members vote on this Accord, I would ask all Hon. Members to read the book written by Catherine Drinker Bowen entitled Miracle at Philadelphia, a narrative history of what the founders wrestled with.
I have heard in committee and in debate well-intentioned academics speak. Professor Bill Lederman taught me constitutional law many years ago. I got 98 per cent in it. It was the best course I ever took. He is still teaching constitutional law because in some ways Constitutions do not change.
Bill Lederman has never been on the Supreme Court. Would he have thought that the founders of the American Constitution would have had the Supreme Court of the United States interpret the commerce clause which has fundamentally changed the American economy? Would he have thought in terms of rights of people and women, that the right of privacy of papers would be extended to the right of the privacy of the body so there could be qualified or restricted abortions? Would he or any other professor, academic, Senator or lawyer have thought that what the American founders said 200 years ago about due process is the fundamental tenet for the gender-equality rights that are slowly coming in the United States?
I have the highest of respect for Eric Kierans who appeared before the committee, but the mythology he put before the committee really bothered me. We all know of the great clause in the American Constitution, "all men are created equal". However, for over 100 years, there was legal segregation in the United States. People were equal but were separate. We all know that. That is sad history, but do not blame the United States.
Mr. Kierans has said that Meech Lake puts things back the way they are supposed to be. Only one columnist is following this debate, Mr. Johnson of The Gazette. He has analysed this in a most logical way. He has analysed the comments of Eric Kierans. I read them earlier and could not believe it.
This has nothing to do with the original concept of the BNA Act. I am not saying that there should not be changes to the BNA Act. We do live in a different world today, but do not let reputable people come before the committee and buffalo the

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
committee with statements they should know better than to make.
Certainly Mr. Kierans of all people should have known that the fundamental premise of the BNA Act, fortunately changed by law, was that Sir John A. Macdonald wanted a strong central authority. One of the reasons the regions came together was to ensure that the perfidious Americans south of the border could be contained and/or restricted. That is why the four colonies got together in the first place.
One of the great clauses that was supposed to provide the supreme federal power was the "peace, order and good government" clause. Who at that table in Charlottetown would have thought that Viscount Haldane would have restricted that clause, perhaps correctly, so that it was meaningless except in emergencies?
1 have already mentioned the case of Edwards vs. the Attorney General of Canada of 1931, an appeal case in which Lord Sankey talked about the living tree.
Then there was my friend and colleague, the former premier on whom everyone relied. Initially we all relied on ex-Senator Forsey. The Prime Minister used his name when referring to the euphoria we all wanted when Quebec got into confederation. Will Quebec be out at the next conference when some suggestion it places on the table is not approved?
My friend, Mr. Stanfield, referred before the committee to the slippery slope of deux nations, a concept in which he had never believed and never followed, or words to that effect. Yet some of us in the Chamber were there in Montmorency when the Conservative Party adopted that because Marcel Faribeau was Quebec's lieutenant then. We adopted that and then it became a factor in the leadership campaign of 1967.
All Conservative Members should recall the speech of John Diefenbaker about one Canada and about not using the deux nations concept. Mr. Diefenbaker's idea about one Canada may have been different from Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's but they both talked against deux nations. Then the election of 1968 was held.
There has been a lot of hocus-pocus. 1 am concerned about the promotion of a distinct society. It really bothers me that it sows potential seeds of separatism. If one promotes a society well enough and is successful in that promotion, does it not then become a more definite society? If it becomes a more definite society, is not the most definite society a separate society, particularly when that distinct society is given the tools to do the job? Because of the question of rights, people have almost overlooked this.
In 1983, I said in this Chamber that every candidate for the leadership of the Tory Party except the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was totally against what the PQ wanted then, fiscal compensation when opting out of a program. I do not know how many Members have read Rene Levesque's book Memoirs but it is a darn interesting book for any political person to read, given his inimitable style. I want
to quote from that book with respect to fiscal compensation and opting out. Rene Levesque, the expert on how to have two societies or two nations or sovereignty association, said he was not really bothered by the amending formula requiring unanimity. He was like Bill Davis who said that Ontario does not need a veto power. Levesque said he did not need to have a veto power. At page 325 of his book he said:
But Quebec would be deprived of its right of veto. 1 should perhaps admit that this old obsession has never turned me on. A veto can be an obstacle to development as much as an instrument of defence. If Quebec have it, Ontario and perhaps other provinces would surely ask for it, too. And, as in Victoria in 1971, it would be possible to block change and in protecting oneself paralyze others, leaving everyone way ahead-or behind.
Then we have this footnote:
On this subject, as everyone remembers, the Supreme Court ruled in December, 1982, that in its opinion the right of veto did not exist and had never been more than a fiction.
But no matter how hard one might try to revive it politically, 1 can't see the Anglophone provinces, and even less the federal government, renouncing this judgment, which is right down their alley. At all events, going down this path does not appear to me to be the most promising direction for our political future.
He is talking there about Quebec and the PQ. The main objection he had to any amending formula was the omission of financial compensation where a province wanted to opt out. On that same page he said:
For Quebec, which in all likelihood would have to use it more often than the others, the exercise of the opting out provision should be made as easy as possible. This way, I speculated, might we not, little by little, be able to build the associate state we had been refused?
He says on page 326:
On the other hand, the right to opt out, which we had learned to use in the sixties-the best example being the creation of the Caisse de Depot-is in my view a much superior weapon, at one and the same time more flexible and more dynamic. "You wish to take this or that path we are not ready to follow? Very well, my friends, go ahead. But without us." From stage to stage, I repeat, we could create something very like a country in that fashion.
You are indicating that I am running out of time, Madam Speaker. That is unfortunate because I have not gone into all the things I wanted to. There are so many things I could say about the "seamless web", that great architecture of the Senator. You cannot touch anything because it is a seamless web, he says. The only webs I have seen belong to spiders or caterpillars in trees. This is not a living constitutional document. It smothers debate and discussion. That is the sad part about Meech Lake. The principle of agreement among the 11 First Ministers was there to start with. It should have then percolated through the political process so that legitimate concerns could be illuminated and responded to. Unfortunately that has not happened.
In conclusion, I want to point out that Levesque himself says we have the worst of both worlds now. We have a unanimity formula which will be a great sterility. We have a fiscal compensation for opting out clause which will allow the incremental construction of separate programs.
October 5, 1987

The irony of Meech Lake is that we are left with the 1982 Constitution with a Charter of Rights about which there are many questions, and a Supreme Court which will in effect legislate as it works its way through that Pandora's box.
On the other side we have annualized constitutional conferences where everyone will end up fatigued or the public will be turned off because those conferences will fail from time to time. All they will amount to is a showboat photo opportunity. Those are built in to the Constitution. At the same time Parliament will in effect be mute in so far as contributing anything to the processes concerned before the First Ministers sign on the dotted line. 1 am saddened by that. I want Quebec in but, quite frankly, I am looking at it in the same way that Premier Bourassa did in 1971. Lie was not anti-Quebec when he walked away from the Quebec formula. He was pro-Quebec. I want Quebec in but I want it in a new Confederation that will be able to meet the challenges of this world, not a federation emasculated by all these other things in the Meech Lake Accord, some of which I have not touched upon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. He and I share opposition to this Accord and we are in a small minority.
If Canadians really understood this debate, does the Hon. Member think they would favour a Senate controlled by the provinces, one which will be able to veto the laws of this House? Do Canadians favour a Supreme Court chosen by the provinces when it will be the referee between the federal Government and the provinces? Does he think Canadians favour this veto power which puts us in a constitutional strait-jacket? Does he think Canadians favour the notion that future federal spending programs may be limited, as witnesses such as Professor Jack London of the Law School of Western Ontario said in committee? We may not have a national daycare program but a series of checkerboard programs or none at all. Does he think Canadians favour an immigration policy checkerboarded across the country with the provinces controlling it? Does he think Canadians favour leaving native people out, or women, who fought so hard for their rights in 1982? Does he think they favour leaving the multicultural reality out? I do not think so.
When Canada was playing the Soviet Union, it was not Team Alberta with Gretzky or Team Quebec with Mario Lemieux. It was Team Canada. Does he not think Canadians share a greater vision of Canada where the central Government plays a greater role, not just one of 11 equal Governments? That is the true vision of Canada that Sir John A. Macdonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King, Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau had. That view is the view of the majority. That is why we have a country, not a bunch of provincial dictators trying to run the country through these conferences, which amount to another level of Government. How do we get that message out? I think they are on our side.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I agree with the Hon. Member, we want Quebec in. I am prepared to recognize the distinct society. I would go further than he and accept the five suggestions of Premier Bourassa. However, this goes way beyond that. Add that to free trade and you have a double whammy.
I think we are losing this country and I would like to know how we are going to get the message out to Canadians.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief because I obviously agree with almost everything the Hon. Member said. I could go along with the five conditions as well, more or less the way one Party did. Former Prime Minister Trudeau gave evidence before a committee and he was asked about who in Quebec really cares. He said other than some professors and politicians about 95 per cent of the people really are not aware or do not care. Quite frankly, as a Tory wondering about our standing in Quebec, because we are all so conscious of polls, I am amazed that if this great concern has filtered down to the people why is it not reflected in our position in that province?
I am afraid that the Canadian public, anglophone and francophone, are bored to tears with the Constitution. The message has not gone out. I do not think they really appreciate the way this process has come about. It has happened so quickly without public debate. Yes, it went to committee but that was in the summer. Our summers are so short that no one really pays attention to politics then.
The Member spoke out. I saw a little blurb in the paper while I was flying back to Ottawa on Sunday. I did not know that he was going to do what he did. I have received responses on the very strong position that I have taken. I think that people do not yet care because the message has not got out.
The Editor of The Globe and Mail who appears on The NationaX every so often is such a pontificator as to make the infallibility of the Pope pale by comparison. Yet that paper has not led the debate. If I was from Quebec 1 would be all for this. If I was a francophone outside of Quebec I would be very concerned. I am concerned for Canada.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the Member on his magnificent speech. I hope other Members of Parliament will take the opportunity to read his speech or, even better, watch a videotape of it. You will agree with me, Madam Speaker, that very few were present for the Member's speech.
With regard to the interest of Canadians, Jean Marchand, who used to represent a riding in Quebec City, used to tell the story about the marine worker in his constituency who came home at the end of the day. When his wife asked him what kind of day he had he said that he had had an awful day, that he had a headache and could not concentrate on his work all day because he was worrying. When she asked what he was worrying about, he said he was worrying about the Constitution.

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The fact is that the Constitution is not the kind of thing about which the average person worries. It is the responsibility of legislators to interest themselves in this question, particularly Members of this Chamber who have responsibility not only for the interests of their particular province but for the interests of the nation as a whole.
With regard to the national interest, the Member mentioned that the three words "We the people" in the U.S. Constitution were argued about for three weeks. After the referendum at the end of May, 1980, the Liberal Government proposed a declaration of principles to be included in the preamble of the new declaration. It starts off with the words "We the people of Canada" and that-

And this provoked the ire and rage of Quebec Nationalists who objected to the use of the words "the people of Canada" because, as they said, it was a negation of their Quebec nationality.

Mr. Trudeau replied to that in a rather famous open letter to Quebecers.
We all say that we want Quebec in the Constitution. I was one of the Members from Quebec who voted for the constitutional resolution in 1981.
[ Translation[
Seventy Quebec Members voted for the constitutional resolution in 1981 because it was in the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The two questions of the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) really prompted the answer to the first question. I will throw out, not in a pejorative way, that there really has not been a debate in the House of Commons. When all three Leaders and Parties are together on principle and have a hearing during the summer there is not time for it to percolate out from coast to coast. It is very politically astute to get the measure through, but that is not the way to have a meaningful debate and a better Constitution.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the Hon. Member is from Nova Scotia, that the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is from Quebec, that I am from Vancouver, and that we all share the same views. There is a feeling stretching across 8,000 kilometres that this is wrong. Since I took my stand, support for it has been running at about 98 per cent. Aside from some bureaucrats who do not like it, the people like the stand. There is that feeling for Canada.
The Member is absolutely right. Due to the process the story is not getting out to the public for debate. I hope to God that somehow, in some way, it will get out and we can fix up the Meech Lake Accord and have a decent Constitution for Canada.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate my colleague from Nova Scotia on his remarks made here this afternoon. I want to begin my remarks with regard to the Meech Lake Accord by stating very clearly and unequivocally that I have great respect and admiration for all those Members who have spoken out in favour of the Accord. I have great respect for the enthusiasm with which they have launched their views. I would hope that in turn and in kind, although my views may be very different from the views of those individuals, they would have the common courtesy and the decency to respect my views which are shared by some Members, albeit not by the majority-
In the short time that I have I will make a few comments about process and about substance. With regard to process, it is difficult to accept that in 1987 1 1 men would meet into the early morning hours and consummate an agreement and consensus with regard to the most important and fundamental statute affecting our nation.
I have some difficulty with that. I believe, not that that process is inherently wrong, but that it has major omissions. This is not the consummation of a collective agreement. This is a fundamental tool of nation building. I emphasize that it was 11 men who gathered to consummate that agreement. Even more important were the comments made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in July. He said to Members of Parliament and Canadians at large that those 11 had come together to consider the Constitution and that there would be no amendments and no improvements allowed to this particular agreement.
I think by any standard, particularly the objective standard, that one would have to agree that the process of debate, the process of challenging, expanding, exploring, and defining the substance of that most important document has taken a major step backward because Ministers, the Prime Minister, and others have come to the conclusion that, no matter what, these 11 men have made an agreement which can in no way be reformed, improved or amended. Madam Speaker, objectively speaking, that is a wrong process for us to be following in Canada in 1987.
I would now like to talk about the substance of the Accord. We have heard a great deal about it. I have heard the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations say the following, and I do not wish to quote him, but I think I am paraphrasing him correctly. If I am not, then I am sure Hon. Members will jump to their feet to correct me. He has led us to believe that the provisions within the constitutional Accord of 1987, particularly as they relate to the phrase "distinct society", do not really mean anything. That is one thing. Fortunately, or unfortunately, Members and individuals of the Province of Quebec have put a different interpretation on it.
October 5, 1987

Let me come to another area, and I will come back to the previous one. Let me come to the area of the Accord which stipulates that Canada must provide reasonable compensation to any province which rather than participate in a future national shared-cost program chooses to establish its own program "compatible" with national objectives. I have had great difficulty in trying to define and to distinguish as to what "initiative" means, what "compatible" means, what "national objectives" mean.
Who is to set the national objectives? Like all Members of this Chamber, I thought that the Parliament of Canada was the place where national objectives would be debated and discussed. That does not preclude consultations with provincial Governments-not at all. But what are we doing with regard to this particular amendment to the Constitution? Why have we not as a nation spelled out as to who will set the national objectives?
One may say, "Well, we understand that it will be the Parliament of Canada". Well, if one understands it to be the Parliament of Canada, then it should state that. I quote to you, Madam Speaker, some words which were used by a provincial colleague of mine in June of 1984. I refer to the words of the former Minister of Education who is now the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. This is what he had to say about national objectives. At that time he was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education. He said this: "Given that provincial jurisdiction in the field of education, provincial Ministers of Education would contend that national purposes can only be understood in terms of provincial purposes".
Where is the role for national objectives? Where is the role for Parliament to set those national objectives? Some, if they wish to be politically mischievous would say: "Oh, you are just bashing the provinces". 1 am not bashing the provinces at all. This is a democratic institution which covers the geographical mass of our country. This is the rock of democracy in Canada. Surely, this rock of democracy ought to have in its Constitution that the national objectives affecting nationhood should be decided by the Parliament of Canada. As you know, Madam Speaker, there is a major omission within the Accord that does not stipulate that.
1 have grave difficulties, some historical in their context, when someone tries to weaken a national Government and give more powers to provincial Governments. That is not to suggest in any suspicious way that they will do evil things. That is not my intention. But history will tell us, at least in my province, and for those provinces on the peripheral regions of this country, that the biggest ace was a strong national central Government. Our history tells us that. For those who argue that because Parliament has given up more duties and responsibilities to the provincial Governments that there will not be any effect, I think that is being somewhat, maybe, intellectually dishonest, but certainly naive at best, because we need a strong central Government. The poorer regions of the country more so than others need a strong central Government.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I made reference to the phrase "distinct society". The Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations said it does not mean anything. The Premier of Quebec has a different view, a very different view. He said this in the National Assembly on June 18, "First of all, we note that with the recognition of a distinct society we are achieving a major gain, and one that is not merely symbolic, because the country's entire Constitution will from now on have to be interpreted to reflect this recognition. The French language constitutes one fundamental characteristic of our uniqueness but it has other aspects such as our cultural, our political, economic and legal institutions. As we have so often said, we did not want to define all these aspects, precisely because we wanted to avoid reducing the National Assembly's role in promoting Quebec's uniqueness". It goes on for several other sentences, which I am sure most Members have read.
So we have the federal Government saying it does not mean anything but yet we have, and rightly so, legitimate, admirable men and women in different parts of Canada saying that it does mean something. I take offence, great offence, that the federal Government will not stand in its place and spell out what it believes distinct society means. If it does not mean anything, then come out and say that, be honest with the people of the Province of Quebec, never mind playing these games.
The Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations said, and quite rightly, that on the distribution of powers there is no change in the listing of those powers from provinces to the federal Government. But what he did not say is what effect that will have on the peace, order and good government clause, which is not in the Constitution per se but is done through the common law, through judicial interpretation. That is where it is done. Many constitutional lawyers will tell us that it does have an effect.
I would have hoped that the Government of Canada would have been a little bit clearer for me, and for Canadians generally speaking, on that particular point. If it means something, then spell it out as to what it means, never mind trying to camouflage it. In my view it is not symbolic; it is a substantive phrase. It is no longer in the preamble of the Constitution; it is in the body of the Constitution. That is a major distinction in itself. People can argue against it saying that it does not really mean anything; it is just the acknowledgement of an historical fact.
Who is any more distinctive than the people of Newfoundland? Who is any more distinctive than the people of Cape Breton Island, in terms of their history? This has the potential, I believe, if not spelled out clearly by the Government as to what it means, to be very confusing and very frustrating. In the years to come the judicial interpretation may go well beyond the good intentions of those individuals who consummated what they thought, in good conscience, was a good deal for Canada. But there are other major concerns that I have.

October 5, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
In the time remaining, let me talk about the fact that now we will have institutionalized First Ministers' conferences. On the agenda of the First Ministers' conferences we will have the discussion about the jurisdiction of fish. I do not know, Madam Speaker, if you have ever gone fishing, but when the fish come to the borders of Nova Scotia, they do not stop and look for a red light. They do not stop and look for a green light. Now we will have on the agenda, not next year, but the year after, the year after, and the year after, the jurisdiction of fish. What could be worse than that? Where is the stability that that will provide to the industry and the inshore fishermen, if every year at the constitutional conferences will be debated the jurisdiction of fish? If it were not so serious, it would be funny. 1 represent a constituency in Atlantic Canada, and what we are saying to the fishermen of that region in particular is that we will allow instability and uncertainty to prevail in the fishing industry by putting this item as a permanent agenda item at the First Ministers' conferences on the Constitution.
What about the concept itself of First Ministers' conferences being constitutionalized? Is that not now a new form of government in Canada? We have seen what happened here. Eleven men come together and agree on a particular constitutional Accord. Now they are reluctant and have stated that they will not accept any amendments. That is not good for Canada. I say sincerely to Hon. Members who support the Accord that that is not to suggest in any way that we do not consult with, talk to, or listen to our provincial legislators. I am not suggesting that. But to institutionalize another form of government called the First Ministers on the Constitution every year from now on seems to me to be usurping the role that Parliament, and Parliament alone would be doing in that regard.
The amending formula was rigid before the Meech Lake Accord, and most people have attested to that. Now there must be unanimity. People say, is that not great for the provinces, they can now say yes or no. But what about the people of Canada? Is it right for one province to be able to say no to something that is in the best interests of Canadians? Imagine the leverage that allows provincial Governments. If Newfoundland wishes funding for the Come-by-Chance oil refinery, it just withholds its support. We are institutionalizing a structure that will come back to haunt us. I sincerely believe that it is not in the best interests of Canadians that we follow that route.
My comments on the Charter will be very brief. We have heard a lot of discussion on the Charter. Although there are sections within the Meech Lake Accord that make specific reference to two sections of the Charter, it omits reference to other sections of the Charter. Any lawyer will tell you that the rule of interpretation by the courts has been laid out very clearly. If reference is made to something, as has been done in the Meech Lake Accord, and is does not make reference to the others, they will interpret that it is not to have an effect. In my
view, and in my judgment, as subjective as it may be, but I have attempted to be objective, that is wrong because it will have negative effects with regard to the equality of men and women in the Constitution. It throws our Charter into question, which I do not think any Canadian wishes to see. We wish to have something which is clear and unequivocal.
Finally, I believe that we have done a great disservice in the Meech Lake Accord by abandoning our aboriginal people. We have abandoned the concept of a multicultural Canada, without even a reference within the Meech Lake Accord.
I wish to close with the words of Tennyson, "I am a part of all that I have met". I have met Canadians in Quebec, in Nova Scotia, in western Canada, and in Ontario. I have met young people, senior citizens, and veterans. They have all aspired to a strong national Government. I sincerely believe that in the short term and in the long term that this Accord will affect that dream of a strong, united Canada from coast to coast. For those reasons, I must say that if the amendments of our Party are not accepted, I will have to vote against the Meech Lake Accord.


Mr. Kindy:: I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for his excellent speech and analysis of the Meech Lake agreement.
In today's La Presse there is a Gallup Poll on whether Canadians would favour an elected Senate. The majority of Canadians say that they wish an elected Senate.
What is the feeling of the Hon. Member? Does he believe that with the Meech Lake Accord it will be possible to bring amendments to the Constitution and have the agreement of all the Premiers of Canada to have an elected Senate? Or will the Premiers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because they will more or less name the Senators? What is the feeling of the Hon. Member?


David Charles Dingwall: I have two points in response to the question of the Hon. Member.
Historically we ought to recall that the number of Senators that the federal Government is allowed to appoint in the peripheral regions of western Canada and Atlantic Canada is quite different from the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
In my thesis, I say that we are giving additional powers to Provinces like Ontario. The question then becomes where is the incentive in the Meech Lake Accord for the Government of Ontario to relinquish 26 Senators that they will now be able to appoint, as opposed to down to a Triple E Senate which is advocated by the Premier in the Province of Alberta to say 10 per province or region on an equality basis? What is the incentive? There is no incentive. If the Government is going to appoint 26, why would it only appoint 10? There is no incentive in the Meech Lake Accord.
The third point is the rigidity of the amending formula. If Peckford does not get his fish, do you think he will agree to Senate reform?
October 5, 1987

We have institutionalized a structure or a set-up which will be virtually impossible. I say "virtually impossible", but they may come down from the heavens to get agreement. That is the problem with the Meech Lake Accord. I do not think, under the auspices of the Meech Lake Accord that the objectives which the Hon. Member is espousing and which I am espousing in terms of an elected Senate will be achieved. In fact, I think it will be a step backward and that it will be even more difficult.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) for his excellent analysis of the situation as far as the Triple E Senate is concerned. However, what does he think about a system wherein we must approve the Meech Lake agreement which has been cast in stone, and Parliament cannot even debate it, or, if it debates it, it cannot amend it because it has been said that it must remain the way it is?
What does he think about this process? Does he think that powers are being taken away from us because it has been said that it cannot be amended, that it must be as it is?


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should have no doubt whatsoever that the institution which we now know as Parliament and the role we play as Members of Parliament will be lessened and lessened substantially. That role will be usurped by the Conference of First Ministers which will be convened yearly with regard to constitutional and other matters. They will be the ones, and we will not have the effective voice we ought to have as national parliamentarians.
The brief answer to the Hon. Member's question is that 1 do not believe it is very appropriate or in Canada's best interest for 11 men to come together to consummate a deal in the darkness of night and without a very lengthy, exhaustive, and detailed process to examine every issue affecting the Meech Lake Accord.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5.14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CANADA ELECTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: that Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of
Canada Elections Act
absence), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of my Bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act in respect of leaves of absence. One must understand that the Act now applies to all employers who fall under the jurisdiction of Part III of the Canada Labour Code. The Act allows an employer to permit an employee to have a leave of absence to seek a nomination to represent a political Party or to be a candidate in a federal election. That is where it begins, and that is where it ends.
It does not deal with what happens if a candidate is successful and serves two years or four years in the House of Commons.


Mr. Angus:: Or nine months.


John R. Rodriguez: It could be nine months, as in the case of 1979. The law is silent. When an employee presents himself, the employer can therefore say that he is sorry but that there is no longer a job in the corporation or operation.
What I simply want to do in my Bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act for all employers who come under the jurisdiction of Part III of the Canada Labour Code to make it law that if an employee is successful in a federal election he has the right to a leave of absence. Therefore, when he is no longer in public office, he has a right to come back to his employment.
Why have I considered this issue so important as to present a Private Member's Bill on the matter? In my 12 years in the House of Commons I have observed-and I think it is important-that the House of Commons is an expression of what it is that makes our system different from other systems. The fact is that in this House sits those who have been chosen by the citizens of Canada to represent them. This is the very essence and heart of the democratic process. If this is the essence of the democratic process and the expression of the democratic will of the people of Canada, Parliament must be representative of the people who make up its citizenry. It must be representative of the diverse nature and characteristic of the nation, ethnically, gender-wise, regionally, and occupationally.
I am sad to say that Parliament has historically been open to an elite. Those composing the House of Commons in the past have usually been white, Anglo-Saxon protestant men of relatively high incomes. Research will confirm that. Statistics indicate that most Members of Parliament come from the professions, particularly the legal profession.


Iain Francis Angus: Really, lawyers?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, absolutely. According to two Canadian political scientists, Michael Whittington and Richard Van Loon, 20 per cent of the Members of Parliament elected in 1984 came from the legal profession.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How many?

October 5, 1987
Canada Elections Act


John R. Rodriguez: Twenty per cent, while 60 per cent came from other professions.
To put this in some perspective, one must keep in mind that, as a percentage of the whole population lawyers represent less than 1 per cent. Yet, as a result of the 1984 election, 24 per cent of the House of Commons comes from the legal profession.
Why is Parliament not more representative? I have asked myself that question, and I think the reason lawyers are overrepresented in the House is that it is very easy for them to leave their practices and, after serving their term in politics, whether they are defeated or they leave voluntarily, it is relatively easy for them to move back into practice. Politicians from other forms of employment or other professions would not find it so easy. Working class people just cannot leave their jobs and expect to return and pick up where they left off. That sort of easy to and fro is not available to working class people.
Similarly those Members of Parliament who are very wealthy can step into lucrative patronage positions or corporate directorships once they have left this House or have been defeated. There are myriad examples of that around. Indeed, many who have served on the Government front benches after they have been defeated are welcomed into the corporate lawyer boardrooms of the nation because it is very important for law firms to have prominent ex-politician representation. There are many examples. The former Prime Minister for one.
1 hardly think he goes into a courtroom to practice law. 1 read of him leading a delegation of corporate representatives to China so that they could make entrees regarding trade with China.
A former Minister of Finance who came out today in support of free trade sat on the front benches of a former government and was welcomed into boardrooms. Those positions are not available to working-class people. Again, to quote Van Loon and Whittington: "Not the least amount of disincentives of political life in Canada is the difficulty many MPs find in returning to private life. Stories of MPs requiring two years to find employment are not uncommon. This problem suggests another reason for the heavy concentration of professionals not only in Canada but presumably in the U.S. and British legislatures as well".
In short, the lack of job and financial security in politics discourages average Canadians from getting involved. That has been my concern, Madam Speaker. I have sat in this House for 12 years and I have seen it. I have experienced the difficulty of being able to return to a job once one has served one's nation and it may be that your representatives, Madam Speaker, feel that they need someone else.
What can we do to help other average Canadians get involved in the political process? That is what my Bill speaks to. It goes in some small way to complete the Canada Elections Act. It completes the process. It is not just to get a leave of
absence to seek a nomination and to campaign for election to office. The process must be complete. But what happens after? That has been the disincentive for many excellent candidates who might have otherwise been elected to this House.
We have other Acts of Parliament which deal with our electoral process and which provide fairness. For example, we have an Election Expenses Act which tries to even out and to make politics in Canada fairer and less dependent upon one's pocketbook, making things more accessible and more democratic. It is an attempt to get away from the old practice of people attempting to buy a seat in the House of Commons. Before we had an Election Expenses Act I recall candidates for office to this House who spent $95,000 and lost. There were candidates who spent $150,000 to win office. This place was a hiding place for the wealthy. That is why we brought in the Election Expenses Act. It was an attempt to provide a level playing field so that it was not one's pocketbook that determined whether one got here or not.
We have also a Freedom of Information Act, an Act which ensures access to information. The Government has proposed legislation for a lobby registry Act. We have heard of and we are waiting for the conflict of interest legislation. All of these Acts tend to make our system more open, accessible and democratic.
My little Bill is one page long, but I appeal to Members in this House not to talk out this Bill because I think it is a small opening in the right direction. Not all the employers in Canada will be covered by this Bill, just those under Part III of the Canada Labour Code. It is a beginning and it is a leadership role which the federal Government would give if the Bill were approved. There are concerns by some who would say it would be open-ended, that a person could be here 15 years. I think if you look at the statistics, Madam Speaker,-and I know my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party knows that very few Members are here 15 years or beyond-then it is a question of negotiation between the employer and the employee. It may be that some arrangement would have to be made for retirement or placement in a position within the operation more commensurate with the skills and experiences as a Member of Parliament.
Surely the skills one learns in the House of Commons are skills that can be accommodated in any enterprise. Surely the reward for having served one's country-and I consider this to be a part of that, a commitment to serve our fellow citizens in the House of Commons-ought not to be a kick in the butt after six or three years. Many of us who are affiliated and identified with the particular ideology of a particular party would find it very difficult to be hired in the workforce. There is often a tendency that one is too closely identified with a particular political Party, that one is too hot to handle, that we cannot touch you.
I appeal to Members not to do the traditional thing which has been done around here with Private Members' Bills of talking them out. I do not mind that, but for God's sake if
October 5, 1987

Members think this is a good idea and a step in the right direction, then they ought not to. I make that appeal to all Members on all sides of the House. Give democracy a chance. This is a small opening, a step in the right direction and I ask Members to support my Bill.


Moe Mantha: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-237, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, which deals with the terms of leave of absence which certain employers grant their employees who run for election to the House of Commons. As all Members of Parliament are aware, Subsection 23(14) of the Canada Elections Act is the existing rule. It provides that employers to whom Part III of the Canada Labour Code applies, which section does not apply to the Public Service, must grant a leave of absence with or without pay to any employee who requests such a leave in order to seek a nomination and to be a candidate for election to the House of Commons. Under the terms of leave of absence, if a candidate is not elected, he or she can return to his or her job. If elected, the individual must resign from his or her job with the previous employer. What the Hon. Member for Sudbury is now proposing in this Bill is that those employers should be-


John R. Rodriguez: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member has referred to me as the Hon. Member for Sudbury. I am the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Moe Mantha: I apologize.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) also occasionally, and it does happen to the Speaker too, makes a mistake on the correct appellation of a riding. I am sure the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) stands corrected.


Moe Mantha: I did not know he was the Member from Nickel Belt. I will say the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is now proposing in this Bill that employers should be requested to continue leaves of absence, albeit without pay, for those candidates successfully elected as Members of Parliament for the duration of their careers as Members of this House.
When Members resign or are defeated, they would have a guaranteed right to return to their previous job. While I am sure that all Members of the House and indeed all Canadians would appreciate such a guarantee when they take up new positions during their careers, this proposal is not one which I feel is appropriate or desirable.
I am against this proposal in principle. We in this House have a privileged role in contributing to the Government of this country. Our experience should stand us in good stead when we need to seek new employment. Members of this House are provided for in salaries and benefits. We should not need or want the kind of guarantee which the Hon. Member
Canada Elections Act
for Nickel Belt is proposing if and when our careers in this House come to an end.
I am also against this proposal because of its implications. The impact on employees, for example, would be significant. Under Part III of the Labour Code, a wide range of businesses, both large and small which are within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada would be affected. These would include businesses in shipping, the railway, the airlines, the banks, radio broadcasting and any other business which does not fall within the exclusive legislative authority of the provincial legislatures.
In all, some of the 10 per cent to 15 per cent of Canadian businesses would be required to keep a job open for any employee who was elected as a Member of Parliament for as long as he or she remains as a Member of Parliament. Under the Government's conflict of interest guidelines, a Member of Parliament who is a Minister could not return immediately after an election to work at a company involved in activities related to his or her ministerial responsibilities.
I would argue that even from the point of view of Members of Parliament, the extended leave of absence would have its disadvantages. It would certainly apply unevenly to some MPs. I am sure that our constituents would agree that this proposal is going too far. There is room, however, for reasonable reform related to the election procedures and the political rights of Canadians. That is what the Government is proposing.
In one of the major initiatives of this Government, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) introduced Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, on June 30 of this year. In this Bill, the Government is proposing among other reforms to improve the fairness of the election process by permitting previously excluded individuals to run as candidates for election. These include people who are involved with certain contracts with or for the Government of Canada; members of provincial and territorial legislatures; individuals who hold the office of sheriff, clerk of the peace, county or district Crown attorneys; paid government-appointed individuals who work in the services of the Government of Canada and others who have in the past been excluded from running for Parliament. All these individuals will now be eligible to run.
In addition, the Government is presently reviewing how it can expand the political rights of the Public Service within the limits necessary to maintain a politically neutral Public Service. This Government is taking strong and progressive interest in the reform of the election process and the expansion of political rights. This is the kind of reform which we encourage.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-237. I believe this is the first time the House is considering this question, and I think the Hon. Member for

October 5, 1987
Canada Elections Act
Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is to be commended for presenting a Bill that would enable individuals to obtain from their employer a degree of job security in the event that they participate in the election process.
Madam Speaker, if we are prepared to pay the price of democracy, we must be willing to let those people who wish to take an active part in the democratic process have certain guarantees. After listening very carefully to what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt was saying earlier, 1 must say I agree with him on most counts-I don't very often-but I mostly agree when he says that Canadians who offer their services should be given some measure of security. However, I think the Bill should be amended. I think it may be necessary to add a provision-

-A sunset clause, Madam Speaker. I cannot think of the translation so I will use my second language. I really think this is an interesting proposal put to us by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. As I said, I would like to address it very briefly, and if it is going to committee, to bring in an amendment at that stage to put in a sunset clause.
The Bill contains a clause which enlarges upon the existing paragraph, Section 23(14) which states that every employer or employees to whom Part III of the Canada Labour Code applies shall upon application to him by any such employee grant to the employee leave of absence with or without pay to seek nomination as a candidate and to be a candidate for election for such period during election as may be requested by the employee. My friend for Nickel Belt wants to amend the Section and add the following: (b), upon application to him by any employee who is elected to the House of Commons, grant a leave of absence without pay to the employee for the duration of his term of the House of Commons.
1 could return to my personal experience and state that seeking public office has been a difficult and frustrating experience for many public servants. I can remember when the former Member for Ottawa Centre, John Evans, stood for election, he had to forgo his job in the Public Service and ask for leave even to be a candidate in the election. At that time, he was refused because he was a middle management person, a senior public servant, who did not obtain the required permission.
The Public Service Employment Act is very clear. Upon election to the House of Commons, Subsection 5 of Section 32 states that an employee who is declared elected as a Member described in paragraph 1(a) thereupon ceases to be an employee. He is immediately struck from the list and cannot be considered for any future employment unless he starts from the bottom. That has caused some difficulty over the years for many public servants.
1 say to my hon. friend from Nickel Belt, hoping the Bill will go to committee, that I may want to present an amendment
which would include an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act so that we would strike this section from the present legislation. That would make sure that public servants, if they stand for and are elected to the House of Commons can, within reasonable limits, go back to the Commission following their leaving this place for whatever reason and have the right to be considered for employment on a continuing basis by their former employer.
An argument can also be made concerning the effect of Part III of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which says that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of Members of this House or a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. That gives all Canadians the opportunity to present their candidacy. I think it would be appropriate for us to see to it that the Canada Labour Code be amended so that people working for federal undertakings would be eligible for continuing employment once they leave an elected position here.
As I said, I see two possible amendments. One concerns the restrictive section in the Act which should be removed, and secondly, possibly a sunset clause where the member could go back to his employer but not necessarily ask to be reinstated in the position he left. For example, I think of teachers or professionals in the health care field, nurses, doctors, chiropractors, osteopaths and so on. Possibly they would not be able to keep up with the state of the art and would have to go back for a retraining course. These are all things that could be worked out by the employee and employer. They could even be negotiated in a contract.
1 would like to enlarge upon the scope of the Bill and include all people, whether they come under the Labour Code or under the Public Service Employment Act. That would include many hundreds or thousands of Canadians who at this time have to take very serious risks with their future and that of their families if they give themselves up to elected office.
I commend the Hon. Member for his Bill. I will sit down now and hope that it passes through second reading and goes to committee. I think we should look at this very closely with the hope of improving upon it because 1 think it is a good idea.


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to comment on the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). As Hon. Members would know, it is basically aimed at giving any federal employee in Canada an opportunity to run and be a candidate in a national election. It brings in an amendment, because this provision already exists in the Canada Labour Code. Indeed any employee may run and be a candidate in an election, but the existsing statute provides that as soon as the individual is elected or defeated, if elected he is no longer employed by the Public Service of Canada, but if he is defeated he can of course resume his duties immediately.
October 5, 1987

Not only would Bill C-237 sponsored by our colleague maintain this practice, but it would add a new provision: upon application to the employer by any employee who is elected to the House of Commons the employer would grant a leave of absence, without pay, to the employee for the duration of his term at the House of Commons. In other words, if ever this Member of Parliament were defeated, he would automatically return to his job at the same level.
At first blush this proposition appears to be quite generous and acceptable. My colleague from Ottawa Centre, I think, suggested introducing a sunset clause, in other words a temporary provision which would apply for a limited time and enable an employee to return to his job, but this option would be open to him only during a certain period of time.
Let me give an example. Let us suppose that, after being elected to Parliament, because of various circumstances, a former postal worker is defeated a year or two later and that there is, as suggested by my colleague, some provision saying that if you are a Member of Parliament for four years, you are unfortunately no longer considered an employee of the Public Service and you cannot get your old job back.
The problem with such a proposal is that it would affect only a very small group in Canadian society, namely federal employees. It would create a distortion. Why them and nobody else? This is an argument which should be considered.
My colleague said: Give a chance to democracy. Would applying this legislation only to federal Government and Crown corporation employees not be less than democratic? 1 know that when he asks us to give a chance to democracy, it is because he would like the federal Government to play a leadership role in this regard. However, 1 believe that this proposal could cause distortions, and there are already many of them in our system.
It is true, as he said, that there are too many lawyers and professionals who, because of their social standing and the guarantees provided by their profession, can return to this profession if they are defeated. They acquire a prestige which they then, rather generously, offer usually to other businesses, and so on.
It should be noted however that the possibility of conflict of interests is there. We know that under the law Ministers or former Ministers are prohibited from returning immediately to their own business or to a previous employer to avoid a situation where they might divulge information to which they had exclusive access. So the law does contain a kind of ethical code to prevent such situations.
To my colleagues I would also suggest the case of a CBC employee, for instance, a political writer and commentator who would be known under a given label for two, three or four years, be elected and become a Minister, and who on the day after his defeat would stick a microphone in the face of his opponent, availing himself of the provisions of this private Member's Bill. I do not know whether Canadians would
Canada Elections Act
appreciate my immediate return as a Radio-Canada reporter where 1 would interview and comment on the political activities of somebody who would have just defeated me. There are some particular consequences that would require special provisions.
One could consider the extreme case that someone from within the expanded federal Public Service and its agencies would be elected for a specific purpose, to defend special interests. For instance, a person supported by certain interests could get elected to defend proposals or policies concerning transportation or shipping. In any case, without wishing to prejudge a person's intentions, I maintain there might be a conflict of interests due to the unconditional guarantee that one goes back to one's previous job. The Bill does have its merits. Its purpose is to broaden the pool of candidates and to create a situation where we have what is referred to in the United States as the President concept, which means that anyone can become president of the United States, and so forth. 1 agree that, whatever people may say, and despite our laws by which we may run for election and eventually become ministers, it isn't easy and it is not exactly reassuring. Today, at least for young MPs, there is nothing that provides us with any security, considering that the mandate we receive from the people is only temporary, since many of us may be faced with possible defeat. Eventually, if this Bill is passed, we might see some rather extreme situations where someone who has been elected for 10 or 12 years finds that his job has disappeared. The labour market changes and situations change.
So if the Bill is adopted or is referred to committee, Madam Speaker, I would certainly add a sunset clause, a time limitation, as the Hon. Member said. That would certainly be one of the amendments we would have to add. Furthermore, we would have to look into all possible causes of conflicts of interest. We would also have to consider the somewhat elitist and anti-democratic aspect of a measure that would use taxpayers' money to help only a small segment of the population.
For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I am not sure at this time that the House should devote its energies to considering Bill C-237, unless it is prepared to make an exhaustive study of all the consequences.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I was pleased to have the opportunity to second the motion of my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), whose riding, incidentally, is 700 miles away from mine. Despite that I know the name of his riding, unlike the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) who lives next door.
Before I begin my comments I would like to respond briefly to the remarks made by two of the government Members. I think they really missed the boat. The Hon. Member for

October 5, 1987
Canada Elections Act
Nipissing is probably a good spokesman against this Bill as he has a private sector involvement to return to when he is defeated in the next election. It is obvious why he does not want protection for others.
There is an inference that the Bill is aimed at federal government employees. In fact, it is aimed at employees who are covered under federal labour law. That includes private as well as public corporations throughout the country.
This Bill is important to me as someone who has been elected twice to a legislature or parliament, has been defeated once in a legislature, and knows the reality of both systems, that is, having and not having a leave of absence. When I was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1975 a minority government was in power. I ran with the permission of the City Council of Thunder Bay. After I became the MPP for Fort William I had to apply to City Council and endure a two-hour public debate on whether or not I should be given an unpaid leave of absence for the term of that legislature. Council decided to be fair and allow me a leave of absence for that term.
While I was a member of the legislature the city developed a policy to deal with future situations of this type. The policy was that leaves of absence would not be granted other than for people to seek nomination and run for office. Once elected they would not be granted a further leave of absence. Luckily for me, after my defeat in 1977 or, as I refer to it, my forced early retirement, I returned to a position at the same level with the City of Thunder Bay parks and recreation department. For a variety of reasons, none of which are now important, I became a union member and was, therefore, covered under the collective agreement of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 87.
That agreement was very good in terms of electoral prospects. It allowed me a leave of absence in order to stand for election while protected by the collective agreement. There was also a provision which allowed me an unpaid leave of absence to serve in either the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature of Ontario.
In the 1979 and 1980 election campaigns I ran knowing that 1 and my family-and I emphasize "my family"-would have income security despite my decision to continue to play a part in governing the Province of Ontario and this country. It is one thing for a single person with no dependent family to take a chance and run for public office with the chance of later being defeated, but it is quite another for a person with a family, particularly in the situation of a minority government. Many politicians in Ontario this fall found themselves out of a job, wondering what to do next.
That protection exists for those who have a collective agreement, but what about those who are not covered by such an agreement? I found myself in that position once again because prior to the 1984 election I was arbitrarily promoted out of the bargaining unit and was, therefore, no longer covered by the collective agreement. I was subject to the city
council policy that I could have an unpaid leave of absence to run but if and when elected had to resign.
If I was defeated or decided to leave the House of Commons or the legislature, wherever it may have been, I could come back and for a year apply as an interim applicant. It really sounds great, except I do not know of any organization that has such a thing as interim applicants for non-union positions. There is no seniority list. There is no provision to provide protections. In effect, I am here without a leave of absence.
I recognize that my colleagues' Bill does not deal with a municipality which, in this case, is covered by Ontario labour law. But the principle is extremely important. As my colleague said, when we provide the leadership at the federal level then the provinces will follow suit. In this regard I refer to the Election Expenses Act. The federal Parliament led and the provinces followed suit. Some were slower than others, but they certainly did follow.
In addition to ensuring equality of access between the various employment sectors, shall we say, whether it is the professions or people who work for other people 1 believe, although I do not have statistics to back me up, that one of the reasons we do not have as many women seeking public office at the federal level, or at the provincial level for that matter, is because of security. Let us consider, for example, a single parent. If a single parent knew that whatever job she had at the moment would be protected in the event that she got caught in a minority government situation, then there might be a better chance that she would take the chance to go public, as they say, and stand for public office. There is that added incentive to accept my colleague's Bill and to refer it to a legislative committee. In this way we can deal with some of these real questions about what its impact will be on employers.
My colleague from the Liberal Party raised a good point with respect to the federal Public Service and automatically being terminated. I know what that is like. I walked into my office the day after the election thinking that I would negotiate the completion of my employment, the transition. I was informed that I had been terminated three hours before. I can appreciate what federal public servants go through. They have to go home and say, "Dear, I don't have anything to go back to. All my eggs are in the parliamentary basket". I do not think that that is good for the country.
We want as broad a cross-section as possible represented in the House of Commons. This is done regionally where it is a conscious decision. We consciously do it to ensure that the larger, less-populated areas have the type of representation that allows for communication. Let us now take the next step to ensure that those in all walks of life who desire can have the opportunity to run for office, to take the chance to represent the people of Canada in this great institution.
October 5, 1987

1 encourage my colleagues to get this matter into a legislative committee so that we can have a thorough examination of the issue and bring in legislation that is deemed acceptable to all sides of the House.


John Martin Oostrom: Madam Speaker, the Bill before us today addresses a very serious aspect of our democratic system. 1 thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for bringing it to the attention of the House.
Democratic governments are governments of the people and for the people. If a government is to remain strong and vibrant with a solid vision of the future, then it must have among its decision-makers the brightest and the ablest individuals in the country. There can be no higher calling except that in the service of one's country. The Bill we have before us today proposes to extend the leave of absence provisions respecting a candidate in a federal election to a candidate who is successfully elected as a Member of the House of Commons. The Bill will ensure that they can return to their previous employer after they leave the House of Commons.
By ensuring that an individual can return to his previous employer, the Government of Canada increases the talent pool from which people can seek public office. Seeking public office is a very serious undertaking. When making such a decision you must consider your family, the time, your economic future, and your commitment. Once you commit to seeking public office and become elected you belong to the people. Your decisions and actions will be geared to making Canada a better place in which to live. Your personal life, due to the time commitments, becomes neglected because the greater good of the people will be the priority. You are put under a microscope with millions of eyes observing and analysing your every move and action. Your statements will be analysed. You will receive criticism and praise. Yet, when you make a commitment to seek public office, you are expected to be able to perform under pressure. With everything that an individual has to contend with once elected to office, there should not be the added worry of having to think about the economic well-being of the family once the elected term is over.
If one is a wealthy individual, there are no economic concerns once the elected term is over. However, if you come from the segment of the population which is accountable to an employer then concerns are of major importance. The employer is not obligated to take you back after your term as a Member of Parliament is over. I wonder if this is right.
There are two schools of thought in this area. There are those who say that the employer should not be responsible for an individual once elected to public office and to give an extended leave of absence. Once the individual leaves a company, that person is no longer contributing to the economic health of that corporation. In many instances, the company has to go out and hire one, perhaps two individuals to staff the vacated position. The employer may have spent a great deal of
Canada Elections Act
funds and time to train you, and now the company feels that their investment has not yielded any benefits. The company may not find anyone with the skills or knowledge to fill the vacant position, and consequently that affects the well-being of the company and also the other employees which are dependent on it. Technology may have made these individuals redundant, then the company has a non-productive person on staff to hinder its operations.
There is another major consideration and that is conflict of interest. Individuals who hold public office could be seriously compromised should decisions have to be made which would affect the company from which they have an extended leave of absence. For example, what type of pressure would be applied to an individual whose career is in the banking industry if Parliament had before it a Bill affecting that industry? That individual could face some very serious choices. He could declare conflict of interest, much the same as municipal politicians do whenever they vote on an issue which they, their families, or business could profit from. However, municipal affairs have a very narrow spectrum of issues. A piece of legislation in the House of Commons will affect millions of Canadians.
If an individual refrains from participating in a piece of legislation because of a conflict, is that individual being fair to the constituents who elected him? The legislation may have a major impact on their lives. Members of Parliament are expected to make very tough decisions, decisions which will be fair to all. Yet if the elected Member declares conflict of interest and does not participate in the process, then the people lose their voice and interests in the decision-making process. 1 wonder if that is fair or right. Certainly, in this instance, there is a major dilemma for the elected Member. Should the elected Member participate in debate? How could he ensure that the involvement will be non-partisan? How can the employer be prevented from applying subtle pressure on this individual? Certainly, the conflict of interest possibilities leave many areas which need to be addressed for Bill C-237 to be effective.
With all the legislation the Government and the committees discuss, individuals will have the very difficult task in many instances of being able to identify a potential conflict of interest. There is the possibility that elected individuals would always be looking over their shoulders for accusations of potential conflicts of interest.
This brings us to another disadvantage. With possible conflicts of interest always being present, the effectiveness of elected individuals as legislators could be impaired. They may become timid and non-committal, thus leaving the Government in the hands of the bureaucrats and the electorate, without a voice in Parliament. Democracy would not be served if this occurred.
The opposite point of view is that by an employer guaranteeing an elected Member his position once he ceased to be a

October 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Member of Parliament, the House of Commons would naturally attract individuals from a larger cross-section of society. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has ably pointed out that individuals, who are leaders in their field but cannot pursue elected office due to financial restraints, could now seek it, for their future would be secure. Thus, the electoral process would be fairer and the brightest individuals would seek public office, which would ensure that innovative ideas could be brought to the forefront. In addition, ensuring that an individual has something to go back to allow Canada to have a better across-the-board representation, since it would free up more individuals to seek office.
As I stated before, serving one's country is the highest honour for an individual to attain. By ensuring that their financial future is secure, more people can make a contribution to Canada. However, before we proceed the implications must be more thoroughly examined, for both positions I have discussed are valued and deserve merit.
Certainly Bill C-237 makes an attempt to address an issue with which all democratic countries have constantly wrestled. There is no doubt that Bill C-237 needs further discussion but its thrust is logical, for it would indeed make elected office more accessible to more people. That is what democracy is all about.
I commend the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt for bringing the matter to our attention today. There are some very good points in the piece of legislation. In fact, I was faced with making such a decision myself. I had been employed by a company for 23 years, and I cannot go back to it. However, I think the individual must make the decision.
I thank the Hon. Member for bringing the matter before us today. I think we should talk more about it and look at it from more angles, and perhaps the Bill will eventually go forward and result in a system which is open to many more Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
AGRICULTURE-LOSS OF MEAT INSPECTION STAMP AT KITCHENER PLANT/REDUCED NUMBER OF INSPECTORS
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on September 28, I raised an issue concerning the integrity of the Canadian meat packing and meat inspection system of the Government of Canada. This was brought on by two concerns.
First was that in late August or early September a meat inspection stamp was lost at the J. M. Schneider plant in Kitchener. There does not seem to be any clear answer from the Government on whether or not the stamp has been found.
There are reports that there is a very slipshod and loose mechanism for maintaining the security of stamps in that plant, but I was seeking reassurance from the Government that action was being taken to recover the lost stamp, to ensure that it was not being used in a fraudulent and counterfeit way, and to ensure that necessary security steps were being taken. The matter has been reported in the press, and there was general public concern about the integrity and security of the entire system. I did not receive anything very specific as to whether the stamp was found, whether it had been replaced, used fraudulently or whether a police investigation was carried out or what had happened. He only responded in a general way.
The second area and my supplementary question concerned the Government's program of cutting back the number of meat inspectors across the country. On October 1, just two days after my question, the Government implemented a new program in the Province of Ontario which will cut back the number of inspectors in poultry plants, at least in two pilot plants, to 85 per cent of what we had in the past. In one very large plant the number of inspectors is being reduced from around 35 to around 30 and turning over that inspection to plant personnel who do not have the same objectivity or responsibility that a government inspector has. The more concerning aspect is that the program is being implemented in two plants and will ultimately be implemented across the entire country, as I understand it, on January 1. I am seeking reassurance that this system of rapid or streamlined inspection of broilers and poultry meat will pass the test of quality.
In the United States the system has been highly discredited. The subject has been raised on popular programs like 60 Minutes on several occasions showing it is totally inadequate. When we are adopting a program of that nature in Canada we should have the reassurance from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that the system will meet the high standards set in the past and will not become a mirror image of the highly discredited American system which is being copied by the Minister of Agriculture and the Government of Canada.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary in responding tonight can provide some reassurance not only to me and to this House of Commons but to Canadians that the system is intact, that there are adequate controls in place, that the integrity of the system is being maintained-both in the inspection of poultrykilling plants and in the case of the lost stamp which is an important instrument for insuring the integrity of our meat inspection system in Canada.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the inspection legend on the
October 5, 1987

Department of Agriculture's meat inspection stamps gives Canadian consumers the assurance that meat products have been declared fit for human consumption by a federal Government inspector. That is why stamps bearing the inspection legend are kept under secure conditions at all times.
There have been no changes in the regulations for the use and maintenance of these stamps in recent years.
The use of federal inspection stamps is subject to very strict surveillance. They are kept in a locked cabinet, and the key is always carefully guarded by a Government of Canada inspector.
It seldom happens that one of the stamps is lost, but when it does happen, the situation is taken very seriously and an investigation is started immediately, with the help, if necessary, of the local police force.
At Establishment 35 of J.M. Schneider's Inc., a stamp was reported missing on September 3 this year. Following a short investigation conducted by the veterinarian in charge and the Establishment's management, the stamp was quickly found but was, unfortunately, ruined beyond repair.
On September 10, 1987, another stamp was reported missing in the same location. It has not yet been found.
However, federal employees are now conducting an investigation, and according to their initial findings, it seems the stamp was accidently dropped on a grinder used to grind non-edible food products.
The possibility that the stamp was used by unauthorized persons was ruled out by the investigators, whose findings showed that control of inspection stamps in this particular establishment was very satisfactory and conformed to standards that are judged to be very strict in Canada.
The Kitchener-Waterloo police and the OPP were informed and asked to intervene in the course of the investigation, but the Minister of Agriculture has not yet received the official report. As soon as we have this information, we shall be glad to forward the findings to the Hon. Member.



Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I hope you are aware that on April 27 of this year, Masumi Mitsui was buried in Hamilton, Ontario, at the age of 99. Masumi Mitsui was a Canadian of Japanese origin who was born in Tokyo in the last century. He came to Canada in 1908 and volunteered for service in the First World War. He served in the Canadian army and at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, was awarded the Military Medal for bravery.
The Battle of Vimy Ridge was the battle which many considered to be the birthplace of real Canadian nationhood.
Adjournment Debate
Masumi Mitsui was there and won the Military Cross for his bravery on that occasion.
After the First World War, Mr. Mitsui served as President of a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. At the beginning of World War II when Canada declared war on Japan, he again volunteered for active service again against Japan.
In spite of that, after Pearl Harbour, Mr. Mitsui was interned, deported from British Columbia and all of his property in Port Coquitlam was seized. All of his possessions, his home and his 17-acre poultry farm were seized and he was compensated for all of that by being paid $2,291 less legal costs.
Masumi Mitsui was only one of 184 Canadians of Japanese origin who served in the Canadian Armed Forces in World War I. Fifty-three of those Canadians of Japanese origin were killed in action and 91 were wounded. In spite of that sacrifice they made for their country in World War I, in spite of the bravery of Masumi Mitsui, he and his family and all of those surviving veterans and their families and some 22,000 Canadians of Japanese origin were interned, deported from the West Coast of Canada and had their property seized.
All this occurred in spite of the fact that no Japanese Canadian was ever charged with aiding or abetting the Japanese during World War II. No Canadian of Japanese origin was ever convicted of aiding and abetting the Japanese nation during World War II or after it for that matter.
How did Canadians of Japanese origin feel about that situation? My wife's doctor, Dr. Toguri, has described to me her feelings as a teenage girl in a letter she wrote recently. She wrote:
The methods used in confiscating the assets of the Canadian Japanese were
scandalous. For example:
(a)	Farms on Saltspring Island, Main Island, Delta Island. Surrey and Richmond were rich lands that supplied vegetables and fruit to Vancouver and other cities. These were boarded up and sold for a song, without consent of the owners.
(b)	Fishing boats-Diesel powered Seine boats were brought down from Prince Rupert with the Canadian Japanese fishermen still on them. They were not allowed to get in touch with their families, were not given any food and had to hand over their ownership registrations to the Custodians and were never able to see their boats again.
These were also sold at auctions for very little, also without consent of the
owners.
(c)	Individual businesses were lost without recompense.
(d)	Homes-Some families were given 24 hours' notice to vacate and to take two suitcases per person. Most just boarded their windows and placed padlocks on their doors. These houses were either sold for the taxes or for very nominal amounts, again without consent of the owners.
3. Losses of incalculable value:
(a)	Loss of friends, especially school friends. The great psychological damage done to a great number of bright children who felt isolated and deserted, like prisoners in a land they were born into.
(b)	Loss of education. Many, including a brother of mine taking premedicine at UBC, were asked to leave and turn in their COTC uniforms. Can you imagine the psychological trauma to a young boy of 20. Curiously

October 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
enough, another brother of mine was in a medical school in Tokyo at the
same time as a Canadian student and was allowed to finish his course.
(c)	Loss of earnings for the years in the camp.
(d)	Loss of self-worth, being treated like prisoners, having to carry
photographs and ID cards with fingerprints and the necessity to get
permission slips to move anywhere in the city.
(e)	Loss of dignity and being forcibly ghettoized in tarpaper shacks.
The blatant truth and the bottom line of this so-called "black mark" against the government is that many people, including politicians and relatives of politicians and custodians, profited from this mass wholesale evacuation by being able to buy many of the lands and the houses at sidewalk sale prices-to buy boats and businesses for pittance, and all in the name of "Emergency War Measures Act". Shame!
This is supposed to be a land of oppo. unities. We will never become prosperous unless our mentality progresses to the point where we are all treated equally.
It is not easy to put myself back to those bewildering, painful years of my burgeoning adolescence, when morality and justice taught to me by my church was in full conflict to what Canada was doing to me as a Canadian of Japanese origin!
What are we going to do about this? The Minister of Multiculturalism indicated in the House that the Government was prepared to offer an apology to Canadians of Japanese origin and make changes to the War Measures Act so that this sort of thing would never happen again. However, the question remains: What about compensation? Is the Government prepared to pay compensation in this case?
Before the election campaign, in May of 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying:
I feel very strongly that Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled upon indeed should be compensated.
If there was a Conservative Government I can assure you we would be compensating Japanese Canadians.
You are aware that just recently the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Bill not only offering an apology to Americans of Japanese origin but also providing for $1.2 billion in compensation to those same Americans of Japanese origin.
We know what the Prime Minister said before the election. We know what the American House of Representatives is prepared to do. Tonight I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what Canada is prepared to do for Canadians of Japanese origin.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to respond to the three basic questions which the distinguished Member has just laid before the House. The first concerns an apology to those very seriously affected; the second concerns the intention of the Government with respect to the War Measures Act; the third concerns the question of compensation.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) already indicated very clearly in this House some months ago, as indeed had his predecessor, that this Government indicated to the National Association of Japanese-Canadians its willingness to acknowledge publicly the injustices suffered by Japanese Canadians, meeting the first demand of the NJAC. At this time, however, the association has asked us not to proceed with an official apology.
The question of changes to the War Measures Act is much more clear-cut. When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) tabled his White Paper on defence policy he spoke very clearly on this matter. He said in part:
We will replace the War Measures Act with new emergencies legislation which will both better protect civil liberties and provide greater flexibility in dealing with emergencies.
As Hon. Members are aware, this has now been done with the tabling in the House on June 26 of two separate Bills, C-76 and C-77, designed to provide for the continuing security of Canadians in a changing world and to create a regime to deal with emergency situations. Bill C-76 fully meets the second demand of the NAJC taking an historic step to try to ensure that what happened, repugnant as it was to all Canadians, will never happen again.
The new defence legislation has benefited from considerable input from the several ministries which have responsibilities in this particular area. The input has been part of a thorough review of our defence policy which the Government promised the Canadian people in the Speech from the Throne opening the first session of this Parliament. We are not a militaristic nation and as the White Paper clearly states:
The legislation will include adequate safeguards to protect fundamental rights and freedoms and to limit both the duration and the substance of exceptional measures to no more than is needed.
The sole remaining issue is compensation. The Government has offered a $12 million compensation package to be administered by representatives of the various Japanese-Canadian communities across Canada. The NAJC has rejected this offer, demanding instead individual per capita grants to people irrespective of loss or need. This would, as has been indicated to the House in the past, collectively exceed $400 million. The Government does not consider this position equitable for reasons fully explained to the NAJC.
It is indeed regretted by all Canadians, not only those here in the House, that this important matter remains unresolved. The instances cited by my hon. colleague are important. I know the Secretary of State still stands ready to conclude satisfactorily this important question.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-PRESENCE OF DIOXIN IN PAPER PRODUCTS-DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I recently raised a question with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) with regard to
October 5, 1987

leaked documents which have come to our attention about the presence of dioxin in very small quantities in ordinary paper products. These documents come from the United States. Very small quantities of dioxins have been found in paper products there.
It so happens that the processes in Canada for manufacturing pulp and paper are the same as in the United States. Therefore, we have reason to believe that if dioxins result from the use of chlorine in the production process in the United States our own ordinary paper products such as disposable diapers, coffee filters, bathroom tissue and writing paper must, also contain dioxin.
I do not want to be alarmist about this. It is possible that the contamination of this part of our environment by dioxin may be the least of our problems. We know that there are dioxins in other parts of the system. We know they are in the Great Lakes and have been found as a result of other processes on the West Coast. We know that the eggs in herring colonies do not hatch and that very minute quantities of the most deadly dioxins have been found there. While I am raising this particular question regarding dioxins, 1 do not want to exaggerate it. It is a global problem and there are, of course, cumulative effects from exposure to dioxins. Very, very small quantities can be deadly. We have to be extremely careful about this matter.
We have no reason to believe that there is any safe exposure level in the case of the deadliest of the dioxins. While I do not want to be alarmist about it, I think given the seriousness of the problem this was a reasonable question to ask. In this particular case we are not talking about the general environmental question, the question about drinking water and waste products in the water system, but about paper products, a product which would come under the auspices of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
1 asked this question of the Minister and the response I received was quite unsatisfactory. It was to the effect that he could not act, that the law did not allow him to act. Indeed, he suggested that somehow I wanted him to disobey the law and that the New Democratic Party was not interested in obeying the law.
If one looks very carefully at the legislation, one will see that it clearly shows that he can act. He can order inquiries. He is responsible for hazardous products. If there is dioxin in paper products, then the products themselves become hazardous products. He can act. So also can the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
We have reason to believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare now has some kind of inquiry going, yet we do not have any details with respect to it. I hope he will provide some details as to what sort of a study is being conducted and when we might have some results. If the results do confirm that there is a danger, what kind of protection will
Adjournment Debate
the public be getting? One way or another, we ought to be getting some action on this. So far we have simply got escapism from the Minister who does not want to take his responsibilities seriously.
I think there is a moral in this story. I think it goes to show that we need more serious environmental protection, and we need it in a comprehensive way. Paper products are only part of the problem. If dioxins are present in the process, then they will show up in the products. But if dioxins are present in the process, then they will also be in the effluent. They will get into the drinking water and into the fish and the wildlife.
We need to be dealing with all of these problems, not just the products' one. That is why we need a stronger Ministry of the Environment. That is why we need environmental protection legislation. That is why we need active co-operation among the different Ministers for their particular responsibilities: the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the case of actual consumer products.
I am sorry to see that we have not so far had this kind of action. The environmental protection Bill before the House at present is a very, very weak rendition of environmental protection. We do not have it there. What we need is a much more global approach to what is clearly a global problem.


Claude Lanthier: Investigations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the American Paper Institute have revealed the presence of low levels of dioxin in effluents from some bleach and kraft mills and in certain paper products. Press releases have been issued on these findings by both organizations.
Dioxin was present in low concentration for some products but not in others. For example, it was present at a concentration of 13 parts per trillion in writing paper, four parts per trillion in paper towels, and six to eight parts per trillion in paper plates. Its presence was not detected at all in baby diapers.
Dioxin has also been shown to be present in the effluent and pulp produced by some bleached kraft pulp mills but not in others. Average concentrations of 0.16 parts per trillion were measured in the untreated effluents, 0.04-that is 400 parts per trillion, which is very small incidentally-in the treated effluent, and 13 parts per trillion in the finished pulp.
The federal Government is concerned about the presence of dioxin in these materials, however small they are, as we regard dioxin as a particularly toxic chemical and believe that every attempt should be made to reduce its entry into the environment. I would emphasize that the concentrations measured are extremely low. Nevertheless, the risks they pose need to be properly assessed.

October 5, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Our competent Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has already requested that officials in his Department conduct a health risk assessment. Results of the assessment will be provided shortly to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of the Environment. National programs to address product exposure and environmental concerns will be developed, as required for this inquiry.
The dioxin problem is national and international in scope. Actions to limit its presence are ongoing in the United States, Sweden, and Ontario. The federal Government is fully aware of this work. The experience of others will be considered in the development of future federal programs.
In Canada, work to reduce dioxin releases into the environment has been underway since 1983, following recommendations made by an expert advisory committee on dioxins
established by the then Ministers of National Health and Welfare and the Environment.
A departmental task force has been established recently, and it is reviewing results obtained to date on dioxin levels in pulp and paper mill effluents. This group of experts will recommend appropriate programs to address this problem. As required, programs will be initiated by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to address product exposure concerns.
We hope to give the results of these inquiries in a very short time.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, October 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers