1988-06-22

Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent for the House to call now for Statements by Ministers with respect to a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs followed by replies from both opposition spokespersons, an agreement to proceed to Statements by Members and Oral Questions for the usual period of time, after which the House shall proceed to the deferred division, and that any time taken on the Minister's statement and replies be added to the end of the day in the usual manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the Hon. Minister of State. Is the House in agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to report on a matter of national security.
On the Government's instructions, a senior official of the Department of External Affairs informed the Soviet Ambassador on June 15 that seven Soviet officials were to leave Canada within 48 hours, and that one official, who was then outside Canada, would not be allowed to return to this country. Those seven officials left Canada on June 17. A further nine Soviet officials, who had already left Canada on completion of their assignments, were declared persona non grata and will not be permitted to return to Canada.
With the consent of the House, I will now table a list of the names of the Soviet officials concerned, and the Soviet establishments in Canada where each worked. I regret that the
only copy being tabled is in English. However, a French translation will be tabled immediately it is received by myself.
The Government acted after thorough investigations and analysis which led us to an inescapable conclusion that the Soviet officials concerned had engaged in unacceptable activities which were a threat to the security of this country. I do not intend to provide details of these activities except to say that some appeared designed to secure clandestine access to classified information or sensitive technology with commercial or military application.
Another operation was intended to penetrate the RCMP Security Service and, subsequently, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We are confident that Canadian security was not compromised.
Investigations are continuing in a number of the cases in question. I am confident that Canadian authorities have acted to preserve our security, and that the House would want me to express our appreciation to those authorities.
The 17 Soviet officials were not engaged in a single, large conspiracy, but several unrelated Soviet operations which were the subjects of parallel but distinct investigations. The investigations were complex and occurred over time.
Last Tuesday, the Government decided to take action on all the cases at once to bring them to an end.

Hon. Members may be aware of speculations about the Soviet citizen who was with the Secretariat of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.
I can now confirm that Mr. Yuriy Smurov has decided to apply for resident status in Canada, with his wife and daughter. His application is being examined by the Employment and Immigration Commission. I am advised that Mr. Smurov gave our security services useful information. However, I do not intend to elaborate on the kind of information provided.

Sir, we have impressed upon the Soviet authorities the seriousness with which we view the improper activities of Soviet officials and warned them against any resumption. The Canadian Government will not tolerate any activity by foreign powers which undermines the security or the sovereignty of our country.
At the same time, we indicated to the Soviet Union that we were prepared to put this matter behind us and get on with the

June 22, 1988
Statements by Ministers
business of conducting our bilateral relations in accordance with our mutual interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for his statement this afternoon. I must say that we on this side of the House had been expecting a statement for nearly five days, especially since in the past, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has tended to make such statements far more quickly.
Yesterday, at the end of the Fourteenth Economic Summit of G-7 countries in Toronto, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) confirmed that eight Soviets had been expelled for improper and unacceptable behaviour. We also heard that the eight had engaged in industrial espionage.
Today's statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, five days later, is of course welcome, and we thank him for it. However, there are still several question marks, although I realize that in the circumstances it may be difficult to reveal certain aspects of this matter.
In recent years, cases of industrial espionage have become increasingly frequent. Western advanced technology continues to attract industrial spies. In fact, the industrial espionage carries a high cost, not only for the industries and companies that are the target of such activities but also for the competitive position of a country like Canada.
Espionage, whether at the level of national security, at the level of industry, or at the level of scientific research, is reprehensible and deplorable. It strikes at the very heart and sovereignty of our country and leaves Canadians feeling helpless and vulnerable.
I recall that in 1978 the Hon. Don Jamieson, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, rose in the House to reveal the details of a Soviet attempt to infiltrate the RCMP. At that time no risk was posed to our national security, and thanks to the alertness and effectiveness of the RCMP this Soviet espionage activity was nipped in the bud.
Today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has revealed a few details of another disturbing espionage incident. Although we have obtained his reassurance that there was no threat to national security, we are nevertheless still extremely concerned about the impact that this may have, not only on our relations with the Soviet Union but also on the Canadian industries which will be the true victims of these deplorable actions by the Soviet Government. I would like to deal briefly with both those issues.

In the last few years, the Soviet Union has taken steps to reform both its domestic and foreign policy. East-West relations are becoming increasingly cordial, but we have to ask ourselves why the Soviet Union continues to threaten Canadian sovereignty by engaging in industrial espionage. One also wonders whether the Soviet Union is serious about its desire to improve relations with Canada.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs tells us that he sent a protest note to the Soviet government. I hope the Minister is willing to table the text of this diplomatic note in the House, as Minister Jamieson did in 1978, at the specific request of the Leader of the Opposition at the time, who today is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope he will do what Mr. Jamieson did at the time.
The second point I referred to earlier concerns the victims of these breaches of security. I am sorry the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not bother to tell us whether the industries affected by this espionage were informed of the fact, but I hope the Government is considering ways to prevent any recurrence.

The timing of the announcement is, for us, something difficult to understand. Although the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not said anything about it, we suspect that there were probably consultations with the Americans or with other allies in this regard, wondering how Canada would cope with a possible retaliation that is normally the case when such action is taken by the Soviet Union. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared to cope with this, without undermining at all the good reputation and position of Canada world-wide.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for making a statement in the House on this matter, as is his custom.
We in the New Democratic Party, based on what we know at this time, have no criticisms to make of the Government's action. We trust that this is something the Government has good reason for doing.
We are glad the Minister was able to say that Canada's security was not compromised. We regret, as does the Government, that this kind of unacceptable activity has been carried out by Soviet officials within Canada, putting Canadian security, sovereignty, and industry at risk.
These kinds of activities are always regrettable, Mr. Speaker, but given the new era in Russian domestic and international affairs being ushered in by Mr. Gorbachev, it is even more regrettable. Perhaps this is what the Minister had in mind when he said on behalf of the Government that he was prepared, to put this matter behind us and look forward to a new day when the spirit of perestroika and glasnost, the INF
June 22, 1988

treaty, and the recent Summit in Moscow will result in a world in which this kind of international intrigue is the stuff of stories about the bad old days and no longer grist for current affairs or the undermining of vital relationships between countries.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, Jean Rochon died yesterday. He dedicated his whole life to public affairs. He was first elected as Member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly in 1935, then as Member of the Parliament of Canada for Laval in 1962, 1963 and 1965 and for Ahuntsic in 1968. In 1972, when he could easily have been reelected, he graciously gave up his seat to help elect one of the first women Members from Quebec to Ottawa, Jeanne Sauve, who today is our gracious Governor General.
The people of Montreal, Laval and Ahuntsic wish to remember a good servant, Jean Rochon.


S. O. 21 FORESTRY SPRUCE BUDWORM INFESTATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the Government's attention, especially to the attention of the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), the extremely serious infestation by the spruce budworm in the forest lands of central British Columbia.
Within the Kamloops forest district alone, defoliation by the spruce budworm has exceeded 800,000 hectares, a doubling of the invaded area since 1986. Locations of the infestation include Heffley, Old Fadear Mill, Louis Creeks, Clearwater, Little Fort, Barriere, Adams Lake, Paul Lake, and Little Shuswap Lake areas, the Highland Valley, the Bonaparte Plateau, the Chase Region and many others. Recent Canadian forestry service reports indicate that an additional 600,000 hectares are under intensive budworm attack at this time.
This serious crisis is posing a major threat to the timber resource in central British Columbia and I urge the federal Government, through the Minister of State for Forestry, to initiate a special joint federal provincial emergency program immediately to combat this infestation in an effort to preserve these valuable timber lands and especially to maintain the thousands of jobs dependent upon this very important resource.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SENIORS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I received a new guide to federal programs and services for seniors. This publication was made possible by the seniors themselves. In discussions that the Hon. George Hees had with seniors and their representatives over the past several months, they suggested publishing this complete, detailed guide that would include all possible information on the federal programs available to them.
This guide will be available for the next six weeks at some 6,000 supermarkets in Canada. It may also be obtained by filling in the order form attached to last month's old age security pension cheques.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite all seniors, especially those in Quebec-Est, to obtain this guide, which I am sure will be very useful to them.


HOG EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, a recent preliminary American trade ruling, once ratified, will have major benefits for Canadian hog producers. It is recommended that the existing American countervail duty on Canadian hogs be cut in half, going down 2.2 cents per pound from 4.39 cents per pound. This reduction will be retroactive to March, 1985.
This decision is of extreme importance to Manitoba hog producers. Manitoba exports a large number of hogs to the United States every year.
The preliminary ruling is also evidence of our need to continue to work toward establishing solid duty-free trade relationships for all of our commodities we trade with the United States. By establishing a good trading relationship, all of Canada will benefit from the solid economic gains free trade has to offer.
Manitoba hog producers know the benefits of free trade with the Americans. How can the Opposition suggest to them that export duties are good for their industry? Manitoba farmers do not believe in the Opposition's nonsense.

June 22, 1988
Canadian hog producers produce the best bacon in the world, Mr. Speaker.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the human rights situation in Singapore is rapidly deteriorating, and the Canadian Government should be doing more than merely monitoring the situation.
Since 1984 there has been a noticeable decline in human rights in Singapore. For the first time in 20 years, in 1984 two opposition Members were elected to Parliament. Prime Minister Lee was said to have been disturbed by this development and is still upset that he does not control all the seats in Parliament.
Last May 22 people, mainly young church workers, students, lawyers and artists, were arrested for supposedly being involved in a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government. Subsequently, international human rights groups rejected the charges as a pure fabrication stating that these individuals were merely exercising their civil rights within the law. After providing the Government with televised confessions of their involvement in this alleged conspiracy, all but one of them were released.
Eight of these people were recently rearrested by the Government after they stated that their confessions were false and were the product of long hours of interrogations and beatings. Once back in prison, however, the Government quickly succeeded in having the dissidents retract their stories of coercion and mistreatment, and they are still incarcerated.
Canada cannot sit idly by and watch the ongoing human rights abuses in Singapore, a state which is also a member of the Commonwealth.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the socialists suffered four major setbacks this week.
The G-7 countries endorse free trade and say it is a historic example to be followed throughout the world.
This is an expert opinion that is worth much more than the incredible statements from the socialist intellectuals.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom proved to us here in this House this morning that collective wealth and a better standard of living are made possible when citizens are free in a system that allows for creativity, ability and excellence.
Closer to home, in Lac-Saint-Jean, although he was looking for an upset, the socialist candidate lost his deposit.
In the riding of Anjou in Quebec, the provincial leader of the socialist party got 483 votes, 2 per cent of the total. He too lost his deposit.
Mr. Speaker, our society no longer wants the crazy world of Broadbent.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today's bank special features the Royal Bank, Hanmer branch. My constituent, Marie June Ewen, had a loan at the branch and it was practically paid off this spring when she decided to renew the loan and increase it to pay her property taxes and insurance. She made that arrangement on May 9 and the bank deposited the amount into her account on May 11.
When she received her May bank statement, lo and behold, she noticed a service charge, $7 to register the loan, and $3. When she went to the bank to inquire about the $3, she found out from the manager of the bank that this was "the federal Government, by regulation, had asked for a credit rating search," and the bank was charging her $3 for the search.
This is another example of why we need an autonomous, independent ombudsman such as was recommended by members of this caucus.


TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, according to The Toronto Star, the winners at the Economic Summit included our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because he showed that he could wheel and deal with the world's best, Toronto because it hosted this summit, and Canada because the summit was a superbly staged affair. This must be so, Mr. Speaker, because The Toronto Star says it is.
June 22, 1988

Another winner appears to be our environment because the Summit leaders encouraged all countries to sign and ratify the ozone layer treaty, urged priority action on water pollution and acid rain, and endorsed the concept of sustainable development. It is unfortunate, however, that any reference to the environment was conspicuously absent from President Reagan's speech last night.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, during the last weeks, I have received many requests about the variable eligibility weeks for unemployment insurance benefits.
The problem is the following: In my region, the unemployment level reaches 11.4 per cent. However, in some subregions, the level is above that. Now, the waiting period for the subregions is based on that of the region. Instead of having a waiting period in accordance with the subregion unemployment level, which is often higher, some people have to wait longer because of the lower unemployment level for the whole region. People living in these subregions are therefore penalized whenever their unemployment level is higher than the level for the region.
Because of this unfair situation, people generally feel dissatisfied.
The Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration prepared a report in which a specific solution to that unacceptable situation was recommended.
I therefore ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to act on that recommendation so that a uniform system may be put in place which would not wrongfully penalized the citizens of this country, and especially my constituents.


SEOUL OLYMPIC GAMES-REQUEST THAT CANADIAN BADMINTON FEDERATION CORRECT ALLEGED INJUSTICE TO DENISE JULIEN
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Badminton Association has no respect for athletes from Quebec. In not letting Denise Julien of Rouyn-Noranda take part in the Olympic Games in Seoul, it belittles our athletes and their parents, our volunteers and coaches as well as the
Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Quebec sports organizations. When it asked Denise Julien to compete in the last PanAmerican Games, she won the Triple Crown.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Badminton Association used the Pan-American Games results to apply for a place in the Seoul Olympic Games. Journalist Luc Adam of La Frontiere wrote: "Injustice! Injury! Insult!" There is still time for the Association to redress that grave injustice against Denise Julien who has probably been the most dedicated champion of Canadian badminton in the past few years.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians join with environmentalists the world over to deplore the rapid depletion of the rain forests, especially the tropical rain forests so vital to the maintenance of existing patterns of wind and rain. At present rates of destruction there will be little left after the next five years. Yet it is we, in the cooler, non-tropical areas, who are likely to suffer the most from the climatic changes predicted with the loss of our global air conditioner.
We in the developed world are most responsible for this depletion in the name of progress and development. Canadians indeed help to finance this destruction through aid projects financed by the World Bank. We even give tax relief to Canadians living abroad to organize this slaughter in the name of development.
We live in a fragile, interdependent world. We must reassess our role in financing rain forest destruction. We must, with environmentalists everywhere, become part of the solution to this urgent global environmental problem. We must end our own complicity and work with others to protect the rain forests for our own sake and that of the whole world.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, is the National Film Board a law unto itself? If not, how much longer is the Government of Canada going to permit this Board to defame one of our greatest military heroes?
Scores of Canadian Legions and thousands of Canadians have asked the NFB to withdraw the odious film, The Kid Who Couldn't Miss. The Board refuses and thinks that placing

June 22, 1988
Oral Questions
the words "docu-drama" at the beginning and offering to produce another film on Air Vice-Admiral Bishop will erase its guilt.
This film denigrates Billy Bishop, pains his living relatives, and defames every man and woman who wears or ever wore the Canadian uniform.
If the National Film Board still refuses to withdraw this disgraceful film from circulation, I ask the Government to appoint a new Board that will listen to the people.


BY-ELECTIONS VACANCY IN ROSEDALE CONSTITUENCY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Toronto area have watched with interest while the byelection unfolded in Lac-Saint-Jean. Why has the Government not yet called an election in Rosedale? Why are the people of Rosedale jeopardized by not having a Member of Parliament representing them here? Furthermore, why are they jeopardized by not having the government formula of largesse and generosity which accompanies the Government's style for calling by-elections, with $164 million of new promises in Lac-Saint-Jean and over $1 billion indirectly?
Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have a good friend left whom he has not yet taken care of? If so, let that friend run in Rosedale. I urge the Government to direct its promises into the much needed area of housing where, in the past, federal government assistance has been very valuable.

[ Translation]


SAGUENAY-LAC-SAINT-JEAN 150 YEARS OF HISTORY-GREAT RALLY OF THE TREMBLAYS- TRIBUTE TO FOUNDERS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region will be holding an important event this summer as we celebrate our first 150 years of history. All sorts of activities and events will be taking place throughout the summer. Among others, this week the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean will be hosting the great rally of the Tremblays which will coincide with our "fete des Quebecois" festivities on June 23, 24 and 25. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that Tremblay is the surname of almost 15 percent of the people, some 45,000 in all, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area?
On the occasion of this 150th anniversary, Tremblays from all over the world will congregate to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-
Jean to celebrate together our 150 years of history. Alexis Tremblay, familiarly known as "Picote", was one of the founders of our region. Some 150 years ago, Alexis Tremblay decided that the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean would be where his family would take root, and it did, Mr. Speaker!
In the name of all my colleagues here in the House, I would like to pay tribute to this great family on the occasion of its anniversary celebrations being held this week in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, how could President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher agree to the Toronto Summit communique calling on strengthened international co-operation among all countries to protect the environment when the United States and Great Britain have not signed the Helsinki Protocol to cut acid rain-causing sulphur dioxide emissions? How could Reagan and Thatcher keep a straight face while agreeing to the Summit statement at a time when they are stalling negotiations in Geneva on another acid rain-causing pollutant, nitrous oxides?
Our natives speak of people with forked tongues. If Reagan and Thatcher do not speak with forked tongues, then they should practise what they preach by joining Canada, France, West Germany, Italy and 17 other nations in signing the Helsinki Agreement on Acid Rain. Next, they would instruct their negotiators in Geneva to reach an international agreement to control acid rain caused by nitrous oxides.
We heard statements on the environment from summits before. Neither Reagan nor Thatcher has so far showed any willingness to put their theory into practice. Will they this time?


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that Question Period, which will now begin, will end at approximately 3.20 p.m.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House share the great respect there is in this country for Prime Minister Thatcher and we
June 22, 1988

value our relationship with Great Britain. We were glad to welcome her to this Elouse of Commons this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister of Canada have prior knowledge of the text of the speech-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -delivered by the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You have to do better than that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


John Napier Turner: Did the Prime Minister of Canada have prior knowledge of the text of the speech delivered by Prime Minister Thatcher to Parliament this morning? If so, did the Prime Minister, despite his own views and despite the views of his Government, advise her that her comments on the trade deal with the United States were inappropriate-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Foster:: Right on.


John Napier Turner: -were inappropriate in that she interfered in our national debate on an issue that is likely to dominate the next general election in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that is the most insulting question I have ever heard in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Answer it.


Mr. Forrestall:: Shame on you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of himself. The answer is no.


John Napier Turner: I would hope that the Deputy Prime Minister would have been proud enough to stand up and defend the sovereignty of this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION BE HELD
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canadians admire and respect Great Britain and we
Oral Questions
admire and respect the United States. However, I want to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that we are no longer a colony of Great Britain and we do not want to become a colony of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Copps:: Right on!


John Napier Turner: I want to say to the
Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister that Canadians no longer need the advice or approval of any foreign power as to how we will conduct our external and trade relations. We need nobody else to help us make up our minds as to how we will solve Canadian issues.
The Government's trade deal with the United States is an issue to be decided by Canadians in Canada, debated by Canadians in Canada.


Mr. McDermid:: It is before the House right now.


John Napier Turner: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Under the circumstances, does the Prime Minister not think the time has arrived to go to the Canadian people on this issue and have Canadians decide the trade issue with the United States now, before we go any further with this issue in Parliament?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we are seeing is an act of desperation, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is fundamentally different between the Liberal Opposition and members of the Government-


An Hon. Member:: We stand for Canada!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -is the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the members of the Government, all have respect, and show it, for visiting dignitaries. Whether it is the Prime Minister of England, the President of the United States, the President of France, the Chancellor of West Germany, we treat our visiting dignitaries with respect. We give them the honour they deserve, and I am surprised that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not do likewise. I find that very, very strange.
He says this issue should be debated in the House of Commons. I agree. The Opposition has used every trick in the book to prevent it from being debated in the House of Commons.

June 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Leader of the Opposition was so interested in the debate, he could have been here yesterday to debate the issue when it was brought to the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I don't notice the Prime Minister here to report on the Summit or to defend himself today.


An Hon. Member:: He'll be here.


John Napier Turner: I hope so.


John Horton McDermid: You got the report and you don't like it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that if any Prime Minister of Canada, 15 years ago, had showed up at Westminster, the mother of Parliaments, and delivered a speech recommending to Great Britain, or advising Great Britain, whether or not to choose the Common Market, or join the Common Market, he or she would have been thrown out of Westminster and told to go back to where they came from.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MANDATE TO NEGOCIATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to Great Britain to tell Canada what to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


John Napier Turner: The Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to take the applause from his Conservative backbenchers today and this morning as a sign of approval from the Canadian people. The approval of a foreign visitor, however distinguished he or she may be, cannot replace that of the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister never received a mandate from Canadians to negotiate this trade agreement with the United States. Everyone knows very well that he never mentioned the agreement, that he did not mention free trade during the last. ..


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


John Napier Turner: And he himself, his own behaviour during the race for the leadership of the Conservative Party and at the convention-he was against free trade. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister, despite the advice of his Conservative friends, not realize that the Canadian people are entitled to speak out now either for or against this Agreement with the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find the analogy of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition rather perplexing when he talks about how he would deal with visiting Heads of State. If we were to use his analogy, we would have to throw out all the Summit Leaders. We would have to run them out of the country because they all very strongly support the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: You're whipped and you know it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can only assume either he's going through his second menopause or he's cracking up, one of the two.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're sick!


John Napier Turner: They still think we are a colony of the United Kingdom.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER INVITED TO WESTMINSTER TO SPEAK ON NORTHERN IRELAND
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, following the line of questions, we still have not received answers from the Deputy Prime Minister when questions were posed about whether the Canadian Government in fact had foreknowledge of what the Prime Minister of Great Britain was going to say in relation to an issue that is crucial to the domestic position of this country and the rights of Canadians to make the decision. We simply want to ask, was an agreement made before the speech that, if Prime Minister Thatcher was to speak as she did on the trade issue, the Prime Minister of Canada was going to be invited to Westminster to speak on the Northern Ireland issue next week or next month?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Supporting the IRA.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that
June 22, 1988

question. If you could tame the jackals behind you, you would get the answer.


Lloyd Axworthy: The bad temper of the Deputy Prime Minister and his comment about Members of this House should not be construed as an answer.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: What we are simply asking is this fundamental question. Why is the Government of Canada using the opportunity, a privilege, in fact, for people to appear in this House to talk about issues of mutual interest-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: -to propagandize its own initiatives? Why are you abusing the privileges of this House?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Right on!


Mr. Jelinek:: Have you ever heard of free speech?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we invite the Speaker, we together as Members of Parliament invite visiting dignitaries to come to this House and to address us. We do not vet their speeches, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR VISIT BY CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER TO GREAT BRITAIN
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The issue involved, I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister, is not a matter of vetting speeches, it is whether a guest of the Parliament of Canada, not the Government of Canada, should come to this Chamber and make highly partisan, highly divisive speeches about domestic matters. That is the issue, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that Mrs. Thatcher was a guest of the Parliament of Canada, not the Government of Canada, does the Deputy Prime Minister think it would be appropriate in reciprocating this gesture, that the Canadian Prime Minister go to Great Britain, take three issues that are of great debate-and I won't prejudge who is responsible in Great Britain-the division of Great Britain between a rich south and an increasingly poor north, the destruction of British universities, the destruction of the British health system, and make a speech and talk about those things? If not, what right does she have to come here and meddle in Canadian affairs?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only interpret that question, as I am sure all Canadians would interpret it, as a direct attack upon the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is, you are absolutely right. That is what it is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And his Members applaud.
Mr. Speaker, if the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Tobin:: Don Mazankowski, "the wild colonial boy".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the New Democratic Party and, in particular, the Leader of the socialists, want to take issue with the contents of the speech that was delivered to the House today, they are perfectly entitled to do so. We notice as well that certain members of the New Democratic Party took issue with the contents of a speech that the President of the United States made in this country in this same House of Commons. They were perfectly entitled to do so.
I remind the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that the Prime Minister went down to the United States and spoke to the joint Houses of Congress-


Lynn McDonald: And nobody showed up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and talked very frankly and very bluntly-


Mr. Fulton:: The House was empty.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -about the United States position with respect to environmental issues. We did not hear any whining and complaining from the United States. You are nothing more than a whiner and a complainer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister that I would rather be a complainer for the people of Canada than a colonial Conservative for the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN AFFAIRS-PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question. The vast majority of Canadians are against the policy of buying nuclear submarines. Both Opposition Parties are against the policy, but Mrs. Thatcher nevertheless decided to meddle in our domestic affairs.

June 22, 1988
Oral Questions
My question is this: According to the Deputy Prime Minister, does our Prime Minister have the right to go to Great Britain and comment on the situation in South Africa, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition that was established for the first time in England, a tradition of free speech, and that tradition is also very strong here in Canada. It is a Canadian and a British tradition. The Prime Minister of Great Britain exercised that right of free speech here in the House of Commons today, as her predecessors have done in Britain. We on the Government side have a great deal of respect for the principle of free speech, and as the Deputy Prime Minister just said, it is a policy we ourselves followed when the Prime Minister of Canada visited the United States and spoke frankly and directly about acid rain. That was the same kind of approach, and it was in fact recommended by the socialist party here in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, before my last question to the Deputy Prime Minister I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he should remember what his Leader at the time said about Charles de Gaulle meddling in Canadian affairs. Look that up, Mr. Clark.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTENT OF U.K. PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this, since he did not answer the question. Does he think it is appropriate as a House Leader in Parliament that a Prime Minister of Canada would go to Great Britain and make a speech and devote more than half the time on British domestic issues that are highly divisive?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will he answer that question? Does he think it is appropriate? If not, would he inform Mrs. Thatcher that her behaviour in the Parliament of Canada was unacceptable to the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker,-


John Edward Broadbent: Have an election on this.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Stand up for Canada just once.


John Edward Broadbent: The last colonial Party in Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Stand up for Canada just once, Joe.


Lloyd Axworthy: How many subs did you buy?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the basic fallacy here of course is that the question of trade is simply a domestic issue. The question of moving toward more liberal international trade, as the elected Leaders of the Summit just indicated in Toronto, is a matter of fundamental importance to all countries in the world, and an appropriate matter for the Prime Minister of Great Britain or, indeed, any other freely elected Leader to speak of.
I must say that if Hon. Members opposite think that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher lets other people tell her what to say, then they know a different Margaret Thatcher than I do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Why didn't you say something back? Why are you caving in?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


RELEASE OF PENITENTIARY INMATE WITH HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It involves the case of Joseph Roger Fredericks, who has a history of psychiatric problems dating back nearly 30 years. He also has a dangerous criminal record.
In November of 1984 he was convicted of gross sexual assault on an 11-year old Ottawa boy. He was sentenced to five years in penitentiary. He was released on day parole in November, 1987. In March of this year he was released on mandatory supervision.
In a letter to Mr. Fredericks dated November 16, 1986, the National Parole Board stated: "You have earned the support of the institution and the case management team. We believe the risks of releasing you are assumable".
On Monday Mr. Fredericks was charged with the first degree murder of an eleven-year old Brampton boy.
I would like the Solicitor General to explain to the House what went wrong. How was it possible for this man to be released? How was it possible for a dangerous sexual psychopath to be released prior to his sentence expiry?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that what has happened here is a terrible situation. Yesterday I expressed the sympathy of all concerned to the family.
June 22, 1988

I certainly do not intend to indulge in a review of this man's record when the case is presently before the courts, and when the man has been charged. I think the Hon. Member should be much more temperate in his remarks in the House in that regard. A man is considered innocent until proven guilty, notwithstanding how abhorrent the crime may be.
The man was released on mandatory supervision, which I may remind the Hon. Member was something I have recommended be abolished in the parole reforms which I brought forward last week. I can also advise the Hon. Member that I have asked the head of Correctional Services Canada to do a complete audit on this file for me. I expect to have that by the first of the week.


QUERY ON REASONS FOR RELEASE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1986, Parliament was recalled in an emergency. According to the Government that emergency was to deal with dangerous offenders who were being released on mandatory supervision. Parliament passed Bill C-67. The Department of the Solicitor General had the authority to detain this man, yet he was released a year and a half before sentence expiry.
How was it possible for this man to be released? Would the Solicitor General not agree that, in the circumstances, given his record, given the fact that he had psychiatric problems dating back 30 years, his Department ought to have exercised the authority that Parliament gave to him two years ago, and detained this man?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the authority was not given to the Solicitor General. The authority was given to the National Parole Board.
I have already advised the Hon. Member that I have asked the head of Correctional Services Canada to get the file, do a complete audit, and report to me. I expect to have that report early next week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader, from one House Leader to another House Leader. I wish to ask him a serious question, because I do not think he responded to the questions put by my Leader. My Leader asked whether or not he, as a House Leader of Parliament, felt it was appropriate for the Prime Minister of the U.K. to be a guest of Parliament and raise the type of issues that she did.
Oral Questions
Does he believe that it would be appropriate for our Prime Minister to go to Britain, not address a Conservative gathering, but address the Parliament of Britain and talk about highly divisive domestic issues? Does he really think that that would be an appropriate thing for our Prime Minister to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in response to an earlier question, the trade deal is an international treaty which has implications world-wide. If that is what the Hon. Member is referring to, surely she is within her right to express a view, as have all seven summit leaders who, incidentally, strongly support and welcome the free trade arrangement.
I also noted that the Prime Minister of Great Britain had some criticisms about Canadian agriculture. Is the Hon. Member taking issue with that? She said what was on her mind. As the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has suggested, she speaks with an open mind, and she speaks as she wishes. I am sure that all Hon. Members would wish her to be that way.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that Margaret Thatcher did not speak with an open mind, but spoke what was on a Conservative mind. That was the mind that she was talking about.
The trade deal with the United States is not like the drought situation in western Canada. It has not passed Parliament. It was not raised during the last general election a single time. The Prime Minister even stated that he was against it. The people of Canada want an election on this deal.
My supplementary question to the Deputy House Leader is the following. When Charles de Gaulle was in Canada raising domestic issues, not in the Parliament of Canada, the Government of the day spoke out strongly against his intervention. Why is the Government not prepared to stand up for Canada and speak out strongly in favour of Canada on this issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House of Commons that not many nights ago Members of the House from all Parties gathered here to take part in a special debate about a proposed regulation to be implemented by the Parliament of the United Kingdom respecting fur labelling, which affected Canada, in the same way that the movement towards international trade agreements will affect the life of Great Britain.
We had a right to speak about the fur industry in this Parliament. Margaret Thatcher, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and indeed all of the summit leaders who gathered at the Economic Summit, have a right to express themselves on important issues that affect international trade.
It may be that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap does not agree with the view of the Prime Minister of Great

June 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Britain. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, in this free country, in this free Parliament, has the right to express her views.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RELEASE OF PENITENTIARY INMATE WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORD
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to the Fredericks case, and to the Solicitor General's responsibility for the application of Bill C-67, for which he is the responsible Minister.
In this case we have an individual whose criminal and psychological record was such that, if anything, the Minister should have known that this was a case where Bill C-67 was designed to be of use.
Does the Solicitor General take any responsibility at all for ensuring that this legislation, for which the Government recalled Parliament in the middle of a summer break, will in effect be applied, and why it was not in this case? Is he not responsible for his Department?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not require the services of that Hon. Member to remind me of my responsibilities as Solicitor General.
As I have already explained in answer to an earlier question, I have gone to the head of Correctional Services Canada and asked that a complete audit be done on that file. As a matter of fact, I spoke to him again at noon today. He tells me that the audit has started, and that he hopes to have it in my hands in a few days. I will then be in a position to give an answer. Certainly I cannot at this point, because the audit has not been completed.


REQUEST THAT REPORT TO MINISTER BE TABLED
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that that report, when received, will be tabled in the House unedited?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to remind the Hon. Member that I am certainly prepared to carry out my duties in a proper way. The audit is being done. I will review the report and make my decision at that time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: My question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. My understanding is that before the Minister of the Environment could issue a licence to allow the construction of the Rafferty and Alameda Dam he first had to conclude a treaty with the United States concerning the quality and quantity of water for Manitoba and to make sure that waterfowl and water quality requirements are met.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us whether such a treaty had been concluded with the United States before he signed the licence?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is wrong. It is not necessary to have such an international treaty before the permit is issued. We are negotiating with the relevant jurisdictions and we expect a treaty to be completed very soon.


OBSERVANCE OF LICENCE CONDITIONS
Simon Leendert de Jong: My understanding is that it would be a condition of the licence that certain water quality and quantity standards be met.
If Saskatchewan does not live up to those requirements and those conditions of the licence, does the Minister expect Saskatchewan to dismantle the dam?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, very stringent environmental conditions were woven into the fabric of the permit. Those conditions will have to be met. If not, the permit will be revoked.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in her excellent and inspiring speech to the House of Commons this morning, the Prime Minister of Great Britain failed to mention the problem with clam diggers in British Columbia. I would like to raise that now.
The Minister of Fisheries should be aware that hundreds of pounds of clams are being commercially harvested from recreational beaches on the West Coast. For a $10 licence fee well organized teams of 30 or 50 pillagers can systematically take as much as they want, go anywhere they want, and haul out the harvest by the truck load.
June 22, 1988

Where is the protection for the recreational clam digger? When does the Minister intend to control and protect the beaches of British Columbia properly?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the preamble to the Hon. Member's question. I am glad that he was able to raise such an important issue relating to bivalves on his beaches.
In the past three years there has been a tremendous increase in demand for the beach clams of British Columbia and that, coupled with the influx of a number of new Canadians who have been able to obtain commercial licences to harvest these clams, has led to considerable pressure on local residents of British Columbia beaches.
We are at present developing new regulations which, in fact, will bring in size limits, and toughen up restrictions as to bag limits and the activities of these beach clam diggers, both commercial and recreational, so that the Hon. Member's interests and those of all British Columbians will be properly respected.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
Mr. Speaker, if you think that the banks are going overboard with service charges to their customers, Canada Post should get first prize for charging Canadians exorbitant rates for their postal needs.
How could the Government authorize increases from $1.59 to $15 for a change of address, Mr. Speaker? Is the Government competing with the banks?


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou forgot to mention that for the first time since the Canada Post Corporation was established, it will make a profit, and it is making a profit today by substantially increasing it services. That is what the Hon. Member tends to forget when he talks about Canada Post.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FEE INCREASE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post increased the service by delivering mail to the supermailboxes by closing post offices in rural Canada.
Oral Questions
Canada Post is behaving worse than the banks. How can it justify an increase from $1.59 to $15 for a change of address? Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Minister to appear before the Government Operations Committee to explain this scandalous increase?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou insists on giving us false information.
Since this Government came to power, 2,000 new service outlets were opened in Canada, and when asked about the service, Canadians say they are very satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the Hon. Member always tends to forget in his questions.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-TORONTO SUMMIT DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In discussing the trade deal with Summit leaders, did the Minister tell those Summit leaders or their representatives that the deal stops us from using performance requirements like Britain does, that it stops us from bargaining with foreign investors like France does, that it stops us from having two-price agricultural products like Japan does? Did he, in fact, tell those leaders about the surrenders which this trade deal has within it?


Mr. Shields:: What about two-price oil?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, obviously the leaders at the Summit know more about the trade agreement with the United States than the Hon. Member does.


John Edward Broadbent: Now, answer the question.


Steven W. Langdon: I am interested to hear that deeply informed answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question. The trade deal with the United States has never been endorsed by this House of Commons. It has never been given a chance to be judged by Canadians themselves.
Why did the Prime Minister of Canada pressure so hard to get Summit leaders to endorse this deal when he has not permitted Canadians themselves to have a say in the deal?

June 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that leaders of the Summit who know the importance of making progress against protectionism of their own initiative in their own interests, and knowing that it is in Canada's interest, themselves vigorously endorsed the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States-


John Edward Broadbent: Read the transcript.


Charles Joseph Clark: -not simply on its own but because of the signals it sends to the rest of the world that the way for this world to prosper is to bring down barriers and not to build them up.


NARCOTICS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I find it insulting that the Conservative Party of Canada cannot fight its own battles.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Liberals like to fight.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns another grand pronouncement of our Prime Minister in the Economic Summit's announcement of the war on drugs. The Canadian Government's war on drugs has all the force of a pop gun.
Why specifically on the one hand does the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that we have to put in place mechanisms to trace the laundering of money while on the other hand the Government of Canada rejected recommendation 22 of the all-Party committee which required Canadian banks to report transactions of $10,000 or more, which would have permitted us to follow the tracing of drug money?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised the question because it allows me the opportunity to say that the Liberal Party knows how to carry on fights, but unfortunately they are all internal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for her own benefit and edification that, if she would check with her justice critic, she would find out that we have probably the most progressive legislation with respect to the seizing, freezing and forfeiture of the illicit profits of crime of
any country in the western world. I think that we can give leadership in terms of our international obligations and are, in fact, entering into arrangements with other countries in the G7 in order to make sure that we have a very strong and effective set of laws to crack down on people who make a profit on drugs. I hope the Hon. Member will assist us in getting this legislation through the House so we can have Royal Assent early.


NATIONAL DRUGS STRATEGY-FEDERAL FUNDING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party does not sink so low as to use the kind of language which the Deputy Prime Minister uses.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We don't use "menopause" as a slight across the floor of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 have a very specific question. Does the Government really expect the people Canada to believe that we are conducting a war on drugs when in the fiscal year 198788, after the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced the multimillion dollar National Drugs Strategy, the amount of money to the Province of Ontario, Canada's largest province, dedicated to drug rehabilitation was less than $25,000? Is that not an absolute joke?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister made his statement in Vancouver on the drug crisis, that Hon. Member along with other members of her Party said that there was no crisis, there was no need for a drugs strategy, and she condemned the Prime Minister at that time. Today we hear this version. Every time there is a different version. She is as consistent as her Leader.
This weekend, for instance, the first international antidoping conference is being sponsored by the Canadian Olympic Committee. Additionally, this year $70 million will go for rehabilitation for youth.
That Hon. Member, if I can still use that term loosely, really should not be believed around here too much, because anything she says is only partisan. It is ridiculous and it is idiotic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 22, 1988


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) as either suffering a second menopause or of being a crackpot. Although menopause may not be included in the specific list of unparliamentary remarks, it is an absolute insult to women. It is a sexist remark, associating the word "crackpot" with the word "menopause". I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw that statement.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if those words are unparliamentary, I will withdraw them.



Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short question of privilege. Earlier today, before we had that unbelievable but very warranted discussion the kind of which I had not seen in my 25 years in this House, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tabled a document. I must recognize, having taken a copy in English, that it is very short. But my question, Mr. Speaker is not whether that document is very long or very short, it deals with a sacred principle in this House on which I always insist. That principle is that no document should be tabled in only one of the two official languages, especially by a Minister of the Crown.
However short, the document was tabled in English only. I object. And the reason for that is, as I have always stated in my 25 years in this place that if there is a Department that should be aware of bilingualism, it is the Department of External Affairs, which must reflect the policy of bilingualism on every occasion and in every area.
If that Department could not find the time to translate two short pages on undesirables, even though we have been knowing since yesterday the Minister would be rising today to table the document, I wonder what is going on in External Affairs. I let that go by. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, and I repeat unacceptable from any Minister of the Crown, but especially from the Department of External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I accept the intent with which the Hon. Member spoke. I believe he fully recognizes all I have done in my public life in order to encourage and respect the official languages. I regret having submitted to the House today
Constitution Amendment, 1987
something that was initially in one official language only. The document now lays on the Table in both languages. And I remain committed towards the respect of Canada's official languages.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 14, 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]
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.
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (l)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section:
"25.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:

[Stage Direction]
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.
95 B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the
Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1)"
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:

[Stage Direction]
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:

[Stage Direction]
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:

[Stage Direction]
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.
IOIB.	(1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
June 22, 1988
[Stage Direction]
"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:

[Stage Direction]
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.

[Stage Direction]
149.	A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."

[Stage Direction]
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the. following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(0 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."
Constitution Amendment, 1987
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

[Stage Direction]
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."

[Stage Direction]
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.

[Stage Direction]
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
And the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
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; and
(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
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(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 (l)(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:
"101 C.() 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 the province or territory and are qualified under section 101B. 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."
(0 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 paragraph 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 resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(f)	an amendment to this Part.
42.(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor;
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters;
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".
And the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(0 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
June 22, 1988
[Stage Direction]
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.-
And 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 consists of 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 the amendments of Mr. Johnston:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph 1 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"1. The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding to the preamble thereto, the following
"AND WHEREAS Canadians recognize their commitment to maintain and reinforce across Canada the bilingual nature of the Canadian federation;
AND WHEREAS Canadians recognize their commitment to the distinctive character of Quebec as the principal but not the exclusive source of the French language and culture in Canada;
AND WHEREAS Canadians recognize their commitment to the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular their respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures, as well as the differing regional identities that help shape Canadian society;
AND WHEREAS Canadians recognize their commitment to the contribution of Canada's aboriginal peoples;
AND WHEREAS Canadians recognize their commitment to the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union;""-
And:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 3 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 95C (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"95C.(2) An amendment to or the termination of 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 by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons."-
And:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting section 101C and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(1) Where a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada is considering a person for appointment to fill the vacancy, he shall inform the attorney general of the appropriate province.
(2)	When an appointment is one falling within section 101B or the Attorney General of Canada has determined that the appointment shall be made from among persons who have been admitted to the Bar of a specific province, he shall make all reasonable efforts to reach agreement with the attorney general of the appropriate province, before a person is appointed to the Court.
(3)	No person shall be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada unless the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of the appropriate province agree to the appointment, or such person has been recommended for appointment to the Court by a nominating council
Constitution Amendment, 1987
described in subsection (5), or has been selected by the Attorney General of Canada under subsection (5).
(4)	Where after the lapse of ninety days from the day a vacancy arises in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada and the attorney general of a province have not reached agreement on a person to be appointed to fill the vacancy, the Attorney General of Canada may inform the attorney general of the appropriate province in writing that he proposes to convene a nominating council to recommend an appointment.
(5)	Within thirty days of the day when the Attorney General of Canada has written the attorney general of the province that he proposes to convene a nominating council, the attorney general of the province may inform the Attorney General of Canada in writing that he selects either of the following types of nominating councils:
(a)	a nominating concil consisting of the following members: the Attorney General of Canada or his nominee and the attorneys general of the provinces or their nominees;
(b)	a nominating council consisting of the following members: the Attorney General of Canada or his nominee, the attorney general of the appropriate province or his nominee and a Chairman to be selected by the two attorneys general, and if within six months from the expiration of the thirty days they cannot agree on a Chairman, then the chief justice of the appropriate province or if he is unable to act, the next senior judge of this court, shall name a Chairman;
and if the attorney general of the province fails to make a selection within the thirty days above referred to, the Attorney General of Canada may select the person to be appointed.
(6)	When a nominating council has been created, the Attorney General of Canada shall submit the names of not less than three qualified persons to it about whom he has sought the agreement of the attorney general of the appropriate province to the appointment, and the nominating council shall recommend therefrom a person for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada; a majority of the members of a council constitutes a quorum, and a recommendation of a majority of the members at a meeting constitutes a recommendation of the council.
(7)	For the purpose of this section "appropriate province" means, in the case of a person being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada in compliance with section 101B, the Province of Quebec, and in the case of any other person being so considered, the province to the Bar of which such person was admitted, and if a person was admitted to the Bar of more than one province, the province with the Bar of which the person has, in the opinion of the Attorney General of Canada, the closest connection.
(8)	This section does not apply to the appointment of the Chief Justice of Canada when such appointment is made from among the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada."-
And:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph 7 of the Schedule.-
And:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 8 of the Schedule by deleting section 148 and by renumbering the following sections accordingly.-
And:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 38 to 47 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"38. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of at least a majority of the provinces that includes
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(a)	every province that at any time before the issue of such proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-five percent of the population of Canada;
(b)	at least two of the Atlantic Provinces;
(c)	at least two of the Western Provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of all the Western Provinces.
39.	Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the provinces may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which an amendment applies.
40.	An amendment may be made by proclamation under section 38 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the House of Commons authorizing its issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and at any time after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Commons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the ninety days.
41.	The following rules apply to the procedures for amendment described in sections 38 and 39:
(a)	either of these procedures may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the legislative assembly of a province;
(b)	a resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
42.	The Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive Government of Canada and the Senate and House of Commons.
43.	Subject to section 44, a legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the province.
44.	Notwithstanding sections 42 and 43, the following matters may be amended only in accordance with the procedure in section 38:
(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;
(0 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;
(0 notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part.
45.	The procedure prescribed in section 38 may not be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making such amendment in the Constitution of Canada, but that procedure may nonetheless be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section, or in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution.
46.	In this Part, "Atlantic Provinces" means the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and "Western Provinces" means the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.""
And:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph 13 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"13. Part VI of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

[Stage Direction]
50.(1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened not more than once each calendar year by the Prime Minister of Canada or by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate according to the latest cencus, at least fifty percent of the population of all the provinces.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	an elected Senate with equal representation for the provinces and territories, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of electing Senators and their term of office;
(b)	the method of appointing Supreme Court of Canada justices including the use of provincial advisory committees;
(c)	the establishment of national shared-cost programs by the Government of Canada in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction;
(d)	the repeal of section 23(3)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(e)	the repeal of section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(f)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(g)	the application of sections 16 to 20 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to all of the provinces and territories;
(h)	such other matters as the Prime Minister of Canada or any Premier may wish to add to the agenda for one meeting only."
And:
That the motion be amended by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule.
And the amendments of Mr. Roman:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting paragraph 2(l)(b) and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the recognition that within Canada, Quebec constitutes one distinct society within a confederation of distinct societies."
And:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 101C.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(I) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province shall, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court."
And:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada and the governments of the provinces have not submitted names under subsection (1), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
Mr. Speaker:: It being after three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order adopted Tuesday, June 14, 1988, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on the amendments
June 22, 1988

Constitution Amendment, 1987
and on the main motion in relation to the motion on the Constitution Amendment, 1987.


Mr. Roman:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the permission of the House to withdraw the amendments that were proposed by me with respect to the Constitution Act and the amendments thereto.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The next		
question is on	the amendment of Mr. Caccia.	
The House	divided on the amendment	(Mr. Caccia), which
was negatived	on the following division:	

Constitution Amendment, 1987
Ravis	Shields	Turner	Guilbault	MacKay	RiisRedway	Siddon	(Vancouver Quadra)	(Saint-Jacques)	Mailly	RobinsonReid	Skelly	Valcourt	Guilbault	Malone	RodriguezReimer	Sparrow	Van De Walle	(Drummond)	Manly	RompkeyRicard	Speyer	Vezina	Gustafson	Mantha	RossiRiis	Suluk	Vincent	Halliday	Marchi	St-JulienRobinson	Tardif	Wenman	Hamelin	Marin	SchellenbergRodriguez	(Richmond-Wolfe)	White	Hamilton	Martin	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Rompkey	Tardif	Wilson	Hardey	Masse	SchellenbergerRossi	(Charles bourg)	(Swift Current	Harvey	Mayer	(Wetaskiwin)St-Julien	Taylor	-Maple Creek)	Hawkes	Mazankowski	ScottSchellenberg	Thacker	Winegard	Heap	McCrossan	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Tobin	Wise	Hicks	McCuish	ScottSchellenberger	Toupin	Witer	Hnatyshyn	McCurdy	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Wetaskiwin)	Towers	Young-211	Holtmann	McDermid	ScowenScott	Tremblay	Hopkins	McDonald	Shields(Victoria-Haliburton)	(Quebec-Est)	Horner	(Broadview-	SiddonScott	Tupper	Howie	Greenwood)	Skelly(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Turner	Hudon	Mclnnes	SparrowScowen	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Isabelle	McKinnon	SpeyerJames	McKnight	SulukJardine	McLaughlin	TardifJelinek	McMillan	(Richmond-Wolfe)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the first amendment standing in the name of the	Jepson Jewett Johnson	Merrithew Minaker Mitchell	Tardif (Charles bourg) TaylorHon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).	(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)	Mitges Moore	Thacker TobinThe House divided on the amendment (Mr. Johnston),	Joncas Jourdenais	Mulroney Nicholson	Toupin Towerswhich was negatived	on the following division.	Kaplan	(Niagara Falls)	Tremblay
(Division No. 404)
++YEAS
Members
Berger	Johnston	PennerCaccia	(Saint-Henri-	Roman-'Corbett	Westmount) Kindy
NAYS Members	Allmand	Champagne	DommAlthouse	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	DorinAngus	Bagot)	DuguayAttewell	Champagne	DuplessisAxworthy	(Champlain)	EdwardsBaker	Charest	EllisBeatty	Chartrand	EppBelsher	Clark	(Proven*Benjamin	(Yellowhead)	FennellBernier	Clark	FinestoneBertrand	(Brandon-Souris)	FontaineBlackburn	Clifford	Forres tallKeeper	Nickerson	(Quebec-Est)Kelleher	Nystrom	TupperKempling	Oberle	TurnerKilgour	O'Neil	(Ottawa-Carleton)Killens	Oostrom	TurnerKing	Orlikow	(Vancouver Quadra)Ladouceur	Ouellet	ValcourtLandry	Paproski	Van De WalleLangdon	Pennock	VezinaLapierre	Pepin	VincentLayton	Peterson	WenmanLeblanc	Pietz	WhiteLesick	Price	WilsonLewis	Prud'homme	(Swift CurrentMacDonald	Ravis	-Maple Creek)(Kingston and	Redway	Winegardthe Islands)	Reid	WiseMacDougall	Reimer	Witer(Timiskaming)	Ricard	Young-209
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bouchard
Boudria
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Broadbent
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Cassidy
Clinch
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Copps
Cossitt
Cote
Crofton
Crouse
Danis
Darling
Daubney
de Cotret
de Jong
Della Noce
Dick
Foster
Fraleigh
Fretz
Fulton
Gagliano
Gagnon
Garneau
Gauthier
Girard
Gormley
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West) Greenaway Gris6 Grondin


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Johnston:: I have a number of other amendments, Mr. Speaker, that are to come before the House. I would be prepared to accept the vote on the first amendment as applied to the other amendments on the assumption that all Members have read those proposed amendments and realize what they are voting against. If the House gives unanimous consent to that, I would be prepared to dispose with votes on the other amendments.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have my vote recorded in favour of the amendment proposed with respect to clause 7 of the Accord.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), and it is agreed, subject to the vote of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 22, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I declare all of the amendments lost. For the record, we have voted on one. There are seven others. I declare those seven amendments lost.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stand to be corrected, but I think that there are six other amendments not seven. It is just a technicality, but it is something that you may wish to check.


Mr. Speaker:: In answer to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), I wish to make it clear that the House has voted on the first of eight amendments, and that means there would be seven further amendments. As I understand it, it is the wish of the House that those seven further amendments be treated in the same way as the first. I declare those seven amendments lost.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Hnatyshyn.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Point of Order


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the opportunity afforded a Member who has abstained to make a brief statement and give an explanation.
I am profoundly opposed to those provisions of the Meech Lake Accord which may weaken the important role-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a tradition in this place according to which Member who has abstained may rise briefly to give an explanation. I would ask Hon. Members to extend that courtesy.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly opposed to those provisions of the Meech Lake Accord which may weaken the important role of the federal Government and allow for the possibility that fundamental rights of women and minorities as set out in the Charter may be overridden, diminish the status of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and show a lack of recognition and respect for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. [Translation]
But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I regretted Quebec's exclusion of the Constitutional Accord of 1981, as well as I have always favoured the recognition of Quebec's distinct society which requires, for a fundamental part of this character to be guaranteed, that the principles of Bill 101 be obeyed and applied.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have abstained on this most important vote.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAYS-PRECEDENCE OF OPPOSITION MOTIONS Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to suggest that this should not be an allotted day. I refer to the terms of Standing Order 58(5) and Citation 478 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
Under the terms of S. O. 58(5), twenty-five days are allotted to the business of Supply in each year. Although technically the business under discussion is government business, motions given precedence on these allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the Government. To this extent, there is a distinction between the business of supply and other government business with respect to S. O. 18.
I submit that, as a result of today, the motion given precedence was, of course, an initiative by the Government. For that reason, I believe that today ought not to be an allotted day.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I caught my hon. friend's argument but I would submit that the wording of the motion on allotted days is entirely within the control of the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, whichever one has the allotted day. It is my understanding that today's allotted day was for the New Democrats. Surely having drafted the order themselves, they, cannot then argue that what they have put on the Order Paper is, therefore, out of order. It has been

June 22, 1988
Committee Reports
accepted by the Table Officers for discussion, and I think that although my hon. friend may find himself in an awkward position, I think it is one of his own making.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the Hon. Member's point. I think what the Chair would prefer to do would be to proceed with Routine Proceedings now. When we come to Orders of the Day, I will hear the Hon. Member further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use), in both official languages.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages. The fifteenth report deals with the selection of votable items pertaining to the thirteenth draw which took place on June 13, 1988.
In accordance with its mandate, under Standing Order 36(1) (a), your committee recommends the following item of Private Members' Business to be designated as a votable item: Bill C-292, an Act to amend the Bank Act.
May I note that, pursuant to Standing Order 36(l)(b), this fifteenth report is deemed adopted when laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 seek some clarification. Last day I received authorization of the House of Commons to have leave to introduce a Private Member's Bill entitled an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act. I wonder if I could now have permission to introduce the Bill for first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) will understand the difficulty the Chair is in. I do not remember who seconded the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).