1987-10-19

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-3077 to 3323087 inclusive, 332-3094, 332-3095 and 332-3134.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, concerning the appointment by Order in Council of Mrs. Shirley L. Thomson as Director of the National Gallery of Canada.
The Committee considers that the appointee has the requisite qualifications to perform the duties of this position.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of western
Canadians who remind the House of Commons that the standing committee of Parliament responsible for immigration regulations has proposed a new procedure for refugees which, if adopted, would fairly and effectively solve the problems of backlogs and all the unsubstantiated claims.
This particular proposal has received widespread support from not only all Parties of Parliament but from the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress and actually most other groups or individuals knowledgeable on refugee issues.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute it with legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims made by refugee claimants, and these ought to be made before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, providing universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada. The claimants also ought to have the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have a petition from approximately 250 residents of Essex County who are particularly concerned about the operation and further construction of the Fermi II Nuclear Plant on the U.S. side of the border just adjacent to my constituency.
The petitioners come from Amherstburg, Harrow, Sandwich West, Colchester, Malden, Anderdon, and a good many other parts of my constituency. The petitioners are most concerned to see that there is a Canadian presence which plays an equal role with the United States in reviewing the safety of Fermi II before this nuclear reactor is permitted to move any further toward full operation.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of people in my riding from the community of Coudouc. Petitioners wish to convey their disagreement with the new corporate plan for Canada Post.

October 19, 1987
Order Paper Questions
[DOT] (i no)


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 187 and 188.
[ Text]


Mr. Pennock: 1.	What is the CBC's employment practice with respect to personnel on
contract?
2.	(a) Are any restrictions placed on non-CBC staff and, if so, what are they
(b)	can they be given corporate signing authority, and, if so, for what amounts
and to what limits?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: 1
am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the reply to the above questions is as follows:
1.	CBC's employment practice with respect to personnel on contract is governed by its corporate Human Resources Policy No. 1.2 entitled "Non-Staff Resources Utilization''. A copy of that policy is below.
2.	(a) See the policy in 1. above, (b) Yes. Sub-section 4.3 of Section 1 of the corporate policy Delegation of Financial Signing Authority states:
Where a contract employee, other than a producer and/or project manager referred to in sub-section 3.11 of this section, occupies a position designated as a responsibility/cost centre and for which a budget has been allocated, and he is deemed to be an employee for purposes of taxation and other benefits in accordance with Finance	Policy-Taxation	3.2-
Employees/Independent Contractor Status, such employee is automatically delegated authority similar to that delegated to equivalent positions at the MS-4 level and above.
The Corporation will ensure that management retains the capability to employ non-staff resources in response to its changing needs, correctly in terms of the type of employment created, and with full knowledge and opportunity to measure services received for money expended. In so doing the Corporation will provide fair compensation; protect and optimize the rights of the Corporation and contracted individuals; facilitate the Corporation's management of non-staff; deal knowledgeably with outside agencies, utilize co-ordinated and consistent administrative practices.
1. Contact Administration
In acquiring non-staff resources, authorized persons will employ administrative procedures as follows:
(a) Individual contracts will be prepared and signed by the specified Corporation party and the non-staff contractee(s), to
conform to Corporation and other agency requirements (unions, associations and government, etc).
(b) All contracts will be administered at unique divisional/area points consistent with operational needs to ensure consistency and accuracy in the application of the policy and its practices, and the collection of pertinent information in order to
-ensure that all Corporation commitments for services are confirmed in writing at the earliest time and, subject to operational requirements, that a contract is entered into in advance.
-create a repository of contract information for internal and external use, such as rights in terms of further use and/or sale of programs, the further use of talent, and where appropriate for the management and development of non-staff resources.
-ensure that contract administration properly reflects changes occurring in the nature of the work performed, programming and other developments.
-enable the necessary management of the contract practices.
2.	Payment
The payment of non-staff resources will meet operational requirements and involve consistent local control procedures ensuring that compensation conforms to Corporation standards, contract terms and conditions, and with other agency (unions, associations and governments, etc.) requirements.
Such payment must comply with this Policy and will be made on receipt of budget authority authorization and certification of completion of an appropriate portion of the services specified in the contract.
1.	The payment of non-staff resources will be a regional (divisional/area) responsibility and appropriate pay systems will be designed for this purpose.
2.	All non-staff pay systems in operation in the Corporation will provide a designated minimum of common and compatible data in a consistent format.
3.	The co-ordination point(s) will provide Finance with interpretations of individual contracts respecting the type of employment created and the implications of collective agreements.
4.	It is the responsibility of Finance to specify the basic information it requires about a contract/contractee in order to carry out the paying function.


Mr. Pennock: 1.	What is the current status of Ms. Sheelagh Whittaker with the CBC?
2.	In her role as Vice-President of Planning for the Corporation, was she
initially retained on a personal services contract to Mr. Franklin Delaney, then
Vice-President and is she presently on such a contract?
3.	Is Ms. Whittaker on a retainer to Canada Consulting Group (CCG) and,
if so, under what terms?
October 19, 1987

4.	Does the Corporation make a separate remittance to CCG for the services provided on an ongoing basis by Ms. Whittaker as Vice-President, Planning and Corporate Affairs and, if so, in what amount?
5.	What are the terms of the contract between the CBC and CCG for the services of Ms. Whittaker, or between the CBC and Ms. Whittaker with respect to (a) reimbursement of travel costs between Toronto and Ottawa (b) reimbursement of accommodation costs, meal allowances and other transportation in Ottawa?
6.	What is the Corporation's total annual liability for the services of Ms. Whittaker?
7.	Does CBC continue to utilize the consulting services of CCG for other projects?
8.	In the fiscal year (a) 1986-87 (6) 1987-88, what was/is the amount of the contracts let to CCG by (i) CBC (ii) Vice-President, Planning and Corporate Affairs (iii) Vice-President, Special Projects?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the reply to the above questions is as follows:
1.	Ms. Whittaker is the vice-president of planning and corporate affairs for the Canadian Broadcasting corporation.
2.	Ms. Whittaker was initially retained on a personal services contract to the Corporation. She reported to the senior vice-president. She is still retained on a personal services contract.
3.	No.
4.	No. The Corporation makes no remittance to CCG for the services provided by Ms. Whittaker. Ms. Whittaker's contract of employment is with the Corporation and is exclusive to the Corporation. An annual fee is paid by CBC to CCG as a consideration for releasing Ms. Whittaker from her contractual obligations to CCG.
5.	(a) and (b). It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide details of its internal management and administration such as its specific financial arrangements with individual employees. The background to this custom is explained in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.
6.	See the reply to 5 (a) and (b) above.
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) (i) $230,607.31 (ii) $67,700.69 (iii) nil. (b) (i) $26,525.83 (ii) $4,931.44 (iii) nil.
Note: The figures in parts (a)(i) and (b)(i) include the sums in parts (a)(ii) and (b)(ii).


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Minister have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Constitution Amendment, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 8, 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,
[Stage Direction]
October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (I) 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( l) 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.
101 E. (1) Sections 101A to 101 D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"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:
October 19, 1987
[Stage Direction]
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."
1 3. 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 101C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (1) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
" 106A.( 1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40.	Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by
[Stage Direction]
October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and (0 an amendment to this Part.
42.(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
''(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101 C.(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.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and
multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada. French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b) by deleting Section 2.(3).
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."
Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity today to speak in this historic debate.
When the first ministers met this spring to discuss the conditions set by Quebec for joining the Constitution, not many people really believed that they would be able to reach an agreement. It would take a miracle, people said. The day after the agreement was signed, people said it was a miracle.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have been trained to be sceptical about miracles, and I don't think there has ever been a miracle in politics. I am inclined to believe that the Meech Lake Accord was achieved by one man, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and that the premiers' readiness to consider the conditions set by Quebec reflect the "maturing" of our Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I intend to focus on the central aspect of the Meech Lake Accord; the recognition in the Constitution of Quebec's distinct character and Canada's linguistic duality. For the first time, the provinces are making a formal commitment to protect this linguistic duality, and Quebec, which from now on will be recognized as a distinct society, will have the recognized right and privilege to protect and promote that which constitutes its specific character.
In the lives of nations there are important events that have become milestones because they have changed the course of history. Madam Speaker, this historic Accord is one of those milestones.
1 would now like to take a few moments to correct a serious mistake I am referring to the theory that the claims of modern day Quebec started in the 1960s, and that the measures taken during those years represent a clean break with the years that went before, the governments Quebec had since the 1930s and the leaders of public opinion who had crafted a nationalist ideology in the years before that time. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
The history of nations-the history of Quebec and Canada is a case in point-consists of deep political currents that determine its flow and a number of superficial events that sometimes camouflage, sometimes reveal, the meaning of these currents. Quebec in the 1960s-this turbulent Quebec that is said to be at the root of our Constitutional reform-was not, and never has been, a brand new Quebec come out of the blue in our modern history. It was merely developing what had always been there and what had been expressed formerly in
October 19, 1987

other ways. Between Quebec politicians like Maurice Duples-sis, who stated: "We must keep what we have", Jean Lesage, who said: "We must be masters in our own house" and Daniel Johnson, who demanded: "Equality or independence", there was never a break. Superficially perhaps, but beneath it all, a steady continuity.
Mr. Speaker, our Francophone society in Canada has been constant in its desire to be recognized as a distinct society, in charge of its own affairs.
Everyone knows that if it were not for the resistance of the Atlantic Provinces, especially Nova Scotia, and if it were not' for the French Canadians in Lower Canada, the union of the colonies of British North America would probably had been legislative, not federative. In fact, as indicated by the central authority's use of the power of disallowance after 1867, attempts were made in that direction during the initial years of Confederation.
These attempts to make the provinces into a uniform body, under the authority of the central Government, as others have often wanted to do, could never succeed in the Canadian context, especially where Quebec was concerned.
To quote Jean-Charles Bonenfant, an eminent professor who also was my professor: "The spirit of 1867 was the final acceptance of the existence of French Canadians and a logical consequence of the Quebec Act". He goes on to say: "The Fathers of Confederation made Lower Canada-the future province of Quebec-a province where the French Canadian majority would be in charge of its own affairs, although it was forced to give the English-speaking minority exceptional protection: Article 93 on education, the twelve privileged townships, the Legislative Council and legislative bilingualism as laid down subsequently Article 133 of the British North America Act."
Madam Speaker, how could it have been otherwise? French Canadians are different because of their language, their laws and their history. Since the Quebec Act was passed in the 18th century, and despite a succession of constitutional reforms and systems, Quebec always had the power to create its own institutions, governed by legislation that has developed an essential part of its social structure and still does today.
One of the main reasons why Quebec is a distinct society arises from this different social structure and a different way of doing things, based on a different system of values and regulated, as far as private law is concerned, by a series of laws that go back to the "coutume de Paris" and are thus not based on the same philosophy as the common law of the other provinces. This applies to all Quebec citizens, whatever their origins or language.
French Canadians have always claimed they had all the elements of a distinct society, and in the course of history, they have managed to give their distinct character a firm foundation which they would now like to see recognized. They did so during the parliamentary struggles in the first half of the 19th
Constitution Amendment, 1987
century, Madam Speaker. They showed their mettle under the Act of Union by gradually introducing what was in fact a double system.
Of course, the strategy has changed over time. As we all know, the State has not always been as strategically important to French Canadians as it was during the first half of the 19th century and still is today. For a long time and, significantly, especially after Confederation, French Canadian leaders made the Catholic school system and the parish the prime instrument for protecting and promoting the French fact in Canada and North America. Unfortunately, among certain representatives, sometimes even the most enlightened, of English Canada, this approach lead to incredible misunderstandings and considerable conflict. In whatever ways Francophones have, over the years, made their claim for recognition as a distinct society, it has always been one of the major currents of Canadian history. Only a blind person would fail to see that.
This is how Quebec's international claims throughout the 1960s-indeed, just like its claims in other fields, communications, to name one-stem primarily from the all exclusive approach taken by previous governments with respect to maintaining their constitutional prerogative. When Paul Gerin-Lajoie stated in 1965 that the Quebec Government could actively participate in an international conference of education ministers, thus exercising his power in an exclusive constitutional jurisdiction, he was in fact doing nothing more than drawing implicit conclusions flowing from the stated position to which Premier Duplessis and his predecessors had been clinging all along. There was nothing new under the sun.
Madam Speaker, why did the undertaking turn out to be so arduous? Why so many obstacles on such a straight road? Why did the staunchest opposition come from the Canadian Government until 1984? Why are the same people again today so adamantly opposed to official recognition of the distinct character of the Quebec society?
Nobody denies the existence of the patently obvious distinctive characteristics of Quebec: 80 per cent of the people speak French. It is the only government in America where Francophones make up the majority. Montreal happens to be Canada's French-speaking cultural community, to the extent that the vitality of our country's Francophone minorities depends on the vitality of Quebec's society. Madam Speaker, the most eloquent testimony to Quebec's distinct character is the deep-rooted link with its electronic media, as emphasized by the Sauvageau-Caplan task force on broadcasting policies: high local ratings, preference for original dramatic productions, and what have you.
So, Madam Speaker, why should anyone speak out against constitutional recognition of Quebec's distinct character? Why does opposition to that still prevail today?

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Just as history is made up of deep-rooted trends and passing events, so do we have both sincere and superficial politicians. Except for a very short interregnum in 1979, from 1966 to 1984-almost 20 years-Canada was inspired and directed by politicians who remained insensitive to these deep-rooted trends and were more interested in imposing the abstact formula of a country which they did not understand, or at least did not seem to understand properly.
This country, obviously, is made up of strong regions which want to maintain their own characteristics. It is home to two linguistic communities. It includes a Francophone society whose mainstay is and has always been Quebec, the only government where it makes up the majority. That is Canada as it is, Madam Speaker, not an abstract but a real entity.
The policy of confrontation which we had to put up with through all those years could only lead to the situation we all witnessed: absolutely untractable positions and a separatist threat which was all the more astonishing that it did originate from Quebec's need to take its normal place within Confederation, nothing more than its normal place.
I would not want to suggest that all demands made by Quebec were not to be interpreted, therefore negotiable. I am simply saying that they all stemmed from Quebecers' will to assert themselves, and as such it was not in any way a challenge to the sovereignty nor, of course, the very existence of Canada. Nothing suggests, except in the stubborn minds of a few men who finally managed to impose to most people, Quebecers and other Canadians alike, the somewhat perverse notion that the qualifier "Canadian" quite simply excluded the qualifier "Quebecer", that being Canadian meant being against Quebec, with the all too natural consequence that such a tenet would soon be inversely expressed by Quebecers themselves.
Inevitably, this refusal by the Government in Ottawa to recognize Quebec's distinct character was to provoke a similar reaction from the other side. It was not a happy episode in our history.
However, nothing could be further from the basic reality of this country, especially for the Francophone community. To quote our Prime Minister in his famous speech in Sept-iles, where he promised to bring Quebec back into the Canadian Constitution:
Quebecers love Quebec and are proud of Canada. They also love Canada
and are proud of Quebec. Their hearts are big enough for both loyalties. Very
few people who said yes to Quebec said no to Canada, and no one who said yes
to Canada said no to Quebec.
That is the Canadian situation, Madam Speaker.
This double allegiance, which many foreigners have trouble understanding, was pledged by all great French Canadian nationalists, ever since Confederation. Lavergne, Asselin, Bourassa- incidently, Henri Bourassa was a typical example: He was a man who was truly French Canadian, who clearly defined the French Canadian fact, and who at the same time was every inch a Canadian. At a time when Canada was the
victim of imperialist and extraterritorial intervention, he defended Canada's autonomy against intervention by foreign powers, including Great Britain. This position, taken by a man of vision, would be vindicated several years later when the Treaty of Westminster was signed.
Fortunately, Madam Speaker, in 1984 Canadians and Quebecers elected a man cut from the right cloth, who understood that the very nature of the Canadian federation demanded the intelligent art of compromise, co-operation and standing united for a common goal. For almost 20 years,-we all witnessed this period in our history- Ottawa's stubborn insistence on making Quebec knuckle under, for the sake of an egalitarian vision of this country, nearly broke up both Quebec and Canada. In hardly three years, the patience and intelligence of one man made it possible to restore the common will of all Canadians which has always been, and still is, the strength of our federation.
We can thank the Prime Minister for Meech Lake. For the first time, Quebec sees enshrined in the Constitution its right to protect and promote that which constitutes its distinct character, and it will be able to evoke this distinct identity in all disputes about fundamental rights in the Charter.
Another significant gain is the long hoped for recognition of Canada's linguistic duality, and even more important, a commitment by each province to protect that duality. Madam Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, each province is constitutionally committed to protect the French language. As was said by Mr. Decary when he testified before the joint committee, it is a major gain for Francophones outside Quebec, both morally and in its practical impact. From now on, the Constitution, the Charter and all language and education rights shall be interpreted so as to guarantee the protection of the French-speaking community. That is a reality. That is a victory for Canada and Canadians, Madam Speaker.
Some critics of the Meech Lake Accord have said that one of the most important achievements of the Constitution Act, 1982, in other words, the rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, might be jeopardized as a result of the recognition of Quebec's distinct character. Madam Speaker, here again, the Meech Lake Accord is merely proposing a new balance between individual and collective rights. As mentioned time and time again by our Prime Minister, none of the rights in the Charter will be superseded or quashed as a result of Quebec being recognized as a distinct society. In fact, up to now, the interpretation of fundamental rights given by the courts have always been based on sociological realities, including Quebec's distinct character. The Meech Lake Accord will simply state unequivocally what has been so far implicitly recognized.
As a matter of fact so far, any attempt at making Canada a unitary country has failed and if, by its very nature, this country has been strong it is only because of the strength and vitality of its various parts. Madam Speaker, there lie the basic
October 19, 1987

differences between the Canadian and American federations going in opposite directions. The Canadian federation, which was highly centralized at the beginning, had to struggle until it found a proper balance between its component parts through a decentralization process. On the other hand, the American federation which was very decentralized followed the road towards centralization. The Meech Lake Accord, as we are all well aware, reflects this deep-rooted process. We have restored each component of the Canadian society to its proper place. Above all, we have finally given Quebec its proper place; all we had to do was to forget this depressing period of our history when confrontation ruled supreme, to simply open the door, ask all interested parties to get together and give Quebecers and other Canadians something they had every right to expect, namely a country, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, everyone in the House recognizes that this is a special kind of debate, one that is not within the normal range of quick, 30-second flashes and repartee in Parliament. We are talking about something which goes to the fundamental heart of the country. It requires from each and every Member on both sides of the House a sense of judgment on what is the best way in which they can serve the interests of their constituents, both in a local sense and in a national sense.
My starting point in trying to address the issue is a recognition of how important federalism is to Canada. Probably of all countries in the world, certainly all those with so-called federal arrangements, federalism is most important to us.
A little joke has been used many times about a question being posed to a Russian, an American, and a Canadian, asking them to define sex. The Russian says: "It is a capitalist conspiracy". The American says: "Sex is simply a natural evolution of liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Canadian says: "It is a federal-provincial problem". This probably reflects what most Canadians innately understand, that our constitutional, legal, institutional framework setting up the powers between Governments and the way we relate to each other is in fact crucial because Canada could not operate without a federal system.
In a sense our geography is a series of connecting settlements across 5,000 kilometres. A sense of distribution at different levels of Government is required to manage it properly. The fundamental issue of French-English relations as they have evolved over the years also requires a federal system to maintain a dynamic between the two. Certainly the relationship, that is, the connection between an economically and politically strong, powerful central Canada and the peripheries, or the hinterlands of East and West, requires a federal system to adjust it, to monitor it, and to keep it alive and dynamic.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The most difficult relationship in some ways is that of trying to continue to occupy the northern half of the continent when our neighbour is the most powerful nation in the world, and of trying to maintain our independence, uniqueness, and distinctiveness in that relationship. This has also required a federal system to ensure that we could undertake the kind of social experimentation and the variations in developing that distinctive notion of what is Canada.
Today we find that we have a convergence of all those problems. In a sense, debating the Meech Lake Accord and the Langevin agreement is only one part of the great Canadian debate which seems to be taking place on what is our national purpose and how we answer those issues which have seized Canada since its inception, not only in terms of French-English relations but in terms of central Canada's relationship with the peripheries and its relationship with the United States.
Many of us see quite a fundamental alteration taking place in those relationships. It is a fundamental alteration because on virtually every front we now have a Government in Ottawa which basically does not believe in using Government to serve those purposes. It may see Government as an arbitrator, a mediator or perhaps a conciliator, but not as an initiator, a leader or a driving, motivating force to provide some sense of national purpose or direction in dealing with each of the issues. It comes as no surprise; it is not unique.
Canadian history has been replete with a very strong debate, or conflict at times, between two groups of thought or two competing notions of how Canada should operate, that between the community of communities we are simply an amalgam of separate islands somehow related in an archipelago of convenience, versus those who see Canada as something that the sum of which is greater than its parts. This group of thought indicates that the country of Canada has a unique destiny and responsibility of its own which is larger, bigger, more important, and more significant than the sum of its parts. This is the classic debate in which we have all been engaged.
The problem is that that reality is not in any way encompassed by the Meech Lake Accord, the document which was signed by the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) several months ago. If I have any real objection-and I know some of my colleagues feel the same-it is that so much of the new reality of the distinctive Canada about which I was talking is not incorporated in the agreement.
If we read the testimony presented by women's organizations before the standing committee, we see that they basically said that the Meech Lake Accord does not incorporate the new reality of women in our society and in our economy, that it does not grant them the kind of recognition of the rights for which they have fought so long. It does not take into account the kinds of concerns which my colleague from New Brunswick and I have in our constituencies about French-speaking

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Canadians outside the Province of Quebec. It is not incorporated in the Meech Lake Accord; it does not recognize those problems.
The Accord does not take into account the incredibly new sense of western direction, enthusiasm, and energy, to be more in control and managing our own resources. We do not see anywhere a recognition by the negotiators of the agreement of a demand for some accommodation on the part of the central provinces to greater representation at the national level. There is a fundamental flaw made in the country in assuming that provincial Governments will represent regional interests nationally. We are almost trying to devise a new kind of institution called federal-provincial conferences to make that kind of regional representation work.
However, we know that the founders of Confederation made a mistake, one which no successive generations corrected. The Upper Chamber was originally designed to ensure that there would be a sense of region at the national level of government, which was totally and completely destroyed by the fact that it was an appointed body. Because no one got around to changing it has meant that our federalism has always had a real flaw. It has not ensured an effective representation of the interests of western Canada and Atlantic Canada at the national level.
The movement toward that achievement was at a point of maturity, when the opportunity for major constitutional change to have an elected Senate based on some form of equal representation was about ready to blossom forward, but the Meech Lake Accord was signed to cut that off. That accommodation is more difficult now because the Accord establishes the principles of unanimity to make that kind of constitutional change.
In a sense our institutional document is further out of sync with the living reality of Canada itself. It is what political scientists call the living constitution, that kind of amalgam of political, social and economic forces that shift and change from generation to generation but which must give life to our Constitution.
Certainly the Meech Lake Accord does not take into account that since the Second World War there has emerged in Canada a new generation of Canadians, the so-called multicultural third force of Canada, which in some ways is the most dynamic part of our country. They find the Meech Lake Accord frustrates and freezes their ambitions and their aspirations. That is why there has been so much consternation, certainly in our Party and among many other Canadians.
This kind of constitutional initiative serves one very vital and important purpose, to have the Province of Quebec as a signatory, a purpose for which our own Party has fought. In our own policy resolution I spoke on behalf of western Canadians to encourage the convention to join in that ambition, but that noble and very positive achievement has been
substantially marred by the other part of the equation which was given in order to achieve that goal.
We have taken certain steps backward. We have been blind to those new realities and we have created a very flawed and imperfect document. In fact, it may have put at some risk the effective evolution of Canada because we have put roadblocks or apparent barriers in the way.
I was reading a book by Donald Smiley called The Federal Condition In Canada. I think most people recognize that Professor Smiley is one of the foremost constitutional experts in Canada. Talking about the sense of national purpose and national policy, he said that there have been three real periods. First, John A. Macdonald in the 1870s had a national policy, which seemed to capture a sense of a broader Canada. Second, the period after the Second World War when we got together to forge a new set of social and economic institutions: the health care system, the regional equalization system and so on. Third, in the early 1980s the Government of which I was a member in its constitutional change attempted a kind of national resource policy. Professor Smiley ended with his comment:
-if John A. Macdonald were to reappear among us, he would within a
month have a surer grasp of the stakes in our current debates than does the
person who is now the Prime Minister.
The first Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald, would have understood that, aside from simply accommodating regional, linguistic or ethnic interests, a broader sense of vision and purpose is also required. The present Accord fails on that account miserably. It ends up with a scuffling of private interests as a definition of what Canada is all about.
That is why the amendments put forward by members of our Party are so important and essential for consideration by this House. They are not in any way to impair the achievement of the Meech Lake Accord, which is the involvement of Quebec in the constitutional structure, but to say that it could be a much better, much improved document accommodating a much more realistic contemporary sense of what Canada is and what Canada should be. The amendments are simply to say, let us alter and reorganize to achieve a constitutional legal framework which better represents the interests of all Canadians and the reality of Canada. Those amendments are not in any way reducing the achievement. They add and support it. In particular they are trying to say to Members of this House that in no way would damage be done.
We are now locked into a kind of struggle reminiscent of certain Japanese wrestlers, those 400 pound behemoths who get into the centre ring, grasp each other and are afraid to move. It seems we almost have that now with the federal and provincial Governments. They have locked each other into a death grip and each one is afraid to move even though they know that there probably is a necessity for change and amendment.
October 19, 1987

I would say in parenthesis that perhaps there is some movement, at least on the provincial side. It may appear that there are certain provincial Governments which are now saying that their work was incomplete and not good enough. They must take into account the questions of how they respond to challenges to the Charter, the rights of the Territories and how they deal with the rights of the aboriginal peoples, the new realities of the Canada with which we are dealing.
We on this side of the House can only say Amen to those kinds of efforts because we know that change will have to be made. We also know that there is a smaller reality, namely, that this House will be required to vote in a matter of days or a week on the specific interest.
It is of great and incredible regret that the Prime Minister of Canada, the one person responsible for trying to have a broader vision, was not prepared to use those skills of conciliation, that he is so proud of boasting about, to deal with the kind of representations made in front of the standing committee. He instead stonewalled every opportunity for change, which flew in the face of valid important representations for change.
That, therefore, puts this House of Commons in an awkward dilemma. Because of the unwillingness and impolitic behaviour of the Government, the House of Commons is in a very difficult situation which we all realize. Everyone supports the ambition of Quebec to gain its sense of distinction and place in the Canadian Constitution, but to do that we must agree to an Accord which we also know does not recognize fully the rights and interests of many other Canadians or their concerns. That is the $64 question which colleagues on both sides of the House must face.
I suggest purely on my own account that ultimately we have to come to a choice based upon how to achieve the most effective kinds of constitutional changes for Canada, that will allow us to pursue a country that is modern, contemporary and recognizes its many changes over time. My conclusion is that we will not do it with this Government. It will be impossible to achieve with the kinds of initiatives that we have seen. For example, the kind of wrenching alteration in the fundamental structures of Canada that will be occasioned if the free trade agreement goes through. There is the total uprooting and dismantling of the federal Government's ability to provide direction and leadership on regional development, on social programs and economic development, and, in fact, in meeting international competition because we will no longer have a Government which has the power or strength to provide that leadership. We will have signed it away. We will have constricted our abilities and eliminated our capacity to develop programs to take initiative. It is a further sign that this group of people does not understand that government itself in its own right is a positive, creative, constructive force which must be used for those purposes. They have decided that the great allocator of the Canadian national interest will be the marketplace and that the Government is only there to facilitate that
Constitution Amendment, 1987
as opposed to providing a public interest, not a private interest, a public interest.


Mr. Blenkarn:: What's wrong with that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Even the Hon. Member from Mississauga does not understand the difference between public and private interest, that the Government is not simply there to reflect a whole series of private, profit-oriented interests. When people vote for a Member of Parliament they expect him to serve the public interest, and that public interest is bigger and broader than the whole series of individualized, selfish private interests.
Every Government has to accommodate business and labour and everything else, but it should not surrender to them or become captive to them. It should have a broader set of interests than that which is something that the Conservatives of the 1980s do not understand. They have no sense of that kind of public interest. We see it in the individual behavior of Members and ir, the behavior of the Government. That is why it is so essential, when looking at constitutional structures and institutions, we assure that the sense of public, national purpose is redefined and that we have a Government that understands that, for a change, and will bring those kinds of concerns to bear.
Ultimately, we will fight as hard as we can and for as long as we have a breath left for these amendments. If they are defeated, as the Prime Minister says they will be, then we will need a Government beyond this one which will pursue those same amendments in the same way to ensure that we will have a Constitution that fully recognizes and reflects the reality of Canada. My job will be to ensure that there is the basis for that alternative Government so that we can have an effective and useful Canada with an effective Government that recognizes those concerns. That will be the kind of decision which I will urge my colleagues to take as well.


Mr. Charest:: Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon. Member who is from the Province of Manitoba, because I did not hear it and he will excuse me if he has already stated it, whether he intends to vote for or against the Accord ultimately, whether the amendments put forward by his Party pass or not.
I would also like to pick up where he left off and ask him whether or not he intends to campaign during the next election on the amendments that the Liberal Party of Canada put forward today. Could he give us some indication of that, as the Leader of his Party has?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, if the Hon. Member had been following more carefully the debate in the House and in other places, he would know full well that the Leader of our Party has said that the kind of amendments we are putting forward will form the basis of a platform in the next election campaign. I will certainly be glad, as a member of that group, to campaign for them for the

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
very reasons I have just stated, for the very reason that they more fully reflect and represent the interests of all Canadians; the women, aboriginal peoples, members of multicultural groups and those in the Territories who feel that they have been ignored and neglected by this particular Accord. It is important that they feel they have a place and a Party to represent them. We will be more than pleased to do that.
As for the first question, I would ask the Hon. Minister in return what his Party intends to do about the amendments. Do Members of his Party intend to vote for them? If he gives me an answer to that, he may get an answer from me.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, 1 find it unusual that the Hon. Member would want to question me when I put before him a very simple question. I asked the Hon. Member if he would ultimately vote for the Accord whether the amendments pass or not.
The Government side has stated its position. It is quite clear. I myself have spoken on this Accord so perhaps the Hon. Member from Manitoba could tell us, since he is the one who is speaking today, whether ultimately he will or will not vote for the Accord, notwithstanding what happens to the amendments.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, one offer is as good as another. Since the Hon. Member refused to answer my question, I will exercise the same right.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, to get to the bottom of this, I can inform the Hon. Member that I will vote for the Meech Lake Accord, whether the amendments of the Liberal Party pass or not. I will vote for the Meech Lake Accord.
We already know that an important number of Members of the Liberal Party of Canada will ultimately vote against their Leader on this Accord. I would like to know if the Hon. Member will be one of the Members of the federal Liberal Party of Canada who will vote against his Leader.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I absolutely and totally appreciate the prurient curiosity of the Hon. Member, but this after all is Parliament, and that may tell something about how he spends his time. He would be much better off looking after the youth of this country than worrying about how Liberal members will vote. We would not have a 14 per cent or 15 per cent unemployment rate among young people if he was doing his job.
I do not care how the Minister will vote. I want to know how the Government will vote. We have not heard that yet. We want to know about the amendments because we have made the case that the Meech Lake Accord is incomplete. We have put forward amendments and, as I understand the procedures of the House, having been here for several years, once the outcome of those amendments is determined, that will certainly determine our vote. I would be more than happy to note how the Hon. Member, a member of a minority in his Party, will vote.


Mr. Hamelin:: Madam Speaker, my colleague quotes Professor Smiley of Queen's University. Is it not true that Professor Smiley, like many of his colleagues, was a great supporter of this Accord? Why quote him on something else?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the quote I used from Professor Smiley was not commenting on the Accord, it was commenting on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is certainly not supportive of the Prime Minister because he said the Prime Minister does not understand Canada and does not understand the national purpose of Canada. I would suggest that if Professor Smiley wants to support the Accord, that is his business. I was just using him as an authority on the Prime Minister.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first, I find it very interesting that on such an important debate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) would feel compelled to attack the Prime Minister personally, and then make references to me personally, references that are completely uncalled for. I take some time to note that because I think it is an indication of the predicament of the Hon. Member and also the attitude of his Party in this debate. Since he wishes to approach it from that point of view, I would be interested in knowing whether he agrees or not with the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who said that the Members of the Liberal Party who would vote against the Accord are anti-Quebecers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having damaged the tender, sensitive feelings of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the Chair may interrupt for a minute, I think both the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister might take time out to get their eyesight checked.


Lloyd Axworthy: Pardon me, Madam Speaker. I will certainly take your advice.

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to recognize the distinguished person sitting in the Chair.

First, I do apologize that the Hon. Minister's tender, sensitive feelings have in some way been trampled in the House of Commons. I did not realize we had such a hothouse flower among us that could not bear some comment upon his duties as a Minister. As the old saying goes, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I would think that the Hon. Member may want to find a more cloistered occupation to follow when he is defeated in the next election, an occupation that would not hurt him so much.
I want to explain very clearly that the point of our Party presenting amendments was not to defeat the specific goal of
October 19, 1987

the Meech Lake Accord in having Quebec become a full signatory to the Constitution. We just think the Prime Minister struck a bad bargain. It could have been negotiated much more effectively. However, accepting as a fait accompli that we have that kind of mentality occupying high office, we want to signal to Canadians that they should not despair of having a Constitution that will meet their interests and concerns. That is the purpose of our amendments and no other. That is why we believe the Hon. Member and his colleagues would be well advised to realize that those amendments provide an important improvement to the constitutional fabric of this country, one that will provide for agreement rather than the division and disunity which will ensue if the Meech Lake Accord is not changed.


Jean J. Charest: A last question, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the time for questions and comments is now over.


Jean J. Charest: With the House's permission?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent for a last question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, just for this question I will agree with the Hon. Member that we should not be ruffled by personal references in the House. I will then repeat the question which the Hon. Member did not answer. Does he agree with a member of his own Party, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who referred to Members of his Party who will not vote for the Accord as being anti-Quebec? If he wishes to answer the question, we will find out whether or not he is really interested in the debate. Get up and answer it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to answer that. I have been a Member of the Liberal caucus for nine years. I have participated in every debate dealing with the relationship of Quebec to the rest of this country. I can say with great pride that the Liberal Party has done more to provide for constructive development of French-English relations than any other Party in this country. We will still do so when we become the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Jean J. Charest: You did not answer the question, though.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate and say why I agree with the two Members who spoke this morning concerning the historical importance of this debate.
I came to Canada as a youngster with my family in the early 1950s. We were fleeing the wars that had ravaged Europe and Southeast Asia. To be able to stand here and participate in a debate over the Constitution of this country is for me personally a very important and moving moment. That I can do so says
Constitution Amendment, 1987
much about what Canada is. Surely there are very few countries in this world where a newcomer can be elected and participate, as I am doing now, in debating the constitution form of that country. It says something about this country and its broadness of vision that an immigrant can be elected to this place. I am not the only one; there are many others in this House who were born in countries other than Canada. It says a lot about Canada that this opportunity exists for newcomers.
The fact that we are standing here debating the Constitution also says something about Canada. It indicates what a young country we are. We are attempting to define our essence. Surely that is what a Constitution is all about.
This process started in 1982. 1 had hoped then to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity. Some of the things I want to say today are things I had wanted to say in that debate.
At that time I was disturbed when the former Liberal Government under Mr. Trudeau brought in that legislation because there were several aspects which I did not think were correct. First, I thought it was a power grab by the central Government. The federal Government was attempting to act unilaterally to change the nature and shape of this country in a dramatic fashion. It was not until the Supreme Court came down with quite a historic decision that the Prime Minister realized he had better start talking to the provinces to get their understanding and agreement. That is what happened; compromises were reached and we ended up with the Constitution Act of 1982.
It is interesting to note that the process by which we reached that agreement was one of consultation, wheeling and dealing, discussions, and compromises among the elected Governments of this country. That also says so much about what Canada really is. The federal Government's move in 1981-82 disturbed that balance.
I was also disturbed because the original document Mr. Trudeau introduced would have increased the powers of the federal Government. I for one have always believed that the nature of Canada is reflected in the division of powers between the federal and provincial Governments. I have been a strong believer in the notion of co-operative federalism. To govern a country as diverse as Canada, with its various regional interests, linguistic and economic groups, is best done through a co-operative, flexible, compromising kind of system.
That leads me to my second area of concern about what Mr. Trudeau started in 1982. That was his attempt to cast our Constitution in stone. I believe that to be a major problem still. He attempted to define in legalistic terms where the power should be, what our rights are, and what are the roles of the various Governments. We are living in an age of very rapid technological, social, psychological and cultural change. I believe our Constitution should have remained flexible. What we had was a collection of different Acts and documents, some of them going back to Westminster, the BNA Act, and

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
common law. That was our Constitution. It was not neat, it was not defined in one legalistic document. There were many documents. The Constitution was part of the British heritage of common law as well. It was flexible and open. I believe it would have served Canada much better in the years to come to have maintained a flexible Constitution which would have allowed organic growth and changes as we went into the 21st century and beyond. Casting it in stone by passing specific Bills like the Constitution Act of 1982 has created a rigidity which, I believe, will not serve us in the years ahead. I believe that the co-operative, flexible, organic approach of the past would have served us much better in the future than what we have now.
That leads me to my third concern about the Constitution Act of 1982, that being the areas which were left out. If we were going to begin to define the rights and responsibilities of individuals and various elected bodies, we should have continued. What Mr. Trudeau talked about was really 19th century Liberal ideals. I am not saying that they are necessarily outdated. Individual personal freedoms and rights are important. The document which we have today is still flawed because of its basic omissions, and I will return to that later.
What was missing, in my opinion, was a futuristic outlook. I would have felt much more comfortable and been much more excited had the document talked about some of the issues and concerns which the people of our country will be facing as we approach the 21st century and beyond. The newer technologies of mass communication will create a power for persuasion and propaganda against which I believe the citizens of our country must be protected in the future. That was missing.
I think of the tremendous growth of pollutants in the world today. Our air, water, and soil are being polluted to an ever-increasing extent. There should have been something in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to fresh air and clean water. It would have been admirable to put such rights into our Constitution to ensure that one generation cannot befoul the earth, the air, and the waters for the generations to come.
I am concerned about the erosion which I see of basic social programs such as medicare. We should have included in the Constitution the right to the best medical treatment for all Canadians. That was not included. A country as rich and bountiful in resources as is ours should have included in its Constitution the right to decent housing and to food on the table. Canadians living in this beautiful and bountiful nation should inherit the right to decent housing and food on the table.
All of those things were missing from the 1982 Constitution Act. In many ways the Constitution Act was a 19th century Liberal document and I think we should have had a 21st century document.
Those were my concerns about Mr. Trudeau's constitution. The Meech Lake Accord is some steps further down the road
on which Mr. Trudeau started us. I congratulate the Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on their accomplishment in devising an agreement which includes Quebec, the sister culture, in the Constitution. That was an important achievement. It would have been very difficult for Canadians to have continued to live with a Constitution which Quebec had not signed. That would have helped to create and foster alienation in the future.
However, there are things in the agreement which must trouble us all. For example, with regard to the definition of a separate society, our common sense tells us that the culture and psychology in Quebec is different. We rejoice in the difference because it strengthens Canada. In fact, it was the French culture in Quebec which helped protect Canada from the persuasive influence and power of the United States. Quebec is very important in ensuring that Canada maintains its sense of identity. Without Quebec, English Canada would have become much more Americanized. Quebec reminds us that we are indeed different and that is very important.
However, to define that in legalistic terms is very difficult, if not impossible. That is why it is difficult to have a Constitution which requires a definition for everything, which requires the casting in stone of every aspect of this country. It is an impossible task which entangles us in a legal jungle into which our Constitution is leading us further.
There are things about the Meech Lake Accord that bother me. Many Members on all sides of the House have expressed those concerns. It is wrong that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will not be allowed to become provinces until all the other provinces agree. That outrages our sense of fairness and justice.
The rights of our aboriginal people is a question yet to be resolved. The country must come to terms with our aboriginal people, our founding fathers-


Ms. Copps:: And mothers.


Simon Leendert de Jong: And mothers. To allow this to remain unresolved is as unacceptable as is keeping Quebec out of the Constitution. It must be a priority of this Parliament and all Parliaments to resolve to bring our aboriginal people into the constitutional family.
The override on women's rights is totally unacceptable. It is incredible that in this day and age there is no guarantee that there shall be no discrimination based on gender. There is an override as well on the issue of minority rights. It is totally unacceptable that people can be discriminated against based on the colour of their skin. That issue must also be resolved.
I am concerned about the reform of the Senate. While I agree with the actions of our Senators in holding up certain Bills-because I disagree with the substance of those Bills as well-I cannot accept the fact that unelected people can stop the work of this House. It is unacceptable that entering into the 21st century we are still saddled with an institution left
October 19, 1987

over from centuries ago. I am afraid that the proposal from the Meech Lake Accord will make the bad situation even worse. I doubt very much that we will have genuine Senate reform. The only change is that federal patronage has become provincial patronage and all 10 provinces will have to agree to give up their powers of patronage. Good luck. I am afraid that will never happen.
Another area of concern which has been eloquently expressed is the concern about social programs. Are we giving with the Meech Lake Accord too much power to the provinces? I was opposed to Mr. Trudeau's initiative because I' thought he took all the power for the federal Government and it seemed to me that social progress in this country has, on the main, occurred at a provincial level. We have had CCF Governments which have introduced things like hospital insurance and medicare, pioneering new social forms which then became popularized and spread throughout the country. Then the federal Government picked them up and established them as national programs.
Very often it is much easier for those of us who are concerned and interested in social progress to try it first on a provincial level. Social programs are very difficult to implement first on a national level because the federal Government is generally concerned with regional, linguistic and cultural differences. It does not have the support of the electorate of provinces that are a little more homogenized. It is easier to get a provincial electorate behind a certain social program, as we did in Saskatchewan in the early 1960s in terms of medicare. To have brought in medicare without first having it established through the provinces I believe would have been impossible.
Medicare first was initiated through the provinces because of the work done by people like T.C. Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd. Woodrow Lloyd was a man I worked with and for, a man I very deeply respected. The role he played in introducing medicare to this country was heroic. Medicare came in through the provinces. That is where the social experiments occur. That is where the social laboratories exit. I think we must make certain that the provinces have the opportunity of performing the social experimentation.
Certainly, what the Liberals originally introduced in the 1982 Constitution Act would have severely prevented this social experimentation from occurring. It was a power grab by that federal Government. My vision of this country is one of co-operative federalism where both levels of government have an important and vital role to play. It is not a case of the federal Government being more important, or the provincial government. They have different roles to play, but fit together to help shape this country into a strong, vibrant, progressive and growing country. To tilt the power in favour of the federal Government or in favour of the provinces does a disservice to how we operate in this country.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I do not accept the criticism of the Meech Lake Accord that it will stop social progress. It could very well help to engender social programs and allow more social progress to occur by allowing social experimentation in the provinces. It is true that we have in Saskatchewan right now a regressive government where some of the social progress is now being disassembled. I think the federal Government has an important role to play in ensuring that national standards are maintained.
I have stood in my place and asked that the Government curtail funding to the Province of Saskatchewan because of what it is doing with legal aid. The national standards in terms of legal aid are not being met by the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal Government should use the power of the purse. Power should remain with the federal Government. It should not be tilted in favour of one or the other.
I feel that while there are major problems with the Meech Lake Accord because there are things left undone which should be done and the constitutional process is, therefore, not finished, we have taken a few more steps down the road on which Mr. Trudeau sent us. I never liked the road he chose, but once we are on that road we cannot stop. There are many more steps which need to be taken with the Meech Lake Accord. I welcome the recommendation of the standing committee that there be a permanent, standing committee of this House to deal with constitutional amendments. I dearly hope that much of what I said will be wrong, that the Constitution which is evolving will be flexible enough to meet the tremendous challenges of the 21st Century. That is my sincerest wish.


Mr. Berger:: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his remarks. I always listen to him carefully when he speaks in this House. However, I was quite astonished today by some of his remarks and I would like to put a few questions to him.
First, the Hon. Member referred to 1982 as a power grab by the federal Government. He referred to the original proposal which he then distinguished from the final proposal. I would like him to name one single power, either in the original proposal or in the final proposal, which the federal Government assumed, one single power the federal Government proposed to have transferred from the legislative authority of the provinces to the federal Government. I may be wrong, but I do not recall that initiative making any such proposal.
Second, the Hon. Member was concerned that the 1981 or 1982 proposal made our Constitution more rigid. He said the Constitution should have remained flexible. I do not quite understand what he is driving at there because I see, for example, the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, the general procedure under Article 38, which provides a formula to amend the Constitution with the agreement of the Parliament of Canada and two-thirds of the provinces which have 50 per cent of the population. This, to me, is a much more flexible proposal than the constitutional convention we have been operating under for some 45 or 50

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
years which requires the agreement of all the provinces and the federal Government.
I thought the Hon. Member perhaps opposed the idea of a Charter of Rights but he did say he thought the Charter was important. I would remind him when he talks about the need to address the question of newer technologies or the right to a cleaner environment, the Charter does that in an organic fashion, in a fashion that will grow and can be built upon over the years, namely, Article 7 of the Charter, which refers to every person's right to life, liberty and security of the person. Although that provision may have up to now been somewhat restrictively interpreted by the courts, I think there is the possibility that the provision, with perhaps a broader interpretation over a period of time, could grow into the kind of concept which the Hon. Member says he favours.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, 1 did take notes and I do have some notations so I think I can answer the Hon. Member's questions. First, he wanted to know what sort of power grab the federal Government attempted to commit in 1981-1982 with the 1982 Constitution Act. First, it acted unilaterally when the Prime Minister attempted to just pass the legislation through the House of Commons and the Senate, and that was it. That in itself was, 1 think, a power grab. As well, there were aspects in the Constitution that certainly disturbed us, for example, guaranteeing interprovincial trade, so that one province could not discriminate against, let us say, companies coming from outside of Canada. We in Saskatchewan felt that provision could have prevented medicare from being introduced in 1961-62 because the provincial public monopoly on medical insurance would have prevented outside insurance companies from operating in Saskatchewan.
In the same way, we felt in Saskatchewan that the same provision would have prevented us from introducing the Saskatchewan Government's automobile insurance because it created a public monopoly, so would have discriminated against outside insurance companies from doing business in Saskatchewan.
Those were some of the concerns we had about the proposals that were introduced by the former Liberal Government. There was no doubt about it, and I think everybody will recognize, that it was a power grab by the central state. The former Prime Minister's disdain for the provinces and provinicial leaders and Premiers was quite widely known. 1 suspect that the only person he really respected was Allan Blakeney because Allan Blakeney was able to stand toe to toe with him on issue after issue.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Unlike his own Cabinet.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Hon. Member's second question concerned rigidity. Much of what I have said today is that I find going down the road of a written Constitution creates a rigidity. I still believe that. He suggested that the amending formula, after the Constitution Accord of 1982, created more
flexibility than had existed before. He described it as what "seemed" to exist in the previous Constitution. Of course, I appreciate him saying "seemed". The Constitution we had before was a collection of many different documents. It was not defined. It was not focused. It was not totally described in legalistic terms.
Mr. Trudeau, after all, was a great lawyer. He thought in legalistic terms, and reality had to be defined in legalistic terms. For Mr. Trudeau if the Constitution was not defined in legalistic terms, it did not have a reality to it. I was suggesting that perhaps had Mr. Trudeau been more of a poet and less of a technocrat lawyer he could have had the spirit and the essence of this country. He could have realized that the spirit was alive even though it was not defined in legalistic jargon and terms.
Had Mr. Trudeau been more of a poet, we could have had a Constitution that had some poetry in it rather than having it read like the Income Tax Act, dry and dull, something from which only legal scholars can get any inspiration.
The third point that my colleague from the Liberal Party mentioned was the Charter of Rights. He suggested that such collective rights as the environment can be built on in Article 7. I suppose that is true. I suppose some of the objections that he has had toward the Meech Lake Accord can also be built on in Article 7. His logic here escapes me.
The way things stand now, one can build on what is there. Surely, a great deal more building has to be done in terms of women's rights, aboriginal people and so forth. I do not disagree with him that building has to be done.
But I am just saying it was a pity that in 1982 the vision was not great enough to encompass the 21st century; that, in essence, Mr. Trudeau's document was backward looking and not a forward looking. Had it been a forward looking document he would have included the right to fresh air and clean water, the right to a decent basic standard of living, the right to basic minimal medical care in this country, basic rights that Canadians should enjoy from here on in.


Charles-André Hamelin: As some of my colleagues have done so far, Madam Speaker, I will deal with the Meech Lake Accord which, I think reflects a vision of tolerance as a characteristic feature of Canada in the respect and promotion of its very creative differences.
Having had the privilege to sit last summer on the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Meech Lake Accord, I realized, after a few meetings, that I was taking part in an event of major historical significance. And facing the Canadian coats of arms inscribed with the a mari usque ad mare motto, I realized, for the first time in 20 years, the full significance of this symbol.
As so many other Quebecers, following the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord, I felt for the first time really Canadian,
October 19, 1987

while still feeling like a Quebecer. Thanks to the fantastic results achieved by the Premiers and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), thanks to their faith in the Canadian federation, thanks to their will to be the builders of Canada rather than small-time politicians who care only for political concepts which inevitably change according to the mood of the time and public opinion, for the first time, I realized the meaning of the Canadian motto A mari usque ad mare, from sea to sea, and I felt a bit more confident of my identity as a Canadian, and as a Canadian from Quebec, I wanted to play my part in the Canadian federation.
1 felt better able to identify with this country because I saw that the whole federation was willing to respect my identity and my differences, and I am not speaking about superiority because we are not better than anyone else. The Canadian mosaic reflects these collective differences, which include my own creative differences and my role in this great country. For the first time, I felt that the other communities in Canada, especially the English-speaking community, recognized me, all Quebecers and all French-Canadians as first-class Canadians and as part of this country.
During the hearings of the Joint Committee chaired by Senator Arthur Tremblay and his colleague Chris Speyer, we looked together at all the options offered by this Accord. We looked at what could be fundamental mistakes or weaknesses in the Accord. We heard hundreds of witnesses and dozens of groups who came to express their views on this historic and, according to some people, near miraculous, Constitutional Accord.
I do not know whether some of them acted in good faith or not, but they used what I would call a somewhat fallacious method, and this is unfortunately the trap in which some of our Liberal colleagues in this House have fallen.
Most of them were ecstatic and full of admiration when they saw the beautiful forest we were planting, but immediately after, they got out their axes and began to destroy systematically this historic Accord. Under what pretext? In most cases, because this Accord, as it was made by man, is by definition not perfect. No one on the committee said it was a perfect Accord. However, everyone, including most of our experts, agreed that although the Accord was not perfect, it was an absolutely essential component of the Canadian structure we were building together, and that later on, if need be, we could look at this structure again and make further changes.
In politics like anywhere else, it is much easier to create panic than to create hope, solidarity and unity. It is so much easier to try and scare people. It is so much easier to claim that rights are in jeopardy. For instance, the women of Quebec reminded Canadian women that they could stand on their own two feet and were perfectly able to promote and protect their fundamental rights, rights for which the women of Quebec,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
like many other Canadian women, have fought vigorously and have now won fundamental recognition.
Granted, the Accord does not recognize, does not pay enough attention to and does not define aboriginal rights as such. It is clear that the aboriginal community, despite continuing attempts, has yet to find its true place, and with force and determination, gain recognition for that place within the Constitution. This could not be done. The Accord does not deal with this specifically. The same applies to the Senate.
Western Canada is very much concerned about Senate reform. As a Quebecer, I must say, and I think most of my colleagues will agree, that the issue of Senate reform is not one of our priorities. We don't lose any sleep over it. I think a proposal to abolish the Senate would easily meet with the unanimous or nearly unanimous support of Quebecers. But that was not the purpose of the nation-building exercise in which the Premiers participated.
There were other issues as well that were brought to our attention during these hearings. There was the whole issue of Francophones outside Quebec. Of course we would have preferred to have the Accord both protect and promote their rights, and we said so in Item 14 of our report, namely that the Constitution should provide that all Governments have a duty not only to protect but also to promote Canada's linguistic duality. However, we realized that in the circumstances and for the time being, it would be impossible to win the acceptance of the entire Canadian community. We did not get the impression, and this was later confirmed by others, that some of the Premiers would not agree to both protect and promote the Canadian linguistic duality in their respective provinces.
There was of course criticism of the distinct society concept.
Some people almost jokingly asked: Does it mean something, or does it mean nothing? If it does not mean anything, why is it there? Reference was made to Quebec's society as being a sociological reality which some people simply would not want to see enshrined in a constitutional statute.
I, for one, state that the distinct society concept does not give Quebec any additional power, either in theory or in practice. The issue of division of powers among the central government and the provinces was not raised. But we happen to know that this concept of distinct society really means something. It will undoubtedly enable Quebec's society to expand as much as possible within its jurisdiction, within its own particular fields.
I can only smile when I hear certain people voice fear and concern about recognizing such a society. They say: You will be granting new powers, creating two societies in Canada, two classes of citizens, some who will get preferential treatment and other Canadian men and women of different ethnic origins who will not be in a position to benefit fully. That suggestion is quite wrong.
We must appreciate the fact that these claims were and are still rooted in Quebec history. One has to bear in mind that

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
francophone Canadians and Quebecers in particular constitute a small society surrounded on all sides by 350 million Englishspeaking people. My God, this is the way, not to defend our interests to the detriment of anybody else, but to promote our own distinct character if we want to survive.
The assimilation figures for the other provinces and for Canada in general are such that it is obvious that if we are not given the means to remain what we are as a society, we shall not be able to resist for long. Our society is an asset for Canada. It is part of the essence of this country, and what I want myself is to be part of the essence of this country, but for that, I need the means, not to do better than anyone else, but to promote my own identity in security and harmony. The great victory of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was to convince the Premiers to accept this sociological reality, and the miracle is that all of them agreed to consider the concept of a distinct society as an essential component of the Canadian federation. This is the great miracle of this Accord and this is also what makes it so delicate.
This is also why we rejected amendments which, while seeming to improve the Accord, could have destroyed it. It is not because we did not recognize that something must be done quickly in Canada for our native people. It is not because we refuse the right of francophones outside Quebec to develop fully. It is not because we are not sensitive to individual rights. It is not for those reasons, but because we know that it is impossible to do everything at once and that this basic component is essential for Quebecers. We heard the views of those who played a vigorous role in the Quebec referendum, of those who fought to keep Quebec within the Canadian Federation.
When I heard my Liberal friend speak about rights and the public interest earlier, it made me smile because it was under his Party that the country was nearly destroyed. It was because of his Party's philosophy of an ethereal centralizing federalism that Canada was nearly destroyed. It is true the country almost fell apart. It was very close.
I believe this Constitutional Accord is extremely important. I must say I am somewhat concerned about the kind of situation we have in New Brunswick, where a new Premier has just been elected with a crushing majority. It will be difficult in that province to have a parliamentary democracy that reflects public opinion, and I am particularly concerned about comments that, as far as Quebec is concerned, are quite hostile to this Constitutional Accord. I hope he will change his mind about making so-called improvements or changes. Otherwise, I am afraid they will all withdraw their signatures and their commitments. And that would be very serious indeed.
We all know it is extremely difficult to get everyone to agree on certain principles and ideas, to set aside personal perceptions and interests and sit down together and concentrate on the public interest and develop a united vision as nation
builders. It makes for a fragile Accord. But it also makes it important and fundamental and fascinating. It should not be tinkered with. If we tinker with this Accord, if we open it up again for the sake of making a few changes, it means releasing everyone from his commitment and his given word. And that is what we must understand.
Our committee understood this. We made about 20 recommendations with the future in mind, when further constitutional conferences will be held. We recommended setting up a standing constitutional committee that would make it possible to spend more time preparing agendas and subject matter. We are confident that in the future, despite the new unanimity rule-even if we did have the seven provinces and 50 percent rule, one cannot run a country by ramming issues down people's throats. One cannot do that. In any case, it takes a consensus and almost unanimous consent. In any case, it would take unanimous consent. It does in constitutional matters. It nearly always does, otherwise confrontation would be the order of the day.
Several witnesses said that if the Accord was not ratified as soon as possible by all parties involved, our Canadian federation might again be in jeopardy. People who do not believe that did not experience the events leading up to the Quebec referendum.
Granted, today Quebec has a government that has made a commitment to the Canadian federation. It is the same government that negotiated the basic elements of this Accord. It endorsed the Accord. And it sincerely hopes, and I am referring to the present Quebec Government, that the rest of Canada will do likewise.
In the future, it will still be possible to propose further amendments, this time with the approval of Quebec, which will participate gladly and show a great deal of interest, for instance, in the issue of Senate reform. And it will be more likely to consider proposals from eastern or western Canada.
I therefore feel that Hon. Members should read the Joint Committee report and in that sense I have a lot of admiration, Madam Speaker, for the position taken by the members of the New Democratic Party who, of course, express reservations and wishes, but who add: Our reservations will never result in destroying the agreement. What those people did, and what I would ask from my Liberal colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House of Commons eventually, would be to look at the Accord as being both fundamental and essential, although imperfect. This country's existence is at stake-not merely surviving but moving forward together as integral parts of this great country. And I would urge them to share that vision which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his colleagues have had of Canada, a vision of tolerance and respect for and promoting those creative differences.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, in his comments the Hon. Member referred to the people of Quebec, Quebecers, as a small minority in a sea of some 250 million English-speaking
October 19, 1987

in North America, and I must confess I do not share his fears in that respect. I believe this small minority is much stronger perhaps than he is. We have the example indeed of the Lamarres, the Lorties, the Castonguays who are leading Quebec multinationals that are extending their activities around the globe. We also have the example of the 10 000 students each year who attend the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales in Montreal. And really, 1 am not under the impression that those people need the added protection of the distinct society concept.
Looking at the Eton. Member, Madam Speaker, I cannot help thinking either that he is quite a grown-up lad, and I would like to ask him why he needs that extra protection, that crutch as one might say, to stand on his own two feet?


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, 1 believe that it was the former Prime Minister who said-unfortunately, as is often the case, one of our own proved to be the most willing to bring us down-that Quebecers did not need any crutches such as this Accord. I do not consider the historic demands of Quebec to be crutches, and 1 do not consider that our will to create- and we did so by asserting ourselves and we did not wait for anyone else to do it for us. Otherwise, we would have disappeared a long time ago, my friend! 1 am quite happy to see that our small community, in close proximity to this majority of 250 million, was able, in the 25 years since the so-called quiet revolution, to obtain the tools necessary to develop and to produce competent men and women because of whom we can now open up to Canada, to the United States and to the rest of the world. There still remains that we had in Quebec a Government which was able to provide the necessary tools and to make enormous sacrifices-


David Berger: You have full powers!


Charles-André Hamelin: We gave ourselves as Quebecers-


David Berger: You have no need for the Meech Lake Accord in that case!


Charles-André Hamelin: One moment! 1 believe that you should reread your history books. You would see that, in spite of everything that has been said about our culture and our language and in spite of generous principles, it was because of this culture and this language that many of us were uprooted and became assimilated in this country. You say that we have no need for protection. The concept of a distinct society involves not only the protection, but also the promotion of this society, and this will enable us to do as much as we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am certain that the Hon. Members will want to continue the debate later on. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the Chair until 2 o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
_____________________________10125


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
1987 EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outrement):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Montreal the newspaper La Presse honoured six people at the Excellence 87 gala. The six personalities chosen were: Denys Arcand, film maker, Ben Johnson, sprinter, Dominique Michel, comedian, Claire L'Heureux-Dube, Supreme Court justice, Ludmilla Chiriaeff, founder of the Grands Ballets Canadiens and, finally, Mme Lise Watier, businesswoman. 1 would like to offer my warmest congratulations to each and every one of them.
Mr. Speaker, let me draw particular attention to the winner of that Excellence 87 award, Mme Watier. That dynamic businesswoman now owns, in the cosmetics field, an empire that spreads over more than 650 selling points in Canada and where she offers more than 450 products. And her business is constantly expanding. Indeed, Mme Watier has set her sights on first place in the cosmetics industry in Canada and would also like to penetrate foreign markets, those of the United States and Europe.
Mme Watier respects her male and female customers' tastes and needs. It is one of the reasons why the Watier Group is prospering so well. She is the symbol of the new wave of Quebec entrepreneurs who have won such renown at the national and international levels.
I know that all my colleagues in the House of Commons and particularly those from Quebec join with me to congratulate Mrs. Watier and wish her success in her future endeavours.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the stock market collapse in New York, Toronto, London, Tokyo and Sydney reminds many of what happened in the 1930s. They should also be reminded of how that problem became a crisis because protective tariff walls were constructed not only around the United States but around Germany and many other countries.

October 19, 1987
It has become conventional wisdom for economists to say that the Depression of the 1930s might not have lasted so long or declined so deeply if free trade had been accepted in the 1930s. What about the 1980s and the 1990s? The same wisdom should show us that an expanding world population now gives us more than enough demand for our supply if we can only open up the channels of trade communication around the world.
Protection is the road to recession. Free trade offers the prospect of prosperity.


AIDS DISEASE-THREATENED NON-TREATMENT OF VICTIMS BY DENTISTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is tragic enough that the slow response of Governments to the AIDS crisis has allowed a climate of fear, ignorance and antipathy to homosexuals to produce such consequences as the recent abuse of human rights.
But it is a disgrace when members of the dental profession who should know better should, in such overwhelming numbers, state that they would refuse to treat AIDS victims. And when their professional organization advocates preventive measures against AIDS which are more consistent with the superstition of the dark ages than with modern microbiology and medicine, that is an outrage.
If dentists are so ill informed about elementary epidemiology, then it is clear that the practitioners of this lucrative health profession are ill trained and their patients ill served, and it is time for reform in their professional training.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, have you noticed that the NDP rigidly adheres to any policy set out by the Canadian Labour Congress? For example, Shirley Carr stated that free trade was "selling Canada to the United States". Almost immediately the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) stated in the House "the Tories are selling Canada to the United States".
Again, the CLC supports the strike by the postal workers and so, are you surprised that the NDP holds up legislation forcing workers back to work for several days costing money for every small business in Canada, to say nothing about the inconvenience imposed on the people?
As a matter of fact, whenever there is a strike of union workers against the people, the NDP is on the side of the union. All of which begs the question: are MPs elected by the unions, or is it the healthy grant the unions pay to the NDP out of money contributed by all the union workers, many of whom never would and never will vote for a socialist candidate, the real reason? The people of Canada have a right to know.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of an extremely dry summer and fall in British Columbia fishermen, both sport and commercial, have expressed concern about the dry river beds, especially those containing prime salmon spawning grounds.
Low water levels in my riding have been recorded on the San Juan, Cowichan, Chemainus and Sooke Rivers, while on the mainland the Fraser River is at a near record low.
I recently toured the Cowichan River and saw first-hand the extremely low water level. The river has traditionally supported 3,500 to 7,000 Chinook salmon but these numbers have dwindled over the years. People fear that last year's record low of 1,200 returning spawners will be broken this year. To date only 400 have been counted by the local fisheries officer who was hoping to see 4,000. The situation is reaching crisis proportions as it is getting well into the spawning season.
While the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) cannot be expected to bring rain, he must provide increased funding for enforcement programs as well as river and stream enhancement programs to bring the stocks back to traditional levels, and he must guarantee the protection of fish habitat from the controllable forces of industrial polluters.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM WHEAT AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the real story on the effect free trade will have on the various sectors of our economy in Saskatchewan is being told, not by the left-leaning opposition Parties but by the producer groups themselves.
Bill Yeast, President of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association, says we virtually have free trade with the U.S. in the beef industry already and this agreement will be very
October 19, 1987

important in maintaining our access to the U.S. market which in 1985 was worth over $250 million net to the beef industry.
Garth Larson, President of the Saskatchewan Pork Producers Marketing Board, recently stated that protectionism is our biggest problem and that this trade pact will ensure our accessibility to the U.S. market.
Bill Duke, President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, also stated that he thinks Canada now has a better chance of retaining current access and getting further access.
This is proof positive that the free trade agreement is a good deal and it will provide better certainty and security of access to the U.S. market for Canadian exporters. This is precisely what our Government set out to achieve.
 * *


TOURISM
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, tourism is one of the most important industries in Canada. It generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth $22 billion annually to our economy. Unfortunately, every year Canada experiences a tourism travel deficit. In fact, according to Tourism Canada, the travel deficit for this year is expected to increase significantly over last year.
For these and many other reasons, the Government should consider very seriously the implications of tax reform on the tourism industry. Canada must remain competitive. Increasing taxes on our tourism product will only make things worse.
In a recent appearance before the Commons committee on finance, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada had this to say:
If higher prices are encountered in the market-place due to the sales tax, the
hoped for increase in consumer spending will be compromised. If Canadians
perceive better value elsewhere, they will be quick to take advantage of it.
The Government should listen to this advice and utilize tax reform to increase the competitive position of Canada's important tourism industry.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we heard some more confusing rhetoric from the NDP over the weekend about the free trade issue, this time from none other
than their Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). We always thought that he and his Party were opposed to free trade. Yesterday he told the Council of Canadians that we should have included Mexico in the negotiations.
It seems members of the NDP believe in free trade as long as the negotiations do not include those horrible Americans.
There is even more evidence of double-speak. In the same speech, the Hon. Member for Oshawa suggested that Canada's preoccupation with the United States is costing Canada its share of very important traditional markets in western Europe-all this coming from a Party that wants to withdraw from NATO. What is that supposed to do, improve our access to European markets?
The fact is that what is good for Oshawa through the Auto Pact is good for the rest of Canada through free trade. It is good for British Columbia, it is good for Alberta, it is good for Saskatchewan, it is good for Manitoba and central Canada, it is good for the Maritimes, and it is good for Newfoundland.
No wonder the NDP has gone down 10 points in the polls in British Columbia and the Conservatives have gone up 10 points. They want an election on the free trade issue. Mr. Speaker, allons-y! Let's go!



Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am fed up with the continual whining and snivelling of the NDP over free trade. From the Leader on down to Donald Wilson, the perennial NDP candidate in my riding, over and over they cry and complain that Canada will lose its sovereignty, that we cannot compete with the Americans, that the Americans will dictate our future, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.
Is it because the American-controlled unions have long been the only support of the NDP? Have they no faith in Canada or Canadians? I have.
I firmly believe that Canadian manufacturers, producers, entrepreneurs, scientists, farmers and, yes, even Canadian union workers, can compete with any country in the world when barriers are removed and competition is equal. I have faith in Canada and this Party has faith in Canadians. Deliver us from weak-kneed, spineless socialists who have no faith in anything, perhaps not even in themselves.

October 19, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Conservatives attacking the NDP position on free trade 1 assume they have the confidence to call a national election. However, this afternoon I want to deal with a different issue.
I heard Peter Pocklington this morning speaking on CBC Radio telling the country that labour peace at the Post Office would be achieved through total privatization of the service. This seems to be typical of the Conservative mentality, but we are all familiar with Mr. Pocklington's concept of labour peace. In 1986 one of the most violent strikes in the private sector took place at Pocklington's Gainers plant in Edmonton. It was one of the most vicious anti-labour actions to occur in Canada in recent history. I remember the emotions felt amongst the strikers and their supporters across the country as busloads of scab workers crossed the union's legal picket line and did union work. We all know the stories about the scouring of men's hostels, welfare and unemployment ranks, looking for men and women to cross the picket line.
The Conservative Government created a postal business plan which includes franchising and ensures that thousands of union jobs, most done by women, will be replaced by people working at minimum wage. Obviously this appeals to the Pocklington mentality. With his history of labour relations Mr. Pocklington is being hypocritical in saying that privatization of the Post Office would ensure labour peace. He never had it in his own plant. He should also state that his vision of Canada is not one that recognizes many rights for the working people of Canada.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the statements we heard today from members of the Progressive Conservative Party would lead one to think they should have the courage of their convictions and do what they so often talk about with respect to parliamentary accountability and call an election on the free trade agreement.
It seems to me to be an apostasy of parliamentary accountability, particularly when it was so hard on a former Government for wanting to change the Constitution without a mandate, that that same Party now, when in government, should consider changing the economic constitution of Canada without a mandate from the people and without ever having mentioned such a thing in the election of 1984.
We are reminded of the Liberal hypocrisy in 1974 on another issue. This situation far surpasses that. We are talking about the future of Canada, and the Progressive Conservative
Party should have the guts to call an election on this free trade agreement.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to inform all Members that today marks the launch of House of Commons Awareness Week, a week of educational seminars and displays aimed at sensitizing Members and staff to the needs of the disabled, both as employees and visitors.

Time has come for the disabled to enjoy the same opportunities as those available to other groups.
This stimulating week will be a source of enrichment for all of us.

Awareness Week: "Getting It Together", takes place for the next five days and I hope Members will join me in thanking the organizers from the House of Commons and the community for a job very well done.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has obviously been following the situation last week and this morning of the massive correction on international stock exchanges. The latest figures indicate that about 25 per cent of the total value of the New York Stock Exchange has been wiped out. As of 2.13 p.m. the Dow Jones had fallen by 299 points today.
Has the Minister of Finance been in touch with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and his counterparts in Europe and Japan? Can he assure the House that there is an international support mechanism in place on a contingency basis?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have observed the fall in the stock market over the past two or three weeks. I think the Leader of the Opposition is exaggerating in his reference to this morning's activities on the markets.
I have looked with confidence at the performance of the Canadian economy during the early part of this year. During
October 19, 1987

the first half of the year the economy grew at 6 per cent in real terms which, I think the Hon. Member is quite well aware, is the leading performance among the major industrialized countries.
Looking into the near future I do not see any of the concerns that would normally lead to recession. I think we have a sound economy in Canada which has been more broadly based over the past 12 months in terms of job creation and economic growth. I am confident in the future.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER CONSULTED BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Finance consult with the Governor of the Bank of Canada this morning in an attempt to synchronize mechanisms to stabilize the exchange rates, particularly as they relate to the American dollar and the Canadian dollar, in view of the pressure due to the stock market drop in North America and throughout the world?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the level of the Canadian dollar has hardly changed in relation to the U.S. dollar. There has been very little fluctuation in that. There was an initial drop off in the bond market. The latest levels that 1 have seen are the same as they were on Friday.
The activity in the financial markets in Canada has been located almost exclusively in the stock markets. I think that the stability in the exchange markets and the bond markets is some cause for confidence.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL REVIEW OF SITUATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as reflected by stock values, we have had a dramatic diminishing of purchasing power in North America and around the world which prompts me to suggest that, since the Minister has not responded to my first two questions, he should be in immediate touch with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and his counterparts, particularly in the industrial world, and indeed with the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Has the Minister been in touch with his provincial counterparts, the provincial Ministers of Finance and provincial Treasurers, with a view to reviewing the situation on Canadian stock exchanges and reviewing what adjustment programs are in place to protect our work-force?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is jumping a little bit ahead of himself. We have had some activity in the stock markets and I think the Leader of the Opposition would recognize that we have had a very strong market since the beginning of this year.
Oral Questions
There have been some corrections in the financial markets, but to suggest that we should quickly put in place all sorts of programs to respond to some adjustments in the stock markets when the economy is performing well and looks as though it will continue to perform well is probably anticipating quite a bit ahead of the realities of the world today.


STOCK MARKETS-EXCHANGE VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the huge drop in the stock markets. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Dow Jones industrial average dramatically plunged last week and the Toronto and Montreal Stock Exchange index also dropped proportionately. This morning the Toronto Stock Exchange dropped by 258 points, and just before coming into the House I found that the Dow Jones average had dropped by 300 points since the opening of the stock exchange this morning.
Since the dramatic fall of the stock market has convinced U.S. Secretary James Baker to say publicly that he will let the U.S. dollar fall against the Deutschmark and the currencies of other U.S. trading partners, what will the Canadian Government's policy be as far as the Canadian dollar is concerned in the face of this new U.S. policy? Will the Government favour a lower rate of interest to ensure that the Canadian dollar will not increase artificially, thereby damaging our competitiveness in the world market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is taking some liberties in interpreting what Secretary Baker said about the actions that have been taken in the German financial markets.
The specific question is related to the performance of the Canadian dollar and by implication, 1 believe, the level of interest rates and the activities in the bond market. As I indicated to the Hon. Member's colleague just a moment ago, there has been quite good stability in both the exchange markets and the bond markets this morning. I do not see any reason why we should try to take actions that anticipate something which might not happen. Let us watch to see how things develop before there is any precipitant action taken.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to guess what is going to happen. The facts speak for themselves: a 500-point drop at the New York Stock Exchange, a proportional drop at both the Montreal and Toronto Stock Exchanges, something we have not seen since 1929. I am not guessing, I am simply looking at the facts.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PURSUE GRADUAL INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, this situation prompted the U.S. Treasury Secretary to let the

October 19, 1987
Oral Questions
value of the American dollar drop against other currencies, and as a result the Canadian dollar edged up. So I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to maintain the gradual interest rate increase announced by the Bank of Canada, which will not only affect Canadian consumers who must pay more for mortgages and personal borrowings but also, due to the impact this will have on the Canadian dollar, put a damper on our exports and in fact cancel out all benefits which the Government expects to flow from its free trade with the United States.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me address the question the Hon. Member has put in relation to actions we have taken over the past two or three months in Canadian interest rates. Canadian interest rates have gone up. I think that is a reflection of the strong economy. As I indicated to his colleague, the economy in the first half of the year was the strongest of any of the major industrialized countries. There is a natural response of some increase and tightness of money because of the improvement in the economy.
The level of the dollar, though, I think has reflected some increased confidence in Canada as a result of that strong economic activity as well as the increased investment opportunities in Canada which have come about through programs this Government has introduced.
However, I think the level of the dollar and the level of interest rates are a good reflection of the relationships between Canada and the United States, our principal trading partner, as well as the level of economic activity which, as 1 said, has been very good in this country.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE MEASURES TO REASSURE INVESTORS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the stock market drop, not only in New York and London but also at the Toronto and Montreal Stock Exchanges. The Minister of Finance has just expressed confidence in the Canadian economy. But other than this expression of confidence, does he advocate taking other concrete and positive measures to reassure investors and the Canadian public who are now quite concerned over the economic situation created by sharply declining stock markets?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting to see the New Democratic Party paying so much attention to the stock market.


An Hon. Member:: That is where they keep their money.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do not want to make a lot of that because there is no question that the drops in the stock markets over the last little while have been quite large by historical standards. What I think we have seen over the past month or so is an indication of stock market analysts and economic analysts increasing their estimates of economic performance in Canada for the balance of the year and into next year. I think that it is much more important for us to look at the real aspects of the economy as opposed to the financial aspects of the economy as reflected in the stock market.
As I said in response to previous questions, I have a good deal of confidence in the current outlook for the Canadian economy. 1 do not believe that it is necessary to make precipitous changes in that since the economic and financial policies that we have been following have served us very well over the past three years.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET BANKERS AND STOCK EXCHANGE OFFICIALS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are concerned about what is happening on Wall Street and on the stock exchanges in Toronto and Montreal, if the consequences are that Canadian working men and women lose their jobs because of the economic situation.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Does he have any concrete and specific actions that he will now take in terms of meeting with the presidents of the banks, with the head of the Bank of Canada, or with the officials of the stock exchanges here in Canada in terms of seeking assurances that this is just a correction and not something beyond that which will launch us into a prolonged economic downturn?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 met with representatives of the chartered banks about two or three weeks ago-I cannot remember the precise date. At that time we had a good discussion of the expectations that they had for the performance in the economy.
The point I would like to make is with respect to the difference a day makes in the attitude of members of the New Democratic Party. On the one hand they are saying to us: "No, you should not put in these encouragements to investment because investment is not a good thing for people in this country-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who said that, Michael?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They do not want us to encourage foreign investment. They do not want us to encourage investment by small-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who said that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap says: "Who said that?" I think he has
October 19, 1987

been critical of the investment policies that we have had introduced as a Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, investment policies.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: I would begin my third question to the Minister of Finance by expressing my concern that the Minister of Finance is more interested in trying to make partisan points against the New Democratic Party than about the concerns that people have over this very substantial drop in the stock market.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think any impartial observer would agree that what has occurred-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -in the stock markets in Canada, the United States and Britain is far more than just a correction of markets which have gone too high. It is a very substantial drop, one that provokes a great deal of concern and a great deal of inquietude among a great many people. Does the Minister of Finance not have specific and concrete actions in mind beyond declaring that he has confidence in the situation in the Canadian economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, am I to interpret that response that the NDP is very supportive of the investment policies that we have brought forward over the past three years? That is exactly what we are talking about. Investment policies are reflected in actions in markets.
I think the Hon. Member is saying that he would like us to encourage a greater degree of investment. If that is the case, then I would suggest that he go right back to the drawing board of the New Democratic Party and try to explain to people why the New Democratic Party is against a number of the investment encouragement policies that we have brought in, also including some of the statements that they have made about wanting to nationalize companies and not wanting to privatize companies.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of four members of the United
Oral Questions
States House of Representatives, led by the Hon. Tony Coehlo, the Hon. Dennis Hertel, the Hon. Sander Levin, and the Hon. Thomas Sawyer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Defence is tired of waving at the gallery, perhaps we will get on with the Question Period.
My question relates to a very serious issue. As we know, over the weekend U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Baker, who seems to take this matter more seriously than our Minister of Finance, indicated two things. First, they were going to review all previous agreements made by the Group of Seven, and look at how they could bring the U.S. currency down in relation to other currencies. The whole question of exchange rates has an enormous bearing upon the competitive value of Canadian resources and products that are sold to the United States.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance in terms of the discussion that went on in the free trade agreement negotiations, what arrangements, agreements, or discussions took place in relation to the Canadian dollar? What type of understandings are there about whether we will continue to have total freedom to determine the value of our own dollar, and therefore keep our own exports competitive?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all in the free trade agreement that has anything to do with the levels of the Canadian dollar, the U.S. dollar, and the relationship. On a continuing basis we have made the point, as has the Secretary of the Treasury, that it is markets that control exchange rates.
We as part of the Group of Seven-which I should point out the Hon. Member's Government was not a part of, so he would not understand the nature of discussions that we had-at the end of September had a full discussion at the G-7 meeting which looked at a number of the outlooks for the different countries. In that forum we received a good understanding of the expectations for the international economy. I should say that the expectations were quite positive.


CANADA-UNITED STATES DISCUSSIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the expectations may have been positive, but the results on the stock market today are not so positive.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance about a statement made over one year ago by the then Minister for International Trade of the Conservative Government. When asked a

October 19, 1987
Oral Questions
question by my colleague about the relationship between the value of the dollar-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Which colleague?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -and about the question of exchange rates, the then Minister for International Trade stated, "It is certainly something we are very conscious of and we are prepared to enter these negotiations and we will have to have those discussions with the United States".
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance, if that was the intention of the then Minister for International Trade, would he tell us what discussions were held with the United States on the question of the value of the dollar? Will we find ourselves caught in the same position as the Israelis when they signed an agreement that they had to peg their dollar to the United States dollar? What types of arrangements and discussions have been held between the two countries in relation to the free trade arrangement and the value of our respective currencies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the substance of those discussions is carried out in the international forum of the G-7. There are seven countries there, each of which discusses the outlook for its economy, and from time to time the relationship of its currency to the other countries is a subject of those discussions.
I have said in the House on many occasions that the level of the Canadian dollar is a level that is set by the market-place. There have been a number of Senators who have made comments on this, and I tell those people in the United States when I meet them face to face, or through Secretary Baker, that it is not our policy to establish a fixed level for the Canadian dollar. It is not our policy to manage in a so-called "dirty float" a level for the Canadian dollar. We lean into the market going both ways, but that is only to moderate the movements in the market-place. That is the policy of this Government, and it is fully understood by representatives of the United States Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-BILL C-22- WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER REPORT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wish to quote from the Saturday edition of The Washington Post. "The morning after reaching a free-trade agreement with the United States, Canadian negotiators demanded the removal of
a section pledging Canada to change its drug patent laws, administration and industry sources said yesterday".
This contradicts the Minister of Finance who last week told the House that Bill C-22 "was never a part of the agreement ever". Will the Minister explain The Washington Post story? Did the Government change its mind to cover its political backside?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member did not read the full article which stated, "The United States bowed to Canadian demands-"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is once again trying to draw some linkage between the free trade agreement on the one hand, and our policy on drug patent legislation on the other hand. No linkage exists.
I have said on many occasions in the House that if Bill C-22 does not go ahead, one thing will be very clear, it will not affect the free trade agreement. But it will affect jobs in Canada, investment in Canada, research and development in Canada, and health care in Canada. It is for those reasons that we are pursuing Bill C-22, and we have so stated on many occasions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know that you are motioning to me, but I also wish to state that the United States did try to get further changes in our drug patent legislation that are not reflected in Bill C-22, but it was unsuccessful as is indicated in this particular article.
We have not made any commitments with respect to Bill C-22. The free trade agreement stands on its own. There is no linkage with Bill C-22.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister did not read the whole article which goes on to state, "Reagan administration sources who were close to the final negotiations said the drug issue was part of the deal when Wilson stepped to the window of the Treasury building just before midnight Saturday and gave a thumbs-up sign to signal there was an agreement".
With this type of damning indictment in terms of detailed information from the United States, will the Minister not do the proper thing and resign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I got the last part of the Hon. Member's question.
Surely the Hon. Member knows that on many occasions we have stated our intention to pass Bill C-22.
October 19, 1987

We have stated it on many occasions to the United States, to the Germans, to the Swiss, to the French, and that is a statement of our government policy. Our policy related to pharmaceutical patent protection was part of our policy in the last election. It has been a part of the direction of the Government for a number of months now. We have stated consistently, publicly, privately, formally, informally, verbally, and in writing that it remains our intention to pass Bill C-22.
That is a statement of fact. It is a simple statement of the obvious. We passed it twice already in this House.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. When I asked the Minister on October 7 what the Government would do about readjustment for lost jobs due to free trade, he said:
No job will be lost before January 1, 1989. Nothing will be done until then.
Is the Government really serious about such a ridiculous statement? Does it believe that if this deal goes through businesses will do nothing to readjust their business plans until that date, that they will not lay off and hire until that time?
Will the Minister give us today his official estimate for job losses resulting from free trade and tell us what he will do about it?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member is quoting me, he should quote what I said totally. On October 7 I said that the Government was dealing with labour adjustment every day, as was said by the Minister of Finance before, and I repeated it that day. We have over 1.5 million to 3 million Canadians involved in labour adjustment every year. We put $6 billion every year into labour adjustment.
He wants to create fears among Canadians. He wants to create fears because we face a good agreement which will give Canadians a lot of jobs.
However, as a wise Government we want to see, increasingly, what will represent free trade. In due course we will face the responsibility to face that or anything the agreement will create.
I think 1 said that this agreement will be ongoing on January 1, 1989. We are working very carefully on jobs, and the best example we have is that we created almost one million jobs in the country over three years. We can face any labour adjustment, but we will do it in due course.


READJUSTMENT PROVISIONS-ABSENCE FROM AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who said that a massive retraining program was necessary. It was not us; it was the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Even the Macdonald Commission, in Volume I at page 316 said, and I quote: "The Commissioner's assessment of the economic costs of free trade indicates that Canadian investors and employees are likely to bear a larger adjustment burden than the United States. A free trade agreement should therefore incorporate explicit provisions which reflect the greater costs of adjustment that Canadians will face''.
They were suggesting that the adjustment proposals be written in the agreement precisely to avoid a countervail from the United States. Why was that not done? Why were the readjustment provisions not put right in the agreement to protect them down the line when they will be needed?
Benoît Bouchard: As I told my colleague a while ago, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, like any other industrialized nation, is involved in a continuing process of employment readjustment. Why do you insist in making it a problem exclusively related to the free trade agreement? It exists on a yearly basis, and 1 challenge the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides to prove otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, each year over 4 million Canadians change jobs for career advancement, and that has nothing to do with the free trade agreement.
However, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance-and 1 too confirm that, with the implementation of the free trade agreement, because of the readjustments-


BILL C-22-WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER REPORT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, we all recognize, on a number of occasions said in the House that there was never a linkage between the drug patent laws and the trade agreement with the United States, that it never was a part of the agreement.
Over the weekend The Washington Post very clearly indicated the following:
Reagan administration sources who were close to the final negotiations said
the drug issue was part of the deal when Wilson stepped to the window-and
gave a thumbs-up sign-
Is it not time that the Minister of Finance admits that Bill C-22 was part of the trade deal until the Government negotiators realized the political embarrassment it would provide, considering the days and days of rejecting that accusation, and changed it at the last minute? As he says, the United States bowed to Canadian demands that that be taken out of the agreement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a continuation of the same types of questions which we have seen in the House, I think for five days or six days now. My answer is still the same.

October 19, 1987
Oral Questions
The fact of the matter is that we signed an agreement, and that agreement did not have any reference to Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was not part of the agreement. There is no linkage between the two.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There seems to be some difference of view with the reporters for The Washington Post, the newspaper that uncovered the Watergate scandal, that persisted in asking the questions until the truth came out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ABSENCE OF TERMINATION CLAUSE FROM AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, realizing that this line will likely not result in a response.
We have found out that in spite of the trade deal tying our hands when it comes to long-term energy agreements and investment agreements, in other words locking Canada in, that the negotiating team forgot to negotiate a termination clause. It was confirmed by Mr. Reisman's office over the weekend as well that this was an oversight.
Would the Minister of Finance stand and explain why he would permit such an oversight to occur by actually not allowing an escape clause or a termination clause to be part of the agreement before he put his initials to it?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the issue of the termination clause is a technicality, as I have explained earlier in the House, and that it is being addressed in the final draft.
I should point out that there are restrictions on the U.S. side of the table about the length of time of the termination clause.
It is amazing to me that we just concluded a monumental and historic Commonwealth Conference on South Africa and sanctions, and all the Opposition cares about is the stock market and further distortions on the free trade deal.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TWO-PRICE WHEAT SYSTEM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. A few days ago I asked the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds if in fact the two-price system for wheat would be destroyed by the free trade agreement with the loss of licences and the phasing out of tariffs, and the Minister denied that.
Two days later the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan were telling the Saskatchewan Legislature that in fact the two-price wheat system would be phased out and would be destroyed by the agreement.
Why did the Minister deny that, when the Premier of Saskatchewan was telling that Legislature that in fact the two-price wheat system would be destroyed by the agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Hon. Minister I would prefer to deal with the substance of the issue, which is that the two-price treatment for wheat will be assessed in light of the free trade agreement, and decisions pertaining to it will be taken at the appropriate time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Whom are farmers supposed to believe-the Premier of Saskatchewan who is saying that it will be destroyed and even says that there will be compensation by the federal Government, or the Minister here who is saying that it will not be destroyed?
Why is the Government phasing this out when farmers are facing the worst financial crisis in the Prairies since the 1930s? Why is the Minister phasing it out at this time?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, probably inadvertently, may be misleading the House. I never did say what he has attributed to me. I said that the two-price system of wheat will be reviewed in light of the free trade agreement and that decisions will be made at the appropriate time.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON SALMON EXPORTS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The "Elements of the Agreement" say, referring to import and export restrictions:
All existing quantitative restrictions will be eliminated, immediately or by an agreed timetable, or will be grandfathered under the Agreement.
At present, as the Minister knows, sockeye and pink salmon cannot be exported until they have first been processed in Canada. The agreement provides that some restrictions, such as the United States Jones Act, are exempt from the elimination. Can the Minister tell us whether or not the export of salmon will be prohibited under the trade agreement. If not, why not?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the context of the question in terms of quantitative restrictions. That is what I was looking at. I can assure the Hon. Member that there is no threat to the salmon industry arising out of the free trade agreement.


UNPROCESSED SALMON
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any possibility of the export of unprocessed salmon from British Columbia to the detriment of shorework-ers' jobs? Will she assure the House that the situation will remain in the future as it is now and that those jobs will be protected?
October 19, 1987


Pat Carney: I can
assure the Hon. Member that there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would cause the consequences he is suggesting. There is no change in the situation. Those rights are protected under the free trade agreement.


GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. Less than a week before the free trade deal was signed the Minister wrote a letter to the chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board in which she told him how concerned she was about the future of the grape growers industry. "Coming from British Columbia, I am very much aware of the concerns of grape growers and I can assure you that we recognize the extreme sensitivity of these growers to competition from the United States."
Can the Minister tell this House why less than a week later she and her colleagues signed an agreement which will mean certain death to the grape growers in the Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, and which will mean a person like Brian Nash, a fourth generation grape farmer in Canada, will be forced to close his operation?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member's obituary for the grape industry is premature. The Government is undertaking provisions which will offer assistance to any industry adversely impacted.
May i point out that there are many in the wine industry of Canada who feel that the breaking down of interprovincial boundaries, and the creation of new market opportunities in the United States will be beneficial for the industry as a whole.


An Hon. Member:: Name one.


CANADIAN AND FOREIGN WINES-PRICE DIFFERENTIAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Minister to name one producer, name one company. We heard at a Liberal free trade task force on the weekend that, in fact, Canadian wine industries will no longer be producers of wine. They will be bottlers of wine which will come from the United States because Gallo in California spills more wine than is consumed in the whole of Canada.
How can the Minister make a promise, as she has, that the price differential between Canadian and foreign wines will be changed when she knows that the Ontario Government has agreed to no such price change? The Ontario Government, which has sole jurisdiction for the pricing of wines in Ontario, has not agreed to a single pricing system. How can the Minister have signed a free trade agreement which is the obituary, the RIP and the end, to the wine and grape growing industry in Canada?
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: May 1
point out that the Premiers were thoroughly consulted and advised of our measures on this.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They have not agreed.


Pat Carney: If the Hon. Member would let me finish the answer, may I point out that we in Canada make excellent wines and award winning wines. Consumers will now have the opportunity of drinking both Canadian, Californian wines and other U.S. wines so the consumer will benefit enormously under the free trade agreement.
In view of the allegations the Member makes about the discriminatory price mark-ups, may 1 point out that this matter has already been taken to the GATT by some of our trading partners and we are awaiting the results.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: First, on behalf of my Party let me say that we condemn the behaviour of the British delegation toward the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth meetings as an insult to all Canadians. We support the Prime Minister in providing the moral leadership to the Commonwealth in the fight against apartheid which Britain has abdicated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it now the Government's position, as suggested by the Secretary of State, that Canada is "suffering from sanctions fatigue" or will it rather demonstrate its strength by imposing these additional sanctions which the Prime Minister has promised for so long and which have remained so far unfulfilled?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone who observed what occurred in Vancouver during the Commonwealth Conference would be very proud of Canada and very proud in particular of the strong and effective leadership given on our behalf by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Commonwealth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There were three major results with respect to southern Africa. The first was an agreement to the intensification of sanctions.
The second was a quite important new development in the actions of the Commonwealth toward southern Africa in

October 19, 1987
Oral Questions
bringing together various countries, in this case including Britain, which are prepared to help substantially in contributing to the stability and security of Mozambique, other front line states and other countries neighbour to South Africa.
Third, we have made a beginning which I think will find further detail in reaching into South Africa, both to encourage those opponents of apartheid where it is most difficult to oppose it in South Africa itself, and also to begin to deal effectively with the regime of censorship and the regime of propaganda that have been put forth by the Government of South Africa.
I am honoured in Canada's name to chair the Committee of Foreign Ministers established to maintain both a watch on developments and to provide impetus and some guidance to Commonwealth Heads of government as to other actions that we take. The question of individual actions which Canada might take, and I have no intention of announcing any in the immediate foreseeable future, will be decided in concert with actions that will be taken by other of our friends in the Commonwealth.


CANADIAN POLICY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs be just a little more precise in defining what additional sanctions will be imposed? Further, is it not about time to admit that the policy heretofore followed of waiting to see what will happen before taking action ourselves has been a failure, and that it is about time Canada expressed its leadership by taking some of the sanctions which we understand have already been approved by Cabinet out of the Secretary of State for External Affair's pocket and putting them on the table so that the world will know where Canada stands definitively in that regard?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the limited sanctions for which I have authority, we will consider when it will be appropriate to implement those. We will try to do it, as we have before, in a way that will serve as a catalyst to actions by others.
With regard to Canada's role of leadership, that role is acknowledged by Kenneth Kaunda, the President of the Organization of African Unity; by Robert Mugabe, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, and by virtually every other member Head of Government of the Commonwealth Conference who gathered at Vancouver. The reason that leadership is respected is that our Government did not heed the advice so many months ago that we should act dramatically and throw away our influence. Instead of exchanging our influence for a dramatic action that might have been satisfying at home but not very helpful internationally, we have worked strenuously and consistently, as we intend to continue to do, to try to build a consensus that can sheer supporters of apartheid away from that regime and bring as quickly as possible an end to a regime
that is offensive to us and offensive to all of the Commonwealth.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he confirm that there is already a major delay in the implementation of Terminal 3 at Toronto Airport, that the successful bidder is backing down on his financial commitment?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is not at all the case. There was a release issued last week in which we advised those who are interested that Terminal 3 is going ahead. The successful bidder has now concluded all arrangements with the Government. They have been approved by the Treasury Board. Construction will be proceeding, I think, in January. There will be a signing of the final agreements in the next several weeks so there is no delay and the private sector will be carrying on with the new Terminal 3, which hopefully will be constructed and in operation in 1990.


REQUEST THAT OFFICIALS APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister seems to be sure of his facts, there is undoubtedly suspicion surrounding the awarding of the contract. I would like to ask him if he will undertake to allow his officials to appear before the Transport Committee to answer questions about these dealings.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is not one shred of suspicion, not a jot, not a tittle, not an iota, not a smattering of suspicion in connection with the contract that was given to the best of the four proposals that were submitted a number of months ago. The whole matter was decided in accordance with the recommendations of departmental officials and their advisers. I accepted their advice and the Treasury Board accepted their advice. There is no suspicion at all except for the unwarranted suggestion by the Hon. Member of suspicion.
There is no suspicion, but I and officials will be glad to come before the Transport Committee at any suitable time and give full information because it will shock and dumbfound the hon. gentleman who, while he was in government, never saw anything done properly as this has been done.
October 19, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House with respect to business for the balance of the week. We anticipate that the debate on the Meech Lake Accord should proceed through until five o'clock today. Tomorrow we will call Bill C-55. While there is no undertaking from opposition Parties, there is an understanding that that debate may possibly terminate tomorrow.
We will then call the debate on the Meech Lake Accord for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday until such time as that debate is terminated. I have discussed the interpretation of the House Order with the Table with respect to the debate because Hon. Members are concerned about the timing of the vote. I would advise the House that if the Meech Lake Accord debate is concluded Wednesday, Thursday or Friday of this week, the vote will take place at 6.00 p.m. on Monday, October 26, 1987.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say on behalf of the Official Opposition that we are quite prepared to have the vote on the Meech Lake resolution take place on Monday as stated by the Deputy Government House Leader, and we expect that will be the case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the Constitution Amendment, 1987 (p. 9422), and the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 9585), Mr. Broadbent (p. 9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p. 9644).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House adjourned at 1:00 p.m., there were six minutes left from the question and comment period, following the speech made by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).

I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue the question and comment period. Since there are no questions or comments, continuing debate.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution. Being a Member of Parliament is sometimes very frustrating and very difficult. Then, of course, there are times when one is working on something with which one has a tremendous affinity, something in which one believes very strongly.
When I was elected in 1979 it was the position of this Party that we would work toward one Canada, a Canada with two founding peoples, two cultures, two main languages, but one
Constitution Amendment, 1987
country. We had dismissed the notion of deux nations and we were moving toward something which we felt would be a mainstay for the future. Not only was it helpful to Canada in maintaining unity and developing a singleness of purpose so that Canadians of French and English origin could be at home anywhere in this country, but it was something that would move away from the prejudices and divisions about which we had worried for so long.
In this the 20th century I think our main concern is that we now have a technology that to a large extent is still governed by 19th century prejudices and shortsightedness. The sophistication of weapons, the nationalism and the religion were superimposed upon the prejudices and fears that we want so much to dispel in this century. Now this dream of one Canada is being thrown away. We will not be able to have that goal to shoot for.

I believe the principle of two founding people and two languages is extremely important to this country, Canada.
Quebec where most of our francophone fellow citizens live surely deserves special attention, but each and every one of our provinces is different from the others. Of course, and I say it publicly, all my Liberal colleagues from Quebec are my friends and I can very well understand their position in this regard. But everyone knows there are francophones and Anglophones all over this country.
We all know for instance that Quebec City was founded in 1608 four years after the founding of Port-Royal. The federal Government must help Acadians preserve their culture. With this agreement, Acadian culture may vanish in a few years, particularly in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

All members of this Party are interested in seeing Quebec as a signatory to the Constitution of this country. I do not think there is anything in politics that I want to see more, because it is necessary to complete the constitutional picture of this country. However, there are times when this just cannot be achieved.
At the meeting on April 30 a difficulty was presented. I think Quebec could have come into the Constitution. 1 think it is very important that it does so, but the problem is with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The problem is that the Prime Minister was not representing the federal Government. There was no federal presence at that table.
While we could have achieved at that meeting the objectives that Quebec wanted and still have maintained a unified thrust with respect to the Meech Lake Accord, when the other provinces saw an undefended federal caucus they themselves became anxious to obtain other objectives. The federal Government gave more than it was asked for by the Province of Quebec. It is not necessarily wrong to give the provinces additional powers. The question is, what are those additional

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
powers going to be. What is going to be left for the federal Government?
For example, federal spending power is very important. There are programs which have to be implemented universally. We saw that with the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Health Act. There might be similar programs in the future regarding education, training, or perhaps for doing away with illiteracy before too long. Can that be achieved if the provinces have the right to bail out of those programs? That can happen because provinces can opt out and receive compensations so long as their programs achieve national objectives.
What are these national objectives going to be? We do not know. We do not even know how we are going to define "national objectives". Under the Meech Lake Accord it may be that the federal Government will not have the right to define national objectives. They will have to be defined at First Ministers' Conferences. What kind of position are we going to be in then? What kind of position are we going to be in if it is not Government by this Parliament but Government by First Ministers?
It is important to have consultation with the provinces-very important. It should be maintained, yet not to the extent we have developed it in this country. I imagine that the provinces, during the meetings at Meech Lake, could not believe their ears when they were offered what they were offered. They were probably like 10 children who see an overturned ice cream truck.
In the body of the Meech Lake Accord there is a stipulation that there will be meetings to determine jurisdiction over the fishery. It does not say that this issue will be brought up at the next First Ministers' Conference. It says it will be brought up. It seems to me that the implication is it will be brought up continually until it is resolved. That could mean that Newfoundland will achieve its hopes for jurisdiction over fishing areas adjacent to it. That would be devastating to other provinces in Atlantic Canada. Even now the fishing industry in Nova Scotia is hesitant about investing because they do not know what this clause will mean. Why should it be in the constitutional document? It is an agenda item and it should not be there.
Western Canada is hopeful that the Senate will be reorganized and we will have a Triple-E Senate. How will that happen when all provinces have to agree to changes in the Senate? They also have to agree on the creation of new provinces. How will the Yukon and the Northwest Territories become provinces when the existing provinces and the federal Government must unanimously agree?
Then we have the Supreme Court. As with the Senators, the Supreme Court has to be chosen from a list submitted by the respective provinces and agreed to by the federal Government. If you have a Government of one political Party in the province and another political Party federally, it is going to be
very difficult to make a selection. What happens when a province is not interested in achieving unanimity? I do not say that is going to happen, but we must look at the possibility. The Supreme Court is the glue of our Constitution and as such is tremendously important.
The federal system is extremely important. We have in Canada now one of the most decentralized federal systems in the world. We cannot allow it to become more so or this country will become ungovernable. The tendency will be towards a splitting and splintering of our federal system. It is no good for the Prime Minister to say we are going to have consultation and a meeting of minds. That is like General Custer at the Little Bighorn saying he now has the Sioux nation where he wants them. It is just not possible. Either you have a Constitution which defines the country you want or you do not.
A Constitution is inviolate. You cannot change it at will, the way you can change legislation. That is something we have to think very long and very hard about. It cannot be the result simply of the fact that the Prime Minister was able to stay up later than most of the others involved. It has to be something with which we can work.
If Members of this place can truly say that this is the Canada they want, I can live with that. What I cannot accept is Members of this House saying they do not like this, that they have to hold their noses, but they are going to vote for it anyway. I said before, and I will say it again and again and again, that there is nothing I want more than to have Quebec as a signatory to our Constitution and a member of this confederation. That is something I have always worked towards. However, we have to be careful that we do not deviate so far from the path that we cannot get back on. We must have control over it.
It is not a very pleasant thing for me to say that I cannot support this Accord. I will be considered as a Liberal Member who does not support his Leader. Nothing could be further from the truth. 1 support him completely. I have tremendous respect for him. It is just that I have difficulty seeing this Accord as maintaining the Canada and the constitutional framework for which I have worked for eight years. It is also important that each person state his or her beliefs. Canada requires, more than anything else, honesty from politicians, the people who have some say over whether or not this Accord is passed. If we had that, that is fine. But, if in that meeting of First Ministers at Meech Lake certain Premiers went along for the sake of going along, that is not consensus as I know it. Consensus means acting in the best interests of all parties and building a stronger Canada, not a political Canada in which provinces believe that it is good for them to have more power.
Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said that he understood the position of the provinces. He did not agree with the Meech Lake Accord but understood the position of the
October 19, 1987

provinces because politics is achieving power. He was very kind and I think that position is understandable. However, it can only be condoned if the Premiers really believed that this will be good not only for the provinces but for Canada as a whole. In my opinion that has not been the result.
As this debate winds down it is very important that everyone who has a chance to speak on this very important resolution to ask who is speaking for Canada. Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament who vote against this resolution speak for Canada.


Mr. Cook:: Madam Speaker, for all of the reasons mentioned by my good friend, the Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), I am highly in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. I come from a far outpost of the empire, as he does, from Vancouver, which is a very long way from Ottawa. Too long in western Canada we have seen central Canada decide that central Canada is one Canada and that what is good for Ontario and Quebec is good for the rest of us. We have seen many incidents and I do not want to refer to all of them. However, central Canada's demands in the early 1980s that the oil industry in the West subsidize Ontario was devastating to our economy.
I like First Ministers' Conferences. First Ministers' Conferences have really been the only opportunity for the western provinces and the smaller provinces to have an equal say in what happens in Canada. Eleven people sit around a table. We have a representative there from British Columbia. Alberta has one representative, as has Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces. They are all equal at that table.
The Member suggested that the Constitution should not be changed easily. I agree with that. Unless any change in the Constitution is in the best interests of the entire country, it will not be changed. I agree with that as well.
Too long we have suffered from what I call the 75-95 syndrome, 75 seats in Quebec and 95 seats in Ontario. If you have those two provinces in agreement you can ignore the rest of the country. The 28 Members from British Columbia do not have too much impact. I say that in a non-partisan sense. My friends from British Columbia in the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and the 19 Conservative Members from British Columbia are all interested in what is best for our province as well as what is best for the country. Obviously there are differences of opinion about what is best for the country.
The argument over the Meech Lake Accord is really a philosophical argument. It depends on whether you believe in a unitary state with all decisions being made in the centre, or whether you believe that government should be as close to the people it concerns as possible. I believe that the best government is the government that is closest to the people. I see no similarity between the outposts of Newfoundland and the lower mainland of British Columbia. I see very little agreement between the prairie wheat farmer and the industrialist in southern Ontario. This is one huge country; very broad, very
Constitution Amendment, 1987
long, very big. Let us get government to the regions so that people can decide for themselves.
The Member spoke of national programs. Remember that under the Meech Lake Accord a province may opt out of a national program but must provide the equivalent of that program and serve its people in the best way it can. That is fair enough.
Quebec is entitled to its own legitimate concerns. Quebec is a unique society. I am delighted that Quebec signed the Meech Lake Accord and delighted that it will be able to run its own affairs in the way it wishes, particularly with regard to culture. Those are the decisions of Quebec and should not be made by someone from British Columbia or Ontario. The same applies right across this vast country.
With regard to a loss of power to Parliament, I believe that Parliament should lose a lot of its power. Anyone who argues against that does not understand the geography of Canada. In a country 4,000 miles wide it is obvious that the regions are considerably different, one from another. The regions should have much more say about what will happen in them. Programs that are suitable for Atlantic Canada are often totally unsuitable for British Columbia. I like the federal conference of the First Ministers which gives one province one vote.
It is suggested that the Senate will never be reformed. I suggest that there is such a demand in this country for Senate reform that the First Ministers will come to an agreement but, again, each province will have an equal say as to what that agreement will be.
It is a very dangerous thing for a Premier to go against his colleagues for narrow interests and then have to return home, because he is responsible to the public and has to seek reelection, whereas the Senator does not. We will have Senate reform and it will come about through the First Ministers.
Frankly, the Meech Lake Accord is the best thing that has happened to this country in a very long time. Those opposed to it are looking at narrow power bases and that is not what will hold this country together. This country will be held together by more diffusion of power to the regions, where it should be on very many issues.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, there is a lot in what the Hon. Member has stated. As he mentioned, we have been friends for a long time. This, of course, is only a disagreement.
I do not think this is a philosophical argument. This argument goes to the core of how one believes that the country's Constitution and framework should be structured.
The Hon. Member said that he favours government by First Ministers which gives the regions a greater say. Coming from Atlantic Canada, as I do, I can appreciate that. However, I balk at the suggestion that we can give the regions more say only through the First Ministers. I am afraid that if the First Ministers are allowed to control they will have a conflict of interest They are, first and foremost, the leaders of their own

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
provinces. That is what they were elected to be. We would be superimposing upon them a second duty, that is, to act in the national interests. That is not necessarily compatible with the best interests of their own provinces.
If a Premier wants to act in accordance with his role as the Premier of his province, as is understandable, his attitude toward the federal and unified central Government becomes political. We then get into linkages, trade-offs, and bargaining with regard to what the various Premiers want. You get a shopping list and that shopping list is then split up. That is what I am afraid of. If we do not have a strong central government, we do not have the opportunity to have a body which has one obligation, one elected responsibility, and that is to speak on behalf of this whole country. If the Hon. Member has stated honestly-and I believe he has-his intention, then I believe he will be voting the right way, to support the Meech Lake Accord. I respect his opinion and I am not going to try to change his mind. We just disagree.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


John R. Rodriguez: I had a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret, but the time for questions and comments has now finished. Resuming debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, before I start, I may as well make the statement I wanted to make after listening very carefully to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan). He ended up by saying that those who would be voting no in this House are for Canada. I think on reflection he may admit he got carried away with his rhetoric. In fact, he is saying to the rest of us who are going to vote, with just as much passion, for the Meech Lake Accord, that somehow or other we are not for Canada. I think if he reflects on that he will see that he is not speaking necessarily for all Canadians in this House, true and blue, true and pink or true and red.
I am delighted I have this opportunity to participate in a constitutional debate about Canada. God knows, I wanted to do so in 1982, but as fate and the people of Nickel Belt would have it, I was not here to participate.
As I watched the debate from the sidelines, there were things I wanted to say. There were things on my mind I wanted to say about my country and about my vision of Canada and where we should be headed. That is basically what I want to start off with. I have a vision of this country, a country that occupies the northern half of North America, a country that is indeed strong and free to develop its culture, economy and all the attributes of its people in the way we see fit. I have a vision of a Canada that goes back and corrects the injustices that were done to the original inhabitants of this land. Surely, if one were to read history, one would admit in all
conscience that in fact we have not dealt justly with the original inhabitants of this part of North America.
I have a vision of a country that is free to select those who shall govern. I have a vision of Canada where its people live in harmony with its vast resources, where its people understand the finite nature of these resources and in fact emulate the original inhabitants and try to live in harmony with this vast wilderness and the vast resources which are ours. I have a vision of this country that the quality of life of all its people is far more important than the quantity of life of a few. Perhaps that is where my socialism comes in.
I see a nation that is capable and able to provide a quality of life that is an example to the world and not a carbon copy of the atavistic, selfish nature I see so often depicted in the land south of our country. I have a vision of this country that encourages the living diversity which is the multicultural complexity of Canada. In fact, we not only want to encourage it, we want to ensure it grows, matures and contributes to the developing of the finest country in the world. That is my vision.
I see the Meech Lake Accord in two aspects within that vision, like a thread through the mosaic. The first aspect is Quebec. We all recall 1980. I had an opportunity to watch from the sidelines and I recall, when the moment of decision was approaching for the people of Quebec to vote "oui ou non", that Canadians were reaffirming their desire for Quebec to stay in Canada. We were saying all sorts of things which we have forgotten. There was a group called People-to-People which circulated a petition from coast to coast with 800,000 names which said "we love you Quebec. Stay in the family. Do not seek sovereignty association". The petition was given to Mayor Drapeau of Quebec. We were in love. It was a love that had been dimmed by time. We suddenly discovered that we loved Quebec and wanted Quebec to stay within the family. Canadian political leaders of all stripes were reaching out to Quebec. I can name some of them. There was Claude Ryan, Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, the Opposition Leader at that time, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Leader of one of the opposition Parties, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), Allan Blakeney and a whole host of provincial Premiers. They all said: "Stay in the family". Legislatures in our provinces, which often in the past were seen as hostile, discovered the new love relationship, and Alberta and British Columbia unanimously passed resolutions calling for Quebec to stay in Canada and for "a new federalism".
Most important, the federal Liberal Government promised constitutional changes in the wake of the referendum because Quebec voted no. It voted for Canada. Pierre Trudeau, the day after the referendum in May, 1980-I turned on my radio and there he was, thumbs in his belt-said:
All together what Quebecers expressed yesterday was a massive support for change within the federal framework. We cannot venture to ignore this will to change which reflects that of all other areas of the country and to fall short of the expectations of Canadians.
October 19, 1987

Madam Speaker, as Pierre Trudeau said later in this same speech: "Those voters said no because they put their confidence in Canada".
We all know that two years later the dust of time has started to cover over the love relationship again. As so often happens, love turns stale, and two years later they forget. They forget this marvellous Gallic lover across the Ottawa River, forget her completely. The rose is off the bloom. Out of sight, out of mind. Canada got what she wanted, kicked Quebec out of the bed. That is the way it goes in every love affair.
Two years later the Trudeau Government and nine provini-cial leaders signed the Constitution. So, in fact, we have had a Constitution for these last five years that shut out our lover, shut out one of the most important ingredients in the constitutional family-Quebec. She was left out in the cold. I think that the Meech Lake Accord attempts to correct that. I think the Meech Lake Accord has done that. The Meech Lake Accord has gone back and said to Quebec, "You belong in the constitutional family. Come and take your rightful place at the table with the rest of the brothers and sisters in the constitutional family".
For me, that is a thread through this vision of Canada that is important. It is important because one understands that to negotiate means that sometimes one has to give up to get. That is what Pierre Trudeau never understood.
This is the second reason that I support Meech Lake, and there is no quibbling about it-it is not "I am for it but-" or "I am against it but I will vote for it", none of that. I will tell Hon. Members the second reason. It is that this is a new era. Gone are the days of the gun-slinger with his thumbs stuck in his belt saying, "It is my way or the highway", someone who had no respect for provincial Premiers, or no respect for MPs who were nobodies 300 feet off the Hill.
His interview with The Toronto Star was a prime example of reason over emotion. In that article in The Toronto Star he called the Premiers all sorts of names. He called the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a name. This is a person who was unable to get agreement with Quebec in 1982. I am not surprised. For me, the Meech Lake Accord is not only a yes vote to Quebec but it is the dawning of a new era in Canadian federalism.
We have an agreement which is more in line with reality in Canada today. As I have travelled it seems to me that people in northern Ontario, in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada, have always felt disconnected from the whole. They always felt there was some great conspiracy in central Canada, that southern Ontario and Quebec could cook things up and freeze them out. I know that, that is what we feel in northern Ontario. We all feel it about Queen's Park in Toronto. I know the whole country feels it about Toronto. That is the reality. In many ways this Accord reaffirms the original vision of John A. Macdonald. As we read history we know that he was a great
Constitution Amendment, 1987
centralist. He believed that the central Government should have all the power. But he had to back away from that concept because of the pressure from the leaders in the provinces at the time and from people in general. So he had to back away.
We know that the socio-economic reality of this country and, indeed, the geographic reality of this country, demands more decentralized decision-making. It needs to be more flexible and responsive to the aspirations of those of us who live in the hinterlands, who live far away from the Windsor-Quebec corridor.
I think Eric Kierans put it correctly when he said:
To recognize that the provinces are independent and autonomous in their own areas of jurisdiction takes Canada off the fast track of centralism that would have as its final stop "sovereignty association".
That is the direction in which the Meech Lake Accord is going-decentralization of the power of the central Government. I have no problem with that.
It seems to me that it recognizes that flexibility which says that what is good for Newfoundland may not be good for Alberta, or B.C., or Ontario. It also allows that what is good for Ontario and Quebec is not necessarily good for the Atlantic region, or for the West.
It seems to me that the Meech Lake Accord fulfils and is that thread through this vision that I have of Canada and that in fact it is more democratic. It is open, more responsive and attentive to regional minorities. This is my reading of it. This is how I see it.
It seems to me that the case for Meech Lake was made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1961. In fact, he is now the guru of those who are going to vote no. Here is what Pierre Trudeau said in 1961:
In the age of the mass society, it is no small advantage to foster the creation of quasi-sovereign communities at the provincial level, where power is much less remote from the people and where political education and general creativeness is related to a more homogeneous and manageable group of citizens.
He makes the argument and, in fact, it is an important argument, one I have always felt was essential for a country this size geographically speaking. In fact, we have to keep that power as close to the people as possible, to the people who have to live with the laws.
Contrast that vision that Trudeau had in 1961 with his actual performance when in office as Prime Minister of this country. I remember well his arrogance and his elitism in this House and outside the House. I remember the way he handled workers, the working class people of this nation, the Lapalme postal workers. We remember his famous words. We remember this giant who believes now in a strong central Government. We heard him. We remember his words, "Why should I sell your wheat?" Those were the words of a person who believed in reason over emotion. I said before, Madam Speaker,

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that here is a person who believed in reason over emotion. He described the drafters of Meech Lake as "eunuchs" and "weaklings". He decried provincial leaders and Quebec nationalists as "perpetual losers who don't have the stature of vision to dominate the Canadian stage". All this from someone who gave us a perfect example of how collegiality works, of how to negotiate, of what co-operative federalism was all about.
We know that that type of bulwark federalism leads to the type of descriptions we have had of provincial leaders who consistently play off against the federal leadership. We saw that in Alberta and in Newfoundland. In fact, it is this type of bulwark central Government that has led to that type of small provincial politics that is often played in this country.
We all remember an earlier Trudeau who displayed more common sense when he was a CCFer than when he was a Liberal. He stated:
It is perhaps no coincidence that during the twentieth century, the one party that was the strongest and governed longest is the party that has traditionally stood for provincial rights and embraced in its ranks such provincial free stylers as Taschereau, Hepburn, Angus MacDonald, and Smallwood.
In closing, I wish to state that mine is a full commitment to Meech Lake. I will vote for it. I recognize that we are in our infancy of constitution-making. I see the Meech Lake document as being very fluid as opposed to static. First, it is important to have the family at the table. In the years to come, we can work on making it a more reflective and sensitive document for all the reasons that many Members have stated, and for whatever has been left out. I believe that I speak as an optimist when I say that. I am not pessimistic about Canada. I am optimistic. Whether I like it or not, the Premiers of the provinces are elected by the same people who elect you and me, so it is an exercise of democracy. With goodwill and cooperative federalism we must sit around the table and continue to make our Constitution a living and a maturing document that serves Canadians and not one that Canadians serve.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Bourgault:: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House when our friend the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) delivers a speech, because he is full of life, voluble, and very interesting to listen to.
Madam Speaker, I was all the more interested that, throughout his speech, the Hon. Member paid tribute to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Hon. Member said: If you compare Mr. Trudeau's vision of Canada and that of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) . . . From what I heard of the Hon. Member's speech, I concluded that our Prime Minister was fantastic; he is a man whose vision of Canada is in line with our times, and different from Mr. Trudeau's vision at the time when he wanted to control everything and leave no powers to the provinces.
In addition, the Hon. Member admits that we are going through periods when-it is a fact in my own riding and I
guess it is the same in yours, Madam Speaker-our constituents want to take more part in the decision-making process. Let us only think, for instance, of the Regional Industrial Development Program. I am sure that the voters of Nickel Belt will say: We know what we want in our region; and in Ottawa you are too far away from our ridings, therefore you cannot know precisely what is happening.
I would therefore like to congratulate the Hon. Member who is going to vote for the Meech Lake Accord and I would ask him to tell me as well whether he does recognize the unprecedented leadership shown by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has been able to conclude a historical agreement at Meech Lake, to bring ten premiers to vote for and agree to the inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution. Does the Hon. Member admit that for the first time in Canada's history, a prime minister has successfully attempted that? Second, how does the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt explain in his own words, for instance, how a member of this House, particularly one from Quebec, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), said that he intended to vote against the Meech Lake Accord . . . Could the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt make some comments about the fact that a member from Quebec is voting against the Meech Lake Accord?


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, first, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for her kind comments. The Hon. Member asked if I would admit that the Prime Minister has done a fantastic job, and so forth. That is another part of the vision that I have of Canada. One person does not go around taking glory for things that have been done in the name of Canada. It takes 10 provinces plus a Prime Minister to make a deal. First, I did not rise to blow the horn for the Prime Minister. I was not head of the parade for his fan club.
One of the things I have learned around here is to give credit. The Prime Minister showed some leadership on this particular issue, the Meech Lake Accord, yes. I give credit where credit is due, because I am also critical when I think there is a reason for criticism. I give the Prime Minister credit for the leadership he exhibited, but I also give credit to the other Premiers who sat around the table to make a deal.
I have real concern about the fact that the same type of leadership was not shown when it came to discussing free trade. We can sign all the Meech Lake agreements that we wish. I have this vision of Canada. But not to turn around, as the Prime Minister is about to do with the free trade agreement, because he knows how to run a branch plant as he did for the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Schefferville where we all know what happened. It was closed down, everyone received the appropriate settlement, and the last one to leave put out the lights.
I wish to caution the Hon. Member that while I say it was a job well done, we stand the risk on the free trade deal of losing the whole ball of wax. We put in jeopardy the vision of Canada that I have, and I will be extremely critical when we come into
October 19, 1987

debate on that matter. But I wish to say here and now that, yes, the Prime Minister did a good job on this, he showed leadership as did the other Premiers. I think it is a document worth supporting.


David Berger: The Hon. Member is to be congratulated for his remarks. They were made with his usual passion and brio. Unfortunately, there are only a few Members who are present for this debate on Meech Lake. I do not think that the Hon. Member was present when I spoke-


John R. Rodriguez: I listened to it on television.


David Berger: The Hon. Member states that he listened to it on television. Very good.

I would also invite the member from Quebec to read my statements. She might find the answer to the question she asked.

The Hon. Member has a vision and view of history. He will accept that others have a different vision and perhaps a different view of history. The Hon. Member went through the 1980 referendum and stated that he watched it and participated in it par personae interposee. I was there and 1 participated in it in my constituency in the east end of Montreal. He quoted Mr. Trudeau who, on the day after the referendum, said that Quebecers voted no because they put their confidence in Canada. I would suggest to him that the operative words of that statement are "in Canada". That is precisely what makes us feel uneasy about the Meech Lake agreement. In my opinion it reverses the policies of the past 25 years, which were designed to make Quebecers and French Canadians feel at home in Canada, in all parts of Canada. French Canadians should not feel that they are somehow limited to la societe distincte de la province de Quebec.
I invite the Hon. Member to understand my reasoning for feeling that Meech Lake is a step backward. If we look at what was done over the years, with the Official Languages Act and Sections 16 to 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it substantially enhanced linguistic rights above and beyond what was contained at the time of Confederation in Sections 93 and 133 of the BN A Act, 1867. Indeed there was constitutional change as a result of the referendum, and that was represented in the 1981 Constitution and the Charter of Rights. However, Meech Lake reverses that trend, and the rights which were inscribed in our 1981 Constitution will now be weakened as a result of the Meech Lake agreement.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments of the Hon. Member. I can give him the assurance-but I
Adjournment Debate
know that he will not take it-that I have read the Meech Lake Accord and I do not see one iota, one sentence, or one dot or tittle, as the Minister would say, in the agreement which would limit Quebecers from moving anywhere in the country. In fact, the Hon. Member may not be aware of the realities in places like my riding where, for example, 40 per cent of my constituents are Francophone. Over the last 10 years or 15 years I have seen the development within northeastern Ontario of an infrastructure of elementary and secondary French schools. I have seen the development of courts in the French language. I have seen an awakening in the French language in other parts of the country. It seems to me that Meech Lake in fact reinforces that.
Quebec is now sitting around the table. As we want to enhance the Constitution, it is important to have Quebec there. If my hon. friend had his way, I suspect that the alternative to Meech Lake would be to say to Quebec, "Stay out in the wilderness, stay out in the darkness", where it will be weeping and gnashing its teeth for another five years while they continue to impose the notwithstanding clause. As long as we have the family together, the family which discusses and changes together is the family that will stay together. That is my advice to the Hon. Member.
I appeal to him to reconsider his position. In fact, it is very important for Quebec to know that we meant what we said in 1980, when we said to Quebec: "Join the family and we will make right by you".
Quebec is a distinct society, communally, historically, and linguistically. I have no problem with that. I appeal to the Hon. Member who comes from the Province of Quebec to show some leadership and come with the rest of us as we say that this is a second step in a long road of constitution-making together as a family.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-Labour relations- Federal minimum wage; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-Grain farmers-Deficiency payment. Canada-United States trade talks; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Apartheid-South Africa-Aid	to front-line
states-Economic sanctions. Commonwealth Conference.

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn on the Constitution Amendment, 1987 (p.9422). And the amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.9585), Mr. Broadbent (p.9586), Mr. Caccia (p. 9644), and Mr. Allmand (p.9644).
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this is an important day for me where I have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, and the day that historic Accord was signed was a memorable one for the electors of the riding of Trois-Rivieres, as for everyone in Quebec and the country.
Madam Speaker, let me first congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) whose excellent work in this historic issue was mentioned several times by Members and Ministers of the Government as well as Members, 1 think, of both opposition Parties. I wish to congratulate also the 10 Premiers who agreed to sit at the same table and who made that agreement, the Joint Senate and Commons Committee who did a tremendous job, in my opinion.
You know, Madam Speaker, when we were elected in 1984, the idea that came to mind when the name Meech Lake was mentioned was that of a place of rest and relaxation. But since the Accord, the words Meech Lake are synonymous with historic agreement. It means team work. It means a great country, Canada, is finally united. I think it is extremely important to have a united country while at the same time respecting Quebec's character as a distinct society. You know as well as I do that Quebec is truly a distinct society within Canada. It is a fact, it has been, is and will be part of our experience. And the 10 premiers representing four different political formations, along with the Prime Minister of Canada, acknowledged that fact, without any partisanship. With the result that Quebec which was entitled to a seat at the constitutional meetings will now have it, a good thing for that province, for Canada and also for all socio-economic and cultural decision-makers who will be able to make progress and think from now on about Canada not as it was in 1982 or 1981 or 1971, but as it is in 1987, that is a country with 10 provinces.
To say that the Meech Lake Accord is not perfect, that changes or such and such amendment should be made, quite simply, Madam Speaker, is to express rejection of the Accord. There has been an agreement. As the Canadian Government, we must sign it as must the 10 provinces. There will be a second round. There will be a second stage where, once again, the 10 Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada will meet, reassess the situation, improve the Accord if need be, as I think is perfectly normal and logical, but a first step has been taken. We must respect it and sign that Accord as soon as possible to
be able to go forward, to consider more changes in the future, because not to sign it would bring us back to 1982. In 1982, the Constitution was patriated, not only without the consent of the Quebec Government of the day, but without the consent of the whole National Assembly. It was not a partisan issue, not something about Quebec separating, because the Party in power was a separatist one. The whole National Assembly had refused. And as you know, Madam Speaker, a good number of those in the Opposition were Members of the Quebec Liberal Party. This is something we should keep in mind when we talk about this in 1987 and when we realize the progress that has been made and the point that has been reached.
Madam Speaker, we are making good the mistakes of 1982, as the Prime Minister had promised he would in a speech he made in Sept-Iles during the 1984 election campaign. If I may, for the purpose of this debate, I should like to read part of the speech the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made in Sept-Iles. He said: One thing is sure: No Quebecer has authorized the Liberal Party in Ottawa to take advantage of Quebec's utter confusion following the referendum to ostracize it constitutionally. My Party finds no pleasure in the political morass in which these deplorable events have placed Quebec. If Quebec is weak, Canada is weak too. If Quebec is strong, so is Canada. There is a place in Canada for the affirmation of all identities, for the respect of all aspirations and for the pursuit of all ideals. I know that many Quebecers will not be satisfied with mere words. It will be necessary to take action to reach the objectives which 1 have assigned for myself and which I repeat here: To convince Quebec's National Assembly to give its consent with honour and enthusiasm to the new Canadian Constitution.
Madam Speaker, those were the Prime Minister's words in 1984, in Sept-Iles, during the election campaign. The Meech Lake Accord is the very reflection of the Prime Minister's promise made in 1984, and it does not reflect it simply because he made it as a Prime Minister, but because of the fact that the 10 Premiers climbed on the bandwagon. And that, in my view, is important.
You certainly remember, Madam Speaker, before you were elected, the situation surely was the same in your constituency as in mine and in a number of others across Canada, especially in Quebec-our MLA's would only speak to our MP's through the media. The only way they spoke to each other in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres, or in the constituency of Saint-Maurice, of Champlain, in the 04 area, was through the media. But after 1984, teamwork became possible. No matter who is an MLA, no matter who is an MP, people work as a team. And that is important in my view. That is how a region, a province, a country will grow.
Let us look at what is provided for in the Meech Lake Accord. First, the two official languages are recognized. I think that goes without saying. Second, Quebec's distinct nature is recognized. For the reasons I indicated, this again
October 19, 1987

follows as reasonable. Third, appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court are made with the concurrence, at the suggestion of the provinces. You know, Madam Speaker, if appointments to the Senate had been made with the concurrence and at the suggestion of the provinces these past 10 years, we might not in 1987 be stymied by the Senate on such a piece of legislation as Bill C-22. And you read today, in both Le Devoir and La Presse, a page sponsored by the Coalition in Support of Bill C-22 on Drugs, which listed the Senators who supported the Bill and those who opposed it or abstained.
It is intolerable for example to see that the Senator representing our region, Mr. Maurice Riel, abstained or did not vote on an issue that will bring 1,500 new jobs apd investments of $600 million to Metropolitan Montreal. Had Quebec Senators been nominated by the Governement of Quebec, had they been willing to do their duty, that is to defend their province's interests, these Senators would have been on their knees to vote in favour of Bill C-22 which will bring to Montreal and to the whole province major investments and many new jobs.
Madam Speaker, once more this shows the importance of the Meech Lake Accord. Because the major role of the Senate and Senators, a role that is theirs since 1867, is not a partisan one. Their major duty is to protect the interests of the province they represent in the Senate.
That was their role in 1867. And here they are in 1987 trying to prevent the passage of bills that are important to a province and to the country as a whole.
So I hope that with the Meech Lake Accord, we will find ourselves in a position where, in the medium term naturally, the Senate will play its proper role and the 10 provinces will work in co-operation with the federal Government, as they have been doing since 1984, for the advancement and the welfare of the whole country as well as every region.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to ask all Members of this House to vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. Let nobody come to us to explain the theories or the principles of 1960. This is 1987 and in 1987, we owe it to ourselves to look at the reality of Quebec, the reality of the Maritimes, the reality of Ontario, of the West and of British Columbia. If we consider everything, if we look at all the people who govern this country and who agree on the Meech Lake Accord, I think we owe it to ourselves to vote yes. My dream, Madam Speaker, would be to see this House vote unanimously in favour of the Accord.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Westmoreland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to speak on this Accord and to participate in this debate which, like Hon. Members who spoke before me, I consider to be historic.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It goes without saying that we are discussing our country's most fundamental law, a law which is the basis for the drafting and interpretation of all other laws.
But I am rising today, Madam Speaker, first to support the amendments proposed by my Leader. I support them first because they will bring more clarity, they will improve the text and will include in the Constitution some groups of our society that were left out.
It is a pity because this is a historic Accord and, as I mentioned earlier, this is a historic moment and we should not leave out certain groups or certain Canadian men and women. And, Madam Speaker, this is why I find it very important to amend the Meech Lake Accord as we are suggesting.
As most Canadians, if not all of them, I am glad to see what this Accord is trying to do for Quebecers. We hear people saying that at last, the Province of Quebec is coming back to the Constitutional fold. It had to be so. In fact, I am one of those who believe that Quebec has never been away from the Canadian family. 1 think that throughout our history, throughout the debates which were held in this House, and in all federal-provincial agreements, the Province of Quebec was present and I think that Quebecers and Quebec representatives have made their views known and exercized all their rights and privileges as Canadian citizens.
The Province of Quebec is recognized as a distinct society in the first paragraph of the Accord. This clause does not raise any problem inasmuch as it doesn't take anything away from other groups forming the Canadian society.
The distinctiveness of a society is attributable to its culture, its morals, its language, its customs and, of course, its history. So, the term "distinct society", could be applied to many other Canadian groups.
As we are talking about the distinct society concept, we might refer to Acadia, as I believe that we, Acadians, might also be called a distinct society. We have our customs and, as you will certainly recognize, Madam Speaker, we also have our history, part of which has been rather turbulent. Acadians did everything they could to remain Canadians, and even though we have been deported from Acadia at a certain period in our history, we finally came back. We came back here to stay. And of course, we are happy to be part of Canada.
Our territory does not follow provincial borders as Acadians are scattered all over the Atlantic Region. They are mostly concentrated in New Brunswick, but there are Acadians in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and even all along the eastern coast of the United States.
So, we can say that we have our own history, our own customs and, of course, our own language, even though we are told that we speak with an accent.

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It is precisely because of that, Madam Speaker, that we have our own language and regional terms. We, Acadians, could therefore claim as a group the right to be called a distinct society, but I would simply like the existence of this group to be recognized, just as the existence of other groups, such as our native people, to name but one. It is precisely because of this that we have proposed the following in paragraphs 1(c) and 1(d) of our first amendment:
(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;
I believe that we could all agree on this amendment as it recognizes the existence of the various groups which make up the great Canadian family.
I would also like the House to support the second amendment, which states the following:
"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.
Madam Speaker, it is very important for the Parliament of Canada to play this role of promoting minority groups. Simple protection is not enough; these groups must also be promoted.
New Brunswick has been recognized since 1982 as a bilingual province where French and English have the same status in all matters related to the Government of New Brunswick. The province has therefore been officially bilingual for five years. However, Madam Speaker, there is still a lot to be done. When you call various government agencies, you cannot always get an answer in French. Naturally, progress has been made, but it has been slow and I hope that the new McKenna Government will be able to accelerate the process of making government agencies totally bilingual.
As concerns the promotion of minorities, I shall refer to past experience in New Brunswick, where groups of Acadians were assumed to have been assimilated for all practical purposes because the authorities had been satisfied to protect these groups and to maintain the status quo. Well, to a minority mere protection means assimilation. And those communities which I mentioned earlier, which for all practical purposes were thought to have been assimilated, finally woke up one day and are now in very good health. They are doing very well. Why? Because it was decided that someone should promote this Acadian culture, this group which is known as the New Brunswick Acadians. These people were provided with meeting centres where they could gather for entertainment, sharing common experiences, devising new ways to stick together and develop this culture which was thought to have been lost. This kind of promotion made it possible for these people to wake up, even though these groups were in New Brunswick, Canada's only bilingual province.
So I am firmly convinced, Madam Speaker, that it is very important for Canadian Parliament to assume responsibility not only for protecting minority groups but also for promoting them.
Now we are being told that the Meech Lake Accord is Quebec's turn. Well, I have nothing against that, but my question is this: When will we Acadians have our turn? When will native people and multicultural groups have theirs? I would suggest we ought to take the opportunity we now have to include in Quebec's turn the other groups who feel left out. And I do not believe this Accord is all that fragile, nor that it will quite simply fall apart if it is amended. As a matter of fact, the amendments we are proposing are intended to improve the Accord, to make it clearer, to change the Meech Lake Accord without weakening it, as my colleague has suggested.
In the time allotted to me, which happens to be drawing to a close, I should like to talk about fisheries, which have been included in the Accord. Madam Speaker, I am somewhat concerned over the fact that fisheries will be on the agenda of all future First Ministers' conferences. Fisheries conferences have been constitutionalized. Not so very long ago 1 heard my colleague say it was quite terrible to see that the Conservative Government was prepared to slap a tax on our bread and our butter. I believe all Hon. Members agree that a tax on bread and butter is something for which Canadians will probably not stand still. Putting fisheries on the agenda of all future federal-provincial conferences dealing with constitutional issues is tantamount to putting our bread and butter on the table and taking a chance that somebody might appropriate them.
For us fisheries are very important. In New Brunswick we have some 6,500 fishermen providing work for some 13,000 people on shore in some 125 fish processing plants. Fisheries are of prime importance to us.
How can you explain that it was deemed necessary and advisable to put fisheries on the table. I suppose, Madam Speaker, that they must have been included in the last instance to accommodate someone who was intent on grabbing the jurisdiction on fisheries. This is completely unacceptable for the people of New Brunswick. It is utterly unacceptable!
Madam Speaker, I would go as far as supporting the amendment put forward by my leader who wants that the roles and responsibilities concerning fisheries be put on the agenda for the first meeting only. As a matter of fact, if the subject of fishery is to come up at every meeting, a degree of instability will mar the fishing industry which will certainly not help the people from the Atlantic provinces and those from New Brunswick in particular.
Madam Speaker, I feel strongly about this amendment. You are indicating to me that my time is almost up and that I have just about one minute left.
October 19, 1987

In closing, 1 will talk about a majority group, because up to now I have only dealt with minority groups. This majority group that feels threatened, that feels its rights to equality might have been impaired, is the women's group. We need an amendment to make sure that under this Accord their right to equality will not be curtailed.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to read a few lines from the letter I received from the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women: "The Advisory Council supports the amendments to the Meech Lake Accord that will ensure that women's rights to equality will not be reduced".
In fact, that is exactly the purpose of our last amendment which ensures that the Constitution Act of 1987 doesn't allow derogation to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Madam Speaker, I will vote in favour of the amendments and I ask all Hon. Members to take a good look at them and to make sure that they don't weaken in any way the Meech Lake Accord.


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague representing New Brunswick and, to a certain extent, the French community outside Quebec, for his speech. 1 can hardly understand what deep motivations induced him to such a decision. Without any hesitation whatsoever, he reopened that Accord notwithstanding the fact that if a community could pretend to be the first founding community of this nation, it is the Acadian community. But more than any other group, the Acadian community has been literally decimated by the culture shock of the surrounding English-speaking population. Nevertheless, there is still a vibrant community in New Brunswick, a province that has recognized our two official languages. Nova Scotia has not done so, even though it is the land of the first bastion of Louisbourg. I have a hard time understanding the deep motives of our colleague who is definitely against the Accord and accuses us of providing minorities with crutches because-


An Hon. Member:: Not at all!


Charles-André Hamelin: I am not talking about you but about one of your colleagues in your party.


Mr. Gauthier:: What is the name of his riding?


Charles-André Hamelin: I am sorry ... It is Laurier. I thank my hon. colleague.
He says that we are providing crutches for minorities. He should remember the astounding rate of assimilation and loss of culture. I am not talking about the bilingualism ratio, for I think it will be an ever more pressing need in our communities to have more and more bilingualism. What I am concerned about here is your community, and I am sorry that you would want to resort to excuses that are nothing more than excuses
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and that did not stand under the scrutiny of the Joint Committee on the Constitution .. .
When you were talking about women's rights being threatened, this has not been proven by anyone in any way. When you talk about promotion of your cultural reality, of your distinct society, you know very well-and in your own province; I am not sure Mr. McKenna is willing to recognize your distinct society because he is not prepared apparently to recognize this wonderful agreement which enables the great Canadian family to reunify. When you stated in your speech, my dear colleague, that you never-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 must interrupt the Hon. member and remind him to address the Chair and not to start a dialogue with one of his colleagues.


Charles-André Hamelin: 1 am sorry, Your Honour. This is probably because of the enthusiasm and interest caused by the speech of my learned colleague.
I was thinking about what are, in my opinion, unfounded affirmations. Do not forget that, in 1980, the situation was serious, this country almost split in two. Don't you think that if Mr. McKenna and your party are allowed to reopen the Meech Lake Accord, the whole thing will collapse. Dozens of experts told us so, Madam Speaker, dozens of constitutional experts, people from the Maritimes, warned us about that.
I am just as concerned as you are. Even the committee made some recommandations. It went as far as preparing the agendas for the next constitutional conferences. Your desire to solve everything might jeopardize what we already have. That is the problem.
You are an Acadian, I let you react to that. Madam Speaker, I let my colleague reply to these thoughts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order.


Mr. Boudria:: Madam Speaker, I know that you brought to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that use of the pronoun "you" can be used only when addressing the Chair, not another Member. I know you reminded him in the past, but I think it would be worthwhile to tell him again, because he does not seem to have understood.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Charlevoix heard his colleague. We should now give a few minutes to the Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent to reply.


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I realize the Accord is dear to the heart of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), and I respect the Hon. Member's opinion. He says I made gratuitous statements to the effect that women were threatened, but that is not what I said. I said that certain groups felt threatened. And that is precisely the case with

October 19, 1987
Constitution Amendment, 1987
women. They feel their equality rights are being threatened. I am sure that was not the intention of the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. It was certainly not their intention, but the fact remains that this majority component of our society feels threatened. And I believe it would be appropriate for us to make the requisite changes here in the House so that this group can feel comfortable with the Constitution and with this Constitutional Accord. And what you said about Mr. McKenna, that he might-


An Hon. Member:: What he said.


Fernand Robichaud: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member said that Mr. McKenna might cause the Accord to fall apart, and I may recall what Mr. McKenna said when he appeared before the committee, and 1 quote:
My belief is that those changes must fundamentally represent two factors. One of those criteria is that it must not nullify the principles agreed to in the Langevin Accord. Secondly, any amendments should further advance or clarify the rights of Canadians.
So 1 do not see why the Hon. Member feels threatened and feels the Accord is threatened, to the point of saying that the Accord may fall apart. I think it could stand some changes that would make all groups in this country feel more comfortable, and I have every confidence in the Members of this House. I am also confident that the Prime Minister and the premiers will be able to accept certain changes that are being proposed, without in any way diminishing the impact of this Agreement.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech, and of course, his concerns about womens' rights and the historic Langevin Accord. That, too, I found most interesting, Madam Speaker, and I can inform the Hon. Member that as a result of these concerns which were brought to our attention by various women's groups, including the Federation des femmes du Quebec, whose members are very progressive and, in fact, in the forefront of developments in this area , . . Members of this Federation, which is presided over with great distinction by Mrs. Busque, informed me that they went through the Accord with a fine-tooth comb. In fact, as was said by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix following the testimony given before the Special Joint Committee, I really think, Madam Speaker, that our male colleagues are outdoing themselves in defending women's rights, and so forth.
Madam Speaker, I can inform you that the women in the House of Commons, and you are one of them, all agree and are indeed convinced that their rights will not be diminished. How can our rights as Canadian women be reduced by the Meech Lake Accord? I would like to ask this question to my colleague: Is it not possible that the fact of seeking to introduce amendments to include women's rights might not open the way for interpretation . .. Why not other visible
minorities, for instance, why should the rights of the handicapped not be specifically acknowledged?


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I do not entertain any doubt about the expertise or competence of the group of Quebec women whom you have described as being avant-garde-the Hon. Member did indicate this group was avant-garde indeed, that it did not feel threatened in any way by this Accord. I respect this opinion but through you, Madam Speaker, I should like to suggest to the Hon. Member that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women in New Brunswick is also an avant-garde group, people who are quite enlightened, but in their case they feel their equality rights are threatened. So I think they have the right to command respect for their opinion, just like all other groups who appeared before the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I have a number of comments to make on the Meech Lake Accord. I intend to vote for it with members of my Party because we feel it does in fact put in concrete terms the commitment that many Canadians from outside of Quebec made to the Province of Quebec and to Quebecois at the time of the referendum seven years ago. At that time I was in the Ontario Legislature as Leader of my Party and I remember that we all spoke in the debate at that time saying to Quebec and Quebecers: "Please do not vote to take your province out of Canada". We asked Quebecers to stay within Canada and we made a commitment.
I was at the provincial level at that time, but the people in Parliament also made a commitment as well as Canadians from coast to coast, that this country would be different and the conditions which had led Quebecers to consider they might want to separate from Canada would be addressed and resolved, not at some infinite point in the future but as a matter of urgency.
For a time I think there was a real risk and danger that that commitment would become forgotten. I am proud now to take part in a debate where we in the Parliament of Canada, now that I am a Member of Parliament, can participate in the historic event that Quebec and Quebecers are able to say yes to Confederation and, yes, to the rest of Canada as the rest of Canada says yes to Quebec. It is about time this took place. Frankly, I think any Member of Parliament who decides to hang back saying: "It is not quite right, it is not quite the time", is guilty of ignoring just what this historic achievement means and of not understanding that the time is now. We have to honour the commitment made to Quebec at the beginning of this decade.
October 19, 1987

Of all the sections in the Meech Lake Accord, the most important sections, I believe, are those that speak directly to the agenda, which was effectively set by Premier Levesque and reiterated in a somewhat different form by Premier Bourassa over the course of the middle of the 1980s. There is a response. At last the Constitution of Canada will say what New Democrats have said it should say for many years. From the time of the foundation of my Party back in 1961, we have said that Canada and Canadians must recognize that Quebec is a distinct society. We have tried to say it in different ways, and at times we have been strongly criticized for it, just as the former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was strongly criticized in the 1960s when he argued for acceptance of the deux nations that existed in Canada at that time and exists to this day.
We now have in the Constitution, in the Meech Lake Accord, the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians centred in Quebec but present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside of Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society. All of the implications of what that means have yet to be spelled out in terms of how the Supreme Court, as the arbitrator of our Constitution, approaches this particular question, but we finally had the courage to say to Quebec: "Yes, Quebec is a distinct society because of the language and culture which is French". This is something so fundamental to the nature of Canada that it must be recognized in the Constitution itself.
Elsewhere-and I will come to that today and possibly when this debate resumes in a day or two-there are the other points that speak directly to the concerns of Quebec, particularly that Quebec have a veto over matters that are primordial and fundamental to the existence of provincial powers in Quebec, and that Quebec have the right to opt out of any transfers of provincial powers to the federal Government.

Madam Speaker, I was a member of the Quebec Committee of my Party for a two year period, after which we finally succeeded in preparing a policy statement of the New Democratic Party which received virtually unanimous support at our national Convention in Montreal in March of 1987.
This policy statement was a resolution on Quebec and the Constitution on which we worked together. We worked on the basis of equality. The Quebec Committee of our Party was made up of eight members, led by our party Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).
Madam Speaker, this group was working on a historic statement since it would be the first convention of our party held in Montreal.
I would like to read to the House the formula proposed by our Party. We were able to compare it in March with the formula agreed to by the Prime Minister at Meech Lake,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
which is now part of the constitution and our statutes thanks to the Meech Lake Accord.
We began by several whereas clauses:
Whereas Quebec must be invited to fashion with the rest of Canada a renewed Federation devoted to cultural and economic equality; and
Whereas the people of Quebec have the right to determine freely their own future; and
Whereas Quebec is unique by the fact that it is the only province where French is the language and culture of the majority; and
Whereas such a specificity obviously implies that Quebecers will continue to fashion their economic, social, cultural and linguistic future by means which could be different from those of the other provinces; and
Whereas this unique character is an asset not only for Quebecers, but also for all other Canadians.
While offering an opening to examine other constitutional amendments, it is therefore resolved by the New Democratic Party that:
1.	The preamble of the Canadian Constitution recognize the unique character of Quebec, the only province where French is the language and culture of the majority;
2.	Quebec must be able to preserve its distinct identity and that one of the means to reach that goal be the right not to participate in constitutional amendments that would lead to a transfer of provincial powers to the federal government and that, when those constitutional amendments have a financial impact, Quebec be entitled to an equivalent financial compensation;
3.	that Quebec have a veto on any constitutional amendment that would alter federal institutions when those changes are considered as vital for the protection and safeguard of the French language and culture in Quebec;
4.	Be it further resolved that the Quebec Committee of the federal NDP explore new constitutional provisions both to preserve the language rights of the majority in Quebec and to maintain the language rights that minorities presently enjoy in the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I see that my time is over and I would like to make further comments on that resolution which was passed almost unanimously by our Convention, last March, and to compare how that Statement of principles of the New Democratic Party was included in the Statement of principles agreed to by the Prime Minister and the Premiers in the Meech Lake and Langevin Agreements signed last spring.
I hope to conclude my speech when the debate resumes in one or two days.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg).


Ted William Schellenberg: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has some 10 or 12 minutes left in the allowable time for his remarks. I wonder if we might seek unanimous consent of the House to allow him to complete his remarks this evening?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to complete his remarks?

October 19, 1987
Auditor General Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The agenda, Madam Speaker, has been fixed for five o'clock. We were just asked if we would give unanimous consent. Some of us have other things to do at 5.15, and at 5.30. I have taken appointments and also I wish to participate in the debate in Private Members' Hour. I do not know if I can if the hour is retarded by 15 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have to take it that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) does not agree.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I thank all Hon. Members. On behalf of my Party, we will do our best to co-operate with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to ensure that he may leave the House quickly after the resumption of Private Members' Hour.
Madam Speaker, I had just finished speaking about-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair needs unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue. Obviously, the Chair does not have unanimous consent. Therefore, I must call it five o'clock.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   AUDITOR GENERAL ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved: that Bill C-262, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, in a month from now I will have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for eight years. During that period of time the committee has often been frustrated by the time it takes for issues which the Auditor General finds in his comprehensive audits of Departments of the Government to be completed and the time it takes before they can be put before the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament.
I must say that I was exceedingly disappointed when the committee responsible for making the decision as to whether this Bill was votable or not decided it was not of great enough importance to be called a votable Bill. This Bill, or facsimiles of it, have been before the House three times before. In each case the Government has agreed that action should be taken, but in the end either time ran out or the opportunity for
changes to the Auditor General Act were not able to go forward.
A meeting of the Public Accounts Committee was held on May 28, 1984, at which the Auditor General made a statement which I think should be before this House. He said that the Auditor General's office had studied the pros and cons of the reporting system and that he had come up with what he thought was an acceptable procedure, and with very small changes in the Auditor General Act it could be put into effect. He said, "We settled on completion-date for reporting plus a short summary annual report as the best and most flexible alternative". In other words, his office made the recommendation that it would be better for the office of the Auditor General if it could make the report after it had completed the comprehensive audit, as short a time afterwards as possible, allowing only for printing time, and then table it with the Speaker who would in turn table it in the House. As you well know, Madam Speaker, the Speaker has a continuing commitment to refer any Auditor General's report to the Public Accounts Committee.
On June 13 of 1984 the Public Accounts Committee made this statement:
Your committee considered the reporting practices of the Auditor General and in particular the timeliness of his annual report to the House of Commons. Your committee notes that under the present Auditor General Act the Auditor General normally may report only annually to the House of Commons. Your committee favours the reporting of comprehensive and other audits on a completion-date basis. This will enable your committee to deal with the Auditor General's finding in a timely manner and to exert its remedial influences as soon as possible after the audit is completed. The Auditor General endorses this approach because it provides for greater efficiency and flexibility in his reporting to Parliament.
That was the request of the Public Accounts Committee on June 13, 1984.
The amendment that I am suggesting here in this Bill is very simple. As I said, it has been reported by every Public Accounts Committee since 1979. It has been before this House three times and it has been accepted by members of the Opposition and government Members. It is not a votable Bill at the moment. However, the House has the opportunity and the authority to let this Bill, before the end of this hour of debate, go to committee. If the political will is here it can go to committee and what actions should be taken on it can be discussed at that time.
There was an agreement in about 1980 or 1981 with the previous administration to allow-and the wording was even decided upon at that time-the amendments to go through to become part of a changed Auditor General Act. In 1985, to assist in the speed up of the report of the Auditor General, we asked and agreed with the Auditor General that the report be presented in October instead of December, thus allowing a couple of months for attention to be given to it by the Public Accounts Committee in the year that the report was tabled instead of waiting until after the Christmas break.
October 19, 1987

In the meeting I was discussing on May 29, 1984, the Public Accounts Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing the pros and cons and the resulting change to the legislation. There was entire agreement at that time on what would be required in this Bill.
The Bill is very simple and straightforward. It has three very small changes. The major change was adding the words "at least". The Bill states:
7.(1) The Auditor General shall report at least annually to the House of Commons
(a)	on the work of his office; and
(b)	on whether, in carrying on the work of his office, he received all the information and explanations he required.
There are two subsequent clause changes, one ensuring that any report brought before the House or given to the Speaker is laid before the House; and a third clause which takes into consideration that this change has been made in the Act.
A very short change in the Act would give Parliament considerably more opportunity to deal with the Public Accounts of Canada and the Auditor General's report.
The pros and cons when discussed by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts brought it to the decision that what was required was a change in this legislation. The wording that I have put into the Bill is exactly the same as the words suggested by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Bill was presented to the House on October 21, 1985. At that time several Members of the House, both on the government and on the opposition side, commented on the need for the Bill to be passed. Members brought forward many cases in which, had this Bill been in place, we may have been able to save the Government and the people of Canada many millions of dollars. On October 21, 1985 such examples were given as the case of Canadair which cost the Government approximately $3.8 billion. A considerable amount of that money may have been saved had the structure under which Canadair was operating been brought to the Public Accounts Committee and the attention of Parliament eight or twelve months before when the comprehensive account had been finished. Also at that time the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) mentioned the case of the scientific research credit which cost the people of Canada approximately $2 billion before it was entirely stopped. Had that situation been brought before the Public Accounts Committee at an earlier time, we may have been able to save part of that money.
On Tuesday, October 27, the Auditor General's report will be tabled in the House. It is possible and likely that some of the audits in that report could have been completed or may have been completed in August of 1986, which is 14 months ago. By now the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament could have dealt with any of the shortcomings brought to light by the Auditor General in that report. In his 1984 report the Auditor General made the following statement:
Auditor General Act
The fiscal year on which i am only now reporting concluded eight months
ago. it will be several more months before the Public Accounts Committee
(PAC) will have completed its consideration of this Report. I am anxious to
see the whole process speeded up.
If one were to look at the evidence of that particular meeting when we discussed that report, it would be found that the Auditor General also indicated that some of the reports completed eight months before, or that were brought to the Public Accounts Committee eight months before, had actually been completed almost one year before that. This meant that some of the reports were two years old by the time they came to the Public Accounts Committee.
This amendment will not change any of the powers of the Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee. It will change no powers and have no effect on the Parliament of Canada. It will increase the flexibility and the ability of Parliament to deal with those comprehensive audits.
There are three very good reasons why Parliament should pass this Bill, and it has the power to do so today by sending it to committee. It would be better for Parliament because it would always be working on more up-to-date material. It would be better for the Government because it would have a quicker analysis of the programs which have been analysed by the Auditor General.
In the report of the Auditor General of May 29, 1985 he also indicated that not only would it be very helpful to have those reports examined earlier, but that it would also be much more cost effective. Instead of holding those reports and going over them, they would be submitted in smaller booklets. The Auditor General would also continue to publish an annual report which would report on those items which are not necessarily directly connected to a comprehensive audit.
I call upon Parliament, both opposition and government Members, to accept this Bill and send it to committee in order that it can be looked at and the committee can decide whether it wishes to take the action to allow those changes to the Auditor General Act.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I accepted to take part in this debate on Bill C-262, sponsored by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
At first glance, what is most striking about this Bill is its simplicity and particularly the obvious desire of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert to ensure a better control of public finances through more frequent reports from the Auditor General.
It is not the first time that this Bill is tabled as it has been already debated in 1985 when it was introduced as Bill C-250.
I do not think that any Member will question the absolute necessity of a continuing and quasi-immediate control on Government's spending. In fact, it may seem difficult to study

October 19, 1987
Auditor General Act
financial statements that are 18 to 24 months old and to correct adequately the problems brought to light.
Obviously, the financial disease which is sapping the strength of the Departments ana Crown corporations concerned could kill them by causing a haemorrhage of funds before we have time to react adequately.
With the proposed amendment, it would become possible to bring more rapidly to the attention of parliamentarians urgent matters requiring pressing or immediate solutions. So, the Auditor General might present, and I quote, an important provisiqn of the Bill: "A special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should be reported immediately."
The nuance between the present legislation and the bill is subtle, although it does emphasize the need to react immediately without waiting for the annual report on activities of the relevant Department or Crown corporation.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Bill, with its present provisions, could lead to some abuse. But it would be possible for the Public Accounts Committee to request, or even demand, special studies on some Departments on the basis of rumours or hearsay, and God knows how much the Opposition likes this kind of thing. The process would be slowed down if too many requests were directed to the Auditor General. His office does not have unlimited resources to undertake numerous special studies while meeting deadlines on its main current assignments, which are to audit financial statements from Departments and Crown corporations. The Auditor General should not be rendered unable to fulfil his primary mandate due to the fact that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts would impose an overburden of secondary responsibilities based, as I said before, on rumour or intentions which are of dubious value even at first glance.
One other drawback has to do with the possibility of partisan politics. Here again, some colleagues thrive on that aspect of our parliamentary life. As it stands now, the bill does not place any restrictions or propose any guidelines with regard to the circumstances which would justify a special study. As the bill now stands, it seems to me that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts could base on any motive whatsoever a request that an inquiry be made by the Auditor General. Unfortunately, we are therefore faced with the possibility that such requests would be made on a purely partisan basis, and this is totally unacceptable.
To maintain its reputation of non partisanship, the Public Accounts Committee must never find itself in situations likely to give rise to accusations of partisanship that would weaken its efficiency. Unhappily, the Bill does not protect it in that respect. Having said this, changes such as these are imperative. We all know of situations that are brought about due to the weakness of the present system. Although the Auditor may find disturbing situations in some Departments and inform these consequently, the present system is such that even after the Auditor General's report has been published and is examined by the Committee, that is 18 to 24 months after the
problem has been disclosed, Departments may still not be able to take corrective action.
Madam Speaker, it would be inappropriate to ask this House to amend an Act which is working smoothly if the amendments bear no solutions. As proposed now, they only emphasize problems. Have you ever seen for instance an enterprise, except maybe for those who make the headlines because of their serious financial difficulties, wait from 18 to 24 months after the end of a fiscal year to examine the documents of an auditor? No; this is however the way the Government of Canada manages public moneys, Madam Speaker. This is a serious deficiency which we can all see, unfortunately.
To remedy this problem, the control should come back at the level where the founders of Canada put it in the first place, namely to Parliament and to elected representatives.
When I refer to elected representatives, I want to make the distinction in relation to the other place.
In 1984, Canadians elected their Members of Parliament so that they put some order in the public finances. It is good to see that Bills try effectively to remedy problems and to restore a fair balance. During the last election campaign, Madam Speaker, I recall visiting a garage owner in my area well known for his blunt language and his sound management. He asked me if I had ever been in politics, and I answered that no, unfortunately, I had only a background of business and industrial administration. He told me: "That's exactly what we need. Go to Ottawa and tell the federal people to stop trying to show us how to run our business like a government, and show them how to run a government like a business." Madam Speaker, I suggest that the principle of the law should be kept in this edited section of the Bill, but since it has been introduced by people who are not particularly noted for their business acumen, I mean our socialist colleagues in the House, we should not expect this consideration to be directly affected by the Bill before us.
Madam Speaker, we have been specifically mandated to keep a close watch on federal expenditures and administration and to reduce the deficit which was threatening the growth of our economy, and even seriously mortgaging that of future generations of Canadians. We must therefore take steps which will meet the expectations of Canadians for a better control of our basic public moneys.
In order to achieve our objective and fulfil our mandate, however, we must take the necessary step to identify and eliminate the sources of waste. The responsibility of our Auditor General is to show us where situations exist which might develop into serious problems. He must keep a close watch over public accounts, but because his hands are tied he might not react with enough flexibility and quickness to fulfil his mandate. If he cannot do a good job, we will not be able to assume our responsibility of monitoring public expenditures with precision and effectiveness.
October 19, 1987

That is the reason why the Bill before us is interesting. Perfectly aware of the possible shortcomings of the current financial control system of the Government, of the comments made by newspaper columnists, as well as the great many letters to the editor coming from our concerned citizens, I feel that the time has come to take the difficult but necesesary steps which are certainly needed. Squandering the taxpayer's money must come to an end. This squandering added to outright losses of money, results in further losses that are considerably more difficult to quantify. Plow can we assign a monetary value to some of our fellow citizens losing confidence in our parliamentary process, for instance? How can we assign a monetary value to Canadian and foreign investors losing confidence, and becoming reluctant to go ahead and establish or expand their business, after having been previously threatened with seizure by one Party or with nationalization by another?
Madam Speaker, all those considerations deserve very special attention in this debate, because they, combined with the domino effect resulting from the financial mismanagement of the nation's affairs, have an impact on all other fields of activity, whether social, economic or political, in our country.
1 therefore urge this Governement to question the reason for that process. We certainly must act before it is too late. We all remember the former Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson, saying that the Government was losing control over public expenditures. It was time indeed that we came to power and brought this control back to a strong and well-balanced business-minded House of Commons. We have gone a long way since then, but there is still a lot to be done. The Bill now before us is a step forward along the road to nationalization- sorry, "rationalizaton", tongues keep slipping when something is suggested by the Socialist Party-the rationalization of public expenditures. But I am not convinced this is enough. I therefore urge the Government to stop and think the matter over. We must ask ourselves whether everything has been done in that area. Sincerely, I do not believe so. We must also see what additional measures are needed to improve on our financial management.
Madam Speaker, this Government has already done much in that area of financial control and Government expenditures. It is my hope it will stay on that road, finding other means, and that it will be guided along the way by proposals and suggestions such as the one outlined in this Bill. However, we must recognize it is still inadequate and incomplete.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we just heard a speech written by I know not whom, but the writer of that speech should take note that the Auditor General agrees with the thrust of the Bill under consideration, and that the Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) and House Leader also are in agreement. When he was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, he
Auditor General Act
himself suggested the proposal now before the House, namely that the Auditor General could file reports more often than once a year.
Members of the House have discussed the matter many times, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) mentioned it at least three times and I took part myself in this debate not too long ago, on October 21, 1985. I remember very well that several Members of Parliament, including the Whip of the Party in power, said: It is a good idea-


Claude Lanthier: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for LaSalle (tyft. Lanthier).


Claude Lanthier: Madam Speaker, a point was raised and I waited for the Hon. Member to finish his sentence, but I think that it ended on a harsh criticism calling for an answer. If you want to know who made these statements, because some allegations have just been made, I want to say that I, the Hon. Member for LaSalle, wrote that speech.


Don Boudria: Do not boast about it if you are the author!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Hon. Member for LaSalle wrote that speech, I advise him to do a little more research from now on and to get better informed because what he said in the House, Madam Speaker, does not hold if you consider that people who usually have much more clout than he in this House have already considered and solved that matter by saying to the Government: Yes, we must give the Auditor General the opportunity to bring forward more than one report. It is, I think, a blunt answer coming not only from some Members but from the Auditor General and, as I said earlier, from the Minister himself, the present Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) who used to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee... The Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), who presently chairs the Public Accounts Committee, also supported that resolution. The Hon. Member seems to have suddenly decided that he had to speak against this initiative.
Madam Speaker, we have positive comments to make on that issue. I think that Bill C-262 should be passed as it will give to the Auditor General the opportunity to provide the House with the tools it requires to do its job. The AG is senior official of the House. He takes no orders from anyone. He takes no orders from Hon. Members and even less from the Hon. Member for LaSalle. He takes no orders from committees nor the House because his powers have been given to him by the House and parliamentarians.
I fail to understand how it can be alleged that a special study could be requested for purely partisan reasons.
Madam Speaker, that kind of allegation can only be made by someone who does not know the Auditor General's job, who does not understand anything about his role. The Auditor

October 19, 1987
Auditor General Act
General is independent from any political pressure and reports to the House of Commons and, as was said earlier, he will report next week by tabling a rather bulky report. Last year, it weighed about one and a quarter or one and half pounds and contained more than 500 pages. The committee must study the report, and Bill C-262 only suggests that the Auditor General be allowed to report to the House as soon as he finishes a study on any subject, contrary to what the interpretation of the Act authorizes him to do presently.
Let us come back to Bill C-262. It proposes to amend Sections 7 and 8.
Subsection 7(1) at present reads as follows:
7.(1) The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons
(a)	on the work of his office; and
(b)	on whether, in carrying on the work of his office, he received all the
information and explanations he required.
The Hon. Member would like to amend this subsection by adding the two words "at least", so that the new subsection would read:
The Auditor General shall report at least annually to the House of
Commons-
And so on and so forth.
Madam Speaker, the idea would not be to have 25 reports a year. The Office of the Auditor General which I have contacted today has advised me that seven or eight reports might be tabled in the House every year, in addition to the statutory annual report which must be tabled before the end of the year, generally in October. Last year, it was tabled on October 21 and this year it will be tabled next Tuesday, October 27.
Madam Speaker, I think Hon. Members could work much more effectively both in committee and in the House. I think the Office of the Auditor General could operate much more effectively if it were to submit to the House for study and consideration some of the chapters as soon as their review has been completed. By so doing, we would not have to deal as we do now with a bulky annual report in November and December and try to understand the report on various federal departments and agencies and devise concrete and corrective measures to ensure a more efficient and healthier federal administration. That is the role of the Auditor General. All that is being requested is that the House accept of its own will that the Auditor General may make special reports, several times a year if it is warranted in his opinion, in order to spread over a period of time his projects or reports on matters that deserve a more careful study.
Bill C-262 would amend section 8 to provide for reports on matters of urgency. Subsection 8(1) at present reads as follows:
"8. (1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be deferred until the presentation of his annual report
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) would like to make the following amendment by deleting the last two lines and substituting the following therefor:
"8. (1) The Auditor General may make a special report to the House of Commons on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should be reported immediately."
The purpose of this amendment is not to enable us to react and ask for inquiries, or to have the Auditor General take his orders from Hon. Members or to abuse a system which is essential for this Parliament. We would like to give the Auditor General the power to make regular inquiries and reports and spread his work over a period of time and make a better use of his human resources so that we will be able, in this House, with the help of our committee, to know how this country is run. It is as simple as that, Madam Speaker.
I have a few comments to make on where we stand with this Bill. On July 18, 1980, the Auditor General recommended the use of special reports to the House of Commons and the committee. In 1982 these changes to the Auditor General Act were agreed to by the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor General himself, the President of the Treasury Board, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic caucus. We all agreed this was an important change and that we should proceed. On June 13, 1984 in its fifth report to Parliament the Public Accounts Committee recommended the reporting of comprehensive and other audits on a completion date basis. When a stage and a report is finished, and an audit has been made, it is reported to the House so we can have access to the report. The fifth report went on to say that this would enable the committee to deal with the Auditor General's findings in a timely manner and to exert its remedial influence as soon as possible after the audit is completed. On March 31, 1984, the Auditor General in his annual report to Parliament, under "matters of special importance and interest" brought to the attention of Parliament the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee of June 13, 1984 to amend-let me emphasize the words to amend-the Auditor General Act to allow for completion date reporting by his office.
I cannot put it any better than that. We had a debate in this House a year or two ago on the same question. I want to congratulate the mover of this Bill because I think it is an important one. I hope the House will see fit to pass it and get it into committee so we can get a proper amendment before us and proceed with what I think is a very constructive and positive effort on the part of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise in Private Members' Hour to deal with a very important subject. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) is to be commended for raising it at this time. I share with him a similar set of eight year experiences.
October 19, 1987

Most of my time in this House I have had a passion for the Public Accounts Committee and the work that it does. Other responsibilities, however, from time to time have not allowed the degree of involvement I would have preferred to have had. It ties up with my background as an academic.
I think we in this House do have a strong obligation, each and every one us, to be conscious of the spending patterns of Government, of the need to make sure that the votes we take in this House and the direction we give to the Public Service of Canada about how to spend the money and which programs to spend it on are followed in a legal manner but also in a cost-efficient and effective manner. By bringing forward a Private Member's Bill, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert is, as other speakers have noted, advancing a cause which the Public Accounts Committee itself has historically advanced and one which the Auditor General has advanced since 1982.
I personally have some trouble with the notion of a series of reports. If that series of reports grows to the point at which every three weeks we get another one, I have fears about how that will be seen, unless we make some amendments on Parliament's side of the fence, and that may indeed be possible in the future.
If we move away from the notion of an annual Auditor General's report and to very common, frequent reporting, what will happen? As a Member of the House who from time to time has difficulty communicating with the general public about the Government of Canada, what it is doing right and what it is doing wrong, I must ask myself if we would lose something that is inherent in the public relations aspect of a major report coming down once a year.
The next question I must ask myself is if these reports are coming along, as the Hon. Member just said, on a completion date basis, what does that do to the committee itself? One of the real joys that I experienced as a new Member of Parliament when I was the Vice-Chairman of the committee and the Hon. Member from Westmount was the Chairman in 1979 was to discover a committee of Parliament that was nonpartisan in nature and very consistently so. Members of all political persuasions shared the common goal of wanting to make public expenditures more efficient, effective and cost productive.
Every time an Auditor General's report comes out, there are press conferences and the Auditor General is called as a witness before the committee. The report is explored over two or three sessions so we get the flavour of what the Auditor General has discovered in the previous 12 months about the way the Government of Canada spends money and his feelings about the major areas where change might indeed be needed.
It has been the pattern of the committee to set up a year's worth of work in advance, to say: "Out of this collection of departmental reports and comprehensive audits, what is the committee's judgment about what should be the first topic the
Auditor General Act
committee should tackle and what should be the second and the third and so on; what preparation do we as a committee need for holding hearings, for directing the researchers of the committee to prepare background material for members and for seeking out the proper set of witnesses; and what kind of timeframes are involved?"
I have always gotten a great deal of satisfaction out of that particular committee, in part because of the planned nature of the work. We are able, after the first week or two when the report is first laid on the table, to work quietly and efficiently as a committee without the kind of glare that very often comes from particular committee examinations. I thought that that helped the judgment of committee members. It has been an important part of why the activities of Public Accounts have been less partisan than some of the things I have experienced on the Labour, Employment and Immigration Committee.
If we are topical, there is a tendency to be political. We have an obligation to our own Parties, when there is lots of press about an issue, to advance the causes to which Members have collectively agreed. I think that that is appropriate for 90 per cent to 95 per cent of what we do in this Chamber. However, in the Public Accounts Committee, we are trying to get at the fundamental nature of the Government of Canada. It conducts not so much an examination of decisions made by politicians, by the Government of the day, by the Cabinet of the day, by the majority Party of the day, as it conducts an examination of how the servants of the people of Canada who work in the Public Service conduct the affairs of the nation relating to the instructions which we give them through legislation or policy pronouncements.
Would it be right for that committee to be hopping hither and yon, a day here, a day there and four days over there, simply because there is a constant stream of reports coming before it on different dates at different times? Inevitably, some of those reports would hit the table of the House of Commons when the same subject matter was coincidentally the major topic under discussion the week before in Question Period, or would become for some other set of reasons the major topic in Question Period the week thereafter. Then would we have suspicions that the Auditor General himself was being partisan? Would he all of a sudden be taking advantage of a political event in the country by putting the report on the table at an opportune moment to create maximum publicity?
If we began to worry that this independent office of the Auditor General of Canada was behaving in a partisan political fashion, then I suggest that the very important dimension of independence and non-partisanship which is critically important to the functioning of the office would begin to erode. Over five or 10 years, would it disappear? If it began to look as though the Auditor General was a tool of the Government of the day or a tool of the Opposition of the day, would it then have the kind of impact it deserves and which we so clearly want and need?

October 19, 1987
Auditor General Act
One of the real problems Members of Parliament face on a daily basis is having access to information. We have a Freedom of information Act, and through parliamentary reform, we can investigate, but at the same time there are many laws about the privacy and confidentiality that is a right of Cabinet and a necessary part of cabinet Government.
The Auditor General can follow an information trail from the start right through to the end in a way that the law would not allow Members of Parliament to do. The Auditor General can draw conclusions out of that right which Parliament has given him and thus inform us not so much of the specifics but of the generalities of a problem. If he does that for us on an annual basis in a major report that has high public visibility and high credibility and is sort of enshrined-we all know it is coming at the same time of year-then I think the perception of his independence is clearly enhanced. It would not be the Auditor General's fault that he happened to report on transport at a particular time when the annual report was due if it happened to be a political issue, but if he has the freedom of choice of when to report, there will be a lot more coincidences. Reports will appear in the middle of political upheavals of one kind or another.
If that independence and view of non-partisanship were to disappear, then I think we would be losing something that is critically important to this Chamber.
So I urge Members not so much to reject the argument of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert but to continue this debate. Perhaps there is some middle ground where the Auditor General should be encouraged to use the emergency power he currently has. Not too long ago we felt so strongly about the functioning of this House that we asked him to report as soon as he finished an audit, and he did. It was not part of the annual report but it was brought to this Chamber on a timely basis. Perhaps there could be some clarification so that that happens somewhat more often, but I do not think now is the right time to go this far.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have been rather perplexed at the nature of this debate so far. I looked back over my records, notes and files and found that all three political Parties over the last number of years have said that the ideas contained in this Bill are good ideas. The Auditor General has said that this is exactly what he wants to have done. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has time and time again requested that these things be done. Financial analysts in every part of the country have at one time or another made representations to the Government saying that this is what they require. The economic think-tanks which meet regularly have said on a number of occasions that these are appropriate measures. The present Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) said that this was a great idea. I can go on and on listing all sorts of people who have made reasoned arguments in support of these points, but to my surprise, and I suspect that of most of us, when government
Members got up today to speak they said that this is no longer appropriate. "We are going to speak against this Bill." They couched it in nicer terms than that, but the essence was that they are not going to proceed. 1 think I know why.
Every year when the Auditor General files his report there is a flurry in the House and editorials in the papers about how the Government is mismanaging the taxpayers' money. It happens every year and it is rather embarrassing for the Government. It is going to happen again next week. I suspect that what the Government is saying is that it is embarrassed every year because of how it spends taxpayers' money and it does not want to be embarrassed four or five or 10 times a year if the Auditor General were permitted to file reports after he has conducted a comprehensive audit on a government Department or agency.
It seems to me there are two reasons Members of Parliament are elected to form a Government. The first is to collect money from taxpayers in one form or another, and the second is to disburse that money in order to provide services to the taxpayers. One side of this issue is how we collect taxes, but we can leave that debate to another time because we all appreciate that there are many criticisms of that conduct at the moment. However, there are times when the Auditor General ought to have the opportunity to file a report on a particular occurrence if he decides to do so.
Two or three examples come to mind. I remember that not long ago the feeling was that spending in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion was out of control. It became well known that millions and millions of dollars were not accounted for. The Minister was shifted out of the portfolio and a lot of serious questions were raised. I suspect that the Auditor General should have moved in right there and then and conducted an audit and made his report immediately. That was not done because he can only do so if he determines it to be an emergency. I am not sure how he would do that, but obviously a Minister mismanaging a Department is not an emergency.
Then I remember the furore over the scientific tax credit. Tens of millions of dollars were misappropriated, and I suspect in the end all sorts of criminal charges will be laid against those who misused that program. Again nothing was exposed, but I am sure the Auditor General would have loved to have a look at that.
What this Bill attempts to do is simply to change the Auditor General Act with respect to when it reports to the House of Commons and indirectly to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Given all the people who have suggested that we do this, I do not see why we do not, if we believe the taxpayer has the right to know how the Government is behaving with taxpayers' money. I think there is a will to do just that. I believe Members of Parliament are anxious to do just that. It would be in the best interests of the country and its taxpayers to allow this Bill by my hon. friend from Prince Albert to go to committee for further examination.
October 19, 1987

I know that my colleague from Ottawa Centre had hoped to make some comments on this Bill today and add his support because he was part of the cry that went out for more accountability so that we as responsible parliamentarians could explain to the people of Canada, our constituents, why the Government is spending money in this or that area and if there is a problem, to identify it quickly.
In the present circumstances, as you will know, by the time the Auditor General gets to a particular audit, it is well along in his year and by the time he reports it might be a year later. By the time the committee gets to it it might be two years out of date. Obviously this is not good enough.
I urge Members of the House to consider this Bill seriously and get on with making this very simple, straightforward change to the Act to allow for more accountability by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I realize I do not have a large amount of time to speak in this debate today, but if Members of Parliament were to look at what the Auditor General of Canada had to report for the period ending March, 1986, it would also be important for opposition Members, especially the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), to ask themselves some other questions. For example, where was he when the Auditor General was reporting during that unbelievable Liberal reign when the Government went from a $7 million deficit to a $180 billion deficit in 1984 when this Government took power? Clearly he was not even considering the Auditor General's yearly report.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yes, we were.


Felix Holtmann: Not even once a year. Yet if you read what the Auditor General says now, there has been nothing but improvement since 1983. He goes on again and again about great signs of hope. Just look at his opening remarks.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are being political now.


Felix Holtmann: I am not being political. It is a fact. Clearly this Government has acted on what the Auditor General has said. Regarding initiatives taken towards accountability, and this is not a selected phrase, he said this Government has been accountable to the people of Canada and is moving very swiftly forward. He said that another sign of hope that those responsible for spending taxpayers' dollars were doing so more carefully lies in the increased emphasis on a need for restraint in public expenditures. It is clear that that initiative was taken from the Auditor General's reports of the past. It is clear that the Government is using the Auditor General's report to make decisions on how Canada should govern itself and how it can be prudent with the taxpayers' dollars. For the hon. gentleman to suggest that it report more often is not what is important at this time.
Adjournment Debate
I realize that my time is up. I wish I could continue. I will be back at it again.


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

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I rise to make some remarks to the House concerning the response to a question I raised in the House a short time ago on behalf of all those who receive the minimum wage for work under federal jurisdiction.
I find it shocking that there is at the present no regular and automatic method for reviewing and increasing the minimum wage in accordance with rises in the cost of living. The people who need the most protection are receiving the least insofar as there has not been in this country, as there is in many others, a way of regularly and automatically reviewing the predicament of those who need the protection of minimum wage legislation and regulation.
The minimum wage for occupations under federal jurisdiction in Canada has not been changed since May, 1986. That may not seem like a long time with regard to certain activities, but it is a long time for people who are trying to make a living on wages as low as $4, the current minimum wage for occupations under federal jurisdiction. That is especially so when we consider that the cost of living, according to the Consumer Price Index, has risen since the last minimum wage increase by 18 cents on $4.
We are asking people to believe and live as though $3.82 can equal $4, for the person earning $4 has purchasing power equal to that of the person who was earning $3.82 when this rate was struck. That is unconscionable. It certainly behoves the Government to take steps to ensure that there will be prompt review in the future and adjustment of the minimum wage in accordance with the cost of living as well as to ensure that this state of affairs is not repeated. Instead, we must replace the present system with one which calls for a periodic review and an adjustment of the minimum wage in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.

October 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I am aware of some of the arguments brought against the latter suggestion. I point out that if those arguments are sound they should be directed against the indexation of the Old Age Security pension, the Canada Pension, the pensions of Members of Parliament and the pensions of public servants. In each of those cases I cited there is a quite proper and reasonable indexation of the pensions so that the purchasing power remains constant. No one I have mentioned in any of those pension funds needs the protection more than the person who is working for the minimum wage.
The rationale for a minimum wage which Canada and the provinces have had for approaching half a century is that the people with the least ability to increase their income will nonetheless have that which they must have in order to have a basic human existence. There is no one in this House who would deny any fellow Canadian that. I hope that in raising this matter for the consideration of the House, we will see the seriousness of something which I am sure has been overlooked in competition with other priorities, and that at the earliest possible date there will be steps taken to raise the minimum wage in the federal jurisdiction, bringing it more in line with such minimum wage rates as are now enjoyed by workers labouring under provincial jurisdictions such as the Northwest Territories, $5.00; Manitoba $4.70; Quebec and Ontario, $4.55; Saskatchewan $4.50; the Yukon $4.25. We thus see various jurisdictions in this country which have enacted that their workers must earn more, and will earn more, and I hope we will bring ourselves in line with those jurisdictions and, I hastily add, with the United States, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands, each of which is now adjusting its minimum wage periodically in accordance with either the cost of living or the prevailing wage rate throughout their countries.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to stress that the Government is proud of the measures taken to protect the purchasing power of workers at the minimum wage since it was elected, and we will remain vigilant in this respect in the future.
The present Government made an in-depth study of its policy on the minimum wage in 1985, after which he announced an increase which brought the minimum wage of adult workers from $3.50 to $4 an hour; this is a 14 percent increase in real terms which came into force on May 26, 1986.
Furthermore, before this review, the minimum wage of workers under 17 was $3.25 an hour, 25 cents or 7 percent below the rate for adults. Since there was a danger that gap might fly in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits discrimination on account of age, and since this Government remains strongly committed to the principle of equal pay and equal opportunity, we did away with the lower wage rate that applied to the young. The federal minimum wage for workers below 17 years of age was
therefore raised to the adult rate, a significant 23 per cent increase.
The percentages of those two increases, 14 per cent in the case of the minimum wage and 23 per cent for the former youth rate, compare favourably with the 13 per cent increase in the consumer price index since this Government came to power in September of 1984. This last increase in the minimum wage is the first in over six years, since 1981. Currently, the federal minimum wage is more or less at mid-range of the various provincial rates.
This Government takes its role very seriously as regards minimum work standards. In a number of areas, for instance child care leaves, provisions against unfair dismissals, and provisions relating to lay-offs, the Government has assumed leadership. Our minimum wage policy complements our efforts to ensure a basic protection for those workers who are totally or almost totally deprived of negotiating power. That is the thrust of that legislation. We will go on ensuring decent minimum work standards in the interests of all Canadians.
We realize this is not perfect. But I suggest it can be viewed as a step in the right direction.

AGRICULTURE-GRAIN FARMERS-DEFICIENCY PAYMENT/CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE TALKS


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on October 2 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) if he was going to make good on a promise he made in late August to western and eastern grain producers to provide some $3 billion in deficiency payments this fall. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that one year ago the Government made a commitment to provide a $1 billion deficiency payment to farmers. That was at the behest of the Premier of Saskatchewan who was locked in a serious provincial election. He called the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at five o'clock in the morning to get his support for a deficiency payment. This was to rescue him and to provide him with a political bail-out in that election.
Farmers are very concerned right now because the Minister made a commitment, or seemed to have made a commitment in principle, to provide a deficiency payment of some $3 billion. That would include the Western Grain Stabilization Fund payment of about $1 billion. In Question Period on August 2 the Minister seemed to welsh on that deal. He did not give any firm commitment that he would provide it. He talked a great deal about the method of payment, the timing of payment and all the rest of it. But he did not give any commitment.
I also asked the Minister in a supplementary question as to whether the hold up was with regard to the free trade negotiations. In fact, there are two developments in the free trade negotiations which have a great deal to do with the grain
October 19, 1987

industry in this country in that it is very clear now that the two-price system of wheat which provides a $280 million a year benefit to Canadian grain producers will be destroyed by the free trade agreement.
The Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan, and the Premier of the province, have owned up to that and have made it clear in the legislature, they have even convinced the federal government to provide a compensation for the loss of the two-price system of wheat. But there is another aspect as well. That is to say that in the agreement the United States undertakes to take "into account", I believe are the exact words, Canada's position with regard to its use of its export enhancement program. That program is essentially designed for the United States to buy markets in Russia, Saudi Arabia and other traditional markets for Canadian wheat producers, but not to exclude the use of that export enhancement program when it gives away one bushel free with every three that are sold. When the Minister said that the delay of the deficiency payment had nothing to do with the free trade negotiations, which were in the final throes at that time, I am not so sure that that was not a consideration.
In any event, western Canadian farmers and eastern farmers feel that they have been sold out by the Government on the free trade deal. They are wondering whether or not the Government will now make good on the deficiency payment of $3 billion which the Minister seemed to agree to in late August in the meeting in Winnipeg.
1 certainly call on the Parliamentary Secretary in his response this afternoon to give a firm commitment that the Government will provide this deficiency payment and that it will not continue to stonewall into the fall months and the winter.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, when that question was raised last October 2, details had indeed been given to my colleague by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
At the meeting held on last August 27, our Government engaged in a consultation process with some 50 Canadian farm leaders to examine the national agricultural situation. Madam Speaker, it was our Government which established that process, that form of consultation with Canadian farmers, it is not. . . and I remind my colleague that recent polls have shown clearly that Canadians highly appreciate the work done by their Agriculture Minister. The satisfaction level is more than 70 per cent.
One of the main points is precisely the consulting attitude of our Government. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) recalled on October 2, this was the third meeting with farm leaders as we attempt to find with them ways of cushioning the impact of the continuing world trade subsidy war. The proposal put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supported by a number of farm groups. We are well
Adjournment Debate
aware of that. If the proposal proves to be fair to all producers and if it proves to be market and production neutral, I think it could form the basis of a new program. Our department officials are now analyzing the proposal along with other possible actions by our Government. We have met CFA staff to discuss the matter and clarify various points. No commitment was given with respect to the dollar value of a program.
The farm leaders themselves estimated about $3 billion would be needed. I do not think the negotiations we have concluded with the United States should be taken as detrimental. They are one element amoung others, but there is no connection with this issue and I think, Madam Speaker, we will keep on meeting the needs of Canadian producers as we have done over the last three years. We will also continue our international activities because everybody is aware, and it is the main concern of our Canadian farmers' friends, that the international trade subsidy war must come to an end. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has put agriculture on the agenda of major powers. We will continue our efforts in that sense and I can assure my colleague that Canadian producers will not regret the consultation process we have undertaken with them.
APARTHEID-SOUTH AFRICA-AID TO FRONT-LINE STATES/ECONOM1C SANCTIONS-COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question that I asked in the House on October 13 which had to do with the Commonwealth heads of government conference that was going on at that time in Vancouver. I was concerned to receive assurances from the Government that the emphasis placed on one particular agenda item of the conference, that of aid to the front-line states in Southern Africa, would not be an occasion for deemphasizing the need for tough economic action in the form of sanctions against South Africa. There had been some talk that this might become a substitute for or an alternative to sanctions. That is probably the case as far as Great Britain was concerned. As the conference unfolded, it became clear that Britain was willing to consider this whole matter of aid to the front-line states in a way that it was not willing to consider the question of sanctions.
Fortunately, it appears that all the other Commonwealth leaders did not see this suggestion of increased aid to the frontline states as an alternative to or a substitute for economic sanctions against South Africa. Some of the worry that I had at the time I raised the question has since been alleviated by the conference itself.
This might be an opportunity to say a word or two of appreciation for the obvious sincerity with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) holds his views of opposition to apartheid in South Africa. On this side of the House, we were

October 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
all glad to see that the Prime Minister was generally recognized to have shown leadership on this issue, and generally recognized to have held his ground and the common ground of all the other nations of the Commonwealth, except Britain, with respect to the need for preserving those sanctions that are already there, and with respect to accelerating both the substance and the effect of sanctions.
We look forward to Canadian action on that. We not only hope but feel that the Prime Minister, in order to preserve and enhance that perception of integrity on this issue which he came out of that conference with, in a very short period of time will need to indicate what else Canada is prepared to do in order to make good the rhetoric of the Prime Minister.
It is certainly an occasion to notice that the Prime Minister in common with other leaders, resisted the obvious desire of Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain to roll back the sanction agenda and to change the focus of the Commonwealth in respect of South Africa.
It is always easier to show independence when it comes to a former colonial master, and we congratulate the Prime Minister on the extent to which he demonstrated that kind of independence of Great Britain. However, we have been independent of Great Britain for a long time now. Where we need to show an equal measure of independence in our foreign policy is the whole matter of Central America and our relationship with the United States, our current colonial master when it comes to foreign policy.
I hope that the same spirit of independence which imbued the Prime Minister on the occasion of the conference in Vancouver will soon imbue the Government in respect of its attitude toward Central America. I hope, in the same way as we have a Canadian Government ready to speak out independently against apartheid in South Africa, regardless of what Great Britain might think, and to advocate policies which are at odds with what Great Britain might think, that some day we will have a Government which is willing to advocate policies in Central America which are at odds with what the United States might think, a Government free to speak up against continuing American aid to the Contras, a Government willing to locate an embassy in Managua, and a Government willing to increase rather than decrease its aid to Nicaragua.
Canada could be doing a variety of other things which I argue today would be consistent with the spirit of independence in foreign policy areas that the Prime Minister displayed in Vancouver vis-a-vis Great Britain. We would like to see that same kind of independence displayed vis-a-vis the United States, particularly in respect of Central America and also in respect of other issues. We look forward to the day when the independent foreign policy perspective which the Prime Minister displayed in Vancouver will be comprehensive.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I must thank my colleague for referring to our Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) spirit of independence. In my estimation, if in recent months there was a country which showed openmindedness in all the conferences in which we as a country took part... On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am proud to accept this compliment from my colleague.

In that specific case the Government's commitment to assisting the FLS economies is well known. In total, Canada provides about $140 million in development co-operation to southern Africa annually.
The principal channel through which Canadian development assistance is provided to the FLS is the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, a regional organization of nine southern African states committed to accelerated economic development and reduced dependence on South Africa through increased regional integration and selfreliance. Canada has been one of SADCC's main supporters with annual disbursements of between $25 million and $30 million. These figures will, if anything, be increased over the next five years.
In addition, Canada provides assistance to individual frontline states through multilateral-food aid and humanitarian assistance-and NGO channels, as well as through the bilateral and specialized divisions of CIDA.

The issue of assistance to the front-line states, which we are debating, received attention most recently at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government just concluded in Vancouver. Canada played a prominent role in developing an enhanced Commonwealth program to complement the work of other agencies in the region. Commonwealth leaders agreed to a statement and program of action which commits them, inter alia, to give priority attention to the rehabilitation and protection of the Limpopo railway line and the port of Maputo, to examine transit rights of the landlocked FLS of the region and to establish a special fund for technical assistance to Mozambique. They also announced their readiness to consult with a view to enabling those members in a position to do so, to make appropriate contributions to the security needs of Mozambique and other FLS requiring help.
For our part we have already made known our commitment to contribute $20 million towards the rehabilitation of the Limpopo railway line. We are in the process of examining ways in which Canadian support for the other elements of the Commonwealth statement and plan of action can best be implemented.
We do not consider assistance to the neighbouring countries as a substitute for firm economic action against South Africa. The Okanagan Statement issued on October 16 makes it clear that all members of the Commonwealth, except one, believe
October 19, 1987

sanctions to be effective and have agreed to a "wider, tighter and more intensified application" of them. We fully support that position.
We are prepared to invoke total economic sanctions, if there is no progress-there is no question about that-but we do not think the time is right. Such a decision would be dramatic but
Adjournment Debate
would leave us out of the process of seeking an end to apartheid.
[ Translation]


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, October 20, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers