1987-06-12

Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that there have been discussions amongst the House Leaders of the Parties with respect to today's business. Notwithstanding the fact that yesterday I indicated that we would be dealing with Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act, there has been a disposition to move to another order of business standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It is a government motion for the establishment of a Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee to consider and report on the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
When that is completed we could then go on to the other business which was originally designated for today, namely, Bill C-55. I think if you seek the concurrence of the House, you will find that there will be unanimous consent to proceed in that manner.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader said reflects discussions we have had. If unanimous consent is asked to put the motion to set up the Joint Committee on the constitutional amendments, we will certainly agree.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, we concur.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENTS ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Donald Frank Mazankowski: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the "1987 Constitutional Accord,
signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada", copies of which were tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons on June 3, 1987;
That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee, such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated no later than seven sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee submit its report not later than September 14, 1987, provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That substitution be authorized, for Members from the House of commons, from a list of alternates to be provided to the Joint Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee by a representative of each party at the first meeting of the Committee, such list of alternates to contain no more than twice the number of Members of the House of Commons who are Members of the Special Joint Committee representing each party in the House;
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to express my appreciation to Members opposite for their co-operation in allowing this motion to come forth, providing unanimous consent to allow that to happen. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), constantly reminds me of the fact he has more seniority than myself. He tried to assert that again today, but I appreciate his courtesy in yielding the floor to me under the circumstances. 1 am sure he will have an opportunity to speak later on this day.
I am very pleased to address the motion which is before us this morning. The motion, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is presented in the name of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who is in Winnipeg this morning on Government

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
business. I, therefore, have been given the opportunity to present this motion on his behalf.
It is timely that this debate commence this morning. As I said earlier, I am gratified by the co-operation and goodwill which has prevailed in this Chamber with regard to this very important proposal. I would like to acknowledge again the support shown by both Opposition Parties, both of which have agreed that this debate take place today. This co-operative action, indeed, underlines the great significance that Parties on both sides of the House can play and are playing in regard to this most historic Accord.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the 11 First Ministers of Canada signed the Constitutional Accord on June 3 and thereby committed the Government of Canada, and the 10 provincial Governments, to a course of action which will effect a set of constitutional amendments and bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family. All Canadians view this as a very important step in the constitutional development of our nation, one which has captured the imagination of all Canadians and one which has received the support of all Parties in this House.
As you know, Sir, the House of Commons has already played a major role in the developments leading up to the signing of the constitutional Accord. On May 1, the day after the Meech Lake Agreement was reached, statements were made in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). 1 should say that at that time the Prime Minister made his position very clear in his response to questions about how we intended to proceed with regard to the process of this very important matter. I draw to Hon. Members' attention his statement which was made in response to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when seeking clarification about the process that would be established. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at page 5615 of Hansard, and I quote:
At all times the House will be fully advised and there will be full opportunity for participation and debate on all aspects of any proposal.
This debate today is evidence and proof positive that that commitment is being fulfilled.
Again, in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the Prime Minister said at page 5616 of Hansard'.
We intend to consider any suggestions that will enable Hon. Members and the House to be as actively involved as possible and will also enable the House to provide moral leadership for the country and for the other Governments involved in the decision-making process.
1 think those are very, very important commitments and those commitments are indeed being fulfilled.
On May 11 we debated the principles of the Meech Lake Accord. Again 1 would like to pay tribute to all those who engaged in that discussion and to acknowledge the important contribution made by Members on both sides of the House during the course of that debate. I should also remind Hon. Members here that at that time we were merely debating the
principles. The draft which we now have before us in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment is part and parcel of the drafting which took place with respect to the principles and, indeed, incorporated many of the ideas and suggestions which were raised during the course of the debate, both in this House and outside the House.
I wish to say to my colleagues that their respective expressions of support contributed to the cohesion which ultimately prevailed on June 3, 1987. It is therefore fitting and proper that Parliament now review the substance of the Constitutional Accord to ensure a broader understanding by all Canadians of this constitutional initiative. It is only appropriate that Parliament provide a forum where interested individuals have the opportunity to enter into the national discussion.
The Government accordingly proposed that a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the 1987 Constitutional Accord signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada. It is proposed that this Joint Committee be comprised of 12 Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate, co-chaired by one Member of each Chamber. It is fitting that we consider the 1987 Constitutional Accord in a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and fulfil our responsibilities in the spirit of co-operation which led the First Ministers to an agreement first at Meech Lake and finally here in Ottawa on June 3, and within the historic context of the constitutional discussions.
The committee would have the power to strike such subcommittees as are deemed advisable. The committee would have the opportunity to conduct hearings and receive written and oral submissions. It is proposed as well that the committee be authorized to conduct hearings unconstrained by any adjournments which may be called for during the summer months. Further, this joint committee would be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting as is considered appropriate.
We recall that in 1981 a successful contribution was made by a joint committee in relation to our constitutional endeavours at that time. We again want to establish a joint committee to continue this important work. Finally, it is proposed that this joint committee would submit its report not later than September 14, 1987.
The provisions of the constitutional Accord are wide-ranging and thus of fundamental importance to all Canadians. It is no surprise, therefore, that editorial commentary has been extensive and that a wide range of associations have spoken out and that public interest is high. That is as it should be in a democratic country such as ours.
A special joint committee, with representatives from both Houses of Parliament and all Parties, will provide, we believe, the most extensive and appropriate vehicle for this national dialogue on our further constitutional development. Representatives of organized interests and interested citizens alike will have the opportunity to express their views at one time and
June 12, 1987

in one place to a wide cross-section of parliamentarians. I believe this will encourage a continuity and a coherence to the important work of Parliament on this matter. In short, a special joint committee will provide a truly national focal point for our deeper understanding of the constitutional Accord.
I should like to review for a moment the events which led us to this point. Members will recall an earlier historic step in this evolution. In April 1982 our Constitution was patriated from London with its own all-Canadian amending formula and with a Charter which guarantees our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Unfortunately, this achievement was flawed because Quebec, which represents over a quarter of the Canadian population, did not accept the legitimacy of the political accord which had been signed by the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the nine provinces in November 1981.

In a speech delivered in Sept-Iles in 1984 the Prime Minister promised that if his Party were elected to office one of his priorities would be to conclude an agreement which would make it possible for Quebec to join the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. He also stated he would take a different approach to federal-provincial relations, on the basis of national reconciliation.

That is the end of that, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: Encore.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Chukay, chukayl


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am wondering how our reporters will interpret that comment.
In 1985 the Liberal Party of Quebec published its conditions for adhering to the Constitution of Canada as part of its electoral program. In early 1986, following its election, the Government of Quebec in a major public statement set out these conditions in considerable detail. During the course of 1986 and in the early months of this year, both the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada adopted positions concerning Quebec in the Constitution. These processes generated widespread public interest and comment.
In the year leading up to the Meech Lake Agreement there have been extensive discussions and negotiations among the federal and provincial Governments at the level of First Ministers and senior officials. The next step in bringing the First Ministers' agreement to fruition lies with our federal and provincial legislatures. Unlike the 1982 constitutional amendments when only Parliament had to adopt a resolution before the amendment was passed by the British Parliament, the
Constitutional Accord
current proposed changes will be presented for debate and adoption in every provincial and federal legislative chamber.
I would expect that members of all Parties in their approach to the deliberations of the committee to be established by this motion, and in reflecting on the representations which are made before the committee, will not allow whatever concerns they may have with certain particular aspects of the amendment resolution to obscure the main goal which we all share, namely, the voluntary and complete adherence by the Government and the people of Quebec to the Constitution of Canada.
In considering proposals for changes to the amendment resolution or for additional elements which are not reflected in it, we should be mindful that the constitutional Accord itself provides for a subsequent and continuing set of constitutional discussions to address other constitutional issues at annual conferences of First Ministers on the Constitution. The first is scheduled to take place before the end of next year.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that if the amendment resolution is not approved by Parliament and all the legislatures, these subsequent constitutional discussions will not take place because Quebec will continue to decline to participate in them. Canada's constitutional development in these circumstances would be frozen, probably for many years to come, and it would be difficult to overstate the serious consequences to national unity if that were to occur, especially since we have progressed so far in recent months.
A final factor to consider in approaching the deliberations of the parliamentary committee is that by virtue of the amending formula contained in the Constitution Act, 1982, neither Parliament nor any of the other legislatures, nor Governments acting alone, can bring about alterations in the amendments proposed in the constitutional resolution. The amending procedure requires the approval of all legislatures. Thus, if Parliament or any other legislature moved to amend the resolution, the entire process of securing the approval of the various legislatures would have to be recommenced.
The constitutional Accord stands as a tribute to a shared vision of a revitalized and more harmonious federation-a better Canada, one where the Province of Quebec will play an integral part. Indeed, the constitutional Accord is a true reflection of the Government's commitment since 1984 to establish a new period of national reconciliation with greater harmony and co-operation between the two levels of Government.
With this Accord we are indeed a stronger and more united nation. The efforts of this joint committee will require the support and goodwill of both the House of Commons and the Senate. I am confident that the members of the joint committee will receive this support and be equal to their task. I have every confidence that their activities will be guided by the generosity and the openness which have characterized the constitutional deliberations of the House to date. The work of this committee will constitute an important step forward in the constitutional evolution of our nation.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Therefore 1 urge all Members of the Elouse to support the motion before us today so that this important process can begin without delay.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the debate, and 1 apologize to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who 1 know would like to make a speech. However, 1 have a concern about the resolution before us. I would like an answer, perhaps not now, but some assurance from the Government House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that the committee would be in a position to consider having hearings in the Northwest Territories and Yukon and perhaps in any province which does not set up its own public hearings.
Public participation was a main aspect of what was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his speech to the nation on the Langevin agreement. I believe it is important, especially for the two Territories, that there be an opportunity for citizens who cannot afford to come to Ottawa to make public presentations on their concerns.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the desire has been to try to focus this debate in the nation's capital, as was done before. I think to some extent we are the beneficiaries of some experience that took place in earlier years, where I think the focus of the constitutional process was clearly evident in Room 200 of the West Block. My sense is that there can be provisions made for people who want to travel, if the committee so desires to have certain representatives appear before it.
It is not the intention of the Government to allow the committee to travel, for a number of reasons. We think the logistics and the difficulties in organizing such travel would cause problems which would be almost insurmountable. However, certainly from the standpoint of accommodating people who may want to be heard, I think there can be arrangements made which would hopefully facilitate and satisfy groups such as the Hon. Member indicated.


Mr. Nickerson:: Madam Speaker, my question is very much the same, but it is necessary to have it on record.
I am very pleased with the motion before us today. I hope that it receives speedy passage. I think the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is quite correct when he says that it is not necessary to take this committee through the length and breadth of the country and that the debate should and ought to be centered in Ottawa. However, I would like him to give an assurance, on the record, that there is nothing in this motion that would prevent representatives of the Governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon from appearing before this committee and stating their case. As we all know, before the Langevin Accord can be acceptable to the people in the north, there are certain changes which ought to be made.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the short answer to that is, it is almost axiomatic that they would have the opportunity to appear, if they so desire.


Mr. Johnston:: Madam Speaker, I understand that there are a number of provinces in which public hearings may not be held. If all provinces were to have public hearings, then the necessity of taking a committee across the country would seem to me to be entirely alleviated. Can the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicate to us at this time which provinces, to the best of his knowledge, will be holding public hearings? Would he entertain a suggestion that in those areas of the country where people will not have the opportunity to come forward and to speak to a level of elected representatives that one might contemplate a subcommittee at least of this committee travelling to that particular province?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member, although well-intentioned, poses a bit of a hypothetical question. As he said, some provinces may not hold hearings. We are not sure of that. There have been discussions-


Rodney Edward Murphy: How about Alberta?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The preliminary indication is that that may not take place. But I am not sure that that is the final answer. So it is very difficult to make any assessment as to whether all provinces or some provinces will be holding such public hearings.
To some extent the committee will be the master of its own house. It has the opportunity of setting up subcommittees to do certain elements of work. Perhaps that might be something that may be considered further on down the road.
I want to repeat again that 1 think it is very important, given the importance of this issue, and to ensure that the focus is centred around a committee that is genuinely disposed of dealing with this issue, to have things concentrated in one area. As evidenced by the experience of the past, it worked quite well. There was a fair amount of accommodation and give and take. I am not sure whether there was any great outcry for the committee at that time to travel across the country, I know that it was suggested. I think that, generally speaking, it was felt that everyone who wanted to be heard during the course of that process was heard. That would be our intention in this particular case as well.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if I may say so, I find that a rather garbled response.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was a garbled question.


Donald James Johnston: I do not think that it was especially garbled. The point is that when it is learned that there will not be public hearings in those provinces will the Deputy Prime Minister give his support to the concept of sending at least a subcommittee of this committee to those provinces? In this way those
June 12, 1987

Canadians who cannot afford to travel up to 3,000 miles to appear before this committee will have the opportunity to exchange their ideas with their elected representatives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is a learned constitutional expert. He knows very well that this requires the deliberation of this House. The constitutional amending process has to be dealt with by this House. The constitutional amending process has to be dealt with in each and every one of the legislatures. Is he suggesting that we as a federal Parliament should be interfering with and interposing our will upon the people of the provinces who now, through their Premiers and Governments, may very well express a desire to hold public hearings or not? Why does the Hon. Member want to be so interfering? It is part of his centralist attitude, his centralist heritage. He continues to live in the dream world that father knows best in central Canada. Again, this is a clear example of the difference and division of Canada. He sees it through the telescope of that central vision. We see a more diversified and more decentralized Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the only conclusion I can draw from the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks is that he does not think Canadians necessarily have a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with a centralized country. This is a big country. People would like the opportunity to make their views known to their elected representatives. If they are denied that right at the provincial level, it seems to me that this committee of Parliament would be perfectly justified in having a subcommittee travel to the regions to hear those views expressed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. If the Hon. Member behaves he may very well be selected as a member of the committee and he can make that pitch before the committee. But, by the way he has been acting, I doubt very much that his Leader will put him on the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am rising on behalf of my Party to support this motion. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has made clear, we are in support of the basic purpose of the constitutional Accord which is to have Quebec formally sign and accept the Constitution. Therefore we intend to vote in favour of the Accord. However, we believe that it can be improved upon. It is our intention to propose a number of amendments next fall, or whenever, after the proposed joint committee completes it work, the required resolution to amend the Constitution comes before this House for consideration and debate.
It is in keeping with our view that improvement is needed and possible, that we concur in the proposal to send the Accord for study and for a report to this House to a special joint committee. The procedure that was followed in 1980 and 1981
Constitutional Accord
which resulted in the patriation of the Constitution, along with the establishment of a Charter of Rights, was initiated by the establishment of a special joint committee of the House and the Senate. That committee held televised hearings in Ottawa over a number of months. It heard scores of witnesses and it proposed a number of important improvements to the constitutional proposals at that time.
No one can deny that the special joint committee was a positive exercise in participatory democracy. It is my hope and expectation that having learned from that experience the presently proposed special joint committee will be permitted to proceed and its work will be looked upon with an open mind by the Government and by all sides of the House with similarly beneficial results. We expect that this committee will hear as broad a range of witnesses as its predecessor heard in 1980 and 1981.
We also support this motion in the expectation that if, as in 1980 and 1981, the committee should find that the time-frame set down in the terms of reference is too restrictive the Government will, as was done last time, look favourably upon a request for an extension of its life. I am referring in this case, of course, to the life of the special joint committee, not that of the Government.
It may be that this will not be required. But on an issue as important as the structure of our federal system there is no need-in fact it would be wrong-for the matter to be dealt with in undue haste. There is a definite need for due deliberation. After all, we are dealing with the basic law, the fundamental law of the country, the law on which all other law is based.
The Accord raises a number of issues that the committee will have to address and on which it will have to hear witnesses. We have already raised some of these in the House and we will raise others over the coming weeks.
As we have said, there are implications with respect to the Accord for the rights of our aboriginal peoples. The aboriginal peoples need assurances that this Accord will not mean any backward movement in the progress they expect in terms of their own hopes and aspirations. It should be possible to move these hopes and aspirations forward through the Constitution as it may turn out to be amended by the Accord.
The committee must carefully examine the implications of the Accord for minorities in our country. We believe that the aspirations of Canadians are, for a bilingual and a multicultural society, that while recognizing regional or provincial distinctiveness, especially the distinctive character of Quebec, it should also provide nation-wide guarantees of rights for all regardless of ethnic or national origin.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, we must examine the Accord in the light of the aspirations for eventual provincial status by our northern territories. The people of these territories will want assurances that the Accord does not spell an end to their

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
aspirations for eventual full participation in confederation as provinces.
We will also want to examine fully the implications of the Accord for the powers and the role of the federal Government. There is a national interest that our federal structures, our federal Government, must serve and that the public, that all Canadians, expect to be served by national institutions. To this end as well the committee will have to examine carefully the implications of the Accord for the developmental role of our federal institutions, our national Government. We must make certain that our national institutions, our national Government, remain able to serve the national interest now and as conditions change in the future.
These are but a few of the matters which the committee must address. In the interest of having this motion decided on by the House and in getting the committee going, 1 will not go into greater detail about the matters the committee must address at this time, but I wish to assure the House that my Party will participate actively in the committee in order to bring forward our views and proposals as to how the Accord could and should be improved.
I also want to say a word about the effect of the vote of the other place yesterday to have its own committee to consider the constitutional amendments arising from the Accord. It is clear that the decision of the other place does not preclude or prevent the other place from taking part in the joint committee being proposed today. There is a clear precedent for this which was established in 1978. The Government of the day at that time proposed a wide-ranging package of constitutional amendments, popularly referred to as Bill C-60. At that time the Senate agreed to take part in a joint committee with the House, proposed by the House, to study the Bill C-60 proposals, but at the same time it adopted a motion to have its own committee study of the matter. It was pointed out that Bill C-60 dealt with a wide range of proposals for constitutional change, including, among other matters, a Bill of Rights, but also including proposals for change in the method of appointment of the Senate and its form and role.
Bill C-60, as I recall, Madam Speaker, proposed that the provinces would have the sole power of appointment of half of the Senators who would be members of what would be called a "House of the Provinces". The Senators felt that since the changes in the form and function of the Senate were very much at issue, they should take part in the joint committee with the House, but also have their own committee.
This is similar to the situation today when the amendments proposed in the Accord would bring changes to the method of appointment and, also perhaps as a result, to the role of the Senators and the Senate as an institution, a result, as I have said, of the proposals in the Accord.
The situation in 1978 and the situation today with regard to proposals for constitutional amendment are very similar since they both touch on the method of appointment to and the role of the Senate. These proposals, I must say, are unlike those
involving the resolution which led to the adoption of the 1982 Constitution because that resolution did not deal with the method of appointment to or the general role of the Senate. At that time the resolution for constitutional change was looked at only by a joint committee of the House and the Senate.
We have the clear precedent from the way the Senate agreed to deal with Bill C-60 in the motion it adopted in 1978. It was pointed out in the debate in the Senate in 1978 that there was no known instance where the Senate refused to join with the House in serving on a joint committee with it when requested to do so by the House, even when the Senate decided to have its own committee on the matter.
In my view, Members of this House of Commons and Canadians generally should be able to expect that the precedent of 1978 on Bill C-60 will be followed when it comes time for the other place to consider the request of this House in the motion that we are considering today for a joint committee.
I also want to say that the Constitution itself speaks only of the role of the House of Commons, the Senate and the provincial legislatures in amending that Constitution by resolution. It does not refer in any way and it does not recognize in any way, as a first step, binding on the House of Commons, the Senate and the provincial legislatures as a legal or juridical matter, the signatures of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agreeing to the content of a resolution to amend the Constitution. Also, there is the fact that the Accord itself says only that the Prime Minister and the First Ministers undertake to table the Accord before their legislatures and the House of Commons and Senate.
I mention all this, Madam Speaker, because I thought I heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) say in his remarks that there would have to be unanimity of the provinces and the federal Government in order to have any of the provisions of the Accord amended. That may be so in one sense, perhaps in a political sense, but in terms of the Constitution itself, all the Constitution says is that there are provisions for its amendment, in some cases requiring unanimity of the provinces and the federal House of Commons and Senate, and in other cases requiring only the formula of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population.
I want to say in particular that I hope the Government House Leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, was not saying that because we have the signatures of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister on the Accord this means that the work of the parliamentary committee we are setting up by this motion and any debates in the House on the constitutional resolution once it is formally before us, will be only an empty exercise. I hope that is not the case. We must be in a position in this committee that we are setting up today, and in the eventual debate on the resolution, to amend the Constitution on the basis of the Accord to consider any amendments on their merits. This seems to have been and is very much the view of a number of the provincial Premiers who spoke to the press after the meeting in the Langevin Building a few weeks ago.
June 12, 1987

I want to address very briefly the question of the process of amending the Constitution. The bare bones of the procedure for amending the Constitution are laid forth quite clearly in both the existing amending formula and in the amended process proposed by the Accord. It is silent, however, on the procedure within each House of Parliament or provincial legislature. As well, unfortunately, our Standing Orders are silent on this matter.
Recently we became engaged in an extensive revision of our rules. During that process I said to my fellow House Leaders that I considered it a major omission that the rules did not provide for a set process for dealing with resolutions on important matters like amendments to the Constitution. For Bills which become ordinary statutes, and in some cases very minor statutes, we have developed a complex system of three readings, a committee stage to hear relevant witnesses and a report stage to consider complex amendments in an orderly and reasonable fashion. However, for amendments to our most important and fundamental law, our Constitution, only a resolution is required.
I must say that a resolution to amend our Constitution is as important as any Bill. Certainly, while it is called a resolution, it is in fact the equivalent of a Bill because it amends a statute, the Constitution Act, 1982. However, as I have said, we do not provide a system equivalent to that which already exists in the rules for consideration of a Bill, even one of a very minor and seemingly trivial nature. I believe our experience in the last few days has underscored the need for developing definite and fixed rules for such matters.
I must commend the Government for agreeing to the committee process we are about to undertake, but I must point out that in fact the Government was never compelled by our rules to do so, although it may well have been compelled by public opinion and by the merits of how such a constitutional resolution should be considered. The fact that the Government is able to give notice of a motion to actually amend the Constitution at the very time it gave notice of this motion to establish a committee to study that motion shows that it would indeed be theoretically possible to force upon the House a proposal to amend the Constitution with no committee study at all. I think this would be very wrong according to the expectations of the Canadian people and according to what is required to consider in a due and deliberate manner an amendment or a set of amendments to the very fundamental and basic law of this country.
Even with the committee study to which the Government has agreed, we have yet to work out an orderly system of dealing with any amendments to the actual constitutional motion itself. When the resolution itself comes forward for debate, we must have in place provisions satisfactory to all Parties to ensure that there is time and the method to properly consider and vote on all amendments to the Constitutional Accord set forth in the resolution that our Party and others
Constitutional Accord
will bring forward with a view to improving the resolution. This could well involve a committee stage and a report stage equivalent to those required for the consideration of a Bill.
By way of conclusion, I want to say that while we are taking a positive step in creating this joint committee, we must bear in mind that we must in the very near future address other important matters as well. In the short term, we must develop a method for dealing in an appropriate manner with amendments to the motion to adopt the resolution of which the Government is giving notice. Second, in the long term, we must provide for a suitable system in our Standing Orders for dealing with resolutions on important matters, and especially those to amend our Constitution, in a manner that is at least as complete and as thorough as the method by which we deal with ordinary laws.
Having said all of this, I want to repeat that it is the intention of our Party to support this motion. I think we have to get on with the work of giving to the Constitutional Accord the serious and deliberate study it requires and I hope that we will soon reach a positive decision to set up the joint committee proposed by the Government.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the Liberal House Leader. If the resolution that is before us at this time passes and is accepted by the Senate, there may be two different committees studying the proposed constitutional amendment. How does the Liberal House Leader feel about the fact that the Senate appears to want to have it both ways? The Senate will have representation on a joint committee which will be listening to witnesses and perhaps proposing changes to the Accord and at the same time Liberal Senators will have their own committee, presumably listening to the same witnesses, and perhaps making completely different amendments.
Does the Liberal House Leader not believe that that is a recipe for deadlock? Does he not believe that there will be one set of recommendations coming out of the joint committee, perhaps with all-Party agreement, perhaps with the agreement of the Senators who serve on that committee, yet we may have a completely different set of amendments coming from a separate Senate committee? I think that could create real problems for us.
I recognize that in 1978 a similar situation did occur. Let us face, however, that those were different circumstances. Right now we actually have an agreement which has been signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the 10 provincial Premiers. I believe that one committee representing both Houses is the best and most appropriate way of dealing with it.
My second question deals with the matter I raised with the government House Leader. 1 would like the response of the Liberal Party to the request that the joint committee of the House and the Senate that we are setting up should at least go to Yukon and the Northwest Territories so that residents of those two Territories will have an opportunity to have direct input. I raise that as a separate item because the government

June 12, 1987
leader in the Yukon, Mr. Tony Penikett, and his counterpart in the Northwest Territories, Nick Sibbeston, were not at Meech Lake, they were not at the Langevin Block. They do not have the right to have their territorial Governments meet and pass or not pass the Meech Lake Accord. I believe the residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are in a very unique situation and I believe it is very important that, since they were not part of the Meech Lake Accord, they do have the opportunity to be heard in their own Territories.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 am quite ready to accept the concept of having a joint committee of this House and the Senate consider the constitutional resolution as well as having a separate committee in the Senate itself. This was a concept that was worked out in 1978 when the constitutional proposals referred to as Bill C-60 were put before the House and Senate. I am not aware of any problem which came up at that time. I was not aware of any opposition to it by the NDP. I do not see the problems that my hon. friend sees.
Bear in mind that we are not formally considering the constitutional resolution at this time. We are considering in the context of a prestudy the contents of the constitutional resolution. A motion to adopt a resolution will then have to be formally put down on the Order Paper and that will have to be fully debated. It is in the course of considering the constitutional resolution itself that amendments will be considered.
I would think that my hon. friend should be willing to look upon the role of the Senate in this matter in the same positive spirit which led his Party to abandon its long-standing opposition not only to a role for the Senate but to the very existence of the Senate in any form and to support this motion. If the NDP is willing to support this motion, it is admitting that there can be a positive and constructive role for the Senate to play.
1 see no reason why the Hon. Member should assume in advance that the Senate will not deal with this matter in a constructive fashion. I am sure he would reject any suggestion in the Senate that the House of Commons would not deal with this resolution in a constructive fashion. I do not think we should deal at this stage with that type of hypothetical question.
I would like to conclude by saying that I think we should be willing to examine the idea of the committee going to the Northwest Territories and Yukon. 1 for one would want to know first if those legislatures intend to have their own committee studies. This is something we can study. We are debating this today because the House Leaders of all three Parties, including the NDP, were willing to agree on behalf of their Parties to this form of motion. Having said that, I am still willing to consider this matter again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now
proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-INCLUSION OF MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) if his Department and the Government would be disposed to amending Clause 1 of the Constitutional Accord which would entrench, alongside the French-English linguistic duality, the multicultural dimension and reality as a fundamental character of Canada.
Not only did the Minister refuse to answer directly, but his response displayed an alarming disregard for and ignorance of this integral sector of Canadian society. Canadians who are neither English nor French in origin, despite the ineffective footnote of Clause 16, feel irrelevant in this Accord and believe that they have been ushered to the back of the constitutional bus.
To seek the inclusion of the multicultural character in Clause 1 is not an attempt to seek special rights, official status for a third language, or to deprive anyone or any group of any rights.
The amendment would simply ensure that Clause 1 would fully define and express the make-up of Canada and its people. Clause 1 overlooks 10 million Canadians who are neither English nor French in origin and relegates them to second-class citizenship. It is, therefore, an incomplete and inaccurate expression of Canada, and that needs to be amended.
How can the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premiers refuse to recognize the contribution and aspirations of one-third of its citizens? It is my hope that the Prime Minister and the ten Premiers will see fit to amend this clause accordingly. Otherwise it would be hypocritical for them to grandstand on multiculturalism before events and individuals of those persuasions.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, noting that the life of many people in northern Canada is based on government hand-outs, Mr. Arkady Cherkasov, a Soviet northern studies expert, has recently suggested reindeer herding as a suitable and economically viable alternative. This
June 12, 1987

support is welcomed by those of us who have realized that when it comes to reindeer Canada is 3,000 years behind the times.
Unfortunately, the Canadian Government continues to take a rather negative attitude. Mr. William Nasogaluak, pioneer owner of Canada's only herd, has received nothing but grief at the hands of the Government which would unilaterally rescind his grazing rights. It is likely that he will be forced to kill off his animals or sell them abroad.
Public policy ought to encourage reindeer husbandry, not to destroy it as is presently the case.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-55 the Government proposes to violate deliberately Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. That UN Declaration in Article 14 says: "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy another country's asylum from persecution".
Already democratic Chileans who have been imprisoned and tortured by Pinochet's police and try to escape Chile to find refuge in Canada with their relatives are routinely refused refugee status by our embassies in Chile and Argentina.
Now the Government goes further by twisting and changing Canada's laws to stop real refugees from even coming to Canada to state their claim. For example, Bill C-55 would empower the Government to punish an airline which brings a passenger to Canada who then claims refugee status here. It can punish the airline by seizing and selling its aircraft to enforce fines.
Shame on the Government for Bill C-55. Canadians from sea to sea are demanding: "Withdraw Bill C-55".


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Margaret Thatcher is back.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Barry Turner: That is good for Great Britain because her policies and priorities are working, and so are ours. Her report card is a testimony to her foresight and her determination to do what is right.
Speaking of doing what is right, let us look at our own government record. In Ontario unemployment has dropped from 9.4 per cent in September, 1984, to 6.3 per cent. Housing starts in the first four months of 1987 are up 58 per cent compared to the same period last year. Tourists are flocking to Ontario. There is an 8 per cent increase from last year. People are coming to the nation's capital to see this great city.
The White Paper on Defence is a timely and long overdue initiative. President Reagan and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reiterated their personal resolve in Vienna yesterday to sign an enhanced treaty agreement between our two countries.
The Meech Lake Accord is good news for Quebec. It is now a part of the family of Canada. Mr. Speaker, trying to unite this country without Quebec was like trying to ride a bicycle uphill without a chain.
The National Drug Strategy is more good news. The RCMP role has been enhanced. Yesterday the Liberal Opposition voted against increasing the RCMP budget. I cannot understand that as it is the best police force in the world.
Tax reform is coming next week. It will be fairer and more simple. It will address the problems of those in the greatest need. The poor and the seniors of the country will be very favourably looked upon in tax reform.
This is all good news, Mr. Speaker. Let us be happy. Let us have a good weekend.
George Bell and the Blue Jays are also good for Canada. They are going all the way this year!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, before he left Canada last weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) led farmers to believe that he would solve the grain trade wars at the Economic Summit meeting in Venice this week. This trade war between the treasuries of western Europe and the United States has driven grain prices in real terms to levels below those of the 1930s depression period and is driving thousands of Canadian farmers off the land.
We now know that the Prime Minister did not get agreement to reduce these subsidies during the next two years. We also know that the United States Congress is planning to increase its export subsidies during the next two years driving prices even lower, as it did with the recent sales of wheat to Russia and barley to Saudi Arabia.
Now that the Prime Minister has failed to get action on the
grain trade wars for the next two years our farmers want to
know what the Government is going to do to allow them to

June 12, 1987
survive. I call on the Prime Minister to stop stalling and to make a commitment now to Canadian grain farmers for a deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.



Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his success in bringing to the attention of the leaders of the G-7 the harm felt by our farmers due to the unfair subsidy practices of the European Economic Community and the U.S.
As any farmer across the land will tell you, there are no immediate cures for the problems facing the family farm. They will also tell you that government pay-outs do not solve the underlying problem. The crisis today is largely due to Governments around the world attempting to throw money at the problem. This does not work. This was the message which our Leader pressed at the Economic Summit meeting in Venice.
The real answer lies in a new set of ground rules for international farm trade. The Prime Minister and the Government have made fair trade in agriculture a top concern. 1 wish again to congratulate our Leader for making this point in Venice.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
1987 WEST COAST SALMON ALLOCATION PLAN
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in January the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans unanimously passed a motion urging the Minister to assure the Gulf trailers of British Columbia that the commercial troll industry in the Gulf of Georgia would be maintained.
The Minister responded: "The troll fleet is very selective in the species of salmon that they harvest and for that reason alone I consider them an ideal gear to be maintained in the Strait of Georgia".
On Tuesday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced his long-awaited 1987 West Coast Salmon Allocation Plan. The Gulf trailers, a small group of 250 vessels, found they fared no better than last year. In fact, their situation was made worse by the Minister's decree that the season will start on July 1, two weeks later than last year,
when the larger and higher quality salmon have already passed. Further, there was no mention of the 100,000 additional sockeye given in 1986 in recognition of the trailers' historical involvement in this west coast fishery.
The Minister, who praises the Gulf troll fleet, has done little to maintain the fleet. Many of those involved in the Gulf of Georgia fleet may be forced out of the industry because they cannot make a living because the Minister has not acted in accordance with his statements.


THE COMMONWEALTH
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce to the House that a Commonwealth Conference for Young Leaders will be held this fall. This unique international event, initiated by the Ottawa Branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society, will bring together the Commonwealth's most accomplished young men and women to Ottawa, from September 6 to September 12, 1987.
Delegates will participate in an innovative program directed toward the creation of a generation of leaders equipped with the values, skills, and consensus formation techniques to address complex international problems. They will also focus on the potential for private and public sector co-operation in promoting economic and social development.
Canadian conference organizers are searching for dynamic young Canadians to represent our country. Young Canadians between the ages of 25 and 35 are welcome to apply before July 1. Twenty Canadians will be selected.
Along with providing young people with the opportunity to express their views on the Commonwealth and wider international issues, this event will allow them to make personal ties which will be of long-term benefit to the Commonwealth and Canada. This venture is also an important event in support of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit and will contribute to increasing Canadians' awareness of the Commonwealth.
The conference is being financed through a partnership of business, federal Government and voluntary sector contributions. The Government, for example, is providing financial assistance and in kind contributions through the Canadian International Development Agency, Employment and Immigration Canada, and External Affairs.
June 12, 1987


POLLUTION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to comment on the Canadian Government position about water clean-up in Quebec.
Hon. Members know that under the terms of a federal-provincial agreement Ottawa has paid 16 2/3 per cent of the expenditures required to clean up lakes and rivers in that province.
They know as well that a number of Quebec municipalities are asking Ottawa to contribute to the funds needed to help them carry out their depollution projects.
In my opinion, the current water pollution situation is so urgent that immediate action on the part of the Canadian Government is required to assist Quebec municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Quebec is entitled to the same kind of treatment as the other provinces to help its municipalities, and that a federal-provincial agreement should be negotiated at the earliest opportunity to correct the situation.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, a serious situation has developed in the Newfoundland fishery. The cod have refused to come ashore, the lobster have refused to show up, the Government has refused to pay unemployment insurance for fishermen after May 15, and now the Japanese have refused to pay a decent price for capelin. The boats are tied up and that is creating a very serious situation.
I am addressing this statement to all those Members opposite who are over 51 and who understand the importance of regional development in this country. The younger ones need not pay attention. For those who understand and care about regional development, let me state what must be done. The Japanese must be told that they have to pay a fair price for capelin. The Fisheries Prices Support Board has to be ordered to act on this immediately and support the price of fish. The Government should put in place a marketing agency to make sure that this does not happen again. That must be done immediately.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was disappointed, as I believe were many Canadians who are
concerned about acid rain, that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had an opportunity to take the President of the United States aside in Venice he only chose to discuss his concerns about the free trade pact, the one-way suicide pact he wants to sign with the United States. He did not take any time to discuss with the President anything concerning the President's commitment to a bilateral accord on acid rain.
Further, 1 recall the day in the House when the Prime Minister embarrassed all of us by making fun of Congressman Jerry Sikorski, deliberately mispronouncing his name and saying that he had not heard of him. 1 want Members of the House to know that this same Congressman yesterday introduced a Bill in the U.S. Congress which would have the effect of meeting Canada's demands with respect to acid rain abatement, as would a number of other Bills in the Congress.
I hope the Prime Minister and other members of the Government in particular will take this opportunity to write Congressman Sikorski and all members of the U.S. Congress to urge upon them the passage of either the Sikorski Bill or any other abatement Bills before the House that would have the effect of meeting Canada's demands. The Prime Minister should be the first on the list to emphasize that congressional vehicle as a means for meeting Canadian needs.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women released a report entitled Battered But Not Beaten: Preventing Wife Battering in Canada. As it happens, I have in my riding a shelter home, "La Maison d'amitie", a non-profit organization established more than 10 years ago to help distressed women and children. This home is partly funded by the NCC, the National Capital Commission, where the rent is geared to the financial resources of the organization. That is the way it is, people do have to seek assistance. Of course the rent and operating expenses constitute a financial challenge.
The meagre resources of La Maison d'amitie partly originate from certain levels of Government, but not the federal Government, and have enabled it to survive this far. However it has just been advised by the NCC that the annual rent, that was $1, will be increased, not to $500 as it was this year but to nearly $3,000 a month. Mr. Speaker, people like battered women and distressed children will no longer be able to find in my riding a place where they can be cared for and given at least a little attention, a little love and a little understanding.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the NCC to continue to be generous and let the Maison d'amitie operate in my riding and carry out its worthy and meritorious work. Like a number of other Government agencies, the NCC should appreciate the fact that one preaches by example, and that the Government must give consideration and assistance to the Maison d'amitie.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I mentioned the extremely serious situation in the town of Murdochville, following lay-offs of a number of workers.
This Government seems to be completely ignoring the priorities of regional development. Several billion dollars have been cut from various programs. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion operations are being investigated, some of the decisions are being made in the Prime Minister's office, and others in the Deputy Prime Minister's office, so that people in the Gaspe are wondering who is making the decisions for regional development in the Gaspe. We have a development project in Matane for a paper mill. Decisions are still pending. Four hundred people lost their jobs in Murdochville, and no decisions have been made. Meanwhile, another Minister is visiting the Gaspe to prepare phase two of the eastern development plan. In 1983, there was a plan with a budget of over $250 million, but today, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) has been unable to convince her colleague at National Defence of the importance of regional development in allocating that department's budget, at a time when it is engaged in consultations for phase two.
I want to ask this Government: Who is making the decisions for regional development?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as time goes by it becomes more evident that it was a mistake on the part of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Envoys' Report on acid rain.
As a member of the Acid Rain Committee, and on the eve of our visit to Washington to meet with U.S. parliamentarians there, I must conclude that Canadians would be in a stronger position had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rejected the
envoys' recommendation of having five more years of research and demonstration.
At this rate of progress, in 1991 Canada will still be waiting for the outcome of U.S. research activities while Canadian officials and their successors will be engaged in smoke and mirror negotiations with their U.S. counterparts.
The Prime Minister did not say to President Reagan, right from the start, that we want the U.S. to cut the massive acid gas pollution which daily crosses the border into Canada. Against this background, while acid rain corrodes human health, water, soil, and forests, the Government looks inept, impotent and ineffective. What a sham!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion, whoever that is.
Less than a week after the Prime Minister announced the new Atlantic Opportunities Program in St. John's, Newfoundland, and proclaimed that all is right in the world of regional economic development, we now have the Minister of Supply and Services declaring that half of the country is crying and that the Minister of National Defence, who proposes a $183 billion defence budget, is too young to understand. The Minister's problems have less to do with his youth and everything to do with his tired old Tory philosophy. I ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion whether he shares the views of the Minister of Supply and Services who believes that the Defence Department should be prepared to pay a premium on its contracts to encourage economic development in areas of high unemployment?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, obviously this Party has no idea what regional development is all about. Since 1984, we have been stressing the need to ensure that regional development is done with far greater awareness of, and sensitivity to, the problems of the regions. Mr. Speaker, that is why last week we announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The agency will have a budget of over one billion dollars and thus create many jobs. In fact, this is the kind of initiative that not only the Premiers but the entire population of Atlantic Canada have been waiting for.
June 12, 1987


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services recognizes what this Minister and this Government refuse to see, that indeed half the country is crying and that the regional economic development policy is in utter and total shambles, sacrificed on the altar of free trade.
Will the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who has presided over the financial mismanagement of DRIE, who has failed to speak out for Canada's regions, step aside and resign to allow the Minister of Supply and Services to take up the battle at the cabinet table against the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister and all of those in Cabinet who believe that Canada's impoverished regions, its high unemployment, are a fact of life which ought to be ignored and hidden?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. According to our consultations, all the studies and reports are unanimous. Regional development should be initiated in the regions, and that is exactly the philosophy behind the Atlantic initiative which is getting a budget of one billion dollars, while nothing had been done by the previous government for twenty years.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion stands like a naked newt in this House. The Prime Minister's Office has left him with nothing but a chauffeur and limousine with which to hide his embarrassment.


DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: 1
ask the Minister, who now has Price Waterhouse, internal auditors and the Auditor General, all trying to track down $100 million of unaccountable expenditures, when he will do the honourable thing for the regions and for his Department and, for God's sake, man, go, resign?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the amount of deficit this Government had to deal with when we took over in 1984. Members opposite do not even know what the hell is going on at DRIE, Mr. Speaker. They don't even know!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: We have to deal with earlier commitments which date from 1975. We have to deal with almost $1 billion in commitments made prior to the time we came into power. We have to deal with that. My colleagues should know that these commitments have to be dealt with. Second, we have
Oral Questions
initiated both internal and external reports and we are going to get answers from that very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michel Côté: As well, the Auditor General will step in and we will find out exactly what happened there.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. The fact that the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence cannot agree on the national interests of the country is deplorable. It was a Liberal Government which purchased 2,761 military trucks with regional development in mind, 81,000 small arms, 300 light armoured vehicles, new frigates for the navy, updated several other ships-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and purchased 138 CF-18 aircraft, and many other items, all with regional development in mind and in effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: When is the Government going to get its act together and have Ministers agree that, beyond a doubt, national defence and regional development go hand in hand, and both are in the national interests of Canada? If the two Ministers cannot agree, one or both should resign.


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been following the process in the purchasing of military equipment, he would find that the process has not changed from the days of the other Government, except we are buying more equipment for the Armed Forces than it did.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is a farce. They used our programs.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1
have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. What an utter shame and spectacle to see the two Ministers of National Defence flying around the country, talking about regional advantages of the White Paper on Defence while the Minister of Supply and Services-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -who is responsible-

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has had, I think, quite a sufficient preamble and I would ask him to put his question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -responsible for procurement of the White Paper. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, or some other referee, take charge of the Cabinet until it can agree on its aims and objectives relating to the national interests of Canada? The Ministers are obviously divided and do not know what is in the best interests of the regions of this country. The Minister of Supply and Services says it is a failure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no curtailment on freedom of speech in this Party, and 1 notice the same thing applies to the Party across the way. The Liberals have certainly been expressing various points of view.
The fact is there is no difference in the points of view held by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who are you trying to kid?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no question that the Minister of National Defence is as concerned about regional industrial development as the Minister of Supply and Services.


Mr. Rossi:: You are bluffing, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact is that the Minister of National Defence is 37 years old and has spent his lifetime being concerned about regional development, and the Minister of Supply and Services has said she has spent 37 years being concerned about the welfare of the regions of this country. In total, that is about 74 years of deep concern.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. We have seen the extraordinary experience for the first time, to my knowledge, in Canadian history, that a Department has gone through its total fiscal allotment for one year in two months. It is an extremely serious situation.
The Prime Minister is announcing that a special Atlantic Opportunities Agency is being created for regional development in Atlantic Canada, and there is an unanswered rumour that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion itself is going to be abolished this summer. People in Atlantic Canada, northern Quebec, northern Ontario and the West want to know about the future of this Department. Will the Minister
clarify once and for all whether or not the Government plans to maintain a Department and Minister responsible for regional development and accountable to the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House earlier, and as the Minister responsible for DRIE has indicated, DRIE is in business. It is honouring its commitments. It will meet every single commitment it has made for this year, for next year, for the year after that and the year after that.


Carlo Rossi: You won't be there any more.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Insofar as the concern the Hon. Leader of the socialists has about the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, I regret very much he finds disagreement with the thrust of the agency. I think from his vantage point, sitting in Oshawa, he would probably take that kind of view, but I just simply report to him that The Chronicle Herald of Halifax had this to say about the establishment of the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, and I quote:
At last, with the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this region will have a single body in place to deliver federal assistance to an eager business sector. The ACDA, with an annual budget of S200 million, will be based in, and controlled from, Moncton. It will be headed by a very senior civil servant, Donald McPhail, who will run his own show-that is, he will control the purse strings without having to consult bureaucrats in Ottawa.
That is what Atlantic Canadians want. That is what we support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I can tell the Minister that 1 was in Atlantic Canada yesterday. The people in Atlantic Canada are not at all impressed by this misleading Government that has already cut $1.5 billion on an annual basis from going into Atlantic Canada and expects the people there to think that the Government is being generous because it is only giving back $200 million. They can see that this is like a thief taking a thousand bucks and asking people to be happy if he gives $200 back. I can tell the Minister that the people of Atlantic Canada are tired of being conned by this Government. I tell the Minister to go down to Atlantic Canada where he will find that out.


STUDIES OF DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask the Minister to answer some questions about the future of this Department. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville was trying to get answers here yesterday. He was told to go to committee, where he was stonewalled.
Will the Minister assure us that the internal study that is
being done in the Department and the Price Waterhouse study
June 12, 1987

that is being done will be made available to Members of the House of Commons so that the people of Canada can see what is going on in this Department?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are concerned about, if they look very carefully, is the shallow, misleading rhetoric that is emanating from the Leader of the socialist Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He had the audacity, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period the other day to say, in reference to the billion dollars that was being earmarked for the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, that that is only a few cents per citizen.


John Edward Broadbent: I said no such thing!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In other words, he is saying: "What's a billion?" Remember the expression of C. D. Howe when he said some time ago: "What's a million?" We have the new version here right now.


REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE MADE PUBLIC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, neither the people in Atlantic Canada nor anywhere else will be impressed by this very shocking ignoring of the Minister's responsibility to answer a question. 1 want to ask him again, and 1 would like him to cut out his silly, misleading rhetoric-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Cut out your silly, misleading nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: -and answer a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister a straight question again. I hope that he will give us a straight answer.
There is an internal audit being done in the Minister's Department. There is a study being done by Price Waterhouse of the profound bungling in the Department. Does the Minister not believe that the people of Canada have a right to see those studies? If he does, will he guarantee that they will be made public?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that three investigations or examinations are being done at this time.
We have one internal investigation requested by the Comptroller General. There is a second investigation which we at the Department requested and which is being done by an outside firm, Price Waterhouse. The third investigation is being carried out by the Auditor General. So we have absolutely nothing to hide in this respect.
Today, I can assure Hon. Members I will do everything in my power to ensure that the truth comes out, that all the facts
Oral Questions
are clear and that a full explanation is given of what happened in the Department.


DECISION-MAKING POWER WITHIN DEPARTMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and also deals with regional economic development.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that since 1984, regional economic development budget allocations have been cut by several billion dollars, and the Minister himself has now admitted, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to take into account the specific payments made in view of the situation in western Canada as a result of falling wheat prices, those cuts in the regional development funding would be even greater. Meanwhile, the Minister has just stated that not one, or two, but three enquiries are required to shed some light on the management of that department.
In view of this hodgepodge, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who is responsible for decisions in the present context at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion?


Michel Côté: 1 am, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT'S INTENDED PROPOSALS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the Minister what action he intends to suggest to this House in particular, but mostly to the people of Gaspe, and more specifically to the people of Murdochville, in order to help those 400 jobless workers and families. Some of them have already been laid off, and the rest will be by the end of June. I ask the Minister if he could step up the implementation of the second stage of the development of eastern Quebec and implement immediate programs to help the people of Murdochville who are faced with an unbearable situation which actually prevails throughout the eastern part of the peninsula.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the first stage of the Eastern Plan, the first five-year stage, is indeed to be completed soon, and our Government believes in consultation. That is why we spent over the last weekend, with the Minister responsible for that region, more than 60 hours consulting with people in every district and area of the peninsula covered by the Eastern Plan.
What we have here therefore is concern, a consultation process and sensitivity on the part of the Government in that respect.
With respect to Murdochville, a consultation committee has already been set up, and it should be reporting by June 19. I therefore wish to assure people, Mr. Speaker, that we are deeply concerned. Although it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague for Energy mentioned earlier, we are always willing to listen to the needs of each and everyone of those areas.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I have in my hand a copy of Mr. Dye's report as Auditor General, from 1985. I want to ask the Minister in charge of DRIE why his Department did not follow Mr. Dye's advice when he stated:
We also verified whether forecast cash flow patterns in the Resource Allocation Management System were accurate. There were errors in the data recorded in nearly all the approved projects. About half of these were serious errors-
In view of the fact that Mr. Dye waved a red flag some two years ago saying that there were very, very serious errors in terms of data, I want to know why the Minister continued to administer his Department in such a way that we now have an over-commitment of funds in this fiscal year of some $90 million. Will he now admit that he did not follow the advice of Mr. Dye despite the fact that he was warned? Why did he not follow that advice?
government and freedom of information, that he will make public the findings of the internal investigation of his Department, as well as the findings of the Price Waterhouse study? Will he do that today? Will he make that commitment? Will he also get up in the House to tell us that there is an overcommitment now approaching $90 million?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, making that kind of suggestion denotes sheer irresponsibility and lack of maturity. To begin with, and I said so, the Department has to deal with more than 15,000 cases a year, and it is a fact that commitments were not made by this Minister over a two-month period in the current year. Commitments were made a number of years ago. For example, Mr. Speaker, since I became Minister in July 1986 we have made commitments of more than $1 billion and the money will be spent over the years, beginning in 1988-89. Before asking questions, Mr. Speaker, one should get the facts straight and inquire about departmental procedures.
As to the report, a moment ago I gave my colleague some explanations, and I stated that I would do everything I can to shed light on these incidents, Mr. Speaker.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would say that out of this Auditor General's report there were 21 recommendations that have been dealt with by my Department and answers have been supplied.
My colleague is completely misleading again. He does not know what is going on in this Department.


John Edward Broadbent: He knows more than you do.


Michel Côté: There is no over-commitment. I said that there was a possibility that there could be over-spending for the year 1986-87. We will find that out. Reports will tell us how it happened, when it happened, and how to correct it. That is why we have asked for such a report.
I also said that this over-spending could have an effect in the actual year. Why we want to be very cautious about it is in order to prevent anything else from happening once again.
It has to be remembered that we inherited such a mess from 1984 and we still have to live with it.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF EXPENDITURE STUDIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. The Minister knows that right now, according to information released a couple of days ago, the over-commitment is around the $90 million mark for fiscal year 1987-88, not for three years ago. If that is not the case, then I challenge the Minister to get up in the House and deny it right now.
When he is doing that can he make a commitment to the House, since the Conservative Party promised openness of


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ADRIEN LAMBERT, FORMER MEMBER FOR BELLECHASSE
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of Mr. Adrien Lambert, former Member for Bellechasse and House Leader for the Parti creditiste.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns yesterday's meeting with provincial Finance Ministers when there was failure to reach an agreement on the regulation of Canada's securities industry.
Nine provinces say that they do not want to be bound by the agreement between Ottawa and Ontario, on which they were
June 12, 1987

not consulted. The tenth Province, Ontario, is saying that it would consider joining the others in a constitutional challenge.
What does the Government propose to do now, bearing in mind that the Ontario-Ottawa agreement is set to take effect on June 30? Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on motions today to clarify the Government's intentions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, I am advised by the Minister of State for Finance, who is away on government business, that the understanding reached with Ontario in April is a working arrangement in the regulation of securities activities in that province as it pertains to federally regulated institutions.
The federal Government has made it very clear that it has no intention of imposing any such arrangement on any other province unless it is otherwise agreed to.
There was some disagreement with the approach taken, I understand, at the meeting yesterday. However, the Minister of State for Finance has indicated a clear willingness to sit down and work this through with the provinces. He is prepared to meet with them at any time to try to work out a satisfactory arrangement to allow the federal Government and the provinces to work together in reaching agreements on this very important matter.


Aideen Nicholson: The Government is again being overtaken by events, because many large foreign investment houses are moving into Canada, including one which has assets more than double the entire assets of all financial institutions in Canada.


Raymond Garneau: That is the problem. We have raised it many times.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance had said that he expected the agreement with Ontario to be a model which the other provinces would follow. In response to their objections, he is now quoted as saying that he will not be "ambushed" by provincial "ultimatums".
I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has been sounding much more conciliatory. Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the Minister of State for Finance was misquoted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. I talked with the Minister of State for Finance last night, and he indicated to me in a telephone conversation that he in no way wanted to impose the Ontario agreement on other provinces.
He is ready and willing to sit down with each of the provinces to work out a satisfactory arrangement. In view of the fact that Ontario had taken the initiative in bringing this
Oral Questions
proposition to the federal Government-and it was agreed upon-it was assumed that that could very well serve as a model.
Obviously there are some differences of opinion in that regard. I think I can assure the Hon. Member that this matter can be proceeded with in a conciliatory and co-operative way. That is certainly the intention of the Minister.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he is now aware, the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Mr. Bruce Phillips, spent over $80,000 on various services when he was representing Canada in Washington.
According to the access to information legislation, he was provided by taxpayers with a 4,491-square foot home which included a bomb shelter, a pool, and a music room. In addition, $21,000 was spent on crystal, china, flatware, small appliances, and a vacuum cleaner. An additional $28,000 was spent on furniture. He was also given his firewood free of charge. He had his bedspread cleaned. A security system was installed and his food processor was repaired-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a fascinating list, but he should put his question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I apologize that the list is so long; I hope the Government does too.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain which of these services were essential and how they helped the Government fight the deficit?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tory times are tough times, Don.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the issue about the house provided for Mr. Phillips when he was appointed to Washington has been raised by the Hon. Member. I can simply state that the services provided in the acquisition of the house are fully consistent with the practices-


John Edward Broadbent: Of the Government.


Pat Carney: -for that particular class of post.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I can assure him that the costs involved are-


Carlo Rossi: Go back to Disney World.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in my answer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is true that Tory times are tough times for some.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXPENDITURES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister's Director of Communications communicates well with the Prime Minister's lifestyle.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Who is looking after the interests of the public purse? Who is representing the taxpayers in making sure that real excessive, unnecessary expenditures are being curtailed by the Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Give us some food to process.


An Hon. Member:: Take away Broadbent's chauffeur.


John Edward Broadbent: You are getting about as low as you can get.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill has put a question, and I would ask Hon. Members to permit the Hon. Minister to respond.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can further add, in response to the Hon. Member's question, that the furnishings which were purchased for the house of course are the property of the Canadian Government and will be used by Mr. Phillips' successor.


FORESTRY
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. Over the past two years the Minister has had extensive consultations with all sectors of the forest industry, the aim being to develop a national forestry strategy.
I wonder whether the Minister could inform the House what is the status of this very important issue.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. The forest sector, including industry, provinces, labour, and academea, asked for a long time to have a national forest strategy developed.
They did not want one which was foisted on them by the federal Government as was done in 1981. They wanted to develop it from the grass roots up.
For that very reason the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers undertook to do that. It held forestry forums on widely represented sectors of the forest industry. Also, this was widely discussed in the National Forest Congress, the largest forestry congress in the history of Canada.
The task force which evolved from that has been working diligently and hopefully will be dealing with that in a major meeting in the Maritimes in July and perhaps having it ratified by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers in September.
Hopefully we will have a new national forest policy developed from the grass roots up by the fall.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday's episode in the lifestyle of "The Rich and Famous" saw Fast Freddy and his $35,000 kitchen in his office. In today's episode we have Loosey Brucey trying to spend taxpayers' money to the tune of $80,000 to fix up a house for him.
A few minutes ago the Minister responsible said that these expenditures were consistent with that kind of position. How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that the previous appointee was not afforded such luxuries? Why was it that the house which was appropriate for Mr. Gossage was inappropriate for Mr. Phillips?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the expenditures were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines and in keeping with the status of the office.


Don Boudria: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, only the Prime Minister can top this kind of extravagance.


REQUEST FOR HALT TO CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Now that we have another episode in the Conservative Party's ongoing spending spree, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to the House today that this kind of profligate spending is going to stop? We are hearing new examples every day. Isn't the Deputy Prime Minister himself fed up with this orgy of spending by his colleagues and the Prime Minister's cronies?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and
President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.
June 12, 1987

Member talks about expenditures. 1 simply remind him that this Government inherited a deficit mess of $38 billion and a national debt of $200 billion. If you want to talk about extravagance and expenditure, we are looking at it right across the way.


FISHERIES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. Fishermen in St. Mary's Cove, Newfoundland, have voted 95 per cent not to take part in this year's Capelin fishery because the price offered by the Japanese is too low. It is not an economic fishery and it will not be an economic fishery so long as an unregulated market, a chaotic market, continues to play one fisherman off against another pushing down prices.
Will the Government finally recognize the seriousness of this situation and guarantee immediately a fair price for this year's Capelin and take action to establish a capelin marketing agency so that this kind of chaos will not happen in the future?


Mr. St. Germain:: Buy a popcorn stand.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, without accepting the socialist solution-


John Edward Broadbent: Favoured by the fishermen.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -I can only advise the House and those who ignore the realities of the market-place, such as the Leader of the socialists who is the great advocator of "what's a billion-"


John Edward Broadbent: Why don't you have a holiday?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member. A short question.


James Douglas Manly: Perhaps the Minister and the Government will recognize the necessity for marketing agencies before too long, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT FISHERMEN RECEIVE EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
James Douglas Manly: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government extend unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen since they expired May 15? The waters off the northeast coast of Newfoundland are too cold, the cod are not appearing, fishermen are not earning any money. Will the Government extend unemployment insurance benefits for these fishermen?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, Mr. Speaker, without accepting the socialist solution, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is seized with this very important matter, he considers it a priority and is working toward a solution.


FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD-REQUEST FOR CAPELIN PRICE SUPPORT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries on the same topic of the capelin fishery and the fact that, because the Japanese have refused to pay a fair price, Newfoundland fishermen, rightly so, have tied up their boats. Unemployment insurance is cut off, the cod fish fishery is a failure, and so is the lobster fishery.
The Deputy Prime Minister is a Minister over 50 who understands the importance of regional development, unlike the younger Ministers. He has an opportunity to act here. There is such a thing called the Fisheries Prices Support Board. It exists. It is a government agency. He has the power to approach that agency. Will he do that and will he ask it to support the price of capelin this year to make sure that there is a decent price for Newfoundland fishermen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member in his very constructive way poses a very sensible question and probably a solution that might be considered. I will certainly take that as a representation and convey it to the Minister. I thank him for his suggestion.


REQUEST THAT MARKETING AGENCY BE ESTABLISHED
Bill Rompkey: I appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure he understands the seriousness of this situation. He has to act for this year, but for next year will he make sure that there is a Canadian marketing agency put in place to make sure this situation does not happen again?


John Edward Broadbent: A socialist answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the socialist solution, but also accepting the fact that I do take the Hon. Member's question seriously because he is very knowledgeable and I accept that-certainly more knowledgeable on the issue than I am-


John Edward Broadbent: Pretty socialist, though.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -I will take his considerations into account, convey them to the Minister, and assure the Member that this matter will be looked into. In spite of his earlier comments about age and what not, I think that between the two of us we can probably find a solution.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Economic Council of Canada in a policy statement indicated that there must be a national commitment by government, industry and labour to adopt new technologies more rapidly. Failure to act would mean a loss of prosperity and jobs for Canadians.
Will the Minister indicate the nature of his Ministry's response to this urgent national issue, drawn to the attention of Canadians by the Economic Council of Canada? Has the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, apprised itself of this circumstance and is the council addressing it?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Economic Council of Canada and its advice are entirely consistent with advice that we have received from other sources, which is the advice on which we have structured the new national policy, the new national strategy. We have made the necessary intramural reorganization and re-arrangements to make sure that federal resources are targeted into the areas that are identified by the council. It also points out that the main components of the national policy and strategy are precisely on target and I am pleased with that finding.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the last few weeks the Prime Minister's Office has held a number of lengthy and confidential briefings for journalists that included the subject of tax reform.
Is the Prime Minister's Office aware of the dangers of breach of confidentiality that exist in this area on a subject which is every bit as important as a Budget? Did any breach of confidentiality take place or was this simply an effort by the Prime Minister's office to manipulate the press and to persuade journalists to report that Canadians are getting tax cuts while ignoring the fact that these same Canadians will be paying major increases in sales tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any breach in security.


INQUIRY WHETHER TAX WILL BE IMPOSED ON FOOD
Michael Morris Cassidy: My supplementary is as follows: We wonder whether it is fair to arrange for these
confidential briefings with the media, when the Government is doing everything it can to inform Canadians there will be a reduction in income tax but refuses to tell the House whether food is going to be taxed or not.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether food will be taxed or whether the Government intends to go on hiding its true colours?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is patient on Thursday, the document will be unveiled and I hope he will have the capacity to digest it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are telling journalists now.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Yesterday the standing committee received a petition signed by over 7,000 employees of the Department of Immigration which stated: "Contrary to what the Minister wrote to all MPs, position cutbacks have had a negative impact on the quality of service to clients. It also testifies our indignation with the Deputy Prime Minister, and we denounce the lack of respect shown to us and the public we serve".
Given this unprecedented vote of non-confidence in the Minister and in the Government and given the confusion in immigration policy that we have witnessed over the last two and a half years, how can Canadians possibly have any confidence in the Department and the Government when over one-third of his employees are denouncing his policy and direction? How will he rectify the mammoth revolution that is taking place in his Department? What solutions is the Minister proposing to get a Department working on behalf of all Canadians?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we are down-sizing by 15,000. That was a government announced policy under Treasury Board. CIC participates. Eight hundred and twenty jobs are being affected, most by attrition. Only a handful of people have been laid off as a result of being unwilling to accept alternative employment opportunities.


Sergio Marchi: That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. There
have been over 1,500 jobs lost in the Department.
June 12, 1987


QUALITY AND DELIVERY OF SERVICE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister's own employees are telling him and the Government through this unprecedented petition that the service to the public is being jeopardized, will he immediately order an independent investigation to develop standards to ensure that an adequate quality of service to all Canadians will be reestablished and that an appropriate and sufficient number of staff members will be employed in order to deliver the quality of service that all Canadians rightfully expect and demand?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the down-sizing is being achieved with the utmost consideration for employees and client service. I do not need my hon. friend to tell me about the need to improve, or anything about quality of service. He may not be aware of this, but for the last year we have had in place a program to improve quality of service and I can say that we have made dramatic strides in improvement right across the country. Our offices are more accommodating and our officers are more accessible and are giving services that clients want, need, and understand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this day, the leader of the socialist party, during Question Period, alleged that the standing committee on the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion stonewalled the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) when he sought information on the Department at yesterday's Standing Committee meeting. I simply want to ensure that the facts are straight. An allegation is one thing; the truth is another.
The fact is that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is not a regular member of that Standing Committee. He was parachuted in yesterday, as was the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), but at least the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice had the courtesy to indicate that he was not a regular member and therefore was not fully conversant with matters before that Standing Committee.
The standing committee on DR IE has for several months been examining matters relating to tourism and matters relating to the IRDP program. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville endeavoured yesterday to take us right off that agenda by going after senior staff members from the Ministry who were present to respond to the mandate laid down by the Standing Committee and not to policy questions asked by the
Point of Order-Mr. Brisco
Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. In other words, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville sought to divert the business of the Standing Committee which it had been addressing assiduously and vigorously week after week, month after month.
I want that allegation altered, amended and withdrawn by the leader of the socialist Party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member of the capitalist Party across the way. He has referred to me as being parachuted into a particular committee. I suggest that if you were to check with the Clerk of that committee, Madam Speaker, you would find that I am a bona fide member of the committee. I was there with the proper papers containing the signature of the Whip and I was not parachuted in.
Second, if you would check the records of yesterday, Madam Speaker, you would find that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) suggested, when I asked him about this issue, that I go to the committee to ask my questions. He was not opposed to me doing that and I tried to do that but was stonewalled.
I say I was stonewalled because the witness at the committee yesterday, Mr. Salley, is a Deputy Minister of the Department in charge of policy and one important policy is how one's books and accounts are administered.
In addition to that, as my friend from Kootenay has said, there were people present at the committee yesterday who were responsible for the Industrial Regional Development Program, the major ticket item in DRIE. I asked questions about over-commitment possibilities within IRDP. Those questions were ruled in order by my friend from Cape Breton, the Chairman of that particular committee.
I would suggest with respect that on both counts my friend from Kootenay is strictly out of order. He is only crying sour grapes because the Minister has bungled through an overcommitment in that Department which is without precedent in the history of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I am also a member of the DRIE committee and my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) was there on my behalf yesterday because I could not make yesterday's meeting.
I need to say as a full-time member of that committee that Members of Parliament, be they Members who come in occasionally or regularly, have every right and privilege to design their own questions when they appear before a committee. I would suggest to my hon. colleague who I normally find to be a reasonable member of the Conservative caucus and the committee that it is not good enough, it takes all the nerve of a toothache, to suggest that the majority of Conservative members on the committee can dictate and in fact can sanction one way or the other the questions that are allowed to be asked.

June 12, 1987
Motions
Although 1 am not a frequent defender of our socialist colleagues in the corner, I say that Members have a responsibility, not just a right, to ask questions, particularly when there is a glaring example of a Department in a shambles. This point of order is not only inappropriate but it is an embarrassment to the mind that dreamed it up.


Mr. Langdon:: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This point of order was raised and one person from each Party has had an opportunity to offer his opinion and the Chair has listened very carefully. It seems to the Chair that it is obviously a point of disagreement and a point that could be debated between the different Parties but it is certainly not a point of order. The Chair would like to move on to Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between Parties and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to the moving and passing of two motions. I will deal with them individually. The first motion is as follows:
That, during the period commencing Tuesday, June 16, 1987 up to and including Tuesday, June 30, 1987, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m. and continue to sit without interruption until 10 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the House shall meet at two o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, June 17, 1987, and continue to sit without interruption until 10 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of considering Government Orders;
Provided that:
1.	Standing Order 9(2) respecting the mid-day interruption. Standing Order 19(3) respecting Routine Proceedings and Standing Order 19(4) respecting Members Statements and Oral Question Period shall continue to apply;
2.	For the purpose of Standing Order 19(7) Private Members' Business shall be taken up and considered from 6 o'clock p.m. until 7 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays;
3.	For the purposes of this order the adjournment debate shall be suspended and the Speaker shall adjourn the House not later than 10 o'clock p.m.
4.	Following the adoption of this motion, no motion under Standing Order 10(1) shall be receivable on Monday, June 15, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the following motion has also been considered by the Parties. 1 move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or special Order of this House, in relation to the hours of sitting in effect on Thursday, June 18, 1987, at 8 o'clock p.m. on that day the House shall revert to Statements by Ministers for a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the tabling of any Ways and Means Notices of Motion and other documents related thereto; and
That following replies pursuant to Standing Order 19(6)(a), the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are ready to give consent to this motion being moved and adopted as we did for the previous motion. I only want to observe that these two motions, particularly the one just moved for extended hours, show that our rules make it possible for accommodation to be given when the Government wants to have its programs considered in a timely fashion without departing from the system of meeting within a fixed calendar to do parliamentary business. The rules accommodate that now as they did before.
1 think it should be on the record that these motions, particularly the latter one, enable us not to give up our roles as parliamentarians and members of opposition Parties while, at the same time, enabling the Government to put forward for consideration its business without using measures which undermine the basic concept of the rules that we meet within fixed dates.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It is interesting to note that both of these motions have been agreed to by the House Leaders and will be accepted by all members of this House.
With regard to the Government talking about sitting in the summer or requesting extended hours, it is important that in the future the Government introduce legislation which it believes to be important early enough in the session that the public will have a chance to know what legislation is before the House and that we will not be forced to pass legislation through all stages, quite often within one half day.
I believe that such situations deny the public its right to participate and involve itself in the legislation which is brought before this House and passed by it in the last few days before the end of June.
June 12, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most of the items we are and will be dealing with in the month of June have been on the Order Paper for some time. On those that have not there has been sufficient discussion, either at committee level or among the Parties and the critics.
In response to the comments of the House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), I think it is fair to say that the achievement of the government business during the month of June has been as a result of co-operation from both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. The package is coming together nicely due to the co-operation we have received.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam
Speaker, it is my duty to table a duly certified petition which was forwarded to me by Reverend Jackson Strapp, Pastor of the First United Church in Timmins. The petition is signed by Reverend Strapp and 46 members of his congregation including residents of Timmins-Chapleau.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defeat the motion introduced in the House of Commons on February 16 supporting in principle the restoration of the death penalty in Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition from approximately 100 residents of Spadina in the City of Toronto who point out that there are many people who are in need of refuge in the world and that while Canada has had a fairly good system for considering their claims, the system has broken down and that a new one has been proposed by the Standing Committee which has wide public support. However, recent government actions in turning away refugee claimants from our borders are putting real refugees at risk.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to
Order Paper Questions
present this claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Victoria, B.C., who are concerned that the low-level flight training of NATO pilots at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador, not only disrupts the way of life of the native people there but also that the training of pilots to fly under radar into eastern Europe constitutes a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for establishment of a larger base there. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition from residents in my riding from Notre-Dame, Cocagne, Grande-Digue, Saint-Antoine and Buctouche. Your petitioners are concerned about the Canada Post Corporation's new corporate plan that will create two classes of citizens, and your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 118 will be answered today.


Mr. Manly: Does an agreement exist between Canada and the United States with respect to allotted sharing of time at the test range at Nanoose Bay in British Columbia and, if so, in 1986 (a) what percentage of time did Canada use (b) what percentage of Canada's unused time was taken by the United States and what compensation did Canada receive for unused time?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) 11 per cent; (b) 3.15 per cent- $771,509.
*Canadian usage in 1985 was over 30 per cent. The
Canadian usage figure for 1987 will be above the low usage
rate for 1986.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the "1987 Constitutional Accord, signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada", copies of which were tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons on June 3. 1987; That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee, such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated no later than seven sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee submit its report not later than September 14, 1987, provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That substitution be authorized, for Members from the House of Commons, from a list of alternates to be provided to the Joint Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee by a representative of each party at the first meeting of the Committee, such list of alternates to contain no more than twice the number of Members of the House of Commons who are Members of the Special Joint Committee representing each party in the House;
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
["Mr. Speaker, as time goes by it becomes more evident that it was a mistake on the part of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Envoys' Report on acid rain.\nAs a member of the Acid Rain Committee, and on the eve of our visit to Washington to meet with U.S. parliamentarians there, I must conclude that Canadians would be in a stronger position had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rejected the\nenvoys' recommendation of having five more years of research and demonstration.\nAt this rate of progress, in 1991 Canada will still be waiting for the outcome of U.S. research activities while Canadian officials and their successors will be engaged in smoke and mirror negotiations with their U.S. counterparts.\nThe Prime Minister did not say to President Reagan, right from the start, that we want the U.S. to cut the massive acid gas pollution which daily crosses the border into Canada. Against this background, while acid rain corrodes human health, water, soil, and forests, the Government looks inept, impotent and ineffective. What a sham!"]
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise on behalf of our Party today to support the motion before the House to establish a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons
to hold public hearings this summer on the Meech Lake Accord.

It is with pleasure, Madam Speaker, because we endorse the Meech Lake Accord, as do the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Party. It is good to have the consensus of the three Parties here in the House in the case of such an important process. I support the resolution before the House for two reasons.

First, I support the motion before the House because it will give us an opportunity as Members of Parliament to explain the Meech Lake Accord and promote a better understanding of the Accord to people across the country. I think that is important because it is a complicated document which has ramifications that will affect the lives of Canadians, not just today but for many years to come.
Second, and even more important, I support the resolution before the House to establish a Special Joint Committee because I believe that the people of Canada need some input into constitution-building. Constitutions are not just for Prime Ministers, premiers. Members of Parliament or members of Legislative Assemblies. They are for the people of Canada from all the provinces that make up this great nation.
I want to see as much positive input as possible in suggesting some positive changes to the Accord that is before us. I also hope that all 10 provinces will hold hearings, as the Province of Quebec has done and as I understand the Province of Manitoba is obliged to do so that we may have a provincial and national perspective and the resolutions of the House of Commons and Senate, and the resolutions from the provincial legislatures will be the result of input from all Canadians in this diverse country. We will have a constitution about which we will feel proud as we take this country into the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, I remember very well that five or six years ago we had another special joint committee of the House and the Senate of Canada studying the Canadian Constitution. I sat on that committee with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and I remember quite vividly that we had hearings during two or three months in late 1980 and early 1981. It was a good committee. There was good participation not only by Members of the House, like co-chairman Serge Joyal, but also by senators, particularly Conservative Senator Arthur Tremblay and Liberal Senator Jack Austin.
We had another experiment with a joint committee of the House and the Senate two years ago. Yesterday 1 spoke with my colleague the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and she told me the sittings took place in the summer of 1985, the joint committee on Star Wars and bilateral trade between the United States and Canada. Again it proved to be an enlightening experience for Canada and for Hon. Members.
June 12, 1987



One thing that has happened that I do not like is the passing of a resolution in the Senate yesterday by which the Senate will conduct its own hearings. It is very unfortunate that the Senate would want to conduct its own hearings at the same time as a joint committee is holding hearings.
Members of the House are elected by the people of Canada. As a New Democrat, with my belief about the Senate being a house of patronage comprised basically of political hacks, it is even somewhat difficult to accept a joint committee. As I said in French, experience has shown me that there has been some good contributions from joint committees in the past. However, I do not like the idea of a group of appointed politicians in the other place pretending to speak for Canada when it comes to constitution-building.
Furthermore, this is basically a non-partisan debate and let me say that 1 do not like the way they are defying the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He has taken a strong and courageous stand on behalf of his Party but is now being undercut by people in the other place who were appointed by Pierre Trudeau, who represents a different vision of this country. They will simultaneously hold their own hearings, call their own witnesses, and try to present their own point of view which may result in a deadlock for Parliament itself.
The other place really is a house of patronage and if there ever was an argument to abolish the Senate as it now exists, 1 believe this is it, and this is the time. The Senate should either be abolished or reformed. There is no place in the 20th century for a House that is not elected but has legislative power. The action of the Senate yesterday is another example of that abuse of power. The Senators, who make up a Liberal majority, are serving another master, Pierre Elliott Trudeau; he appointed most of them to the Senate. Those very senators who are serving Pierre Trudeau are trying to undercut the present leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition.
1 suppose they will also put in a bid to have access to the parliamentary channel in order to televise their hearings. I believe that all Members of the House agree that the parliamentary channel should exist for the elected Members of Parliament so that our hearings may be televised and the people of this country can see who is coming to talk to their elected representatives about the Constitution. It should not be there for appointees from yesterday's Canada.
I have talked about the new and old Canada. The old Canada was represented by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, rigid centralism and confrontation across the country. As a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, 1 know about the alienation that such a vision created in Saskatchewan. That is not the kind of Canada I want, nor do I think it is the kind of Canada that any political Party in this House wants today.
Constitutional Accord
We have a new Canada of co-operative federalism that was talked about years ago by Tommy Douglas, Robert Cliche, Lester Pearson and Bob Stanfield. We have a new Canada of co-operative federalism that is now being promoted by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader of my party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). That is the kind of Canada about which I have always dreamed. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Canada is the Canada of yesterday. That is why I am worried about the hearings the Senators are undertaking and promoting in the other place.
My vision of this country involves a strong central Government that is able to equalize conditions among people, regions and provinces. However, my vision of this country also is one in which there must be equality of provinces. There must be strong provinces that can legislate and reflect their legitimate differences.
We must recognize the diversity of this country and have flexibility so that there can be programs in the Town of Kamsack, or the Village of Buchanan that are different from programs in Newfoundland, Montreal or Vancouver. At the same time I see a government that can meet the national objectives and programs that are so important to deliver services across the country.

Also in Canada I believe it is fitting that Quebec be considered as a distinct society because Quebec is different, Quebec needs a different status. It is the reality in Canada. My God, Madam Speaker, it was Lester Pearson who led the way with the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. It was Mr. Pearson who led the way, believing as he did in co-operative federalism. Messrs. Tommy Douglas and Bob Stanfield as well as the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also took that direction, and now it is the direction taken by the three Parties here in the House. It is the reality in Canada. Quebec is different, and if we want unity in this country we must acknowledge this reality in the Canadian Constitution.
Coming from Saskatchewan and western Canada, I am proud that the Premiers have recognized that Canadian reality. I am convinced that almost all Members of this House agree with me on that.

My vision of Canada also includes the aboriginal people as a distinct and unique people who need more constitutional protection. I hope that through these hearings we can mobilize public opinion and convince legislatures, primarily in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, that they should include in the Accord recognition of Indian rights to selfgovernment in Canada. That was something which was accepted in principle, certainly by the federal Parliament and by six other legislatures and, I am sure, by the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
.10)
I appeal to the Premiers of this country to recognize that in order to complete the circle of a strong federal Government and provinces, and the diversity and uniqueness of Quebec, we must also include the uniqueness of our native Indian people with an appropriate amendment which recognizes aboriginal self-government in Canada. We may already have had that, were it not for the intransigence of Premier Devine, Premier Getty and Premier Vander Zalm. 1 appeal to them once again to reconsider their position and to establish public hearings in their provinces so that aboriginal people have a chance to have some input in terms of constitutional building.
As someone who has a name which is neither French nor English, though half English in ancestry, 1 want to to go on record on behalf of our Party as speaking out as strongly as possible to ensure that we have multiculturalism recognized in the Constitution of Canada. I am very happy to see in the final Accord, which came out of the Langevin Block, a change to the original Accord, that nothing in the Accord will derogate from the existing rights of multicultural groups in this country. I think that is a very important thing which should be noted and explained to the people.
In this country we have a lot of differences, but 1 do not think that we should let those differences divide us. I think those differences are what makes this country unique. I come from a riding where there are people of many national backgrounds, such as Ukrainian, Chinese, Russian, native Indian and the odd Scandinavian like myself. We have people of British background, and a few of French background, although not many. In my kind of province we have a cultural mosaic. It is really great to go to a non-Ukrainian wedding in my riding and find that many of the customs are Ukrainian because they have picked up some tremendously interesting and vital customs from the Ukrainian culture. I think we have done that right across this country. We are not the same melting pot as we see south of the border in the United States. Because of those differences I think we are richer and I feel these differences will unite this country in an even greater way.
It is very important that we support this Accord because it is very important to change the Constitution to include Quebec.
[ Translation]
And as I said, it is important to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to have our Constitution recognize that Quebec is different. It is not only a matter of the different language spoken by the majority of Quebecers. They have a different culture. They have the Civil Code. There are many differences.

Second, 1 want to comment on the spending power and the powers of central Government. I think Pierre Trudeau has exaggerated to its utmost limit some of the dire consequences which could happen to the central authority or the spending
power. 1 think he has taken the worst case, exaggerating as much as possible.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam pointed out that she was in this House when Lester Pearson was Prime Minister and when he talked about cooperative federalism. The Right Hon. Lester Pearson tried to get recognition of spending power by the federal Government in the Constitution and he could not. Now it is part of the Meech Lake Accord. In fact, there is a reference to the Government of Canada in terms of spending power which was not there before. There is also a recognition in the Accord of national objectives, which was not there before. I suggest that some of the things which were fought for by Lester Pearson back in the 1960s are now coming to fruition.
With respect to the federal spending power and the amending formula, 1 think in many ways we now have less of a strait jacket, because all we need are seven provinces out of 10. If we look at the history of medical care, unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, we find that in all those cases we built a consensus for the unanimity of the provinces with the federal Parliament before we went ahead. Now if we have a province such as Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Ontario or British Columbia, which is intransigent and says, no, it will not necessarily hold back the rest of the country.
We talk here about the federal spending power and we are talking about it in areas of exclusive provincial rights. Those are the rights of the provinces. They do not get compensated for a national program unless their own programs are compatible with national objectives. What is wrong with that? If the program is not compatible with national objectives they will not receive compensation, and if it is a proper and popular program they will suffer the consequences in the next provincial election.


Mr. Caccia:: What will you do with the extra billing?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Extra billing does not fit into this example at all. If there is any Party which knows something about medicare it is the Party of Tommy Douglas which fought for medicare in North America from Saskatchewan some 25 years ago come July 1.
With respect to the Supreme Court and the Senate, I wonder why some people such as Pierre Trudeau and the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and a few others, think the federal Government should have the unilateral right to appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court. This is a federal country. We have two orders of government which are equal.
In Saskatchewan we have had problems with Supreme Court decisions. In our province the Supreme Court struck down legislation by the Blakeney Government to tax foreign multinational oil companies. That was done because there was no input from the provinces in the selection of those judges.
June 12, 1987

I say in a federal state that both the provincial and federal Governments should co-appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court, and that is what is being done in the Meech Lake Accord. That is co-operative federalism. That is the kind of thing we want in our province. I suggest that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want it as well.
With respect to the Senate, we saw what happened yesterday in that House. In defiance of the Leader of the Liberal Party, it passed a motion to have a study of the constitutional Accord. If we are not going to abolish the other place, if we are not going to have an elected Senate, the least we can do is to ensure that the provinces have some input into the selection of Senators so that the Senators are not obedient to an old master like Pierre Trudeau but will have some responsibility to represent their provinces and their regions in a truly federal state.
I also want to mention the north. There is perhaps one glaring omission in the Constitutional Accord, and that is that northern Canadians become, in a constitutional sense, second-class citizens. Other residents of other provinces have an input through their legislature and in the nomination of judges and Senators. However, citizens of Yukon and the Northwest Territories do not have the same right. I do not think that is fair. I know an important case is being launched, but I think we are going to have to look very hard to find some kind of amendments so we do not create second-class citizens in a constitutional sense in northern Canada.
I am also concerned that the amending formula for the creation of new provinces has been changed requiring unanimous consent. I think we can hopefully all unite in this House to build up some kind of public feeling among the provinces to agree to revert back to the existing amending formula, which is seven provinces out of 10. Because of this glaring oversight, I want to move an amendment which I hope is acceptable to all Members of this House.
I move, seconded by my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West, (Mr. Benjamin), who has been pushing for the idea:
That the motion be amended by striking the word 'and' at the end of paragraph 9 and substituting the following therefore,
That the Committee, or a sub-Committee, have power to travel to, and hold at least one public hearing in, each of the two Territories;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of advisors to assist in its work, and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
In closing, I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Liberal Party to seriously look at the possibility of giving this committee the right to travel in northern Canada. I think this is a really special case because they do not have provincial Governments. They were not part of the Meech Lake Agreement. They did not have a Premier sitting down at the table for them. The federal Government represented them, I know,
Constitutional Accord
but citizens of other provinces had both the federal Government and their premier, and there is a difference. With the amended formula, they do not get a chance to help select the judges of the Supreme Court or the Senators. There is a guarantee for a Senator, but the federal Government would appoint the Senator from the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. So in that sense I think there is a constitutional double standard.
The other point I want to make is that they may never become provinces if unanimous consent is required. There is a difference when it comes to the north. I think the committee should have the power to travel to the North or to send a subcommittee to the north. If the committee, through consultation, deems it unnecessary, then the committee does not have to travel. We do not say that it has to travel. We are saying that if it wishes to travel then it should have the funds available to do so.
I am sorry that my time is running out. I would like to have made one or two more comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the Hon. Member's amendment. Are there questions or comments?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, this is a sad time for Canada, not necessarily because of differences of opinion, on this constitutional Accord, but when we see a Party once regarded as a Party of principle become purely a Party of political opportunism-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Exactly right.


Donald James Johnston: -we all know that power corrupts. The NDP has now proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that even the fleeting sniff of power corrupts.
That being said, I wish to ask the NDP spokesperson, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a question with regard to process. He mentioned the constraint on the spending power that is found in the proposed new section 106A(1) of the Accord, which he views very favourably. He says that to withdraw, provinces would have to meet national objectives in carrying on their own programs. At the present time we know that the spending power as it is generally used requires the delivery of funds to the provinces for them to spend in accordance with certain national criteria, otherwise the funds are not forthcoming. I suggest that this section clearly creates a new situation and the term "national objectives" must mean something. It is a very important consideration, what it means. That is a legal issue. Who establishes those national objectives is another legal issue. We have already heard a number of interpretations.
I would like to advise my friend from Yorkton-Melville
and the House that I have written a letter to the Prime

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and to each of the provincial Premiers, including the Premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Devine. In this letter I have suggested that it would be very helpful if a number of these ambiguities, such as the ones surrounding the spending power, were cleared up by the courts before the resolution is adopted, either here or in the provincial legislatures. That cannot be done through committee hearings. Committee hearings are important in order to have views expressed.
But there is a mechanism for doing this. In the case of the federal level it can be done by reference case under Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act; and at the provincial level, in the case of Saskatchewan, for example, it can be done under Section 2 of the Constitutional Questions Act, Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978, Chapter 29. This clause, which we are told was of particular concern to the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley, who shares the same political affiliation as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, can be dealt with by a similar reference made under Section 1 of the Constitutional Questions Act of Manitoba, Revised Statutes of Manitoba, 1970, Chapter 180.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether or not he would support that idea, which should not in any way delay the parliamentary timetable but would enable us to determine before we do something to the country and to the Constitution what the impact of it will be by definitive, legal interpretation in some of the obvious areas in which there are concerns. Obviously, the court cannot comment on everything in the Accord, but it certainly can take on the interpretation of these specific ambiguities so that parliamentarians and Members of provincial legislatures will know on what they are voting. That is the question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Montreal for his suggestion. I think it is an example of why we need public hearings. His suggestion is worth looking at and studying. I cannot answer his question off the top of my head. It is one of those things about which one would have to think. I think it is well worth studying. Hopefully, over the summer we will have all sorts of other ideas that will come before the committee and we can build up some kind of national consensus. There are ambiguities. But there are also ambiguities in the Constitution which we patriated in 1982. A great many items in the Charter of Rights are left to the interpretation of the courts. So I say to my friend that his suggestion is worth taking a look at.
I wish to make one more comment about his comments concerning our principles.


Donald James Johnston: Which ones?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On the Constitution. I challenge my friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount to go back over any speech I have made on the Constitution back in 1981, 1982 or 1983. I have always spoken about my vision of the country in a similar way to which I did today. I have not changed my spots. I am
not a leopard which changes its spots. We have always believed in a very strong co-operative federalist state. Tommy Douglas spoke about that. Robert Cliche-

-who was well-respected in that province often referred to the federalist system of those provinces and perhaps Mr. Cliche had much influence on the Prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, because he began his political life with him. And Mr. Cliche was not alone, there were also Mr. Tommy Douglas, Mr. Allan Blakeney and many other New Democrats who dealt with the necessity of having a co-operative system in this country.

I find my friend's comment, that we do not have principles now because we are becoming very strong, to be rather strange.
The final point I wish to make is that since I am being so cooperative about taking a look at his suggestion, I wonder if he can tell me whether or not he will now support our amendment to have this committee or subcommittee travel to the North. I do not think that our northern citizens, in the constitutional sense, are being treated the same as his constituents or mine.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are being snubbed.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Mailly:: Madam Speaker, 1 am delighted to hear my friend the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) refer to Pierre Elliott Trudeau as the man of yesterday. For once, I can agree with him. I find it very difficult to agree with most of his ideas, but that is one on which I can agree. The same is true of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I do not often agree with him, but today I do although I find it somewhat surprising, something akin to a Damascus road conversion for the New Democratic Party, because I, personally, have always been consistent.
Why did 1 get involved in politics? Because I felt that the Liberal approach was one of confrontation and division, and I wanted one of reconciliation. I decided to join a party which was going to address this problem. Today, we are solving the problem, and I am very proud of it. But I wonder where the Hon. Member was when he should have supported Mr. Clark, a man with a deep belief in provincial rights who worked very hard to get a foothold in the province of Quebec because he was determined to defend the provinces' rights. What did the New Democratic Party do, Madam Speaker? It sought Mr. Clark's defeat. It even moved the motion which defeated Mr. Clark's Government. I do not see any consistency there, and I wonder also where the New Democratic Party was when Mr. Stanfield, before Mr. Clark, promoted the same approach of respecting the provinces and decentralizing the Canadian Government because it failed to recognize our regional disparities. The Government did not recognize the rights of Quebecers, for instance, who make up a distinct society while being proud Canadians. Where were they? That is why I agree
June 12, 1987

for once with the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount. This looks very much like a conversion and smacks of political expediency. I hope such is not the case, because it would be very sad that a man should have all the right principles for the wrong reasons.
I would like to ask him two questions.
Here is my first question. He was saying a while ago that the new spending powers under the Accord would not weaken Canada. Is he planning to encourage Mr. Pawley to keep his mouth shut when the time comes to deal with this aspect, since the NDP leader in Manitoba was apparently the one who created problems and almost caused the Meech Lake Accord to fail?
Here is my second question. He mentioned the amendment aimed at protecting the multicultural dimension of Canada. He said that we are a mosaic and not a melting pot, like the United States. The Quebec federal NDP leader, Mr. Harney, seems determined to create division and conflict again, saying that the linguistic rights-
What is going to happen to the minorities in Quebec if Mr. Harney, the federal leader of the NDP in Quebec at the moment-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have everything wrong.


Claudy Mailly: His approach is that he does not care about the rights of minorities because he wants language matters strictly under provincial jurisdiction. What are you going to do about that?
These are two questions that I think have to be answered if you are going to make yourselves the defenders of a distinct and proud Quebec society.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First, Mr. Harney speaks for himself, I am sure, like the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) will speak for himself.
The Hon. Member asked about spending power. Mr. Pawley signed the agreement, and partly because of his insistence the wording was strengthened with respect to the federal objectives. He made a very useful contribution towards strengthening the federal objectives, making sure they were compatible with the federal Government. We can all be proud of his contribution. I certainly am. I am also surprised that the Hon. Member would make that rather partisan remark.
As to Quebec, this is not a new-found interest in that province. I and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) can give the Hon. Member our policy books and she will find that, with Robert Cliche and Tommy Douglas back in the sixties, there was a recognition that Quebec was a unique and distinct society.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go back to the 1940s and Therese Casgrain.
Constitutional Accord


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My colleague refers to the 1940s. 1 was not around the conventions in those days, but Madam Casgrain, a respected woman in Quebec, talked about the uniqueness and difference of Quebec. It is not a sudden discovery by the NDP that Quebec is different.


Claudy Mailly: You supported the Liberals who were against all these principles.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just a last comment, Madam Speaker, please?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is over. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor.

Resuming debate.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I know other Members want to speak and our time is limited, so I will do something I usually do not do, stay fairly close to my notes.
I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who always speaks with eloquence and passion. I agree with much of what he said. I am not going to touch on some of the things I fully agree with, especially what he said about the North. However,
I want to deal with some of the other items that he mentioned.
This is either the beauty, the challenge or the curse of this debate. In listening to his logic in interpreting the Meech Lake Accord I am almost reaffirmed in my concern about some of the very things he sees so positively, but which I think create real problems. He talks quite rightly about the Machiavellian politics going on in the other Chamber by that muse from Lake Ainslie in Nova Scotia, MacEachen Incorporated. He has come out of his cave of hibernation and is trying to impose himself in the parliamentary process by playing monopoly with the concerns of the citizens of this country.
I said, along with Stanley Knowles, many years ago that I am for abolition of the Senate. One of my first essays in political science dealt with the reform of the Senate. However, what I cannot accept from my hon. friend who just spoke so well is that he laments the hacks, flacks, and all the political patronage in that Chamber down the hall, yet does not raise any questions about how the new method works. There is still going to be appointments of hacks, flacks, and good people, but instead of being appointed only by a Prime Minister after consultation, the appointments will now come from a list provided by the provinces. The form has not been changed.
If my hon. friend, who has been around here for a few years, along with some Premiers who are a little newer to the political game, really believes, given the unanimity rule for amending federal institutions, that there is a snowball's chance in that place down below of making any fundamental reform to the Senate, he is wrong. Triple E goes out the window. Instead of

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
equal, effective and elected, it will be echo chamber, eternal, and ineffective. It is as dead as a dodo bird. Senate reform is as dead as the dinosaurs in Drumheller. Yet my friend waxes eloquently and quite passionately about what is going on down there and how they are becoming very partisan in their deliberations on this very fundamental document.
Quite frankly, I am not going to be partisan today because this document cuts across Party lines and there is real concern in all Parties about the Meech Lake Accord. I agree that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) brought a tremendous feeling of national reconciliation to this country after the election of 1984. We do not have the confrontation we had before. He deserves a lot of credit for getting the 10 Premiers around the table and coming up with an agreement. That is very rare. Yet we cannot be completely blind to the way some people interpret the implications of that agreement. We can all have visions of national reconciliation but we have to know if this constitutional document is going to stand the test of time; not when everyone is feeling very good and very co-operative but when there is stress and strain on the federation, as there is from time to time.
Do not bring the dragon of Pierre Trudeau out and say that is the man of yesterday. He was Prime Minister for 16 or 18 years, and in that sense he is the past, but some of the questions, if not the way he raised them, are very legitimate. I am glad Canadians are going to have a chance to assess those questions now that we have this motion to send the matter to a joint committee. I will not get into that, but I compliment my House Leader for doing that. They will have their chance if the committee gets input from the public, and hopefully the provincial legislatures will have their public input as well.
The amendment suggested by my friend from Yorkton- Melville is interesting and constructive, but the fact is we have to decide whether it is co-operative federalism or whether it is going to be fractured federalism. I am going to refer to something which is central to that question, and that is the spending power. Before I do I want to read into the record a letter 1 wrote to my Prime Minister on May 12. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) had spoken out, but this was before Mr. Trudeau spoke out. I talked about vision and my basic instinctive concern about what Meech Lake would do. It reads:
My Dear Prime Minister,
Notwithstanding your eloquent and sensitive speech yesterday, it is with regret and after much wrenching introspection that I am duty bound to inform you that in all conscience I cannot agree to the Meech Lake Accord. 1 sincerely believe that in the laudable desire to get Quebec "in", we are so fundamentally changing the future character of Canada that the "one Canada" I believe in will become too loose a Confederation with the Federal Government no longer being first among equals but merely one among equals.
I am not too disturbed about Quebec's justified claim of being a "distinct society"-but with the opting out process along with compensation, there is no doubt in my mind that in time, and soon, there will be a de facto "deux nations", let alone sovereignty-association status in that Province. Accordingly, I can appreciate why the Bourassa position has been positively received in Quebec, while unfortunately, and dangerously, in a political sense, the rest of Canada is so numb (and bored) over the constitutional process, that the
fundamental implications of nation building at Meech Lake are not receiving the proper attention they deserve.
Therefore, in my view, a one day debate in the House, while commendable, is not sufficient. However, I appreciate that the fine print of the necessary legislation will provide an opportunity for a further debate of the principles of the Accord. Nevertheless, recognizing the reality of the parliamentary and political process and the limitation of time for government business, I feel these principles should be debated now-and surely if these suggested constitutional changes are to stand the test of time, then they should now be able to withstand public and parliamentary scrutiny.
At a minimum, a parliamentary committee of both Houses should be given an opportunity to seek and hear the public's view.
This would provide a vehicle for meaningful public input on the principles of the Accord to assess whether the opting out clause might adversely affect the leadership role of the federal Government let alone the provincial veto on national institutions which surely consigns Senate reform to the perpetual backwater of a constitutional strait-jacket.
Furthermore, the institutionalizing of annual federal-provincial conferences on the Constitution and the economy, with possibly the real agreements being made (necessarily) behind closed doors, will surely render the parliamentary process somewhat redundant and hence the House of Commons, for at least the important national issues, will become a mere rubber stamp.
1 have no doubt, Mr. Prime Minister, of the intensity and passion of our Francophone colleagues in all Parties with respect to their support for the Accord.
I recall when Premier Bourassa said that Quebec could not agree with the Victoria Amending Formula, he eloquently emphasized that his position was not anti-Canada but pro-Quebec. Likewise, I am not anti-Quebec but pro-Canada and Mr. Prime Minister, 1 hold my position with as much passion and intensity as do our Francophone colleagues.
The reason I read the letter was to indicate that that was my instinct at a time long before others who had more responsibility in running the country spoke out.
Why is there such concern in terms of the powers of the federal Government? 1 will not repeat what 1 said about the Senate. However, we can forget about reform in the Senate and Triple E. Anyone who thinks that there will be fundamental reform of the unanimity rule is whistling Dixie.
I should like to refer to the American experience. They are celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of their Constitution. They started with 13 little States, and they had an amending formula which required unanimity. The whole system bogged down in that more simple day. They had to reframe their Constitution and provide the amending formula which they now have where there is some flexibility.
It is ironic that we took so many years-a hundred or so-to get our Constitution back into the country where it properly should be. It had an amending formula and then, almost out of the blue-although I admit that there was a year-long negotiation behind closed doors-we are to put federal institutions into a constitutional strait-jacket from which they will never be changed.
In terms of the spending power, I should like to say that this is a very complex, complicated situation. I agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount that perhaps some of these matters should be considered by
June 12, 1987

stated case in the Supreme Court to get some judicial direction before we put the Constitution into constitutional stone.
This matter is different from the bilateral agreements with provinces. The Cullen-Coutre immigration agreement is a bilateral agreement between Quebec and Canada on immigration. There are many bilateral agreements between the federal Government and the provinces from time to time, which are not frozen in constitutional stone.
The problem with the Meech Lake Accord is that we are taking some of those de facto, ad hoc bilateral situations which require flexibility from time to time and we are putting them into a Constitution which is much more difficult to change.
Let us look at the spending power. The spending power is tremendously different. I know there are different types of arrangements now in the different social plans in the country and that each province must have some variation. However, that is much better than the present document which we are considering. Those who have been seduced by the semantic changes which occurred in a 20-hour session in the Langevin Building illustrate the danger of our moving too fast down the constitutional road without some judicial assessment of the real interpretation.
I can understand; I have an Indian community in my riding. They were here for the constitutional debate on aboriginal rights. Talk about second-class Canadians which members of the NDP mention in rhetoric yet do nothing about in reality!
What if you were one of the aboriginals, Madam Speaker, who came to Ottawa several months ago and found the constitutional conference floundering because the participants would not or could not define aboriginal self-government or aboriginal rights? It is a legitimate question; it is a very difficult thing to define. However, that conference failed because they could not define it. Yet, you got something else- a "distinctive society" with opting out features with compensation. Somehow the Premier of Ontario admitted in Queen's Park that the courts would define that. Don't you think you would have been a little hard done by? Don't you think that that is one of the reasons there is some irritation and quite proper irritation?
We are prepared to leave things to the court on one hand- the Meech Lake Accord. However, on other matters which affect people and their rights, we shy away from them and say that we cannot come to an agreement. I tell you, Madam Speaker, that is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Let me refer to something else which is not on record. Quite frankly, I think the press have been lazy laggards in really assessing the implications of the Accord, the rat-pack journalism which goes on around here. They get mesmerized by Trudeau and they do not do their homework.
1 will read another document into the record. It is only one of many which I have. I hope someone follows through on it, so that when we get to the committee, those who appear before the committee to give evidence can be examined.
Constitutional Accord
I should like to quote from a Canadian Press story dated May 11,	1983 concerning the Conservative leadership
campaign. It is one of the softest ones. There are others which have much more pejorative terms about what candidates were saying about each other and about the positions of their fellow colleagues running in the race to be leader of my Party. It is part of the confusion.
Four years ago, very responsible, competent, conscientious, serious politicians had something to say about the opting out formula. There is a complete change today. Surely they must come before the committee to be examined on why it was so bad four years ago and is most acceptable today.
I will read one of many clippings; I am not going to bore you, Madam Speaker. The May 11, 1983, CP story reads as follows:
Joe Clark is playing "fast and loose with the historical truth" when he claims his proposed constitutional concession to Quebec is official Progressive Conservative policy, says leadership candidate David Crombie.
Crombie says the proposal, supported by the Tories during the 1981 constitutional debate and now opposed by all leadership candidates but Clark, was merely a last minute political ploy designed to embarrass the Government by attracting support from Quebec Liberal Senators.
The Tories argued then-as Clark does now-that up to three provinces should get full financial compensation if they opt out of a constitutional change that transfers provincial powers to Ottawa.
Crombie, a member of the all-Party constitution committee, said he and others opposed the idea but voted for the unsuccessful Tory amendment because of pressure from Clark to show caucus solidarity.
Jake Epp, the top Tory constitutional spokesman at the time, says Crombie is rewriting history to justify why he, John Crosbie and Michael Wilson have changed their minds on the issue.
"Obviously it is Party policy-caucus voted for it", Epp said Wednesday. "I don't understand the flip-flopping".
The complicated issue of fiscal compensation may now be, as Crosbie says, "a pretty academic question."
Yet it reflects a tougher Tory attitude toward Quebec's demands and has added some weird twists to the leadership race:
-Clark was booed at a Toronto debate, accused of selling out to separatists and criticized by Anglophone editorialists for defending a position held in 1981 first by eight Premiers and then by his caucus.
-In the heat of the race, three former cabinet Ministers have suddenly revealed a change of mind. Crombie admits he voted for something he didn't believe in. Crosbie was surprised when reminded he once voted for it. Wilson confused compensation with another issue during the Toronto debate .. . Brian Mulroney, who has also savaged Clark's position, says he has his own nine-point constitutional plan but aides can't produce a copy or say exactly what it is ...
ironically, Clark's opponents have landed squarely in the camp of their chief enemy, Prime Minister Trudeau, who says fiscal compensation would amount to "incremental separatism."
Trudeau said in an interview published last weekend: "I note with a bit of amusement that the people who supported him (Clark) then and booed the Government. .. now are taking our side against Mr. Clark."
Clark argues his position is consistent with a more decentralized view of federalism and aids all provinces, not just Quebec.
Crosbie, Crombie and Wilson say they have reassessed their position.
This is another CP story of May 4 which ties in with what I
have just read:

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Conservative Leadership candidate Brian Mulroney accused the Party Quebecois government Tuesday of preventing Quebec from reaching a constitutional understanding with the rest of Canada.
This is a compliment to the Prime Minister about more or less what happened, but it does not really answer the question about physical compensation. It continues:
"Get rid of the PQ, and as Prime Minister of Canada, I'd negotiate constitutional peace with the people of Quebec just like that," Mulroney said while visiting Tories in northeastern Quebec.
He said it is "practically impossible" to improve relations between Quebec and Ottawa as long as the PQ is in power.
Mulroney has been criticizing his leadership rival Joe Clark for playing into the hands of the PQ by promising to insert in the Constitution a formula allowing the provinces to opt out of amendments with financial compensation.
The Montreal businessman has refused to specify his own views on Quebec's constitutional discontents, saying it would be bad strategy for a future Prime Minister to tip his bargaining hand to Premier Rene Levesque.
Mulroney announced a nine-point "formula for rekindling the kind of alliance between Canadians which Sir John A. MacDonald spoke of more than 100 years ago."
I took the time to read that, Madam Speaker, because that just shows you the difficulty and the complexity of this opting out formula. Does it strengthen Canada or does it make a French Canada?
My friend from Yorkton-Melville can quote Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas who started medicare in Saskatchewan never would have had medicare as a national program if this opting out compensation formula were in place. We all know the history.
Premier Robarts of Ontario was dragged into the plan because Prime Minister Pearson said, "you will have four criteria and if you get four criteria you will be part of medicare. If you don't get into the plan, we will test you anyway". That is really political blackmail in provincial jurisdiction, admittedly, but that is what got the medicare plan launched. It would not have happened, in my submission, if we had the present opting out compensation formula that is in the Meech Lake Accord.
I think you are indicating that my time is almost up, Madam Speaker. I will leave the Accord but I would like to touch on one other thing which reflects on Parliament and which bothers me. I do believe in Parliament. I understand there is a de facto form of Government, that is, federal-provincial conferences. They have become very important. To institutionalize them into the Constitution on a yearly basis really makes this place rather redundant. Put a Member on the government side in my position, something that I have nothing to do with, understandably, because I was not there in the negotiations, yet there is a hosanna and a euphoria about an agreement because everyone comes together. Yet if I voice objections to what I have been no party to and on which I never ran an election, I become, in effect, an implied traitor to the cause.
I agree completely with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and, I hope, my House Leader, for whom I have the highest respect who made a light remark
about me, about my seniority. Perhaps my seniority will be the only thing I will have left when I sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: These things will come on a yearly basis. We have to change the rules, as the Hon. Member for Windsor West said, so there can be some provision to trigger a debate, such as there is in Manitoba, when constitutional accords are made.
In conclusion, and this is a conclusion, I admit, this stuff all started in recent times with Premier Robarts calling Premiers together for the Confederation Conference of Tomorrow in Toronto in 1967. I just want to say one thing, something that I will never forget because I was then a brand new Member. I would not have even suggested participating in any meaningful debate but it never really came on to the floor of the House. The Attorney General of Ontario, Arthur Wishert, said, in defining the problems of entrenching rights and having a written Constitution, that in the civil law the only rights you have are what is written down, whereas in the unwritten common law they are wide open unless they are taken away.
Just to divorce myself from Pierre Trudeau, I say we have the worst of both worlds unless there are some meaningful amendments to this matter. We have the Supreme Court of Canada de facto legislating on a Charter of Rights, which no one fully understands-that is arguable-it may be good or bad. Now with this Meech Lake Accord institutionalizing constitutional agreements and no one knowing what the Accord really means, we will have the Supreme Court again legislating, doing our work, telling us what we should have written, and I say that is the worst of both worlds.
I am so glad that we have at least got this thing launched in a committee. I really do hope that Members from all sides over a period of time will have a chance to contribute. If we can spend days on capital punishment and days on the Patent Act and drugs, surely Members of Parliament should take the responsibility and in the right place and at the right time speak out on this-whichever way they feel-because constitutions, as someone said earlier, are for people, not just for the leaders of the land.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that now that he has sat down he has his seniority but he also has his self-respect, and that is terribly important.
My question arises out of his comments that the courts will tell us what we have done. He referred, I think, to a comment of Premier Peterson and he also referred to the over-all thrust of the Accord which will place even greater legislative power, if you like, in the hands of the courts.
I am not sure if the Hon. Member was here earlier when I mentioned that I had written to the Premiers and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and suggested that a number of the ambiguities in this Accord could be cleared up by reference cases, provincially and federally. Would he comment on that
June 12, 1987

as an appropriate procedure, given that some of these issues, not some of the fundamental ones which he raises, such as the institutionalization of First Ministers' conferences-we all know where that could lead, as he has pointed out-but some of the ambiguities in specific sections, whether it be on spending power, distinct society versus distinct identity, or the issue of whether that provision in turn overrides the Charter and so on, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, not only could be but should be put to the courts so they can tell us now, when we look at this resolution and debate it in the House, what those provisions actually mean.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was momentarily out of the House. I did comment on that and I thought it was a good idea.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). He had a lot of concerns and believed that there are many questions regarding this Accord. I believe those are legitimate concerns and 1 share some of them. I hope, as a result of the committee process, that we will have a number of people not only addressing those concerns but addressing a number of others which many people across the country have as to the exact wording and meaning of the Accord.
When the Member says that this Accord weakens Confederation-and that is the implication he left-he should also recognize that the constitutional package of 1981, for which 1 believe he voted, also was a vague package, a package going to the courts which enshrined a Charter of Rights the exact implications of which even at this stage many of us do not know when we passed it in those days. This is not something new. His Prime Minister and the Premiers did not do something new this year. This is an ongoing process and it will always be a problem when we deal with constitutional changes. The Member accepts and agrees with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) that that is a valid position. He is probably quite sincere in his opinion, but he must admit that those are not the same reservations that he himself had in 1981.
The Hon. Member referred to the New Democratic Party and our position on aboriginal rights. He inferred from the motion we have before us, which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) put forward, that we are concerned about the Yukon and the Northwest Territories being left out. He also somehow inferred that we are not concerned that aboriginal people were also left out. That can hardly be true. The Member has heard us speak on this issue. He knows that on Monday of this week the New Democratic Party had a motion calling for another First Ministers' meeting on aboriginal rights. In that same motion we again referred to the need to recognize the existing rights of the people from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal people. That motion which was put to the House was not a motion of confidence in the Government. We explained that in the first speech that was made by a member
Constitutional Accord
of the NDP. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants voted against that amendment. I think there is a contradiction there, and before he criticizes us for putting forward these amendments on a consistent basis, twice this week, he should at least admit that we have been trying but sometimes he has not supported our efforts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I was very brief in replying to the Hon. Member's first intervention and I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member in a sense. However, let us not kid ourselves and play games. I was in opposition for 18 years. We used to think up dream motions that we knew would be turned down.
The Hon. Member is correct. Because of the questions in the Meech Lake Accord over aboriginal rights and the north, 1 suppose, to be logical, I would vote against it, and a couple of Members did so. However, the Hon. Member knows as well as I do that that was a Supply motion. He may say that it is not a confidence motion, but the fact is that it dealt with one of the most integral parts of the whole parliamentary process, and that is Supply.
There is another rule that indicates that such a motion was not a motion of confidence, and the Hon. Member has said that it was not, but I have my interpretation. I used to sit on that side of the House and plot motions that would embarrass the Government. The Government would be caught between a rock and a hard place because the motion would be for motherhood. Yet the reality is that it is a vote of confidence.
I had no hesitation in voting with my Party on a confidence motion. While 1 may have some reservations about the interpretations of the Accord, I hope that the joint committee does resolve some of them and I hope that my fears are unfounded. That is a heck of a lot different from voting against a Government on a confidence motion.
I say to my friends in the NDP that I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He is one of the most active speakers in the House.
1 do not want to be too partisan because I hope that this matter can be debated in a political but not a partisan way. That is what I resent so much about the Senate.
When the Hon. Member said that he was a leopard that did not change his spots, I had a little dirty thought. I thought, yes, sometimes that fellow is pretty strong and perhaps has some spots. However, in this case, given the history of his Party with the Regina Manifesto, Woodsworth, Coldwell and Lewis, he is a tabby-cat. That Party is a tabby-cat. NDP used to mean "New Democratic Principle". Some of us thought it meant "No Damned Principles", but now it means "No Disturbing Polls". They want to ensure that they do not rock the boat and perhaps they will slip through.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) has spoken passionately about a Constitution that needs to reflect the essence of

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Canada and of Canadians. He has said that a Constitution needs to address the aspirations of the country's people and not necessarily of the country's political leaders. He also spoke very passionately about how the Accord treats and addresses the first citizens of Canada, the aboriginal people. I appreciated his passionate plea for bringing down to earth what a Constitution is supposed to be. In essence, a Constitution is supposed to define its country and its people.
Toward that end, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Having spoken to the people, having recognized the aboriginal fact of Canada, and acknowledging the fact that there is both a French and an English heritage in Canada, would the Hon. Member be supportive of an amendment that would add in Clause 1 the fourth indisputable reality of Canada, which is its multicultural nature?
Multicultural Canadians have made contributions to Canada, not only in contemporary times but in fact in history. The aspirations of that sector of society for their children in years to come should be recognized. There is a belief in Canada that Canadians who are of neither French nor English origin have somehow been relegated to a second-class status. These people have been included in the Constitution as a footnote in Section 16. However, Clause 1 at the beginning of the Constitution basically sets out what Canada is. Would the Hon. Member support an inclusion of the concept of Canada being made up of four fundamental characters, the French, the English, the aboriginal and the multicultural people?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would appreciate a short answer from the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a very fundamental and important question, Madam Speaker, but my answer can be short.
Just as an aside to my friend from Yorkton-Melville who spoke of the Constitution and of Trudeau and the worst events let me say that the Constitution must cover all events and it must be for good times and for bad.
I think my hon. friend has just raised one of the real questions that must be resolved. 1 know what he is getting at in the abstract. I will wait and see what will be done through amendments.
I am a political realist and I think the Hon. Member is as well. When 10 Premiers and a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put their signatures to a document, it will take a lot of public persuasion to ensure that these are the necessary changes to reflect the reality of Canada, which I think is what the Hon. Member has suggested that it is.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), has put before us a very important matter that requires some comment. As you know, Madam Speaker, the people who will be appointed to the special joint committee to examine the Accord will have a very
noble and important task ahead of them. They will be examining an extremely important, significant and historical document.
What distresses me about the proposal of the Minister of Justice is that he has set out in the rules for this committee a deadline for reporting back to the House of September 14. 1 find that extremely difficult to understand and actually unacceptable.
The House of Commons can debate for over a year the question of capital punishment. It can debate for six months the question of pornography. It can debate for months and months the question of the cost of prescription drugs and medicine. Yet when it comes to this fundamental, basic document, the super-law of Canada, the Government has set a time limit of three months, including the summer months, for deliberation and examination of such a fundamental document. That I wish to raise in the strongest possible terms as being a ludicrous way of dealing with the Canadian Constitution.
A time limit puts undue and unnecessary pressure on members of the committee to report back to the House on a matter that is extremely difficult and which must be explained. Some of us have enormous difficulties understanding it, and I will mention that again in a few moments. As well, the public needs the time to absorb the issue.
I thought that a columnist here in Ottawa put it very well a few days ago when he wrote that the Accord can be examined not as a sacred text from Mount Sinai but as the flawed work of 11 politicians burning the midnight oil and jockeying for advantage, and that it can be held up to the light to check for cracks. I think that is a good way of describing the substance of this document. It needs a very thorough examination, and the time limit on that process is unacceptable.
As presently written, the Meech Lake Accord, as you must have noticed from Question Period, editorials and articles, raises many questions. I will deal with only a few of them. First, Clause 1 does not really reflect the composition of today's Canadian society. That matter was raised in Question Period by my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), only a few minutes ago. The description of Canadian society in Clause 1 must definitely be amended in order to provide for recognition of the existence of Canadians whose language is neither English nor French but who are Canadian citizens and make daily substantial and phenomenal contributions to the fabric and substance of this society.
Second, and of equal importance, as has been raised by others, in particular the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), is the importance of recognizing, not as an afterthought at the end of the document but in Clause 1, the existence of the aboriginal peoples. I congratulate and salute my colleagues for having raised that so forcefully, intensively and repeatedly in the House of Commons in preceding days.
June 12, 1987

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to deal with Clause (2)(l)(a) to include the real composition of Canadian society and to describe it in today's reality rather than in historical recollection of the past.
Another aspect which raises many questions is the reference to a distinct society. What on earth does "distinct society" mean? What is a "distinct society" in the Canadian context? I do not know. You must have been to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. It strikes me that that society is a distinct society, too, for different reasons. If you go over the mountains to the west you will find that British Columbians as well consider themselves to be a distinct society in sociological, collective, regional and geographical terms. One must then ask oneself whether New Brunswick is not also a distinct society. It recognizes bilingualism in its statutes and has a distinct character. The same can be said of Ontario. Before you know it, you will come to the conclusion that there are actually many distinct societies in this country. Therefore, why should we single one out in this process?
On the same subject I must ask what powers a province which has a distinct society within it would have. I do not know but it is evident that this distinction can lead to a number of powers which have not yet been examined or spelled out. For instance, does a provincial Government, which is a distinct society under the Constitution, have the power to override citizens' rights under the Charter? If it does, should it have those powers? We must clarify this question and many others which flow from the Accord.
As you must have noticed from newspaper articles, Mr. Speaker, there are people like Pierre-Marc Johnson who say that the constitutional Accord will spur sovereignty. The Minister of International Relations in Quebec, Gil Remillard, says that the Meech Lake Accord will confirm a special status for Quebec in international relations. Is that what was intended by the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)? Is that what we are heading for? Is that what we want to have in this country? I do not see that that will be to the advantage of Canada or will make Canada stronger, as the Deputy Prime Minister said when he introduced his motion earlier this morning. This will not make Canada stronger at all.
In many passages the words of the Accord have been left vague. That is another aspect which needs attention. When there is vague terminology in any piece of legislation responsibility is shifted to judges to make political interpretations. Why should we saddle the judges with the task of second guessing what the politicians meant? That is not a good practice for writing legislation, particularly a piece of legislation of this importance. The consequences for the future of Canada of recognizing a distinct society are fundamental and have to be explored in detail and, in the long term, for the reasons 1 gave a moment ago.
With regard to other aspects of the legislation, I have grave reservations about how it affects immigrants. Immigrants can come into Canada under two sets of rules. Will an immigrant
Constitutional Accord
who has been pre-selected to go to Quebec have freedom of mobility? If, two or three days after arrival, an individual decides that he would like to move to another francophone region of the country for personal reasons, will he be bound to remain a permanent resident of the province for which he was selected?
What will happen to an immigrant who comes in under the other set of rules, chooses an English-speaking part of Canada, and decides after a short period of time to move to a Frenchspeaking part of Canada? Flow will the mobility rights of that individual be affected by the executive proposal in the Accord?
What happens to other rights which are presently in the Charter but are not referred to in the Accord? I am told by people with legal training that courts have a tendency to give precedence to parts of the Charter which may be singled out in the Constitution because of a convention that ordains that parts of the Charter which are not specified are not protected, are less protected. This is an item of extreme importance. Will the Charter be gutted by the fact that certain aspects of the Charter have not been mentioned or singled out in the Accord?
One must inevitably ask oneself whether the nation will be stronger as a result of the measures which the Government is proposing if the proposal is implemented and some of the consequences upon which I have elaborated come into being.
The point with which I will conclude has to do with appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court. Will the nation become stronger through the appointment procedure put forth in the Meech Lake Accord? Would the nation be stronger if Senators and judges were appointed through a process that was initiated by the provinces? I can only state my opinion, that it has a very uneasy impact on me as a citizen because I still believe that while consultation is desirable, the shift, onus and initiative in appointments to national institutions should rest with the national Government and not be devolved or transferred to the components of Confederation.
I hold this belief for the very simple reason that there is an element of accountability. Inevitably, if one is appointed by the national Government, one's major responsibility and accountability will be to the totality of the nation rather than to a region in which one resides. This subtle shift in that accountability is one that I do not like.
Finally, the fact remains that we are witnessing in this Accord a gradual process of decentralization. There are appointments to the Senate, appointments to the Supreme Court, the distinct society and the spending power element which is very important. There is the immigration aspect as well. All of these are wrapped up into a unanimity clause. All of these small elements of decentralization combine to mean much decentralization.
This brings me to the important point concerning spending
powers. While Parliament was included in the first Accord, it
has been left out in the second Accord. The word "compatible"

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
is so vague that no one really knows how to interpret it. No one knows according to that clause who is to set the national objectives.
One would hope that it would be the national Government, but it is not spelled out in that clause. It does not state clearly and unequivocally who is to set the national objectives. I would not want the Supreme Court of Canada to be faced decades from now with making a decision on this particular point.
Furthermore, I am not definite, but I have spoken to many people about the process of transferring powers which may make it impossible for the federal Government to stop payments to provinces which may decide in the future to introduce extra billing. Presently, the Government can stop payments, as we saw in a press release last week which stated that Ottawa refunded several million dollars to New Brunswick since it stopped extra billing. The federal Government must protect and retain that kind of power.
1 do not know what will happen to universality as a result of this particular clause, but 1 know that it is a clause that is vague and unsatisfactory. It puts to shame those in the House who have fought hard for universal programs, national programs and social security of the same quality and strength from coast to coast.
I want to conclude by putting forward a subamendment as a result of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister in reply to questions posed by the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount when he asked what will happen in provinces where the provincial legislature will not hold public hearings in that province.
The Deputy Prime Minister sloughed the question off as a kind of superficial question that has no relevance to the debate today. 1 submit that the question is very relevant and important, in light of the fact that only last week Premier Getty of Alberta was reported to have said that there will be no public hearings in Alberta. 1 hope he will reverse his decision and hold public hearings, but in case some provinces do not do so in their respective areas, it seems that this committee or a subcommittee of the joint committee ought to hold public hearings in that particular province.
Therefore, I move the following subamendment:
That in provinces where the Legislature does not hold public hearings or has
not officially committed itself to hold public hearings, a sub-committee of the
Joint Committee be given powers to travel and hold public hearings in such
provinces.
There may be situations in which a province will not be able to hold hearings in the summer. Therefore, the subamendment is written in such a way as to take into account those provinces that will not hold public hearings in the summer months, but will make a public commitment to Canadians that their legislatures will hold public hearings. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair will reserve for a few minutes on the admissibility of the amendment. In the meantime, we will proceed with the question and comment period.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for being able to raise so many important questions in such a short period of time.
At the very outset he questioned the motion on the basis of the time frame within which the public hearings are to be held and report back, as I recall, by September 14. He, like many of us, feels that that time frame is inadequate.
Having had considerable experience in committee work over the years, could he suggest what might be an adequate time frame, so that we do not simply leave it open-ended, but perhaps discuss among ourselves what time frame would be appropriate? Should we wait until we see the representations that people wish to make on the basis of the fundamental principle that as many Canadians as possible should be heard?
I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is here to witness the concern of parliamentarians that this is too short a time frame. Again, I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister to support this subamendment which will ensure that people from coast to coast will have access to that committee, without having to travel across the country to Ottawa at their own expense.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I can understand the necessity and the desire of the Government to set a time frame. However, we should consider the length of time it takes us to examine other pieces of legislation. For example, we have been studying pornography for six months and we do not know how much longer we will be studying it. The House knows how long we could be studying capital punishment.
In light of that, on a fundamental piece of legislation like this, there ought to be an opportunity for ample hearings without such a limited time frame. I do not know whether a time frame should be set in this resolution, although I can understand the anxiety on the part of the Government to set a time frame. It has to be one that is practical. It seems to me, however, that as a minimum, there should be an examination of the Constitution, which is to last in its new proposed form- and I really hope there will be substantial fundamental amendments to the way it stands now-in order to give the public the time to absorb what is being proposed. We ourselves, who ought to understand it quickly and readily, have enormous difficulties. It should be given a time frame of six or even eight months and if, in the judgment of the members of the committee, that period of time turns out to be not adequate, then the time could be extended according to the best judgment of the members of that committee.
Since government Members would have the majority on the committee, they would be quite able to determine when that process ought to come to an end. It seems to me that it is not realistic and that it is-I hate to use such a heavy word but I cannot find a better one-undemocratic not to allow this examination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has his
June 12, 1987

heart in the right place and he is a democrat, but he does not seem to be consistent with the image 1 have of him when he imposes a time limit which is so restrictive.
1 am sure that if the Deputy Prime Minister were in the Opposition, he would make a more passionate speech, because he is more of a passionate speaker than 1 am myself, if not to keep it open-ended, at least to give it a breathing space, and three months is not enough.


Mr. Berger:: Madam Speaker, I wish to support the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I want to say I also feel that the amount of time given to this committee is insufficient, given the importance of the questions with which we are dealing. After all, we are dealing with amendments to the Constitution of Canada. I think it is particularly important, in light of the fact we are really travelling in many respects through unchartered territory. There are provisions in the Constitution, as has been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Davenport, which are very ambiguous. I can refer to the opinion of a respected member of the legal profession, J. J. Robinette, who, a week or two ago said he felt that the courts and lawyers would have to deal with these ambiguities and suffer through the consequences of them for many, many years to come.
I think it is important to note that also because there were people who objected to the inclusion of a Charter of Rights in 1981 on the grounds that this would transfer power to the courts, that it would be the courts which would decide what the law of the land was, in the final analysis, and not the legislatures and the Parliament of Canada. I think there is an important distinction to be made between the Charter which was introduced in 1981 and the terms of the Meech Lake Agreement, and that is, that the rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are rights which have already been subject to hundreds of years of interpretation, in many cases. It is true that the freedom of conscience and religion have to be refined from time to time in light of changing circumstances, mores, practices and habits in society. But can anyone deny that the freedom of conscience and religion are rights and freedoms which have formed the basis of legal decisions, interpretations and writings for hundreds of years? The same thing applies to the right to life, liberty and the security of the person. The same thing applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to the equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter.
Of course, the Charter contains minority language educational rights under Section 23, and those rights were framed fairly precisely. But even the provision such as the one, where numbers warrant, under which minority language groups would have the right to education in the minority language, was criticized precisely because it was said to be ambiguous. Nonetheless, in that case, there was some good evidence and a number of precedents to indicate what such a clause would mean in the final analysis.
Constitutional Accord
Therefore, I would submit that it is incorrect and illogical for those who are advocating changes to the Meech Lake Agreement, and some of the ambiguous changes, to say that this was the precise reason we were objecting to a Charter in the first place in 1980 or 1981. The rights and freedoms set out in the 1981 Charter are rights which were the subject of many years of interpretation, and I would suggest that it is entirely different now to propose concepts which are very ambiguous and many people do not know the meaning of them. Indeed, there are great differences of opinion as to the interpretation of certain clauses of this agreement.
Therefore, prudence dictates that this agreement, and certainly the ambiguous aspects of the agreement, be given full study by a committee of this House and by Parliament. If the Hon. Member for Davenport cares to respond, I would ask him if he does not agree with the distinction I am trying to make, namely that it is a far cry between the rights which were set out in the 1981 Charter and some of the very ambiguous provisions in the Meech Lake Agreement which, again, are subject to radically different interpretations?


Charles L. Caccia: In the limited time available, Madam Speaker, because the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) wants to participate in the debate, I would like to give a very brief answer, namely, that I do agree with the question which has been put to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is now ready to rule on the subamendment which was submitted by the Hon. Member for Davenport.
The Chair will have to rule this subamendment out of order. We refer to the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, Section 438(1) which states that if an amendment is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the Member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
The Chair feels that having hearings in provinces not officially committed to holding public hearings is bringing up a matter which is foreign to the amendment. Therefore, the subamendment is not admissible.


Charles L. Caccia: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to put forward a argument on this ruling if-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he wants to challenge the Chair, he should stand up and say so.


Charles L. Caccia: Then I am glad to challenge the Chair, if that is the procedure the Deputy Prime Minister wishes me to follow. I thought we could argue the ruling, but if it is the wish of this House that 1 challenge the Chair, I am prepared to challenge the Chair, and I will do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As I said a few moments ago, the Chair feels that once the amendment now before the House has been disposed of, the Hon. Member could certainly propose, as an amendment, what he has

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
proposed to the House now. However, at this time, as a subamendment, the Chair feels it is not admissible. It is out of order.
It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government, thereby making them partners in Confederation, and that this House further urges the Governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base, and calls upon these governments to constitutionally commit themselves to negotiate with the aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motion now before the House follows rather closely the debate which has preceded it. The motion could very well have read: "That, in the opinion of this House, the recently agreed to Accord should be amended in order to recognize the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government". However, that is a fine point.
It is the Constitution Act, 1982, which the First Ministers' conferences on four different occasions have attempted but failed to amend.
In many parts of the world today very serious thought and consideration is being given to the problems and the rights of indigenous peoples who live in settled states or already-established nations. Frequently, the indigenous people to whom I refer live in underdeveloped or isolated parts of the particular country in question. Sometimes, even if they live where there is a population, that is, in an urban environment, they continue to live on the fringes of society. Recently, a very significant world report was presented on the environment and development. It is referred to as the Brundtland report. To its credit this report did not ignore the concerns and the problems of aboriginal peoples. For example, in reference to aboriginal peoples, it states in one of its sections:
Growing interaction with the larger world is increasing the vulnerability of these groups, since they are often left out of the processes of economic development. Social discrimination, cultural barriers, and the exclusion of these people from national political processes makes these groups vulnerable and subject to exploitation. Many groups become dispossessed and marginalized, and their traditional practices disappear. They become the victims of what could be described as cultural extinction.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that in hearing that you must believe as I do that the people who put together the Brundtland report visited Canada or that they heard from expert witnesses from Canada.
Often for these very same people, no matter where they live-and they live in many parts of the world, not only in North America but also in Australia, the Amazon Basin, Central America and in the forests and hills of Asia-isolation has meant that few of them have shared in national economic and social development. That is reflected in the poor quality of life in many of their communities in terms of housing, economic development and opportunity, educational facilities, and even in terms of nutrition and health.
Strangely enough, if that situation were not serious enough, if a resource is discovered where they happen to live, if there is some opportunity to exploit the environment for material gain, then these people find themselves once again pushed aside and pushed out to make room for the developers. In the United Nations Organization today there is a Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Populations. The group is chaired by a very remarkable woman, Dr. Erika Daes of Greece. She was an observer at the First Ministers' Conference that was held recently here in Ottawa which dealt with aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
Dr. Daes, after long and very careful research, has concluded the following about the right of self-determination. Selfdetermination is a term that goes back at least to the days of Woodrow Wilson, and perhaps even earlier than that. We certainly became familiar with the term on a world-wide basis at the time that the League of Nations was created. She said that the right of self-determination as we understand it over that period of time applies equally to indigenous peoples. She adds, however, that it does not mean the right to secession.
During the past 10 years Canada has given some very important, and I would say effective, leadership in recognizing aboriginal rights. It is now generally regarded that our federal system here in Canada is quite capable of accommodating native self-rule. I think most of us in the House realize that all that is really needed in order to accomplish this is some political will, a conviction that if we did so natural justice would be served.
In the Constitution of Canada today aboriginal rights are recognized in Section 35. That section states, among other things: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Did you know, Madam Speaker, that there are some people, who regard themselves as knowing something about the Constitution, who say that that is nothing but an empty box? They say that there is really nothing in it. Others, for whom I have a greater respect and whose views are more considered, believe that Section 35 is a full box of rights and that what we are undertaking to do at First Ministers' conferences is to draw from that full box of rights certain definitions, certain specific rights and, in particular, the right
June 12, 1987

of self-government or the right of self-determination within the Canadian Confederation.
This process of definition to which I have referred was, in fact, an obligation that was laid upon the Government of Canada and the provinces by the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 37 requires that there should be a number of these conferences in order to define with precision and exactness what are aboriginal rights. More and more the concentration has come to be the right of self-government.
My motion speaks to that very process, the process of recognizing the right to self-government within the Confederation of Canada or, to put it in another way, the process of completing the circle of Confederation. Until we recognize the rights of aboriginal people in Canada to control, to direct and to manage their own affairs within the Constitution and within our Confederation, we have a situation which is incomplete.
There have been a series of these conferences under the glare of television lights with a great deal of rhetoric exchanged among the Premiers, more than one Prime Minister, and the aboriginal leaders. So far we have not succeeded, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Elnatyshyn) have clearly indicated that we must not give up on this endeavour. I agree with both of them. The purpose of my motion is to say that this Elouse agrees with and supports the notion that the endeavour must be continued. Listen to what the Prime Minister said following the last conference:
I deeply regret that we did not succeed, but I give my hon. friend the assurance that we shall try again to make sure that justice comes about for the native peoples of Canada.
He went on that same day to say:
-we are still looking for a formula that will make it possible to enshrine the rights of aboriginal peoples in the Constitution of Canada. We did not succeed last week, but the federal Government's obligation is clear. I think the responsibility is equally shared by the provinces, and we intend to examine with them and the leaders of the various aboriginal groups the various alternatives available, in order to try and develop another formula that would meet with the requisite consent of various groups so that this right can finally be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
He also said:
I said with the greatest sadness that this was a moral obligation that has been unfulfilled by Canada, by the federal Government, by the provinces-
I quoted the Prime Minister because I want Members of the House to know that the motion I am putting forward today supports the desire by the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, and a large number of Premiers, not enough but certain of them, to fulfil the unfulfilled obligation and complete the incomplete task. The motion now before us calls upon this House to lend its support to this endeavour which the Government of Canada has stated is a priority.
On May 28 in the House of Commons the Prime Minister, following the signing of the Meech Lake Accord and responding to questions about aboriginal people, said we have to:
The Constitution
... try to create a climate wherein it is generally recognized and accepted that a sense of justice and equity is required for the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that there can be a constitutional accord on this vital issue.
Through this motion I want to contribute positively to the favourable climate to which the Prime Minister referred. I have to say that that climate does now exist among a large number of Canadians. Some polling has been done to test their attitudes about recognizing aboriginal self-government. Some of our Premiers have been leading spokesmen on this yet unresolved issue. There are other Premiers, however, who remain apprehensive, fearful and hesitant. The Prime Minister said it is important that we try to create a climate so that the next time the First Ministers meet, a degree of success is attainable. Therefore, I submit that if today the House were to see its way clear to approve my motion, we would not be placing an obligation of any kind on the Government or on any province, but we would be helping to create the climate for which the Prime Minister has said there is a distinct need.
1 believe this House should be making some effort to help ensure success in the future. On June 8 the Minister of Justice said:
I share the disappointment. I think all Hon. Members of the House felt that we were unable to strike an arrangement on aboriginal constitutional amendments at the last First Ministers' meeting.
The Minister of Justice went on to say:
However, that was not the end of it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated at the conclusion of the First Ministers' meeting that it was not the end of it-
He said another meeting would depend upon an indication that progress could be made. I believe this House can play a role by approving this motion to help create the climate in which progress could be made. We are saying as Members of Parliament that we want and expect significant progress when the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the aboriginal leaders meet once again.
On that same day the Minister of Justice spoke of the need to maintain the priority to move toward the ultimate constitutionalization of the concept of self-government and aboriginal rights. That is the first time in my recollection that a senior member of the Government regarded this as a priority. They have always said it is important. They have always said it is a matter that has to be given full and undivided attention. Now the Minister of Justice has established it as a priority.
That being so, it is important that the House of Commons also express itself on this matter so that it remains a priority and in order to provide support to the active endeavours of the federal Government and encourage those provinces which still need further assurances.
Members who have taken the time to look at the motion will realize that I have gone a little further than to simply recognize within the Constitution the right of self-government. That is an essential starting point, but the motion goes on to talk about the need for a viable economic base for aboriginal selfgovernment. It also refers to the equitable sharing of lands and resources. In that regard I want to share with the House a

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
little more from the Brundtland report, the World Commission on Environment and Development. In one of its sections it
says:
Tribal and indigenous peoples will need special attention as the forces of economic development disrupt their traditional life-styles-life-styles that can offer modern societies many lessons in the management of resources in complex forest, mountain, and dryland ecosystems.
Some are threatened with virtual extinction by insensitive development over which they have no control. Their traditional rights should be recognized and they should be given a decisive voice in formulating policies about resource development in their areas.
I indicated earlier that this report has so much to say to Canada that one would have expected that some important witnesses from Canada had contributed to it. Sure enough that is the case. Louis Bruyere, President of the Native Council of Canada, is quoted in the report as follows:
Indigenous peoples are the base of what I guess could be called the environmental security system.
We are the gate-keepers of success or failure to husband our resources. For many of us, however, the last few centuries have meant a major loss of control over our lands and waters. We are still the first to know about changes in the environment, but we are now the last to be asked or consulted.
The most we have learned to expect is to be compensated, always too late and too little. We are seldom asked to help avoid the need for compensation by lending our expertise and our consent to development.
My motion would be incomplete if I did not talk about the need for sharing of land and resources and for an active say in the policies which lead to the development of those resources.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker,
I should like to address the second part of the motion of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) which "urges the Governments of Canada, the provinces, and the territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base and calls upon these Governments to constitutionally commit themselves to negotiate with the aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources".
The recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal constitutional matters in March, 1987, did not result in an amendment. Nevertheless, my Government has taken a number of positive steps over the last several years which have resulted in significant actions in relation to lands and resources for aboriginal peoples.
The new comprehensive land claims policy announced by the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) in the House on December 18, 1986 was the culmination of a broad review.
This review was begun in 1985 when the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), established a task force under the able chairmanship of Murray Coolican which reported in March, 1986. This report and the subsequent consultations with aboriginal groups have been important to the development of this new policy.
Let me say at the very outset of my remarks that the Government of Canada, by bringing forward this new policy, has affirmed that the resolution of claims arising from aboriginal title is a major priority, a priority shared with Canada's aboriginal peoples. My Government is committed to the settlement of these claims by direct negotiations.
Some highlights of these changes to the comprehensive claims policy are directly related to aboriginal self-government and the equitable sharing of land and resources.
The federal Government acknowledges that self-government and claims policies are related. The management of settlement benefits and the administration of lands and resources are governmental matters. Changes to claims policy will allow for the negotiation of a broader range of self-government matters concerned with the authority and control over aboriginal lands.
Self-government is often spoken of as the exercise by a community of responsibility for its own members and of authority over the affairs of the community. Another aspect to self-government affecting aboriginal groups is participation in the exercise of powers within the broader framework of public government. This aspect sets self-government in the claims process somewhat outside the community-based self-government negotiations. As a result of the changes in claims policy, it is expected that settlements will recognize a specific aboriginal managerial interest in relation to a number of environmental matters such as water, land use, and wildlife management.
It is not proper, on the one hand, to recognize special harvesting rights for an aboriginal group and, on the other hand, to exclude the harvesters of the resources affected from responsibility for their management.
Under the policy, therefore, aboriginal groups will be able to negotiate membership on a variety of management boards and other agencies with decision-making powers, as well as representation on advisory committees as was possible under the previous policy.
These arrangements must not only acknowledge that public governments have a responsibility to protect the interests of all users of resources, to ensure resource conservation, to respect international agreements, and to manage renewable resources within their jurisdiction. However, such arrangements will also recognize aboriginal groups as having a unique interest in the governance of the resources.
In speaking of environmental and renewable resources, 1 include marine areas traditionally and currently utilized by aboriginal groups. This is an important matter which has required clarification. The Inuit, in particular, have been concerned that much of their hunting has been traditionally carried out on what is called land-fast sea ice in certain seasons and by boat at other times. Similarly, Indian groups in coastal areas have traditionally relied heavily upon the harvesting of marine resources.
June 12, 1987

The federal Government is now prepared, in recognition of this use, to negotiate with aboriginal groups matters relating to the harvesting and management of renewable resources in marine areas, not only on land.
My remarks thus far have demonstrated my Government's firm position on the matters of lands, resources, and selfgovernment which have been raised in the Hon. Member's motion. In addition, the motion made reference to "a viable economic base" for aboriginal self-government.
The changes to the claims policy relating to economic benefits have been of particular importance to aboriginal groups. Under the former policy, sub-surface land rights in defined areas could be granted to aboriginal groups, in some instances in order to avoid land use conflicts in key areas and, in other instances, as a means to provide aboriginal people with the opportunity to obtain revenue from the development of such sub-surface resources. This option will continue to be available to claimant groups.
In addition, and under the new policy, my Government is prepared to provide to aboriginal groups a percentage of Crown royalties derived from the extraction of resources in the entire settlement area. I would stress that this option will include not only royalties from sub-surface resources but will also include non-renewable resources extracted from offshore areas which form part of the claims settlement area.
It is my belief that this option will be of special interest to aboriginal groups, as it will assist in providing the tangible means to build the economy not only of the particular aboriginal groups but of Canada as a whole. This policy is proof of our commitment to equitable sharing and our support for a viable economic basis.
My Government believes that commitments are empty without action. The policies of my Government go beyond mere commitments and will result in concrete solutions to the very real economic issues the Hon. Member has raised in his motion. I am optimistic that over the next several months we will begin to see meaningful results flowing from these policy changes.
The agreements resulting from comprehensive claims settlements will be entrenched in the Constitution as existing treaty rights, as provided in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The key points I would emphasize are referred to in the motion. My Government is committed to negotiate and to protect constitutionally agreements concluded pursuant to negotiations.
In closing, I want to say that it was an honour for me to speak on the Hon. Member's motion today.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I should like to express appreciation to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for bringing forward this very important motion. It is important, not because we need to hear more speeches on the question of aboriginal self-government, but because it gives the House an
The Constitution
opportunity to express its will and intention with regard to aboriginal self-government. In part the motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government-
This position is supported in principle by all three Parties and has been for some time, at least since 1983 when the report on Indian self-government was tabled in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member who introduced the motion.
As I said, the report was endorsed by all three Parties in the House. It was the result of travel across Canada by a committee to hear the considered opinion of aboriginal leaders. Then we sat down and thought about it very seriously among ourselves and expressed different partisan points of view. We came to a consensus that what we needed was a fundamental change in the relationship between Canada and its aboriginal peoples, and that the basis for that change should be a recognition of the rights of these people to govern themselves, a right which they had in the past, a right which they never surrendered, and a right which needs to be empowered so that it can become meaningful in the last half of the 20th century. This is not simply a frill, not simply a constitutional nicety, or something that would be desirable if all other things were equal. This is something that is basic to the future of the aboriginal peoples as a people. Without that kind of provision, aboriginal peoples face a form of systemic discrimination, which is unacceptable in Canada in 1987. I want to give just one example which is taken from yesterday's paper. This article reads:
Natives are denied parole more often than non-natives, in part because of a lack of parole supervisors in rural areas, says a spokesman for the National Parole Board. In Alberta, from January 1, 1979, to December 31, 1985, full parole was granted to 43 per cent of non-natives, but to only 20 per cent of natives, board member Ken Howland said Tuesday.
Here we have a situation where our Government, which is supposed to be looking after the interests of aboriginal peoples, does not provide the kinds of facilities in rural areas which allows Indian prisoners to have the right of parole in the same way that non-native prisoners would have. That is a form of systemic discrimination which could be overcome if there were a form of self-government in place whereby Indian people would be responsible for that kind of service themselves.
As long as we maintain that, we will continue to have native people in our prisons. We will continue to have discrimination showing up in all kinds of ways, in health, education, job opportunities and so on. This, I want to emphasize, is not a frill. It is not something that we can take or leave. It is absolutely essential if we want to see basic justice for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Over the past few weeks there has been a great deal of congratulation over the very significant achievement reached in the Meech Lake Accord between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the First Ministers. It is significant because it overcomes a very key flaw in the 1982 Constitutional Accord

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
where nine provinces and the Government of Canada agreed on certain constitutional changes that the Government of Quebec was not able to agree to. In a sense, Quebec was left out even though legally it was still part of the Canadian Confederation.
The significant thing about this constitutional Accord is that now for the first time a democratically elected Government of Quebec is able to sign that paper and say, "Yes, we are part of the Canadian Confederation", a very important and significant achievement. Some people question whether or not the price is too high. Every concerned Canadian recognizes the importance of Quebec being a part of that Accord. It was possible because there was a commitment across Canada to seeing that happen. There was a commitment on the part of the Prime Minister and on the part of a significant number of the provincial Premiers so that other Premiers were carried along. Bill Vander Zalm a few years ago said he would be just as happy if Quebec separated because then he would not need to read French on his corn flakes box. He is rather a flaky Premier, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: Even Bill Vander Zalm went along with the Accord because there was a sense that this was the will of the Canadians in 1987.
We need that kind of commitment to the question of aboriginal self-government. We do not have it. We have had a series of constitutional conferences involving the Prime Ministers and the Premiers. Every one of them has failed. Every conference has ended, sometimes with the hope that we will meet again in two years. This last one met without even that. The last constitutional conference called for in our present Constitution has come and gone, and there is nothing to replace it. Now we have an opportunity in this motion this afternoon to declare ourselves as a House of Commons, to say, yes, we want to see the aboriginal peoples of Canada brought willingly into Confederation. The way in which that will happen is if we say yes to their inherent right to aboriginal self-government.
I urge all Members not to talk this motion out. The importance of this motion is not that it gives a chance to debate this issue, we have debated it ad nauseam in the House before. We have a chance to vote on it. I urge all Members to make sure that we take advantage of that opportunity and that we vote.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate and address the subject of self-government by our aboriginal peoples, especially since in the riding of Beauharnois- Salaberry we have the Saint Regis Indian Reserve. I am sure the name is familiar to many of you. They were champion lacrosse players, which led to some interesting games between
people on either side of the border and even between Ontarians and Quebecers, but there were also some good fights as well.
I have always enjoyed my visits with these people and every time I go back, I find that, deep within myself, values that are sometimes hard to define surface in conversations with Indians, because of their attitude, philosophy and tradition. I feel privileged and proud to be able to visit and, in fact, to have in my riding a substantial part of this segment of our Canadian population.
The vast majority of native people are economically disadvantaged. Over the years, unlike other Canadians, they have not been able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by our economy, and to a great extent, they are unable to do anything to remedy the situation.
Today, they are demanding self-government so they can be masters of their own fate and become full-fledged citizens.
Since the first Conference of First Ministers on constitutional questions concerning native peoples, held in 1983, a number of questions have been addressed which are of crucial importance to native peoples and to the way they see their place in Canadian society, today and in the future.
As Hon. Members are aware, aboriginal self-government has been one of the major items on the constitutional agenda as it concerns native peoples.
In this regard, I would like to point out that the federal government has played an important role in responding to the desire of native peoples for self-government. At the First Ministers Conference in April 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled a draft political agreement which provided for constitutional recognition of the right of native peoples to self-government, rights that would be defined and their implementation laid down in agreements between the governments and the native peoples.
Governments also would agree to negotiate with native communities with a view to reaching the accords involved.
At a later meeting, Madam Speaker, between federal, provincial and territorial ministers and native representatives, the Canadian Government announced it was ready to enter into negotiation with native groups and provincial governments in order to set down in concrete terms what self-government would be at the regional and community levels. Those negotiations were aimed at setting down the form and content of self-government. That grassroots approach opened up the possibility of tapping, through the transfer to the natives of federal and provincial powers, a wide range of native institutions and service delivery mechanisms in the areas of education, training, culture, economic development, social services and housing. For the first time a Canadian Government was proposing the establishment of a trilateral body to deal with the real problems of Metis and non-status Indians. For the first time also both levels of government were talking with Metis and non-status Indians about their aspirations and special needs.
June 12, 1987

Further to the invitation sent by the Canadian Government in June 1985, trilateral talks were started in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. For their part, Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick also stated they were interested in giving it a try.
Over the last 12 months, the Canadian Government paid almost $0.5 million to help Metis and non-status Indians participate in those trilateral talks. This is our own way of viewing the implementation of the self-government concept. Our responsibility does not consist in holding theoretical discussions on the totally abstract notion of an inherent right.
For its part the Official Opposition seems to prefer that native rights be defined by the courts rather than through negotiated agreements.
1 should like to refer to the opening statement of the Metis National Council at a multilateral constitutional meeting held in Ottawa on November 13, 1986. I quote:
This judiciary proceeding differs from the political process of constitutional negotiations preparatory to the First Ministers Conference on constitutional matters of interest to native people which is scheduled for Ottawa in April 1987. However we would like to emphasize that the approach we favour is one which will lead to a political solution within the process of the First Ministers Conference.
That is indeed the way the Government intends to follow, the political solution rather than the judiciary solution, for that is the way things are done in Canada.
Therefore, negotiating agreements on self-government is indeed the preferred mechanism for defining the structure and powers of native administrations. Proposals for a constitutional amendment aboriginal self-government should provide that the conditions for self-government will be defined in agreements between the federal Government, the provincial governments and the native peoples. The commitment to negotiate such agreements would be enshrined in the Constitution, while the agreements themselves would be constitutionalized by ratification by the federal and provincial legislatures. These agreements have the advantage of providing a mechanism acceptable to all parties for defining the powers of native administrations.
Enshrining in the Constitution the commitment to negotiate agreements on self-government has the advantage of letting provincial Governments and the federal government play a role in defining the forms of self-government.
Furthermore, native peoples would have the assurance that they would have their say about the way self-government will affect their lives. The negotiating process provides a flexible mechanism for the transfer of powers to native administrations.
Madam Speaker, we must accept the principle that achieving aboriginal self-government should be a flexible process, adapted to the situation, needs and aspirations of the various native communities and regions. Consequently, we must also accept the principle that it must be done through agreements negotiated by the governments and the native peoples concerned.
The Constitution
Perhaps I may quote at this point from a statement made by the Prime Minister at the Conference of Canadian First Ministers in 1985, which is still very apt today:
Canada's native peoples will be asked to make some difficult choices in the years to come. They will have to find the right mixture of traditional and modern views to suit their needs. That is the compromise they will have to make to define the place that is theirs in Canadian society. And they alone will be able to strike that difficult balance between the old and the new.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. Brian Mulroney.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, first I should like to remind my colleagues in the House that the federal Government has always clearly led the way in this field. Here are the facts. Since the 1985 First Ministers' Conference we have had five multilateral ministerial meetings and five meetings of senior officials, not to mention countless bilateral discussions on a one-to-one basis with the interested parties. These meetings were held from the beginning of discussions until the First Ministers' Conference in March this year. We are responsible for organizing these meetings, drafting proposals, keeping the list of options and proposals up to date, gathering the documents required and, finally, keeping the dialogue going. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can honestly accuse the federal Government of having been partisan or negligent in anything at all in this respect.
Specifically, the federal Government proposed a wide-ranging acknowledgement of the right of peoples, of native peoples, to self-government, far broader than anything the previous Government was ever prepared to consider, let alone to propose.
Here is what Global Network Peter Trueman had to say during the World Report broadcast on March 9, 1987, and I quote:
Few Canadian Prime Ministers have stood up so firmly for the rights of native peoples nor worked so hard to guarantee them such rights. Criticizing a Prime Minister-any Prime Minister-for failing to bring his provincial counterparts to their senses is about the same thing as denouncing him for being unable to convince rivers to flow upstream.
I would remind Hon. Members that the negotiations concerning the constitutional question as it relates to native people involved no fewer than 17 interested parties. Regardless of what the federal Government is prepared to accept, it still has to expect a minimum of support from the other participants. As it happened, the Government concentrated all its efforts on the quest for a solution which would be acceptable to all.
I should also like to remind Hon. Members of the position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on the question of native people self-government. In his March 11, 1987 address to the native peoples gathered before Parliament, Mr. Turner stated in general terms that he was in favour of an explicit acknowledgement of the right to self-government, and he made it quite clear that the right to self-government should be defined and specified through negotiations. Well, Madam Speaker, that is exactly and precisely what this Conservative Government advocates.

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
The real question Canadians must ask themselves is whether they want their elected representatives and representatives of the federal Government, the provincial Governments and the native peoples' associations to negotiate agreements acceptable to all parties or whether they would prefer to let the courts define the concept and scope of the right to self-government, without considering the wishes of governments and native leaders. In other words, Madam Speaker, we must decide whether we want to proceed by means of negotiation or court challenges. On this particular point, that of the final and binding aspect, the federal Government has spoken out in favour of negotiation to define the scope and substance of the right to self-government. We do not doubt the integrity or fairness of the courts, but we, on the federal side, are convinced that this kind of right should be defined by the Governments, that is, by the federal government and by the provincial Governments, as well as by the native peoples themselves. It should not be left up to the courts. We have taken this position because the self-government negotiations we have in mind will fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Canada's native peoples.
Some people reacted to our willingness to negotiate this major constitutional reform with the provinces and the native peoples by saying that the federal Government was seeking the lowest common denominator. In fact, we are seeking the highest common denominator, and I hardly think anyone would question that, considering the efforts made by the present Government and other Governments in this respect in recent years.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), in his opening address to the meeting of Ministers responsible for constitutional questions concerning native peoples held in Toronto on February 19, 1987, said the following: "Negotiating is not constantly asking for more, but knowing how to manage the give and take process so that all parties are satisfied and everyone wins."
By negotiating, the present Government wanted to avoid what has now apparently become a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinions. We are still determined to see this through and to meet the challenge referred to by Jean-Claude LeClerc in an editorial on constitutional change and native peoples, published in Le Devoir on February 6, 1987, and I quote:
By taking the initiative of a major change at home, Canada not only would redress historical wrongs and preserve its international credibility, it would also change the dominant culture and make easier the strained if not explosive relationships among other cultural communities in its most populated provinces-it would forge a political model for the whole planet.
as we have proposed, on the following items: first, an express recognition of the right of Canada's native peoples to selfgovernment within the Canadian Federation; second, defining that right through negotiation rather than judicial process; third, a constitutional commitment by governments to negotiate self-government agreements; fourth, the constitutional enshrinement of those agreements, once ratified by the Canadian Government and the provincial legislatures involved; and fifth, a non-escape clause guaranteeing the negotiations will in no way infringe upon treaty rights of native peoples.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is clear from the foregoing that this Government is not opposed to recognizing the right of native peoples to self-government. Quite the opposite, we have insisted and will keep on insisting for that right to be recognized in any eventual amendment.
Also, we have insisted and will go on insisting that the Canadian Government, provincial Governments and also Canada's native peoples make a commitment in the Constitution to negotiate self-government agreements.
Finally we have insisted and we will go on insisting that such constitutional agreements in no way infringe upon native ancestral rights nor treaty rights.
All this is a matter of record, and this government stands very proud of it.
We have insisted and will go on insisting, Madam Speaker, that any new basic amendment to the constitutional relationship between Canada's native peoples and the Crown be defined through negotiation.
In short, this is the very definite position which this Government has constantly maintained and will continue to maintain on this important issue.
To conclude, I would like to say that, although it was not possible to reach an agreement at the First Ministers Conference, this Government is as determined as ever to continue its efforts until our aboriginal peoples are provided with the means to take their place within Canadian society. As the Prime Minister expressed it so well at the end of the conference:
My Ministers and I will remain in close contact with the Premiers and with all aboriginal leaders.
If I come to the conclusion, as our society and conversations develop, that a new meeting or conference might be useful and prove successful, I shall not hesitate to call one.
Rest assured that I remain determined to settle with you as we must this issue of human rights and basic dignity for our aboriginal fellow Canadians.
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we feel that goal	rF ,* , ,
would best be reached through negotiations between the nSls \
Crown and Canada's native peoples. New agreements should Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East): Madam Speaker, be negotiated on self-government. The negotiations would deal,	it is not my intention in rising to make a speech. I would
June 12, 1987

merely like to say that from the remarks of my colleagues on all sides of the House it is very evident that all Parties support this motion. I very strongly urge everyone in the Elouse, in very good conscience, not to talk this motion out but to put it to a vote now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerin:: In my opinion, Madam Speaker, it would be wrong for us to vote immediately, when so many Hon. Members have indicated their intention to continue to deal with this motion, and I suggest that you should allow all of those who want to speak to express their opinions freely.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) which calls, in the first part, for the Constitution Act, 1982, to:
-be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal
peoples to self-government, thereby making them partners in Confederation-
This is a principle to which the Government has been committed since coming to office in 1984. It has, indeed, been a subject of a constitutional process since 1983. It is therefore fitting that I begin discussion of this motion by reminding the Hon. Member and other Members opposite of that constitutional process.
A review of the events leading up to the recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal and constitutional affairs will demonstrate the considerable progress which the Government has made in furthering the goal of aboriginal selfreliance.
The constitutional talks on native self-government were set in motion by the Constitution Act, 1982, which provided for the convening of a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal matters to which aboriginal representatives were to be invited as participants. That conference was held in Ottawa on March 15 and 16, 1983, the outcome of which was the signing of the constitutional Accord which provided, among other matters, for another aboriginal constitutional conference to be held in 1984.
For the purposes of the motion before us, other important provisions of the Accord were proposals for the following
The Constitution
constitutional amendments:	at least two constitutional
conferences on aboriginal constitutional matters to be held, the first by April 17, 1985, and the second by April 17, 1987, and that no amendment directly affecting the aboriginal peoples of Canada would be made to the Constitution without first inviting aboriginal leaders to participate in a constitutional conference to discuss the proposed change. These constitutional amendments were passed by Parliament and the legislatures of the provinces and proclaimed in force on June 21, 1984.
In the meantime, however, a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal matters had been convened, once again in Ottawa, in March, 1984. The main focus for this conference was aboriginal self-government. However, the Government of the day put forward a proposal which was met with a less than enthusiastic response from both aboriginal and provincial representatives.
The Liberal Government's 1984 proposal did little to recognize an "explicit right" of the aboriginal peoples to selfgovernment or to make them "partners in Confederation", as is being called for by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior in the motion to which I am speaking. Indeed, the 1984 Liberal proposal merely provided for self-governing institutions and contained no guarantee that self-government arrangements would be constitutionally protected. Thus, by this proposal, the power of the aboriginal governments could have been revoked at will by Parliament and the legislatures in question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 3 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, June 15, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that there have been discussions amongst the House Leaders of the Parties with respect to today's business. Notwithstanding the fact that yesterday I indicated that we would be dealing with Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act, there has been a disposition to move to another order of business standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It is a government motion for the establishment of a Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee to consider and report on the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
When that is completed we could then go on to the other business which was originally designated for today, namely, Bill C-55. I think if you seek the concurrence of the House, you will find that there will be unanimous consent to proceed in that manner.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader said reflects discussions we have had. If unanimous consent is asked to put the motion to set up the Joint Committee on the constitutional amendments, we will certainly agree.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we concur.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


GOVERNMENTS ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Donald Frank Mazankowski: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the "1987 Constitutional Accord,
signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada", copies of which were tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons on June 3, 1987;
That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee, such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated no later than seven sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee submit its report not later than September 14, 1987, provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That substitution be authorized, for Members from the House of commons, from a list of alternates to be provided to the Joint Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee by a representative of each party at the first meeting of the Committee, such list of alternates to contain no more than twice the number of Members of the House of Commons who are Members of the Special Joint Committee representing each party in the House;
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to express my appreciation to Members opposite for their co-operation in allowing this motion to come forth, providing unanimous consent to allow that to happen. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), constantly reminds me of the fact he has more seniority than myself. He tried to assert that again today, but I appreciate his courtesy in yielding the floor to me under the circumstances. 1 am sure he will have an opportunity to speak later on this day.
I am very pleased to address the motion which is before us this morning. The motion, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is presented in the name of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who is in Winnipeg this morning on Government

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
business. I, therefore, have been given the opportunity to present this motion on his behalf.
It is timely that this debate commence this morning. As I said earlier, I am gratified by the co-operation and goodwill which has prevailed in this Chamber with regard to this very important proposal. I would like to acknowledge again the support shown by both Opposition Parties, both of which have agreed that this debate take place today. This co-operative action, indeed, underlines the great significance that Parties on both sides of the House can play and are playing in regard to this most historic Accord.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the 11 First Ministers of Canada signed the Constitutional Accord on June 3 and thereby committed the Government of Canada, and the 10 provincial Governments, to a course of action which will effect a set of constitutional amendments and bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family. All Canadians view this as a very important step in the constitutional development of our nation, one which has captured the imagination of all Canadians and one which has received the support of all Parties in this House.
As you know, Sir, the House of Commons has already played a major role in the developments leading up to the signing of the constitutional Accord. On May 1, the day after the Meech Lake Agreement was reached, statements were made in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). 1 should say that at that time the Prime Minister made his position very clear in his response to questions about how we intended to proceed with regard to the process of this very important matter. I draw to Hon. Members' attention his statement which was made in response to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when seeking clarification about the process that would be established. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at page 5615 of Hansard, and I quote:
At all times the House will be fully advised and there will be full opportunity for participation and debate on all aspects of any proposal.
This debate today is evidence and proof positive that that commitment is being fulfilled.
Again, in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the Prime Minister said at page 5616 of Hansard'.
We intend to consider any suggestions that will enable Hon. Members and the House to be as actively involved as possible and will also enable the House to provide moral leadership for the country and for the other Governments involved in the decision-making process.
1 think those are very, very important commitments and those commitments are indeed being fulfilled.
On May 11 we debated the principles of the Meech Lake Accord. Again 1 would like to pay tribute to all those who engaged in that discussion and to acknowledge the important contribution made by Members on both sides of the House during the course of that debate. I should also remind Hon. Members here that at that time we were merely debating the
principles. The draft which we now have before us in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment is part and parcel of the drafting which took place with respect to the principles and, indeed, incorporated many of the ideas and suggestions which were raised during the course of the debate, both in this House and outside the House.
I wish to say to my colleagues that their respective expressions of support contributed to the cohesion which ultimately prevailed on June 3, 1987. It is therefore fitting and proper that Parliament now review the substance of the Constitutional Accord to ensure a broader understanding by all Canadians of this constitutional initiative. It is only appropriate that Parliament provide a forum where interested individuals have the opportunity to enter into the national discussion.
The Government accordingly proposed that a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the 1987 Constitutional Accord signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada. It is proposed that this Joint Committee be comprised of 12 Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate, co-chaired by one Member of each Chamber. It is fitting that we consider the 1987 Constitutional Accord in a Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons and fulfil our responsibilities in the spirit of co-operation which led the First Ministers to an agreement first at Meech Lake and finally here in Ottawa on June 3, and within the historic context of the constitutional discussions.
The committee would have the power to strike such subcommittees as are deemed advisable. The committee would have the opportunity to conduct hearings and receive written and oral submissions. It is proposed as well that the committee be authorized to conduct hearings unconstrained by any adjournments which may be called for during the summer months. Further, this joint committee would be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting as is considered appropriate.
We recall that in 1981 a successful contribution was made by a joint committee in relation to our constitutional endeavours at that time. We again want to establish a joint committee to continue this important work. Finally, it is proposed that this joint committee would submit its report not later than September 14, 1987.
The provisions of the constitutional Accord are wide-ranging and thus of fundamental importance to all Canadians. It is no surprise, therefore, that editorial commentary has been extensive and that a wide range of associations have spoken out and that public interest is high. That is as it should be in a democratic country such as ours.
A special joint committee, with representatives from both Houses of Parliament and all Parties, will provide, we believe, the most extensive and appropriate vehicle for this national dialogue on our further constitutional development. Representatives of organized interests and interested citizens alike will have the opportunity to express their views at one time and
June 12, 1987

in one place to a wide cross-section of parliamentarians. I believe this will encourage a continuity and a coherence to the important work of Parliament on this matter. In short, a special joint committee will provide a truly national focal point for our deeper understanding of the constitutional Accord.
I should like to review for a moment the events which led us to this point. Members will recall an earlier historic step in this evolution. In April 1982 our Constitution was patriated from London with its own all-Canadian amending formula and with a Charter which guarantees our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Unfortunately, this achievement was flawed because Quebec, which represents over a quarter of the Canadian population, did not accept the legitimacy of the political accord which had been signed by the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the nine provinces in November 1981.

In a speech delivered in Sept-Iles in 1984 the Prime Minister promised that if his Party were elected to office one of his priorities would be to conclude an agreement which would make it possible for Quebec to join the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. He also stated he would take a different approach to federal-provincial relations, on the basis of national reconciliation.

That is the end of that, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Encore.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Chukay, chukayl


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am wondering how our reporters will interpret that comment.
In 1985 the Liberal Party of Quebec published its conditions for adhering to the Constitution of Canada as part of its electoral program. In early 1986, following its election, the Government of Quebec in a major public statement set out these conditions in considerable detail. During the course of 1986 and in the early months of this year, both the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada adopted positions concerning Quebec in the Constitution. These processes generated widespread public interest and comment.
In the year leading up to the Meech Lake Agreement there have been extensive discussions and negotiations among the federal and provincial Governments at the level of First Ministers and senior officials. The next step in bringing the First Ministers' agreement to fruition lies with our federal and provincial legislatures. Unlike the 1982 constitutional amendments when only Parliament had to adopt a resolution before the amendment was passed by the British Parliament, the
Constitutional Accord
current proposed changes will be presented for debate and adoption in every provincial and federal legislative chamber.
I would expect that members of all Parties in their approach to the deliberations of the committee to be established by this motion, and in reflecting on the representations which are made before the committee, will not allow whatever concerns they may have with certain particular aspects of the amendment resolution to obscure the main goal which we all share, namely, the voluntary and complete adherence by the Government and the people of Quebec to the Constitution of Canada.
In considering proposals for changes to the amendment resolution or for additional elements which are not reflected in it, we should be mindful that the constitutional Accord itself provides for a subsequent and continuing set of constitutional discussions to address other constitutional issues at annual conferences of First Ministers on the Constitution. The first is scheduled to take place before the end of next year.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that if the amendment resolution is not approved by Parliament and all the legislatures, these subsequent constitutional discussions will not take place because Quebec will continue to decline to participate in them. Canada's constitutional development in these circumstances would be frozen, probably for many years to come, and it would be difficult to overstate the serious consequences to national unity if that were to occur, especially since we have progressed so far in recent months.
A final factor to consider in approaching the deliberations of the parliamentary committee is that by virtue of the amending formula contained in the Constitution Act, 1982, neither Parliament nor any of the other legislatures, nor Governments acting alone, can bring about alterations in the amendments proposed in the constitutional resolution. The amending procedure requires the approval of all legislatures. Thus, if Parliament or any other legislature moved to amend the resolution, the entire process of securing the approval of the various legislatures would have to be recommenced.
The constitutional Accord stands as a tribute to a shared vision of a revitalized and more harmonious federation-a better Canada, one where the Province of Quebec will play an integral part. Indeed, the constitutional Accord is a true reflection of the Government's commitment since 1984 to establish a new period of national reconciliation with greater harmony and co-operation between the two levels of Government.
With this Accord we are indeed a stronger and more united nation. The efforts of this joint committee will require the support and goodwill of both the House of Commons and the Senate. I am confident that the members of the joint committee will receive this support and be equal to their task. I have every confidence that their activities will be guided by the generosity and the openness which have characterized the constitutional deliberations of the House to date. The work of this committee will constitute an important step forward in the constitutional evolution of our nation.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Therefore 1 urge all Members of the Elouse to support the motion before us today so that this important process can begin without delay.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the debate, and 1 apologize to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) who 1 know would like to make a speech. However, 1 have a concern about the resolution before us. I would like an answer, perhaps not now, but some assurance from the Government House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) that the committee would be in a position to consider having hearings in the Northwest Territories and Yukon and perhaps in any province which does not set up its own public hearings.
Public participation was a main aspect of what was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his speech to the nation on the Langevin agreement. I believe it is important, especially for the two Territories, that there be an opportunity for citizens who cannot afford to come to Ottawa to make public presentations on their concerns.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the desire has been to try to focus this debate in the nation's capital, as was done before. I think to some extent we are the beneficiaries of some experience that took place in earlier years, where I think the focus of the constitutional process was clearly evident in Room 200 of the West Block. My sense is that there can be provisions made for people who want to travel, if the committee so desires to have certain representatives appear before it.
It is not the intention of the Government to allow the committee to travel, for a number of reasons. We think the logistics and the difficulties in organizing such travel would cause problems which would be almost insurmountable. However, certainly from the standpoint of accommodating people who may want to be heard, I think there can be arrangements made which would hopefully facilitate and satisfy groups such as the Hon. Member indicated.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is very much the same, but it is necessary to have it on record.
I am very pleased with the motion before us today. I hope that it receives speedy passage. I think the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is quite correct when he says that it is not necessary to take this committee through the length and breadth of the country and that the debate should and ought to be centered in Ottawa. However, I would like him to give an assurance, on the record, that there is nothing in this motion that would prevent representatives of the Governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon from appearing before this committee and stating their case. As we all know, before the Langevin Accord can be acceptable to the people in the north, there are certain changes which ought to be made.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the short answer to that is, it is almost axiomatic that they would have the opportunity to appear, if they so desire.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I understand that there are a number of provinces in which public hearings may not be held. If all provinces were to have public hearings, then the necessity of taking a committee across the country would seem to me to be entirely alleviated. Can the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) indicate to us at this time which provinces, to the best of his knowledge, will be holding public hearings? Would he entertain a suggestion that in those areas of the country where people will not have the opportunity to come forward and to speak to a level of elected representatives that one might contemplate a subcommittee at least of this committee travelling to that particular province?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member, although well-intentioned, poses a bit of a hypothetical question. As he said, some provinces may not hold hearings. We are not sure of that. There have been discussions-


Rodney Edward Murphy: How about Alberta?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The preliminary indication is that that may not take place. But I am not sure that that is the final answer. So it is very difficult to make any assessment as to whether all provinces or some provinces will be holding such public hearings.
To some extent the committee will be the master of its own house. It has the opportunity of setting up subcommittees to do certain elements of work. Perhaps that might be something that may be considered further on down the road.
I want to repeat again that 1 think it is very important, given the importance of this issue, and to ensure that the focus is centred around a committee that is genuinely disposed of dealing with this issue, to have things concentrated in one area. As evidenced by the experience of the past, it worked quite well. There was a fair amount of accommodation and give and take. I am not sure whether there was any great outcry for the committee at that time to travel across the country, I know that it was suggested. I think that, generally speaking, it was felt that everyone who wanted to be heard during the course of that process was heard. That would be our intention in this particular case as well.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, if I may say so, I find that a rather garbled response.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was a garbled question.


Donald James Johnston: I do not think that it was especially garbled. The point is that when it is learned that there will not be public hearings in those provinces will the Deputy Prime Minister give his support to the concept of sending at least a subcommittee of this committee to those provinces? In this way those
June 12, 1987

Canadians who cannot afford to travel up to 3,000 miles to appear before this committee will have the opportunity to exchange their ideas with their elected representatives.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is a learned constitutional expert. He knows very well that this requires the deliberation of this House. The constitutional amending process has to be dealt with by this House. The constitutional amending process has to be dealt with in each and every one of the legislatures. Is he suggesting that we as a federal Parliament should be interfering with and interposing our will upon the people of the provinces who now, through their Premiers and Governments, may very well express a desire to hold public hearings or not? Why does the Hon. Member want to be so interfering? It is part of his centralist attitude, his centralist heritage. He continues to live in the dream world that father knows best in central Canada. Again, this is a clear example of the difference and division of Canada. He sees it through the telescope of that central vision. We see a more diversified and more decentralized Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the only conclusion I can draw from the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks is that he does not think Canadians necessarily have a right to be heard. It has nothing to do with a centralized country. This is a big country. People would like the opportunity to make their views known to their elected representatives. If they are denied that right at the provincial level, it seems to me that this committee of Parliament would be perfectly justified in having a subcommittee travel to the regions to hear those views expressed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. If the Hon. Member behaves he may very well be selected as a member of the committee and he can make that pitch before the committee. But, by the way he has been acting, I doubt very much that his Leader will put him on the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am rising on behalf of my Party to support this motion. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has made clear, we are in support of the basic purpose of the constitutional Accord which is to have Quebec formally sign and accept the Constitution. Therefore we intend to vote in favour of the Accord. However, we believe that it can be improved upon. It is our intention to propose a number of amendments next fall, or whenever, after the proposed joint committee completes it work, the required resolution to amend the Constitution comes before this House for consideration and debate.
It is in keeping with our view that improvement is needed and possible, that we concur in the proposal to send the Accord for study and for a report to this House to a special joint committee. The procedure that was followed in 1980 and 1981
Constitutional Accord
which resulted in the patriation of the Constitution, along with the establishment of a Charter of Rights, was initiated by the establishment of a special joint committee of the House and the Senate. That committee held televised hearings in Ottawa over a number of months. It heard scores of witnesses and it proposed a number of important improvements to the constitutional proposals at that time.
No one can deny that the special joint committee was a positive exercise in participatory democracy. It is my hope and expectation that having learned from that experience the presently proposed special joint committee will be permitted to proceed and its work will be looked upon with an open mind by the Government and by all sides of the House with similarly beneficial results. We expect that this committee will hear as broad a range of witnesses as its predecessor heard in 1980 and 1981.
We also support this motion in the expectation that if, as in 1980 and 1981, the committee should find that the time-frame set down in the terms of reference is too restrictive the Government will, as was done last time, look favourably upon a request for an extension of its life. I am referring in this case, of course, to the life of the special joint committee, not that of the Government.
It may be that this will not be required. But on an issue as important as the structure of our federal system there is no need-in fact it would be wrong-for the matter to be dealt with in undue haste. There is a definite need for due deliberation. After all, we are dealing with the basic law, the fundamental law of the country, the law on which all other law is based.
The Accord raises a number of issues that the committee will have to address and on which it will have to hear witnesses. We have already raised some of these in the House and we will raise others over the coming weeks.
As we have said, there are implications with respect to the Accord for the rights of our aboriginal peoples. The aboriginal peoples need assurances that this Accord will not mean any backward movement in the progress they expect in terms of their own hopes and aspirations. It should be possible to move these hopes and aspirations forward through the Constitution as it may turn out to be amended by the Accord.
The committee must carefully examine the implications of the Accord for minorities in our country. We believe that the aspirations of Canadians are, for a bilingual and a multicultural society, that while recognizing regional or provincial distinctiveness, especially the distinctive character of Quebec, it should also provide nation-wide guarantees of rights for all regardless of ethnic or national origin.
Similarly, Madam Speaker, we must examine the Accord in the light of the aspirations for eventual provincial status by our northern territories. The people of these territories will want assurances that the Accord does not spell an end to their

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
aspirations for eventual full participation in confederation as provinces.
We will also want to examine fully the implications of the Accord for the powers and the role of the federal Government. There is a national interest that our federal structures, our federal Government, must serve and that the public, that all Canadians, expect to be served by national institutions. To this end as well the committee will have to examine carefully the implications of the Accord for the developmental role of our federal institutions, our national Government. We must make certain that our national institutions, our national Government, remain able to serve the national interest now and as conditions change in the future.
These are but a few of the matters which the committee must address. In the interest of having this motion decided on by the House and in getting the committee going, 1 will not go into greater detail about the matters the committee must address at this time, but I wish to assure the House that my Party will participate actively in the committee in order to bring forward our views and proposals as to how the Accord could and should be improved.
I also want to say a word about the effect of the vote of the other place yesterday to have its own committee to consider the constitutional amendments arising from the Accord. It is clear that the decision of the other place does not preclude or prevent the other place from taking part in the joint committee being proposed today. There is a clear precedent for this which was established in 1978. The Government of the day at that time proposed a wide-ranging package of constitutional amendments, popularly referred to as Bill C-60. At that time the Senate agreed to take part in a joint committee with the House, proposed by the House, to study the Bill C-60 proposals, but at the same time it adopted a motion to have its own committee study of the matter. It was pointed out that Bill C-60 dealt with a wide range of proposals for constitutional change, including, among other matters, a Bill of Rights, but also including proposals for change in the method of appointment of the Senate and its form and role.
Bill C-60, as I recall, Madam Speaker, proposed that the provinces would have the sole power of appointment of half of the Senators who would be members of what would be called a "House of the Provinces". The Senators felt that since the changes in the form and function of the Senate were very much at issue, they should take part in the joint committee with the House, but also have their own committee.
This is similar to the situation today when the amendments proposed in the Accord would bring changes to the method of appointment and, also perhaps as a result, to the role of the Senators and the Senate as an institution, a result, as I have said, of the proposals in the Accord.
The situation in 1978 and the situation today with regard to proposals for constitutional amendment are very similar since they both touch on the method of appointment to and the role of the Senate. These proposals, I must say, are unlike those
involving the resolution which led to the adoption of the 1982 Constitution because that resolution did not deal with the method of appointment to or the general role of the Senate. At that time the resolution for constitutional change was looked at only by a joint committee of the House and the Senate.
We have the clear precedent from the way the Senate agreed to deal with Bill C-60 in the motion it adopted in 1978. It was pointed out in the debate in the Senate in 1978 that there was no known instance where the Senate refused to join with the House in serving on a joint committee with it when requested to do so by the House, even when the Senate decided to have its own committee on the matter.
In my view, Members of this House of Commons and Canadians generally should be able to expect that the precedent of 1978 on Bill C-60 will be followed when it comes time for the other place to consider the request of this House in the motion that we are considering today for a joint committee.
I also want to say that the Constitution itself speaks only of the role of the House of Commons, the Senate and the provincial legislatures in amending that Constitution by resolution. It does not refer in any way and it does not recognize in any way, as a first step, binding on the House of Commons, the Senate and the provincial legislatures as a legal or juridical matter, the signatures of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agreeing to the content of a resolution to amend the Constitution. Also, there is the fact that the Accord itself says only that the Prime Minister and the First Ministers undertake to table the Accord before their legislatures and the House of Commons and Senate.
I mention all this, Madam Speaker, because I thought I heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) say in his remarks that there would have to be unanimity of the provinces and the federal Government in order to have any of the provisions of the Accord amended. That may be so in one sense, perhaps in a political sense, but in terms of the Constitution itself, all the Constitution says is that there are provisions for its amendment, in some cases requiring unanimity of the provinces and the federal House of Commons and Senate, and in other cases requiring only the formula of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population.
I want to say in particular that I hope the Government House Leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, was not saying that because we have the signatures of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister on the Accord this means that the work of the parliamentary committee we are setting up by this motion and any debates in the House on the constitutional resolution once it is formally before us, will be only an empty exercise. I hope that is not the case. We must be in a position in this committee that we are setting up today, and in the eventual debate on the resolution, to amend the Constitution on the basis of the Accord to consider any amendments on their merits. This seems to have been and is very much the view of a number of the provincial Premiers who spoke to the press after the meeting in the Langevin Building a few weeks ago.
June 12, 1987

I want to address very briefly the question of the process of amending the Constitution. The bare bones of the procedure for amending the Constitution are laid forth quite clearly in both the existing amending formula and in the amended process proposed by the Accord. It is silent, however, on the procedure within each House of Parliament or provincial legislature. As well, unfortunately, our Standing Orders are silent on this matter.
Recently we became engaged in an extensive revision of our rules. During that process I said to my fellow House Leaders that I considered it a major omission that the rules did not provide for a set process for dealing with resolutions on important matters like amendments to the Constitution. For Bills which become ordinary statutes, and in some cases very minor statutes, we have developed a complex system of three readings, a committee stage to hear relevant witnesses and a report stage to consider complex amendments in an orderly and reasonable fashion. However, for amendments to our most important and fundamental law, our Constitution, only a resolution is required.
I must say that a resolution to amend our Constitution is as important as any Bill. Certainly, while it is called a resolution, it is in fact the equivalent of a Bill because it amends a statute, the Constitution Act, 1982. However, as I have said, we do not provide a system equivalent to that which already exists in the rules for consideration of a Bill, even one of a very minor and seemingly trivial nature. I believe our experience in the last few days has underscored the need for developing definite and fixed rules for such matters.
I must commend the Government for agreeing to the committee process we are about to undertake, but I must point out that in fact the Government was never compelled by our rules to do so, although it may well have been compelled by public opinion and by the merits of how such a constitutional resolution should be considered. The fact that the Government is able to give notice of a motion to actually amend the Constitution at the very time it gave notice of this motion to establish a committee to study that motion shows that it would indeed be theoretically possible to force upon the House a proposal to amend the Constitution with no committee study at all. I think this would be very wrong according to the expectations of the Canadian people and according to what is required to consider in a due and deliberate manner an amendment or a set of amendments to the very fundamental and basic law of this country.
Even with the committee study to which the Government has agreed, we have yet to work out an orderly system of dealing with any amendments to the actual constitutional motion itself. When the resolution itself comes forward for debate, we must have in place provisions satisfactory to all Parties to ensure that there is time and the method to properly consider and vote on all amendments to the Constitutional Accord set forth in the resolution that our Party and others
Constitutional Accord
will bring forward with a view to improving the resolution. This could well involve a committee stage and a report stage equivalent to those required for the consideration of a Bill.
By way of conclusion, I want to say that while we are taking a positive step in creating this joint committee, we must bear in mind that we must in the very near future address other important matters as well. In the short term, we must develop a method for dealing in an appropriate manner with amendments to the motion to adopt the resolution of which the Government is giving notice. Second, in the long term, we must provide for a suitable system in our Standing Orders for dealing with resolutions on important matters, and especially those to amend our Constitution, in a manner that is at least as complete and as thorough as the method by which we deal with ordinary laws.
Having said all of this, I want to repeat that it is the intention of our Party to support this motion. I think we have to get on with the work of giving to the Constitutional Accord the serious and deliberate study it requires and I hope that we will soon reach a positive decision to set up the joint committee proposed by the Government.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the Liberal House Leader. If the resolution that is before us at this time passes and is accepted by the Senate, there may be two different committees studying the proposed constitutional amendment. How does the Liberal House Leader feel about the fact that the Senate appears to want to have it both ways? The Senate will have representation on a joint committee which will be listening to witnesses and perhaps proposing changes to the Accord and at the same time Liberal Senators will have their own committee, presumably listening to the same witnesses, and perhaps making completely different amendments.
Does the Liberal House Leader not believe that that is a recipe for deadlock? Does he not believe that there will be one set of recommendations coming out of the joint committee, perhaps with all-Party agreement, perhaps with the agreement of the Senators who serve on that committee, yet we may have a completely different set of amendments coming from a separate Senate committee? I think that could create real problems for us.
I recognize that in 1978 a similar situation did occur. Let us face, however, that those were different circumstances. Right now we actually have an agreement which has been signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the 10 provincial Premiers. I believe that one committee representing both Houses is the best and most appropriate way of dealing with it.
My second question deals with the matter I raised with the government House Leader. 1 would like the response of the Liberal Party to the request that the joint committee of the House and the Senate that we are setting up should at least go to Yukon and the Northwest Territories so that residents of those two Territories will have an opportunity to have direct input. I raise that as a separate item because the government

June 12, 1987
leader in the Yukon, Mr. Tony Penikett, and his counterpart in the Northwest Territories, Nick Sibbeston, were not at Meech Lake, they were not at the Langevin Block. They do not have the right to have their territorial Governments meet and pass or not pass the Meech Lake Accord. I believe the residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are in a very unique situation and I believe it is very important that, since they were not part of the Meech Lake Accord, they do have the opportunity to be heard in their own Territories.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 am quite ready to accept the concept of having a joint committee of this House and the Senate consider the constitutional resolution as well as having a separate committee in the Senate itself. This was a concept that was worked out in 1978 when the constitutional proposals referred to as Bill C-60 were put before the House and Senate. I am not aware of any problem which came up at that time. I was not aware of any opposition to it by the NDP. I do not see the problems that my hon. friend sees.
Bear in mind that we are not formally considering the constitutional resolution at this time. We are considering in the context of a prestudy the contents of the constitutional resolution. A motion to adopt a resolution will then have to be formally put down on the Order Paper and that will have to be fully debated. It is in the course of considering the constitutional resolution itself that amendments will be considered.
I would think that my hon. friend should be willing to look upon the role of the Senate in this matter in the same positive spirit which led his Party to abandon its long-standing opposition not only to a role for the Senate but to the very existence of the Senate in any form and to support this motion. If the NDP is willing to support this motion, it is admitting that there can be a positive and constructive role for the Senate to play.
1 see no reason why the Hon. Member should assume in advance that the Senate will not deal with this matter in a constructive fashion. I am sure he would reject any suggestion in the Senate that the House of Commons would not deal with this resolution in a constructive fashion. I do not think we should deal at this stage with that type of hypothetical question.
I would like to conclude by saying that I think we should be willing to examine the idea of the committee going to the Northwest Territories and Yukon. 1 for one would want to know first if those legislatures intend to have their own committee studies. This is something we can study. We are debating this today because the House Leaders of all three Parties, including the NDP, were willing to agree on behalf of their Parties to this form of motion. Having said that, I am still willing to consider this matter again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now
proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-INCLUSION OF MULTICULTURALISM
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) if his Department and the Government would be disposed to amending Clause 1 of the Constitutional Accord which would entrench, alongside the French-English linguistic duality, the multicultural dimension and reality as a fundamental character of Canada.
Not only did the Minister refuse to answer directly, but his response displayed an alarming disregard for and ignorance of this integral sector of Canadian society. Canadians who are neither English nor French in origin, despite the ineffective footnote of Clause 16, feel irrelevant in this Accord and believe that they have been ushered to the back of the constitutional bus.
To seek the inclusion of the multicultural character in Clause 1 is not an attempt to seek special rights, official status for a third language, or to deprive anyone or any group of any rights.
The amendment would simply ensure that Clause 1 would fully define and express the make-up of Canada and its people. Clause 1 overlooks 10 million Canadians who are neither English nor French in origin and relegates them to second-class citizenship. It is, therefore, an incomplete and inaccurate expression of Canada, and that needs to be amended.
How can the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premiers refuse to recognize the contribution and aspirations of one-third of its citizens? It is my hope that the Prime Minister and the ten Premiers will see fit to amend this clause accordingly. Otherwise it would be hypocritical for them to grandstand on multiculturalism before events and individuals of those persuasions.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, noting that the life of many people in northern Canada is based on government hand-outs, Mr. Arkady Cherkasov, a Soviet northern studies expert, has recently suggested reindeer herding as a suitable and economically viable alternative. This
June 12, 1987

support is welcomed by those of us who have realized that when it comes to reindeer Canada is 3,000 years behind the times.
Unfortunately, the Canadian Government continues to take a rather negative attitude. Mr. William Nasogaluak, pioneer owner of Canada's only herd, has received nothing but grief at the hands of the Government which would unilaterally rescind his grazing rights. It is likely that he will be forced to kill off his animals or sell them abroad.
Public policy ought to encourage reindeer husbandry, not to destroy it as is presently the case.


REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, through Bill C-55 the Government proposes to violate deliberately Canada's commitment to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. That UN Declaration in Article 14 says: "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy another country's asylum from persecution".
Already democratic Chileans who have been imprisoned and tortured by Pinochet's police and try to escape Chile to find refuge in Canada with their relatives are routinely refused refugee status by our embassies in Chile and Argentina.
Now the Government goes further by twisting and changing Canada's laws to stop real refugees from even coming to Canada to state their claim. For example, Bill C-55 would empower the Government to punish an airline which brings a passenger to Canada who then claims refugee status here. It can punish the airline by seizing and selling its aircraft to enforce fines.
Shame on the Government for Bill C-55. Canadians from sea to sea are demanding: "Withdraw Bill C-55".


THE ECONOMY
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, Margaret Thatcher is back.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Barry Turner: That is good for Great Britain because her policies and priorities are working, and so are ours. Her report card is a testimony to her foresight and her determination to do what is right.
Speaking of doing what is right, let us look at our own government record. In Ontario unemployment has dropped from 9.4 per cent in September, 1984, to 6.3 per cent. Housing starts in the first four months of 1987 are up 58 per cent compared to the same period last year. Tourists are flocking to Ontario. There is an 8 per cent increase from last year. People are coming to the nation's capital to see this great city.
The White Paper on Defence is a timely and long overdue initiative. President Reagan and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reiterated their personal resolve in Vienna yesterday to sign an enhanced treaty agreement between our two countries.
The Meech Lake Accord is good news for Quebec. It is now a part of the family of Canada. Mr. Speaker, trying to unite this country without Quebec was like trying to ride a bicycle uphill without a chain.
The National Drug Strategy is more good news. The RCMP role has been enhanced. Yesterday the Liberal Opposition voted against increasing the RCMP budget. I cannot understand that as it is the best police force in the world.
Tax reform is coming next week. It will be fairer and more simple. It will address the problems of those in the greatest need. The poor and the seniors of the country will be very favourably looked upon in tax reform.
This is all good news, Mr. Speaker. Let us be happy. Let us have a good weekend.
George Bell and the Blue Jays are also good for Canada. They are going all the way this year!


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, before he left Canada last weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) led farmers to believe that he would solve the grain trade wars at the Economic Summit meeting in Venice this week. This trade war between the treasuries of western Europe and the United States has driven grain prices in real terms to levels below those of the 1930s depression period and is driving thousands of Canadian farmers off the land.
We now know that the Prime Minister did not get agreement to reduce these subsidies during the next two years. We also know that the United States Congress is planning to increase its export subsidies during the next two years driving prices even lower, as it did with the recent sales of wheat to Russia and barley to Saudi Arabia.
Now that the Prime Minister has failed to get action on the grain trade wars for the next two years our farmers want to know what the Government is going to do to allow them to

June 12, 1987
survive. I call on the Prime Minister to stop stalling and to make a commitment now to Canadian grain farmers for a deficiency payment for the 1987-88 crop year.



John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his success in bringing to the attention of the leaders of the G-7 the harm felt by our farmers due to the unfair subsidy practices of the European Economic Community and the U.S.
As any farmer across the land will tell you, there are no immediate cures for the problems facing the family farm. They will also tell you that government pay-outs do not solve the underlying problem. The crisis today is largely due to Governments around the world attempting to throw money at the problem. This does not work. This was the message which our Leader pressed at the Economic Summit meeting in Venice.
The real answer lies in a new set of ground rules for international farm trade. The Prime Minister and the Government have made fair trade in agriculture a top concern. 1 wish again to congratulate our Leader for making this point in Venice.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
1987 WEST COAST SALMON ALLOCATION PLAN
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in January the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans unanimously passed a motion urging the Minister to assure the Gulf trailers of British Columbia that the commercial troll industry in the Gulf of Georgia would be maintained.
The Minister responded: "The troll fleet is very selective in the species of salmon that they harvest and for that reason alone I consider them an ideal gear to be maintained in the Strait of Georgia".
On Tuesday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced his long-awaited 1987 West Coast Salmon Allocation Plan. The Gulf trailers, a small group of 250 vessels, found they fared no better than last year. In fact, their situation was made worse by the Minister's decree that the season will start on July 1, two weeks later than last year,
when the larger and higher quality salmon have already passed. Further, there was no mention of the 100,000 additional sockeye given in 1986 in recognition of the trailers' historical involvement in this west coast fishery.
The Minister, who praises the Gulf troll fleet, has done little to maintain the fleet. Many of those involved in the Gulf of Georgia fleet may be forced out of the industry because they cannot make a living because the Minister has not acted in accordance with his statements.


THE COMMONWEALTH
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce to the House that a Commonwealth Conference for Young Leaders will be held this fall. This unique international event, initiated by the Ottawa Branch of the Royal Commonwealth Society, will bring together the Commonwealth's most accomplished young men and women to Ottawa, from September 6 to September 12, 1987.
Delegates will participate in an innovative program directed toward the creation of a generation of leaders equipped with the values, skills, and consensus formation techniques to address complex international problems. They will also focus on the potential for private and public sector co-operation in promoting economic and social development.
Canadian conference organizers are searching for dynamic young Canadians to represent our country. Young Canadians between the ages of 25 and 35 are welcome to apply before July 1. Twenty Canadians will be selected.
Along with providing young people with the opportunity to express their views on the Commonwealth and wider international issues, this event will allow them to make personal ties which will be of long-term benefit to the Commonwealth and Canada. This venture is also an important event in support of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit and will contribute to increasing Canadians' awareness of the Commonwealth.
The conference is being financed through a partnership of business, federal Government and voluntary sector contributions. The Government, for example, is providing financial assistance and in kind contributions through the Canadian International Development Agency, Employment and Immigration Canada, and External Affairs.
June 12, 1987


POLLUTION
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to comment on the Canadian Government position about water clean-up in Quebec.
Hon. Members know that under the terms of a federal-provincial agreement Ottawa has paid 16 2/3 per cent of the expenditures required to clean up lakes and rivers in that province.
They know as well that a number of Quebec municipalities are asking Ottawa to contribute to the funds needed to help them carry out their depollution projects.
In my opinion, the current water pollution situation is so urgent that immediate action on the part of the Canadian Government is required to assist Quebec municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Quebec is entitled to the same kind of treatment as the other provinces to help its municipalities, and that a federal-provincial agreement should be negotiated at the earliest opportunity to correct the situation.


FISHERIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, a serious situation has developed in the Newfoundland fishery. The cod have refused to come ashore, the lobster have refused to show up, the Government has refused to pay unemployment insurance for fishermen after May 15, and now the Japanese have refused to pay a decent price for capelin. The boats are tied up and that is creating a very serious situation.
I am addressing this statement to all those Members opposite who are over 51 and who understand the importance of regional development in this country. The younger ones need not pay attention. For those who understand and care about regional development, let me state what must be done. The Japanese must be told that they have to pay a fair price for capelin. The Fisheries Prices Support Board has to be ordered to act on this immediately and support the price of fish. The Government should put in place a marketing agency to make sure that this does not happen again. That must be done immediately.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 was disappointed, as I believe were many Canadians who are
concerned about acid rain, that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had an opportunity to take the President of the United States aside in Venice he only chose to discuss his concerns about the free trade pact, the one-way suicide pact he wants to sign with the United States. He did not take any time to discuss with the President anything concerning the President's commitment to a bilateral accord on acid rain.
Further, 1 recall the day in the House when the Prime Minister embarrassed all of us by making fun of Congressman Jerry Sikorski, deliberately mispronouncing his name and saying that he had not heard of him. 1 want Members of the House to know that this same Congressman yesterday introduced a Bill in the U.S. Congress which would have the effect of meeting Canada's demands with respect to acid rain abatement, as would a number of other Bills in the Congress.
I hope the Prime Minister and other members of the Government in particular will take this opportunity to write Congressman Sikorski and all members of the U.S. Congress to urge upon them the passage of either the Sikorski Bill or any other abatement Bills before the House that would have the effect of meeting Canada's demands. The Prime Minister should be the first on the list to emphasize that congressional vehicle as a means for meeting Canadian needs.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this week the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women released a report entitled Battered But Not Beaten: Preventing Wife Battering in Canada. As it happens, I have in my riding a shelter home, "La Maison d'amitie", a non-profit organization established more than 10 years ago to help distressed women and children. This home is partly funded by the NCC, the National Capital Commission, where the rent is geared to the financial resources of the organization. That is the way it is, people do have to seek assistance. Of course the rent and operating expenses constitute a financial challenge.
The meagre resources of La Maison d'amitie partly originate from certain levels of Government, but not the federal Government, and have enabled it to survive this far. However it has just been advised by the NCC that the annual rent, that was $1, will be increased, not to $500 as it was this year but to nearly $3,000 a month. Mr. Speaker, people like battered women and distressed children will no longer be able to find in my riding a place where they can be cared for and given at least a little attention, a little love and a little understanding.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the NCC to continue to be generous and let the Maison d'amitie operate in my riding and carry out its worthy and meritorious work. Like a number of other Government agencies, the NCC should appreciate the fact that one preaches by example, and that the Government must give consideration and assistance to the Maison d'amitie.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I mentioned the extremely serious situation in the town of Murdochville, following lay-offs of a number of workers.
This Government seems to be completely ignoring the priorities of regional development. Several billion dollars have been cut from various programs. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion operations are being investigated, some of the decisions are being made in the Prime Minister's office, and others in the Deputy Prime Minister's office, so that people in the Gaspe are wondering who is making the decisions for regional development in the Gaspe. We have a development project in Matane for a paper mill. Decisions are still pending. Four hundred people lost their jobs in Murdochville, and no decisions have been made. Meanwhile, another Minister is visiting the Gaspe to prepare phase two of the eastern development plan. In 1983, there was a plan with a budget of over $250 million, but today, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) has been unable to convince her colleague at National Defence of the importance of regional development in allocating that department's budget, at a time when it is engaged in consultations for phase two.
I want to ask this Government: Who is making the decisions for regional development?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as time goes by it becomes more evident that it was a mistake on the part of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Envoys' Report on acid rain.
As a member of the Acid Rain Committee, and on the eve of our visit to Washington to meet with U.S. parliamentarians there, I must conclude that Canadians would be in a stronger position had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rejected the
envoys' recommendation of having five more years of research and demonstration.
At this rate of progress, in 1991 Canada will still be waiting for the outcome of U.S. research activities while Canadian officials and their successors will be engaged in smoke and mirror negotiations with their U.S. counterparts.
The Prime Minister did not say to President Reagan, right from the start, that we want the U.S. to cut the massive acid gas pollution which daily crosses the border into Canada. Against this background, while acid rain corrodes human health, water, soil, and forests, the Government looks inept, impotent and ineffective. What a sham!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion, whoever that is.
Less than a week after the Prime Minister announced the new Atlantic Opportunities Program in St. John's, Newfoundland, and proclaimed that all is right in the world of regional economic development, we now have the Minister of Supply and Services declaring that half of the country is crying and that the Minister of National Defence, who proposes a $183 billion defence budget, is too young to understand. The Minister's problems have less to do with his youth and everything to do with his tired old Tory philosophy. I ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion whether he shares the views of the Minister of Supply and Services who believes that the Defence Department should be prepared to pay a premium on its contracts to encourage economic development in areas of high unemployment?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, obviously this Party has no idea what regional development is all about. Since 1984, we have been stressing the need to ensure that regional development is done with far greater awareness of, and sensitivity to, the problems of the regions. Mr. Speaker, that is why last week we announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The agency will have a budget of over one billion dollars and thus create many jobs. In fact, this is the kind of initiative that not only the Premiers but the entire population of Atlantic Canada have been waiting for.
June 12, 1987


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services recognizes what this Minister and this Government refuse to see, that indeed half the country is crying and that the regional economic development policy is in utter and total shambles, sacrificed on the altar of free trade.
Will the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who has presided over the financial mismanagement of DRIE, who has failed to speak out for Canada's regions, step aside and resign to allow the Minister of Supply and Services to take up the battle at the cabinet table against the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister and all of those in Cabinet who believe that Canada's impoverished regions, its high unemployment, are a fact of life which ought to be ignored and hidden?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. According to our consultations, all the studies and reports are unanimous. Regional development should be initiated in the regions, and that is exactly the philosophy behind the Atlantic initiative which is getting a budget of one billion dollars, while nothing had been done by the previous government for twenty years.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion stands like a naked newt in this House. The Prime Minister's Office has left him with nothing but a chauffeur and limousine with which to hide his embarrassment.


DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: 1
ask the Minister, who now has Price Waterhouse, internal auditors and the Auditor General, all trying to track down $100 million of unaccountable expenditures, when he will do the honourable thing for the regions and for his Department and, for God's sake, man, go, resign?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the amount of deficit this Government had to deal with when we took over in 1984. Members opposite do not even know what the hell is going on at DRIE, Mr. Speaker. They don't even know!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michel Côté: We have to deal with earlier commitments which date from 1975. We have to deal with almost $1 billion in commitments made prior to the time we came into power. We have to deal with that. My colleagues should know that these commitments have to be dealt with. Second, we have
Oral Questions
initiated both internal and external reports and we are going to get answers from that very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michel Côté: As well, the Auditor General will step in and we will find out exactly what happened there.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. The fact that the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence cannot agree on the national interests of the country is deplorable. It was a Liberal Government which purchased 2,761 military trucks with regional development in mind, 81,000 small arms, 300 light armoured vehicles, new frigates for the navy, updated several other ships-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and purchased 138 CF-18 aircraft, and many other items, all with regional development in mind and in effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: When is the Government going to get its act together and have Ministers agree that, beyond a doubt, national defence and regional development go hand in hand, and both are in the national interests of Canada? If the two Ministers cannot agree, one or both should resign.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been following the process in the purchasing of military equipment, he would find that the process has not changed from the days of the other Government, except we are buying more equipment for the Armed Forces than it did.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that is a farce. They used our programs.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLICY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: 1
have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. What an utter shame and spectacle to see the two Ministers of National Defence flying around the country, talking about regional advantages of the White Paper on Defence while the Minister of Supply and Services-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -who is responsible-

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has had, I think, quite a sufficient preamble and I would ask him to put his question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -responsible for procurement of the White Paper. Will the Deputy Prime Minister, or some other referee, take charge of the Cabinet until it can agree on its aims and objectives relating to the national interests of Canada? The Ministers are obviously divided and do not know what is in the best interests of the regions of this country. The Minister of Supply and Services says it is a failure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no curtailment on freedom of speech in this Party, and 1 notice the same thing applies to the Party across the way. The Liberals have certainly been expressing various points of view.
The fact is there is no difference in the points of view held by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who are you trying to kid?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no question that the Minister of National Defence is as concerned about regional industrial development as the Minister of Supply and Services.


Carlo Rossi: You are bluffing, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact is that the Minister of National Defence is 37 years old and has spent his lifetime being concerned about regional development, and the Minister of Supply and Services has said she has spent 37 years being concerned about the welfare of the regions of this country. In total, that is about 74 years of deep concern.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. We have seen the extraordinary experience for the first time, to my knowledge, in Canadian history, that a Department has gone through its total fiscal allotment for one year in two months. It is an extremely serious situation.
The Prime Minister is announcing that a special Atlantic Opportunities Agency is being created for regional development in Atlantic Canada, and there is an unanswered rumour that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion itself is going to be abolished this summer. People in Atlantic Canada, northern Quebec, northern Ontario and the West want to know about the future of this Department. Will the Minister
clarify once and for all whether or not the Government plans to maintain a Department and Minister responsible for regional development and accountable to the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House earlier, and as the Minister responsible for DRIE has indicated, DRIE is in business. It is honouring its commitments. It will meet every single commitment it has made for this year, for next year, for the year after that and the year after that.


Carlo Rossi: You won't be there any more.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Insofar as the concern the Hon. Leader of the socialists has about the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, I regret very much he finds disagreement with the thrust of the agency. I think from his vantage point, sitting in Oshawa, he would probably take that kind of view, but I just simply report to him that The Chronicle Herald of Halifax had this to say about the establishment of the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, and I quote:
At last, with the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this region will have a single body in place to deliver federal assistance to an eager business sector. The ACDA, with an annual budget of S200 million, will be based in, and controlled from, Moncton. It will be headed by a very senior civil servant, Donald McPhail, who will run his own show-that is, he will control the purse strings without having to consult bureaucrats in Ottawa.
That is what Atlantic Canadians want. That is what we support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I can tell the Minister that 1 was in Atlantic Canada yesterday. The people in Atlantic Canada are not at all impressed by this misleading Government that has already cut $1.5 billion on an annual basis from going into Atlantic Canada and expects the people there to think that the Government is being generous because it is only giving back $200 million. They can see that this is like a thief taking a thousand bucks and asking people to be happy if he gives $200 back. I can tell the Minister that the people of Atlantic Canada are tired of being conned by this Government. I tell the Minister to go down to Atlantic Canada where he will find that out.


STUDIES OF DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask the Minister to answer some questions about the future of this Department. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville was trying to get answers here yesterday. He was told to go to committee, where he was stonewalled.
Will the Minister assure us that the internal study that is being done in the Department and the Price Waterhouse study
June 12, 1987

that is being done will be made available to Members of the House of Commons so that the people of Canada can see what is going on in this Department?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are concerned about, if they look very carefully, is the shallow, misleading rhetoric that is emanating from the Leader of the socialist Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He had the audacity, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period the other day to say, in reference to the billion dollars that was being earmarked for the Atlantic Opportunities Agency, that that is only a few cents per citizen.


John Edward Broadbent: I said no such thing!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In other words, he is saying: "What's a billion?" Remember the expression of C. D. Howe when he said some time ago: "What's a million?" We have the new version here right now.


REQUEST THAT STUDIES BE MADE PUBLIC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, neither the people in Atlantic Canada nor anywhere else will be impressed by this very shocking ignoring of the Minister's responsibility to answer a question. 1 want to ask him again, and 1 would like him to cut out his silly, misleading rhetoric-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Cut out your silly, misleading nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: -and answer a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Minister a straight question again. I hope that he will give us a straight answer.
There is an internal audit being done in the Minister's Department. There is a study being done by Price Waterhouse of the profound bungling in the Department. Does the Minister not believe that the people of Canada have a right to see those studies? If he does, will he guarantee that they will be made public?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that three investigations or examinations are being done at this time.
We have one internal investigation requested by the Comptroller General. There is a second investigation which we at the Department requested and which is being done by an outside firm, Price Waterhouse. The third investigation is being carried out by the Auditor General. So we have absolutely nothing to hide in this respect.
Today, I can assure Hon. Members I will do everything in my power to ensure that the truth comes out, that all the facts
Oral Questions
are clear and that a full explanation is given of what happened in the Department.


DECISION-MAKING POWER WITHIN DEPARTMENT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and also deals with regional economic development.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that since 1984, regional economic development budget allocations have been cut by several billion dollars, and the Minister himself has now admitted, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to take into account the specific payments made in view of the situation in western Canada as a result of falling wheat prices, those cuts in the regional development funding would be even greater. Meanwhile, the Minister has just stated that not one, or two, but three enquiries are required to shed some light on the management of that department.
In view of this hodgepodge, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who is responsible for decisions in the present context at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion?


Michel Côté: 1 am, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT'S INTENDED PROPOSALS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the Minister what action he intends to suggest to this House in particular, but mostly to the people of Gaspe, and more specifically to the people of Murdochville, in order to help those 400 jobless workers and families. Some of them have already been laid off, and the rest will be by the end of June. I ask the Minister if he could step up the implementation of the second stage of the development of eastern Quebec and implement immediate programs to help the people of Murdochville who are faced with an unbearable situation which actually prevails throughout the eastern part of the peninsula.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the first stage of the Eastern Plan, the first five-year stage, is indeed to be completed soon, and our Government believes in consultation. That is why we spent over the last weekend, with the Minister responsible for that region, more than 60 hours consulting with people in every district and area of the peninsula covered by the Eastern Plan.
What we have here therefore is concern, a consultation process and sensitivity on the part of the Government in that respect.
With respect to Murdochville, a consultation committee has already been set up, and it should be reporting by June 19. I therefore wish to assure people, Mr. Speaker, that we are deeply concerned. Although it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, as my colleague for Energy mentioned earlier, we are always willing to listen to the needs of each and everyone of those areas.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I have in my hand a copy of Mr. Dye's report as Auditor General, from 1985. I want to ask the Minister in charge of DRIE why his Department did not follow Mr. Dye's advice when he stated:
We also verified whether forecast cash flow patterns in the Resource Allocation Management System were accurate. There were errors in the data recorded in nearly all the approved projects. About half of these were serious errors-
In view of the fact that Mr. Dye waved a red flag some two years ago saying that there were very, very serious errors in terms of data, I want to know why the Minister continued to administer his Department in such a way that we now have an over-commitment of funds in this fiscal year of some $90 million. Will he now admit that he did not follow the advice of Mr. Dye despite the fact that he was warned? Why did he not follow that advice?
government and freedom of information, that he will make public the findings of the internal investigation of his Department, as well as the findings of the Price Waterhouse study? Will he do that today? Will he make that commitment? Will he also get up in the House to tell us that there is an overcommitment now approaching $90 million?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, making that kind of suggestion denotes sheer irresponsibility and lack of maturity. To begin with, and I said so, the Department has to deal with more than
15,000	cases a year, and it is a fact that commitments were not made by this Minister over a two-month period in the current year. Commitments were made a number of years ago. For example, Mr. Speaker, since I became Minister in July 1986 we have made commitments of more than $1 billion and the money will be spent over the years, beginning in 1988-89. Before asking questions, Mr. Speaker, one should get the facts straight and inquire about departmental procedures.
As to the report, a moment ago I gave my colleague some explanations, and I stated that I would do everything I can to shed light on these incidents, Mr. Speaker.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would say that out of this Auditor General's report there were 21 recommendations that have been dealt with by my Department and answers have been supplied.
My colleague is completely misleading again. He does not know what is going on in this Department.


John Edward Broadbent: He knows more than you do.


Michel Côté: There is no over-commitment. I said that there was a possibility that there could be over-spending for the year 1986-87. We will find that out. Reports will tell us how it happened, when it happened, and how to correct it. That is why we have asked for such a report.
I also said that this over-spending could have an effect in the actual year. Why we want to be very cautious about it is in order to prevent anything else from happening once again.
It has to be remembered that we inherited such a mess from 1984 and we still have to live with it.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF EXPENDITURE STUDIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. The Minister knows that right now, according to information released a couple of days ago, the over-commitment is around the $90 million mark for fiscal year 1987-88, not for three years ago. If that is not the case, then I challenge the Minister to get up in the House and deny it right now.
When he is doing that can he make a commitment to the House, since the Conservative Party promised openness of


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. ADRIEN LAMBERT, FORMER MEMBER FOR BELLECHASSE
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery of Mr. Adrien Lambert, former Member for Bellechasse and House Leader for the Parti creditiste.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns yesterday's meeting with provincial Finance Ministers when there was failure to reach an agreement on the regulation of Canada's securities industry.
Nine provinces say that they do not want to be bound by the agreement between Ottawa and Ontario, on which they were
June 12, 1987

not consulted. The tenth Province, Ontario, is saying that it would consider joining the others in a constitutional challenge.
What does the Government propose to do now, bearing in mind that the Ontario-Ottawa agreement is set to take effect on June 30? Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on motions today to clarify the Government's intentions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, I am advised by the Minister of State for Finance, who is away on government business, that the understanding reached with Ontario in April is a working arrangement in the regulation of securities activities in that province as it pertains to federally regulated institutions.
The federal Government has made it very clear that it has no intention of imposing any such arrangement on any other province unless it is otherwise agreed to.
There was some disagreement with the approach taken, I understand, at the meeting yesterday. However, the Minister of State for Finance has indicated a clear willingness to sit down and work this through with the provinces. He is prepared to meet with them at any time to try to work out a satisfactory arrangement to allow the federal Government and the provinces to work together in reaching agreements on this very important matter.


Aideen Nicholson: The Government is again being overtaken by events, because many large foreign investment houses are moving into Canada, including one which has assets more than double the entire assets of all financial institutions in Canada.


Raymond Garneau: That is the problem. We have raised it many times.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance had said that he expected the agreement with Ontario to be a model which the other provinces would follow. In response to their objections, he is now quoted as saying that he will not be "ambushed" by provincial "ultimatums".
I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has been sounding much more conciliatory. Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the Minister of State for Finance was misquoted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. I talked with the Minister of State for Finance last night, and he indicated to me in a telephone conversation that he in no way wanted to impose the Ontario agreement on other provinces.
He is ready and willing to sit down with each of the provinces to work out a satisfactory arrangement. In view of the fact that Ontario had taken the initiative in bringing this
Oral Questions
proposition to the federal Government-and it was agreed upon-it was assumed that that could very well serve as a model.
Obviously there are some differences of opinion in that regard. I think I can assure the Hon. Member that this matter can be proceeded with in a conciliatory and co-operative way. That is certainly the intention of the Minister.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he is now aware, the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Mr. Bruce Phillips, spent over $80,000 on various services when he was representing Canada in Washington.
According to the access to information legislation, he was provided by taxpayers with a 4,491-square foot home which included a bomb shelter, a pool, and a music room. In addition, $21,000 was spent on crystal, china, flatware, small appliances, and a vacuum cleaner. An additional $28,000 was spent on furniture. He was also given his firewood free of charge. He had his bedspread cleaned. A security system was installed and his food processor was repaired-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a fascinating list, but he should put his question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I apologize that the list is so long; I hope the Government does too.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain which of these services were essential and how they helped the Government fight the deficit?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tory times are tough times, Don.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the issue about the house provided for Mr. Phillips when he was appointed to Washington has been raised by the Hon. Member. I can simply state that the services provided in the acquisition of the house are fully consistent with the practices-


John Edward Broadbent: Of the Government.


Pat Carney: -for that particular class of post.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I can assure him that the costs involved are-


Carlo Rossi: Go back to Disney World.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in my answer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is true that Tory times are tough times for some.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXPENDITURES
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister's Director of Communications communicates well with the Prime Minister's lifestyle.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Who is looking after the interests of the public purse? Who is representing the taxpayers in making sure that real excessive, unnecessary expenditures are being curtailed by the Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Give us some food to process.


An Hon. Member:: Take away Broadbent's chauffeur.


John Edward Broadbent: You are getting about as low as you can get.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill has put a question, and I would ask Hon. Members to permit the Hon. Minister to respond.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can further add, in response to the Hon. Member's question, that the furnishings which were purchased for the house of course are the property of the Canadian Government and will be used by Mr. Phillips' successor.


FORESTRY
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. Over the past two years the Minister has had extensive consultations with all sectors of the forest industry, the aim being to develop a national forestry strategy.
I wonder whether the Minister could inform the House what is the status of this very important issue.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely right. The forest sector, including industry, provinces, labour, and academea, asked for a long time to have a national forest strategy developed.
They did not want one which was foisted on them by the federal Government as was done in 1981. They wanted to develop it from the grass roots up.
For that very reason the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers undertook to do that. It held forestry forums on widely represented sectors of the forest industry. Also, this was widely discussed in the National Forest Congress, the largest forestry congress in the history of Canada.
The task force which evolved from that has been working diligently and hopefully will be dealing with that in a major meeting in the Maritimes in July and perhaps having it ratified by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers in September.
Hopefully we will have a new national forest policy developed from the grass roots up by the fall.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday's episode in the lifestyle of "The Rich and Famous" saw Fast Freddy and his $35,000 kitchen in his office. In today's episode we have Loosey Brucey trying to spend taxpayers' money to the tune of $80,000 to fix up a house for him.
A few minutes ago the Minister responsible said that these expenditures were consistent with that kind of position. How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the fact that the previous appointee was not afforded such luxuries? Why was it that the house which was appropriate for Mr. Gossage was inappropriate for Mr. Phillips?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the expenditures were made in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines and in keeping with the status of the office.


Don Boudria: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, only the Prime Minister can top this kind of extravagance.


REQUEST FOR HALT TO CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Now that we have another episode in the Conservative Party's ongoing spending spree, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to the House today that this kind of profligate spending is going to stop? We are hearing new examples every day. Isn't the Deputy Prime Minister himself fed up with this orgy of spending by his colleagues and the Prime Minister's cronies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon.
June 12, 1987

Member talks about expenditures. 1 simply remind him that this Government inherited a deficit mess of $38 billion and a national debt of $200 billion. If you want to talk about extravagance and expenditure, we are looking at it right across the way.


FISHERIES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. Fishermen in St. Mary's Cove, Newfoundland, have voted 95 per cent not to take part in this year's Capelin fishery because the price offered by the Japanese is too low. It is not an economic fishery and it will not be an economic fishery so long as an unregulated market, a chaotic market, continues to play one fisherman off against another pushing down prices.
Will the Government finally recognize the seriousness of this situation and guarantee immediately a fair price for this year's Capelin and take action to establish a capelin marketing agency so that this kind of chaos will not happen in the future?


Gerry St. Germain: Buy a popcorn stand.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, without accepting the socialist solution-


John Edward Broadbent: Favoured by the fishermen.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -I can only advise the House and those who ignore the realities of the market-place, such as the Leader of the socialists who is the great advocator of "what's a billion-"


John Edward Broadbent: Why don't you have a holiday?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member. A short question.


James Douglas Manly: Perhaps the Minister and the Government will recognize the necessity for marketing agencies before too long, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT FISHERMEN RECEIVE EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
James Douglas Manly: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government extend unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen since they expired May 15? The waters off the northeast coast of Newfoundland are too cold, the cod are not appearing, fishermen are not earning any money. Will the Government extend unemployment insurance benefits for these fishermen?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, Mr. Speaker, without accepting the socialist solution, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is seized with this very important matter, he considers it a priority and is working toward a solution.


FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD-REQUEST FOR CAPELIN PRICE SUPPORT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries on the same topic of the capelin fishery and the fact that, because the Japanese have refused to pay a fair price, Newfoundland fishermen, rightly so, have tied up their boats. Unemployment insurance is cut off, the cod fish fishery is a failure, and so is the lobster fishery.
The Deputy Prime Minister is a Minister over 50 who understands the importance of regional development, unlike the younger Ministers. He has an opportunity to act here. There is such a thing called the Fisheries Prices Support Board. It exists. It is a government agency. He has the power to approach that agency. Will he do that and will he ask it to support the price of capelin this year to make sure that there is a decent price for Newfoundland fishermen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member in his very constructive way poses a very sensible question and probably a solution that might be considered. I will certainly take that as a representation and convey it to the Minister. I thank him for his suggestion.


REQUEST THAT MARKETING AGENCY BE ESTABLISHED
Bill Rompkey: I appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure he understands the seriousness of this situation. He has to act for this year, but for next year will he make sure that there is a Canadian marketing agency put in place to make sure this situation does not happen again?


John Edward Broadbent: A socialist answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the socialist solution, but also accepting the fact that I do take the Hon. Member's question seriously because he is very knowledgeable and I accept that-certainly more knowledgeable on the issue than I am-


John Edward Broadbent: Pretty socialist, though.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -I will take his considerations into account, convey them to the Minister, and assure the Member that this matter will be looked into. In spite of his earlier comments about age and what not, I think that between the two of us we can probably find a solution.

June 12, 1987
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Economic Council of Canada in a policy statement indicated that there must be a national commitment by government, industry and labour to adopt new technologies more rapidly. Failure to act would mean a loss of prosperity and jobs for Canadians.
Will the Minister indicate the nature of his Ministry's response to this urgent national issue, drawn to the attention of Canadians by the Economic Council of Canada? Has the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, apprised itself of this circumstance and is the council addressing it?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Economic Council of Canada and its advice are entirely consistent with advice that we have received from other sources, which is the advice on which we have structured the new national policy, the new national strategy. We have made the necessary intramural reorganization and re-arrangements to make sure that federal resources are targeted into the areas that are identified by the council. It also points out that the main components of the national policy and strategy are precisely on target and I am pleased with that finding.


TAX REFORM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the last few weeks the Prime Minister's Office has held a number of lengthy and confidential briefings for journalists that included the subject of tax reform.
Is the Prime Minister's Office aware of the dangers of breach of confidentiality that exist in this area on a subject which is every bit as important as a Budget? Did any breach of confidentiality take place or was this simply an effort by the Prime Minister's office to manipulate the press and to persuade journalists to report that Canadians are getting tax cuts while ignoring the fact that these same Canadians will be paying major increases in sales tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any breach in security.


INQUIRY WHETHER TAX WILL BE IMPOSED ON FOOD
Michael Morris Cassidy: My supplementary is as follows: We wonder whether it is fair to arrange for these
confidential briefings with the media, when the Government is doing everything it can to inform Canadians there will be a reduction in income tax but refuses to tell the House whether food is going to be taxed or not.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether food will be taxed or whether the Government intends to go on hiding its true colours?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is patient on Thursday, the document will be unveiled and I hope he will have the capacity to digest it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are telling journalists now.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Yesterday the standing committee received a petition signed by over 7,000 employees of the Department of Immigration which stated: "Contrary to what the Minister wrote to all MPs, position cutbacks have had a negative impact on the quality of service to clients. It also testifies our indignation with the Deputy Prime Minister, and we denounce the lack of respect shown to us and the public we serve".
Given this unprecedented vote of non-confidence in the Minister and in the Government and given the confusion in immigration policy that we have witnessed over the last two and a half years, how can Canadians possibly have any confidence in the Department and the Government when over one-third of his employees are denouncing his policy and direction? How will he rectify the mammoth revolution that is taking place in his Department? What solutions is the Minister proposing to get a Department working on behalf of all Canadians?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we are down-sizing by 15,000. That was a government announced policy under Treasury Board. CIC participates. Eight hundred and twenty jobs are being affected, most by attrition. Only a handful of people have been laid off as a result of being unwilling to accept alternative employment opportunities.


Sergio Marchi: That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. There have been over 1,500 jobs lost in the Department.
June 12, 1987


QUALITY AND DELIVERY OF SERVICE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister's own employees are telling him and the Government through this unprecedented petition that the service to the public is being jeopardized, will he immediately order an independent investigation to develop standards to ensure that an adequate quality of service to all Canadians will be reestablished and that an appropriate and sufficient number of staff members will be employed in order to deliver the quality of service that all Canadians rightfully expect and demand?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the down-sizing is being achieved with the utmost consideration for employees and client service. I do not need my hon. friend to tell me about the need to improve, or anything about quality of service. He may not be aware of this, but for the last year we have had in place a program to improve quality of service and I can say that we have made dramatic strides in improvement right across the country. Our offices are more accommodating and our officers are more accessible and are giving services that clients want, need, and understand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this day, the leader of the socialist party, during Question Period, alleged that the standing committee on the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion stonewalled the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) when he sought information on the Department at yesterday's Standing Committee meeting. I simply want to ensure that the facts are straight. An allegation is one thing; the truth is another.
The fact is that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is not a regular member of that Standing Committee. He was parachuted in yesterday, as was the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), but at least the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice had the courtesy to indicate that he was not a regular member and therefore was not fully conversant with matters before that Standing Committee.
The standing committee on DR IE has for several months been examining matters relating to tourism and matters relating to the IRDP program. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville endeavoured yesterday to take us right off that agenda by going after senior staff members from the Ministry who were present to respond to the mandate laid down by the Standing Committee and not to policy questions asked by the
Point of Order-Mr. Brisco
Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. In other words, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville sought to divert the business of the Standing Committee which it had been addressing assiduously and vigorously week after week, month after month.
I want that allegation altered, amended and withdrawn by the leader of the socialist Party.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the member of the capitalist Party across the way. He has referred to me as being parachuted into a particular committee. I suggest that if you were to check with the Clerk of that committee, Madam Speaker, you would find that I am a bona fide member of the committee. I was there with the proper papers containing the signature of the Whip and I was not parachuted in.
Second, if you would check the records of yesterday, Madam Speaker, you would find that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) suggested, when I asked him about this issue, that I go to the committee to ask my questions. He was not opposed to me doing that and I tried to do that but was stonewalled.
I say I was stonewalled because the witness at the committee yesterday, Mr. Salley, is a Deputy Minister of the Department in charge of policy and one important policy is how one's books and accounts are administered.
In addition to that, as my friend from Kootenay has said, there were people present at the committee yesterday who were responsible for the Industrial Regional Development Program, the major ticket item in DRIE. I asked questions about over-commitment possibilities within IRDP. Those questions were ruled in order by my friend from Cape Breton, the Chairman of that particular committee.
I would suggest with respect that on both counts my friend from Kootenay is strictly out of order. He is only crying sour grapes because the Minister has bungled through an overcommitment in that Department which is without precedent in the history of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I am also a member of the DRIE committee and my colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) was there on my behalf yesterday because I could not make yesterday's meeting.
I need to say as a full-time member of that committee that Members of Parliament, be they Members who come in occasionally or regularly, have every right and privilege to design their own questions when they appear before a committee. I would suggest to my hon. colleague who I normally find to be a reasonable member of the Conservative caucus and the committee that it is not good enough, it takes all the nerve of a toothache, to suggest that the majority of Conservative members on the committee can dictate and in fact can sanction one way or the other the questions that are allowed to be asked.

June 12, 1987
Motions
Although 1 am not a frequent defender of our socialist colleagues in the corner, I say that Members have a responsibility, not just a right, to ask questions, particularly when there is a glaring example of a Department in a shambles. This point of order is not only inappropriate but it is an embarrassment to the mind that dreamed it up.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This point of order was raised and one person from each Party has had an opportunity to offer his opinion and the Chair has listened very carefully. It seems to the Chair that it is obviously a point of disagreement and a point that could be debated between the different Parties but it is certainly not a point of order. The Chair would like to move on to Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between Parties and I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to the moving and passing of two motions. I will deal with them individually. The first motion is as follows:
That, during the period commencing Tuesday, June 16, 1987 up to and including Tuesday, June 30, 1987, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m. and continue to sit without interruption until 10 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the House shall meet at two o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, June 17, 1987, and continue to sit without interruption until 10 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of considering Government Orders;
Provided that:
1.	Standing Order 9(2) respecting the mid-day interruption. Standing Order 19(3) respecting Routine Proceedings and Standing Order 19(4) respecting Members Statements and Oral Question Period shall continue to apply;
2.	For the purpose of Standing Order 19(7) Private Members' Business shall be taken up and considered from 6 o'clock p.m. until 7 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays;
3.	For the purposes of this order the adjournment debate shall be suspended and the Speaker shall adjourn the House not later than 10 o'clock p.m.
4.	Following the adoption of this motion, no motion under Standing Order 10(1) shall be receivable on Monday, June 15, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the following motion has also been considered by the Parties. 1 move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or special Order of this House, in relation to the hours of sitting in effect on Thursday, June 18, 1987, at 8 o'clock p.m. on that day the House shall revert to Statements by Ministers for a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the tabling of any Ways and Means Notices of Motion and other documents related thereto; and
That following replies pursuant to Standing Order 19(6)(a), the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are ready to give consent to this motion being moved and adopted as we did for the previous motion. I only want to observe that these two motions, particularly the one just moved for extended hours, show that our rules make it possible for accommodation to be given when the Government wants to have its programs considered in a timely fashion without departing from the system of meeting within a fixed calendar to do parliamentary business. The rules accommodate that now as they did before.
1 think it should be on the record that these motions, particularly the latter one, enable us not to give up our roles as parliamentarians and members of opposition Parties while, at the same time, enabling the Government to put forward for consideration its business without using measures which undermine the basic concept of the rules that we meet within fixed dates.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It is interesting to note that both of these motions have been agreed to by the House Leaders and will be accepted by all members of this House.
With regard to the Government talking about sitting in the summer or requesting extended hours, it is important that in the future the Government introduce legislation which it believes to be important early enough in the session that the public will have a chance to know what legislation is before the House and that we will not be forced to pass legislation through all stages, quite often within one half day.
I believe that such situations deny the public its right to participate and involve itself in the legislation which is brought before this House and passed by it in the last few days before the end of June.
June 12, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most of the items we are and will be dealing with in the month of June have been on the Order Paper for some time. On those that have not there has been sufficient discussion, either at committee level or among the Parties and the critics.
In response to the comments of the House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), I think it is fair to say that the achievement of the government business during the month of June has been as a result of co-operation from both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. The package is coming together nicely due to the co-operation we have received.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Aurèle Gervais: Madam
Speaker, it is my duty to table a duly certified petition which was forwarded to me by Reverend Jackson Strapp, Pastor of the First United Church in Timmins. The petition is signed by Reverend Strapp and 46 members of his congregation including residents of Timmins-Chapleau.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defeat the motion introduced in the House of Commons on February 16 supporting in principle the restoration of the death penalty in Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition from approximately 100 residents of Spadina in the City of Toronto who point out that there are many people who are in need of refuge in the world and that while Canada has had a fairly good system for considering their claims, the system has broken down and that a new one has been proposed by the Standing Committee which has wide public support. However, recent government actions in turning away refugee claimants from our borders are putting real refugees at risk.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to
Order Paper Questions
present this claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Victoria, B.C., who are concerned that the low-level flight training of NATO pilots at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador, not only disrupts the way of life of the native people there but also that the training of pilots to fly under radar into eastern Europe constitutes a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for establishment of a larger base there. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition from residents in my riding from Notre-Dame, Cocagne, Grande-Digue, Saint-Antoine and Buctouche. Your petitioners are concerned about the Canada Post Corporation's new corporate plan that will create two classes of citizens, and your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 118 will be answered today.


Mr. Manly: Does an agreement exist between Canada and the United States with respect to allotted sharing of time at the test range at Nanoose Bay in British Columbia and, if so, in 1986 (a) what percentage of time did Canada use (b) what percentage of Canada's unused time was taken by the United States and what compensation did Canada receive for unused time?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Yes. (a) 11 per cent; (b) 3.15 per cent- $771,509.
*Canadian usage in 1985 was over 30 per cent. The Canadian usage figure for 1987 will be above the low usage rate for 1986.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the "1987 Constitutional Accord, signed in Ottawa on June 3, 1987, by the First Ministers of Canada", copies of which were tabled in the Senate and the House of Commons on June 3. 1987; That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee, such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated no later than seven sitting days after the adoption of this motion;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee submit its report not later than September 14, 1987, provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That substitution be authorized, for Members from the House of Commons, from a list of alternates to be provided to the Joint Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee by a representative of each party at the first meeting of the Committee, such list of alternates to contain no more than twice the number of Members of the House of Commons who are Members of the Special Joint Committee representing each party in the House;
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
['It is with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.', "The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.\nIt being 3 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)."]
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise on behalf of our Party today to support the motion before the House to establish a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons
to hold public hearings this summer on the Meech Lake Accord.

It is with pleasure, Madam Speaker, because we endorse the Meech Lake Accord, as do the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Party. It is good to have the consensus of the three Parties here in the House in the case of such an important process. I support the resolution before the House for two reasons.

First, I support the motion before the House because it will give us an opportunity as Members of Parliament to explain the Meech Lake Accord and promote a better understanding of the Accord to people across the country. I think that is important because it is a complicated document which has ramifications that will affect the lives of Canadians, not just today but for many years to come.
Second, and even more important, I support the resolution before the House to establish a Special Joint Committee because I believe that the people of Canada need some input into constitution-building. Constitutions are not just for Prime Ministers, premiers. Members of Parliament or members of Legislative Assemblies. They are for the people of Canada from all the provinces that make up this great nation.
I want to see as much positive input as possible in suggesting some positive changes to the Accord that is before us. I also hope that all 10 provinces will hold hearings, as the Province of Quebec has done and as I understand the Province of Manitoba is obliged to do so that we may have a provincial and national perspective and the resolutions of the House of Commons and Senate, and the resolutions from the provincial legislatures will be the result of input from all Canadians in this diverse country. We will have a constitution about which we will feel proud as we take this country into the 21st century.

Madam Speaker, I remember very well that five or six years ago we had another special joint committee of the House and the Senate of Canada studying the Canadian Constitution. I sat on that committee with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and I remember quite vividly that we had hearings during two or three months in late 1980 and early 1981. It was a good committee. There was good participation not only by Members of the House, like co-chairman Serge Joyal, but also by senators, particularly Conservative Senator Arthur Tremblay and Liberal Senator Jack Austin.
We had another experiment with a joint committee of the House and the Senate two years ago. Yesterday 1 spoke with my colleague the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and she told me the sittings took place in the summer of 1985, the joint committee on Star Wars and bilateral trade between the United States and Canada. Again it proved to be an enlightening experience for Canada and for Hon. Members.
June 12, 1987



One thing that has happened that I do not like is the passing of a resolution in the Senate yesterday by which the Senate will conduct its own hearings. It is very unfortunate that the Senate would want to conduct its own hearings at the same time as a joint committee is holding hearings.
Members of the House are elected by the people of Canada. As a New Democrat, with my belief about the Senate being a house of patronage comprised basically of political hacks, it is even somewhat difficult to accept a joint committee. As I said in French, experience has shown me that there has been some good contributions from joint committees in the past. However, I do not like the idea of a group of appointed politicians in the other place pretending to speak for Canada when it comes to constitution-building.
Furthermore, this is basically a non-partisan debate and let me say that 1 do not like the way they are defying the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He has taken a strong and courageous stand on behalf of his Party but is now being undercut by people in the other place who were appointed by Pierre Trudeau, who represents a different vision of this country. They will simultaneously hold their own hearings, call their own witnesses, and try to present their own point of view which may result in a deadlock for Parliament itself.
The other place really is a house of patronage and if there ever was an argument to abolish the Senate as it now exists, 1 believe this is it, and this is the time. The Senate should either be abolished or reformed. There is no place in the 20th century for a House that is not elected but has legislative power. The action of the Senate yesterday is another example of that abuse of power. The Senators, who make up a Liberal majority, are serving another master, Pierre Elliott Trudeau; he appointed most of them to the Senate. Those very senators who are serving Pierre Trudeau are trying to undercut the present leader of the Liberal Party, the Leader of the Opposition.
1 suppose they will also put in a bid to have access to the parliamentary channel in order to televise their hearings. I believe that all Members of the House agree that the parliamentary channel should exist for the elected Members of Parliament so that our hearings may be televised and the people of this country can see who is coming to talk to their elected representatives about the Constitution. It should not be there for appointees from yesterday's Canada.
I have talked about the new and old Canada. The old Canada was represented by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, rigid centralism and confrontation across the country. As a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, 1 know about the alienation that such a vision created in Saskatchewan. That is not the kind of Canada I want, nor do I think it is the kind of Canada that any political Party in this House wants today.
Constitutional Accord
We have a new Canada of co-operative federalism that was talked about years ago by Tommy Douglas, Robert Cliche, Lester Pearson and Bob Stanfield. We have a new Canada of co-operative federalism that is now being promoted by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the leader of my party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). That is the kind of Canada about which I have always dreamed. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Canada is the Canada of yesterday. That is why I am worried about the hearings the Senators are undertaking and promoting in the other place.
My vision of this country involves a strong central Government that is able to equalize conditions among people, regions and provinces. However, my vision of this country also is one in which there must be equality of provinces. There must be strong provinces that can legislate and reflect their legitimate differences.
We must recognize the diversity of this country and have flexibility so that there can be programs in the Town of Kamsack, or the Village of Buchanan that are different from programs in Newfoundland, Montreal or Vancouver. At the same time I see a government that can meet the national objectives and programs that are so important to deliver services across the country.

Also in Canada I believe it is fitting that Quebec be considered as a distinct society because Quebec is different, Quebec needs a different status. It is the reality in Canada. My God, Madam Speaker, it was Lester Pearson who led the way with the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. It was Mr. Pearson who led the way, believing as he did in co-operative federalism. Messrs. Tommy Douglas and Bob Stanfield as well as the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) also took that direction, and now it is the direction taken by the three Parties here in the House. It is the reality in Canada. Quebec is different, and if we want unity in this country we must acknowledge this reality in the Canadian Constitution.
Coming from Saskatchewan and western Canada, I am proud that the Premiers have recognized that Canadian reality. I am convinced that almost all Members of this House agree with me on that.

My vision of Canada also includes the aboriginal people as a distinct and unique people who need more constitutional protection. I hope that through these hearings we can mobilize public opinion and convince legislatures, primarily in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, that they should include in the Accord recognition of Indian rights to selfgovernment in Canada. That was something which was accepted in principle, certainly by the federal Parliament and by six other legislatures and, I am sure, by the National Assembly in the Province of Quebec.

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
.10)
I appeal to the Premiers of this country to recognize that in order to complete the circle of a strong federal Government and provinces, and the diversity and uniqueness of Quebec, we must also include the uniqueness of our native Indian people with an appropriate amendment which recognizes aboriginal self-government in Canada. We may already have had that, were it not for the intransigence of Premier Devine, Premier Getty and Premier Vander Zalm. 1 appeal to them once again to reconsider their position and to establish public hearings in their provinces so that aboriginal people have a chance to have some input in terms of constitutional building.
As someone who has a name which is neither French nor English, though half English in ancestry, 1 want to to go on record on behalf of our Party as speaking out as strongly as possible to ensure that we have multiculturalism recognized in the Constitution of Canada. I am very happy to see in the final Accord, which came out of the Langevin Block, a change to the original Accord, that nothing in the Accord will derogate from the existing rights of multicultural groups in this country. I think that is a very important thing which should be noted and explained to the people.
In this country we have a lot of differences, but 1 do not think that we should let those differences divide us. I think those differences are what makes this country unique. I come from a riding where there are people of many national backgrounds, such as Ukrainian, Chinese, Russian, native Indian and the odd Scandinavian like myself. We have people of British background, and a few of French background, although not many. In my kind of province we have a cultural mosaic. It is really great to go to a non-Ukrainian wedding in my riding and find that many of the customs are Ukrainian because they have picked up some tremendously interesting and vital customs from the Ukrainian culture. I think we have done that right across this country. We are not the same melting pot as we see south of the border in the United States. Because of those differences I think we are richer and I feel these differences will unite this country in an even greater way.
It is very important that we support this Accord because it is very important to change the Constitution to include Quebec.
[ Translation]
And as I said, it is important to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to have our Constitution recognize that Quebec is different. It is not only a matter of the different language spoken by the majority of Quebecers. They have a different culture. They have the Civil Code. There are many differences.

Second, 1 want to comment on the spending power and the powers of central Government. I think Pierre Trudeau has exaggerated to its utmost limit some of the dire consequences which could happen to the central authority or the spending
power. 1 think he has taken the worst case, exaggerating as much as possible.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam pointed out that she was in this House when Lester Pearson was Prime Minister and when he talked about cooperative federalism. The Right Hon. Lester Pearson tried to get recognition of spending power by the federal Government in the Constitution and he could not. Now it is part of the Meech Lake Accord. In fact, there is a reference to the Government of Canada in terms of spending power which was not there before. There is also a recognition in the Accord of national objectives, which was not there before. I suggest that some of the things which were fought for by Lester Pearson back in the 1960s are now coming to fruition.
With respect to the federal spending power and the amending formula, 1 think in many ways we now have less of a strait jacket, because all we need are seven provinces out of 10. If we look at the history of medical care, unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, we find that in all those cases we built a consensus for the unanimity of the provinces with the federal Parliament before we went ahead. Now if we have a province such as Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Ontario or British Columbia, which is intransigent and says, no, it will not necessarily hold back the rest of the country.
We talk here about the federal spending power and we are talking about it in areas of exclusive provincial rights. Those are the rights of the provinces. They do not get compensated for a national program unless their own programs are compatible with national objectives. What is wrong with that? If the program is not compatible with national objectives they will not receive compensation, and if it is a proper and popular program they will suffer the consequences in the next provincial election.


Charles L. Caccia: What will you do with the extra billing?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Extra billing does not fit into this example at all. If there is any Party which knows something about medicare it is the Party of Tommy Douglas which fought for medicare in North America from Saskatchewan some 25 years ago come July 1.
With respect to the Supreme Court and the Senate, I wonder why some people such as Pierre Trudeau and the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and a few others, think the federal Government should have the unilateral right to appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court. This is a federal country. We have two orders of government which are equal.
In Saskatchewan we have had problems with Supreme Court decisions. In our province the Supreme Court struck down legislation by the Blakeney Government to tax foreign multinational oil companies. That was done because there was no input from the provinces in the selection of those judges.
June 12, 1987

I say in a federal state that both the provincial and federal Governments should co-appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court, and that is what is being done in the Meech Lake Accord. That is co-operative federalism. That is the kind of thing we want in our province. I suggest that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want it as well.
With respect to the Senate, we saw what happened yesterday in that House. In defiance of the Leader of the Liberal Party, it passed a motion to have a study of the constitutional Accord. If we are not going to abolish the other place, if we are not going to have an elected Senate, the least we can do is to ensure that the provinces have some input into the selection of Senators so that the Senators are not obedient to an old master like Pierre Trudeau but will have some responsibility to represent their provinces and their regions in a truly federal state.
I also want to mention the north. There is perhaps one glaring omission in the Constitutional Accord, and that is that northern Canadians become, in a constitutional sense, second-class citizens. Other residents of other provinces have an input through their legislature and in the nomination of judges and Senators. However, citizens of Yukon and the Northwest Territories do not have the same right. I do not think that is fair. I know an important case is being launched, but I think we are going to have to look very hard to find some kind of amendments so we do not create second-class citizens in a constitutional sense in northern Canada.
I am also concerned that the amending formula for the creation of new provinces has been changed requiring unanimous consent. I think we can hopefully all unite in this House to build up some kind of public feeling among the provinces to agree to revert back to the existing amending formula, which is seven provinces out of 10. Because of this glaring oversight, I want to move an amendment which I hope is acceptable to all Members of this House.
I move, seconded by my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West, (Mr. Benjamin), who has been pushing for the idea:
That the motion be amended by striking the word 'and' at the end of paragraph 9 and substituting the following therefore,
That the Committee, or a sub-Committee, have power to travel to, and hold at least one public hearing in, each of the two Territories;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of advisors to assist in its work, and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
In closing, I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Liberal Party to seriously look at the possibility of giving this committee the right to travel in northern Canada. I think this is a really special case because they do not have provincial Governments. They were not part of the Meech Lake Agreement. They did not have a Premier sitting down at the table for them. The federal Government represented them, I know,
Constitutional Accord
but citizens of other provinces had both the federal Government and their premier, and there is a difference. With the amended formula, they do not get a chance to help select the judges of the Supreme Court or the Senators. There is a guarantee for a Senator, but the federal Government would appoint the Senator from the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. So in that sense I think there is a constitutional double standard.
The other point I want to make is that they may never become provinces if unanimous consent is required. There is a difference when it comes to the north. I think the committee should have the power to travel to the North or to send a subcommittee to the north. If the committee, through consultation, deems it unnecessary, then the committee does not have to travel. We do not say that it has to travel. We are saying that if it wishes to travel then it should have the funds available to do so.
I am sorry that my time is running out. I would like to have made one or two more comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the Hon. Member's amendment. Are there questions or comments?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, this is a sad time for Canada, not necessarily because of differences of opinion, on this constitutional Accord, but when we see a Party once regarded as a Party of principle become purely a Party of political opportunism-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Exactly right.


Donald James Johnston: -we all know that power corrupts. The NDP has now proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that even the fleeting sniff of power corrupts.
That being said, I wish to ask the NDP spokesperson, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a question with regard to process. He mentioned the constraint on the spending power that is found in the proposed new section 106A(1) of the Accord, which he views very favourably. He says that to withdraw, provinces would have to meet national objectives in carrying on their own programs. At the present time we know that the spending power as it is generally used requires the delivery of funds to the provinces for them to spend in accordance with certain national criteria, otherwise the funds are not forthcoming. I suggest that this section clearly creates a new situation and the term "national objectives" must mean something. It is a very important consideration, what it means. That is a legal issue. Who establishes those national objectives is another legal issue. We have already heard a number of interpretations.
I would like to advise my friend from Yorkton-Melville and the House that I have written a letter to the Prime

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and to each of the provincial Premiers, including the Premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Devine. In this letter I have suggested that it would be very helpful if a number of these ambiguities, such as the ones surrounding the spending power, were cleared up by the courts before the resolution is adopted, either here or in the provincial legislatures. That cannot be done through committee hearings. Committee hearings are important in order to have views expressed.
But there is a mechanism for doing this. In the case of the federal level it can be done by reference case under Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act; and at the provincial level, in the case of Saskatchewan, for example, it can be done under Section 2 of the Constitutional Questions Act, Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978, Chapter 29. This clause, which we are told was of particular concern to the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley, who shares the same political affiliation as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, can be dealt with by a similar reference made under Section 1 of the Constitutional Questions Act of Manitoba, Revised Statutes of Manitoba, 1970, Chapter 180.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether or not he would support that idea, which should not in any way delay the parliamentary timetable but would enable us to determine before we do something to the country and to the Constitution what the impact of it will be by definitive, legal interpretation in some of the obvious areas in which there are concerns. Obviously, the court cannot comment on everything in the Accord, but it certainly can take on the interpretation of these specific ambiguities so that parliamentarians and Members of provincial legislatures will know on what they are voting. That is the question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Montreal for his suggestion. I think it is an example of why we need public hearings. His suggestion is worth looking at and studying. I cannot answer his question off the top of my head. It is one of those things about which one would have to think. I think it is well worth studying. Hopefully, over the summer we will have all sorts of other ideas that will come before the committee and we can build up some kind of national consensus. There are ambiguities. But there are also ambiguities in the Constitution which we patriated in 1982. A great many items in the Charter of Rights are left to the interpretation of the courts. So I say to my friend that his suggestion is worth taking a look at.
I wish to make one more comment about his comments concerning our principles.


Donald James Johnston: Which ones?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On the Constitution. I challenge my friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount to go back over any speech I have made on the Constitution back in 1981, 1982 or 1983. I have always spoken about my vision of the country in a similar way to which I did today. I have not changed my spots. I am
not a leopard which changes its spots. We have always believed in a very strong co-operative federalist state. Tommy Douglas spoke about that. Robert Cliche-

-who was well-respected in that province often referred to the federalist system of those provinces and perhaps Mr. Cliche had much influence on the Prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, because he began his political life with him. And Mr. Cliche was not alone, there were also Mr. Tommy Douglas, Mr. Allan Blakeney and many other New Democrats who dealt with the necessity of having a co-operative system in this country.

I find my friend's comment, that we do not have principles now because we are becoming very strong, to be rather strange.
The final point I wish to make is that since I am being so cooperative about taking a look at his suggestion, I wonder if he can tell me whether or not he will now support our amendment to have this committee or subcommittee travel to the North. I do not think that our northern citizens, in the constitutional sense, are being treated the same as his constituents or mine.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are being snubbed.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, 1 am delighted to hear my friend the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) refer to Pierre Elliott Trudeau as the man of yesterday. For once, I can agree with him. I find it very difficult to agree with most of his ideas, but that is one on which I can agree. The same is true of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I do not often agree with him, but today I do although I find it somewhat surprising, something akin to a Damascus road conversion for the New Democratic Party, because I, personally, have always been consistent.
Why did 1 get involved in politics? Because I felt that the Liberal approach was one of confrontation and division, and I wanted one of reconciliation. I decided to join a party which was going to address this problem. Today, we are solving the problem, and I am very proud of it. But I wonder where the Hon. Member was when he should have supported Mr. Clark, a man with a deep belief in provincial rights who worked very hard to get a foothold in the province of Quebec because he was determined to defend the provinces' rights. What did the New Democratic Party do, Madam Speaker? It sought Mr. Clark's defeat. It even moved the motion which defeated Mr. Clark's Government. I do not see any consistency there, and I wonder also where the New Democratic Party was when Mr. Stanfield, before Mr. Clark, promoted the same approach of respecting the provinces and decentralizing the Canadian Government because it failed to recognize our regional disparities. The Government did not recognize the rights of Quebecers, for instance, who make up a distinct society while being proud Canadians. Where were they? That is why I agree
June 12, 1987

for once with the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount. This looks very much like a conversion and smacks of political expediency. I hope such is not the case, because it would be very sad that a man should have all the right principles for the wrong reasons.
I would like to ask him two questions.
Here is my first question. He was saying a while ago that the new spending powers under the Accord would not weaken Canada. Is he planning to encourage Mr. Pawley to keep his mouth shut when the time comes to deal with this aspect, since the NDP leader in Manitoba was apparently the one who created problems and almost caused the Meech Lake Accord to fail?
Here is my second question. He mentioned the amendment aimed at protecting the multicultural dimension of Canada. He said that we are a mosaic and not a melting pot, like the United States. The Quebec federal NDP leader, Mr. Harney, seems determined to create division and conflict again, saying that the linguistic rights-
What is going to happen to the minorities in Quebec if Mr. Harney, the federal leader of the NDP in Quebec at the moment-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have everything wrong.


Claudy Mailly: His approach is that he does not care about the rights of minorities because he wants language matters strictly under provincial jurisdiction. What are you going to do about that?
These are two questions that I think have to be answered if you are going to make yourselves the defenders of a distinct and proud Quebec society.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: First, Mr. Harney speaks for himself, I am sure, like the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) will speak for himself.
The Hon. Member asked about spending power. Mr. Pawley signed the agreement, and partly because of his insistence the wording was strengthened with respect to the federal objectives. He made a very useful contribution towards strengthening the federal objectives, making sure they were compatible with the federal Government. We can all be proud of his contribution. I certainly am. I am also surprised that the Hon. Member would make that rather partisan remark.
As to Quebec, this is not a new-found interest in that province. I and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) can give the Hon. Member our policy books and she will find that, with Robert Cliche and Tommy Douglas back in the sixties, there was a recognition that Quebec was a unique and distinct society.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go back to the 1940s and Therese Casgrain.
Constitutional Accord


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My colleague refers to the 1940s. 1 was not around the conventions in those days, but Madam Casgrain, a respected woman in Quebec, talked about the uniqueness and difference of Quebec. It is not a sudden discovery by the NDP that Quebec is different.


Claudy Mailly: You supported the Liberals who were against all these principles.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just a last comment, Madam Speaker, please?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is over. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor.

Resuming debate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I know other Members want to speak and our time is limited, so I will do something I usually do not do, stay fairly close to my notes.
I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who always speaks with eloquence and passion. I agree with much of what he said. I am not going to touch on some of the things I fully agree with, especially what he said about the North. However,
I want to deal with some of the other items that he mentioned.
This is either the beauty, the challenge or the curse of this debate. In listening to his logic in interpreting the Meech Lake Accord I am almost reaffirmed in my concern about some of the very things he sees so positively, but which I think create real problems. He talks quite rightly about the Machiavellian politics going on in the other Chamber by that muse from Lake Ainslie in Nova Scotia, MacEachen Incorporated. He has come out of his cave of hibernation and is trying to impose himself in the parliamentary process by playing monopoly with the concerns of the citizens of this country.
I said, along with Stanley Knowles, many years ago that I am for abolition of the Senate. One of my first essays in political science dealt with the reform of the Senate. However, what I cannot accept from my hon. friend who just spoke so well is that he laments the hacks, flacks, and all the political patronage in that Chamber down the hall, yet does not raise any questions about how the new method works. There is still going to be appointments of hacks, flacks, and good people, but instead of being appointed only by a Prime Minister after consultation, the appointments will now come from a list provided by the provinces. The form has not been changed.
If my hon. friend, who has been around here for a few years, along with some Premiers who are a little newer to the political game, really believes, given the unanimity rule for amending federal institutions, that there is a snowball's chance in that place down below of making any fundamental reform to the Senate, he is wrong. Triple E goes out the window. Instead of

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
equal, effective and elected, it will be echo chamber, eternal, and ineffective. It is as dead as a dodo bird. Senate reform is as dead as the dinosaurs in Drumheller. Yet my friend waxes eloquently and quite passionately about what is going on down there and how they are becoming very partisan in their deliberations on this very fundamental document.
Quite frankly, I am not going to be partisan today because this document cuts across Party lines and there is real concern in all Parties about the Meech Lake Accord. I agree that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) brought a tremendous feeling of national reconciliation to this country after the election of 1984. We do not have the confrontation we had before. He deserves a lot of credit for getting the 10 Premiers around the table and coming up with an agreement. That is very rare. Yet we cannot be completely blind to the way some people interpret the implications of that agreement. We can all have visions of national reconciliation but we have to know if this constitutional document is going to stand the test of time; not when everyone is feeling very good and very co-operative but when there is stress and strain on the federation, as there is from time to time.
Do not bring the dragon of Pierre Trudeau out and say that is the man of yesterday. He was Prime Minister for 16 or 18 years, and in that sense he is the past, but some of the questions, if not the way he raised them, are very legitimate. I am glad Canadians are going to have a chance to assess those questions now that we have this motion to send the matter to a joint committee. I will not get into that, but I compliment my House Leader for doing that. They will have their chance if the committee gets input from the public, and hopefully the provincial legislatures will have their public input as well.
The amendment suggested by my friend from Yorkton- Melville is interesting and constructive, but the fact is we have to decide whether it is co-operative federalism or whether it is going to be fractured federalism. I am going to refer to something which is central to that question, and that is the spending power. Before I do I want to read into the record a letter 1 wrote to my Prime Minister on May 12. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) had spoken out, but this was before Mr. Trudeau spoke out. I talked about vision and my basic instinctive concern about what Meech Lake would do. It reads:
My Dear Prime Minister,
Notwithstanding your eloquent and sensitive speech yesterday, it is with regret and after much wrenching introspection that I am duty bound to inform you that in all conscience I cannot agree to the Meech Lake Accord. 1 sincerely believe that in the laudable desire to get Quebec "in", we are so fundamentally changing the future character of Canada that the "one Canada" I believe in will become too loose a Confederation with the Federal Government no longer being first among equals but merely one among equals.
I am not too disturbed about Quebec's justified claim of being a "distinct society"-but with the opting out process along with compensation, there is no doubt in my mind that in time, and soon, there will be a de facto "deux nations", let alone sovereignty-association status in that Province. Accordingly, I can appreciate why the Bourassa position has been positively received in Quebec, while unfortunately, and dangerously, in a political sense, the rest of Canada is so numb (and bored) over the constitutional process, that the
fundamental implications of nation building at Meech Lake are not receiving the proper attention they deserve.
Therefore, in my view, a one day debate in the House, while commendable, is not sufficient. However, I appreciate that the fine print of the necessary legislation will provide an opportunity for a further debate of the principles of the Accord. Nevertheless, recognizing the reality of the parliamentary and political process and the limitation of time for government business, I feel these principles should be debated now-and surely if these suggested constitutional changes are to stand the test of time, then they should now be able to withstand public and parliamentary scrutiny.
At a minimum, a parliamentary committee of both Houses should be given an opportunity to seek and hear the public's view.
This would provide a vehicle for meaningful public input on the principles of the Accord to assess whether the opting out clause might adversely affect the leadership role of the federal Government let alone the provincial veto on national institutions which surely consigns Senate reform to the perpetual backwater of a constitutional strait-jacket.
Furthermore, the institutionalizing of annual federal-provincial conferences on the Constitution and the economy, with possibly the real agreements being made (necessarily) behind closed doors, will surely render the parliamentary process somewhat redundant and hence the House of Commons, for at least the important national issues, will become a mere rubber stamp.
1 have no doubt, Mr. Prime Minister, of the intensity and passion of our Francophone colleagues in all Parties with respect to their support for the Accord.
I recall when Premier Bourassa said that Quebec could not agree with the Victoria Amending Formula, he eloquently emphasized that his position was not anti-Canada but pro-Quebec. Likewise, I am not anti-Quebec but pro-Canada and Mr. Prime Minister, 1 hold my position with as much passion and intensity as do our Francophone colleagues.
The reason I read the letter was to indicate that that was my instinct at a time long before others who had more responsibility in running the country spoke out.
Why is there such concern in terms of the powers of the federal Government? 1 will not repeat what 1 said about the Senate. However, we can forget about reform in the Senate and Triple E. Anyone who thinks that there will be fundamental reform of the unanimity rule is whistling Dixie.
I should like to refer to the American experience. They are celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of their Constitution. They started with 13 little States, and they had an amending formula which required unanimity. The whole system bogged down in that more simple day. They had to reframe their Constitution and provide the amending formula which they now have where there is some flexibility.
It is ironic that we took so many years-a hundred or so-to get our Constitution back into the country where it properly should be. It had an amending formula and then, almost out of the blue-although I admit that there was a year-long negotiation behind closed doors-we are to put federal institutions into a constitutional strait-jacket from which they will never be changed.
In terms of the spending power, I should like to say that this is a very complex, complicated situation. I agree with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount that perhaps some of these matters should be considered by
June 12, 1987

stated case in the Supreme Court to get some judicial direction before we put the Constitution into constitutional stone.
This matter is different from the bilateral agreements with provinces. The Cullen-Coutre immigration agreement is a bilateral agreement between Quebec and Canada on immigration. There are many bilateral agreements between the federal Government and the provinces from time to time, which are not frozen in constitutional stone.
The problem with the Meech Lake Accord is that we are taking some of those de facto, ad hoc bilateral situations which require flexibility from time to time and we are putting them into a Constitution which is much more difficult to change.
Let us look at the spending power. The spending power is tremendously different. I know there are different types of arrangements now in the different social plans in the country and that each province must have some variation. However, that is much better than the present document which we are considering. Those who have been seduced by the semantic changes which occurred in a 20-hour session in the Langevin Building illustrate the danger of our moving too fast down the constitutional road without some judicial assessment of the real interpretation.
I can understand; I have an Indian community in my riding. They were here for the constitutional debate on aboriginal rights. Talk about second-class Canadians which members of the NDP mention in rhetoric yet do nothing about in reality!
What if you were one of the aboriginals, Madam Speaker, who came to Ottawa several months ago and found the constitutional conference floundering because the participants would not or could not define aboriginal self-government or aboriginal rights? It is a legitimate question; it is a very difficult thing to define. However, that conference failed because they could not define it. Yet, you got something else- a "distinctive society" with opting out features with compensation. Somehow the Premier of Ontario admitted in Queen's Park that the courts would define that. Don't you think you would have been a little hard done by? Don't you think that that is one of the reasons there is some irritation and quite proper irritation?
We are prepared to leave things to the court on one hand- the Meech Lake Accord. However, on other matters which affect people and their rights, we shy away from them and say that we cannot come to an agreement. I tell you, Madam Speaker, that is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Let me refer to something else which is not on record. Quite frankly, I think the press have been lazy laggards in really assessing the implications of the Accord, the rat-pack journalism which goes on around here. They get mesmerized by Trudeau and they do not do their homework.
1 will read another document into the record. It is only one of many which I have. I hope someone follows through on it, so that when we get to the committee, those who appear before the committee to give evidence can be examined.
Constitutional Accord
I should like to quote from a Canadian Press story dated May 11,	1983 concerning the Conservative leadership
campaign. It is one of the softest ones. There are others which have much more pejorative terms about what candidates were saying about each other and about the positions of their fellow colleagues running in the race to be leader of my Party. It is part of the confusion.
Four years ago, very responsible, competent, conscientious, serious politicians had something to say about the opting out formula. There is a complete change today. Surely they must come before the committee to be examined on why it was so bad four years ago and is most acceptable today.
I will read one of many clippings; I am not going to bore you, Madam Speaker. The May 11, 1983, CP story reads as follows:
Joe Clark is playing "fast and loose with the historical truth" when he claims his proposed constitutional concession to Quebec is official Progressive Conservative policy, says leadership candidate David Crombie.
Crombie says the proposal, supported by the Tories during the 1981 constitutional debate and now opposed by all leadership candidates but Clark, was merely a last minute political ploy designed to embarrass the Government by attracting support from Quebec Liberal Senators.
The Tories argued then-as Clark does now-that up to three provinces should get full financial compensation if they opt out of a constitutional change that transfers provincial powers to Ottawa.
Crombie, a member of the all-Party constitution committee, said he and others opposed the idea but voted for the unsuccessful Tory amendment because of pressure from Clark to show caucus solidarity.
Jake Epp, the top Tory constitutional spokesman at the time, says Crombie is rewriting history to justify why he, John Crosbie and Michael Wilson have changed their minds on the issue.
"Obviously it is Party policy-caucus voted for it", Epp said Wednesday. "I don't understand the flip-flopping".
The complicated issue of fiscal compensation may now be, as Crosbie says, "a pretty academic question."
Yet it reflects a tougher Tory attitude toward Quebec's demands and has added some weird twists to the leadership race:
-Clark was booed at a Toronto debate, accused of selling out to separatists and criticized by Anglophone editorialists for defending a position held in 1981 first by eight Premiers and then by his caucus.
-In the heat of the race, three former cabinet Ministers have suddenly revealed a change of mind. Crombie admits he voted for something he didn't believe in. Crosbie was surprised when reminded he once voted for it. Wilson confused compensation with another issue during the Toronto debate .. . Brian Mulroney, who has also savaged Clark's position, says he has his own nine-point constitutional plan but aides can't produce a copy or say exactly what it is ...
ironically, Clark's opponents have landed squarely in the camp of their chief enemy, Prime Minister Trudeau, who says fiscal compensation would amount to "incremental separatism."
Trudeau said in an interview published last weekend: "I note with a bit of amusement that the people who supported him (Clark) then and booed the Government. .. now are taking our side against Mr. Clark."
Clark argues his position is consistent with a more decentralized view of federalism and aids all provinces, not just Quebec.
Crosbie, Crombie and Wilson say they have reassessed their position.
This is another CP story of May 4 which ties in with what I have just read:

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Conservative Leadership candidate Brian Mulroney accused the Party Quebecois government Tuesday of preventing Quebec from reaching a constitutional understanding with the rest of Canada.
This is a compliment to the Prime Minister about more or less what happened, but it does not really answer the question about physical compensation. It continues:
"Get rid of the PQ, and as Prime Minister of Canada, I'd negotiate constitutional peace with the people of Quebec just like that," Mulroney said while visiting Tories in northeastern Quebec.
He said it is "practically impossible" to improve relations between Quebec and Ottawa as long as the PQ is in power.
Mulroney has been criticizing his leadership rival Joe Clark for playing into the hands of the PQ by promising to insert in the Constitution a formula allowing the provinces to opt out of amendments with financial compensation.
The Montreal businessman has refused to specify his own views on Quebec's constitutional discontents, saying it would be bad strategy for a future Prime Minister to tip his bargaining hand to Premier Rene Levesque.
Mulroney announced a nine-point "formula for rekindling the kind of alliance between Canadians which Sir John A. MacDonald spoke of more than 100 years ago."
I took the time to read that, Madam Speaker, because that just shows you the difficulty and the complexity of this opting out formula. Does it strengthen Canada or does it make a French Canada?
My friend from Yorkton-Melville can quote Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas who started medicare in Saskatchewan never would have had medicare as a national program if this opting out compensation formula were in place. We all know the history.
Premier Robarts of Ontario was dragged into the plan because Prime Minister Pearson said, "you will have four criteria and if you get four criteria you will be part of medicare. If you don't get into the plan, we will test you anyway". That is really political blackmail in provincial jurisdiction, admittedly, but that is what got the medicare plan launched. It would not have happened, in my submission, if we had the present opting out compensation formula that is in the Meech Lake Accord.
I think you are indicating that my time is almost up, Madam Speaker. I will leave the Accord but I would like to touch on one other thing which reflects on Parliament and which bothers me. I do believe in Parliament. I understand there is a de facto form of Government, that is, federal-provincial conferences. They have become very important. To institutionalize them into the Constitution on a yearly basis really makes this place rather redundant. Put a Member on the government side in my position, something that I have nothing to do with, understandably, because I was not there in the negotiations, yet there is a hosanna and a euphoria about an agreement because everyone comes together. Yet if I voice objections to what I have been no party to and on which I never ran an election, I become, in effect, an implied traitor to the cause.
I agree completely with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), and, I hope, my House Leader, for whom I have the highest respect who made a light remark
about me, about my seniority. Perhaps my seniority will be the only thing I will have left when I sit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: These things will come on a yearly basis. We have to change the rules, as the Hon. Member for Windsor West said, so there can be some provision to trigger a debate, such as there is in Manitoba, when constitutional accords are made.
In conclusion, and this is a conclusion, I admit, this stuff all started in recent times with Premier Robarts calling Premiers together for the Confederation Conference of Tomorrow in Toronto in 1967. I just want to say one thing, something that I will never forget because I was then a brand new Member. I would not have even suggested participating in any meaningful debate but it never really came on to the floor of the House. The Attorney General of Ontario, Arthur Wishert, said, in defining the problems of entrenching rights and having a written Constitution, that in the civil law the only rights you have are what is written down, whereas in the unwritten common law they are wide open unless they are taken away.
Just to divorce myself from Pierre Trudeau, I say we have the worst of both worlds unless there are some meaningful amendments to this matter. We have the Supreme Court of Canada de facto legislating on a Charter of Rights, which no one fully understands-that is arguable-it may be good or bad. Now with this Meech Lake Accord institutionalizing constitutional agreements and no one knowing what the Accord really means, we will have the Supreme Court again legislating, doing our work, telling us what we should have written, and I say that is the worst of both worlds.
I am so glad that we have at least got this thing launched in a committee. I really do hope that Members from all sides over a period of time will have a chance to contribute. If we can spend days on capital punishment and days on the Patent Act and drugs, surely Members of Parliament should take the responsibility and in the right place and at the right time speak out on this-whichever way they feel-because constitutions, as someone said earlier, are for people, not just for the leaders of the land.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that now that he has sat down he has his seniority but he also has his self-respect, and that is terribly important.
My question arises out of his comments that the courts will tell us what we have done. He referred, I think, to a comment of Premier Peterson and he also referred to the over-all thrust of the Accord which will place even greater legislative power, if you like, in the hands of the courts.
I am not sure if the Hon. Member was here earlier when I mentioned that I had written to the Premiers and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and suggested that a number of the ambiguities in this Accord could be cleared up by reference cases, provincially and federally. Would he comment on that
June 12, 1987

as an appropriate procedure, given that some of these issues, not some of the fundamental ones which he raises, such as the institutionalization of First Ministers' conferences-we all know where that could lead, as he has pointed out-but some of the ambiguities in specific sections, whether it be on spending power, distinct society versus distinct identity, or the issue of whether that provision in turn overrides the Charter and so on, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, not only could be but should be put to the courts so they can tell us now, when we look at this resolution and debate it in the House, what those provisions actually mean.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was momentarily out of the House. I did comment on that and I thought it was a good idea.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). He had a lot of concerns and believed that there are many questions regarding this Accord. I believe those are legitimate concerns and 1 share some of them. I hope, as a result of the committee process, that we will have a number of people not only addressing those concerns but addressing a number of others which many people across the country have as to the exact wording and meaning of the Accord.
When the Member says that this Accord weakens Confederation-and that is the implication he left-he should also recognize that the constitutional package of 1981, for which 1 believe he voted, also was a vague package, a package going to the courts which enshrined a Charter of Rights the exact implications of which even at this stage many of us do not know when we passed it in those days. This is not something new. His Prime Minister and the Premiers did not do something new this year. This is an ongoing process and it will always be a problem when we deal with constitutional changes. The Member accepts and agrees with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) that that is a valid position. He is probably quite sincere in his opinion, but he must admit that those are not the same reservations that he himself had in 1981.
The Hon. Member referred to the New Democratic Party and our position on aboriginal rights. He inferred from the motion we have before us, which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) put forward, that we are concerned about the Yukon and the Northwest Territories being left out. He also somehow inferred that we are not concerned that aboriginal people were also left out. That can hardly be true. The Member has heard us speak on this issue. He knows that on Monday of this week the New Democratic Party had a motion calling for another First Ministers' meeting on aboriginal rights. In that same motion we again referred to the need to recognize the existing rights of the people from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and the aboriginal people. That motion which was put to the House was not a motion of confidence in the Government. We explained that in the first speech that was made by a member
Constitutional Accord
of the NDP. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants voted against that amendment. I think there is a contradiction there, and before he criticizes us for putting forward these amendments on a consistent basis, twice this week, he should at least admit that we have been trying but sometimes he has not supported our efforts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I was very brief in replying to the Hon. Member's first intervention and I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member in a sense. However, let us not kid ourselves and play games. I was in opposition for 18 years. We used to think up dream motions that we knew would be turned down.
The Hon. Member is correct. Because of the questions in the Meech Lake Accord over aboriginal rights and the north, 1 suppose, to be logical, I would vote against it, and a couple of Members did so. However, the Hon. Member knows as well as I do that that was a Supply motion. He may say that it is not a confidence motion, but the fact is that it dealt with one of the most integral parts of the whole parliamentary process, and that is Supply.
There is another rule that indicates that such a motion was not a motion of confidence, and the Hon. Member has said that it was not, but I have my interpretation. I used to sit on that side of the House and plot motions that would embarrass the Government. The Government would be caught between a rock and a hard place because the motion would be for motherhood. Yet the reality is that it is a vote of confidence.
I had no hesitation in voting with my Party on a confidence motion. While 1 may have some reservations about the interpretations of the Accord, I hope that the joint committee does resolve some of them and I hope that my fears are unfounded. That is a heck of a lot different from voting against a Government on a confidence motion.
I say to my friends in the NDP that I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He is one of the most active speakers in the House.
1 do not want to be too partisan because I hope that this matter can be debated in a political but not a partisan way. That is what I resent so much about the Senate.
When the Hon. Member said that he was a leopard that did not change his spots, I had a little dirty thought. I thought, yes, sometimes that fellow is pretty strong and perhaps has some spots. However, in this case, given the history of his Party with the Regina Manifesto, Woodsworth, Coldwell and Lewis, he is a tabby-cat. That Party is a tabby-cat. NDP used to mean "New Democratic Principle". Some of us thought it meant "No Damned Principles", but now it means "No Disturbing Polls". They want to ensure that they do not rock the boat and perhaps they will slip through.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) has spoken passionately about a Constitution that needs to reflect the essence of

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
Canada and of Canadians. He has said that a Constitution needs to address the aspirations of the country's people and not necessarily of the country's political leaders. He also spoke very passionately about how the Accord treats and addresses the first citizens of Canada, the aboriginal people. I appreciated his passionate plea for bringing down to earth what a Constitution is supposed to be. In essence, a Constitution is supposed to define its country and its people.
Toward that end, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Having spoken to the people, having recognized the aboriginal fact of Canada, and acknowledging the fact that there is both a French and an English heritage in Canada, would the Hon. Member be supportive of an amendment that would add in Clause 1 the fourth indisputable reality of Canada, which is its multicultural nature?
Multicultural Canadians have made contributions to Canada, not only in contemporary times but in fact in history. The aspirations of that sector of society for their children in years to come should be recognized. There is a belief in Canada that Canadians who are of neither French nor English origin have somehow been relegated to a second-class status. These people have been included in the Constitution as a footnote in Section 16. However, Clause 1 at the beginning of the Constitution basically sets out what Canada is. Would the Hon. Member support an inclusion of the concept of Canada being made up of four fundamental characters, the French, the English, the aboriginal and the multicultural people?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would appreciate a short answer from the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is a very fundamental and important question, Madam Speaker, but my answer can be short.
Just as an aside to my friend from Yorkton-Melville who spoke of the Constitution and of Trudeau and the worst events let me say that the Constitution must cover all events and it must be for good times and for bad.
I think my hon. friend has just raised one of the real questions that must be resolved. 1 know what he is getting at in the abstract. I will wait and see what will be done through amendments.
I am a political realist and I think the Hon. Member is as well. When 10 Premiers and a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put their signatures to a document, it will take a lot of public persuasion to ensure that these are the necessary changes to reflect the reality of Canada, which I think is what the Hon. Member has suggested that it is.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), has put before us a very important matter that requires some comment. As you know, Madam Speaker, the people who will be appointed to the special joint committee to examine the Accord will have a very
noble and important task ahead of them. They will be examining an extremely important, significant and historical document.
What distresses me about the proposal of the Minister of Justice is that he has set out in the rules for this committee a deadline for reporting back to the House of September 14. 1 find that extremely difficult to understand and actually unacceptable.
The House of Commons can debate for over a year the question of capital punishment. It can debate for six months the question of pornography. It can debate for months and months the question of the cost of prescription drugs and medicine. Yet when it comes to this fundamental, basic document, the super-law of Canada, the Government has set a time limit of three months, including the summer months, for deliberation and examination of such a fundamental document. That I wish to raise in the strongest possible terms as being a ludicrous way of dealing with the Canadian Constitution.
A time limit puts undue and unnecessary pressure on members of the committee to report back to the House on a matter that is extremely difficult and which must be explained. Some of us have enormous difficulties understanding it, and I will mention that again in a few moments. As well, the public needs the time to absorb the issue.
I thought that a columnist here in Ottawa put it very well a few days ago when he wrote that the Accord can be examined not as a sacred text from Mount Sinai but as the flawed work of 11 politicians burning the midnight oil and jockeying for advantage, and that it can be held up to the light to check for cracks. I think that is a good way of describing the substance of this document. It needs a very thorough examination, and the time limit on that process is unacceptable.
As presently written, the Meech Lake Accord, as you must have noticed from Question Period, editorials and articles, raises many questions. I will deal with only a few of them. First, Clause 1 does not really reflect the composition of today's Canadian society. That matter was raised in Question Period by my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), only a few minutes ago. The description of Canadian society in Clause 1 must definitely be amended in order to provide for recognition of the existence of Canadians whose language is neither English nor French but who are Canadian citizens and make daily substantial and phenomenal contributions to the fabric and substance of this society.
Second, and of equal importance, as has been raised by others, in particular the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), is the importance of recognizing, not as an afterthought at the end of the document but in Clause 1, the existence of the aboriginal peoples. I congratulate and salute my colleagues for having raised that so forcefully, intensively and repeatedly in the House of Commons in preceding days.
June 12, 1987

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to deal with Clause (2)(l)(a) to include the real composition of Canadian society and to describe it in today's reality rather than in historical recollection of the past.
Another aspect which raises many questions is the reference to a distinct society. What on earth does "distinct society" mean? What is a "distinct society" in the Canadian context? I do not know. You must have been to Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. It strikes me that that society is a distinct society, too, for different reasons. If you go over the mountains to the west you will find that British Columbians as well consider themselves to be a distinct society in sociological, collective, regional and geographical terms. One must then ask oneself whether New Brunswick is not also a distinct society. It recognizes bilingualism in its statutes and has a distinct character. The same can be said of Ontario. Before you know it, you will come to the conclusion that there are actually many distinct societies in this country. Therefore, why should we single one out in this process?
On the same subject I must ask what powers a province which has a distinct society within it would have. I do not know but it is evident that this distinction can lead to a number of powers which have not yet been examined or spelled out. For instance, does a provincial Government, which is a distinct society under the Constitution, have the power to override citizens' rights under the Charter? If it does, should it have those powers? We must clarify this question and many others which flow from the Accord.
As you must have noticed from newspaper articles, Mr. Speaker, there are people like Pierre-Marc Johnson who say that the constitutional Accord will spur sovereignty. The Minister of International Relations in Quebec, Gil Remillard, says that the Meech Lake Accord will confirm a special status for Quebec in international relations. Is that what was intended by the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)? Is that what we are heading for? Is that what we want to have in this country? I do not see that that will be to the advantage of Canada or will make Canada stronger, as the Deputy Prime Minister said when he introduced his motion earlier this morning. This will not make Canada stronger at all.
In many passages the words of the Accord have been left vague. That is another aspect which needs attention. When there is vague terminology in any piece of legislation responsibility is shifted to judges to make political interpretations. Why should we saddle the judges with the task of second guessing what the politicians meant? That is not a good practice for writing legislation, particularly a piece of legislation of this importance. The consequences for the future of Canada of recognizing a distinct society are fundamental and have to be explored in detail and, in the long term, for the reasons 1 gave a moment ago.
With regard to other aspects of the legislation, I have grave reservations about how it affects immigrants. Immigrants can come into Canada under two sets of rules. Will an immigrant
Constitutional Accord
who has been pre-selected to go to Quebec have freedom of mobility? If, two or three days after arrival, an individual decides that he would like to move to another francophone region of the country for personal reasons, will he be bound to remain a permanent resident of the province for which he was selected?
What will happen to an immigrant who comes in under the other set of rules, chooses an English-speaking part of Canada, and decides after a short period of time to move to a Frenchspeaking part of Canada? Flow will the mobility rights of that individual be affected by the executive proposal in the Accord?
What happens to other rights which are presently in the Charter but are not referred to in the Accord? I am told by people with legal training that courts have a tendency to give precedence to parts of the Charter which may be singled out in the Constitution because of a convention that ordains that parts of the Charter which are not specified are not protected, are less protected. This is an item of extreme importance. Will the Charter be gutted by the fact that certain aspects of the Charter have not been mentioned or singled out in the Accord?
One must inevitably ask oneself whether the nation will be stronger as a result of the measures which the Government is proposing if the proposal is implemented and some of the consequences upon which I have elaborated come into being.
The point with which I will conclude has to do with appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court. Will the nation become stronger through the appointment procedure put forth in the Meech Lake Accord? Would the nation be stronger if Senators and judges were appointed through a process that was initiated by the provinces? I can only state my opinion, that it has a very uneasy impact on me as a citizen because I still believe that while consultation is desirable, the shift, onus and initiative in appointments to national institutions should rest with the national Government and not be devolved or transferred to the components of Confederation.
I hold this belief for the very simple reason that there is an element of accountability. Inevitably, if one is appointed by the national Government, one's major responsibility and accountability will be to the totality of the nation rather than to a region in which one resides. This subtle shift in that accountability is one that I do not like.
Finally, the fact remains that we are witnessing in this Accord a gradual process of decentralization. There are appointments to the Senate, appointments to the Supreme Court, the distinct society and the spending power element which is very important. There is the immigration aspect as well. All of these are wrapped up into a unanimity clause. All of these small elements of decentralization combine to mean much decentralization.
This brings me to the important point concerning spending powers. While Parliament was included in the first Accord, it has been left out in the second Accord. The word "compatible"

June 12, 1987
Constitutional Accord
is so vague that no one really knows how to interpret it. No one knows according to that clause who is to set the national objectives.
One would hope that it would be the national Government, but it is not spelled out in that clause. It does not state clearly and unequivocally who is to set the national objectives. I would not want the Supreme Court of Canada to be faced decades from now with making a decision on this particular point.
Furthermore, I am not definite, but I have spoken to many people about the process of transferring powers which may make it impossible for the federal Government to stop payments to provinces which may decide in the future to introduce extra billing. Presently, the Government can stop payments, as we saw in a press release last week which stated that Ottawa refunded several million dollars to New Brunswick since it stopped extra billing. The federal Government must protect and retain that kind of power.
1 do not know what will happen to universality as a result of this particular clause, but 1 know that it is a clause that is vague and unsatisfactory. It puts to shame those in the House who have fought hard for universal programs, national programs and social security of the same quality and strength from coast to coast.
I want to conclude by putting forward a subamendment as a result of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister in reply to questions posed by the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount when he asked what will happen in provinces where the provincial legislature will not hold public hearings in that province.
The Deputy Prime Minister sloughed the question off as a kind of superficial question that has no relevance to the debate today. 1 submit that the question is very relevant and important, in light of the fact that only last week Premier Getty of Alberta was reported to have said that there will be no public hearings in Alberta. 1 hope he will reverse his decision and hold public hearings, but in case some provinces do not do so in their respective areas, it seems that this committee or a subcommittee of the joint committee ought to hold public hearings in that particular province.
Therefore, I move the following subamendment:
That in provinces where the Legislature does not hold public hearings or has
not officially committed itself to hold public hearings, a sub-committee of the
Joint Committee be given powers to travel and hold public hearings in such
provinces.
There may be situations in which a province will not be able to hold hearings in the summer. Therefore, the subamendment is written in such a way as to take into account those provinces that will not hold public hearings in the summer months, but will make a public commitment to Canadians that their legislatures will hold public hearings. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair will reserve for a few minutes on the admissibility of the amendment. In the meantime, we will proceed with the question and comment period.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for being able to raise so many important questions in such a short period of time.
At the very outset he questioned the motion on the basis of the time frame within which the public hearings are to be held and report back, as I recall, by September 14. He, like many of us, feels that that time frame is inadequate.
Having had considerable experience in committee work over the years, could he suggest what might be an adequate time frame, so that we do not simply leave it open-ended, but perhaps discuss among ourselves what time frame would be appropriate? Should we wait until we see the representations that people wish to make on the basis of the fundamental principle that as many Canadians as possible should be heard?
I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is here to witness the concern of parliamentarians that this is too short a time frame. Again, I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister to support this subamendment which will ensure that people from coast to coast will have access to that committee, without having to travel across the country to Ottawa at their own expense.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I can understand the necessity and the desire of the Government to set a time frame. However, we should consider the length of time it takes us to examine other pieces of legislation. For example, we have been studying pornography for six months and we do not know how much longer we will be studying it. The House knows how long we could be studying capital punishment.
In light of that, on a fundamental piece of legislation like this, there ought to be an opportunity for ample hearings without such a limited time frame. I do not know whether a time frame should be set in this resolution, although I can understand the anxiety on the part of the Government to set a time frame. It has to be one that is practical. It seems to me, however, that as a minimum, there should be an examination of the Constitution, which is to last in its new proposed form- and I really hope there will be substantial fundamental amendments to the way it stands now-in order to give the public the time to absorb what is being proposed. We ourselves, who ought to understand it quickly and readily, have enormous difficulties. It should be given a time frame of six or even eight months and if, in the judgment of the members of the committee, that period of time turns out to be not adequate, then the time could be extended according to the best judgment of the members of that committee.
Since government Members would have the majority on the committee, they would be quite able to determine when that process ought to come to an end. It seems to me that it is not realistic and that it is-I hate to use such a heavy word but I cannot find a better one-undemocratic not to allow this examination. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has his
June 12, 1987

heart in the right place and he is a democrat, but he does not seem to be consistent with the image 1 have of him when he imposes a time limit which is so restrictive.
1 am sure that if the Deputy Prime Minister were in the Opposition, he would make a more passionate speech, because he is more of a passionate speaker than 1 am myself, if not to keep it open-ended, at least to give it a breathing space, and three months is not enough.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I wish to support the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I want to say I also feel that the amount of time given to this committee is insufficient, given the importance of the questions with which we are dealing. After all, we are dealing with amendments to the Constitution of Canada. I think it is particularly important, in light of the fact we are really travelling in many respects through unchartered territory. There are provisions in the Constitution, as has been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Davenport, which are very ambiguous. I can refer to the opinion of a respected member of the legal profession, J. J. Robinette, who, a week or two ago said he felt that the courts and lawyers would have to deal with these ambiguities and suffer through the consequences of them for many, many years to come.
I think it is important to note that also because there were people who objected to the inclusion of a Charter of Rights in 1981 on the grounds that this would transfer power to the courts, that it would be the courts which would decide what the law of the land was, in the final analysis, and not the legislatures and the Parliament of Canada. I think there is an important distinction to be made between the Charter which was introduced in 1981 and the terms of the Meech Lake Agreement, and that is, that the rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are rights which have already been subject to hundreds of years of interpretation, in many cases. It is true that the freedom of conscience and religion have to be refined from time to time in light of changing circumstances, mores, practices and habits in society. But can anyone deny that the freedom of conscience and religion are rights and freedoms which have formed the basis of legal decisions, interpretations and writings for hundreds of years? The same thing applies to the right to life, liberty and the security of the person. The same thing applies, although to a somewhat lesser extent, to the equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter.
Of course, the Charter contains minority language educational rights under Section 23, and those rights were framed fairly precisely. But even the provision such as the one, where numbers warrant, under which minority language groups would have the right to education in the minority language, was criticized precisely because it was said to be ambiguous. Nonetheless, in that case, there was some good evidence and a number of precedents to indicate what such a clause would mean in the final analysis.
Constitutional Accord
Therefore, I would submit that it is incorrect and illogical for those who are advocating changes to the Meech Lake Agreement, and some of the ambiguous changes, to say that this was the precise reason we were objecting to a Charter in the first place in 1980 or 1981. The rights and freedoms set out in the 1981 Charter are rights which were the subject of many years of interpretation, and I would suggest that it is entirely different now to propose concepts which are very ambiguous and many people do not know the meaning of them. Indeed, there are great differences of opinion as to the interpretation of certain clauses of this agreement.
Therefore, prudence dictates that this agreement, and certainly the ambiguous aspects of the agreement, be given full study by a committee of this House and by Parliament. If the Hon. Member for Davenport cares to respond, I would ask him if he does not agree with the distinction I am trying to make, namely that it is a far cry between the rights which were set out in the 1981 Charter and some of the very ambiguous provisions in the Meech Lake Agreement which, again, are subject to radically different interpretations?


Charles L. Caccia: In the limited time available, Madam Speaker, because the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) wants to participate in the debate, I would like to give a very brief answer, namely, that I do agree with the question which has been put to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is now ready to rule on the subamendment which was submitted by the Hon. Member for Davenport.
The Chair will have to rule this subamendment out of order. We refer to the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, Section 438(1) which states that if an amendment is intended to bring up matters foreign to the amendment, the Member should wait until the amendment is disposed of and move a new amendment.
The Chair feels that having hearings in provinces not officially committed to holding public hearings is bringing up a matter which is foreign to the amendment. Therefore, the subamendment is not admissible.


Charles L. Caccia: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to put forward a argument on this ruling if-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he wants to challenge the Chair, he should stand up and say so.


Charles L. Caccia: Then I am glad to challenge the Chair, if that is the procedure the Deputy Prime Minister wishes me to follow. I thought we could argue the ruling, but if it is the wish of this House that 1 challenge the Chair, I am prepared to challenge the Chair, and I will do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As I said a few moments ago, the Chair feels that once the amendment now before the House has been disposed of, the Hon. Member could certainly propose, as an amendment, what he has

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
proposed to the House now. However, at this time, as a subamendment, the Chair feels it is not admissible. It is out of order.
It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



B. Keith Penner: That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government, thereby making them partners in Confederation, and that this House further urges the Governments of Canada, the provinces and the territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base, and calls upon these governments to constitutionally commit themselves to negotiate with the aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motion now before the House follows rather closely the debate which has preceded it. The motion could very well have read: "That, in the opinion of this House, the recently agreed to Accord should be amended in order to recognize the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government". However, that is a fine point.
It is the Constitution Act, 1982, which the First Ministers' conferences on four different occasions have attempted but failed to amend.
In many parts of the world today very serious thought and consideration is being given to the problems and the rights of indigenous peoples who live in settled states or already-established nations. Frequently, the indigenous people to whom I refer live in underdeveloped or isolated parts of the particular country in question. Sometimes, even if they live where there is a population, that is, in an urban environment, they continue to live on the fringes of society. Recently, a very significant world report was presented on the environment and development. It is referred to as the Brundtland report. To its credit this report did not ignore the concerns and the problems of aboriginal peoples. For example, in reference to aboriginal peoples, it states in one of its sections:
Growing interaction with the larger world is increasing the vulnerability of these groups, since they are often left out of the processes of economic development. Social discrimination, cultural barriers, and the exclusion of these people from national political processes makes these groups vulnerable and subject to exploitation. Many groups become dispossessed and marginalized, and their traditional practices disappear. They become the victims of what could be described as cultural extinction.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, that in hearing that you must believe as I do that the people who put together the Brundtland report visited Canada or that they heard from expert witnesses from Canada.
Often for these very same people, no matter where they live-and they live in many parts of the world, not only in North America but also in Australia, the Amazon Basin, Central America and in the forests and hills of Asia-isolation has meant that few of them have shared in national economic and social development. That is reflected in the poor quality of life in many of their communities in terms of housing, economic development and opportunity, educational facilities, and even in terms of nutrition and health.
Strangely enough, if that situation were not serious enough, if a resource is discovered where they happen to live, if there is some opportunity to exploit the environment for material gain, then these people find themselves once again pushed aside and pushed out to make room for the developers. In the United Nations Organization today there is a Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Populations. The group is chaired by a very remarkable woman, Dr. Erika Daes of Greece. She was an observer at the First Ministers' Conference that was held recently here in Ottawa which dealt with aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
Dr. Daes, after long and very careful research, has concluded the following about the right of self-determination. Selfdetermination is a term that goes back at least to the days of Woodrow Wilson, and perhaps even earlier than that. We certainly became familiar with the term on a world-wide basis at the time that the League of Nations was created. She said that the right of self-determination as we understand it over that period of time applies equally to indigenous peoples. She adds, however, that it does not mean the right to secession.
During the past 10 years Canada has given some very important, and I would say effective, leadership in recognizing aboriginal rights. It is now generally regarded that our federal system here in Canada is quite capable of accommodating native self-rule. I think most of us in the House realize that all that is really needed in order to accomplish this is some political will, a conviction that if we did so natural justice would be served.
In the Constitution of Canada today aboriginal rights are recognized in Section 35. That section states, among other things: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Did you know, Madam Speaker, that there are some people, who regard themselves as knowing something about the Constitution, who say that that is nothing but an empty box? They say that there is really nothing in it. Others, for whom I have a greater respect and whose views are more considered, believe that Section 35 is a full box of rights and that what we are undertaking to do at First Ministers' conferences is to draw from that full box of rights certain definitions, certain specific rights and, in particular, the right
June 12, 1987

of self-government or the right of self-determination within the Canadian Confederation.
This process of definition to which I have referred was, in fact, an obligation that was laid upon the Government of Canada and the provinces by the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 37 requires that there should be a number of these conferences in order to define with precision and exactness what are aboriginal rights. More and more the concentration has come to be the right of self-government.
My motion speaks to that very process, the process of recognizing the right to self-government within the Confederation of Canada or, to put it in another way, the process of completing the circle of Confederation. Until we recognize the rights of aboriginal people in Canada to control, to direct and to manage their own affairs within the Constitution and within our Confederation, we have a situation which is incomplete.
There have been a series of these conferences under the glare of television lights with a great deal of rhetoric exchanged among the Premiers, more than one Prime Minister, and the aboriginal leaders. So far we have not succeeded, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Elnatyshyn) have clearly indicated that we must not give up on this endeavour. I agree with both of them. The purpose of my motion is to say that this Elouse agrees with and supports the notion that the endeavour must be continued. Listen to what the Prime Minister said following the last conference:
I deeply regret that we did not succeed, but I give my hon. friend the assurance that we shall try again to make sure that justice comes about for the native peoples of Canada.
He went on that same day to say:
-we are still looking for a formula that will make it possible to enshrine the rights of aboriginal peoples in the Constitution of Canada. We did not succeed last week, but the federal Government's obligation is clear. I think the responsibility is equally shared by the provinces, and we intend to examine with them and the leaders of the various aboriginal groups the various alternatives available, in order to try and develop another formula that would meet with the requisite consent of various groups so that this right can finally be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
He also said:
I said with the greatest sadness that this was a moral obligation that has been unfulfilled by Canada, by the federal Government, by the provinces-
I quoted the Prime Minister because I want Members of the House to know that the motion I am putting forward today supports the desire by the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, and a large number of Premiers, not enough but certain of them, to fulfil the unfulfilled obligation and complete the incomplete task. The motion now before us calls upon this House to lend its support to this endeavour which the Government of Canada has stated is a priority.
On May 28 in the House of Commons the Prime Minister, following the signing of the Meech Lake Accord and responding to questions about aboriginal people, said we have to:
The Constitution
... try to create a climate wherein it is generally recognized and accepted that a sense of justice and equity is required for the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that there can be a constitutional accord on this vital issue.
Through this motion I want to contribute positively to the favourable climate to which the Prime Minister referred. I have to say that that climate does now exist among a large number of Canadians. Some polling has been done to test their attitudes about recognizing aboriginal self-government. Some of our Premiers have been leading spokesmen on this yet unresolved issue. There are other Premiers, however, who remain apprehensive, fearful and hesitant. The Prime Minister said it is important that we try to create a climate so that the next time the First Ministers meet, a degree of success is attainable. Therefore, I submit that if today the House were to see its way clear to approve my motion, we would not be placing an obligation of any kind on the Government or on any province, but we would be helping to create the climate for which the Prime Minister has said there is a distinct need.
1 believe this House should be making some effort to help ensure success in the future. On June 8 the Minister of Justice said:
I share the disappointment. I think all Hon. Members of the House felt that we were unable to strike an arrangement on aboriginal constitutional amendments at the last First Ministers' meeting.
The Minister of Justice went on to say:
However, that was not the end of it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated at the conclusion of the First Ministers' meeting that it was not the end of it-
He said another meeting would depend upon an indication that progress could be made. I believe this House can play a role by approving this motion to help create the climate in which progress could be made. We are saying as Members of Parliament that we want and expect significant progress when the Prime Minister, the Premiers and the aboriginal leaders meet once again.
On that same day the Minister of Justice spoke of the need to maintain the priority to move toward the ultimate constitutionalization of the concept of self-government and aboriginal rights. That is the first time in my recollection that a senior member of the Government regarded this as a priority. They have always said it is important. They have always said it is a matter that has to be given full and undivided attention. Now the Minister of Justice has established it as a priority.
That being so, it is important that the House of Commons also express itself on this matter so that it remains a priority and in order to provide support to the active endeavours of the federal Government and encourage those provinces which still need further assurances.
Members who have taken the time to look at the motion will realize that I have gone a little further than to simply recognize within the Constitution the right of self-government. That is an essential starting point, but the motion goes on to talk about the need for a viable economic base for aboriginal selfgovernment. It also refers to the equitable sharing of lands and resources. In that regard I want to share with the House a

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
little more from the Brundtland report, the World Commission on Environment and Development. In one of its sections it
says:
Tribal and indigenous peoples will need special attention as the forces of economic development disrupt their traditional life-styles-life-styles that can offer modern societies many lessons in the management of resources in complex forest, mountain, and dryland ecosystems.
Some are threatened with virtual extinction by insensitive development over which they have no control. Their traditional rights should be recognized and they should be given a decisive voice in formulating policies about resource development in their areas.
I indicated earlier that this report has so much to say to Canada that one would have expected that some important witnesses from Canada had contributed to it. Sure enough that is the case. Louis Bruyere, President of the Native Council of Canada, is quoted in the report as follows:
Indigenous peoples are the base of what I guess could be called the environmental security system.
We are the gate-keepers of success or failure to husband our resources. For many of us, however, the last few centuries have meant a major loss of control over our lands and waters. We are still the first to know about changes in the environment, but we are now the last to be asked or consulted.
The most we have learned to expect is to be compensated, always too late and too little. We are seldom asked to help avoid the need for compensation by lending our expertise and our consent to development.
My motion would be incomplete if I did not talk about the need for sharing of land and resources and for an active say in the policies which lead to the development of those resources.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker,
I should like to address the second part of the motion of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) which "urges the Governments of Canada, the provinces, and the territories to acknowledge that self-government requires a viable economic base and calls upon these Governments to constitutionally commit themselves to negotiate with the aboriginal peoples an equitable sharing of lands and resources".
The recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal constitutional matters in March, 1987, did not result in an amendment. Nevertheless, my Government has taken a number of positive steps over the last several years which have resulted in significant actions in relation to lands and resources for aboriginal peoples.
The new comprehensive land claims policy announced by the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) in the House on December 18, 1986 was the culmination of a broad review.
This review was begun in 1985 when the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), established a task force under the able chairmanship of Murray Coolican which reported in March, 1986. This report and the subsequent consultations with aboriginal groups have been important to the development of this new policy.
Let me say at the very outset of my remarks that the Government of Canada, by bringing forward this new policy, has affirmed that the resolution of claims arising from aboriginal title is a major priority, a priority shared with Canada's aboriginal peoples. My Government is committed to the settlement of these claims by direct negotiations.
Some highlights of these changes to the comprehensive claims policy are directly related to aboriginal self-government and the equitable sharing of land and resources.
The federal Government acknowledges that self-government and claims policies are related. The management of settlement benefits and the administration of lands and resources are governmental matters. Changes to claims policy will allow for the negotiation of a broader range of self-government matters concerned with the authority and control over aboriginal lands.
Self-government is often spoken of as the exercise by a community of responsibility for its own members and of authority over the affairs of the community. Another aspect to self-government affecting aboriginal groups is participation in the exercise of powers within the broader framework of public government. This aspect sets self-government in the claims process somewhat outside the community-based self-government negotiations. As a result of the changes in claims policy, it is expected that settlements will recognize a specific aboriginal managerial interest in relation to a number of environmental matters such as water, land use, and wildlife management.
It is not proper, on the one hand, to recognize special harvesting rights for an aboriginal group and, on the other hand, to exclude the harvesters of the resources affected from responsibility for their management.
Under the policy, therefore, aboriginal groups will be able to negotiate membership on a variety of management boards and other agencies with decision-making powers, as well as representation on advisory committees as was possible under the previous policy.
These arrangements must not only acknowledge that public governments have a responsibility to protect the interests of all users of resources, to ensure resource conservation, to respect international agreements, and to manage renewable resources within their jurisdiction. However, such arrangements will also recognize aboriginal groups as having a unique interest in the governance of the resources.
In speaking of environmental and renewable resources, 1 include marine areas traditionally and currently utilized by aboriginal groups. This is an important matter which has required clarification. The Inuit, in particular, have been concerned that much of their hunting has been traditionally carried out on what is called land-fast sea ice in certain seasons and by boat at other times. Similarly, Indian groups in coastal areas have traditionally relied heavily upon the harvesting of marine resources.
June 12, 1987

The federal Government is now prepared, in recognition of this use, to negotiate with aboriginal groups matters relating to the harvesting and management of renewable resources in marine areas, not only on land.
My remarks thus far have demonstrated my Government's firm position on the matters of lands, resources, and selfgovernment which have been raised in the Hon. Member's motion. In addition, the motion made reference to "a viable economic base" for aboriginal self-government.
The changes to the claims policy relating to economic benefits have been of particular importance to aboriginal groups. Under the former policy, sub-surface land rights in defined areas could be granted to aboriginal groups, in some instances in order to avoid land use conflicts in key areas and, in other instances, as a means to provide aboriginal people with the opportunity to obtain revenue from the development of such sub-surface resources. This option will continue to be available to claimant groups.
In addition, and under the new policy, my Government is prepared to provide to aboriginal groups a percentage of Crown royalties derived from the extraction of resources in the entire settlement area. I would stress that this option will include not only royalties from sub-surface resources but will also include non-renewable resources extracted from offshore areas which form part of the claims settlement area.
It is my belief that this option will be of special interest to aboriginal groups, as it will assist in providing the tangible means to build the economy not only of the particular aboriginal groups but of Canada as a whole. This policy is proof of our commitment to equitable sharing and our support for a viable economic basis.
My Government believes that commitments are empty without action. The policies of my Government go beyond mere commitments and will result in concrete solutions to the very real economic issues the Hon. Member has raised in his motion. I am optimistic that over the next several months we will begin to see meaningful results flowing from these policy changes.
The agreements resulting from comprehensive claims settlements will be entrenched in the Constitution as existing treaty rights, as provided in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The key points I would emphasize are referred to in the motion. My Government is committed to negotiate and to protect constitutionally agreements concluded pursuant to negotiations.
In closing, I want to say that it was an honour for me to speak on the Hon. Member's motion today.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I should like to express appreciation to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for bringing forward this very important motion. It is important, not because we need to hear more speeches on the question of aboriginal self-government, but because it gives the House an
The Constitution
opportunity to express its will and intention with regard to aboriginal self-government. In part the motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to self-government-
This position is supported in principle by all three Parties and has been for some time, at least since 1983 when the report on Indian self-government was tabled in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member who introduced the motion.
As I said, the report was endorsed by all three Parties in the House. It was the result of travel across Canada by a committee to hear the considered opinion of aboriginal leaders. Then we sat down and thought about it very seriously among ourselves and expressed different partisan points of view. We came to a consensus that what we needed was a fundamental change in the relationship between Canada and its aboriginal peoples, and that the basis for that change should be a recognition of the rights of these people to govern themselves, a right which they had in the past, a right which they never surrendered, and a right which needs to be empowered so that it can become meaningful in the last half of the 20th century. This is not simply a frill, not simply a constitutional nicety, or something that would be desirable if all other things were equal. This is something that is basic to the future of the aboriginal peoples as a people. Without that kind of provision, aboriginal peoples face a form of systemic discrimination, which is unacceptable in Canada in 1987. I want to give just one example which is taken from yesterday's paper. This article reads:
Natives are denied parole more often than non-natives, in part because of a lack of parole supervisors in rural areas, says a spokesman for the National Parole Board. In Alberta, from January 1, 1979, to December 31, 1985, full parole was granted to 43 per cent of non-natives, but to only 20 per cent of natives, board member Ken Howland said Tuesday.
Here we have a situation where our Government, which is supposed to be looking after the interests of aboriginal peoples, does not provide the kinds of facilities in rural areas which allows Indian prisoners to have the right of parole in the same way that non-native prisoners would have. That is a form of systemic discrimination which could be overcome if there were a form of self-government in place whereby Indian people would be responsible for that kind of service themselves.
As long as we maintain that, we will continue to have native people in our prisons. We will continue to have discrimination showing up in all kinds of ways, in health, education, job opportunities and so on. This, I want to emphasize, is not a frill. It is not something that we can take or leave. It is absolutely essential if we want to see basic justice for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Over the past few weeks there has been a great deal of congratulation over the very significant achievement reached in the Meech Lake Accord between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the First Ministers. It is significant because it overcomes a very key flaw in the 1982 Constitutional Accord

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
where nine provinces and the Government of Canada agreed on certain constitutional changes that the Government of Quebec was not able to agree to. In a sense, Quebec was left out even though legally it was still part of the Canadian Confederation.
The significant thing about this constitutional Accord is that now for the first time a democratically elected Government of Quebec is able to sign that paper and say, "Yes, we are part of the Canadian Confederation", a very important and significant achievement. Some people question whether or not the price is too high. Every concerned Canadian recognizes the importance of Quebec being a part of that Accord. It was possible because there was a commitment across Canada to seeing that happen. There was a commitment on the part of the Prime Minister and on the part of a significant number of the provincial Premiers so that other Premiers were carried along. Bill Vander Zalm a few years ago said he would be just as happy if Quebec separated because then he would not need to read French on his corn flakes box. He is rather a flaky Premier, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Douglas Manly: Even Bill Vander Zalm went along with the Accord because there was a sense that this was the will of the Canadians in 1987.
We need that kind of commitment to the question of aboriginal self-government. We do not have it. We have had a series of constitutional conferences involving the Prime Ministers and the Premiers. Every one of them has failed. Every conference has ended, sometimes with the hope that we will meet again in two years. This last one met without even that. The last constitutional conference called for in our present Constitution has come and gone, and there is nothing to replace it. Now we have an opportunity in this motion this afternoon to declare ourselves as a House of Commons, to say, yes, we want to see the aboriginal peoples of Canada brought willingly into Confederation. The way in which that will happen is if we say yes to their inherent right to aboriginal self-government.
I urge all Members not to talk this motion out. The importance of this motion is not that it gives a chance to debate this issue, we have debated it ad nauseam in the House before. We have a chance to vote on it. I urge all Members to make sure that we take advantage of that opportunity and that we vote.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate and address the subject of self-government by our aboriginal peoples, especially since in the riding of Beauharnois- Salaberry we have the Saint Regis Indian Reserve. I am sure the name is familiar to many of you. They were champion lacrosse players, which led to some interesting games between
people on either side of the border and even between Ontarians and Quebecers, but there were also some good fights as well.
I have always enjoyed my visits with these people and every time I go back, I find that, deep within myself, values that are sometimes hard to define surface in conversations with Indians, because of their attitude, philosophy and tradition. I feel privileged and proud to be able to visit and, in fact, to have in my riding a substantial part of this segment of our Canadian population.
The vast majority of native people are economically disadvantaged. Over the years, unlike other Canadians, they have not been able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by our economy, and to a great extent, they are unable to do anything to remedy the situation.
Today, they are demanding self-government so they can be masters of their own fate and become full-fledged citizens.
Since the first Conference of First Ministers on constitutional questions concerning native peoples, held in 1983, a number of questions have been addressed which are of crucial importance to native peoples and to the way they see their place in Canadian society, today and in the future.
As Hon. Members are aware, aboriginal self-government has been one of the major items on the constitutional agenda as it concerns native peoples.
In this regard, I would like to point out that the federal government has played an important role in responding to the desire of native peoples for self-government. At the First Ministers Conference in April 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled a draft political agreement which provided for constitutional recognition of the right of native peoples to self-government, rights that would be defined and their implementation laid down in agreements between the governments and the native peoples.
Governments also would agree to negotiate with native communities with a view to reaching the accords involved.
At a later meeting, Madam Speaker, between federal, provincial and territorial ministers and native representatives, the Canadian Government announced it was ready to enter into negotiation with native groups and provincial governments in order to set down in concrete terms what self-government would be at the regional and community levels. Those negotiations were aimed at setting down the form and content of self-government. That grassroots approach opened up the possibility of tapping, through the transfer to the natives of federal and provincial powers, a wide range of native institutions and service delivery mechanisms in the areas of education, training, culture, economic development, social services and housing. For the first time a Canadian Government was proposing the establishment of a trilateral body to deal with the real problems of Metis and non-status Indians. For the first time also both levels of government were talking with Metis and non-status Indians about their aspirations and special needs.
June 12, 1987

Further to the invitation sent by the Canadian Government in June 1985, trilateral talks were started in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. For their part, Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick also stated they were interested in giving it a try.
Over the last 12 months, the Canadian Government paid almost $0.5 million to help Metis and non-status Indians participate in those trilateral talks. This is our own way of viewing the implementation of the self-government concept. Our responsibility does not consist in holding theoretical discussions on the totally abstract notion of an inherent right.
For its part the Official Opposition seems to prefer that native rights be defined by the courts rather than through negotiated agreements.
1 should like to refer to the opening statement of the Metis National Council at a multilateral constitutional meeting held in Ottawa on November 13, 1986. I quote:
This judiciary proceeding differs from the political process of constitutional negotiations preparatory to the First Ministers Conference on constitutional matters of interest to native people which is scheduled for Ottawa in April 1987. However we would like to emphasize that the approach we favour is one which will lead to a political solution within the process of the First Ministers Conference.
That is indeed the way the Government intends to follow, the political solution rather than the judiciary solution, for that is the way things are done in Canada.
Therefore, negotiating agreements on self-government is indeed the preferred mechanism for defining the structure and powers of native administrations. Proposals for a constitutional amendment aboriginal self-government should provide that the conditions for self-government will be defined in agreements between the federal Government, the provincial governments and the native peoples. The commitment to negotiate such agreements would be enshrined in the Constitution, while the agreements themselves would be constitutionalized by ratification by the federal and provincial legislatures. These agreements have the advantage of providing a mechanism acceptable to all parties for defining the powers of native administrations.
Enshrining in the Constitution the commitment to negotiate agreements on self-government has the advantage of letting provincial Governments and the federal government play a role in defining the forms of self-government.
Furthermore, native peoples would have the assurance that they would have their say about the way self-government will affect their lives. The negotiating process provides a flexible mechanism for the transfer of powers to native administrations.
Madam Speaker, we must accept the principle that achieving aboriginal self-government should be a flexible process, adapted to the situation, needs and aspirations of the various native communities and regions. Consequently, we must also accept the principle that it must be done through agreements negotiated by the governments and the native peoples concerned.
The Constitution
Perhaps I may quote at this point from a statement made by the Prime Minister at the Conference of Canadian First Ministers in 1985, which is still very apt today:
Canada's native peoples will be asked to make some difficult choices in the years to come. They will have to find the right mixture of traditional and modern views to suit their needs. That is the compromise they will have to make to define the place that is theirs in Canadian society. And they alone will be able to strike that difficult balance between the old and the new.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon. Brian Mulroney.


Charles-Eugène Marin: Madam Speaker, first I should like to remind my colleagues in the House that the federal Government has always clearly led the way in this field. Here are the facts. Since the 1985 First Ministers' Conference we have had five multilateral ministerial meetings and five meetings of senior officials, not to mention countless bilateral discussions on a one-to-one basis with the interested parties. These meetings were held from the beginning of discussions until the First Ministers' Conference in March this year. We are responsible for organizing these meetings, drafting proposals, keeping the list of options and proposals up to date, gathering the documents required and, finally, keeping the dialogue going. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can honestly accuse the federal Government of having been partisan or negligent in anything at all in this respect.
Specifically, the federal Government proposed a wide-ranging acknowledgement of the right of peoples, of native peoples, to self-government, far broader than anything the previous Government was ever prepared to consider, let alone to propose.
Here is what Global Network Peter Trueman had to say during the World Report broadcast on March 9, 1987, and I quote:
Few Canadian Prime Ministers have stood up so firmly for the rights of native peoples nor worked so hard to guarantee them such rights. Criticizing a Prime Minister-any Prime Minister-for failing to bring his provincial counterparts to their senses is about the same thing as denouncing him for being unable to convince rivers to flow upstream.
I would remind Hon. Members that the negotiations concerning the constitutional question as it relates to native people involved no fewer than 17 interested parties. Regardless of what the federal Government is prepared to accept, it still has to expect a minimum of support from the other participants. As it happened, the Government concentrated all its efforts on the quest for a solution which would be acceptable to all.
I should also like to remind Hon. Members of the position taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on the question of native people self-government. In his March 11, 1987 address to the native peoples gathered before Parliament, Mr. Turner stated in general terms that he was in favour of an explicit acknowledgement of the right to self-government, and he made it quite clear that the right to self-government should be defined and specified through negotiations. Well, Madam Speaker, that is exactly and precisely what this Conservative Government advocates.

June 12, 1987
The Constitution
The real question Canadians must ask themselves is whether they want their elected representatives and representatives of the federal Government, the provincial Governments and the native peoples' associations to negotiate agreements acceptable to all parties or whether they would prefer to let the courts define the concept and scope of the right to self-government, without considering the wishes of governments and native leaders. In other words, Madam Speaker, we must decide whether we want to proceed by means of negotiation or court challenges. On this particular point, that of the final and binding aspect, the federal Government has spoken out in favour of negotiation to define the scope and substance of the right to self-government. We do not doubt the integrity or fairness of the courts, but we, on the federal side, are convinced that this kind of right should be defined by the Governments, that is, by the federal government and by the provincial Governments, as well as by the native peoples themselves. It should not be left up to the courts. We have taken this position because the self-government negotiations we have in mind will fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Canada's native peoples.
Some people reacted to our willingness to negotiate this major constitutional reform with the provinces and the native peoples by saying that the federal Government was seeking the lowest common denominator. In fact, we are seeking the highest common denominator, and I hardly think anyone would question that, considering the efforts made by the present Government and other Governments in this respect in recent years.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), in his opening address to the meeting of Ministers responsible for constitutional questions concerning native peoples held in Toronto on February 19, 1987, said the following: "Negotiating is not constantly asking for more, but knowing how to manage the give and take process so that all parties are satisfied and everyone wins."
By negotiating, the present Government wanted to avoid what has now apparently become a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinions. We are still determined to see this through and to meet the challenge referred to by Jean-Claude LeClerc in an editorial on constitutional change and native peoples, published in Le Devoir on February 6, 1987, and I quote:
By taking the initiative of a major change at home, Canada not only would redress historical wrongs and preserve its international credibility, it would also change the dominant culture and make easier the strained if not explosive relationships among other cultural communities in its most populated provinces-it would forge a political model for the whole planet.
as we have proposed, on the following items: first, an express recognition of the right of Canada's native peoples to selfgovernment within the Canadian Federation; second, defining that right through negotiation rather than judicial process; third, a constitutional commitment by governments to negotiate self-government agreements; fourth, the constitutional enshrinement of those agreements, once ratified by the Canadian Government and the provincial legislatures involved; and fifth, a non-escape clause guaranteeing the negotiations will in no way infringe upon treaty rights of native peoples.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is clear from the foregoing that this Government is not opposed to recognizing the right of native peoples to self-government. Quite the opposite, we have insisted and will keep on insisting for that right to be recognized in any eventual amendment.
Also, we have insisted and will go on insisting that the Canadian Government, provincial Governments and also Canada's native peoples make a commitment in the Constitution to negotiate self-government agreements.
Finally we have insisted and we will go on insisting that such constitutional agreements in no way infringe upon native ancestral rights nor treaty rights.
All this is a matter of record, and this government stands very proud of it.
We have insisted and will go on insisting, Madam Speaker, that any new basic amendment to the constitutional relationship between Canada's native peoples and the Crown be defined through negotiation.
In short, this is the very definite position which this Government has constantly maintained and will continue to maintain on this important issue.
To conclude, I would like to say that, although it was not possible to reach an agreement at the First Ministers Conference, this Government is as determined as ever to continue its efforts until our aboriginal peoples are provided with the means to take their place within Canadian society. As the Prime Minister expressed it so well at the end of the conference:
My Ministers and I will remain in close contact with the Premiers and with all aboriginal leaders.
If I come to the conclusion, as our society and conversations develop, that a new meeting or conference might be useful and prove successful, I shall not hesitate to call one.
Rest assured that I remain determined to settle with you as we must this issue of human rights and basic dignity for our aboriginal fellow Canadians.
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we feel that goal	rF ,* , ,
would best be reached through negotiations between the nSls \
Crown and Canada's native peoples. New agreements should Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East): Madam Speaker, be negotiated on self-government. The negotiations would deal,	it is not my intention in rising to make a speech. I would
June 12, 1987

merely like to say that from the remarks of my colleagues on all sides of the House it is very evident that all Parties support this motion. I very strongly urge everyone in the Elouse, in very good conscience, not to talk this motion out but to put it to a vote now.
[ Translation]


François Gérin: In my opinion, Madam Speaker, it would be wrong for us to vote immediately, when so many Hon. Members have indicated their intention to continue to deal with this motion, and I suggest that you should allow all of those who want to speak to express their opinions freely.


Jack Scowen: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) which calls, in the first part, for the Constitution Act, 1982, to:
-be amended in order to recognize explicitly the right of Canada's aboriginal
peoples to self-government, thereby making them partners in Confederation-
This is a principle to which the Government has been committed since coming to office in 1984. It has, indeed, been a subject of a constitutional process since 1983. It is therefore fitting that I begin discussion of this motion by reminding the Hon. Member and other Members opposite of that constitutional process.
A review of the events leading up to the recent First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal and constitutional affairs will demonstrate the considerable progress which the Government has made in furthering the goal of aboriginal selfreliance.
The constitutional talks on native self-government were set in motion by the Constitution Act, 1982, which provided for the convening of a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal matters to which aboriginal representatives were to be invited as participants. That conference was held in Ottawa on March 15 and 16, 1983, the outcome of which was the signing of the constitutional Accord which provided, among other matters, for another aboriginal constitutional conference to be held in 1984.
For the purposes of the motion before us, other important provisions of the Accord were proposals for the following
The Constitution
constitutional amendments:	at least two constitutional
conferences on aboriginal constitutional matters to be held, the first by April 17, 1985, and the second by April 17, 1987, and that no amendment directly affecting the aboriginal peoples of Canada would be made to the Constitution without first inviting aboriginal leaders to participate in a constitutional conference to discuss the proposed change. These constitutional amendments were passed by Parliament and the legislatures of the provinces and proclaimed in force on June 21, 1984.
In the meantime, however, a First Ministers' conference on aboriginal matters had been convened, once again in Ottawa, in March, 1984. The main focus for this conference was aboriginal self-government. However, the Government of the day put forward a proposal which was met with a less than enthusiastic response from both aboriginal and provincial representatives.
The Liberal Government's 1984 proposal did little to recognize an "explicit right" of the aboriginal peoples to selfgovernment or to make them "partners in Confederation", as is being called for by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior in the motion to which I am speaking. Indeed, the 1984 Liberal proposal merely provided for self-governing institutions and contained no guarantee that self-government arrangements would be constitutionally protected. Thus, by this proposal, the power of the aboriginal governments could have been revoked at will by Parliament and the legislatures in question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 3 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 15, 1987