1987-10-06

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the 47 pages of the text which was agreed to and which includes the essential elements of the Canada-United States Comprehensive Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this document was not available yesterday, because it had been phoned from Washington on that day. Once it was received we immediately put the translators to work. 1 want to compliment the translation service for its efficiency in making it possible for us to table this document this morning.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act (estimates).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: Explain.
[DOT] (UIO)


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to add the Administrator to those offices of the House of Commons that are responsible for preparing the estimates of the sums required for the House. The Board of Internal Economy and
the House have now been organized with an Administrator who is doing an excellent job, and we felt that this would be an appropriate person to be responsible for preparing the estimates for the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The purpose of this Bill is to allow urban voters to be sworn in and vote on election day when their names fail to appear on the voters' list for urban polling divisions. It is the same procedure that is presently available for rural voters.
The Bill would also attempt to remedy the situation where candidates and their canvassers have been denied entry to apartment buildings, hotels, and the like, which have no soliciting policies in place.
It would also allow travellers and students, who are temporarily resident outside of Canada, to vote in general elections in a manner similar to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Public Service electors who are presently posted outside of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present a petition which meets the

October 6, 1987
Order Paper Questions
requirements of Standing Order 106 and which bears the signatures of your petitioners, most of them constituents of Ottawa-Vanier. The petition reads as follows:
Whereas since September 1984 the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candies and soft drinks;
Whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
Whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life, and whereas the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low-income taxpayers, youth, and so on;
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty under Standing Order 106 to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Bloomfield in my riding of Fundy-Royal. They are extremely distressed at the intention of Canada Post to close their post office. This post office has been in existence for approximately 80 years. The petitioners feel that, under the new postal Corporate plan as approved by all three political Parties, if this comes to pass, they will indeed lose their postal identity, and a very important part of their lives as residents of this small rural community.
The petitioners ask that the House provide all possible assistance to ensure that this unfortunate event does not take place.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 5, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada w here so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section;
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1 )(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982,
October 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
[Stage Direction]
October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act. 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and* fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province or territory and are qualified under section 101 B. for appointment to that court.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
(e)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101 C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (1) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.( 1) and substituting the following therefor:
"106A.(1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act. 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by
October 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(f)	an amendment to this Part.
42.(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38( 1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(f)	by adding to paragraph 13 subsection 50(2) the following new paragraph:
"(c) aboriginal rights, in particular self-government;"
(g)	by adding to paragraph 13 section 50 the following new subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50 subsection (2)(c) representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."
(h)	by deleting paragraph 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27 or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution.- Mr. Broadbent.
and on the amendment of Mr. Caccia:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a) by deleting Section 2.( I) and substituting the following therefor:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b) by deleting Section 2.(3).
and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding
immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The projected order of business today indicates that Bill C-55 was to be called at this time. I can understand the Government wishing to change the agenda. However, I wish to once again state that it is difficult for the Official Opposition to organize its work around the committees that are sitting at this time, and the House sitting at eleven o'clock, if we do not have sufficient notice of what is to be called at a specific time. While I understand the strategy of the Government in attempting to debate the Meech Lake Accord in the House and dispose of it, I hardly think it is fair to the Official Opposition to have its speakers on Bill C-55 called into the House, wait here to speak, and then told at the last minute that there has been a change and we are now debating Meech Lake.
The problem is one of logistics and mechanics. I am not complaining about the fact that the Government may wish to call the Meech Lake Accord today, or anything else. All I am saying is that it is very difficult, with a restricted number of Members of Parliament in Official Opposition, to maintain positions in committees, as we are at this time, and to have the same people pulled out of committee to come into the House and speak on specific items for which they have responsibility.
On the Meech Lake Accord, our Member, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) was the last Member to speak. I take it that the Government has a speaker to follow up, as does the NDP. This is the type of situation where if the Government would not put up a speaker, the Official Opposition would be caught in the position of having to continue debate-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, it has been done before. I would request that the Government House Leader give us fair advance notice in order that we can plan our work accordingly.
Indeed, it is the privilege of all Members of Parliament to know exactly what the business of the House will be and to deal with that accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. I simply wish to say that I realize that these are turbulent times. I presume the Government is under a lot

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
of pressure on free trade, and perhaps it is thrown a bit off balance.
However, 1 did appreciate receiving a call at approximately 10.30 this morning to advise that the Government had decided to change the order, which gave us three-quarters of an hour to attempt to make the necessary arrangements. It was a little tight, but I appreciate the notice. I checked with the Government Deputy House Leader and he indicated that the Government did have a speaker to begin, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). In that manner we will be able to get underway, and by that time we will have our speakers in place.
It is a fluid, dynamic situation, but I do wish to say that 1 appreciate receiving a call from the Deputy House Leader indicating that there had been a change at the last minute.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, the Whip for the Official Opposition (Mr. Gauthier). 1 also appreciate his difficulties. But as my colleague, the House Leader for the New Democrats indicated, it is a fluid situation these days. The House has been debating almost concurrently Bill C-55 and the Meech Lake Accord. In fact, there have been informal discussions that we may consider sitting tonight in order to accommodate extra speakers.
I would also say that the Government has been agreeing to a rotation which has allowed as many opposition Members as possible to speak almost on a one, one, one basis, although the numbers in the House would dictate a different speaker rotation basis.
We have been trying to co-operate. I appreciate that this has been a bit of a glitch in everyone's schedule, but we are ready for the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) to make his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be helpful, especially to the public which is listening and watching, if I commented on the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), which I think was quite appropriate.
As Hon. Members know, sometimes the press reports the fact that during ordinary debate something less than all Members of the House of Commons are in their seats. There is a reason for that. Hon. Members cannot spend all their time in this Chamber during debate. They have innumerable obligations to meet, especially in respect of their own constituents and also especially in respect of the nearly 40 committees which can be sitting at one time or another putting in the work dispatched to them by the Chamber.
The comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier were appropriate. I also appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). In a sense he enforced the comments made earlier by his colleague. I know they have both made efforts to adjust to a change in the schedule here.
However, I think it is especially important that the public understand that a great deal of the work of this place goes on outside the Chamber. It is not always easy to change the commitments of Members suddenly and bring them into the Chamber.
The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) in speaking for the Government recognized this, but again it is important for the public to understand that it is the Government's position to set the order each day, as it has done in this case. The Hon. Minister of State has indicated that he would have wished that perhaps more notice could have been given. In any event, that was the decision of Government, and that has always been the way governments run this place.
I think it is very important that the public understand that a great deal of the work which is being done on behalf of the public is not done in this Chamber. It is done in other places and, as a consequence, when there is a change here it puts pressure not only on members of the Opposition but on members on the government side, because it requires a change in plans and a change in schedules. It is important that this is properly recorded and, if I might say so, emphasized from time to time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it might be interesting to note that this caught me as much unawares as it did members of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps unawares but not by surprise.


Dave Nickerson: When the First Ministers gathered at Meech Lake on April 30, and then again on June 3 at the Langevin Block, they had before them a glorious opportunity to make Canada one, or an opportunity to bring into the Constitution those parts of Canada that had hitherto been without. This opportunity they blew.
They were successful in bringing the Province of Quebec into the Constitution. I do not think anyone could be more appreciative of that or more sympathetic to the wishes of the people of Quebec than the people of northern Canada, because they too were without. They brought in Quebec, but they left out the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
Some 75,000 Canadians would dearly love to be full Canadians the same as anyone else but, because they live north of the 60th parallel, they were excluded completely. Was it necessary not only to injure those 75,000 Canadians but to insult them as well? They said that the circle of Confederation was completed, but 75,000 people were left on the outside, beyond the pale. Meech Lake will be remembered in the North as one of the most shameful events in Canadian history, one from which they were totally excluded, one in which they had no say. It was an event where only representatives of southern Canadians got together in what I have described before as a cozy little club and decided to blackball the people of the North.
October 6, 1987

My constituents cannot accept this, nor can 1. When the time comes I will vote in accordance with my conscience and their wishes. I, Sir, will not desert them. I will vote against the resolution that we have before us.
Even the Government, which is advancing this resolution, knows in its heart that it is wrong. Let us consider the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) when he introduced the resolution for debate on September 29. He said:
To impose constitutional reform on any province and its citizens is to deny
their rightful participation in Confederation-
That is precisely what has happened to the people of the' North. This imposition has been made on them. He continued:
-and runs contrary to the spirit and history of constitutional development
in this country.
Again, that is what has happened in northern Canada. We have had a process of constitution-making in Canada where things have been done generally by consent. This has not been the case at Meech Lake. He also said:
Canada is a partnership of its peoples and provinces, a partnership which
can be willingly embraced but not imposed.
The people of the North were not there. They were not even asked. Their opinion was not considered. Again we have that imposition on 75,000 people who want to be Canadians the same as the remaining 25 million. He went on to say:
This concept is understood and accepted by Canadians from coast to coast.
It is quite apparent that that concept was not understood and was not accepted by the 11 gentlemen who gathered at Meech Lake.
What are the objections of northern Canadians to the Meech Lake agreement? These have been listed and debated many times. I have spoken on this subject in the House, so I will just give a brief synopsis now. First, it was total exclusion from the process despite repeated requests to the contrary. Everything was done behind our backs. We were unable to protect our rights that were bartered away at Meech Lake. We were treated as expendable pawns in the constitution game.
As objectionable as this might be, if the results had been good, fair, and reasonable, we could have put it behind us and gone on from there. However, that was not to be the case.
Let us look at what we in the North have lost at Meech Lake. Before, we had the same rights with respect to immigration as any other province in Canada. Now we find that we are in an inferior position, although immigration in the Territories is as important as it is anywhere else, probably even more so because of the small existing population base which could easily be swamped by a large wave of immigration.
Before, our Senators were appointed exactly, precisely, as provincial Senators. Now this also is not to be the case. The very wording of the resolution is ambiguous on this point, yet the Government will not even accept a small technical
Constitution Amendment, 1987
amendment clarifying whether or not Senators in the North can be appointed by the system currently existing. It is crazy to say that Territorial Senators can be appointed only on the recommendation of a province somewhere else. Why is it that that small technical amendment cannot be accepted?
Everyone in the Territories has been denied the right ever to become a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, we have lost ground. Prior to Meech Lake, a member of the Territorial Bar Association, a member of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories could aspire to be seated on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. That is now denied us and it is, I understand, one of the points in a lawsuit that has been brought about by the Government of the Northwest Territories. A similar lawsuit has been brought forward by the Government of the Yukon.
With respect to the creation of new provinces, something that is dear to our hearts, prior to the changes in 1982 the creation of a new province was solely a matter between the Government of Canada and the territory or colony involved. That is how Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland came into Canada. In 1982 the process was changed. At Meech Lake it was changed to make it much more difficult for a territory to ever become a province. Any province in Canada has the right of veto over whether the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, a part or parts thereof should fully enter Confederation. Every province has been given a veto over that, and that, Sir, is wrong. It is not in keeping with the constitutional history of Canada, not one little bit.
I have heard of someone whose birthright was sold for a mess of pottage. What we have here is our birthright being sold for a kettle of fish or whatever else might be on the agenda of the First Ministers' meeting.
I would like to compliment the Members and Senators who served on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. They listened carefully and sympathetically to the representations made by northerners who appeared before them. It was too much to expect that they would recommend in their report the necessary amendments to the resolution. I do not think that we expected them to do that because the law had been laid down in advance. But they were kind enough to point out the errors that had been made and the necessity that these items to which I have referred previously be placed on an early agenda for meetings of the First Ministers pursuant to the Meech Lake Accord to discuss constitutional matters further.
Apparently we have lost this first battle, we have lost the Meech Lake battle. But we have not lost the war, not by a long shot. The battle will continue until northern Canadians are treated the same as southern Canadians. By working hard now, and hopefully with the support of Members of this House and provincial legislatures across the country, we must make sure the necessary changes are placed on the agenda of the first First Ministers' meeting to be held on the Constitution. It

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
must be there as a continuing agenda item until the grievances have been properly redressed.
The Territories, because of this resolution, will not have an automatic seat at that conference and those conferences which follow, but there is no prohibition to them being invited. The precedent had been established previously that the Territories would be invited to First Ministers' conferences at which agenda items of direct interest to them would be discussed. This was done in the case of the meetings held to discuss aboriginal affairs. This too was something developing over a period of time but which has been taken back by virtue of Meech Lake. But there is no prohibition against First Ministers inviting the Government leaders from the Territories and the Yukon to be there. That should and must happen at that first meeting.
At Meech Lake, northerners suffered mightily at the hands of an unthinking and unfeeling group of men who were blinded by their narrow perception of Canada. We had no one there to speak on our behalf. But this I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, whether it takes five years, 10 years or 50 years, the Territories will at some time, despite all the obstacles being placed before them, become equal partners in this great Confederation, and they will become full provinces in their own right. This 1 swear.


Mrs. Blais-Grenier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like express some comments and then ask a question of my hon. colleague. 1 do understand the concerns he has expressed and the feelings that he mentioned and described so vigorously about his part of the country, the region he represents, being left out of the Accord.
1 remember that we as Members of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons listened with much sympathy to the representative of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. At that point I had the feeling that neither of those parts of Canada were ready to become provinces, let us say tomorrow. They still have many things to work out. It was expressed that the views of those parts of Canada and their feelings had not been taken into account as fully as that of Quebec returning to the constitutional family. We pointed out to them that indeed it was really a Quebec round, that it was to make Canada a complete country again. We felt that would help discussions about other constitutional problems in the future.
[DOT] (M40)
1 would like to ask my colleague if he would not think that, having placed the situation of Quebec in its proper context, having a country that is more united would act as an asset at the time of future discussions, and we would hope they would be undertaken without delay, concerning the status of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to compliment the Hon. Member on her part on the special joint committee. 1 know she was a regular attender and her voice is properly reflected in the report we have before us.
The question of whether or not the Yukon, for example, would want to become a province tomorrow, if that was offered to it, is really immaterial to the debate that is going on today. What the the people do not want is for obstacles to be placed in their path to make that eventuality which everybody wants much more difficult.
With respect to this being looked at as a Quebec round, so to speak, and that any other problems with the Constitution or other constitutional changes that other people might want to see being set aside, 1 could understand that except for the fact that what has happened with respect to the Territories is that things have been taken away from them. Constitutional rights that they enjoyed before Meech Lake they will no longer enjoy. I have mentioned a number of these in my presentation. Just to go through them very briefly, they include invitations to First Ministers' Conferences when agenda items affected them, the question of Supreme Court and Senatorial appointments, the way in which a territory becomes a province-all that has been taken away from them.
If someone had been arguing in favour of enhanced multicultural rights as a number of people have, nothing was given and nothing was taken away at Meech Lake. However, with respect to the Territories, a great number of things were taken away. We were net losers in the Accord by a large margin. One cannot look upon an area of jurisdiction, an existing Government in Canada, doing most of the things a provincial Government would do , as being some kind of special interest group that has to wait in line. That is the wrong way of approaching that question.
As to the final question, whether or not it would be to the advantage of the Territories to have Quebec present as a willing partner in confederation when that matter was ever discussed, I do not know if I can answer that yes or no. It might depend upon the circumstances that will exist when that debate eventually takes place. 1 do not think people would want to hazard a guess now as to whether that would be advantageous or disadvantageous.
People in the Territories firmly believe that there should not be a provincial veto, it should be strictly a matter between the federal Government and the territory involved, just as it was for every other province of Canada that came in after the initial Confederation.
Just as an aside, an election was held yesterday in the Northwest Territories, a territorial general election. There were 24 seats and 68 candidates. Every single one of those candidates took a position the same as that which I am taking, which is that Meech Lake is not good for the Territories, that it ought to be amended and that it is unacceptable. That surely represents the voice of the people of the North.


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express a short observation on my colleague's presentation on the Accord that Canada and the Government has signed with the provinces and the concerns the Member brings from the
October 6, 1987

North. I too would like to pose a question to the Hon. Member who states that by the 1986 Census, he has ascertained there are some 50,900 people in the Northwest Territories and 22,800 people in the Yukon. Does he base the desire for provincehood in the North on population?
Certainly he could not ask the Canadian public to consider allowing 22,000 people to form a province. We have cities with
22.000	people, though surrounded by not quite as vast an area. But what really is important, is it not, is the number of people who should play an important part in deciding whether a part of Canada that is now a territory becomes a province?
Seriously, what will the Northwest Territories lose? We have a Member here who represents maybe 25,000 people. By the standards of the rest of Canada, they are over-represented.
1 think I represent some 79,000 people.
The Territories certainly are not losing in that regard. A Deputy Prime Minister was from the Territories. Senators have been from the Territories. I do not think any of this will be discontinued. The Hon. Member could become the Deputy Prime Minister, he could become the Prime Minister, representing only 25,000 people. Certainly it does not look like those people will be worse off because we brought Quebec into the fold.
My question is, quite frankly, does the Hon. Member think that the rest of Canada views the possibility of a province without any increase in population as even a distinct possibility, or should we not consider that? Does he think, if the time came that the population might possibly double in the next 50 years, that the rest of Canada would not give the North a fair hearing? It gave Manitoba one when it joined. And, of course, as recently as 1949 when Newfoundland joined as a province, it was given a fair hearing.
Certainly I think the Hon. Member has to see that the rest of the provinces, when they joined, were treated fairly and squarely and with a great deal of thought. I pose this question to my colleague and wonder if he would like to respond.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting hypothesis, tying democratic and human rights to the numbers of population. Let me answer it very quickly and very simply. When Manitoba became a province, it had a population of
12.000	people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take part in this very important debate this morning. First I should like to say that on June 3, 1987 the Prime Minister and the ten provincial premiers reached agreement on the amendment to the Constitution. All this, Mr. Speaker, based on the five conditions set by the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Government of Quebec for ratifying a Constitution it did not sign in 1982, although legally it was still part of it.
First of all, for the benefit of the House and all those listening to us now, I would like to read the five demands made by Quebec, because we must not forget that the most important aspect of this Accord was to bring Quebec within the constitutional family. The five conditions the Quebec Liberal Party put before Quebec voters in 1985, and on which it was elected, were the same as these demands, which are as follows: explicit recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; a guarantee to extend Quebec's powers with respect to immigration; revision of the constitutional amending formula, so as to recognize veto rights for Quebec; Quebec's participation in appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada and restrictions on the federal Government's spending powers.
Mr. Speaker, the first item, which I think received most of the criticism from those opposed to the Accord, deals with Quebec as a distinct society. Although I admit I am not a constitutional expert-I am only an accountant and not a lawyer, and lawyers with respect, seem to be the experts in this field,-I must inform the House that to me, the fact that the Accord says Quebec is a distinct society adds nothing to what Quebec already is. We are merely acknowledging a fact. We often hear people say: I did not come to Quebec or to Ontario, I came to Canada. That is quite true. In 1958, I came to Canada. Perhaps it is Canada's fault for not explaining to the people who come to this country about its geography, its history and its Constitution. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a very difficult task. However, the fact remains that those who come to Canada for the first time arrive in Canada and not in the provinces. Once they are in Canada, Mr. Speaker, they settle in one of the provinces, in towns and villages. They stay, and they are free to move wherever they want.
A person arriving in Quebec might go on to Ontario, British Columbia. However, the majority, and I would say the vast majority, stayed in Quebec, and we are now part of this distinct society. I stayed in Quebec, and I grew up in Quebec. I started a family in Quebec, I feel comfortable there, and I like living in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I could also say that as a Canadian Quebecer, I feel different, and I do not see why my Canadian colleagues across this country should feel frustrated because we are recognizing this difference in Quebec.
First of all, Quebec is the only province where more than 80 percent of the population speaks French. They have a French culture. No other province in Canada has those characteristics. Second, Quebec is still the only province that has the Civil Code. Even for the appointment of Senators, Quebec does things somewhat differently from what other provinces do. A Senator must not only reside in the province where he is appointed, but he must also own some property there.

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that the way of life in Quebec is certainly different from what it is like in other provinces. However, this does not mean that we are not good Canadians and that we cannot be good citizens together and continue to work to build this country.
Mr. Speaker, some have gone as far as saying that recognizing a distinct society in Quebec could reduce the participation of other cultural groups. I would like to reassure the House and say that it is certainly not the case. I believe that Quebec is one of the provinces, but certainly not the only one, which has made the most progress in recognizing cultural communities.
In how many Canadian provinces is the language of the country of origin taught in primary schools, Mr. Speaker? I am not speaking only about English or French as a second language depending on whether the school is French or English, but in Quebec schools, the language of the country of origin is also taught in primary schools from the first grade. In how many Canadian provinces is this possible?
Naturally, there are rather emotional debates in Quebec on the linguistic issue. We only have to look at the newspapers to see all the linguistic debates now going on in Quebec, especially about unilingual signs. There have always been such debates, and even if they can be very emotional, they often help us to understand each other better and they ensure that Quebec is always in the forefront.
At the time of the 1980 referendum, I did not have to stay at home and watch television or read the newspapers to know what was going on, as I was on the front line fighting for a united Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we might read tomorrow in the newspapers that such or such a party supports the Accord or not, but I would like to tell Canadians that, at the time of the referendum in 1980, when the vital issue was whether or not you were for Canada, there were no political parties, but only two sides: yes for Canada and no for Canada.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I join this constitutional debate in the same spirit. I believe in a strong and united Canada. I am glad that, after a number of years and lengthy discussions, Quebec was finally able to say yes to the Constitution and that we have finally become a united constitutional family. I am proud to have a strong and united Canada and I would also like to have a strong Quebec which will be able to keep its identity.
Mr. Speaker, Canada without Quebec, Canada without a distinct society in Quebec, would not be the Canada we know and love and of which we are all proud. I am sure that we shall continue to improve our country together. It is certainly not the best Accord possible. There were negotiations, and there had to be some give and take as in any other negotiations. The Accord is not perfect.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay hommage to the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau. And he
knew very well, when he proposed to patriate the Constitution, that even that agreement would not be perfect, and this is why he proposed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the same time. Having rights across Canada gives us a foundation to protect us. And from thereon we can-of course with the passage of time people will change-have negotiations. We can do some give and take-take a right that belongs to a province and give it to the federal level, or vice versa. But the important thing is that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains there, so that because of that Charter we may all be equal as Canadians and feel very well protected at home.
That is what is important, Mr. Speaker, and I think it must now be acknowledged that without Mr. Trudeau's determination, courage and devotion, we never would have had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms nor patriation, and then we could not refer to the Meech Lake Accord because indeed our Constitution would still be in England.
Therefore, our Canadian Constitution is following a process that does not stop here. I am sure this will move on. The corrections that have to be made, we will make them in due time. With the same or other people, but some day that will be done, Mr. Speaker. Of course I am also concerned, just as my colleagues, about minority rights. And this is why, Mr. Speaker, we for instance on this side of the House have put forward certain amendments. It would be too long to list the amendments, there are two pages of them. But I would just the same like to stress those of great interest to me, those that affect my community, and I believe they are very important- the recognition of native people as a distinctive and basic feature of Canada. That cannot be denied. It must be enshrined, and during the next negotiations we must reach an agreement.. . The recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society-today, we can say that in Canada there is neither a majority nor a minority. We are about one-third Anglophones, one-third Francophones, and one-third from the other communities. But it is time that we recognize that fact. And I am sure we will get there.
Let us refer also to the importance, Mr. Speaker, of developing Canada's economic union. Right now, the issue is free trade. It is important that together with free trade with the United States, we achieve in Canada an economic union; we should start to talk about free trade between the provinces and within Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that Quebec has elected to adhere to the Canadian Constitution. In 1980, Quebec had said yes to Canada. In 1985, on the basis of Mr. Bourassa's five constitutional demands, Quebec again said yes to the rest of Canada. I think it is time for the rest of Canada to say yes to Quebec.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congragulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou for his remarks. He was right to mention that a number of people are opposed to
October 6, 1987

this Accord because it recognizes Quebec as a distinct society on historical and sociological grounds, but as an Italianspeaking Canadian very much involved in the Saint-Leonard area better known as "La Petite Italie", does my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou think that his constituents feel threatened by this distinct society? Together with his community, does he feel that the French speaking majority will take unfair advantage of its new status, or will life in Quebec continue to progress as now, through a greater affirmation of the French-speaking community along with other communities, whether Italian, Greek or Portuguese, and will the English community be able to continue attending to its business as before?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for giving me this opportunity to speak about something which I had not mentioned in my short intervention.
The answer to his question is definitely no. In my opinion, all Canadians will have questions to ask about any agreement of this type. However, on the whole, the fact that Quebec will finally sign the Constitutional Act which it had not ratified in 1982 is so positive that nothing else matters. We believe that some of the weakenesses in this Accord can be corrected in due time since this is just a summary and certain points may have been omitted and the interpretation given to certain words or phrases could create unforeseen problems.
I believe that these will come out in due course and that the necessary adjustments can be made.
I come from an area in East Montreal, Saint-Leonard, which is well-known for its linguistic conflicts. These certainly had positive results. We wanted linguistic rights and we won a partial victory. However, another thing that should be recognized about this conflict is that the Francophones were also able to express their views and their wish to have their own language protected. Everytime I speak to my Italianspeaking fellow citizens, I point out that it is important to keep more than two languages in Quebec and important that our children continue to learn Italian. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I support the distinct society clause, and I would like to tell my colleagues who might feel threatened by this provision that Francophones are a minority in Canada, and that if we want to protect our minorities, we must also protect the Frenchspeaking minority. I believe that it is because of this that we have succeeded in Canada, and I think that Quebec is a good example of what can be achieved, if not a perfect example since nothing is perfect in this world. But it is a telling example of the fact that, notwithstanding our numerous linguistic skirmishes, current relations between francophone Quebecers and multicultural communities are perfectly and unbelievably harmonious, that in the end we will continue to prosper as long as people remain objective and ever intent on seeking to do better, but with the understanding that every individual has the right to exist and to protect both his language and his culture.
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, in his answer to my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) the Hon. Member again referred to this harmony which appears to exist or in which some people would have us believe. He too seems to believe that a new harmony, a new openmindedness prevails in this country. He is not the first Member to refer to this openmindedness. In fact all those who endorse the Accord, practically all of them, mention this openmindedness. But then we ask them this question: Why did the governments not want to commit themselves to promote linguistic minorities instead of simply protecting them? Their answer is that we must appreciate that there are still a few pockets of resistance in this country, and then the governments simply cannot forge too far ahead of the Canadian population.
Well, here is my question to the Hon. Member: Does he believe that indeed harmony prevails, or is this answer . . . Does this harmony upon which the Accord is supposed to rest not make him wonder a little bit? If the openmindedness is genuine, why would they not commit themselves not only to protect but also to promote the cause of linguistic minorities as advocated by the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, the Franco-Manitoban Society, Canadian Parents for French, and others?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member was not in the House or was not listening carefully. In my speech I said that this Accord was not a perfect one, and that we in the Liberal Party had proposed a number of amendments to correct any inadequacies it might contain. I also said that negotiations were started on the Accord because Quebec had not signed the 1982 constitutional Accord, and that the basis for these negotiations was the five constitutional demands made by Quebec, the first being its recognition as a distinct society. I said that nothing was perfect in this world, including this Accord, but the fact remains that it was instrumental in getting Quebec to sign the constitutional Accord and in achieving the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. I say recognition, because nothing new has been added, no additional powers given. We recognized what Quebec has been, is and will be; a distinct society, different from the other provinces.
As far as harmony is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Hon. Member take a walk down the streets of Saint-Leonard, and he will see for himself. The people of Saint-Leonard do not feel threatened by the constitutional Accord. They may feel threatened by the economy, because many young people are unemployed, but they are certainly not threatened by the constitutional Accord. And when I say harmony, because I live in that area . . . Only yesterday, I was walking down the street, and 1 can inform the Hon. Member that not a single constituent asked me whether he should feel threatened.
It is not a perfect Accord, I agree, but I think we are making progress by improving our Constitution and by trying, in a society as complex as ours . . . Canada is not the easiest

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
country in the world to govern. After all, we are a federation, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have at last managed to reunite this confederate family, and I think that is a positive side and that we should persevere in this direction. I am sure we will continue in this vein, and 1 am thinking of the Francophones outside Quebec, the protection of multicultural groups, and so forth. If we take Quebec's example, as I said earlier, Quebec is the only province that teaches the language of origin in elementary schools. How many provinces in Canada do that? I think we still have a long way to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was a Member of this Parliament between 1981 and 1983 when the Trudeau Government made a successful effort to repatriate the Constitution. The original package would have centralized the power of the federal Government to a greater extent than had existed in the past and would have left the provinces with even more residual powers than before. I was one of many Canadians who objected to such a proposal.
Many of those who were here at the time will know that the final agreement that was signed more closely reflected what some of the provinces had wanted all along. It gave the provinces much more power to make their own economic decisions and determine the destiny of their citizens without having to always appeal to the federal Government for permission to do so.
I give this background for a couple of reasons. First, the federal Government does not corner the market on good economic and social programs. Much of our best legislation came from provincial legislatures, sometimes in spite of opposition from the federal Government.
For example, medicare and hospitalization were the products of the Saskatchewan Legislature. The federal Government did its best to smother those programs but eventually accepted them and emulated them, to make them part of the Canadian fabric today. In recent years Quebec has made many economic decisions which would have required the consent of the federal Government in previous years. 1 relate these facts because they show the value of lengthy, extensive and involved consultation and negotiation.
The earlier constitutional negotiations were long and involved. Those who were part of the process will recall how the native rights amendment was included, then excluded, then included again. As we negotiated in Parliament and throughout the country, we began to move closer to an acceptable solution until we finally signed an agreement which most provinces found acceptable. However, there was a flaw in the
agreement because unfortunately Quebec decided not to be part of it.
Had we taken more time, we could have arrived at a solution that would have included Quebec. However, as we have seen recently with the midnight accord that was hastily put together, the 1982 agreement was flawed and in need of amendment.
The Meech Lake Accord is the attempt to eliminate that flaw. While I compliment the aim and even the results of the Meech Lake Accord, I must say that I abhor the process. I am disappointed that we have a new document which, although it solves the flaw in the original agreement, is itself flawed.
The Meech Lake Accord is also a hurried document, born out of back rooms at midnight. It is flawed because of that haste, and the lack of consultation and negotiation. It is flawed because it did not have the benefit of the wisdom of Canadians.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers did not have enough time to consult, review or speculate on what they were planning. Furthermore, part of Canada was left out of the negotiations at all levels.
While it may be possible to settle a labour dispute by locking the doors and demanding a solution, it is no way to decide the fate of a country. This brings to mind another midnight document that was signed recently, and I hope it is not as flawed as the two I speak of here.
This Accord accomplishes what is needed as far as Quebec is concerned, but it may take years before the mistakes in this document are amended in the way most Canadians want. Those requirements need not have been left out of the Accord and even now can still be included. Why is it necessary to force Canadians to have many more years of constitutional negotiations as a result of an amending mechanism that is cumbersome and incredibly unrealistic? The answer is, of course, that we do not have to go through these negotiations. We do not have to go through several more years of negotiations. All we have to do is accept either the Liberal or the New Democratic amendments, or a combination of the two, and we will have corrected the most obvious shortcomings of the document which we have before us.
I would have no difficulty at all in supporting an Accord which has the kind of amendments which could be adopted by this House. These amendments are straightforward and simple. They would protect the original peoples' access to their rights and recognition to self-government; protect the rights of the territories to become provinces with the same, or somewhat the same, alacrity as other provinces had in joining Confederation in the past; give the territories the right to participate as Canadians in the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada; and guarantee the Charter of Rights in such a way that no group in Canada is endangered. These amendments would
October 6, 1987

come close to mending that which is most glaring in this document.
It seems that the Government has decided not to allow any amendments and that what we are doing here is playing games in seeming to try to improve the Accord. The reason given for not accepting any amendments is that the Accord may come unravelled if it is opened up in any way. I cannot help but think, and many Canadians agree, that if such an important step in the development of our nation is based on a document that is so fragile that it cannot be opened up, because it cannot stand the light of day, maybe it should not survive. Maybe it needs more negotiation.
So let us be reasonable. Let us be courageous. Open up the agreement by passing one, both, or a combination, of these amendments. Then let us go forward with a constitutional amendment that is strong and secure, and which does not leave out some of the people of Canada who have as much right to be heard as any of us.
The Government has decided to close down the possibility of making changes to this document because of the fear that we will lose this Accord if we open it up for further negotiations. I fear that we may lose this Accord because we are afraid to open it up to improve it. We need more courage and more certainty that what we do in this Parliament is right for Canada. We can only help to build the kind of nation we all want if what we do in this Parliament regarding this Accord is good for Canada. I am sorry that we do not seem to have that kind of courage.
The least we can do is make a specific commitment for this House, this Parliament, this Government-today or before we pass the Accord-that the flaws be righted within two years at the first constitutional conference to be called with the territories and the native representatives there at that time. We also need to make sure that all Canadians have an opportunity to contribute to such a new constitutional development.
Only as we accept the idea that all Canadians are part of Canada and all Canadians should have a say in what Canada becomes can we accept the idea that this particular Accord, which does what it was supposed to do but which leaves out some people, should be followed very quickly by constitutional negotiations which will eliminate the kind of flaws that are in this Accord.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Hon. Member's speech. I could not help but be struck by the references that he made to the flaws in the Accord and the need to improve it, to change it, and to bring in the people who are being left out of the Accord. If he feels that way how can he support the Accord?
Surely, we are talking here about the fundamental law of the country. We are talking about the Constitution of Canada. If the Accord has so many problems with it, if people feel left
Constitution Amendment, 1987
out of it, if it does not properly define what our country is all about, then surely our duty is to vote against it.
I would say, to quote what another Member said here yesterday, that he is whistling Dixie if he thinks we will get rid of the imperfections, that we will remove the flaws at some future point in time with this horrible rule of unanimity that we are putting into the Accord.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I did my best, to point out what I consider to be the flaws in this Accord. I also attempted to put before the House methods by which the flaws could be dealt with in the future. 1 suggest a commitment by the House to deal with those flaws within a certain length of time. I feel strongly that the time has come for us to recognize that the Constitution needs to be something that we can deal with in the House and in the provincial legislatures in a fashion which is always in the best interests of Canada.
I also have the same kind of doubts as does the Hon. Member that the Accord makes it a little more difficult to do what we would like to see done. I would like to see those amendments accepted now so that we can solve those problems much more quickly than having to go to another series of constitutional meetings.
As the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) indicated in his speech, I have faith. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon will some day become provinces in spite of the Accord. I also have faith that the aboriginal people will get their self-government, their rights recognized by the rest of Canada. I also feel the need to ensure that we are dealing with a country that has at least 10 provinces, and that maybe an eleventh and twelfth is important at this time.


David Berger: As I said earlier this morning, Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speeches made during the past few days, and I noticed the large number of Members who supported the Accord and referred to the new openness being seen in this country. However, every time we ask them why the governments refused to undertake both to protect and promote language minorities, the answer is that we should remember there are some pockets of resistance in the country and that governments cannot move faster than their constituents. In fact, this should be a reason for us to take a closer look at the Accord and think about the so-called openness on which it is based. You have known for some time now that I object to the Accord. I shall vote against the Accord, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it does not serve the interests of this country or of Quebec, my own province. I shall vote against the Accord because I do not believe it serves the interests of my constituents in the riding of Laurier. I shall vote against the Accord as a Canadian whose origins are not Anglophone, or French. The values I acquired as a result of my origins include the passionate defence of individual rights, and especially equality rights for all Canadians across Canada.

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I will try to explain in my speech some of the reasons that led me to take this position. The honorary president of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation, Professor John Humphrey, gave me the following definition of a charter of rights: "A charter of rights is, or should be, the legal and concrete embodiment of a national consensus on the minimum of rights every man and woman has as a human being, that is, the rights they have because they are human beings and for no other reason. That is why they are called human rights. And since those rights are essential to human dignity, they should be the same for all Canadians, in whatever region of this country they happen to live".
Today, I intend to address language rights which are among those rights that are essential to human dignity. Since 1963, when Mr. Pearson ordered a report on bilingualism, we have been trying in Canada to define the minimum language rights that should prevail across this country.
As far as our official languages, French and English are concerned, we set up a system of linguistic equality. This does not necessarily mean the number of bilingual individuals but concerns our institutions. We defended the right of every citizen to sent his children to school in the language of his choice, English or French. We defended the rights of each citizen to communicate with his governments in his own language, and we also defended the rights of each citizen to work in his own language, at least, within the federal government and the governments of provinces that provide services in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, if at all possible, we wanted these language rights to apply everywhere in Canada, across this country, because Canada belongs not only to those who speak English but also to those who speak French. French-speaking Canadians were not to be restricted to the territory of the province of Quebec. They were the first to settle this country and to make their home here in Canada. And there are sizeable Frenchspeaking communities everywhere in Canada.
On the other hand, English-speaking Canadians have been an integral part of Quebec's society for quite some time. That was the rationale behind the official languages policy, and that was the rationale behind Charter of Rights and Freedoms Sections 16 to 23. Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind that these linguistic rights are just as essential to human dignity as the other rights defined in the Charter of Rights. Any Canadian should enjoy such rights.
Normally all Canadians and all governments in Canada, including those which do not claim to be bilingual, should acknowledge these responsibilities in the face of the very nature of this country, for not only are our two official languages a source of enrichment for Canada, Mr. Speaker, they are the very essence of this country. That is the unique heritage which makes us different from other countries, and more particularly from the United States now that we are seeking a free trade agreement.
All Canadians therefore have the moral responsibility to promote our two official languages. That being so, Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord is an abdication, an unbelievable abdication on the part of the Conservative Government with respect to the basic values which Canadians had developed over the years, namely that the French fact is a fundamental element of the heritage of all Canadians. 1 am saying it is abdication because Canadians did live up to the challenge. They acknowledge that the two official languages are the business of all Canadians and of all their governments. As evidence, the poll taken in 1985 by the Commissioner of Official Languages shows that the great majority of Canadians willingly accept Canada's linguistic duality; for instance, they support the concept of providing services in the language of the minority, and this applies not only to federal services, but also to provincial services and to the private sector. Moreover, the response in the survey was even more favourable for specific services such as post offices, hospitals and department stores.
Mr. Speaker, something which should be especially emphasized is the attitude of young people in the 15 to 24 age group who proportionately are much more in favour than their seniors of linguistic duality in Canada and of providing services in the language of the minority.
It is not only in the surveys that Canadians support linguistic duality. An increasing number of them live it personally by sending their children to a French school.
As incredible as it may seem, during the last school year, nearly 200,000 English-speaking students were enrolled in French immersion courses throughout Canada. This is five times as many as in 1977-78, only nine years ago.
When 1 said that, with the Meech Lake Accord, this Government goes against reality of Canada, it is because the Government refuses to recognize in the Constitution what Canadians themselves recognize daily in the choices they make. The Meech Lake Accord is a step backward. At the very moment when we are making progress and when attitudes and behaviours are changing radically in Canada, the Government moves backward. It is a shame to see how far apart are the perception Canadians have of their country and the narrow vision those who signed the Meech Lake Accord share. The Accord promotes French in Quebec, and English in the rest of Canada. The Quebec National Assembly and Government will have the role of promoting the distinct society. What will they promote? Its French identity, naturally, as though the Quebec Government did not have the power to do so already. According to the terms of the Accord, the federal Government and the provinces will protect linguistic minorities, but they have not made a commitment to promote these minorities. I want to remind the House that the President of the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec, when he appeared before the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution, blamed the Tory Government for its lack of courage and said, I quote: "This Accord is just not good enough to stop the progress of assimilation".
October 6, 1987

It is necessary to realize that, in spite of their consitutional commitments, a number of provinces put off developing their own French-speaking education System. In its last annual report, the Official Languages Commissioner said: "This apparent deafness (on the part of some provincial Governments) is becoming a major blot on Canada's concept of herself as a decent, forward-looking country that can give lessons to the world in ethnolinguistic tolerance and political self-respect. Self-respecting Canadians should tell their provincial leaders that they are letting us down,"
Instead of improving this situation, the Meech Lake Accord has condoned the attitude of the most refractory provinces. With the Accord's blessings, they only have to preserve the status quo.
I want my Quebec fellow citizens to understand that the Accord will result in a lack of commitment on their part for national unity. I need only to remind the House of the statement made by Quebec Premier Bourassa when he went to Manitoba in July to meet the French-speaking community. He said that he could not interfere in the internal affairs of Manitoba, for fear the other provinces might interfere in Quebec's own affairs. I understand Mr. Bourassa's position quite well. He must defend the rights and privileges of his province. But does his position serve the interest of Canada as a whole? Is it in the interest of Quebecers when we leave our province? The future of our country is at stake, Mr. Speaker. The interests of French speaking Canadians outside Quebec are our own interests. And inasmuch as the rights of Francophones outside Quebec are lessened, our own rights are lessened.
Remember the heyday of the oil industry, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of Quebecers went west to Alberta, and many stayed there. Under normal circumstances, those former Quebecers would have liked their children not only to be educated in French, but to preserve their French culture. This means not only the schools but also television, radio, theatre, cultural centres, opportunities to speak French in their everyday life. What about the Quebecer who would be called upon to move because of his job responsibilities or economic needs? You will agree that one is not very mobile when one has to sacrifice his family, his language. I say it is unacceptable to put a Canadian before that phoney choice, forcing him to choose between his cultural values, his family and the need to provide for his family.
The Meech Lake Accord does nothing to improve that situation. The Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, is an anachronism that reflects the lack of vision and leadership of this Tory Government. Our vitality as Quebecers is selfevident. It is there to be seen in every area, be it economic, social, cultural or political. Whether it is the role played by the provincial Government or in the private sector, with the establishment of Quebec multinationals and the young Quebecers' craze for business. Let me remind you that no less
Constitution Amendment, 1987
than 10,000 students year in and year out attend the University of Montreal's Institut des Hautes Etudes commerciales. From that viewpoint, the Accord ignores those facts about Quebec and is trying to have us believe that we need additional protection.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, at the very moment when Quebecers are assuming their rightful place in Canada, when Quebec companies are extending their activities throughout the world, the Government is proposing that we create a French ghetto in an English-speaking unilingual Canada. The Accord explicitly mentions French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians. There is no mention of the new generation of bilingual Canadians, nor of those whose speak many languages, nor of the native people who speak only the language of their ancestors. Moreover, there is nothing about those who consider themselves neither French nor English Canadians, but quite simply Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow's Canadian citizen will be a man or woman who speaks both languages well and who recognizes that he or she is part of a remarkable family, the family of all Canadians.
I have represented the Laurier constituency for eight years in this House. I have tried to show why I believe that this Accord represents a step backward as concerns linguistic duality. Other aspects should also be of concern to us, such as the option for provinces to withdraw from cost shared programs with full financial compensation.
My constituency, which is going through a complete transformation, includes a great many senior citizens, but as it is located near the Universite du Quebec a Montreal and McGill University, it also includes many students. The constituency has a large artistic population. We also have a large number of single parent families, twice the national average. Two thirds of the population are of French Canadian origins and the other third is made up to a large extent of Portuguese, Greek, Italian, Latin-American, Chinese and Vietnamese Canadians. It has been said that Laurier is a crossroads of ideas. I think it is an appropriate description because there are people from many different countries, from all walks of life.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, so many live in difficult circumstances, and they include artists, young people and mothers who are single parents. Often they do not have regular employment. They are given ten to twenty weeks employment in job creation programs. After that, they go on unemployment insurance and fifty weeks later on welfare, if they fail to get a new job under another government program.
I am convinced that the only solution is a thorough reform of our social programs, which would include, for instance, the creation of a universal income security plan, as recommended by the Macdonald Commission. These issues are very important to my constituents, but the only way to get any results, Mr. Speaker, is through a shared-cost program, and I am

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
afraid that, under the Meech Lake Accord, this will be impossible.
I would like to refer to the testimony of Professor A1 Johnson before the joint committee on the Constitutional Accord. Professor Johnson is an expert on the subject, as a former deputy-minister in the provincial Government in Saskatchewan and with the federal Government. He recalled that it took a long battle to get medicare. At the national level, it was a long hard struggle, especially since the Premier of Ontario launched a full-fledged crusade against medicare. Professor Johnson explained that it was always a risky undertaking for the federal Government to initiate a new national, shared-cost program because of the two jurisdictions involved. It is a fact that any initiative of this sort would meet only opposition on the part of the provinces. Under these circumstances, making it possible for provincial governments to opt out with full compensation, without being compelled to meet national criteria, would frustrate any initiative aimed at setting up new or revised social programs, thereby creating enormous difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, 1 dare hope that my comments will cause some of my fellow citizens to ponder the impact of the Meech Lake Accord. I dare hope that my Laurier constituents in particular will think over these issues and my comments, and later on advise me of their opinion concerning this vital issue for the future of our country, because this is not an ordinary legislation we are dealing with here today, but the Constitution which is the fundamental law of the land. I, for one, feel that this debate is far from being over.


Mr. Orlikow:: I have two questions for the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. First, when Premier Bourassa visited Manitoba and talked to the Francophone community he told them that he could not interfere and help them with their problems.
I want the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) to know that in the Province of Manitoba there has been a tremendous growth and increase in the number of students who are getting their entire education in the French language, not only the Francophone students whose parents naturally want them to maintain their language and culture, but Anglophone students who are getting their entire education in French immersion classes. I know something about that because my 11 year old granddaughter who has just moved into grade six is now in her seventh year of school and her entire education has been in the French language. That program is expanding in every part of Manitoba every year. The Meech Lake Agreement will not have injured what is going on in Manitoba and in other provinces.
When the Hon. Member suggests that because of the Meech Lake Agreement it will be difficult for the federal Government to sponsor new social programs, I say to him that there are just
as many constitutional experts who reject that argument as there are who support it.
I want to tell the Member also that I resent a member of the Liberal Party lecturing Members of this House and the people of Canada about the dangers of the diminution of the authority of the federal Government and the federal Parliament to initiate programs. In my 26 years in Parliament there was no decision by any government which did so much to reduce the power and the authority of the federal Government in the initiation and expansion of social programs than the decision of the Trudeau Liberal Government to do away with the way in which the share-cost programs for hospitalization, medical insurance and post-secondary education were put into effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: These were programs which had been developed mostly by Liberal Governments under which the federal Government encouraged provinces to get into them. It promised the provinces that the federal Government would pay a minimum of 50 per cent of the cost of the programs and it would pay more to the have-not provinces. When the Liberal Government under Mr. Trudeau decided it could not afford to continue, that Government told the provinces it was going to change the law and the rules and bring in established programs financing. What did that mean? It meant that the federal Government in any year would not increase its funding by more than the increase in the cost of living. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it said to the provinces that it would give them this money in a lump sum; they did not have to spend it on postsecondary education, hospitalization or medicare, but could do anything they wanted, even use it to build roads.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: The Liberals, having done that, should not lecture us about the diminution of federal authority and federal power.


David Berger: The Hon. Member talked about French immersion. This was the exact point that I made. I said that Canadians in their everyday lives are way ahead of our Governments.


David Orlikow: With or without Meech Lake.


David Berger: Why do our governments not have the courage to catch up to where Canadians are and put into our Constitution that we will not only preserve the status quo, protect language minorities, but that we will promote language minorities? The Member helped me, as far as I can see, in making my point.
On the question of social programs, Mr. Speaker, I notice the Member is wearing a rose-coloured tie. Obviously his version of history is probably through rose-coloured glasses.


An Hon. Member:: This comes from a guy in a red tie.
October 6, 1987


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal Government got out of block funding and gave the provinces money with no strings attached because it was responding to the will of the provinces which did not want the federal Government messing around in their affairs. Therefore we said "We will give it a try. Yes, we will give you the money and we will see what you do". Now we have seen what has happened. The provinces have taken money that was supposed to go into education and it is being spent on roads, sidewalks and other things. It is time that a national government stood up for national priorities.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, just for the record I want to tell the Hon. Member-I see the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) s here and he will know that what I am saying is correct-that the only party in Parliament which opposed that mistaken, terrible decision of the then Liberal Government to change the way things were done was the New Democratic Party and its members. When the Liberal Government brought forward that proposal, it got the support and the votes of the Conservatives.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I was not here at the time that that decision was made. I take the Hon. Member at his word that the New Democratic Party opposed the move at that time. I wish that the New Democratic Party today would have the same principles which it had seven, eight or nine years ago.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question in the last minute remaining before lunch. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) for his speech. The people of Laurier and the people of Canada are well served by the Hon. Member.
There were two points on which the Hon. Member did not touch during his comments; first, regarding appointments to the Senate of Canada and second, regarding appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the 30 seconds remaining, would the Hon. Member for Laurier comment on those two points?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that I have, I can simply say that there is certainly a case to be made for formalizing the consultation process that has existed for sometime with respect to Supreme Court appointments. With respect to Quebec, which has a different legal tradition than the rest of the country, something had to be done to provide the Quebec Government in a formal manner with input into those appointments.
With respect to the Senate, I feel that there is a need also to ensure provincial input into appointments to the Senate, but the formula that we have come up with in the Meech Lake Agreement really hands over the whole matter to the provinces and leaves no room whatsoever-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. The period for questions and comments has expired.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.00 p.m.

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, given the Free Trade Agreement signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the statements he made yesterday, when he admitted there were losers and winners in that Accord, he unfortunately did not name the losers. I would have liked the Prime Minister to name a few categories of Canadian workers he traded off to sign that Agreement. Are they men and women working in the textile industry? Are they workers in the footwear industry? In the knitting industry? In the leather industry? In agriculture? In rail transportation? In shipping, in shipbuilding?
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this and I would like to know-the East end of Montreal issue, the Comite de la Relance is requesting a special grants committee to modernize Montreal's industrial East end, to designate the East end of Montreal . .. Now with free trade, the East end of Montreal goes down the drain the way that agreement was signed by the Prime Minister.


DECENTRALIZATION
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in this great city of Ottawa the rumour mill is a stable industry and one of its recent products is news of the potential relocation of part of the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control to Winnipeg.
Ottawa has been the grab bag, to quote Regional Chairman Andy Haydon, often enough in the last few years. Ottawa Mayor Jim Durrell has written to me saying that any potential gain for Winnipeg will be a loss for Ottawa. They are both right.

October 6, 1987
Ottawa has recently experienced Public Service cuts, project cuts, language training cuts, discretionary spending cuts, total spending freezes, procurement decentralization, National Research Council reallocations, and over the last 10 years part of Employment and Immigration has been moved to Bathurst, DVA has been moved to Charlottetown, parts of DSS have been moved to Shediac and Matane, and the list goes on.
The Child Poverty Action Group on the Hill this morning stressed that the increase in child poverty in the region is alarming. Ottawa is not immune to tough times. We have bread lines and soup kitchens like many other Canadian cities. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider this potential move in the best interests of maintaining the total integrity of the LCDC.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, why are people not enraged that one-fifth of Canada's children are poor? Why can we alleviate poverty for the elderly but not for children? Why is child poverty not a political priority?
"Although we say we love children, the only children we love are our own, and I do not mean Canadian children, 1 mean our very own, the ones in our individual families. Those children we are prepared to do a lot for, but not the children of the poor." Those are the words of Dorothy O'Connell speaking today at the Child Poverty Action Group.
Conservative MPs presently place the blame on parents, moral breakdown, divorce and alcoholism. These are not the causes of poverty. It is the lack of money and other resources to deal with the same problems that middle and upper-income families have. Poor children will not have the same opportunities in life. We must develop the political will to end the senseless waste of all these children who are condemned to repeat the poverty cycle.
If we love our children we must put child poverty on the top of the political agenda now. I call on the Government to make solutions to child poverty the topic of a First Ministers' meeting and the subject of an all-Party committee.



Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, child poverty remains a concern in Canada. This is so despite the fact that the economy continues to grow at a rate of over 3 per
cent a year, unemployment has dropped to 8.8 per cent, and 260,000 Canadians have risen above the poverty line in the last three years. Our Government has worked hard to raise the standard of living for all Canadians. However, our task remains far from complete.
Poverty is debilitating, especially so when it hits our children. They are the citizens, workers and parents of tomorrow. Poverty robs them of hope for the future and deprives them of the opportunity to develop fully and express themselves as Canadians. In practical terms, child poverty means a higher incidence of mental illness and a higher rate of law-breaking in adolescence. We must pay particular attention to the problem of child poverty in single-parent families.
The Government has begun to act in these areas, helping to drop youth unemployment from 18.3 per cent to 13.8 per cent, decreasing the rate of unemployed women from 12 per cent to 9.4 per cent, and increasing the child tax credit. We must build upon these efforts and those of groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the Ottawa Council for Low-Income Support Services. Together we can give all young Canadians a real stake in the future.


ROAD SAFETY
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the police forces of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton which have launched their annual safety belt promotion campaign. Their objective is to encourage 90 per cent of car passengers to buckle up.
You have noted, Mr. Speaker, that during the past year I have been presenting petitions and making statements on car safety, because present regulations do not meet the needs of car passengers.
To that effect, a doctor from the Lower St. Lawrence region, Dr. Robert Maguire, has helped me by distributing his own petition asking the Government among other things to pass preventive measures providing for such things as inflatable bags, three point safety belts and the around-the-clock use of headlights. The purpose of such a drive is to reduce by 50 per 100 the number of casualties caused by car accidents.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, petitions signed by over 30,000 people from the Lower St. Lawrence area and the Gaspe Peninsula who are asking for greater road security. I wish to congratulate Dr. Maguire for his initiative and to thank the people from the Lower St. Lawrence area and the Gaspe Pensinsula for having helped me in this campaign to promote road security.
October 6, 1987

Before 1 resume my seat, I wish a tremendous success to the police forces of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa- Carleton in their campaign to buckle up safety belts during the forthcoming two weeks.


TAXATION
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal Government instigated the worst tax fraud in the history of this country with the tax credit to stimulate research in 1983-84. Marc Lalonde, John Turner, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberals made Canadian taxpayers lose billions of dollars.
At the beginning of 1984, the Liberal Government, through the Department of Finance, came to know that the tax deduction plan for scientific research was giving rise to problems and Marc Lalonde had expected that the plan would only cost $200 million. It did cost $3.5 billion and up to $1.9 billion were lost as a result of frauds.
In Victoria, a 28-year old mechanic registered in a computer course for beginners, launched a research business in data processing and obtained $5 million under the program. According to the last reports, he was in Hong Kong promoting a book on break dancing.
In Calgary, a businessman was granted $30 million. He bought two office buildings, a Jaguar and a 106-acre ranch before he also disappeared.
Mr. Speaker, Michael Wilson was clever and wise enough to axe the program shortly after the Conservative Party came into power in 1984, but the Canadians should be better informed about that Liberal flop.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the sell-out of Canadian water through the Government's trade agreement with the United States. In return for an utterly inadequate trade dispute tribunal U.S. negotiators have obtained the right to future use of Canadian resources as if they were U.S. resources.
The Grand Canal concept of transferring massive quantities of fresh water from the Canadian Shield to the southwestern U.S. has suddenly become likely.
Robert Bourassa, who advocated this idea before the last Quebec election, and Simon Reisman, who lobbied for it before he became the Government's trade negotiator, are understandably pleased. However, the needs of aboriginal peoples, the ecology of the James Bay region, and the weather of central Canada are all to be sacrificed to the greed of U.S. water wasters.
Why did the Government not protest the flagrant subsidy of U.S. vegetable and fruit growers who pay $13 for water worth $350? Why were countervailing duties not used against this subsidy to discourage U.S. interests from lusting after Canadian resources? In the future will Canadians buy more U.S. vegetables and fruits grown with water from the Canadian Shield?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, over the last nine years I have regularly raised the fact that each year an average of 20 children under the age of 10 have been severely burned when their pyjamas caught fire and that one or two deaths have resulted annually from these burns. Last May I tabled a Private Member's Motion to require the Government to bring in new standards for flame retardant children's nightclothes.
It is with a great deal of personal satisfaction that 1 report to the House that effective this week night-gowns, night-shirts, dressing gowns, bathrobes, housecoats, robes, pyjamas, and baby-doll pyjamas up to and including size 14X are subject to stringent flammability standards.
In my view the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) deserves the thanks of Canadian parents for stopping another 20 children a year from being seriously burned and for saving one or two children's lives annually in future.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support to those individuals who took pre-retirement leave from the Cape Breton Development Corporation as long ago as 1974-75. The purpose of that

October 6, 1987
plan at that time was to continue to employ the workers affected under a contract of service to the Cape Breton Development Corporation in order that they might be eligible to continue to earn entitlement to various benefits.
The fact is that these individuals will never be rehired by the Corporation but must continue to have unemployment insurance premiums deducted from their income. In addition, these UIC deductions, which in some cases date back 13 or 14 years, are taking much needed income from those Canadians who need it most. Conversely, other individuals under different and new pre-retirement plans do not have this deduction from their income.
I ask the Government to reconsider this unfair situation and treat these needy citizens with compassion and dignity. In other words, stop deducting unemployment insurance premiums from their income and reimburse them for the money they have lost.


CHALLENGE PRESENTED BY FREE TRADE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the challenge presented by free will have to be taken up by our youth. We accepted the previous challenges. Our generation and the previous ones have transformed this country into an industrialized, rich and modern nation. Are we going to ask your youth to rest on our accomplishments! It would suicidal. There is a market to conquer, a country to build. This is a challenge for our young people. They are just as intelligent, willing and eager to challenge the world as we were. We must give them that opportunity, the chance to think and act in terms of a continent and the world. Why limit ourselves to our neighbourhood, when our skills, qualifications and values are in demand on every continent, Mr. Speaker. Free trade is the future and the prosperity of a people, our people.
Experts from the Quebec Department of Agriculture have said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that our family farm will not suffer extensive changes. I suggest to union leaders that they should not interpret the agreement in their usual negative way as, in fact, our marketing boards and other programs have been protected.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, Canadian grain farmers are beginning to worry about whether they will receive any government assistance by way of deficiency payments this year. Farmers have good reason to be worried.
After meeting with farm leaders in Winnipeg in August, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) strongly supported the CFA proposal for a 1987-88 deficiency payment. However, last Friday in the House the Minister backed away from this strong support. He said he might mention the CFA proposal if and when he takes the deficiency payment proposal to Cabinet.
The Minister says that he might have a deficiency payment this year. Why does the Government not act? Why is it stalling? After all, the Government knows the views of farmers. It has consulted them. The Government has some experience in putting together a deficiency program.
With each new day of delay on this issue, farmers begin to wonder if the part of the free trade deal which says unsubsidized grain will be able to move freely between Canada and the U.S. means an end to deficiency payments for the current crop year.


SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Canadian negotiators on their successful negotiations for a free trade arrangement with the United States.
Free trade is good news, particularly for western Canada. It will improve the market in the oil and energy sector. Free trade will reduce input costs for agriculture while strengthening farm markets.
Free trade will also mean the creation of some 350,000 new jobs for Canadians over the next eight years, from which all provinces will benefit. It will boost real wages, increase production, stimulate business investment and revitalize industry.
The free trade agreement is one of which we can be proud for more reasons than the obvious economic benefits. Canada's cultural sovereignty remains protected, social and regional development policies remain intact, marketing boards are not
October 6, 1987

affected, and a binding dispute settlement mechanism has been created.
The Prime Minister has been committed to securing a free trade arrangement with the United States if it is a good deal for Canada. This free trade agreement is a good deal for all Canadians and yet another example of this Government's vision for the future of this country.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, American wine interests have won a major free trade victory over the Canadian wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula, Quebec, and British Columbia's Okanagan Valley. Free trade has California's wine interests laughing all the way to the bank, and the rest of the time they are laughing at the Conservative Government in Canada.
The Americans sell about 15.7 million litres of wine to Canada now. Under the free trade agreement they hope to sell about 54 million litres to Canadians. It will mean a loss of over 4,000 jobs in Ontario alone.
On January 1, 1989, 25 per cent of the protection on Canadian wines will disappear. On January 1, 1990, another 25 per cent will disappear and the remainder will be phased out over the following five years.
The Gallo Wine Company in California alone produces in 12 days what it takes Canada to produce in six months. Under the free trade arrangement of the Conservative Government and the Reagan administration, there will be no timeframe to upgrade the Canadian industry.
The economies of the ridings of Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Erie, Welland, and St. Catharines, the Okanagans, and parts of Quebec will be adversely affected by this proposal.
There is nothing quite like cutting the economic feet out from under the areas of Canada that are represented totally by Conservative Members of Parliament. It is no doubt part of the loyalty that the Prime Minister feels toward those Conservative MPs in his caucus and the constituency voters who supported them in those ridings which are affected by this terrible measure.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, as was to be
expected, the socialist leader cannot find anything good in our free trade agreement with the United States: an agreement negotiated and concluded to maintain one out of five jobs in Canada, to create 350,000 new jobs and to preserve an existing $95 billion market.
The socialist leader hides the real reason for his opposition. The one against the agreement is not the socialist leader but the Hon. Member for Oshawa. That is the riding where Canadian workers enjoy the best working conditions. Why? Because of free trade in the automobile sector since 1965. The Hon. Member for Oshawa does not want to protect anybody else but the workers in his riding. He does not want to hear about better living conditions for Canadians outside Oshawa. If the socialist leader's concerns are confined to Oshawa, let him keep his seat as a Member of Parliament but resign as national leader. All he has to do, Mr. Speaker, is notify his boss, Bob White.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. AMERICO SEQUEIRA, PORTUGUESE M.P.
Mr. Speaker:: Order! I wish to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Americo Sequeira, Member of Parliament of Portugal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery of Jose Ricardo Gomez, Speaker of the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND CULTURE OF GREECE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Madame Melina Mercouri, Minister of Science and Culture of Greece.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Zito Melina.

October 6, 1987
Oral Questions
PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF TEAM CANADA


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would also like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of members of Team Canada, winners of the 1987 Canada Cup.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Canada Cup team wearing the right colour uniform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister arising out of the Government's sell-out to the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In November, 1986, a document issued by the office of the President of the United States stated clearly and publicly the concessions the Americans wanted from Canada. We have recited this document before in the House of Commons. They wanted to open up our wine industry-they got it. They wanted changes in the way we sell and transport wheat-they got it. They wanted to change and open up the Auto Pact-they got it. They wanted to change our drug laws-they got it. They wanted changes in our postal rates-they got it. The list goes on and on.
Why is it that the Americans got every major item they wanted on this 1986 presidential list? Why is that we got nothing worth-while in return?


BINDING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the assumption of the right hon. gentleman might be correct if we had got any meaningful exemption from U.S. trade law, which we did not, or if we had got a binding dispute mechanism that would apply a neutral law, which we did not. The exemption from U.S. protectionism does not exist.
Why is that the rules of the game have not been changed at all as they affect American law which applies to Canadian exports? Why is it, for instance, that the Atlantic fishermen get no advantage at all?
Is it not true that in return for selling out to the Americans-1 will say this to the Minister of Finance-lock, stock, and barrel, Canada ended up with a dispute mechanism that continues to apply American law and rules, that there is no binding element to that dispute mechanism, that it is not enforceable on the Americans, and is it not about as binding as the Prime Minister's commitment given to the leadership convention of the Conservative Party when he undertook to Canadians and to his own Party that there would never be a free trade arrangement with the United States?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the mechanism that is in place in the agreement is a binding mechanism. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that.


Mr. Broadbent:: Binding in U.S. law.


Charles Joseph Clark: The question is raised as to whether it should be U.S. law or Canadian law.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What do we get to keep, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: The House knows, and people who are seriously interested in the issue and are looking at the documents know that the laws of both countries, Canadian and American law, apply.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to say that Canada having protection against the growing force of protectionism in the United States is nothing at all, and for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to say that the very substantial advantages in both access and security of access we have to the massive market of the United States are nothing at all, simply indicates that the Leader of the Opposition is so blinded by his own internal problems that he does not want to see the benefits to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: So far, so good.


Charles Joseph Clark: They understand me so far, Mr. Speaker. Let me be venturesome and try the third element.
If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should have Canadian law apply to circumstances now governed by American law, he must perforce be suggesting that American law would apply to us. That would be a tremendous abandoning of the sovereignty of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Look who is talking about sovereignty. You are really gutsy to say that.
October 6, 1987


Mr. Axworthy:: No wonder you lost in 1983.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the two Parties in opposition may believe that it is laughable to protect and to assert Canada's sovereignty. We do not believe that that is laughable. We believe that Canadian sovereignty is asserted by acting with confidence in the world. We have done this in the agreement. We have secured protection for Canadian industries and Canadian interests against the protectionist influences in the United States. Any honest reading of the arrangements that have been put in place will make that abundantly clear.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will have to hold up that labyrinthine answer to the light and see what we can make of it when we have a little spare time.
[ Translation]


DEMAND THAT GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCE ITS PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if, as the Prime Minister states, there are no losers in the Canadian free trade agreement, then why did he say last night that massive programs would have to be undertaken to protect Canadians who will lose their jobs as a result of the agreement with the United States? Where are these programs? Can the Minister unveil and describe them right now? And why should our automobile workers, our farm producers, and our textile workers not keep their jobs? Why not leave things as they are now instead of putting many thousands of jobs on the line?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Is this the pinch-hitter, Mike?


John R. Rodriguez: Where's Patsy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as all Members of the House know, at this moment the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade are meeting with the Premiers.
Let me take the opportunity to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition and say that we do not expect there will be a need for any significant programs of adjustment. We have a number of programs in place right now. The Prime Minister has said that if there is a need for those programs, those programs are in place and those programs will be augmented to the extent that is necessary to deal with the problem. That is very clear.
Let me point also out to the Leader of the Opposition that when the European Community was formed, trade increased within the community by 347 per cent over a 10-year period and at the same time in the United States it increased only about 124 per cent and in the United Kingdom by about 77 per cent. It is clear that as a trade arrangement is agreed on between two countries the economic growth and the trade
Oral Questions
between those two countries increase substantially, and that is the best type of adjustment that we can expect.


FINANCING OF ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the aftermath of the documents tabled yesterday, reports like the following are coming in: "Trade pact seen costing 20,000 jobs in the auto-parts "industry". "Wine industry 10,000 jobs will be lost."


Some Hon. Members:: That is the Toronto Star.


Lloyd Axworthy: Here is a report from the Quebec Government saying "131,000 jobs at risk in the Province of Quebec." DRIE's own study shows 50,000 jobs at risk in the manufacturing industry of Ontario, yet the Minister of Finance has the nerve to stand up in this House and say that this Government cannot see any jobs at risk. How blind can one Minister and one Government be?


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the Government prepared to live up presumably to another commitment made last night by the Prime Minister of a massive undertaking of necessary money to make sure that there will not be hundreds of thousands of victims in this country due to the ill-begotten, and ill thought out trade agreement which the Government wants to negotiate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I said yesterday that the country has a choice to make. We either live in the past with a small Canada as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry would like us to do, or we look forward to the future and the the opportunities that are there.
The Hon. Member has commented on some people. A nonpartisan Ottawa based think tank says that this will usher in higher employment levels, greater productivity, and an improved standard of living for Canadians. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business representing small businesses around the country says-I think the Hon. Member should listen to this because this is the essence of the approach which the Government is taking- "Canadian entrepreneurs feel that they can compete well and effectively in both markets".
What we are trying to do is open up both markets, open up a market of 260 million people to Canadians so they can compete, create jobs here in Canada and encourage the growth that all Canadians want to have.


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM-WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a supplementary question. We now know

October 6, 1987
Oral Questions
that there will be many job losses in Canada totalling in the tens of thousands.
I want to recite briefly to the Minister a report that appeared in this morning's Wall Street Journal. It said that the Reagan administration, which will brief the Senate finance committee today, argues privately that even if Canada were to win arbitration rulings against future U.S. law, the U.S. could still refuse to change that law. In that event they say Canada's only recourse would be take its own retaliatory action or terminate the trade agreement, action already available to Ottawa under world trade pacts.
Why have we given up our sovereignty? Why are we putting jobs at risk for something we already have under international agreements?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is simply false for the Opposition to suggest that this country has failed to make a major gain with regard to the dispute settlement mechanism that is in place.


Lloyd Axworthy: The U.S. administration.


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course. The Member is reading the Wall Street Journal. That may be a reflection upon the Wall Street Journal to be read by the Hon. Member but I suppose in his case any American publication will do.


Lloyd Axworthy: At least I can read.


Charles Joseph Clark: The point that has to be made that is germane here is that our major problem has not been with the nature of American law in trade questions; our major problem has been with the interpretation of American law.


Lloyd Axworthy: No binding mechanism there.


Charles Joseph Clark: The interpretation has been, prior to this agreement, by American tribunals subject to political influence particularly in times when protectionist pressure was mounting. That vulnerability that existed in the past would obviously become more acute given the protectionist pressures and climates in the United States right now. What we have is an agreement by both sides in effect to change the judge, to have an impartial judge, a bi-national judge, with Canadians, to interpret the rules in place.


Lloyd Axworthy: You surrender the international one.


Charles Joseph Clark: To put this into perspective, if a regime like that had been in place in the softwood dispute, there would have been no danger of Canada losing. Indeed, if there had been an arrangement like that, the softwood issue-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: You gave it away. You didn't even go to court.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: A pitiful answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


ENERGY RESOURCES AND SECURITY OF SUPPLY-ECONOMY OF ALBERTA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister just a minute ago called for an honest reading of the agreement. I suggest that an honest reading of the agreement will show for the first time in Canadian history that a Canadian Government has been prepared to give up Canadian sovereignty-the question is serious and I hope it will be taken seriously-over the price of our energy resources and also over the question of security of supply.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: The present Government in Alberta currently sells natural gas to petro-chemical companies in the Province of Alberta at a lower price than it sells to Americans for the sensible reason that it wants to use this tool for diversifying its own economy. Will the Minister confirm under this agreement, which his Government has negotiated, that this tool for development will no longer be available to the Government of Alberta?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, nothing in this treaty which is being mentioned here in the House would prevent the Canadian Government from setting up a surplus monitoring system concerning its future energy requirements. Nothing in this agreement prevents the Canadian Government from doing that.
On the contrary, this agreement does not change anything to others we now have within the OECD international energy system to which Canada belongs, nothing in this agreement or in the other prevents us as a country from operating as we see fit.


EXPORTS OF GAS AND OIL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Minister was tuned into Radio Peking or what, but the question I asked had absolutely nothing to do with the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that what I said is absolutely true. The Government of Alberta and all our resource producing provinces have lost the right to diversify their economies by selling gas to their own citizens at a price lower than to the Americans. That is shameful and the Canadian Government ought never to have done that.
October 6, 1987

I have another question on the important matter of security of supply and energy to which I would like the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to reply. When he was Prime Minister the then Conservative Government introduced a Bill in the Parliament of Canada that would have given us the right to curtail exports of gas or oil to the United States in an energy crisis on the grounds that when there is a crisis Canadian needs ought to be met first with Canadian resources. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs now confirm that the Government wants to enter into the kind of an agreement with the United States which would stop it from ensuring that gas and oil when in crisis supply ought to be left to Canadians? Will he admit that?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I will say as clearly as I can to the leader of the socialist party that there is nothing in this agreement with respect to sharing our resources, even with the United States, nothing in this agreement differs from the agreements signed by the previous Liberal administration pursuant to FIR A guidelines. That is clear and precise!


CURTAILMENT OF EXPORTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care.

Mr. Speaker, 1 heard the Minister's answer. I would sincerely suggest to him that he read the document carefully because what I said this afternoon is in the document, and his colleagues are the ones who negotiated this agreement with the Americans.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who as the senior Minister is responsible for these negotiations, if he is in agreement with what his colleague, the Minister, has just said.
Is the Minister right when he says that Canada still has the right to curtail completely exports of gas and oil to the United States under the terms of the proposed agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should read the agreement. He should also bear in mind that for years one of the major problems we faced in western Canada was to achieve the capacity for economic diversification. We now have as a result of this agreement a great opportunity to achieve diversification in that region. If the Hon. Member wants to debate that on any election platform in western Canada or anywhere else, I would be delighted to take him on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER SPEAKER FRANCIS
Mr. Speaker:: I will exercise a certain prerogative here and do something a little unusual. We have with us to my right a distinguished colleague and long time friend and former Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Lloyd Francis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want all Hon. Members to know that I have some help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-OIL EXPORTS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, following up what the Hon. Member for Oshawa has said. There is a change and the change is for the worse.
Last year in Canada we sold an average of 807,000 barrels a day of oil to the United States. Now there is no limit on what we can sell to the United States. Even if we are short of oil ourselves, we have to sell a portion of that oil to the United States, in exchange for which the Americans only have to sell us 50,000 barrels of Alaska crude oil.
Why, when we are running short of very necessary light and medium crude and do not have enough for our own needs, do we have to give away our precious oil to the United States in exchange for a pittance?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the tentative agreement with the United States will be a boon to the energy sector, and all those who are responsible for this sector see it that way, be it Premier Getty who has been saying that free trade is very beneficial to Alberta oil and gas producers, be it Premier Robert Bourassa who is saying that, in the energy sector among others, the agreement will benefit both countries, be it the Saskatchewan region where even the producers . .. Mr. Speaker, this agreement favours energy producers and consumers alike, on both sides of the border.


REGULATIONS GOVERNING OIL SHIPMENTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Energy says is not correct because we will not have any light or medium crude, we will only have the more expensive heavy oil, tarsands and offshore oil. Who will pay the extra price to bring this oil to production,

October 6, 1987
Oral Questions
the Americans? In the United States, there is the Jones Act which regulates the shipping from port to port.


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


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Now, shipping of oil from Alaska to Canada has to be in United States vessels. Why has the Government brought the Jones Act to apply to Canada under this very, very harsh agreement?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is repeating the same questions and obviously, he will get the same answers. There is nothing in this Accord-

-that will prevent us from instituting a surplus test if we foresee a potential shortage in Canadian supply. This notion of sharing available supply the Hon. Member mentioned is no different from the agreement already signed by the previous Liberal Government with the IEA countries on this question of sharing oil supply.


ECONOMY OF ALBERTA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will recall as an Albertan that Peter "Low-heed" fought for many years to establish-


Some Hon. Members:: Its Lougheed!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Peter Lougheed, the Premier.


Some Hon. Members:: Nelson "Rice".


Mr. Speaker:: I just want to remind Hon. Members that the matter which is being discussed is of course a very important one but the time that is taken by the Chair to restore order will be lost at the end of Question Period. Hon. Members would keep that in mind.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, an Albertan who would be well aware that the previous Premier of Alberta, Premier "Low-heed", worked for many, many years to establish a two-price system on petrochemical feed stocks and he was successful. That resulting secondary industry led to a diversification of the economy of Alberta and other western provinces. This particular accord that has been signed does away with that.
I want the Secretary of State to have the courage to say yes, the Government has signed away the ability of the provincial Government to have a two-price system to diversify the economy, a multi-billion-dollar initiative as opposed to the wimpy Western Development Fund.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, "Low-heed" is the way they say it in the Canadian Labour Congress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: That's the way they say it in British Columbia.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am told that is the way they say it in British Columbia. The question was asked of me as an Albertan by a former Albertan. In Alberta we call him Lougheed, and in Alberta, when we are interested in the views of the former Premier of the province, we ask those views. The former Premier of the Province of Alberta has expressed his views on this trade arrangement. He, like the rest of us who have the interests of western Canada and this country at heart, knows that this trade agreement provides an opportunity we have never before had in that region to achieve the kind of economic diversification that will allow western Canada to be equal with the rest of the country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The record will show that the former Prime Minister refused to respond to that question about Alberta.


CRUDE OIL EXPORTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister was Prime Minister of Canada, Bill C-42 was introduced by the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said: "I have taken steps to reduce general exports in terms of crude to the United States to supply our domestic needs, particularly in times of crisis."
Will the former Prime Minister, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, now admit that this particular agreement does away with that? In a sense it gives up the control of pricing and security of supply. In other words, he sold out once again. Not even that, because when you sell out you get something in return, he gave it away.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the House Leader for the "Old Democratic Party" was answered by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. However, I find it quite interesting that yesterday the Leader of the NDP wanted us to believe that Canada had not evolved since 1867. Now the NDP spokesman is suggesting we are in the conditions of 1979. They are a backward-looking Party in a forward-looking country.
What is at issue here is that this Government recognizes that, just as Team Canada can compete in the world and win, so can this country compete in the world and win.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More!
October 6, 1987


Mr. Jelinek:: Ask a supplementary, Riis.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON NUMBER OF JOB LOSSES RESULTING FROM CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In an internal report, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated that 228,000 jobs in seventeen industries would be lost as a result of free trade. Informetrica, a private company, predicted the loss of 300,000 jobs, and the Canadian Labour Congress predicted that one million jobs would be lost. Last night, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged the loss of jobs would be tremendous when he admitted to the existence of a major retraining program for these workers. In the circumstances, is the Government now prepared to give us its official forecast of the number of jobs lost and the sectors concerned, and does it intend to publish its studies and forecasts regarding loss of jobs as a result of free trade?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, obviously that work has not been completed at this stage because the precise elements of the agreement were known only very late on Saturday night. However, I would draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that many of these reports have indicated that there will be a substantial over-all increase in jobs created in Canada. That is on top of the 900,000 jobs created since September, 1984.
We are in a growing economy. I draw to his attention what has happened with the Australia and New Zealand trade arrangement, as well as the arrangements in Europe. In a growing economy adjustment comes easier. We have seen over the past number of years that a considerable amount of adjustment has been necessary because four to five million people do change jobs, moving from one company to another, each year. We have a lot of adjustment going on and we have the programs in place to meet these needs.


Mr. Allmand:: This Government is very good at announcing new job creation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: It can do the same with the loss of jobs. POSSIBLE JOB LOSSES-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister was ready to announce a massive program of retraining for workers who will lose their jobs as a result of free trade, he must have had some forecasts or background studies and I am asking the Government to make them public so we can prepare for these job losses. What is the Government trying to hide?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to hide anything. The Prime Minister said if there is a need to augment the-


William Warren Allmand: He said a massive program!


Mr. McKnight:: Easy, Warren.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has indicated that if we are to get on with the business of Question Period, there will have to be a little bit more constraint. I have given an indication to the Government side and I make that indication quite clear to the Opposition side. I will move on if there are going to be interruptions. We are already late in the day and there are a number of Members who still want to ask questions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I was saying before I was interrupted was that we do have massive programs in place right now, involving at least $3 billion, to deal with the needs of adjustment in the economy.
I point out to the Hon. Member that over the last number of years two and a half million people were laid off at one time or another. A million people will quit their jobs at some time during the year. Another million will leave their jobs for other reasons such as fixed term contract, casual labour, fired, business closures. Whatever the reason, there are massive programs in place to deal with the considerable amount of adjustment that takes place. As I said earlier, those programs will be augmented if it is appropriate to do so in the context of the trade agreement.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and concerns the severe shortage of affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto as indicated by the fact that the vacancy rate there is virtually nil, whereas in other cities such as Calgary it is in excess of 5 per cent.
In view of all that will the Minister immediately direct his officials at CMHC to alter its programs with a view to creating substantially more units of affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto? Or does he agree with those who say that the only solution to this problem is to live in Calgary and commute to Toronto for work?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the housing situation in Toronto is not an easy one. Yesterday I attended the opening of a special project involving people in special purpose housing in the core. Over the last 18 months we have built some 4,800 new units in Toronto. Last year we were involved in the construction or renovation of some 55,000 homes across Canada.

October 6, 1987
Oral Questions
All of the funds in this portfolio are being directed towards those most in need. We are still awaiting the recommendations of the conference which took place in Ottawa one month ago during the International Year of the Homeless about what solutions might be appropriate for Toronto and the rest of Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-AUTO PARTS INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. On June 23, 1987, the Minister for International Trade said clearly that "We do not intend to alter the Auto Pact".


Mr. Shields:: Here is Bob White!


Steven W. Langdon: Yet the head of the Auto Parts Association has now said that this free trade deal fundamentally weakens and severely injures the Pact.


Some Hon. Members:: Wrong!


Steven W. Langdon: Why has the Government broken its promise and altered the Auto Pact in ways so clear to industry spokesmen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to draw fine points here, but auto parts are not a part of the Auto Pact. Let us address the specific question. The Member said that this will damage that industry. I say it will not damage that industry because there will be an incentive for more parts to be produced in Canada as a result of the arrangements that were agreed on because of the new value-added requirement. That will encourage the non-North American companies which have established in Canada to increase the degree of content in Canada. That will create jobs for people in that industry.


AUTO PACT QUERY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister shows his ignorance by saying that the Auto Pact does not deal with auto parts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member may or may not be right, but would he put the question please?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lonmo, the head of the auto parts industry, predicts the loss of 20,000 jobs in the auto parts industry thanks to this agreement. How does the
Minister explain the contradiction between past promises and the sell-out of Canadian jobs in this agreement? Why this gutting of the Auto Pact?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no gutting of the Auto Pact. The safeguards are still in place. The Canadian value-added is still in place. The sales-to-production ratios are still in place.
The Hon. Member talks about contradictions. On May 10, 1965, the Leader of the NDP at that time tabled a motion of non-confidence in the Government for entering into the Auto Pact. We have seen a nice little flip-flop and somersault. The NDP is now totally on the other side of this issue. Surely the Hon. Member should try one more time to get his head around the issue.


SOVEREIGNTY
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm that negotiations are presently being conducted with the United States with regard to its support for Canadian jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage? How are these negotiations progressing? When will the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Bill, which has been on the Order Paper month after month, be introduced for first reading?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that those discussions which began several months ago are continuing. We have not yet reached a resolution.
I do not think it is a breach of my cabinet responsibilities to say that from time to time it is welcome to receive from private Members of the House of Commons a little public help to speed some of my colleagues along with the introduction of important pieces of legislation such as the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Bill. I hope we may have it before the House very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two more questions. The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-AUTO PACT-AUTO PARTS INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I heard the Minister say,
October 6, 1987

in responding to the question of the Member for Essex- Windsor, that auto parts are not part of the Auto Pact.
Does the Minister realize that he has made not only an outrageous statement but one that is totally inaccurate? Auto parts which are put into cars assembled in Canada are as much a part of the Auto Pact as are those cars. They have been from the beginning.
Will the Minister admit he has made a terrible error which in part explains why he has made such a bungle of the free trade agreement, particularly the sell-out of the Auto Pact?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor West knows that the safeguards to which he attaches such high value are related to new car assembly. That is precisely what I meant by my previous answer.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Minister is admitting he was wrong in his first answer. The parts going into new car assembly are as much subject to the Auto Pact as are the new cars themselves. If that were not the case, there would be no meaning for the 60 per cent Canadian content requirement, which the Minister has given up for a meaningless 50 per cent North American content which means that not one car part made in Canada has to be put into cars assembled in this country.
Point of Order-Mr. Langdon ENERGY-SECURITY OF SUPPLY


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he now denies that, according to page 17 of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, we have lost control over security of energy supply. Does he deny that, yes or no?


Marcel Masse: No, that is entirely untrue!


PRIVILEGE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from Question Period. During Question Period we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) say that he could not tell the public whether there would be any job loss as a result of the free trade agreement. I would like to let him know that in Hamilton East today 1,300 jobs at Firestone were lost as a direct result of the free trade negotiation.
Will the Minister admit that? He has made mistakes before. Will he admit that he has made a terrible one today? I repeat that that is why he has bungled and sold out the Auto Pact.


Lloyd Axworthy: You don't even know what you are giving away.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not admit for a minute that the House Leader of the Liberal Party is correct on that. He is drawing a very fine and delicate point which is not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he had listened to my answer he would have understood exactly what I meant.
I want to make a fundamental point here. The Member for Windsor West has no confidence in the people he represents.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: They have no confidence in you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He has no confidence in their ability to compete. He has no confidence in their ability to win business from the United States. We on this side of the House do have that confidence. I think that the people he represents have demonstrated that capacity to compete.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: If that is the treatment we are going to get from the Americans, then I want to raise it in this House. I think it is a privilege to speak out for the workers-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: No one in this Chamber would ever doubt that the Hon. Member speaks vigorously and appropriately on behalf of the people she represents. However, I must advise her that while that may be a very important point, it is not a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his answer to me during Question Period the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) suggested that the Auto Pact did not deal with auto parts. I want to point out to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that auto parts and auto production are both part of the Pact and he should know it.

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members would agree that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is very quick to rise in this House to put forward positions which are important to his own constituents and his own region. However, I again have to say, as I had to say to another Member on another issue just a moment ago, that that is a matter of debate rather than a point of order. I do understand the Hon. Member's concern about the issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


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

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
October 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148. A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
XIII-References
149. A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]
October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
and on the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.9585), Mr. Broadbent (p.9586), Mr. Caccia (p.9644) and Mr. Allmand (p.9644).
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I participate in this debate on the constitutional Accord, 1987. The Constitution is the most important document in our country. Our Constitution, the basic framework of our nation, is the business of all Canadians.
I am upset by the process that surrounded the 1987 Accord. The 11 First Ministers met in two marathon sessions and their agreement was presented for this Parliament to pass. Changes would only be made if egregious errors were uncovered.
The joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate held its hearings in the summer, when public interest is low. The committee should have travelled in order to hear Canadians from coast to coast. Instead, it stayed in Ottawa and only those groups that could travel to Ottawa were here to discuss the Constitution and the Meech Lake Accord. In my view, that was an extremely bad decision. The committee should have reached out to hear Canadians and generate more interest.
I, together with others in the House, had the opportunity to participate in the constitutional process in 1982. It was an historic occasion. Our Constitution was brought home from Great Britain and Canadians finally got a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I believe that the 1987 Accord is also historic. Quebec's signature on the Canadian Constitution is definitely a significant achievement. However, I do not believe that one should be branded as anti-Quebec just because he or she suggests that the 1987 Accord should be improved.
In a nutshell, the constitutional Accord of 1987 is not a "seamless web" as some have described it. It is not a miracle. In my opinion, it is a bad piece of work that must be fixed.
I believe that improvements must be made to this Accord and that the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party will not unravel the Accord. I do not blame the Premiers for this Accord. In fact, given the feast offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Premiers could not turn it down. I am sure they never expected such a bountiful harvest and I suppose that the day after Meech Lake the Premiers must have felt as though they had won a lottery.
In my opinion, the Accord is tantamount to a dark cloud which will hang forever over the federal Government. I believe the Accord puts us on a fast track to becoming "a community
of communities" or a "nation of shopping centres". I, and I believe many other Canadians, do not share such a vision for this great country of Canada.
Of course, some wording of the Accord needs clarification. For instance, what does "distinct society" mean? Is it limited only to Quebec? According to my interpretation, there are hundreds of distinct societies in Canada and that all Canadians are distinctive. Therefore, if the term "distinct society" means anything, then it should be spelled out.
Some may say that Quebec is not a distinct society, but Premier Bourassa thinks it is a distinct society and has said so on many occasions. The federal Government has a responsibility to explain what "distinct society" means.
Let me refer to a clipping from The Summerside Journal Pioneer which states:
If the people of Quebec can be accepted as a distinct society, then this should also apply to the aboriginal people of Canada, says a recent news release from the Aboriginal People of P.E.I., The Lennox Island Band.
"As aboriginal people of Canada, we are even more distinct than people whose culture and language comes from Europe," spokesman John Joe Sark said in the release.
This refers not only to French-speaking Quebecers but to Anglophones as well. It refers to us all. Our native people were here long before Europeans arrived in North America.
I also have serious concerns with the clause which obliges the federal and provincial Governments to preserve but not promote the French-speaking fact outside Quebec. My riding has a large Acadian community which is very proud of its language, culture and heritage. How will the word "preserve" be interpreted by future provincial and federal Governments? I believe, as others have said on this side of the House, that the word "promote" should have been applied to all provinces. These people have as much right and are just as distinct as everyone else in the country.
According to the Minister responsible for the Accord, only "egregious" errors would be enough to move the Government to consider amendments. It would be interesting to know who decides what constitutes an egregious error. I know over 13.5 million Canadians who have considered the failure to recognize their equality rights an egregious error. I am speaking about the women of Canada who had struggled with courage and determination in 1981 and 1982 to see equality rights enshrined in the Constitution of this nation. The Meech Lake Accord, specifically the Langevin amendments, places equality rights in a precarious position.
In 1981, after their long battle, Canadian women witnessed two legislative moves unprecedented in our history. One was the strengthening of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects all Canadians from discrimination. Second, at the end of the process, Section 28 was included in the Charter, which explicitly states the equality rights of men and women.
October 6, 1987

Now in 1987, it appears that Canadian women are back to where they started. There is a possibility that their equality rights are not guaranteed. By excluding women's equality rights from Section 16, the Accord renders the constitutional history of Canadian women virtually invisible. It is a rule of law that what is not included is excluded. This suggests a hierarchy of equality rights. Why are multicultural heritage and aboriginal rights singled out for extra protection when sexual equality rights are not? I believe they all should be singled out.
The 11 First Ministers contend they did not intend to exclude women, that it was a mere oversight. We all know how well good intentions stand up in the courts. I refer to a recent Supreme Court ruling with respect to collective bargaining and the right to strike. In 1982, when asked if the freedom of association clause would allow for collective bargaining and the right to strike, the Minister responsible at that time said yes. Although not put down in words, this was his intent at that time. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that this was not the case, that the freedom of association clause did not mean the right to bargain collectively or the right to strike. The intent of the 11 First Ministers regarding women's equality rights risks sharing the same fate. They are too important to risk that fate. I contend, as have others, that this clause should have a reference to the Supreme Court.
There are pros and cons in respect of this issue. I have heard many constitutional lawyers say that the Meech Lake Accord does not overrule the Charter of Rights. Flowever, an equal number have said the reverse. Why not make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada so that a clarification can be made before this Accord is etched in stone?
I am sure all Members have received telexes from women's organizations across the country. I have received telexes from a number of women's groups, including the P.E.I. Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the P.E.I. caucus of the National Association of Women and the Law, the University of P.E.I. Women's Study Group and the P.E.I. Women's Education Bridge, as well as many others. All of them demand clear written recognition of women's equality rights in the Meech Lake Accord.
In short, these women are simply asking that they be put back to the point they reached in 1982. Those who strongly believe that this Accord does not overrule women's equality rights should not be afraid of making a reference to the Supreme Court in order to get a specific ruling before it is etched in stone. This Constitution is the very heart of our country.
According to the 1982 Constitution, the establishment of new provinces required the consent of seven out of ten provinces, comprising at least 50 per cent of the population. This made the goal of provincehood very difficult even in 1982. Now with this Accord, every province has a veto. I certainly feel badly for the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the people in our northern communities who might
Constitution Amendment, 1987
want to join our country as provinces. The veto will make it extremely difficult for this to ever happen.
I know that back in 1873, when my province became the seventh to join Confederation, had that provision been in the BN A Act of 1867 my constituents could very well be American today, and maybe the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and 1 would be representing them in Congress. I do not think Prince Edward Islanders would have wanted that.
I can even come closer in time by dealing with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1949, there was a tremendous amount of debate at that time among the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to whether they wanted to be part of the Canadian fabric, the Canadian Confederation. There was a very close vote on the matter. I wonder what would have happened then if the situation were what it is today. There were those who supported Newfoundland joining Canada. At that time Premier Smallwood supported the idea very viciously, very adamantly in the famous debates of Newfoundland. What would have happened if he knew at the end of the day that nine other provinces would have had to agree to such a proposal, and probably for some reason or by some quirk of fate, Newfoundland would not have been accepted? I think they, too, probably would have been part of another country.
Under section 2 of this Accord "appointments to the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted by the Government of the province to which vacancies relate". Under the British North America Act of 1867, our first made-in-Canada constitutional document, the Fathers of Confederation saw the Senate as a forum of regional representation at the federal level. It is important that vacancies should be filled as soon as possible. This new arrangement could become an imposing obstacle.
Let me explain by giving a current example. With the recent retirement of Senator Fred Rowe, Newfoundland now has a vacancy. However, according to the Premier of Newfoundland, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) refuses to return his telephone calls. So much for national reconciliation. Should this confrontation over the fisheries agreement with France continue for a lengthy period it is unlikely that both levels of Government could agree on a new appointee. Under this impasse Newfoundland could be without its proper representation in the Senate. I believe those who think that Senate reform is going to be easy from here on in, and those who advocate the Triple E Senate, are whistling in the dark. They are whistling Dixie to even think that Senate reform is now possible.
I do not believe any of the things that I have dicussed have anything directly to do with Quebec signing the Constitution. I cannot see them as being great problems for the Province of Quebec. We want Quebec in our Constitution. I think the amendments that the Liberal Party put forth in the House of

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Commons would accommodate that. It would be easy for the Prime Minister and the 10 Premiers to sit down and say, "This is not quite right, let us do it right now, because if not we are liable to be in a strait-jacket".
For the first time in the history of this country, it is written that there shall be at least one First Ministers' conference each year. No one worries too much about having these conferences. We have had them annually for the last number of years, and sometimes three and four times a year. What I do take exception to is the agenda of future conferences which will include Senate reform, fisheries and "such other matters as are agreed upon". I fear that under such an open-ended arrangement the Canadian Parliament will become more and more irrelevant. We know the attention and the high expectations that surrounds these conferences, those photo opportunities. They will be a regular feature, and practically any issue can be brought to the table. It is quite conceivable that the House of Commons will no longer be able to act on issues of national importance. In an era of consensual politics, these issues may be reserved for First Ministers' conferences.
I have already briefly dicussed the matter of Senate reform. It will be a number one topic on the agenda at every First Ministers' conference. But, as I already said, I expect that those discussions will be rather short.
I also wonder what happened to our aboriginal people when the First Ministers were drawing up their agenda. As I mentioned earlier, the first inhabitants of the land known as Canada again got the short end of the stick. They should have been at the head of the list. Our party has proposed an amendment. My colleague from Cochrane-Superior talked very passionately on that subject. He feels very strongly about that one issue, and I support him on it. It will put the interests of our aboriginal people where they belong on the list.
The second item on the constitutional agenda, includes roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries". This is one topic that I have special interest in since I am the fisheries critic of the Liberal Party. This has caused much anxiety in the Atlantic fishing industry. Several groups appeared before the joint committee to state their case.
According to the Seafood Producers' Association of Nova Scotia:
There is already more than enough uncertainty in the fishing industry without adding a major political element that would recur annually, as proposed in this Accord.
I agree with that.
The New Brunswick Fish Packers' Association put it this way:
The very threat posed by the requirement to debate fisheries jurisdiction each and every year would create further economic uncertainty for this resource-based industry which already must contend with the uncertainties of large fluctuations in fish stocks caused by biological and environmental factors.
What was the response of Senator Lowell Murray to these legitimate concerns when he appeared before the committee? He said and 1 quote:
First of all, fisheries jurisdiction is not on the agenda of the future constitutional rounds. I think it is important to note that 11 First Ministers deliberately did not put fisheries jurisdiction on the agenda. What they put on the agenda was the subject of fisheries roles and responsibilities which is a much, much larger and wider subject.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what an exercise in hair-splitting. We do not have to refer to Webster's dictionary to find that the words "jurisdictions" and "roles and responsibilities" are practically the same. Therefore, I was somewhat amused to read the final report of the joint committee, and 1 quote from a passage on fisheries. It states:
However, simply to place an issue on the agenda is not tantamount to having it actually discussed nor does it presuppose reaching any agreement. The agenda item is not "jurisdiction over fisheries" but rather "roles and responsibilities with regard to fisheries" which is a much larger and wider subject.
Senator Lowell Murray could not have said it any better. I could even accuse the committee of a little bit of plagiarism. Obviously the members of the committee should have travelled to Atlantic Canada before they made those statements. No doubt, of course, Premier Peckford naturally wanted shared jurisdiction. I suppose when we look at a province with high unemployment, we can see how it is very tempting to take over the jurisdiction or try to get the jurisdiction of fisheries, especially when we are fishing alongside the French, and in light of the way that this Government has been dealing with France's overfishing in 3PS and some of the foreign overfishing elsewhere.
We should look at fisheries a little more carefully. We all know that these fish do not fly provincial flags. We know that they swim from province to province. I am not as concerned right now with the present Premiers in place. But we have to look at a Constitution which is there probably for eternity, with very few changes that can be made, if any, under this new amending formula. But this is one issue that seven out of ten provinces can decide; whether jurisdiction would flow at some point in time to the provinces and whether it would remain in the hands of the federal Government. It is seven out of ten. Why not the unanimity clause there so that if any province is being hurt, is not satisfied and does not come to an agreement, it could back out and it could scuttle the agreement? It is ten out of ten to accept new provinces, but only seven out of ten when it comes to the basic resource we have in Atlantic Canada-the fishery, the lifeblood of our people.
One can develop all kinds of scenarios as to how an agreement could take place. I am a former provincial Minister. I know how bargaining takes place at First Ministers' conferences, how the trade-offs are made, and how one gains support from one province, by supporting one's cause in another. It is very, very important. I do not want to underestimate, and I hope that no one underestimates how dangerous that one clause is for the future to our fishery. As fisheries critic, I cannot support the Meech Lake Accord for that reason.
October 6, 1987

Former Prime Minister Trudeau repeatedly stated, "Fish swim and thus do not respect provincial boundaries". At that time, the federal Government kept its powers. 1 live in Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in Canada. To a large extent, we depend on our inshore fishery. We fish next to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Quebec. Who is going to be at the sluice when these fish come into Sydney Bight and say to a P.E.I. fish, "You swim that way, fishy", and say to the other little fishy, "You go to New Brunswick, you swim that way", and say to the still other little fishy, "You go to Nova Scotia", and then say to the other little fishy, "You go to Quebec"? That is how ludicrous this debate and the Meech Lake Accord are on this subject and on others.
We have made a number of recommendations and amendments. If these are supported by the House and accepted by the Government, I will support the Meech Lake Accord, and I will vote for those amendments. If those amendments are turned down, I cannot support the Meech Lake Accord.


Mrs. Finestone:: First, I wish to compliment my colleague on a very carefully thought-through analysis of an Accord that obviously has more than one structural problem. I noted the concern of my colleague with respect to the fishing industry. Does he agree that the premise that is presented in the House is that first Quebec signs on, because if that is not done then we are anti-Quebec, or that Quebec is signed on and only then we will worry about the other problems. Does my colleague have a comment in that regard?


George Roland Henderson: I wish to thank my colleague from Mount Royal for that question.
When we are discussing the Meech Lake Accord and whether or not things should have happened before Quebec signed on or after it signed on, I feel that they could have happened in harmony. The fishery was obviously put on the agenda to appease Premier Peckford because he had a long dispute with Ottawa regarding the Canada-France agreement. He wanted some way to get back in the good graces of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I cannot see that as having an effect in the Province of Quebec. I would think that the Province of Quebec would be equally interested in having the over-all jurisdiction of the fisheries left in the hands of the federal Government rather than attempt to compete with its counterparts in the Atlantic Provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Fish could be all caught up before they reach Quebec, if the jurisdiction were handed carte blanche-which I hope it would never be-to the provinces to divide up among themselves. In my opinion, they could never reach an agreement on how that division would take place. Even if an agreement were reached, it could be something like the agreement reached with the European Economic Community outside Canada's 200 mile zone. As was discussed two weeks ago in Banff, the EEC was having great problems in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
attempting to control some of its member nations with the quotas that were allocated under the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organization NAFO.
I cannot believe that the Province of Quebec, or any other province, has to have a veto over whether the Yukon and the Northwest Territories could become future provinces. I do not know about the Senate, perhaps that is a little tricky. I also do not know about the equality rights, and no one else knows. Half of the people on the one side will say yes, Meech Lake does not overrule the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982. Equally, I hear the same number saying the other thing.
I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is here. All I am saying is that the Prime Minister and the Premiers should have that matter referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and have that ruling landed down once and for all. I know that my colleague, the Hon.Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), wishes to ask a question, so I will sit down.


Mr. McMillan:: I have two questions. In the early part of this decade, when the Hon. Member was on the government side, the then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, proposed a variation of the Victoria formula for amending the Constitution whereby there would have been three classes of provinces. In the first class, Quebec and Ontario would have been given a veto; in the second class, each of the other provinces would have to combine with other provinces constituting some proportion of the total population to be part of any approval process; and in the third class was Prince Edward Island because only it could not join with any combination of provinces to have an implact for or against a proposed constitutional amendment.
I do not recall that the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) stood up and expressed himself as eloquently as he did today to take issue with the Government of the day, and to refuse to support something constitutional because it flew in the face of the interests of the people whom he was elected to represent. Why the double standard? That is my first question.
My second question is as follows. Am I to understand, and is the House to understand from the Hon. Member's comments today, that if the House does not acquiesce in the amendments that the Official Opposition is proposing to the Meech Lake Accord, he will not support the Meech Lake Accord and his Party on the floor of the House of Commons when that vote comes?


George Roland Henderson: That is exactly what I said. If these amendments that are put forward by my Party are not accepted, I will not support the Meech Lake Accord. I think too much of my fishermen, and I had hoped that the Hon. Member from Hillsborough would have stuck up a little bit for them too.
On the first question of the Hon. Member in regard to Prince Edward Island, to be honest, I did not agree with that. I have always agreed with the proposal for seven out of ten. When it comes to new territories becoming a province, or

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
getting provincial status, I had real reservations on the seven out of ten proposal in 1982 when I was on the special joint committee. If we are going to discuss new provincehood, for example, for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, my personal view is that it should be a bilateral agreement between the federal Government and the party that wants to become a new province. That is the only fair way, and that is the way in which most other provinces joined Confederation. I feel that should be carried over in the future.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I have great respect for the Hon. Member, his sincerity, and his point of view. I was interested in his response to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), because as the Hon. Member will know, his Leader has stated the position on behalf of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party of Canada.
In the sense of a constructive suggestion, I am going to attempt to make a proposition to the Hon. Member. It is one thing for the Hon. Member to castigate the government side with respect to the position it has taken. I do not agree with the Hon. Member. But I say, in the interests of his own Party unity, that what he is saying is that his own Leader does not understand the issues because, regardless of whether the amendments are not supported or are accepted by the House, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on behalf of the Party which the Hon. Member represents will support the Accord.
Is the Hon. Member stating that his Leader is mistaken and does not have an adequate appreciation of the fishermen whom the Hon. Member represents? Is the Hon. Member saying that the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect and mistaken on the position that he has taken?


George Roland Henderson: I have always called a spade a spade. What I am saying on the fishery and some of those issues is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is mistaken, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is mistaken, and the Leader of our Party is mistaken.
I can tell the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) that I do not agree with either of those Leaders on this one issue. That is not to say that I do not support my Leader in every other way possible. He is a good Leader, and he will be the next Prime Minister of Canada, and I hope to be there with him. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members of the House that I have a conscience. I do not believe that it is a good agreement. I am asking everybody in this House to take another look at it. Let us make it right and as perfect as we can so that Quebec can join and we will all be happy. We do not want to be selling our fish or bartering this and that. That is exactly what we will be doing in the future. We may not realize it today or in two years' time. I guarantee that time will tell. Years down the road we will be sorry for that one mistake.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner).


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride and no small emotion that I take part in this historic debate, pride as a Canadian, pride as a Quebecer and pride as an Anglophone within Quebec, and pride as a Member of the federal Government of Canada which has had the courage, the vision and the will to make this great act of national reconciliation possible. There can be no question that the Meech Lake Accord will take its place henceforth side by side with the most important documents in our laws and Constitution. But it is more than the negotiation of principles, more than a legal agreement between Governments. It is a matter, above all, of the heart and from the heart. Like a heart it beats with the essential truths of what this great country is, strong and undeniable, irresistible in what it says and what it promises. We are a nation. We are united. Canada is one.
In coming generations Canadians will look back and realize, as some unfortunately today do not, just what an active statesmanship the First Ministers have accomplished. In particular, they will see the singular efforts of our Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec. What they have contributed transcends mere responsibility. Theirs has been an active moral, social and political leadership of the highest order. One day Canadians will know it and recognize that this Accord could not have been reached with faint heart or equivocation. They will see that it took a complete conviction and a profound belief, belief in a shared future which is now possible; belief in a basic trust and goodwill between the peoples of this country with which the enmities and the bitterness of the past can once and for all be put behind us; belief in the decency and integrity of those who have led us to this new beginning. I share without reservations those beliefs, and as one Canadian I accept with confidence and with gratitude this precious gift.
I am a Canadian, and I am from Quebec. Yes, I am also a member of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. To some that might connote a difference, another point of view or experience from the majority. Perhaps. In mother language, obviously. But I am no less proud in my heritage of La Belle Province. I was born there. I was raised there. It is the home of my children. It is my home. I share in the understanding that Quebec is, indeed, a distinct society. We of the Englishspeaking minority are part of what gives it that distinction. But for our presence Quebec would not be distinct. It would be homogeneous and perhaps a separate entity.
In our long presence and relationship within Quebec we, the English-speaking minority, have contributed to the character of our French-speaking brothers and sisters as they have to ours. We are all Quebecers and we share in our distinction. So it is that I understand here in my heart the terrible emotions so
October 6, 1987

passionately expressed before the joint committee by Solange Chaput-Rolland when she spoke of her feelings in the aftermath of the 1980 referendum.
We voted for Canada. Canada through its central government totally absorbed in its will to patriate the British North America Act of 1867, cared very little about those who had openly stated their will to remain linked to this country. Promises and dreams were shattered.
As Madam Chaput-Rolland has said, it was a deeply troubled time for all Quebecers, a time of battle and of conflict. Afterwards when the battle had been won, when all that was asked was the warmth of reconciliation, the embrace and welcome of partnership, there was nothing; a void; irresolution; if not indifference. Quebec remained in a very real way outside and alone.

The Meech Lake Accord gives us to chance to change all that. It gives us a new start as a family and as a nation. A beginning, not an end. All of us in this House and Canadians across this country know that the Accord is not a perfect one. The provision in the Accord for an annual First Ministers meeting means that the Accord is a first step towards a United Canada.
The fact that the Accord has raised a certain amount of protest, the fact that Opposition Members do not support it and that some people are concerned about its implementation, all this does not mean that the Accord as such is bad, unfair and useless. It is quite normal to be wary when one walks where one has never walked before. The path may not be a familiar one but if we do not move ahead, we regress.

Fortunately we have a comprehensive and thorough navigational aid to help us. I refer, of course, to the report of the joint committee. This committee, under the co-chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) and the Hon. Senator Arthur Tremblay, has performed for the Parliament of Canada an invaluable service. The testimony they have amassed, drawn as it is from many of our country's wisest and most learned constitutional experts, jurists and senior statesmen, points broadly and, in my opinion, conclusively that most of the fears expressed about Meech Lake are either unfounded or unjustified.
I wish to address myself to some of those issues, in particular, to those concerns expressed by the English-speaking minority of Quebec, to which, I have said I myself belong. I know that this community does have considerable anxiety over the implications of Meech Lake. I know also that in some instances those concerns have been quite expertly-and wholly irresponsibly-fanned to the extent that they have become embers, if not flames, of alarm. The fact that those political opportunists who seek benefit by playing upon such fear will ultimately fail is of little comfort. In the short term their damage is done. Or it would be done, were the Englishspeaking community of Quebec less aware than it actually is of what really is at stake here. But it is aware and it will not be
Constitution Amendment, 1987
sold a false bill of goods. The community knows exactly what rides on this agreement. The community knows that this may very well be our only and last chance to effect national reconciliation. And, as Quebecers and Canadians, they are not going to throw that chance away. The precise text of the Accord states:
The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
Three paragraphs later the text continues:
Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or Governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language.
As the joint committee has pointed out, the language and educational rights of English-speaking Quebecers are already entrenched in clear and explicit terms both in the 1867 Constitution Act and in the Charter of Rights. The courts of Canada have ruled extensively on this issue, and a majority of constitutional experts agree that there is nothing in the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society which will in any way diminish or dilute the constitutional guarantees already in place. In fact, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations says quite the contrary. He said:
It would be difficult to see how this declaration, this interpretive clause, does anything but enhance-the status of those minorities.
The English-speaking minority of Quebec numbers over 800,000 people, or 20 per cent of Quebec's total. As others have pointed out, it has a population larger than that of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, or Saskatchewan.
It is inconceivable that the minority rights of these Quebecers who have contributed so greatly to their province and their country would ever be jeopardized by this or any other constitutional agreement. The very fact, through Meech Lake, that Quebec has at last found its rightful place in Confederation means that there is no reason, no desire, or no logic for the majority even to try to erode those rights. However, if they did, if tomorrow morning against all odds those rights were ever placed in doubt, and if the indignation of English-speaking Canada did not overflow, if the courts did not at once strike down the motion, if every institution and constitutional safeguard either stood by idly or broke down, I know that one individual would not. The Prime Minister, our Prime Minister, would not. He will defend with every ounce of his being the rights of English-speaking Quebecers, just as he did the rights of the minority in Manitoba or just as he will the rights of the minority anywhere in the country, and so will the Government. However, there is no need for that ever to happen.
The Government of Quebec will not discriminate or act prejudicially toward its English-speaking minority, not now,

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
not when, after these last seven years of roller-coaster passions and emotions, she has so happily and joyously re-entered the family of Canada.
There comes a time in the life of all countries, and for Canada that time is now, when we must stop everything else and accept simply but profoundly to trust one another. That is the maturity of nationhood and the measure of citizenship. We cannot speak of Canada as a country in which to be proud unless we can also speak of it as a country of fundamental fairness, respect, and justice, and we cannot have those without trust.
Quebec has shown trust toward Canada. Quebec has accepted the basic decency and the sense of egality of the Canadian majority. The minority within Quebec can and must do no less.
What 1 have tried to say to and on behalf of my brothers and sisters of both the minority and the majority in Quebec, 1 also say to those who have somehow sensed a diminution through Meech Lake of Canada's commitment to being a multicultural nation. This is not so. As a member of a community which has for generations kept its faith and traditions alive in places where there were no rights, when the exact opposite occurred, systematic suppression, 1 know that no law or mere interpretation of law can ever destroy or diminish that culture. The experience of the Jewish people is not unique. If not outright prejudice and oppression, most minority ethnic cultures have at one time or another felt the persuasive force of the majority to conform to that majority. Yes, at times in our history that has happened in Canada as well. We have only to look around us to see the hopeless failures of such pressure.

And today, all of usv whatever our ethnic group, our religion, our colour, whether we are part of the minority or the majority, realize the unique vigor which multiculturalism imparts to Canada. We can feel it. We neither hide nor deny our differences, we celebrate them. We rejoyce in them. Our understanding and compassion are improved because of them.
The true guarantee of multiculturalism is the importance we give it. Since it is so important, the Premiers accepted to include multiculturalism in Section 16 of the Accord. While the Premiers could now go even further, there is no doubt as to the intent of this provision.
Linguistic duality and recognition of the distinct character of Quebec will not compromise our multicultural heritage. No other right or privilege of Canadians will be compromised.
Mr. Speaker, the adversaries of the Accord, and these include a few famous Canadians, have tried to oppose adoption of this Accord for various reasons. They have tried to find in its contents implicit threats against our institutions and ideals, even though these will become stronger rather than weaker thanks to a united Canada.

Is it weakening Canada to give the provinces an interim role in the appointment of the Upper Chamber of this Parliament? I could only think that it will improve the calibre of that august membership. Is it a threat to national authority to confirm the principle of opting out? That principle has been present, if largely unused, in federal-provincial relations since 1965. Is it a surrender on the part of the federal Government to confirm in the Constitution the right of provinces to participate in the formation of immigration policy? In essence, this does no more than confirm the relationship which has existed for most of the past decade under the Cullen-Couture agreement.
There is no loss. There is no surrender. Perhaps there is some measure of devolution of central power. Is this inherently bad? We know only too well the obsession of the previous Government and its leaders with their authority and what it did to our country both economically and socially. As one witness characterized such centralization, "anemia in the extremities and apoplexy at the centre".
Some three years after the election of this Government, Canada is once again a thriving and optimistic nation. Now Meech Lake has brought about an act of reconciliation many of us had begun to doubt would ever be possible. We are restored. We are rejuvenated. We are complete. That is why the Accord is so incredibly important and why we must willingly embrace it. We may never have another chance.
Professor John Whyte, before the joint committee, put it precisely when he said:
Those who continue to oppose the 1987 Accord after it has been accepted and approved by Quebec, must realize that they argue not simply against the adoption of certain terms for reconciliation, they argue to undo the historical act of reconciliation.
Madame Chaput-Rolland, speaking as always from the heart, left no doubt in any who heard her when she said:
Surely you know that if Meech Lake is to fail for whatever reason, there can be no more negotiations, no more justifications. If Quebec is once again to realize that it is more difficult to opt in Canada than to stay out of Canada, then surely, you know that the roads of tomorrow can only lead to another form of independence, but this time not chosen by any political Party in Quebec, maybe chosen and imposed on Quebec outside Quebec.
For once I take no satisfaction from the discord within the Official Opposition. It serves none of us. It benefits none of us.
As Members of the House at this extraordinary time, our task is not to dwell upon what has not been accomplished but to accept all that has, against such odds, been quite remarkably achieved, and to go on from this moment, for it is not an end to the journey; it is our point of departure. It is why we in this Chamber, irrespective of Party or ideology and notwithstanding our differences in other matters, should seek in this regard to stand together united and to seize the opportunity to build upon the Accord a stronger Canada, a better Canada. Thanks to Meech Lake, the people of Canada-British Columbians, Albertans, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians, and Quebecers, whatever language they speak-will once more
October 6, 1987

stand united together. Thanks to the Accord, they and their children can look in expectation and hope toward a new and more promising future for themselves and for their country, secure in the knowledge that Canada will not only survive but will flourish. We, their deputies, should do no less.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate. Shortly after I was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1962, we had a tremendous extension of the rights of French-speaking people in Quebec to-the use of their language and to the protection of their culture through a whole series of studies, a number of important pieces of legislation being enacted, and the bringing back of the Constitution. This helped make clear the role of the Province of Quebec. In all those debates and discussions, members of the New Democratic Party supported the expansion and the extension of the rights of the people of Quebec because we recognized, beginning at our founding convention in 1961, that the accommodation of Quebec in a federal Canadian state was a necessity if Canada was to continue to grow and to develop.
At our founding convention in 1961, we recognized the linguistic duality of Canada. Indeed, our resolution passed in 1961 foreshadowed the Official Languages Act which was finally passed in 1969.
I would like Hon. Members to remember that in those years when we gave this support to the Province of Quebec and particularly to the French-speaking people of Quebec, we did it because we knew that it was necessary. We did it because we knew that it was right. There were no political gains for us in taking that position. In those days, and indeed until very recently, we had very little support in the Province of Quebec or in Francophone communities outside Quebec.
While we were taking that position, we were subjected to a great deal of criticism and opposition from English-speaking Canada and indeed from many people who supported us for our views on social and economic matters. What we did was not done for political gain then, and what we are doing now, I submit, is not being done for political gain now.
I remember in the debates during the 1960s the attacks and criticisms which our Party faced from all across the country and to which I had to respond. I represent one of the most ethnic constituencies in Canada. In my constituency, there are people from every ethnic group residing in Canada, although there are very few Francophones. They were worried, and some are still worried, about what we have done in our desire to accommodate and make more comfortable and supportive of Canada the people of Quebec.
When the Liberal Government under Mr. Pearson established the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission, we supported it. When that commission brought down its report
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and made recommendations, we supported those recommendations. Indeed, the minority report submitted by Dr. Rudnyckyj, a Ukrainian member of the commission, urged support for the language and culture of the one third of the Canadian people who are neither Anglophones nor Francophones. The first Member of Parliament to support the suggestions made by Dr. Rudnyckyj was my friend, a former colleague in the House, Mr. Edward Schreyer. That is our record.
In 1981, when the then Prime Minister proposed that we bring the Constitution back to Canada, we supported him. We did more than support him, we joined with all the groups, the native groups, the women's groups, the ethnic groups, the handicapped groups, and forced the then Government to make major improvements in thg Charter of Rights which we now have.
I look on our support for Meech Lake, though I have some reservations about it with which I will try to deal, as a natural outgrowth of everything we have done up until now. I resent- and I will put on the record why-the charge that somehow, by supporting Meech Lake, we are supporting a diminution in the ability of the federal Government to bring forward necessary social and economic programs.
There is no Member of Parliament who would be more opposed to any suggestion that we do anything to diminish the power of the federal Government than I. After all, we have a proud history in Winnipeg. It was the then Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Woodsworth, supported by the then Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, the constituency I now represent, Mr. Heaps, who forced in 1926 the then Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Mackenzie King, into bringing in the first old age security pension legislation. Mr. King had promised it for years but did nothing about it until he needed the support of the Members from Winnipeg to become Prime Minister.
It was New Democratic Members of Parliament, I among them, who, in the minority Parliament of 1972-73, forced the then Liberal Government to bring in legislation which provided for regular adjustments upward to the Old Age Pension and the Canada Pension Plans so that benefits would rise every three months as the cost of living rises. No longer are these improvements to the programs which are so important to millions of Canadians brought in only at the whim of some Government when it thinks it will get some political credit for it. I could not support any proposal which would reduce the ability of the federal Government to deal with social and economic needs.
It has been charged that the Meech Lake agreement as it is now will hinder the federal Government, restrict its power to spend and lead to the end of national cost-shared programs. We do not believe that and many of the witnesses, including many of the constitutional lawyers who appeared before the committee which held hearings on the Meech Lake Accord, did not agree with that. They said in fact that the spending power of the federal Government is now stronger than ever.

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Their views were also, incidentally and significantly, the views of the members of the Parti Quebecois in the National Assembly of Quebec when that Assembly debated this question.
The federal spending power means that Ottawa has the ability to set up programs in areas that the Constitution says are the exclusive field of provincial Governments. We believe it is a very powerful extension of the federal Government's power. The Accord, we believe, gives this power explicit constitutional status for the first time. It would allow Parliament to create a new child care program, for example, and set out specific national objectives for that program. The provinces would have to take part in and share the costs of such a program or set up their own such program. However, they would only receive federal funds if the provincial program was "compatible with the national objectives set by Parliament."
That view has been attacked by many people. One of the most vociferous opponents of the Meech Lake Accord, using the argument that the federal Government's power will be greatly diminished, is former Prime Minister Trudeau. He asked whether Canada would have the capacity in its national Government to mount new national programs. We say: Just a minute, who is this expert to ask that question? After all, before Mr. Trudeau became Prime Minister Canada had established joint programs which gave universal coverage for hospital care to all Canadians, medical care, and provided a greatly expanded post-secondary education program in our universities, community colleges and technical schools. These came about because federal Governments, Liberal and Conservative, said to the provinces, "If you will join with us in establishing and maintaining these programs, we are prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost as a minimum. For those have-not provinces like the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we will pay even more." Some of the provinces came in to these programs kicking and screaming. I remember how the then Premier of Ontario, Mr. Robarts, fought hard not to join the medical insurance plan. However, the provinces came in and the programs were a great success. All Canadians are proud of them.
What happened when this supposed great defender of federal powers, Mr. Trudeau, was the Prime Minister? There came a time when the federal Government was facing deficits and they were growing. The cost of the shared-cost programs I have mentioned were increasing rapidly. Mr. Trudeau's Government then brought forward legislation which changed the way in which these programs were funded. It said to the provinces, "We are going to put a cap on the money we will pay for these programs. We will not increase our contribution each year by an amount more than the increase in the cost of living. It does not matter that the cost of these programs is rising much faster than that, we are going to limit the amount we pay".
His Government also said to the provinces that they no longer had to match federal funds for these programs. "We are going to give you this money for health care, hospital insurance and post-secondary education in a lump sum and you can do with it what you want".
What happened when that proposal was debated in the House? Of course, every Liberal voted for it. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, every Conservative voted for it. The only Members who spoke against it, the only Members who voted against it, the only Members who warned the Government that the provinces might very well decide there was more political mileage in building roads than in funding hospitals, were members of our Party, the New Democrats. Yet our advice was ignored, we were voted down, and what we predicted happened.
We do not need advice from a Prime Minister responsible for the biggest diminution of federal government power in the 25 years I have been here, and perhaps in the last 100 years. What his Government did at that time you cannot blame on Meech Lake. The blame lies squarely, as I have indicated, at the door of the then Liberal Government and the support it got from the then Conservative Opposition.
Yet this same former Prime Minister who is now so concerned about the diminution of federal power and jurisdiction, before he came to Ottawa as a Member of Parliament, before he became the Prime Minister, in his role as a constitutional lawyer, was very clear about what he thought about the division of powersbetween our Governments. He put it very clearly in his book entitled Federalism and French Canadians. That book was a collection of essays by Mr. Trudeau and he writes there approvingly that education is a provincial responsibility only and draws the following conclusion:
Consequently, if there is federal legislation to grant taxation money for provincial purposes, this legislation is illegal for the excellent reason that the federal government cannot by law have money in its coffers which it then claims should be used for provincial purposes.
So much for Mr. Trudeau's supposedly principled opposition to this Accord and the opposition expressed by a number of Liberal Members in this debate.
As a New Democrat I believe that Meech Lake continues the process of accommodating Quebec in a dynamic Canada. This agreement will bring Quebec to sign the new Constitution, and that is for me a very powerful argument in its favour.
We do not give unanimous approval to this agreement. We believe that it has a number of omissions and a number of faults. We certainly believe it was a major error to require the agreement of all 10 provinces and the federal Government in order for either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories to become a province at some time in the future. We believe the rights of the aboriginal people should be spelled out much more clearly than they are, including the right to a form of self-government. We believe the equality rights for women should be much more specifically spelled out.
October 6, 1987

We have concerns, yet these concerns about our ethnic communities, and others can be addressed in the future when discussions will take place between the federal Government, the provinces and many of the groups who believe their rights have not been dealt with in the Meech Lake Accord. Elowever, despite those omissions, despite these feelings, we believe on the whole that the Meech Lake Agreement follows logically on the process which began in the early 1960s, and we intend to support it.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). He has served a long term in the House of Commons and recalls personally some of the historical things that have happened here.
I was somewhat concerned when he was referring to Prime Ministers. I lost track from time to time of which Prime Minister he was referring to. Some of the comments he made were not very complimentary, but I do not think those were meant for the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Member did not say how he feels about the consultation process with the provinces with regard to the appointment of Senators and Supreme Court judges. Does he believe that this is a downgrading or weakening of the central Government? Does he not think that the provinces should have the right to recommend people who should be appointed to the Senate or as Supreme Court judges?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have been puzzled about the criticisms made of the idea contained in the Meech Lake Accord that the provinces should have some say on the appointment of Senators and Supreme Court judges. I make it very clear that I am not a lawyer, but I understand that until now the appointment of Senators and Supreme Court judges has been the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister in office when vacancies arise. To be very candid, I have often wondered why certain appointments were made.
Let us assume that a vacancy will come open in the Province of Manitoba in the next month or so. The Government of the Province of Manitoba would submit two, three, or four names to fill that vacancy. I presume that if the federal Government were not willing to appoint any of those on the list, it would tell the province that and ask for other suggestions. First, 1 do not think that the power of the federal Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is diminished. Second, 1 think consultation is a good idea.
1 take the same view with regard to the Supreme Court. One need only look at the U.S. Supreme Court to see how opposed judges can be on many issues. I am not at all convinced that all the common sense and brains reside in whoever is Prime Minister or Minister of Justice.
I foresee real benefits resulting from the provinces making suggestions. I can think of a recent appointment to a court in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Manitoba which I am sure would not have been made had the Government of Manitoba had any say in the matter.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)- Indian Affairs-Consultants' report on management of Manitoba region-Department's service to Indian people; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Royal Canadian Mountain Police-Political responsibility Minister's position-Responsibility for actions of RCMP; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Young Offenders Act-Minimum age provision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act. 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.
[Stage Direction]
October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada: and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1 )(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens 95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (l) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to
October 6, 1987
[Stage Direction]
participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148.	A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
XIII-References
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(/') notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j) an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (I) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its
powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the
Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act. 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.9585), Mr. Broadbent (p.9586), Mr. Caccia (p.9644), and Mr. Allmand (p.9644).
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the Constitution ranks for me as the most important issue with which I have had to grapple in my first three years as the Member of Parliament for York West. I say that because this resolution will drastically reshape the way in which our country will be governed and severely impact upon our major federal institutions. Moreover, the Accord serves to define who we are as Canadians. This debates is indeed about our nationhood and about what constitutes a federation. This debate, in the end, is about Canada, its people, and our collective future.
Constitutional reform is no easy feat. Our history is dotted with efforts to change our Constitution, some of those efforts successful, others less successful. However, all were difficult and all were emotionally charged. Yet, the measure of any constitutional reform is not merely in its introduction but in the success and favour it enjoys among the population at large, in the affirmation that it embodies the spirit and aspirations of its citizens.
Toward this end, I am troubled by Meech Lake. After considerable examination and discussion I believe that Meech Lake does not enjoy the support and confidence of the wide spectrum of Canadians, nor does it inspire an enthusiastic and patriotic approval for the vision that it articulates. It is my belief that Meech Lake places Canada in more precarious waters.
While I am troubled with several substantial elements contained in Meech Lake, I am also uncomfortable with and

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
ashamed of the process, which gave birth to this document. I would like to address my opening comments first to the process and follow that with commentary on the substantive elements of the Accord.
The absence of any true public input in the development of this resolution is a national tragedy. The package was not only assembled and hastily ratified in secret by the First Ministers, it was accomplished by marathon talks which continued into the early hours of the morning-two characteristics which are certainly not conducive to drafting the most essential piece of legislation governing Canada which is expected to meet the aspirations of all Canadians and the tests of time and circumstance.
To further aggravate the situation, the public hearings before the joint parliamentary committee were held during the summer months, the worst possible time of the year for any Government to encourage the participation, involvement and attention of Canadians. In addition, before the first witness had a chance to appear before the committee, government spokespersons made it painfully clear that the government-dominated committee would not be in any mood to accept any changes or consider any amendments. For once, unfortunately, the Government kept its word.
We saw the spectacle of individual Canadians and an impressive spectrum of organizations representing various constituencies travelling to the nation's capital to provide Members of Parliament and Senators with very moving and passionate presentations of their vision of Canada and of their dreams. All of these efforts counted for absolutely nothing.
Canadians did not have a meaningful opportunity to share their dreams and their wishes for their country. This is a staggering and remarkable shortcoming because this stage in our constitutional evolution as a nation excluded the very people whom our Constitution is to serve and protect. There was no partnership. There was no give and take. The process was secret and dictatorial. It was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition from start to finish.
This approach, unfortunately, also gripped the elected Chamber. It was regrettable that many Members of Parliament of all stripes responded to those seeking changes and improvements by alleging that they were anti-Quebec or by promoting the concept that the inclusion of a new clause or the amendment of a current clause would scuttle the entire deal. The language and strategy used assumed that if the Accord could not convince Members on its own merit there was a need to intimidate individuals into accepting the Accord's version of Canada. This tack was not only unfortunate and misleading, it also depicted an air of desperation and insecurity as well as an attitude which was prepared to tolerate glaring and recognizable shortcomings in the Accord.
I am fully committed to having Quebec's signature on our Constitution. I appreciate the desires of Quebecers to enjoy the
pride that comes with that signature. I understand the emotion of wanting to be an integral part of the constitutional family. Yet am I and others to be faulted for having passionate feelings about Canada? Am I to be faulted for having concerns about the type of country we are to become? Am I to be faulted for wanting our Parliament to respond to the voices of concern or the wants of Canadians to improve and build upon our strengths and foundation? Am I to be faulted for feeling that a constitutional package which is insecure and weak in the face of criticism and which would unravel because of some amendments should not be allowed to proceed until it is properly fortified?
We are talking about the Constitution of Canada. In my opinion, we, as a proud and dynamic nation, should not be content with a mediocre Constitution, one that is left unprotected from the attacks of unfulfilled expectations on the part of Canadians.
While I recognize that perfection is clearly for another world, we should fully utilize the unique window in time that this moment offers us toward ensuring that we follow our best instincts, that we seek to protect the rights of all citizens, and that we make all Canadians constitutionally relevant.
The time to bridge the gaps of our society through our constitutional framework is now. Let us not in a cowardly way dispose of difficult decisions involving, for instance, our multicultural character, our aboriginal character, the rights facing women or the rights facing Francophones outside the Province of Quebec, to future constitutional talks. If we detect wrongs today, it is equally unjust for us to say as a Parliament that we will right those wrongs tomorrow, particularly if one considers the proposed unanimity provisions in the current Accord. That is why I fully support and endorse the eleven Liberal amendments that were proposed at the committee stage and during this debate by my Leader and my colleagues. Without these modifications the Meech Lake Accord will be a weak and insecure document. Without these modifications I cannot and will not vote for the present Meech Lake Accord.
I must say also that in face of perhaps irresponsible allegations that may come my way in terms of being branded anti-Quebec, or those who will interpret my vote as a nonconfidence vote against my Leader, of which both are clearly untrue, this position is neither enjoyable nor easy.
I remain fully convinced, however, that these amendments are worth fighting for right to the very end. I believe Canada and, in fact, Quebec would be the better for it and these amendments would clearly articulate on behalf of what I believe to be a majority of Canadians a vision for a strong and united Canada, cemented by a central Government that would not be compromised or paralyzed in acting for or defending the national interest.
With regard to the specific elements of the Accord, while 1 endorse and view my Party's 11 amendments as essential, I am particularly disturbed by two overriding flaws. One could be categorized as the human element of the Accord. It is the
October 6, 1987

exclusion of our multicultural and aboriginal realities and heritages. Second are the elements of our nationhood as a consequence of implementing a concept of a distinct society for Quebec and a more aggressive decentralization of federal powers.
In relation to the human element, I believe the Accord fails to adopt and promote a full definition of the term "Canadian". Quite frankly, not all the people of this country have been dealt the same constitutional card, nor have they been equally credited with being a dignified and contributing part of this country.
The opening clause of this Accord only recognizes the French-English linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of the country. This is absolutely true but it is also very much incomplete.
I fully recognize the historical facet of our two founding peoples and how this country came to be. I value my country's history and respect those sacrifices and the courage which made it possible for me to live in such a privileged society. Yet the definition advocated by Meech Lake is not only outdated, it is primarily satisfied with only depicting our people's past and our country's history.
In my opinion, the Constitution must also address the present and future realities of our people and our country, without denying anyone their proper place. It must express the complete fabric of Canadian society and, toward this end, the Accord fails fundamentally and adequately to recognize those Canadians whose origins are neither English nor French.
At the very outset of the resolution it fails to acknowledge our multicultural and aboriginal heritages. I am indeed puzzled at the reason for which the aspirations and pride of close to one-third of our Canadian population were ignored and so clearly undervalued. I cannot understand the Government's stubborn refusal to accept an amendment put forward by our Party which would permit the opening clause to define accurately the term "Canadian", for it is only by recognizing the four cornerstones of our country's living heritage-the French, the English, the multicultural and the aboriginal facts-that we will capture the complete and rich essence that gives life to the term "Canadianism". Falling short of that definition is paramount to denying the reality which is Canada.
If the Government does not want to express that definition, then what is it to say to those Canadians whose origins are neither English nor French, and who feel the isolation of being left out? I am one of those Canadians, and I do not feel, according to Section 1, that I am as constitutionally relevant as my French Canadian or English Canadian colleagues in this House of Commons, for instance. I do not accept that while they can be recognized in Section 1 I must accept to be in Section 16 at the very end of the Accord, and that I must be thankful and patient because before the Langevin round of discussions the reference to multiculturalism was totally absent from the first Meech Lake draft.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
In defence, the Government has responded that multicultural and aboriginal rights are adequately protected by Section 16 and that their specific place in the resolution is not significant. However, would the Government accept a reversal in the order of Section 1 and Section 16? If the order is in fact insignificant, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agree to open the Meech Lake Accord with the contents of Section 16 and place at the very end of the Accord the reality of our linguistic duality? I do not believe so, nor should he, because a separate reference to our multicultural and aboriginal heritage apart from that of the English-French duality categorizes and fuels the sentiments of second class citizenship in many quarters of this country.
When many Canadians look at this Accord and see that they are not provided with a dignified place to stand, how can we as legislators be pleased with such a fundamental flaw regarding the people of this country?
If we were to take the steps to rectify this shortcoming, what is the price we would have to pay? Would it cause the collapse of the Accord? Would Premiers who actively promote and defend multiculturalism within their own provinces object to such an amendment? Would Premier Bourassa walk away when the dilemma facing ethnocultural Canadians is perhaps the greatest in his province, where much of the debate concerning culture and linguistic identify is primarily focused between the Anglophone and Francophone communities, leaving those who are members of neither community in total confusion?
No, I am not prepared to rationalize the opening clause of the Accord as an accurate definition of Canadians. No Canadian citizen should be treated as a tenant in his or her own country. We are all owners of this land. We all love Canada and are prepared to defend it. Therefore, let our Constitution reciprocate to its people by profoundly and fiercely confirming our bilingual and multicultural characteristics in the opening section of the Accord.
In regard to the second aspect, the element of nationhood, I remain uncomfortable with legislating the concept of a distinct society for the Province of Quebec within the Canadian federation. That Quebec and its people are of different and distinct character, there can be no doubt. That Quebec has a unique culture which is and should be a matter of great affection, I do not question. That they cherish and wish to promote that uniqueness, I do not wish to deny anyone. But to realize all these things, by stipulating through the basic fundamental Constitution of the country that the province constitutes a distinct society, I believe is wrong and dangerous for Canada.
For me, it sets up two kinds of Canada. If Quebec is a distinct society, what does that make the rest of Canada? It is wrong because it places in question the priority of the term "Canadian" versus the term "Quebecer" for citizens living in

October 6, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the Province of Quebec. It is wrong for it legislates that distinctiveness at the expense of the other nine provinces and the two territories whose people also may feel, perhaps for different but nonetheless for legitimate reasons, that unique historical forces have led to a different brand of Canadianism in that part of our country.
I am troubled by the resulting transfer of that legal and symbolic power, and because the energies and actions spent in achieving that newly acquired status will be drained from the whole, from our country, from Canada. This transaction could perhaps show a credit for Quebec's political bank account, but it would leave a very large and looming debit in Canada's bank account which would only weaken and diminish the national fabric.
I also fear the consequences facing future generations of new Canadians who will be coming to this country for they will possibly be introduced to a greater provincial patriotism, stronger than that for the nation. In the proposed immigration sections the federal Government will withdraw from its reception and integration services for immigrants and pass this responsibility on to the provinces. Thus the Accord rather than integrating our immigrants as new Canadians will, first and foremost, create new Ontarians and new Albertans and would undermine the full value of citizenship which formulates emotional ties to the nation and the newcomer, and kindles a patriotic love of Canada and of country.
In terms of nationhood, I also question the spending power provisions that would permit provinces to withdraw with compensation from national shared-cost programs. Under such a constitutional scheme, would we have enjoyed a national unemployment insurance program, or a national medicare plan? Will we as a country be able to consider implementing and launching a national day care program or a national guaranteed annual income under these current provisions?
I believe that if we have to err, if we have to side with either a strong national Government or greater independence for provinces on the major programs and services that we as Canadians deem essential and very much part of our social and economic contract with our country, then the option clearly should be in favour of the former. If we want economic, social, educational, and health-related programs to work equally for all Canadians; if we demand that a federal Government meet the domestic and international developments that come our way; if we are to address the homeless, the food banks, the ill and the challengess facing our youth and our older members of society, then we cannot afford provisions in a Constitution that compromise the ability of a national Government to create national-based programs which are rooted in quality and equality regardless of where those Canadians live.
In conclusion, whether one considers the great nationbuilding moments of our history, whether those moments were the patriation of our Constitution, the establishment of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the creation of our own flag and our own anthem, those moments were made possible
by men and women who not only exhibited a great breath of vision but also demonstrated the political courage to follow, and while accepting changes and genuinely involving Canadians in their dreams and their aspirations, pursued that vision to its successful ends.
Would there have been these great moments if our political forefathers, in the face of difficult decisions, had accepted a mediocre version of their vision by passing on the more difficult and unresolved challenges to future elected representatives and future Parliaments? It is obvious that if that were the prevailing attitude of the time, then these great moments would have been lost to the entire country. Therefore, let us not, as the thirty-third Parliament, lose this moment to put in place a Constitution which truly speaks to the best instincts and expectations of our people.
Also, as our sovereignty as a nation is under attack by such external forces as free trade with all its implications, let us not at the very same time threaten from within the sovereignty entrusted in a strong, national Government that is capable of rising above parochial, regional and provincial demands to speak up on behalf of all regions of the country and of all Canadians. While we should not and cannot allow Ronald Reagan to speak for Canada on the international stage, it is equally true that we should not and cannot allow ten, seven or six Premiers to set the national agenda for Canada. It makes one wonder who was speaking for Canada at the Meech Lake table. What powers did all the people gain through an enhanced federal Government acting on their behalf?
Finally, if Quebec is the principal concern, as is legitimate, how are we really encouraging Quebec to be a signatory to our Canadian Constitution? It seems to me, when I analyse a distinct society from the national perspective, that it forces the withdrawal of Francophones deeper into Quebec, the Anglophones into the depths of the nine other provinces, and leaves those who are neither Anglophone nor Francophone still striving to find their place. The result not only cheapens a true and full definition of bilingualism and a real involvement by Quebecers in the national life of Canada, but it also encourages and inspires the growth of a rival and competing nationalism.
I cannot therefore place my vote of confidence in Meech Lake. My vote in opposition is a vote in favour of a Constitution which would have our nation's unwavering support and confidence and a vote in favour of a citizenry that is all equal, living in a country that is united, strong, able and capable to withstand any forces tthat may want to undermine it.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has listed several reasons for his unwillingness to support the Meech Lake Accord. I wonder if he would indicate to the House what is his principal objection.
October 6, 1987


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Minister was in the Chamber for my entire speech, but I mentioned three essential elements that I am troubled with and, in fact, with which my own constituents are troubled. I do not think the process that gave birth to the Meech Lake Accord included a partnership and a spirit of trying to work with the dreams and aspirations of all Canadians in a genuine way. I then proceeded to suggest that two overriding concerns troubled me. They are, first, the question of leaving out in the very first section the human elements that define what it means to be a Canadian. If we are to have an opening clause which sets the groundwork for defining what is Canada and what are Canadians, in terms of fundamental characteristics, then I believe as a Canadian, and not necessarily as a Member of Parliament, that there are four cornerstones that give life to the meaning of the word "Canadian". Those cornerstones are defined by four facts: the English, the French, the multicultural, and the aboriginal. For me to suggest that the opening section should define the fundamental characteristics of Canada as a linguistic duality, which is true and undeniable, is inaccurate and incomplete.
I urged the Government in Question Period and in debate, and 1 do so now, to move the extra mile and include those other two cornerstones in order that we may have a proper, full, and vibrant definition of what it means to be Canadian. In that manner, we will not allow a Canadian who is perhaps of Greek origin, or an individual from the aboriginal communities, to pass on to future generations the perception within himself that somehow he is on the outside, that there is a separate category or distinction between citizens in Canada. That is my first objection, the question of the human flaw in defining the word "Canadian".
Second-and the Minister was in the House for the latter part of my speech-I am most uncomfortable and have trouble with legislating the question of a distinct society. I do not deny the uniqueness of the linguistic, cultural, historical, and sociological perspective that Quebecers bring to Canada, that Albertans bring to Canada, and that other Canadians from other regions of the country bring to Canada. But to legislate in our Constitution a distinct society leads me to worry about what the rest of the country is in relation to that distinctiveness. I believe that that distinctiveness is arrived at to the detriment of other provinces. I believe that we would be able to achieve what Quebecers long for in terms of being a whole and an integral part of our Constitution without submitting to the distinct society section. The strain on the entire Canadian federation is too great to withstand.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have a brief question which will allow a brief answer.
Does the Hon. Member believe that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada?
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Sergio Marchi: No, I do not believe that it constitutes a distinct society.
I stated very clearly that it has a distinct character and identity, as do Albertans when one crosses the Rockies, or as do Maritimers when one visits them in their communities. In our country there have been forces which have led to different brands of Canadianism. I accept that, and I am prepared to promote that. As a Member of Parliament I am not prepared to suggest that Canadians in the Province in Quebec should be legislated as a distinct society when no other Canadians will be able to or would wish to have a distinct society for themselves within this country. The bigger question then becomes, if you favour a distinct society for Quebec, what does that make the rest of Canada? Therefore, are we not talking about two Canadas, two communities that gave rise to the community of communities which was rejected by most Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Not by most.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I listened to the speech of the Hon. Member very carefully. He began his remarks by saying that the Meech Lake debate in the House is the most important one in which he has been engaged in the three years since he has been a Member of Parliament. The Hon. Member went on to say that the subject matter defines fundamentally one's perspective of the country as a whole.
In light of the fact that he is at odds with his Leader and his Party on the subject, is that not more than just a difference of opinion on one issue, but rather a fundamental rupture between himself, his Leader, and his Party?


John Kenneth Gormley: A huge rupture.


Sergio Marchi: When I stated that this debate is the most fundamental one that I have faced, I meant it. I do not think we have ever had before us an issue, a piece of legislation, or a resolution that served to define who we are as a people, and what we are as a nation. There have been suggestions by a certain number of individuals that stated that if one cannot accept voting in favour of an unamended Meech Lake Accord, perhaps one would be able to abstain or not be present in the House during the vote. I am not prepared to do that. I would rather respect an individual who, despite my beliefs, votes in favour of the current Meech Lake Accord for his or her principles, rather than an individual who, as a federal politician addressing the Constitution of his or her country, walks away from that debate.
The manner in which I look at and approach this debate is not whether I am in concert with my Leader or with my Party, because ultimately the only difference that separates the two is essentially that 1 am prepared to stand with our amendments to the very end. I believe that those amendments are fundamentally correct and essential, if we are to improve the Meech Lake document. I believe that they are worth fighting for.
In light of those circumstances, I will not allow a Member to suggest that somehow I cannot feel passionate about my

October 6, 1987
Governor in Council Appointments
country and about fellow Canadians when I have been elected to do that very thing. I do not view it as a question of partisanship against my Leader or against some of my colleagues who will vote in a different manner. I believe that I have to live with my community and my conscience. I have to listen to the aspirations that I come into contact with. At the end of the day, I have to live with myself and make sure within myself that my position will be on the right side of history.
I respect that there are deep emotional divisions on all sides of the House. I am sure that there are members of the Government who are on the Hon, Member's side. 1 do not believe that the Hon. Member would rise and ask his colleagues why they are voting against the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the entire Government. I think that he will respect that those Members who will stand up against Meech Lake are not standing up against the Prime Minister, instead they are standing up for a different vision of this country. They should be allowed to stand up and speak up for that vision, and I make no apology for doing so.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few seconds left. I wonder if I may be considered to have begun my remarks, and call it five o'clock? I would have the floor when debate resumes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ADMINISTRATION ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW OF GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Abram Ernest Epp: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a mechanism for the parliamentary review and approval of appointments proposed by the Governor in Council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to debate Motion M-39. I appreciate the opportunity that it gives me to consider the principle of review by Members of the House of Commons in committee of order in council appointments made by this Government and succeeding Governments.
The Standing Orders of the House have been revised to make provision for something in the direction of the action that this motion calls for. The change in the Standing Orders that was made in 1986 is sufficiently limited that it is important for us to consider the question further.
I regret that this was not chosen to become a votable motion. I think it would be very useful to the present Government, Parliament, and to the people of Canada if it had been possible for Members of the House individually in their own
understanding of the manner in which the Government of Canada should be conducted to have the opportunity to express themselves on the question. The principle is a very simple one. The principle is that order in council appointments occur in large numbers. Appointments to offices as diverse as judicial appointments, appointments of Deputy Ministers who do so much to direct the affairs of the Government of Canada, appointments of officers of Parliament, appointments of persons to such offices as the Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the official languages commissionership, and so on, are of enormous importance to the good government of the country. These appointments are made with very little scrutiny and all too often end up under the cloud, or certainly under the umbrella which can cast a cloud upon the appointments, of the system of political patronage which has been basic to the Government of Canada and to parliamentary government. I will say more about it later, indicating why 1 think the principle is important and why 1 believe the Government should give serious consideration to the principle which has been put forward in Motion M-39.
Since the present context is important to the discussion, I note that two of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dating from February 24, 1986 provide for, as is indicated in the headline, "Review of Order in Council Appointments". Standing Order 103 provides for the laying upon the Table of a certified copy of an Order in Council indicating the appointment of persons to certain non-judicial posts. I also note that both paragraphs of Standing Order 103 provide for non-judicial appointments to be made subject to some review by having the Minister lay upon the Table a copy of the appointment order.
Standing Order 104 reads in part:
The committee specified pursuant to Standing Orders 67(5) and 103, during the period of thirty sitting days provided pursuant to Standing Order 103, shall if it deems it appropriate, call the so named appointee or nominee to appear before it during a period not exceeding ten sitting days.
It continues:
The committee, if it should call an appointment or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
The third paragraph restricts the time during which this consideration takes place to the end of the 10-day sitting period provided in the first paragraph.
It is quite a constrained review which is provided for in Standing Orders 103 and 104. Of course the vital point is that there is not any opportunity for members of the committee to provide not only advice but their consent to the appointment being proposed or the appointment that has been made. In effect it is a review without any power to reverse the decision or any opportunity for Members of Parliament to veto an appointment which could conceivably be a flagrant case of political patronage, such as appointing someone without any
October 6, 1987

real qualification to a position. Yet, committee members, having looked at the person, have to say that they do not think it is a proper appointment but they cannot do anything about it. That is the present situation under Standing Orders 103 and 104.
These particular Standing Orders do not follow the recommendations of the so-called McGrath committee on the reform of Parliament which considered a great variety of matters that have been implemented in changing the governance of the House, the operations of the committees, and so on. A variety of changes have been made to the better functioning of the Parliament of Canada and to the better conduct of the business of the Government of Canada.
The committee, in chapter five of its third report on the scrutiny of order in council appointments, looked to a more significant review than the Standing Orders have provided. The special committee's consideration of these matters reached a diversity of offices-to Deputy Ministers, to Crown corporations, and to regulatory agencies.
The committee was guided by a number of principles which I want to cite. The first one is that the primary purpose of the nomination procedure is to seek out and facilitate appointment of the best possible people. The second principle is that it is vital to the health of a political system that the public look upon public appointments as more than political patronage. However, the committee felt, as the third principle suggests, that there were good reasons for excluding some appointments from any political scrutiny process. It suggested in the fourth principle that some appointments required different degrees of scrutiny from others, so it suggested a diversity of procedures which should be applied to the various offices.
The recommendations of the special committee which looked at parliamentary institutions and considered reform of them, these proposals to extend the power of Private Members of the House of Commons to make the House of Commons work more effectively, are the kinds of principles I am pressing in this particular debate. To say that I am pressing them is to say that I think we should look a good deal further than the Standing Orders have provided and perhaps even than the McGrath committee recommended.
I am encouraged in such thoughts by the words of the Chairman of the committee who, in speaking to the Canadian Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, something over a month after the third report was tabled in June, 1985, had some observations on this particular concern. At one point in his speech in Quebec City he said that the movement to scrutinize appointments was symptomatic of the frustration felt by many Private Members with regard to their power vis-a-vis the power of the executive. He went on to say that while their recommendations represented a fundamental change in our system, they determined that they could not tamper to any great extent with the principle of the Government being responsible and accountable to Parliament.
Governor in Council Appointments
He went on to say: "Above all the Government must be allowed to govern".
I suggest, with great respect to this past Hon. Member of the House who now of course is the Hon. Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, that the principle here should not have been that the Government must be allowed to govern, but that the Government should be required to govern in the public interest.
If that were to be the guiding principle, let me expand on what I mean by applying a modification to the situation before us of order in council appointments. We have an historical development to appreciate. We have the reality that government by the monarch or government of the Crown in Great Britain and in the colonies where self-government was achieved-and in Canada we talk about responsible government as the term for it-was a government in which the power of the monarch or the Crown was taken over by the Leader of the Party which succeeded in winning the most seats in an election. What happened behind the fa?ade of the Crown- and this is still in fact carried on behind that fapade as a symbol of the Government of Canada, of the Governments of the provinces, and of other government units of the Commonwealth-is that the Leader of the majority Party who has been successful in persuading the electors of the country or a province to elect his or her fellow candidates in an election achieves as far-reaching a power as the Crown is capable of exercising.
The responsible government reality is that these Members gather in the House of Commons. The majority forms the Government. The Leader chooses the Members to form Cabinet, but of course they are subject to our scrutiny and questioning in the House of Commons every sitting day. We are profoundly grateful to the parliamentary evolution of which we are now the heirs, that Members who become Ministers are here and are subject to our questioning day by day.
The Canadian House of Commons particularly expresses this practice in a vigorous way, sometimes in a way that the Speaker finds it difficult to control. Ministers do not have any idea who will be asking questions and what they may be about other than that they are sensitive to the issues of the day. They are, however, briefed on issues of the day. We have here a vigorous process of questioning of Ministers as to conduct of the Government of Canada. Though Members have their own opinions as to the adequacy of the answers given or, I suppose, to the insight that characterizes the questions being asked, Canadians-as our news broadcasts, particularly our television broadcasts, demonstrate night after night when the House is sitting-have a vigorous scrutiny of the Government of Canada.
Yet the Hon. James McGrath in his speech said that Private Members feel a frustration when they contemplate the

October 6, 1987
Governor in Council Appointments
executive, the Deputy Ministers, the Crown agencies at further reach, Crown corporations, commissioners and so on who are responsible to Ministers in the House, when we think of the various persons who are responsible for the implementation of the country's legislation, for ensuring that the Government of Canada is well conducted. When Private Members try to scrutinize these actions, they find themselves quite frustrated.
Here I want to recognize one very important reality. Though the Ministers themselves are here in the House subject to questioning and expected to respond to questions from other Members of the House, the Deputy Ministers, who are their subordinates, ostensibly in the nature of things may very well feel themselves even more subject to the Privy Council office, conceivably to Treasury Board. They may feel themselves subject to very few, persons in the conduct of government.
In the practice of our Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has become the uncrowned monarch. The Prime Minister, choosing a Clerk of the Privy Council and choosing with advice the Deputy Ministers of government and having a leading role in choosing others who receive order in council appointments, exercises his authority under a system that may not be very far removed from the reality of 200 years ago. King George III was active 200 years ago in Great Britain working to create a parliamentary coalition to produce enough votes to back up his Ministers and his Government. When we have the Prime Minister as uncrowned king making appointments which are in his power through the Cabinet, which he controls so largely, we have a system of government which may not be very far removed from the autocratic government, a government unchecked by parliamentary institution, which once prevailed in England before the parliamentary evolution of the 19th century.
Because we have persons who are responsible primarily to the Prime Minister or to the Clerk of the Privy Council-in the case of Deputy Ministers and other people who issue reports who occasionally may appear in the public eye but do not experience very much in the way of scrutiny by way of Members of Parliament-these are realities that have moved me to suggest that we look far beyond Standing Orders 103 and 104 and even beyond the McGrath committee and its recommendations for scrutiny. We should recognize the advisability of having scrutiny in committee that opens a genuine advise and consent possibility in which members of the committee can consider rejecting an appointment or advising against it or, in short, vetoing the appointment.
That suggestion will arouse concern in some minds because of the American situation. Members of Congress have far-reaching powers of review of potential appointees. These days they are considering a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, an appointee who may well not be appointed, though the President of the United States would will it if he possibly could. In those cases we see a most rigorous process of review.
The argument that I have been making on the basis of British constitutional principles applied in Canada and in other units of the Commonwealth is the development of parliamentary government. We can make an argument for this further development of responsibility and power, if you will, of Members of Parliament as individuals in committee. Committees will still be constructed according to the composition of Parliament. In the present Parliament that means they would be overwhelmingly made up of Conservative Members. That provides some safeguard immediately against any fear among Canadians and Members of this House that the worst abuses of the American process might occur. If we are going to have the principle of a genuinely responsible government applied to the appointees of government, as I think should be the case, then we need to take this one step further. Let me say very firmly that this a direction that I think should be taken. Our parliamentary democracy requires that Crown prerogatives genuinely be limited by responsible government. That means accountability of the Government to the people through their elected representatives of Parliament. 1 want to urge in the very strongest terms for consideration of these matters the question of how many of the order in council appointments should be so reviewed and exactly where they should occur, whether in a single committee or in standing committees which have expertise in various areas. It involves detail. Questions would have to be be answered. I hesitate more because I fear the possibility of its role being extended too far. 1 do believe that many of the appointments made are of eminently qualified persons. In those cases there would not be very much in the way of a review process to be gone through.
While hesitating to single out any of the persons who have been appointed by previous Governments or by this one, we all realize that there have been times when persons have been appointed whose main qualification was their membership in a political Party. In those cases where a person may actually confess to very limited qualification for the office to which he or she is being appointed, surely we have the strongest of arguments for having a process which may very well serve as a deterrent. Prime Ministers would be more careful in making appointments. If not, if they were unmindful of the necessity of the best qualified persons for these positions, let the principle of responsible government extend to those appointments. Let us have the power to turn them back and have people who are qualified appointed to offices.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join the debate on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) with respect to parliamentary reform in a review of governor in council appointments.
As all Hon. Members know very well, it was this Government that initiated at the beginning of its mandate three years ago what was perhaps the most sweeping action to reform the
October 6, 1987

House of Commons in Canadian history. One would wonder why it took so long for this action to take place.
Certainly that reform brought this place that governed our country for so many years up to date, brought to it a change that would give each and every Member of Parliament more ability to reflect the views of those in the area he represents. I take pride in the fact that it was the present Government that took this initiative.
The fact is that the Hon. Member who introduced this motion could now take it to a committee which he may have done to see if he could get a five-hour debate on it and to see if it could be votable. That is a dynamic change from what has ever happened before. That is a tremendous change and one that I am sure the Hon. Member himself has reflected upon and is enthusiastic about. Certainly I welcome his views on how he might improve on it.
In December of 1984, the Government established the special committee on reform to which the Hon. Member alluded under the distinguished leadership of the former Hon. Member for Saint John's East, now the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador. Under that inspired leadership, and with the diligent and non-partisan work of all members of the committee representing all Parties, the Hon. Member's Party included, the McGrath committee produced three unanimous reports between December of 1984 and June of 1985. These reports recommended a comprehensive package of reforms to the House and its rules. The principal purpose of these reforms, of course, was to strengthen the role of the Private Member, as I indicated earlier, and to give us a more influential role in reviewing the actions of the Government and proposing policy amendments and new initiatives.
What we have witnessed here today is of course another new initiative, albeit one brought on by a Private Member from the opposition Party. I think that is democracy in action, open debate for those in the House and those who may be sitting in their offices watching us on television or those who may read Hansard tomorrow. So be it. It is a point of view and the Hon. Member expressed it well.
These changes to the Standing Orders were tested for one year, as the Hon. Member may recall. I think one could fairly say that they passed the test with some modifications and were adopted on a permanent basis by the House, again with allParty support, in June of this year.
There are many examples of these reforms, including legislative committee approval given to Bills after House approval at second reading, and expanded powers granted to smaller and reorganized standing committees to review the activities of government Departments and the very rules we are operating under in Private Members' Business.
In addition, the Government and the House agreed to provide an opportunity to standing committees to meet with the broad spectrum of people which the Government appoints or, under the new House rules, may nominate to important
Governor in Council Appointments
positions in the service of Canada. I chair a committee. Before that very committee appeared the likes of Mr. Dalton Camp and Mr. Ian Deans, a former Member of the House. Quite frankly, those kinds of scrutinies of people to be appointed had never previously occurred.
Certainly that openness in which the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon participated is certainly an idea which 1 think has shed a new light on appointments in general. I have yet to see a motion before these committees reviewing appointments to recommend that the appointees not be accepted or that the Government change its mind. I do not think, quite frankly, that it has even happened so far. However, that device is available to opposition Members of these committees.
The Hon. Member shakes his head. Such a motion may not be passed but it can be made. This device, to my knowledge, has never been exercised. I stand to be corrected. I only chair one committee and appointments have gone before other committees as well.
This reform is of course the basic focus of our discussion today. The mechanisms called for in the motion before us really are now in place. They permit standing committees to review the qualifications and competence of appointments and nominations made by the Government. They are unprecedented in any parliamentary system of government.
The Hon. Member may watch on Channel 50 the U.S. Senate review committees. That is not a parliamentary system. That is a totally different system which maybe he thinks we ought to use. We have a little trouble with that.
On one hand, we are worried about our sovereignty, as we know if we listen to Question Period, yet the Hon. Member purports to move to a U.S. system of Government. One must be very careful and concerned about why he would like to change a system that is very uniquely Canadian, a proposal of the Government to which all Parties agreed. Now he wants to move us into a system like that which we see in the United States where they challenge the nominees and recommend, as we are witnessing right now, if the candidate should be allowed to be appointed. That is a very grave concern to me.
We would like to maintain our sovereignty and certainly not move right away into a U.S. system. The Hon. Member brought forth no argument to show what other parliamentary system of government is in fact going further than in Canada. He has no examples because we have taken such a tremendous stride in bringing forth a new concept and a new power for the Member of Parliament.
The election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker is a new idea, and we are still actually living and testing the system. There may come a time when we would like to modify it, but to move immediately from this reform into an expanded reform could, I respectfully submit, bring forth other grave problems. One would want to be very careful, especially when

October 6, 1987
Governor in Council Appointments
we consider what is important and unique to Canadians. The Hon. Member's Party was very much a part of the process.
Once again I want to illustrate that the Hon. Member's ability to bring a new idea forward is one we are debating right now. Maybe before the hour is out, some new merit or light may be shed upon the idea, but certainly one wants to deal with an extreme amount of caution when making another radical change or one that has not been thoroughly thought out to the process of appointments.
I know I have only a short time left, but I would just like to say that, in my view, this new process of the House committee review of appointments and nominations has already provided an important and an unparalleled opportunity for Members of the House to get acquainted with people whom the Government appoints or nominates to many very important jobs in the service of Canada. As the chairman of a committee, I feel that this process seems to be working fairly well at this time. 1 do not think at this point in time that another change would be in order.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon has today made a useful contribution to what I regard as the need for a continuing debate on parliamentary reform. The motion allows us to examine the efficacy of past reforms. We can also debate the need for further changes in our Standing Orders.
Today, Sir, we are turning our attention to Chapter 17 of our Standing Orders which deals with the review of order in council appointments. I note from the very outset that the Hon. Member's motion, as he emphasized, goes well beyond Standing Order 103 and Standing Order 104. It calls for a mechanism whereby parliamentarians could not only review but also approve some order in council appointments. Chapter 17 deals only with a review. The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) tried to make much of the reforms, but this, 1 submit, is a very modest reform, and those two Standing Orders are not functioning very effectively right now.


Alan Redway: Revolutionary change.


B. Keith Penner: It is hardly revolutionary. It is a mild, modest, cautious beginning.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) would have this House introduce a system somewhat parallel to the U.S. model. Of course he is not in any way suggesting that we should have a congressional system or anything of the kind. He is saying that we should look at the U.S. model where certain nominations are sent to a Senate committee. I would point out that the House of Representatives has no part to play at all in this process.
The committee examining the appointment has jurisdiction in the area to which the appointment belongs. The committee considers the matter either in a public forum or, by a majority
vote, in camera. It then reports back to the Senate, and the question is: Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination?
The McGrath committee, in looking at that system, noted that statistically there are very few direct refusals of appointments by the Senate. However, it also went on to note that it is not uncommon for nominations to be withdrawn or not to be confirmed at all. Why do you suppose that is? I think we know that in the course of the hearings the would-be appointee sometimes becomes something of an embarrassment to the administration. He or she has been unable to answer certain questions truthfully, with clarity or knowledge. In other words, their competence has been challenged.
The Hon. Member wants a review and approval process to be put in place in Canada. I fully agree with him. There is a need for just such a system. I believe, and I wonder if there are not many other Members of Parliament who share this belief, that political patronage in this country has really gotten out of hand. In certain cases it has actually gone wild. In saying this I want it to be clear that what is under attack here are not appointments themselves. There may be too many boards and commissions and the like to which the Prime Minister and the Government may make appointments. Yet some of them are useful, and some are essential. However, I believe all of them ought to be reviewed from time to time by Parliament to see if they perform any useful, democratic, social or economic function in our society.
Some appointments are obviously necessary because the will of Parliament in the form of legislation has to be carried out. However, there must absolutely be a requirement for competence in the job. The person must meet the qualifications. That is what the McGrath report said. It referred to:
-the appointment of the best people possible, and that means appointments
must be more than political patronage.
I agree. Collecting a few bucks for a political Party does not qualify you for just any government job. Soothing the Prime Minister's ego from time to time when he is feeling a bit insecure does not make you fit for any task the Government may have at hand. Serving a Minister for a little while as an adviser, speech writer or "gofer" does not provide you with the wherewithal for just any government assignment.
I do not know if I have time for an illustration but one comes readily to mind. There was a university professor who had a part-time position on a commission. He was highly qualified in that area. It was a part-time position but he could spend as much time as he liked on it, so he gave more and more of his time to it and served extremely well. He was promised by the Minister of the day that when a full-time position came open he would get it. So he reduced his teaching load, served more and more time on the commission, and what happened? An election came along and a Member of Parliament who did not have a hope of winning his seat but had a few brownie points with the Prime Minister got the job. To the best of my knowledge he did not have the faintest idea about
October 6, 1987

the area in which he was now going to be serving the Government for an extended period of time.
I recall rather more recently that an individual from my constituency was called before a committee because he was being appointed to a human rights tribunal. It was an embarrassment, a joke. He did not even understand the basic tenets or underlying principles of human rights, or the legislation we put in place, or his job at the Human Rights Commission. He did not have a clue. Yet the Government brought that man forward and wasted the time of the committee. I might tell my hon. friend from Thunder Bay that even though it was a joke and this person's responses were ludicrous, he got the job.


Abram Ernest Epp: Shameful.


B. Keith Penner: Of course it is shameful. That is the kind of thing that goes on.
My friend from Selkirk-Interlake would like us to believe we have made great strides in parliamentary reform. We know we have not because the basis of parliamentary reform is the question: How do we begin to exercise some degree of control over the executive branch of Government? That is what parliamentary reform is all about. How do we begin to restrict the almost unlimited power of a Prime Minister regardless of which political Party he leads? A democracy needs its checks and balances. Under the Constitution Act, 1982 we gave some powers to the Supreme Court. We created a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We moved in the direction of limiting the powers of the executive.
The McGrath report wanted to do the very same thing for Members of Parliament. It wanted to make them more effective. However, those recommendations have earned a very limited amount of success. I know that government Members want to make much of it, but I think they know in their heart of hearts that making much of how that report was implemented is more propaganda than reality.
We know that the will of the Prime Minister, when he has a majority, virtually becomes law. We have seen that in recent days. For example, when the Meech Lake Accord was brought to this House it was described as a seamless web into which you could not introduce the smallest amendment. The process involving the Constitution committee was meaningless because nothing could be changed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and his Senate spokesman laid down the law, and this was to remain intact, as it has. Of course we have the same thing in the free trade agreement. We cannot modify it in any way at all. It will go forward as it is.
I will conclude by asking: Why does Parliament exist? We exist mainly to make government accountable for all of its actions; its expenditures, its policies, its programs, and its appointments which we are debating today. This must be real rather than only an illusion. I believe that this national forum will lose the respect of the citizenry unless we carry out this very important function. Has this institution already lost the respect of our citizenry? Lord Acton's dictum, known by most
Governor in Council Appointments
first-year university history students, is: Power corrupts and if that power is absolute it corrupts absolutely.
There must be accountability in every respect. I do not believe, as the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon would have us believe, that Question Period is accountability. You and I, Sir, know that that is political theatre. Real accountability could take place in committee. However, it will only take place when we actually start making amendments to legislation based on the public hearing process, when we actually turn down some expenditures and make recommendations for other expenditures, and when we say that we will not accept certain appointments because the people are not the best candidates and are not competent.
I support that which the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon has done. The job of parliamentary reform has only just begun.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, it gives me pleasure today to speak on motion M-39 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
I believe that the Hon. Member should have decided today simply to withdraw his motion since the Government has responded favourably to the recommendations of the Committee about the review of Order in Council appointments.
For the benefit of those who will read the proceedings on this motion in Hansard, I would like to quote Standing Order 104(2), which states the following:
The committee-
-that is the Standing Committee of the House having the authority to review an appointment made, for instance, in the area of employment and immigration-
-if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1)
of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the
appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she-
-and the word "e//e" should have been added in the French version-
-has been appointed or nominated.
Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentarians, whatever side of the House we may sit on, I believe that we must admit that the Progressive Conservative Government has made a tremondous step in reforming our institution, precisely in this area of review of Order in Council appointments.
We could say that it is not enough. We could say that we should do even more. However, we must also avoid excess. We have to remember that it is not easy for the members of a Standing Committee to judge totally the qualifications and competence of a person appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada.

October 6, 1987
Governor in Council Appointments
It must also be said that this Standing Order prevents those who make appointments from making bad ones.
Mr. Speaker, knowing quite well that I, as a Canadian, could be appointed to a management position with a Crown Corporation and that I have no special qualifications in that area, I think I would be very uncomfortable about accepting this kind of appointment, because I might be called before a standing committee of the House to explain to committee members what my qualifications are. Mr. Speaker, I think this prevents a lot of bad appointments, and I think we must recognize here the leadership of the Prime Minister who has been very much involved in this parliamentary reform.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when the Hon. Member for St. John's East spoke to the House about the committee's report. The Prime Minister came to the House especially to listen to what the Hon. Member for St. John's East had to say, because the appointment issue was of particular interest to him.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening earlier to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). He was also involved, though indirectly, because of his particular interest in parliamentary reform. He came before the committee two or three times, and he is well aware the issue of Order in Council appointments was very important and was given thorough consideration. We looked at all the options in this respect.
Obviously, we had to make some concessions. Mr. Speaker, when 1 heard the Hon. Member who presented his motion today say: Mr. Speaker, partisan appointments are being made here in Canada and this is terrible, and so forth, I felt the Hon. Member was speaking on behalf of a political party that will never sit on the Government side, because after all, one has to be realistic in a democratic party system. When a Progressive Conservative Government is in power, it practically has an obligation to appoint people who support its policies.
The Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party would be in trouble if some day they were to form the Government. Can you imagine New Democrats appointing a known Conservative as head of a Crown Corporation or chairman of a committee? Mr. Speaker, I think it would be rather funny to see how that would work out. After all, one must be realistic.
So I think we can say that Members of this House should constantly, on an annual basis, reflect on the rules by which we are guided, and also on other areas that concern a Member's daily life. I think we can also say that since the reform of our Standing Orders, there has been considerable improvement. Nothing is perfect, of course. Often, everything has to be reviewed every five, ten, fifteen or 20 years. This is a changing world with changing concepts, and I would say that perhaps we would have to review everything on an annual basis.
As Members from all sides of this House, we should ask questions and re-evaluate ourselves and our rules. I quite agree with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior that as Members we are in a position to review these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the right to veto an appointment suggested by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon seems to be a bit arbitrary. After all, veto rights or the right to appoint... Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, after my work on the standing committee and after hearing witnesses address the issue of reviewing Order in Council appointments, 1 have no hesitation in saying that I would not like to be in a position where, as a Member, 1 would have to select two or three people out of a pool of 1,000 in my riding with the ability, intelligence and qualifications to sit on Government commissions.
I would rather have these appointments made by the Prime Minister so as to avoid finding myself in an embarrassing situation in the eyes of my own constituents. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree that House of Commons Standing Orders 103 and 104 answer these questions and meet all expectations. If he agrees with me he will admit that our Government has covered a lot of ground in that respect and that, for the time being, his motion is not justified and should simply be dropped from the Order Paper because the Government did respond to this question of order in council appointments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 only intend to speak for five minutes in order to allow the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) to speak. I want to deal with what has happened with respect to the whole question of reviewing appointments.
The House will recall that early in the term of this Government there was a great controversy about appointments and the perception and reality of patronage in those appointments. The response of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was that this was a matter with which the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons would deal. That committee was sometimes referred to as the McGrath committee. For some six months, the Prime Minister, in what I believe was a rather politically deft move, was able to say, when asked about patronage, that this matter was referred to the committee headed by the former Member for St. John's East. He would go on to say that he was looking forward to the recommendations of the committee and so on.
When the report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons finally came forward, it recommended neither what the Prime Minister eventually instituted nor a procedure as wide ranging as that proposed by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) in his motion. It recommended that there be a review and veto power only with respect to positions on quasi-judicial bodies, such as the CRTC, the CTC, the NEB and officers of the House of Commons, and that there be a review procedure but no veto power with respect to the rest of the appointments.
October 6, 1987

I still believe that this was a nice compromise because, pursuant to some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister, it would have been an opportunity for parliamentarians to exercise some real but nevertheless limited power over appointments.
Again, I think the Prime Minister made another politically deft move by saying that all appointments will be open to review, without being open to veto. This has resulted in the same situation as exists in the American system, even though they have more veto power. Since everything is open to review, nothing is open to review. There are so many appointments that no one can possibly review them all. Therefore, the only appointments that are reviewed are those which have a certain political notoriety.
That is not what the committee intended. It wanted to involve Members of Parliament in some meaningful consideration of appointments.
I am not saying this for politically partisan purposes, because 1 believe that an objective analysis shows that we have ended up with nothing. There is a review process that is never exercised except in a highly political context, which presumably is something no one had in mind.
I return to the original recommendations of the committee. I would like the Government to reconsider providing for a review and veto power on a limited number of appointments, which we believe would not call into question the basic constitutional notion of the Crown's ability to appoint because of the nature of these bodies, and to leave the review possibility in place for all other appointments. In that way there could be a real test of the role parliamentarians could play in appointments. We have not had that test and will not see one under the current rules.
I thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon for raising the matter and giving me an opportunity as a member of that committee to comment on the progress of that recommendation. I do not think it has progressed very well.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my own comments to this debate on the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) concerning the process of House committee review of governor In council appointments.
Under this process, which has been in place for roughly a year and a half now, the Government is required to table in the House the Orders in Council of almost all individuals whom it appoints. There are some exceptions, such as judges, and these exceptions are completely justifiable.
According to the Standing Orders on this process, specifically Standing Order 103(2), a Minister of the Crown on behalf of the Government may also, from time to time, table a certificate stating that a specified individual has been nominated for appointment to a specified non-judicial post.
Governor in Council Appointments
The Government has two ways to bring people forward for consideration by House committees. They are: as appointees who have been appointed; and for three regulatory agencies, the CRTC, the CTC and the NEB, as nominees whom it has not yet appointed.
The Government has tabled hundreds of appointments in this House, and a number of certificates of nominations. Let me give some recent examples. There are appointments to boards established under federal legislation such as the Farm Debt Review Board, boards of referees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, National Parole Board, and Atomic Energy Control Board. There are appointments to the boards of Crown corporations, such as VIA Rail, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and Telesat Canada. There are appointments to agencies such as the Medical Research Council, the Science Council, and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Recently, a new director of the National Gallery of Canada was appointed. There are citizenship judges, because these, in fact, do not have judicial powers. The names of senior public servants such as ambassadorial appointments, and of the new Deputy Superintendent of Financial Institutions have recently been tabled. There was a recent nomination to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.
The names of all the above individuals and many others appointed or nominated are tabled in the House and referred to an appropriate standing committee, which then has the opportunity within 30 sitting days to call that individual to appear.
As Members know, a hearing is not mandatory. Standing committees do not call many of the individuals which the Government appoints or nominates for a committee hearing. However, a number of people have been invited to appear by various committees, including appointees to the Bank of Canada, who were the first to be called, and others including a number of senior public servants.
In no case to date, however, has a House committee reported to the House that a government appointee or nominee was not qualified or competent to perform the duties of the post to which he or she was appointed or nominated.
The record indicates that the people appointed by the Government are not unqualified recipients of political reward. We are not talking here about patronage. Rather, we are seeing proof of the Government's record in appointing qualified, competent individuals seriously interested and prepared to serve Canada in the many positions which it is the Government's responsibility to fill.
This review process is a good reform which I am sure all Members will continue to support. While all of us would agree that the new reform is not perfect, it is a giant step forward when one reflects on what has existed in the past. The Government has received criticism for not being open and honest with the people, yet the reforms we have undertaken are

October 6, 1987
Adjournment Debate
clearly a breath of fresh air compared to what we faced in the past.
As a member of the Justice Committee, I know nominees have appeared before the committees with their resumes. There has been opportunity for the committee to call these people should it wish to interview them. It is obvious that the people whom we have put forward are very competent individuals for these posts and the committee has clearly not seen fit to bring them forward for specific interviews.
I believe we are encouraged by this reform. We admit that it is not perfect, but it is a giant step forward from what we experienced in the past.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

[Stage Direction]
OF MANITOBA REGION/DEPARTMENT'S SERVICE TO INDIAN PEOPLE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem in the Province of Manitoba regarding the Department of Indian Affairs. This unresolved problem is having some very drastic consequences for the lives of Indian people and the communities in which they live.
First, let me be very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, about the nature of the problem. It is not one of fraud, nor one of dishonesty, per se, nor of gross negligence. It is one of serious mismanagement.
Second, it is my firm conviction, and this is supported by concerns expressed by the previous Minister, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), that the Manitoba problem of serious mismanagement in the Department of Indian Affairs is widespread.
Third, it is not my intention to disparage or to lash out against officials in the Department in Manitoba, or in any other region of the Department of Indian Affairs. I believe
they are caught in an intolerable and unacceptable position. They are being squeezed like lemons.
The real problem is the Minister himself and the senior bureaucrats who direct and pull him around, plus all of the excess and the overlay and the paraphernalia of the headquarters of the Department of Indian Affairs here in Ottawa. To put it simply and bluntly, the mentality toward Indian people by the Minister and his senior bureaucrats is that they are no more than wards of the state; they cannot be trusted nor relied upon to control, regulate or manage their own affairs. I know that in public fora, in conferences and the like the Minister and senior bureaucrats may talk about aboriginal selfgovernment, but they do not really believe it at all. What they believe in, is doing what has to be done under the Indian Act, and doing it their way.
The Coopers & Lybrand report about the Manitoba situation put it very well, and I quote, "The fact is that most existing instructions were issued at a time when the Department was seeking to strengthen controls in responding to criticisms of the Auditor General". I believe that the senior bureaucrats in the Department really took pleasure and delight in the Auditor General's criticisms because it meant that they could tighten down the screws, that they could run a tight ship, that they could put those Indians in their place.
But, on the other side, there was something else which they had to take into account. That was the demand and the pressure for self-government. It was becoming too much to keep the lid on, and they had to do something.
So we have a problem, Sir, that in addition to those financial instructions that were issued by the Department there also went out laterally some vague and weak directives regarding, first, contribution agreements, and, second, something called alternative funding arrangements. So we now have it. The stage is now set for serious mismanagement. What a dark and tragic theatre it is. I say that because people's lives are involved, as is their education, the care of their children, their housing, social services, and so on.
So, first, we have the Treasury Board terms and conditions of 1979. This leads to continuous monitoring of Indian use of funds by Department officials to ensure compliance that all the terms and conditions are met. This is why in Manitoba, where most services are actually carried out by Indian people, there are now more civil servants than there were in the past. What are they doing? They are busy monitoring, keeping a watchful eye over the entire process.
Second, and following up on this monitoring, we have the control accounting system which fully satisfies the region's needs for financial control but which completely fails to analyse expenditures of benefit to Indians or tribal councils. Now, to further complicate the situation in Manitoba, there are program managers. They are closer to the Indian people themselves, to the bands and the tribal councils. In the interests of Indian people with whom they relate directly, these program managers sometimes, according to Coopers &
October 6, 1987

Lybrand, circumvent financial controls to make the best and maximum use of financial funds. In other words, Sir, they bend financial rules in order to satisfy what they believe to be the legitimate needs of the Indian people whom they are called upon to help.
The financial staff of the Department enter the picture much later, that is after these decisions have been made, and so many of their precious instructions have already been broken.
What is the result? The result is a mess. It is serious mismanagement. If time allows me, I will tell you what the answer is as quickly as I can.
Number one, we need a new Government. If we wish to down size the Department, do it here in Ottawa, not out in the field where they are actually trying to serve people. We need a clear policy on aboriginal self-government. It is an inherent and inalienable right and it should be exercised. We need the recommendation of the special committee to be accepted; that, in terms of financing, we need block funding agreements on a multi-year basis. Finally, we need to purge from our system the notion that Indian people are incapable and unable to govern themselves. Of course they are, and they will do it much better than many of the forms of self-government that we see around this country, whether they be municipalities, certain provinces, or do I need to look any further than right across the floor.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the concerns raised by the Hon. Member, it was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who, in October, 1986, required the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing. Further, he requested that the President of the Treasury Board undertake a comprehensive review of the financial operations of the Department's regional office in Manitoba. Those actions were taken because he was committed to ensuring that sound financial practices were in place throughout the Department.
The comprehensive review of financial operations of the Manitoba region was undertaken by the Office of the Comptroller General with the assistance of Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Group. That review examined the region's financial management practices, including resource allocation, administration, monitoring and reporting, with specific attention to the administration of contribution agreements and contracts. The Minister released the findings of the report in September, 1987.
After careful review of the report, I am pleased to note that it did not uncover a single case of wilful wrongdoing on the part of the Department's employees. Furthermore, as the Minister indicated to the House on September 22, the report concluded that, "Although the region satisfactorily complies
Adjournment Debate
with most parliamentary and government policies and requirements where it delivers services directly to Indians, it fails to fully comply with these policies and requirements where administrative responsibilities have been devolved to Indian bands, tribal councils or their representatives".
In the consultant's opinion this situation has arisen, "Because the Department's clientele do not believe that these policies and practices are appropriate where they have assumed delivery or administrative responsibilities and the region is unwilling to enforce compliance by withholding funding to which the Indian bands are entitled".
Departmental officials are currently doing a detailed analysis of the findings of the report and will be working with the Comptroller General to complete, within two or three months, an action plan that addresses all the deficiencies identified in the report.
I can assure you that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is in the process of introducing a financial management regime that is consistent with and supportive of the Government's thrust to transfer the administration of programs and the associated funding to Indian Governments.
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY-MINISTER'S POSITION/RESPONS1BILITY FOR ACTIONS OF RCMP


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for a few weeks now, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and I have been asking questions designed to demonstrate-and I think we have demonstrated it-that the Government is not accountable for the way in which the national security operations of the country are being handled.
We are very critical of a number of things which have visibly gone wrong. We have no sense, in the answers which we are getting from across the floor, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) in particular has any recognition of how serious the problems are or, indeed, that he has come to grips with them and is planning to do anything about them.
Three years ago, when this Government took office, it was exactly the moment of the launching of the new Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which was created by legislation and passed in the last weeks of the life of the former Government. This Government took over the tremendous responsibility of organizing the launch of CSIS, which was responsible for providing intelligence to the Government about threats to the national security as defined in that Act.
We know from all the evidence we have that a great number of things have gone wrong within the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in terms of its relationship with the RCMP and in terms of defining what is its mandate.
I put it to the Minister that he should take responsibility for that service as the statute requires him to do, recognize the

October 6, 1987
Adjournment Debate
problems, and take on the first fundamental responsibility of telling the Canadian Security Intelligence Service what is the product the Government wants it to produce and how the responsibility in the area is to be shared with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I feel that time after time the problems which are surfacing are the result of a Government that is standing back and asking the RCMP and the new agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to settle their own differences through liaison and through co-operation. That is no way for the Minister to take responsibility for the Department.
The RCMP is so well established, is so large, has such a large budget, and has such a clear level of support among the Canadian people that getting the Canadian Security Intelligence Service launched requires the Minister to be present, to be giving directions, and to be making decisions. When matters are left to the two agencies to settle, I fear that in every case the decision will go to the RCMP just because of its greater ascendency, so the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is not being properly launched and properly supported to do the very important work that it must do.
There was evidence of that last week when Doug Roche, who has some responsibility for awarding public money to peace groups, said that, yes, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service occasionally gives them some advice about which peace groups have been targeted, supported, and manipulated by, for example, foreign Governments or subversive elements. However, Mr. Roche said: "We didn't ask for that advice and we don't take that into consideration".
What kind of signal is that to give to the CSIS about its work? Either the Government wants it to be doing that job, or the Government should tell it not to do it. It should not allow it to do it and then dump on it, through the lips of Doug Roche, one of Canada's Ambassadors, and say that what it does is not wanted and no account is taken of it.
Last week we on this side of the House, in both Parties, pressed the Minister for taking some responsibility for the infiltration which may have occurred by members of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service into the peace movement and the union movement to see whether he supported it. He said, and I am quoting him exactly: "I have no evidence that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has exceeded its mandate".
That is not a good enough answer. The Minister should have been in a position to say "I am satisfied that they are not exceeding their mandate", or he should have said "there is a problem here and this is what I am doing to try to solve it".
For him to say "I have no evidence" and then to tell any Members of the House or indeed any Canadians who have evidence that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is exceeding its mandate, targeting people who are not threats to the security of Canada, that they should take that information to the Service is a total dereliction of his duty. The irony is
that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was examined by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
This Security Intelligence Review Committee has expressed concern that the service is exceeding its mandate. For the Minister to tell us to take our complaints to the SIRC, which is already concerned about the service exceeding its mandate, simply shows that the Minister is not responsible, that he is not taking the fundamental responsibility for his agency, giving it the necessary directions and finding out what it is doing.
I want to express the total lack of confidence of the Official Opposition in the way this Minister has been passing the buck and sending us to SIRC. In one other circumstance, the Minister told us that the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is responsible for the agency and, because things were going wrong in the agency, the Director offered his resignation and the Minister accepted it. That was satisfactory as far as the Minister was concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated as well that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is an independent agency and that its Director had done the honourable thing because of what had gone wrong and had resigned. That was not at all the proper way for the issue to be handled. The agency is not an independent agency. It is, in fact, by definition and by law a dependant agency. The Minister is accountable 100 per cent for its operations. There is no way in our tradition that a Deputy Minister's resignation should have been asked for, condoned and accepted. If anyone should have resigned, it should have been the Minister.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that the Minister has fully responded to the questions just bootlegged into this debate by my hon. friend.
I would like to respond to the question raised by my colleague on September 22, 1987, which was supposed to be the subject for debate at this time, namely, the RCMP witness/informant protection. Despite the fact that the issue raised by my hon. friend on September 22 is sub judice, I would like to assure the Members of this House that the protection of witnesses and informants has been a particular concern of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). I would like to take this opportunity to outline the steps that he has taken in this regard. The Solicitor General has had a thorough review conducted of witness/informant protection arrangements, and I would like to describe some of the key features of the RCMP program.
First, investigators are provided detailed and very explicit instructions on how sources are to be handled, particularly with regard to limitations on the commitments that can be given to the informants at the investigation level. Second, informants are compensated on the basis of the value of the their informational services performed to advance the investigation of the offence. Third, the RCMP provides protection to
October 6, 1987

such individuals and their immediate families when there is clear evidence that they have been, or are likely to be, seriously threatened as a result of acting as an RCMP informant. Finally, as an aspect of protection, informants and their families may be provided with a range of services including relocation in another city, change of identity and financial support.
The RCMP has a comprehensive and effective witness/infor-mant protection program which is sensitive to the genuine requirements of these individuals and their families. I can assure the Members of this House that it is both fair and just.
The Hon. Member will appreciate that the use of informants is a necessary, in fact crucial aspect of many police investigations, particularly those which involve organized criminal conspiracies. Given the size of the RCMP and the complexity of the investigations the RCMP are charged to undertake, it is reasonable to conclude that the force deals with many informants on an ongoing basis, otherwise it would not be the very successful police force that it clearly is. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that from time to time, an informant is not satisfied with the treatment he or she is afforded. In such cases, the individual can, of course, under our system of justice, seek remedies through a civil proceeding. The important point here is that such occurrences are extremely rare given the many informants handled by the RCMP.
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member that police work is always very difficult and at times thankless. The RCMP are being asked to respond to a range of infinite social problems in the communities with finite resources. Increasingly, they are being required to undertake complex investigations under extreme pressure. I believe the Members of the House owe a vote of confidence to the loyalty and dedication of these men and women who serve their communities and their country in such an exemplary manner.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-MINIMUM AGE PROVISION
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have to remind you that since the Young Offenders Act was introduced into the House and passed into law by the former Liberal Government, it has been a very, very controversial piece of legislation. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that the Young Offenders Act replaced the former Juvenile Delinquents Act. It became effective law prior to the election of our Government, but it did not actually take effect as law of the land until after the Government was elected in the spring of 1985.
Almost immediately when it went into effect, the law was highly criticized, particularly by police forces, and particularly by police forces in the Province of Ontario. Following that criticism, the then Solicitor General who was at that time in charge of Young Offenders Act legislation, the Hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), commenced consultations with his colleagues right across Canada for the purpose of
Adjournment Debate
determining whether or not changes should be made to the Act.
Following those consultations, in fact changes were introduced in the House and passed into law but in spite of those changes, not all of the criticisms have disappeared. I suppose if I could identify one particular criticism that keeps coming up more and more often, it is the issue of those under twelve years of age, the minimum age at which the Young Offenders Act takes effect.
Prior to the introduction and passage of the Young Offenders Act, the age for criminal responsibility was seven years old. In fact, seven-year-olds and those older were subject to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. At the same time as the Young Offenders Act was introduced and passed, the Criminal Code was amended to remove the age of seven as the age of criminal responsibility. In fact, the age became 12, the minimum age dealt with in the Young Offenders Act.
It was anticipated at the time that each one of the provinces of Canada would put in place child welfare legislation which would deal with those young people from seven years of age to 12 years of age and that that would be the effective way of dealing with young people in that age bracket who were offenders. Unfortunately, that has not really come to pass.
While child welfare legislation has been put in place, the controversy continues to rage over whether that should be the effective way of dealing with children under 12 who are involved in criminal offences or if we should not lower the age in the Young Offenders Act.
I have raised in the House on occasion the fact that in Metro Toronto in 1985, 1,855 children under 12 were involved in very serious offences; 41 of them were involved in arson cases, 11 in sexual assaults and 15 in weapons incidents. That has prompted the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario to indicate that despite the existence of the child welfare system, there is a need for a safety net of criminal law. Otherwise, he says, there is no deterrent to criminal behaviour by children under the age of 12.
As you know, the Hon. Ian Scott, Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, has been criticized by Attorneys General in other provinces for that statement. They indicated that what the Province of Ontario really needs is stronger child welfare legislation, not amendments to the Young Offenders Act, It was indicated, for instance, that in the Province of Quebec that is the case and that deals with the problem effectively.
At the end of May of this year our Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), now charged with the responsibility for this legislation, met with his provincial counterparts and discussed this problem, among many others. In early June of this year I asked that Minister in this House whether he was prepared to make further amendments dealing with the minimum age in the Young Offenders Act, or whether he was going to leave it

October 6, 1987
Adjournment Debate
to child welfare legislation to deal with the problem. The Minister said his officials and provincial officials were going to be meeting to study the problem.
Four months have now passed by and surely it is not unreasonable to expect a response from the Government. Will it tell us tonight one way or another: Is it going to change the Young Offenders Act and reduce the age of responsibility from twelve to seven or perhaps somewhere in between? Or, is it going to do nothing and rely strictly and solely on child welfare legislation to deal with this problem?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that it is a pleasure to share the House this evening at this hour of debate with my hon. colleague from York East. I know he has displayed considerable interest in this distinct problem facing the judicial system and young people.
The minimum age of 12 was established during the process leading to the introduction and passage, in 1982, of the Young Offenders Act. 1 am sure he is aware of that. There was then a general consensus that the age of seven was simply not reflective of the policies or daily practices of the juvenile justice system. It was decided, as was the case under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, that children who threatened to harm themselves or others are best dealt with through provincial child welfare legislation. This enables authorities to apprehend children and provide special care and treatment for them and their families.
While the very young cannot be dealt with by means of criminal prosecution, it is in society's interest that they and their families be helped through formal family and children's services.
The issue of minimum age was raised during the consultations preceding Bill C-106 when changes were vigorously urged by some observers. The Hon. Member indicated he was one of those vigorous observers. For most participating in those consultations, however, it was not an issue requiring immediate attention and proposals of change also were opposed with vigour.
At the recent meeting of federal and provincial Ministers responsible for juvenile justice, the adequacy of child welfare legislation to deal with offences committed by children under the age of 12 was discussed. As indicated earlier, the Ministers did not reach a consensus on the proposition put forward by the Attorney General of Ontario. However, it was agreed that there was a need to ensure and maintain the capacity to respond effectively to anti-social behaviour of these children.
This issue has been referred to officials to ensure that the appropriate mechanism to respond to the needs of these children and to protect society is available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 7, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers