1988-05-19

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages Report No. 31 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled Recodifying Criminal Law, a revised and enlarged edition of Report No. 30 which I tabled in this House on December 3, 1986.


CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM ACT
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-93. I would like to thank the Clerk, Mr. Don Landry, and the staff who worked so diligently on this Bill, as well as the Minister for appearing at the beginning and the end of the deliberations.
[Editor's Note: See Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on point of order. What are the Government's intentions today when we reach Orders of the Day? The House understood that, because of a special order, today would be devoted to Government Order No. 23, the Constitution amendment dealing with the Meech Lake Accord.
We also see on the Order Paper consideration of a Ways and Means motion concerning free trade. I do not know if the Government has decided to postpone the debate on Meech
Lake and go to this other business, but we would like to know why this is on the document before us. We have people who are prepared to speak on the Meech Lake debate today. We would like to know if they can expect to be speaking today.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, we expect Routine Proceedings to proceed smoothly. We would then call, as indicated on the Order Paper, the Ways and Means proceeding. It is not debatable and not amendable. It should go reasonably quickly and give the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) an opportunity to reopen the Meech Lake debate, followed by the spokespersons for the two opposition Parties.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the same concern expressed by the Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). It is crucial that the House have some sense of direction in which it is going. To put this suddenly on the Order Paper at this stage gives very little time for consideration of a motion which was brought forward by the Government just yesterday.
It is a motion that cannot be debated, which in itself is most objectionable, I think. It seems to me, therefore, that to take this step, which in effect reverses what the Government has put before us previously, is really most unusual and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule it out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). I can understand the point he is making. However, the rules are quite clear. The Chair is in no position to rule the matter out of order. I just would not have the authority to do so. In view of the fact that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has spoken on this matter, I should ask if there is any further comment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No need for it.


AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF AIR CANADA UNDER THE CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT AND FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SHARES THEREOF TO THE PUBLIC
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the

May 19, 1988
Petitions
Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to allow the Hon. Minister to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare the motion carried on division.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from Transport Canada employees at Dorval Airport who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.

May 19, 1988

The petitioners humbly state that: Whereas indexed pensions for all Canadians are essential for retired people to protect the value of their pensions from the harmful effects of inflation;
Whereas other employers and other governments recognize the need for indexation and therefore negotiate the protection of pension benefits from inflation or pass laws for this purpose;
Whereas Bill C-33 will abolish legislated protection for full inflation protection of future pension benefits of all federal Public Service employees, although these employees have paid and will continue to pay 7.5 per cent of their salary towards their pensions, including full inflation protection;
For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to maintain in law full indexation of pension benefits for the federal Public Service, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the members of Reverend Roger K. Moore's congregation in my constituency regarding the Supreme Court's decision to allow abortion on demand. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament and provincial legislators to consider the tragic effects of this decision and to take immediate action to protect, defend and respect the rights of unborn children.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 314 and 332.


Mr. Young: 1.	In (a) 1988 to date (ft) 1987, have funds been made available under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing in Toronto and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Are any housing units being funded under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ontario and, if so (a) how many (ft) what amount of funding is allocated to each unit?


Hon. Stewart  Mclnnis@Minister of Public Works: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1. (a) and (b) Yes. The planned activity for 1988 in the Toronto CMA is to create 1,431 new assisted housing units to
Order Paper Questions
be cost-shared 60/40 between the federal Government and the Province of Ontario and to provide S7.372 million for renovation. The number of units may vary depending on costs. In addition, it is planned that 589 units will be made available under the federal Co-operative Housing Program.
The corresponding commitments for 1987 for the Toronto CMA were 1,984 new assisted housing units, $8,017 million for renovation and 167 units under te federal Co-operative Housing Program.
2. Yes. (a) The planned activity for 1988 in Ontario is to provide assistance to create 6,147 new assisted housing units, cost-shared 60/40 between the federal Government and the Province (75/25 in the case of the Rural and Native Housing Program), and $25.34 million for renovation. In addition, it is planned that 1,765 units will be provided under the federal Cooperative Housing Program.
The corresponding commitments for Ontario for 1987 were 6,398 new assisted housing units, $26,967 million for renovation and 1,367 units under the federal Co-operative Housing Program.
(b) The federal share of lifetime costs for all socail housing commitments in Ontario in each of 1987 and 1988 is approximately $1.2 billion. The federal Co-operative Housing Program budget for Ontario for 1987 and 1988 is approximately $2.3 million each year.
1986-87 SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNTS


Mr. Crofton: 1.	With respect to the 1986-87 Superannuation Accounts for the (a) Canadian Forces (ft) Public Service, what amount was paid (/) into it by members (//) into it by the government (Hi) into it as interest (/v) out of it to retired personnel or their beneficiaries?
2.	What were the balances in the two accounts at year end?


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. (a)
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account: 1986-1987
(i)	Member Contributions	$	130,867,098(ii)	Government Contributions	$	232,803,915(iii)	Interest	$	1,545,909,113(iv)	Annuities	$	425,915,688
(b) Public Service Superannuation Account: 1986-1987
(i)	Member Contributions
(ii)	Employer Contributions:
Government Crown Corporations Total
(iii)	Interest
(iv)	Annuities
$	552,330,411
$	397,926,126
$	119,618,297
$	517,544,423
$ 2,445,350,033 $	826,003,699

May 19, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
2. (a) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account: 1986-1987 (i) Account Balance March 31, 1987	$16,110,864,205
(b) Public Service Superannuation Account: 1986-1987
(i) Account Balance March 31, 1987	$24,769,356,677


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 286 and 294 could be made Orders for Returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 286 and 294 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mrs. Dewar: For (a) the period between September 4 and December 31, 1984 (6) 1985
(c)	1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 to present, have any government departments or agencies allocated funds in the riding of Hamilton Mountain and, if so (/) which departments or agencies (//) in what amounts (Hi) under which categories and programs?
Return tabled.


Mrs. Sparrow: Between (a) January I, 1982 and December 31, 1984, (b) January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1987, inclusive, were contracts awarded in the constituency of Calgary South by the Department of Supply and Services and, if so, in what numbers and, in each case, in what amount?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at this point, I rose on a point of order after the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) gave notice of a Ways and Means motion relating to the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. It is my understanding that the Government wishes to seek the concurrence of the House now in that Ways and Means motion before we go on to the important Meech Lake debate later this morning.
I am of course, Mr. Speaker, making an assumption that you will be making a ruling on my point of order in advance of the question being put to the House, and I wish to take a moment to make some additional comments to clarify the point of order I raised yesterday.
As you will recall, the thrust of my objection to the Ways and Means motion rested on two fundamental points: first, that because the Ways and Means motion contained no provision to increase charges to the public, it was therefore totally unnecessary as a preliminary step to the introduction of the free trade legislation. I cited a number of authorities, including Beauchesne and Erskine May, to corroborate my point. Second, I argued that by its very nature, a Ways and Means motion limits the scope for amendments to the Bill that it precedes, and Beauchesne is absolutely clear on this point.
In your preliminary response that you made yesterday to my intervention, you indicated that, without seeing the Bill, it was difficult to determine whether it would impose an additional charge on the taxpayer. You stated, as reported in Hansard at page 15587:
The second matter of course is that without seeing the Bill I am not completely sure that 1 would be able to accept some of the propositions which the Hon. Member has cited, which may of themselves be good authority. However, I cannot tell until I see the Bill whether in fact the Bill conforms with the five paragraphs that are now in front of the House and the notice of Ways and Means motion. I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap the fact that paragraph i) of the notice of Ways and Means motion states:
i) to impose customs duties in accordance with the Tariff Schedules of
Canada referred to in Annex 401.2 of the Agreement;
I cannot tell from that whether that will increase customs duties or decrease them. It seems to me it puts us in some difficulty.
I recognize your difficulty, Mr. Speaker. However, consider the implications on Members of the House from all sides who participate in the legislative process of giving the Government a carte blanche opportunity to introduce Ways and Means motions. Consider, for example, the following case that could arise out of the ability of a Government to introduce Ways and Means to any Bill where charges on the taxpayer are altered, either to increase charges or to decrease them.
Let us consider the possibility of a Ways and Means motion being sufficiently vague and obscure as to leave some doubt in the minds of Members of the House about whether they are voting on whether or not to concur in a motion that would
May 19, 1988

result in increased taxes or in decreased taxes on the general public, their constituents. How can Members make a decision on a question which is not clear? Surely that is fundamental to this place. Members of Parliament must know what they are voting on before they can decide how they will vote. On a fundamental issue such as taxation, the importance of this question is heightened even further.
If the motion is unclear, how should I vote? How can I explain my vote to those who elected me? Am I to tell them that I may have inadvertently voted in favour of a motion to concur in a Bill that would increase their taxes because I did not understand the motion? How can we prevent this situation from occurring if we are not clear on whether or not the Ways and Means motion will result in increased or decreased charges to our constituents?
In an attempt to help resolve this question in my own mind with respect to the motion in question, I consulted with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), and other staff members, about the wording of the motion. It has become clear that those five paragraphs, which you indicated earlier were unclear, become somewhat less confusing after referring to the free trade agreement. However, there still remains some doubt as to whether or not these paragraphs are relieving measures or will result in additional charges to the taxpayer. Therefore, I, as a Member of the House, am left with questions in my mind about the question I am being asked to decide upon. I think you would agree that this is a very confusing situation at the very least.
In recent years the Government has initiated Ways and Means motions, specifically those that arise out of budget legislation, which are detailed and specific. It is quite clear to the House just what we are being asked to vote upon. However, this five-paragraph motion tabled yesterday gives Members no such guidance whatsoever. It is totally incomplete.
I still maintain that if this motion is based upon the contents of the free trade agreement, it can contain no measures that increase the charge on taxpayers and thus is totally unnecessary as a preliminary step to the introduction of the free trade legislation. As such, and as I stated earlier, it limits the ability of Members of the House to amend the legislation that will eventually follow.
However, if you are of the opinion that these arguments are not convincing, then I submit, as I argued this morning, that the Ways and Means motion proposed by the Minister should be ruled out of order because it is, as you have stated yourself, unclear and therefore I as a Member of this House cannot be expected to decide on a question that is unclear.
I hope you will reflect on my arguments and perhaps return at a later time to make a ruling. I thank you for your patience in hearing my arguments at this moment.
Point of Order-Mr. Riis


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) both yesterday and today. I indicated yesterday that whatever may be the final outcome, it seems to me that it was premature for the Chair to make a ruling. I have had time to reflect on the matter brought to my attention yesterday, and I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member's complete argument again today. However, I remain of the same view. It is inappropriate for the Chair to try to make a ruling until the Chair sees what is actually in the proposed Bill. This does not mean that at that time it might not be appropriate to make a ruling.
I would add as a caveat that even if a ruling were made in accordance with the suggestion of the Hon. Member, it might not change anything very much. It might indicate that the Government had gone through an unnecessary process but it might not have any real substantive effect upon proceedings in the House.
I would ask the Hon. Member, who has raised a matter of importance, and certainly one of ingenuity, to accept the Chair's decision at this point that it would be premature to make an order. That does not mean I may not have further observations to make on the matter.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my comments are not intended to reflect in any way on what you just said, but I wish to raise with Your Honour the question of whether the Ways and Means motion is sufficiently complete in itself and sufficiently understandable that Members can make a decision upon it through their vote. There are problems with the motion in so far as it is not clear exactly what it is intended to do and say.
It is not enough for the Government to say it will introduce a Bill as a result of this motion being passed, if it is, and then everything will become clear. Surely it must be necessary for the Government, if it wishes to have a Ways and Means motion properly before the House, to have the content of the motion drafted so that it is clear to anyone voting upon it exactly what it intends to accomplish with respect to changes in the fiscal measures in question.
I respectfully submit that this is not the case and therefore the motion is defective and cannot be put before the House in its present form because Members are not in a position, from looking at the motion alone and not at a whole range of extraneous matters, to know just what they are voting upon.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, I want to refer to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which says, in Citation 237, that a point of order against procedure must be raised promptly, which has been done, and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place. The point we are trying to make is that at some point in the future, if your ruling were that we ought to proceed, it might be out of place or beyond the point where such an intervention would be appropriate.

May 19, 1988
Ways and Means
Erskine May has perhaps indicated a way around this dilemma. At page 447 it says that doubtful cases may arise upon which the rules of the House are indistinct or obsolete or do not apply directly to the point at issue. I submit that such is the case at this point. It goes on to say that the Speaker will then usually give a ruling to cover the new circumstances, although he has on occasion referred the matter to the judgment of the House. Perhaps that would be the appropriate way to proceed now and simply refer this decision to the House itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the further remarks of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). While the points made by the Hon. Member for Windsor West were delivered with force, it seems to me they amount to essentially the same point raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, and I remain of the view that it is premature for the Chair to rule.
The latter point that the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap makes I think can be met by the Chair making it very clear that I certainly do not think 1 am precluded from commenting on this at a later time. I think I have made it clear that if it is appropriate, I certainly will do so. I will not take the position, nor will 1 be persuaded to take the position, that I do not have a clear right as Speaker to consider the matter when I see the Bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, May 18, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
May 19, 1988

Constitution Amendment, 1987




[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the motion of the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):
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.
(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.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B(1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C(1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B(1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987

[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:
''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;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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
(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:
"101C.O 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.
[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
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 I01C.(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 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 (Saint-Henri- Westmount):
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 I01C and substituting the following therefor:
" 101 C.( 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 101 B 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 described in
May 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
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
(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-
Constitution Amendment, 1987
(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;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	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]
May 19, 1988

[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(1 )(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.(1) 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."
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to commence this very important debate with respect to the constitutional amendment.
There have been discussions between the Parties, and in view of the fact that there is very little time before the usual adjournment at one o'clock, I think there would be a disposition for me to call it one o'clock and to continue with my remarks at three o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions and I am ready to suggest that we call it one o'clock and begin the debate after the Question Period, with the understanding that all three Parties' spokespersons will be able to complete their speeches today, even if it means taking up some of the time ordinarily reserved for Private Members' Hour.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly willing to accommodate my friend from Saskatchewan, with the proviso that we could have some flexibility toward Private Members' Hour for my friend, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) to complete her speech. We may not need that, but if we do, we would like an understanding that she can speak into Private Members' Hour. Then we can accommodate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree with the requests made?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.53 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the World Resource Institute reports that many developing countries have lost billions of dollars through timber subsidies and giveaways that accelerate destruction of tropical forests. Developing countries are collecting royalties and taxes just a fraction of what the timber is worth. The result of such policies is the extensive, wasteful, rapid destruction of resources.
The United Nations estimates that about 27 million acres of forests are being lost in developing countries each year. In addition, the World Resources Institute points out that the under-valuing and over-harvesting of timber are our problem as well. The estimate is in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year lost in the United States.
In Canada we suffer from the same problems. We have low royalties and extensive, wasteful, rapid destruction of our
May 19, 1988

forests. I ask the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merri-thew) to examine this problem urgently. Our forests should be managed in a sustainable manner.



TOURISM


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, this is National Tourism Awareness Week. It is a time to praise the work of those people who work in the tourism industry. Tourism is our nation's fifth largest industry. It may well become Canada's second largest industrialized sector by the year 2000.
By the end of last year tourism was Canada's third largest earner of foreign exchange. It is labour intensive, offering work to 600,000 Canadians. More jobs are created indirectly by tourism expenditures. Tourism is important, too, for regional development, stimulating economic growth in the less industrialized regions of Canada.
The level of tourism today is double what it was 10 years ago. Statistics Canada reports that during the first 11 months of 1987, international travel to Canada surpassed all records. The reasons for this are quite obvious. Canada has become a world-class destination, second to none for international travellers.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), at the behest of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), is frustrating the clear intent of the Immigration Act and bringing the law into disrespect among the public and the legal community.
The Minister rejected the lawfully made recommendation of highly qualified members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, and, in effect, fired them for doing their job according to law. She then accepted the opinion of bureaucrats who lack qualification, authority or experience in determining refugee status.
She has in fact attempted to apply part of Bill C-55 while it has not been passed by Parliament-that is, she is using a vague and unproven security accusation to deny Mr. Santokh Singh his lawful right to an unbiased hearing.
Accordingly, she has provoked a boycott of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee by the National Chairman and
other leading members of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association.
I call on the Minister to reverse her unjust and scoff-law decision, or else resign.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, a story on the front page of yesterday's Montreal Gazette indicates why crime remains rampant in Canada and will be soothing to the bleeding hearts who think more of the criminals than they do of the victims. A sadistic 32-year-old habitual criminal who raped women at gunpoint was convicted on 22 offences which included forceful confinement, weapon use, theft, sexual assault, and crimes of physical violence. Some of the women may never be the same again.
"These crimes pollute the community," the judge said, and sentenced the criminal, who has already served 19 years behind bars, to a total of 123 years in prison. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Under our present system this criminal will be eligible for parole in seven years. Why should a person with a record like this ever again be released into society?



AEROSPACE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative Government said it would participate in the space station that is part of the U.S. government's space program, the Minister of Industry and Trade announced that the economic spin-offs and jobs would be shared equally between Quebec and Ontario, in other words, 35 per cent each.
Furthermore, for months and even for the last two years, the Conservative Government has given the impression and led the people of Montreal to believe that the space agency would be located in Montreal. This morning we read that the National Research Centre has already awarded contracts, including the most important ones, for space research. Unfortunately, contrary to the promise that was made, Quebec has received only 26 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this is one more instance where the Conservative Government has failed to keep its promises to Quebecers.

May 19, 1988



THE OPTIMISTS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House today to an event that is very important to the people of Duberger, and I am referring to the creation of a new Optimist Club.
Mr. Speaker, this service club, which is mainly involved in youth programs and has a reputation for generous and effective community involvement, is a valuable addition to any community and enjoys the regard and respect of those they have helped through their activities.
The optimist philosophy transcends race, colour, creed and class. With an optimistic outlook, a person, group or even a nation can accomplish the impossible. Without optimism, the battle is lost before the first shot is fired. On April 30, the Optimists of Duberger officially took their first step towards a formidable goal.
I want to congratulate Mr. Claude Forest, the first president of the Optimist Club of Duberger, and all those who made this project possible. I wish them every success in their work with our youth!



AGRICULTURE


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the resolve of the people of western Canada is being tested again. A devastating drought continues to turn fertile, productive farmland into parched, barren fields.
Scenes reminiscent of the early 1930s have filled our television screens, alerting all Canadians to the sorry plight of many farmers forced to abandon a way of life because of a cruel quirk of fate.
In stark contrast, the premiers of the four western provinces are now meeting in regal splendour to discuss this latest crisis. They are holding their talks on a private $3 million luxury liner. They will be ferried to and from their pleasure boat by a fleet of gleaming white stretch limousines, each one customized with personalized licence plates.
Their extravagance is galling. It reflects the shameful insensitivity of western Canadian Premiers to the difficulties facing western Canadian citizens.



FOLKLORE


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to invite all Members and all Canadians to the riding of Drummond, where the Seventh World Folklore Festival will be held from July 8 to 18.

Each year, in early July, the Drummondville World Folklore Festival welcomes entertainers from more than 15 countries, with 40 exceptionally talented folklore groups and more than 1,500 musicians, singers, and dancers offering over 300 shows. Last year more than 700,000 spectators attended the festival's various events.

The World Folklore Festival welcomes you to its many activities, to a magic rendez-vous where masks will be the theme of the festivities.
Enjoy this world of folklore where day and night, dancing, music, shows, concerts, special programs and parades will be a feast for the eyes, ears and heart.
Don't miss the World Folklore Festival in Drummondville!



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMERS OF QUEBEC

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, according to the National Association of Consumers of Quebec, the free trade agreement is a lemon. Marie Vezina, the spokesperson for this group, told La Presse that they had used statistics and trade numbers from the Department of Finance as a basis for their research. They came to the conclusion that the Mulroney trade deal is bad for Canada, especially with respect to electricity, hydro, tariffs and telephone services.
Marie Vezina is encouraging all members of that organization to oppose the agreement during the upcoming election.
I want to stress that this group represents consumers. It is fortunate that we have such groups in Canada because it is quite clear that the Government does not represent consumers. It has turned the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs into the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Again and again we see consumers being financially sapped by the Government.
The Government's record with respect to consumers is shameful. It has sold out to multinational interests in the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of consumers. It has
May 19, 1988

increased personal income taxes by $23 billion since 1984. Now we have it confirmed that the Mulroney trade deal is a lemon for Canadian consumers. I have come to the conclusion that not only is the trade agreement a lemon for consumers, but so is the Mulroney Government.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it came to my attention that one of Canada's largest banks set a world record for levying a deterrent charge on its youngest customer.
Jake Mastandrea had to be taught a lesson on his first birthday. His grandmother wrote him a cheque for $25 as his birthday present. Although the cheque indicated $25 she inadvertently left off the five in recording the amount. The cheque was returned and Jake was assessed a penalty of $5 for depositing his grandmother's birthday gift. Incidentally, his grandmother, who deals with National Trust, was not assessed a penalty because they do not charge for simple customer errors.
When I was a little boy my mother used to recite one of Little Orphan Annie's poems ending with the warning "The goblins will get you if you don't watch out". Perhaps today's mothers should be warning their children that "The banker-man will get you if you don't watch out".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, there are about
232.000	households currently served by supermailboxes. About
175.000	are serviced by contractors at an annual cost of $35, and the balance serviced by post office letter carriers at a cost of $97. Full delivery by letter carriers costs $120 per household. Going door-to-door for all existing supermailboxes would therefore cost about $16 million a year.
Canada Post projects another 500,000 supermailboxes will be added over the next three years. About half will be the result of lower cost supermailboxes in new subdivisions. Extending door-to-door delivery to them all would cost an extra $86 per address, or about $22 million. Add that to the $16 million, and the total additional cost is $38 million.
A one cent increase in the price of mailing a letter generates $25 million, so it would cost less than two cents to axe the supermailbox program.
I say that two cents is a small price to pay for equality and fairness. Let us hope the Minister pays a bigger price in the next election for not understanding that.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, Canadians have begun to see the true face of the federal Liberals. The federal Liberals are in a panic; they absolutely must collect money to replenish their coffers left $6.5 million in debt by lawyer Michel Robert. One wonders where this money has gone.
Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the official spokesman for Trudeau and Lalonde, was parachuted in by the Senate bigwigs to direct the Party's affairs. He is one of those taking part in the putsch to oust the leader. The lawyer Michel Robert, who lost $6 million from the Liberals' treasury, is still there.
The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) is feeling queasy. The 22 signers of the letter against their leader, Mr. Turner, are still active. They have the support of the Hon. Member for Papineau, according to this morning's Globe and Mail.
Also, on the matter of free trade, which is very important for Quebec, the federal Liberals are working against this province. Canadians will not let a tragically divided party that is several million dollars "in the hole" govern the country. The federal Liberals prove to us that they are masters of disloyalty, deceit and treachery, not to mention hypocrisy.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-STEEL INDUSTRY

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we have finally seen the truth of the so-called Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. This week the Americans want the Canadian steel industry to sign another voluntary restraint agreement, limiting the amount of Canadian steel that can be imported into the United States.

May 19, 1988
Oral Questions
I thought all our problems were supposed to disappear with the signing of this agreement. The Financial Post said the big industry winner was supposed to be the steel industry. Yet we are still being hammered by the Americans with protectionist measures, with tariff barriers, with non tariff barriers.
It just goes to prove that even in relation to the steel industry this trade deal is a sham. It was negotiated by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who was operating on his knees, in a position of weakness, because he knew that the only way he was going to divert attention from his own maladministration was to focus on another issue. Let us tear this deal up.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-DEBATE IN CLASSROOMS

Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the youth of Canada are studying and debating free trade in the classrooms of Canada. They know the heritage and tradition that began with the coureurs de bois that has become, through successive generations, the cornerstone of our livelihood so that today it is 23 per cent of our gross domestic product, involving three million Canadians at work, one million in Ontario alone.
They know that this agreement will enable our Government to build, with present-day coureurs de bois armed with new technology and new outlook, a more extensive world trade mandate for Canada. They know that they can be an active partner in building a brave new Canada.
All Members of the House should come together to applaud the initiative of our youth. They have learned about this deal and are more than ready to move ahead with it. They want us to see that our future is free trade.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, dioxins and furans are deadly toxic substances found in pulp and paper effluents and in shellfish and molluscs in then vicinity.
The reaction of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. MacMillan), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to studies about this problem shows a shocking complacency. They say that not all of the samples showed high levels of dioxin or furans. They say there are some excuses that can be found in the cases where there are high levels. "A small amount of dioxin is fine for one's health, but just do not have
second helpings". "Dioxins in the organ parts of an animal are a problem, so avoid that part of the body". "Chicken livers are contaminated, well, eat the wings". This is bad policy in principle, apart from the fact that some people do eat the organ parts of shellfish and consider them a delicacy.
Another statement made in the report was that excess dioxins were found in areas close to mollusc fishing in any event, so let us not worry about it. These are deadly substances. It is a serious problem. It is a crisis. This kind of complacency is shockingly irresponsible. I call upon the Government to take the problem seriously and clean up this highly contaminated substance.



ABORTION


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition Parties are against a free vote on the abortion issue. Why are they afraid of a free vote? Are they afraid to stand up and tell their constituents where they stand? What we in the pro-life movement know is that a free vote is in our interests.
A free vote is consistent with the principles of parliamentary reform which recognizes the desirability of more independence for Members of Parliament.
It is shameful that the New Democratic Party and Liberal Party want to stifle free expression on this important issue.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have some very serious questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister advised the House of Commons that he was unaware of any possible amendments that would gut Bill C-72, the Bill to amend the Official Languages Act. However, we have obtained the Government's own confidential document advising in depth proposed amendments by the Deputy Prime Minister to Bill C-72, amendments which would gut the Bill, which would be inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and which would undermine the promotion of bilingualism in this country.
In light of the Prime Minister's statement that he was unaware of any proposed amendments, would the Deputy
May 19, 1988

Prime Minister confirm that he proposed to his cabinet colleagues amendments to Sections 3, 7, 10, 15, 31, 37, 38, 75, 78, 82 and 83 of Bill C-72? And how could he have done that if the Prime Minister was unaware of those amendments?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an indication of the lack of credibility with respect to documents reportedly in the possession of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Inasmuch as the Bill is in the name of the Minister of Justice, if there are going to be any proposals made to Cabinet they would not be made by the Deputy Prime Minister, they would be made by myself.
All I can tell the right hon. gentleman is simply that this Bill has passed second reading and has received the approval in principle of this House. The Prime Minister has been as clear as anyone can be with respect to this very important legislative enactment to the effect that the principles of this Bill are going to proceed. There will be no variation from the principles of the Bill. If we in fact can clarify the legislation, strengthen it, and make more clear to Canadians the real intent and purposes of it, we obviously are quite happy to do so. So I hope the right hon. gentleman will not stoop to reading documents of questionable origin, but rather try to support the Prime Minister and this Government in the most progressive language legislation ever brought before this country.


John Napier Turner: We would be willing to distribute that document this afternoon.


ALLEGED AMENDMENTS-PROTECTION OF LINGUISTIC MINORITY RIGHTS-POSITION OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he had seen no amendments. He even gave the House of Commons the assurance that if there were any amendments, they would improve the Bill and the legislation would not be substantially changed. That is what the Prime Minister said.
However, according to the Government's document, the amendments proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister would constitute a major change in policy requiring Cabinet approval, and would destroy the fundamentals of the Bill.
Did the Deputy Prime Minister inform his colleague, the Secretary of State, who is campaigning in Lac-Saint-Jean and telling voters to vote Conservative in order to protect the rights of French-language minorities. . . Did he inform his colleague that the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to destroy those rights, to destroy bilingualism in our country, according to this document?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were talking about serious matters, but now we see the Leader of the Opposition asking questions
Oral Questions
about a matter as important as bilingualism, to try and save Gimalel in the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean. It is a sad commentary that a matter as important as bilingualism should be used to save somebody like Pierre Gimalel in a by-election.
I said before that Bill C-72 was an important Bill and that it would receive the approval of the Government and the House, and that if there were any amendments that, as the Minister said, would help to clarify or improve the Bill, the parliamentary process was available to do so, and in any event, Bill C-72 which promotes official languages in Canada, both English and French, will be approved by this Government and by the House of Commons. And I am very disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition try to politicize a question that is so important to this country.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State himself is politicizing this issue in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, while defending the Official Languages Act, and with him his colleague, the Minister of Transport, with the "Masse and Benny team". In any case, the issue is already politicized. The Deputy Prime Minister's document demonstrates the complete hypocrisy of this Government during this by-election.


LINGUISTIC MINORITY RIGHTS AND SPIRIT OF MEECH LAKE ACCORD
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to this document, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada is trying to gut the Official Languages Bill which, according to the Prime Minister, is one of his Government's priorities.
Canadians have a right to expect the Deputy Prime Minister to protect official language groups in this country, but he has tried to drop the reference, and this is in the document, to "official language communities" in Section 38 of the Bill, and according to the Government's document, the suggestions of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I quote, "undermine the link with linguistic duality as expressed in the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord".
What right does the Deputy Prime Minister have to destroy the rights of official language minorities and the spirit of Meech Lake, according to this document?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, rarely have we seen such a pathetic sight as the Leader of the Opposition of the country attempting to divide Canadians with respect to the linguistic rights that Canadians have.


Mr. Allmand:: That is what your dinosaurs are doing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply say that if the right hon. gentleman does not understand. If those documents had any credibility at all and the Deputy Prime Minister had responsibility for this Bill, then that would be one thing. I will be

May 19, 1988
Oral Questions
before the committee next Wednesday. I will be presenting the position of the Government with respect to this Bill.
I can tell the right hon. gentleman that any suggestion that he has with respect to the fact that this Bill is to be weakened or to be diminished in any way is totally without foundation. He should be ashamed of himself to even make that suggestion.


ALLEGED AMENDMENTS OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Yesterday, in answer to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, who wanted to know whether the Government had any amendments to propose, the Prime Minister replied, as reported on page 15579 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I don't have the amendments here and I haven't seen them.
How can the Prime Minister explain to the Canadian people that the Deputy Prime Minister, his trusted man, had asked for and has been circulating for two and a half months a series of amendments that totally contradict the spirit of Bill C-72? How can he explain that to the House of Commons? Can he at least apologize and say that he knew what was happening around him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to members of the Liberal Party that I am astonished that they would raise a linguistic matter and try to impugn the integrity of one of the finest people ever to serve here, the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Bilingualism is a vital and sensitive part of our national well-being. It should be devised and implemented in such a way as to bring harmony and not division to the country. I regret very much the manner in which it was raised today by the Leader of the Opposition who tried to tie it into a by-election in the Province of Quebec. The unfounded accusations made by the otherwise distinguished Member for Vanier against the Deputy Prime Minister are unworthy of him and of his considerable reputation in the House of Commons.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, talking about credibility, talking about politicizing something, when you have had 30 or 40 dinosaurs in your Party that have been politicizing this document-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier knows very well the right way to ask a question. The Hon. Member has the floor.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will rest my case on this document which I want to read to the Prime Minister. This is the document ordered by the Deputy Prime Minister.
In relation to Section 38 of the Bill it states: "This change would drop the reference to official language communities and as such, is inconsistent with a critical policy thrust of this Bill-to reach out and to reflect Canadian society as a whole. It undermines the link with linguistic duality as expressed in the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord, which recognizes the presence of English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians throughout the country ..."
How can the Prime Minister blame us for asking legitimate questions about his intent, or his Party's intent, or his Government's intent in terms of official languages? Can he come across and tell us the truth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame my hon. friend at all for asking any question that he wants. This is not only his right, but of course his obligation to do so in the House of Commons.
Where I find I have some disagreement with him is when a question is raised by a Conservative Member in respect of a Bill, that Conservative Member becomes a Neanderthal or a dinosaur. But when 25 per cent of the Liberal caucus right in front of me vote against the Meech Lake Accord, the Member says nothing.
I think that that is much more divisive and much more dangerous for national unity than a Member of Parliament raising a question, as he is supposed to, in terms of trying to improve a piece of legislation.


Mr. Berger:: You have got it all wrong, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: One of the Members who was opposed to the Meech Lake Accord says I have it all wrong. I want to tell him that the Progressive Conservative Party and Government that brought forward the Meech Lake Accord have it right, your Leader has it right, and you have it wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 19, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In front of me I have the Finance Committee recommendations from the U.S. Senate on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, passed yesterday. I wish to quote from those recommendations which were accepted by the Finance Committee. Their obligations "provide that in the event of a conflict between a U.S. statute and a provision of the free trade agreement, U.S. law shall prevail".
I wish to ask the Minister where, within the agreement which was signed between our two countries, was there any suggestion of that type of commitment? Given the fact that there was no such suggestion, why have the Minister and the Government gone hell bent for leather to try to put this deal into effect so fast?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman complains that this deal has been put in place too fast. The deal has been negotiated for two years. The free trade agreement itself was made public in December. This, I believe, is six months later. What is wrong with the hon. gentleman? Why does he have such anticipatory sinking feelings in his stomach? He has been sinking for the last six months.
Instead of rejoicing that the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has approved the Bill without a dissenting voice, the hon. gentleman gets up today and looks even sicker than he usually looks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is this Government which has been sinking for the last four years.


STATUS OF UNITED STATES LAW
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister specifically, since he refused to deal with the substance which I put before him, does he, therefore, support this provision which the Finance Committee in the U.S. Senate has passed which says that when there is a conflict between a U.S. statute and a provision of the free trade agreement, U.S. law shall prevail. Does he support that specific clause?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should try to understand the procedure in the United States of America. It is a little too complicated apparently for him to grasp. The procedure is this. Congress has to complete what it calls its mark-up. The Senate
Oral Questions
has a mark-up and the House of Representatives has a markup, and then they will have a conference together to see what recommendations they propose to the President in connection with the Bill.
We do not have the final form of the Bill yet. If there is some legislative drafting rules in the United States that require the Americans to have X interpretation or Y, we are not going to get excited about that. We are not going to go into fear and trembling like the New Democratic Party does.
Once the FT A is implemented and both Parties pass legislation adopting it, then any American law that is inconsistent with the FTA will have to be amended by the Americans or they will have to suffer penalties, just as we will if we do not amend our law. Just relax the anticipatory alarm. The hon. gentleman is truly forbidding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has suggested is exactly contrary to what has been put into effect by the United States Senate Finance Committee itself.


Mr. McDermid:: It is not in effect. Learn the system.


Steven W. Langdon: It is exactly contradictory. In view of that contradiction, in view of this very specific point-and the Minister knows that the administration has been working closely with the Finance Committee on these provisions-let me ask the Minister whether he is prepared to continue pushing ahead this trade agreement when there is a specific commitment in the United States that, when U.S. law and the trade agreement disagree, United States law will prevail. Do you accept that or not?


Mr. Speaker:: These are important matters and there is a certain amount of tension associated with them, but I would ask Hon. Members to address each other through the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, through the Chair is certainly the safest way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the Hon. Member's question, I do not accept what he is saying. It is complete and utter malarkey. I am certainly not going to accept what he says at all, Mr. Speaker.
The United States, for example, is contemplating having in its legislation a provision that will say that all inconsistent provisions of state legislation are overridden by federal legislation. Does the hon. gentleman suggest to us that we should have exactly the same kind of provision in our Bill with reference to the provinces if the Americans have it in their Bill? They have their system of legislative drafting and interpretation; we have ours.

May 19, 1988
Oral Questions
Anything in American law after January 1 next year inconsistent with the FTA, out of line with the FTA, the Americans will have to amend or pay dearly for it. That is why we want the agreement.


AEROSPACE
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
On several occasions, his Government has formally promised that Quebec would get 35 per cent of the economic spin-offs derived from our participation in the American Space Station. According to the figures obtained from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and Science and Technology, Quebec will get only 25 per cent of these spin-offs. My question to the Prime Minister is this:
Could he tell us why the Government does not live up to its commitment to provide Quebec with 35 per cent of the economic spin-offs?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Again, the Hon. Member would be well advised to get the facts straight. The avowed purpose of the Canadian Government, which has been expressed on many occasions, is to make sure that Quebec will get 35 per cent of all economic spin-offs resulting from the Canadian participation in the space program, including RADARSAT, MSAT and the Space Station. That is the position of the Canadian Government.
Today, probably on the basis of an inaccurate newspaper article the Hon. Member makes such a statement in the House thereby misinforming Quebecers on the real situation. I am sure that as soon as the Hon. Member gets his facts straight, he will want to apologize to Quebecers for misinforming them.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES QUEBEC RECEIVES FAIR SHARE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS
David Berger: Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, these figures were provided by his own Department. We want assurances that Quebec will receive its fair share of the economic spin-offs derived from our participation in the American Space Station which, for the time being, is the only program going ahead, not the other two which the Minister has just mentioned.
Could the Minister state unequivocally that Quebec will receive 35 per cent of the spin-offs from our participation in
the American Space Station? Quebecers want nothing more nor less than that.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard a single Member of the Liberal Party criticize the Government for allocating 76 per cent of all the expenditures involved in the MSAT program, which is part of the space program to Quebec. Under the RADARSAT program, 46 per cent of the $49 million allocated were spent in Quebec.
As far as the third element of the space program is concerned, in view of the fact that the first contract already awarded indicates that 17 per cent of the spin-offs went to Quebec, compared to 77 per cent in the case of the other two contracts, Liberal Party Members start spreading all sorts of alarming rumours in the House and throughout Quebec. The Government had clearly indicated that its objective was 35 per cent, and it sill is.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure the Minister is aware of a story in London, Ontario, where a local union president, Customs and Excise, Mr. Mike Clough, has been threatened with job loss because he has been speaking out against the Government's free trade deal.
I want to know from the Minister for International Trade just what the Government's policy is in this regard. Why can't a local union official, who has a right to speak out on public issues facing this country, have the right to speak out on this particular major issue facing Canada? What is the Minister? Is he the new Ayatollah of this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are used to seeing frenzied, over-theatrical performances by hon. gentlemen opposite and this is one of them.
Had I been given notice I could have looked into this matter. The hon. gentleman suggests that some union member who is opposed to the free trade agreement is somehow being punished.
We would have to look into all of the circumstances. I would not punish him myself. I would feel sorry for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 19, 1988

Oral Questions TRADE


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, no wonder there is a headline in the Ottawa Citizen today saying "Crosbie in over his head handling free trade deal".


INTERROGATION OF UNION OFFICIAL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this local union official was interrogated this morning by Mr. Dennis Barnes, an official of Customs and Excise. Is the Minister aware of this interrogation? Did he, the Minister of National Revenue or the President of the Treasury Board order this interrogation of this local union official who was speaking out on behalf of union members in his own local union? What is the Minister's policy in terms of a gag order when ordinary Canadians speak up on this very important issue?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that there is no gag order in a case like this. There are certain guidelines that have been developed by the courts on the rights of public servants to speak against government policy.
It is the duty of public servants to carry out and administer public policy. There are certain limitations that must be followed.


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians, particularly the creators of intellectual property, are anxious to know what the fate of the Copyright Bill will be. It is bizarre and perverse to imagine that the Chamber controlled by Canada's fourth political party will have another go at this piece of legislation.
Could the Minister please explain the fate of Bill C-60 which has been passed by this House twice, most recently on Tuesday, with all-Party support?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is sadly ironic that, on the eve of the opening of the new National Gallery of Canada, which will be a great show-place for visual artists, some Liberal Members in the other place are trying to hold up the passage of the Copyright Bill by deleting an exhibition right for visual artists.
It is a shame, because this Bill was passed twice by the House of Commons. I would ask Liberal Members opposite, who gave their support to the Bill, to do what they can with Liberal Senators in the other place to get them to quit stalling.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON CANADIAN LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. When the U.S. Senate gave the go ahead to the U.S.-Canada trade deal it made several recommendations, and one of these would have a very devastating effect on the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada. The amendment would:
-prohibit entry into U.S, customs territory of any whole lobster (or parts of
such a lobster): 'smaller than the minimum size under the American Lobster
Fishery Management Plan (50 CFR 649)-
That regulation on carapace size brings it to 3 and 7/32 inches, and the Minister knows what kind of impact that would have, because the Minister also knows that in parts of Atlantic Canada the carapace measurement is 2.5 inches and in other parts it is 3 and a quarter inches. About $178 million worth of lobster is exported to the United States and 30 per cent of it would be affected by this amendment.
What action will the Minister take to protect the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada from this very unfair decision by the U.S. Senate Committee and indeed, the U.S.-Canada free trade deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman is concerned about Atlantic fishermen. I would like to know where his concern was when he and his Party voted against the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and $1 billion worth of spending for Atlantic Canada in the next five years. He voted against that and now he is worried about the carapace.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will deal with the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Senate Finance Committee's decision, as the hon. gentleman himself said, is a recommendation to the administration. The administration opposes the proposal. We expect it to continue to oppose the proposal.
I pose to the hon. gentleman this question. Supposing that his Leader was successful and tore up the free trade agreement, what kind of protection would we have next year when they raised the size of the carapace to four feet, or whatever they might attempt to do?


CANADIAN POTATO EXPORTS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is very long on words and very short on action, I am afraid. The Finance Committee also recommended that there be a limit on imports of Canadian potatoes. Of course, I do not have to say that this would be terribly damaging to the potato industry of Atlantic Canada and certainly of my Province of Prince Edward Island. I quote again from their reasons for proposing this amendment:
Although negotiations for such an agreement may appear to be inconsistent
with the broad purpose of a free trade agreement, this is an appropriate

May 19, 1988
Oral Questions
agriculture policy for a U.S. industry that does not benefit from price supports, pending the resolution of the subsidy issue with Canada.
They will certainly gouge us again on this one. Once again, this Minister can huff and he can puff but he is not doing any damage to the White House.
Once and for all, will the Minister now stand up for the farmers of Atlantic Canada and for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada? Will he stand up at all to the Americans?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is one of my favourite Liberals. However, his questions today do not have very much bite.
The hon. gentleman just said himself that the Hon. Senators in the United States have admitted that it is contrary to the FTA. Being contrary to the FTA, it will not happen, but if there is no FTA, then, by golly, they can do what they like to the spuds. Remember that next year if your Hon. Leader squeezes in by some miracle or some misfortune, or if the Leader of the New Democratic Party gets in. There will be no protection for Canadian spuds then, brother.


CANADIAN WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who stated in response to a question in February of 1985 as to whether he would be willing to sell our water, "Why not?" Given the statement in the federal water policy paper that the federal Government will take all possible measures within the limits of its constitutional authority to prohibit the export of Canadian water by interbasin diversions, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the free trade agreement excludes such exports of water?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the most important thing for the hon. gentleman to remember is this. There is nothing in the free trade agreement which obliges Canada to sell water or any other natural resource or product to the United States. We are not obliged to sell one thimble-full of H20 to the United States of America.
Might I point out to the hon. gentleman that the people he should fear are those in the official opposition whose Leader said this in 1968 in his Politics of Purpose:
And if someday we can agree to the sharing of this continent's water by offering some of our water for export, we might want at that time to insist that if water is to be considered as a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis. We might wish to export water not for money (as we sold power under the Columbia River Treaty), but in return for access to your markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is the betrayer of water, the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said that he did not want to sound tough. He wasn't.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is why they are not the Official Opposition of the country as far as the people of Canada are concerned.


EXPORTATION OF WATER-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement with the United States will mark the beginning of a wholesale sell-out of one of Canada's precious natural resources: our water. Article 22.01 on tariffs unmistakably includes our water, which is thus part and parcel of the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister give the Members of this House the assurance that the Government will prohibit exports of our water?

Hon. John C. Crosbie, Minister for International Trade:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have at last flushed out who is the real opposition in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I refer my hon. friend to the federal water policy released by the Minister of the Environment on November 5, 1987, just a few months ago. The Hon. Member should go back and refresh his memory. I will send him a copy if he likes.
The policy states that Canada will permit no large-scale export of water by diversion, and that the federal Government will develop a mutually acceptable referral system with the provinces in order to ensure that provincial licensing of small-scale exports takes into account federal responsibilities such as trade and environmental protection.
The FTA has nothing to do with water. Canada does not have to sell any water to the U.S. or any other country. The hon. gentleman can relax about water but keep his eye on the Leader of the Official Opposition who, in talking tough, wants to give away all the H20 in this country.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is a man of honour and sincerity.
We have here a seventeen-page document that contains amendments prepared by his office, reactionary amendments
May 19, 1988

to the Official Languages Act, to do the Conservative dinosaurs a favour, and I would like to know why today, the Deputy Prime Minister remains silent when faced with questions about this document.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member did not finish his question on the same high level he started it. I think everyone in the House recognizes that indeed the Deputy Prime Minister does deserve the respect of this House, partly because he is in touch with Members of Parliament on both sides and consults with them.
Let me simply put the Hon. Member's fears to rest. Next Wednesday I am going to appear before the committee. I will at that time table on behalf of the Government proposals which I think will be seen by any dispassionate observer as a package of reasonable amendments which will clarify and strengthen the Bill, and draw on the representations made before that committee.
I think all Members of Parliament would agree that is the way Parliament should operate. We should be sensitive to representations made in committee and try to strengthen a Bill in every way we can.


INSISTENCE WITH RESPECT TO DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, to us Francophones, reasonable means . . . This is really the limit! We are sick and tired of the way this Government thumbs its nose at Francophones across Canada. And 1 would have said exactly the same thing if the Deputy Prime Minister had risen in his seat to answer the question. I am giving him a chance to maintain his integrity and his respect for the House.
We have here seventeen pages of amendments prepared by his office. These amendments are Government amendments, not the work of a couple of Tory backbenchers. These are amendments that go against the interests of Francophones outside Quebec.
I would like to know why the Deputy Prime Minister will not answer these questions today. Why is he remaining silent?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I think the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie raised the issue, that Francophones outside Quebec are very disappointed, and the reason is that 25 per cent of the Hon. Member's Liberal colleagues voted against the historic Meech Lake Accord. It was a sad day for Quebec and for Canada's Francophones, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie had the courage to state publicly his deep disappointment in the position taken by his Liberal colleagues who voted against this historic document that brings Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional fold, and that was my first point.
Oral Questions
Second, as far as ...


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Right Hon. Prime Minister realizes the question is about amendments to Bill C-72. Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister would like to continue his reply.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe-but the new assistant Leader of the Liberal Party, who has taken the Senator's place, won't listen. I 'll have to answer quickly because his job might not last that long. I'll answer right now before his Leader changes his mind again.
Regarding Bill C-72, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that amendments have been prepared by both Government and Opposition Members. I am even told that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier ...


An Hon. Member:: Yes indeed!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes indeed! So the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is presenting amendments in support of the Bill. We will see next Wednesday, but I think the Hon. Member can rest assured that in any case, Bill C-72 will pass. It will receive the approval of this House, as an instrument of national unity. Subsequently, we still have to consider the deep disappointment of Quebecers and Francophones in Canada in the position taken against the Meech Lake Accord by his Liberal colleagues.


INTEGRITY OF BILL C-72-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the role of the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the amendments to Bill C-72, the Official Languages Act.
Can the Prime Minister say whether the provisions of the Bill have been maintained or is the Deputy Prime Minister allowed to become the leading dinosaur of the Conservative Party by introducing amendments to weaken Bill C-72?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question a number of times. Even the distinguished Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie referred to the sense of fairness of the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Member waits until Wednesday he will see, I believe, amendments presented by the Official Opposition-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I thought you did not know about any amendments.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member for Hamilton East says I didn't know about the amendments. No, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier just told me and so I am aware he is going to bring forward amendments. I am informed that others will be brought forward.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has exercised considerable care in the questions on this matter. I would ask the Hon. Member for

May 19, 1988
Business of the House
Ottawa Centre to put his supplementary question directly and not stray too far into areas that may involve the committee.
This series of questions commenced on the basis of a memorandum and, as the Chair understood it, related to discussions which had taken place in the caucus of the government Party. I want Hon. Members to recognize that if it gets beyond that it puts the Chair in some difficulty.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your caution, but the problem we face is that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have huddled behind the curtains with the Conservative dinosaurs in order to gut the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The Chair asked the Hon. Member to consider his supplementary question carefully and put it as quickly and succinctly as possible. I ask him to do that.


POSITION OF CONSERVATIVE BACK-BENCHERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that these actions by the Conservative back-benchers and-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -the Deputy Prime Minister-you can hear the dinosaurs rumble-will not gut Bill C-72?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative back-benchers are free and honourable Members of Parliament. They will fulfil their responsibilities to this House and the people of Canada, and they will respond at an appropriate time. They are free to act, and I think my hon. friend would want freedom of action and freedom of thought for himself and others.
I can tell him what I will not tolerate. I will not tolerate a situation such as involved him when he went to Quebec and said he was going to take away part of the Saint John, New Brunswick, shipbuilding contract, and take jobs-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That was hypocrisy and we will never stand for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for CMHC. Concern has been expressed recently that the 1988 RRAP budget for Nova Scotia will be less than it was in 1987. Can the Minister clarify the situation?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that yesterday some of the boys from the bay got a little agitated because they did not understand the budgetary process of CMHC even though they both have been in the House for a very long period of time.
The budget process involves two steps. The first instalment has been announced and the second will be announced in 30 days. That means there will be no budget cuts from the RRAP program for Cape Breton, for Ontario, for Canada. Indeed, the amount paid to delivery agents will be increased.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that that will close Question Period for today.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader if he will give me and the House a statement of the business he intends to call for the coming week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-117, the Excise Tax Act, at report and third reading stages. After that we will commence Bill C-126, the Bretton Woods Agreement, at second reading.
Tuesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-129, the Air Canada privatization Bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn, and the amendments of Mr. Turner, Vancouver
[Stage Direction]


t
i:

*j|
May 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Quadra, (p. 15617), Mr. Broadbent, (p. 15618), Mr. Caccia, (p. 15618), Mr. Johnston (p. 15618) and Mr. Roman (p. 15620).
Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the last time I rose in the House of Commons to speak in favour of the Meech Lake Accord, we had just received the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the 1987 constitutional Accord. Members will recall the enormous efforts made by the joint committee last summer to hear and assess the views of interested Canadians.
During the course of their deliberations, the committee gave extremely close attention to divergent views regarding major elements of the Accord, and provided us with a thorough and compelling report. The committee recommended the adoption of the 1987 constitutional Accord, which this House adopted by resolution on October 26, 1987.
The other place has since considered the resolution, and the 180-day period during which a constitutional amendment is not possible without the authorization of the other place has expired.
Four provincial and legislative assemblies have now adopted the Accord and others are holding hearings. In short, the amending process set out in the Constitution Act, 1982, is being followed.
The last time that I spoke with respect to this motion I attempted to put the Accord into perspective. While it is certainly a tremendous achievement, restoring the Province of Quebec to its rightful place as an equal participant in the Canadian constitutional family, it is also the mark of an important beginning for our country from which we can move ahead, united, to address issues of mutual concern.
The Accord deals with the most urgent constitutional matters that face us today in the context of national reconciliation. Bearing this in mind, there are two points which I stated on that previous occasion and which merit emphasis again today. First, despite considerable rhetoric on various points, no egregious errors have been shown to exist in the Accord. Second, to re-open the Accord on any other basis would be contrary to the commitment of First Ministers and would inevitably destroy the chances for future constitutional reform.
Therefore, I would ask Members to consider the consequences of failure after having come this far. Consider the consequences of the rest of Canada saying no to Quebec a second time, after Quebec was left isolated and humiliated in 1981.
Since 1982, constitutional reform has been blocked. Four conferences on aboriginal rights ended in failure, partly because Quebec declined to participate actively at First Ministers conferences.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
As Professor Peter Meekison, former Deputy Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental affairs in Alberta and one of Canada's leading constitutional practitioners, testified before the joint committee:
I think the consequences of Quebec's not accepting this are incalculable ...
Given the importance that Alberta places on Senate reform, there will not be
debate on Senate reform until Quebec is in the Constitution.
He went on to say:
Get this behind us, then everything else can be discussed.
I think it is important to review what was accomplished in the Meech Lake Accord. Meech Lake was never expected to be a cure for the myriad problems and challenges facing our nation. Rather, it was a vital First step in meeting our commitment to the people of Quebec and ensuring that they were an equal partner in the future growth of our nation.
There are clearly many other issues of concern which could have been addressed and which will need to be considered in future rounds. But the test of this resolution is whether it meets the basic objective which was set forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the 10 provincial Premiers, namely to obtain Quebec's willing adherence to the Canadian Constitution. I submit that it does.
Once adopted, future generations of Canadians and their leaders will never have to face the consequence of Quebec's continued estrangement from our constitutional development.
It has been alleged by some that the Charter is being weakened, the rights of linguistic minorities and the equality rights of women are somehow threatened. I can say unequivocally that this is false.
Professor Peter Hogg, one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts, writes that the Charter of Rights is clearly paramount over a distinct society clause. He writes:
A law passed to preserve linguistic duality or to promote the distinct identity
of Quebec would, like any other law, have to comply with the Charter.
The Charter will, in future, be interpreted in light of Quebec's distinctiveness as it now is in light of multicultural and aboriginal heritage considerations.
When we say that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada, it is understood that all residents of Quebec are an integral part of that society. Thus, Quebec's aboriginal population is part of that distinct society within Canada. Those Quebecers from a multicultural community are part of it, Quebec's English speaking community is an integral part of Quebec's distinct society. All Quebecers belong to that distinct society, which enriches the diversity of Canada.
One has to wonder why this Accord, with its laudable goals, is before us again today. As Hon. Members are aware, the constitutional amendment process was initiated by the Quebec National Assembly on June 23, 1987. On October 26, 1987, by an overwhelming majority of 242 to 16 votes, and with the support of all three Party Leaders, this House approved the Meech Lake Accord as embodied in our resolution. Prior to

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the adoption of the resolution, on September 23, 1987, the Legislative Assembly of my own home Province of Saskatchewan adopted the Accord by a vote of 43 to 3. Subsequently, on December 7, 1987, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta adopted the Accord by a unanimous vote.
The Accord was tabled in Ontario on November 5, 1987, and referred to a select committee on November 30. On February 26, 1988, the Accord was tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia. It was tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland on March 25, 1988. It was tabled in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island on March 29, 1988, and adopted on May 13 of this year. From these events, it is evident that Canadians across the land have joined in the process of welcoming the national reconciliation embodied in the Accord.
Some of the appointed Members in the other place, after consideration of the resolution, have not seen fit to adopt it in the form authorized by the House of Commons. The actions of some Members of the Senate remind me, and probably many other Members of Parliament and many other Canadians, of just how out of touch some Members of that body have become with respect to the views and aspirations of Canadians. I regret very much that this movement in the other place was undertaken by the Liberal majority whose own Leader has stood here and spoken unequivocally in favour of this resolution. Those Liberal Senators have seen fit to go against the wishes of their Leader. They have undertaken a very careful plan to undermine this particular constitutional amendment.
Most witnesses in the other place received the courtesy of attention, but I do not think I have seen a more curious sight than the former Prime Minister of our country, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, who was accorded between six and seven hours to stand before those whom he appointed to that place and lecture them with respect to this Accord. The irony of that is simply that each and every principle contained in this constitutional Accord was accepted at one time or other by the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau when he was Prime Minister.


Mr. Kaplan:: That is false.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a fact. It has been documented. I ask what the point is in coming back before Senators he appointed and attempting to undermine a very important constitutional movement? I say with a sense of sadness, and without any partisanship, that the Liberal Party of Canada has had a proud tradition of being sensitive with respect to the aspirations of the Province of Quebec. I give full credit to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for the leadership he has given in supporting this constitutional amendment because it is important to the Province of Quebec and it is fundamental to this country. I do not make any apologies for supporting that position and putting it forward to the Liberal Senators.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You don't have to attack the former Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry. He has come forward and attempted to undermine this very important initiatives. I am not attacking him personally. He is entitled, as any other person in this country, to his opinion. But I simply reiterate the fact that I found it incredibly ironic that former Prime Minister Trudeau would attack principles which he himself had embraced in his attempt to bring about constitutional amendments in this country. I state that as the reality of what we face today. I do not understand the purpose of this attack on his part.
Those in the other place who form a majority have single-handedly attempted to rewrite history and amend an agreement which has received the approval of 10 provinces and, as I indicated, of three Party Leaders, and an overwhelming vote in favour of that by the House of Commons. These are people who are elected and accountable. They have to go back to the people of Canada and defend the positions they have taken here. We have a responsibility and sensitivity to this issue which I think should not be overlooked by the other place.
A joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons looked at this matter in some detail. The report is there. Four provincial legislative assemblies have already passed this particular constitutional amendment. I can only refer, I think, with approval, to the words of my colleague in the other place, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Senator Murray) the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who stated during the course of debate:
The amendments proposed by the Opposition would require the Governments to reopen practically all the sections of an agreement that has unanimous support.
I suggest that those who propose such amendments are not seeking to improve the Accord, as they claim. The amendments being proposed are killer amendments. They have only one purpose in mind-they are designed to kill the Accord.
I urge Hon. Members opposite not to propose amendments. Such proposals could only encourage their provincial cousins to seek to reopen the Accord for renegotiation. Rather than proposing amendments that would risk the unanimity achieved by First Ministers, this House and provincial legislatures should rejoice in the achievement of the Accord and hasten to demonstrate our collective responsibility for national unity, and the generosity of spirit which has marked our history, by adopting the resolution without further delay.
Fortunately, the Members appointed to the other place do not have the power to override the collective will of the democratically elected representatives of the people in their provincial and federal legislative assemblies. Canadians have an obligation to ensure that the popular national will on a matter of the most fundamental importance to our country is not stifled by unelected opposition Members in the other place. In fact, the Constitution expressly provides that an amendment may be made without a resolution of the Senate if the House of Commons again adopts the resolution after the expiration of
May 19, 1988

the 180 days from the time the House of Commons first adopted the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, when this House again passes the resolution, we will not only overturn the temporary veto of the other place, but we will also send a message of encouragement and support to all those who believe in the spirit and the letter of the Meech Lake Accord. We will honour the commitment of the Government of Canada to underscore officially Quebec's return to the Canadian family.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has said yes to Canada. A vote for the Meech Lake Accord will be important evidence of our commitment to Quebec and to building harmonious relations for our country's future.

In 1982, in the aftermath of the Quebec referendum of 1980, with the concurrence of nine provinces, with the concurrence of this House, with the concurrence of the other place, with the concurrence of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and with the approval of the Supreme Court of Canada, we in this country adopted the Constitution Act, 1982. Unfortunately, at that time, the Province of Quebec was isolated by this process. Its feeling of alienation has been a cause of great concern and grave concern ever since.
The Province of Quebec subsequently opted out of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the greatest extent possible because it had not approved it. In addition, the absence of Quebec effectively prevented possible constitutional amendments of great importance pursuant to the new amending formula. Quebec refused to participate in any such amendments because it would be implemented pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1982, to which Quebec had not given its assent.
These have been some of the most visible past consequences of Quebec's isolation in 1982. The people of Canada, through their elected representatives, have dedicated themselves to solving the problem of Quebec's isolation as a matter of national priority. If we are to avoid the grave consequences of failure, we must not be side-tracked either by unmerited criticisms or by worthy issues whose time for consideration or reconsideration has yet to come.
Our first constitutional amendment today must be to complete the Quebec round of our constitutional reforms. Only then will we have secured the complete legitimacy of our full constitutional framework, and only then will we be able to build successfully on our past accomplishments. The present moment must belong to Quebec so that the future may belong to all Canadians.

We are all very aware that many important points must still be dealt with under constitutional reform. The Meech Lake
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Accord is a basis for moving forward on the protection of minority language rights, Senate reform, the rights of native people and all other issues. If it were only up to the Senate, we would be condemned to dwell in the past. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot consolidate our constitutional gains, we are in danger of spending decades on a costly, futile, divisive constitutional debate. Is this what the other House wants?

Worse still, as Premier Peterson said on April 28:
If this opportunity is missed, my own political assessment is that you won't see that opportunity again.
He concluded that the judgment of history would be very harsh.
These sentiments were reflected in the comments of the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who held a number of important public offices under four Prime Ministers, when he told the joint committee in no uncertain terms:
If Quebec is rebuffed, if this Accord becomes discord, and the opportunity is lost to get acquiescence of the constitutional authorities in Quebec, my guess is that it probably will not arise again for another generation, and never again on such reasonable terms.
What I want is for the patriotic sentiment and generous spirit that characterized this round of constitutional reform to become the rule and not the exception so that future progress may also be realized.
We cannot afford to lose this precedent of goodwill, reasonableness and common sense leading to constitutional reform pursuant to the most rigid of our constitutional amending formulae. We have before us an Accord that has been endorsed with pride and enthusiasm, an Accord that unifies and strengthens Canada. To reopen this Accord would be to lose it.
What possible justification can there be to postpone national reconciliation to a time when the chances of success may be far less and the most severe consequences of failure more immediate?
Has an egregious error been found? No, Mr. Speaker. Have First Ministers failed to consider all the issues placed before them? No, Mr. Speaker. Does unanimous agreement exist to reopen the Accord for renegotiation? No, Mr. Speaker.
It comes down to one question. Should Canada say no to Quebec? For that would surely be the effect of reopening the Accord without a legitimate reason for doing so. There is no reason for this. It is time for us as Canadians, as Members of Parliament, to say yes to Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the 1987 constitutional amendment is not the end of the constitutional reform process. A thorough examination of constitutional questions will remain an important element of our search for the most appropriate solutions to the fundamental problems that we as a nation must face. I hope that when it comes to consider these matters, the other

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Chamber will finally see the significance of our decision to pass this resolution again.

Mr. Speaker, 130 years ago a great man of another great nation quoted to his country the biblical warning that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The wisdom of such common sense should appeal to us.
Canada's history is somewhat unique in the way we have continually created harmony out of seemingly discordant national elements. This is the glory of our past and the strength of our future. The Constitution Amendment, 1987 continues this tradition. It envisions a nation moving ever closer to a more co-operative and tolerant way of life and of government. It is a vision in which we can take pride.
The Meech Lake Accord deserves our enthusiastic support. I invite Hon. Members to reaffirm our commitment to the resolution by adopting it once again.
There is a momentum, a desire on the part of Canadians to move forward to seek the ratification of this Accord which I commend to Hon. Members.


David Berger: What about the Gallup poll?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not want to trivialize this debate or the considerations with respect to this matter by entering into any type of regime in which Gallup polls or, indeed, whatever polls are taken from time to time are brought forward. I can only say that it is unusual in the history of our country to have a situation in which we have unanimity among the First Ministers of the provinces and of the federal Government, as well as of all the Leaders in the House of Commons. It is not giving me any satisfaction that we cannot get unanimity across the whole country. But that is impossible.
I think that the people who have the greatest stake in this on behalf of the people of Canada are those who have to face the electorate, those people who have to be re-elected to justify the positions that they take. They have made a decision. This is quite apart from Party and partisan politics. Members from every political Party represented in this House have in fact approved this Accord.
This is an opportunity for those who feel that they want to block this to consider the consequences of what they do. If they want by their actions to return to the situation in which we will again isolate the Province of Quebec, then I think that they will have to stand accountable for the positions they take. I do not have the privilege of coming from the Province of Quebec. However, I come from another part of our country, the Province of Saskatchewan.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is a privilege.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a western province which has very happily accepted this amendment in overwhelming numbers and with overwhelming support.


Mr. Caccia:: Distinct society?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is something that binds us together. I do not regard this as being an accord which, in fact, does anything but strengthen this nation. For the benefit of Members, I explained that to me a distinct society in Quebec is a very understandable and important consideration which does not in any way diminish the Charter of Rights and the rights of minorities. The Province of Quebec today consists of a great variety of minorities and a very important number of aboriginal peoples. All of them together, with the French majority and the English minority, do constitute a unique society.
I simply say to Hon. Members, who are determined to oppose this, that I hope they will give consideration to the consequences of their actions. As the years go by after this is passed and they see how it has strengthened our country and brought a unity and co-operation together, they will be able to say, contrary to their present position today, that this was one of the finest moments in the history of the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Mr. Johnston:: I would like to know whether the Minister will accept questions following these remarks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Absolutely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not permitted by the rules, unless the Hon. Member seeks the unanimous consent of the House to do so. It would not be up to the Minister, it would be up to the whole House.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) to ask questions for a period which we would limit, as we usually do?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the normal ten-minute question and answer period. In order to decide on consent, I would like to know what type of time frame you visualize.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) on the same point of order.


Pauline Jewett: Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted, as we all are, to have questions and comments. However, we did have an agreement today that the three of us, one from each Party, would be able to speak, even though it extends into Private Members' Hour. That was the agreement.
May 19, 1988

I know that the Eton. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has quite an extensive speech. Therefore, I would ask that I be allowed to speak today, as it was agreed that I would.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Donald James Johnston: I appreciated the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) took less time than I thought had been allotted. I would be quite happy to limit myself to one question, because he has raised a point which I believe requires some clarification. It should not take more than three minutes, Mr. Speaker, to have that exchange.


Mr. Prud'homme:: A colleague of mine is saying let us be liberal. I will be liberal. Yesterday we agreed that there would be three consecutive speakers, and I do not see what has happened since yesterday to change what we decided. I think my position is as liberal as any one of my colleagues who thinks it may not be liberal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger).


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that coming from a Member who is given to praising the virtues of democracy, the comments we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) are something of a paradox.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We do have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Pauline Jewett: I would rather have had one question than all of this.


George Albert Proud: I must admit, having always defended-


Pauline Jewett: You are just cutting down my time.


George Albert Proud: I do not see why my dear friend from British Columbia is in such a hurry. You will have your time.
When we make rules, it becomes unruly to change the rule that we agreed to follow. I do not see why my colleagues suddenly believe that I am less liberal today than I was yesterday. We agreed yesterday that, in an orderly fashion, we would start by having three Members of Parliament speak in a row, one from each Party. I am sure that in due course some of my colleagues will have plenty of opportunity to put forward their views. Therefore, I think we should proceed as we agreed yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the same point of order.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, that was not a point of privilege. The point here is whether or not the Chamber is afraid of allowing one question to be asked which has been defined as
Constitution Amendment, 1987
being a short one, within the time frame allocated to the Minister, without going over it, and to make this debate as engaging and interesting as the rules of the House usually provide. What is the House afraid of by allowing one question at this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not believe that there is unanimous consent. Therefore we will proceed with the debate with the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, of all the work we do in this House, nothing is as important as what we are about to do today, because we are now dealing with the fundamental law of this country, the Constitution of Canada.
We must do so out of a sense of pride in our country and its accomplishments, accomplishments that are quite considerable.
I think we should remember that today's Canada is not the initial version of this nation. Canada as we know it, which goes back to 1867, is actually the second or third version of this country, according to our historians. Before Confederation, an attempt was made to unite the colonies of North America, mainly so as to be strong enough to resist the influence of the Americans and keep the Americans out, and until Confederation, several attempts at union had failed.
The present version succeeded, and it has succeeded to this day, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be interesting to compare the versions that existed before Confederation with what we have now. What are the differences?
One difference I find very important and very apt is the difference in perception of the future of a great country. Before Confederation, we saw mature colonies that exercised all the powers of a colony, that wanted concessions and were anxious to have a mutual contract in order to survive against the United States. However, Canada as we know it today, the present version of Canada, had a vision of a frontier, of a great country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a much broader perception than the original partners had.
The objective was not how to protect Canada, as a mature state, against the United States, but to build something great and important and different from the original colonies.

The Canada that we are living in now survived for a number of reasons. For me, for many Canadians, and for those whom I represent, it survived because of its grandeur, because of the larger vision that it has than any of the unsuccessful efforts before it to build a country which was nothing more than an agreement or an arrangement to share powers among existing colonies.
Many countries have the natural riches that Canada has and the human riches as well, but they are not as successful as

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Canada. Within our borders we find immigrants who have come to our country from places in the world that have resources and human riches but which lack Canada's great heritage in our form of Government, our parliamentary tradition and in the balance that we have achieved in our Confederation. When we come as a country to analyse why we are where we are, we must remember that it is in part due to the input of the tradition of Government and the balance of our Confederation. Waves of immigrants have come to Canada from even richer places in the world and have done better here in freedom and in prosperity because of our system. This has to make us very conscious of what is before us when we examine possible changes to the fundamental law of Canada in the form of the Meech Lake Accord before us.
I want to put one other image before the House. It was an image which Prime Minister Trudeau set out close to the end of his career as Prime Minister. He spoke about building a great nation. He compared it for purposes of contrast to other buildings. He talked about the Pharaoh in Egypt who built a pyramid, about the work and the effort that went into building a pyramid and who in the end would stand back proudly looking at his project that would defy the ages. Building a nation is a very different process. We did not stop with what the Fathers of Confederation completed and let it defy the ages.
Building a nation is an ongoing process. It is a process that takes the efforts of the people of the country and their legislatures in a federal system, all of the components of our great country, to make it work. It responds to the changing circumstances and changing opportunities in a positive and in a generous way, in a way that looks to the long term, that looks to what it is we are building and respects the tradition and the heritage that has made it possible for us to enjoy the very great fortune that we do as Canadians.
I was part of the Government between 1980 and 1984 that patriated the Constitution, initiated the package, designed it, developed it, invited public participation and provincial and political support from across the country.
Canadians feel great pride in the fact that we patriated our Constitution. That patriation package was a first-class manoeuvre in the sense that it did not just patriate what we had but augmented it with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whose potential for enhancing social justice and fairness in our society is only now beginning to be realized. This was a very great achievement of 1981 and 1982 under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau. I do not think we can sit back. We have to look at what has been called the unfinished business of that package and we must continue to build.
We in the Official Opposition have viewed the Meech Lake Accord. We have been invited to support it and we have considered it. We are very critical of the process by which the Meech Lake Accord was devised. We feel, and we indicated in our reports, that much more public participation should have
taken place and much more time should have been put into it. It is not a seamless web. In fact, Mr. Speaker-

I would like to read into the record a paragraph from our report, published as Addendum A, the Liberal Party's position on the 1987 Constitutional Accord. I read at page 149, and I have only one paragraph to read: "The Liberal members of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord, on behalf of the Opposition, once again confirm their support for the Langevin Accord ... "-in other words, Meech Lake- "... as a positive step forward in Canada's constitutional evolution. At the same time, we believe that the Accord can and should be improved now by the inclusion of some amendments, which are set out below. These amendments are fully consistent with: (1) the Liberal Party policy resolution of November 1986; (2) the Quebec Government's constitutional agenda; and (3) the testimony of many expert witnesses at the hearings of the Special Joint Committee. We also believe that these amendments should be acceptable to the First Ministers. They take nothing away from the achievement of the Accord, rather they clarify its meaning and recognize other legitimate claims which are totally compatible with the Accord."

That was the position we took when the resolution was first presented, and that is the position that we take today. We support the Meech Lake Accord in spite of an extremely flawed process. We were prepared, in other words, to look at the fruit which the process bore as an Official Opposition should do and to look at it on its merits in spite of the process that we found deplorable and of which we were very critical. We have proposed amendments. I simply cannot understand the Government, especially in the light of the current reaction across the country to the Meech Lake resolution, characterizing them as killer amendments or as amendments that will do anything other than enhance the package, increase its acceptability, as well as bring new constituencies of support to the constitutional package which the Government has brought forward.
I intend now to proceed to examine our amendments, put them forward and explain them. I hope members of the Government will once again give consideration to amendments which, although we will support the Accord in any event, I think will make the Accord a much more popular document and perhaps save it if it is threatened in a number of provinces across the country because of objections to certain aspects of it. I will refer to my amendments as I go along through substantial points about the Accord.
To begin with, we should never forget that the purpose of the Meech Lake agreement was to bring Quebec into the constitutional framework of Canada. The lengthy history of attempts at constitutional revision have always included the reluctance of Quebec's leaders to permit a reduction in both the powers of the Quebec Government and its role as the point
May 19, 1988

d'appui for the French language in Canada, as the B and B Commission expressed it.
I have heard the arguments. There is certainly validity to those arguments that Quebecers were involved in the process of patriation of the Constitution and bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have seen the chart of how many elected legislators from the federal and provincial levels together supported patriation and how many opposed it. I know about the resolutions in the Province of Quebec, but I do not think that the non-participation of the Quebec Government in patriation, its disapproval of it, should be demeaned or that it should be belittled. It is significant because, in an ironic way, that very fact of the Government of Quebec's non-approval gives Quebec a special status. It becomes the only province that has not accepted at the level of the provincial legislature and government the patriation of the Constitution.
That is an argument which gives comfort and support to grievances within the Province of Quebec against Confederation. It is legitimate and important, in this process of the ongoing building of our nation, to deal with that, to find a formula or an accommodation that will overcome that. We know from the referendum and from the recent election of a federalist government in the Province of Quebec that Quebecers want to participate in Confederation. This is perfectly legitimate and appropriate, and behind our approval of the Meech Lake Accord is our recognition of the importance of overcoming the fact that back at the time of the patriation of the Constitution and the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Government and legislature of the Province of Quebec said no.
I have heard some people glibly say that because of the referendum, because of the election of a federalist government in the Province of Quebec and because Quebec has said yes to us now, we in the provinces and in the Parliament must now say yes to Quebec, as if to imply by that that no matter what the priorities of the Province of Quebec are at this time, because it had gone through the two stages, we should say yes no matter what. The approval of the Official Opposition is not to be taken as an indication that we would accept any kind of conditions put forward for the approval of the Meech Lake Accord and for the support of the Government and Legislature of Quebec for the package. Certainly, we would not be able to say yes to Quebec if Quebec were putting forward an agenda which would undermine or destroy the kind of balanced federalism that we know.
I think it is important at this time to review for a moment what some of the past demands of Quebec were as a condition for its approval of the patriation of the Constitution. It is important to do this because I want to demonstrate that it was not the conflict and confrontation, as some Members of the Government Party have said, of the former Trudeau Government that was responsible for Quebec's non support of the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
patriation package, it was not that at all. It was what was on the agenda of the Government of Quebec at that time.
People have forgotten that what was being asked for could not be agreed to. Quebec was represented by the Levesque Government, whose agenda was not to build a strong and united Canada. Its overt, openly stated agenda was to separate and establish a country independent from Canada. Its agenda demonstrated that.
For example, one of the things that was wanted in the Constitution of Canada was the right of self-determination for the Province of Quebec. I do not see how that could be put into a Constitution of a federal state. That could not have been accepted. It was not a matter of confrontation or conflict, it was an unacceptable agenda.
The province wanted to close down the CBC stations and Radio Canada stations across Quebec and turn them over to provincial management. It wanted to withdraw television, cable and radio licences and have them issued by the provincial government. It wanted to be the voice outside Canada of la francophonie, not just inside Quebec but outside Quebec and across the rest of the country. Looking back at what it was that the Government of 1980, 1981 and 1982 was being asked to approve, one can see why the Constitution was patriated without the approval of the Government of the day in the Province of Quebec or of the Legislature of Quebec.
I mention those sad events because I want to contrast them with what we are being asked to say yes to now. We are being asked by the federalist government of the Province of Quebec, and I now refer to the commencement of the process which lead to Meech Lake, to say yes to a five point agenda of items which, in the view of the Official Opposition, are totally compatible with a federal system of government, with a Confederation as we know it, with a balanced equilibrium in Canada. We think that this is a timely development. It is not something that we can count on being available now and for all times in the future. It is something that we have to recognize while it is available. Quebec's approval is available on the basis of a federalist agenda.
I must also say that I do not see how one could have expected the Premier of Quebec, Premier Bourassa, to win his election and then turn to the federal and provincial Governments and say: "I am prepared to accept the package the former Government refused. It was not good enough for the former Government, but it is good enough for me". Politically, that would have been unrealistic, and it is reasonable for us to expect and to receive from the Province of Quebec a list of items which will assist it in being comfortable within Confederation, in a balanced form of Confederation which we have inherited and which it is our duty to preserve and strengthen.
I have indicated our support for the Meech Lake Accord, but I have also indicated that we have argued that amendment is possible. We have a number of amendments which are desirable and important.

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I want to note in relation to the package of Quebec's priorities for entry into Confederation and for approval of the patriation of the Constitution and of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there was no proposal to reduce the powers of the federal Government in its most important areas. I will talk about the changes in the system individually, but it is important to underline that what has not changed is that the federal Government retains all of its powers under Section 91, including its general power. It retains its powers of taxation and it retains the important responsibilities relating to peace, order and good government.
Let me turn now to one of the criticisms that has been made of the Meech Lake Accord. In spite of having sat on the Committee, listened to the witnesses and asked them questions, it is a criticism of the Meech Lake Accord that I am totally unable to understand.
[ Translation]
And that, Mr. Speaker, is the suggestion or the objection that the Meech Lake Accord detracts from the official languages policy. For me, far from harming this policy, the Meech Lake Accord tends to strengthen it. Let me explain. First, we in Canada have a policy of official institutional bilingualism. That remains unchanged with the Meech Lake Accord. For example, this means that we try as much as possible-it is the Government's responsibility-to ensure to the greatest extent that those who want to live in French and those who want to live in English in our country can do so.
The Government must provide them with services in French and in English, as they choose, wherever practically possible. And the official languages policy is not to force them to learn another language to live in Canada. They have the right, as much as possible, to live in only one of the two official languages.
But another aspect of the official languages policy that is not legislated appears before us. It is phenomenal, wonderful, something that is really an aspect of this official languages policy; it is the growing practice throughout the country of learning both official languages. We see in every province the trend of Canadians who can live and work in only one of the two official languages to learn the other language, to teach it to their children and to have their children taught the other official language. Perhaps it is because in our country, we have two of the most important languages in the world; perhaps it is also the example of Canadians who are bilingual that impresses other Canadians. Perhaps too it is to have the opportunity to live fully as a Canadian. But it is very important and continues to be with the Meech Lake Accord. There is nothing in it to discourage these Canadians, be they adults or young people, who are trying to become bilingual in this country.
In my argument about the continuation and strengthening of the official languages policy I note that the Constitution after Meech Lake will still contain the option for provinces to become officially bilingual. I want to remind my colleagues that in our resolutions as a Party and in our report on the Meech Lake Accord we urged that provinces become officially bilingual. We refer specifically to the Province of Ontario. We would like to have seen at the Meech Lake Accord negotiations a Prime Minister who moved forward with that priority and tried to take the opportunity to encourage a province or more provinces to become officially bilingual. Flowever, the option is still there and I commend our amendment to the House, encouraging the Province of Ontario and other provinces to become officially bilingual.
After the Meech Lake Accord is constitutionalized, there will still be an obligation on provincial Governments to provide education in an official language where numbers warrant. That is not taken away by Meech Lake. Official languages remains as strong. In fact, I want to refer to another of our amendments, an important one, in which we wanted to remove the "where numbers warrant" limitation contained in the Constitution at the time of patriation. We felt that the standard contained in paragraph 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about reasonable limitations on all rights, including language rights, would have been sufficient protection against abuse, if one can conceive of abuse as being a desire to have your children educated in one of the official languages. We commend that amendment to this House and to others across the country who are considering the resolution on the Meech Lake Accord. We think it is important, and the amendment would reinforce official bilingualism in the country, but nothing in the Meech Lake Accord in that respect reduces it.
Dealing with the Official Languages Act, which is the final aspect of official bilingualism that I want to refer to under the Meech Lake Accord, I note that the Act remains the law of the land. I did not want to speak today about the current problems that the Government is having in implementing its amendments to the Act contained in Bill C-72, but the disgraceful developments in Question Period today are pretty hard not to refer to in this context.
Here we have a Constitution which encourages official bilingualism, the Meech Lake Accord which in my submission does the same thing, Official Languages Act amendments which ought to be brought forward, a Government which indicated it was prepared to do so, but a resistance movement among some dinosaurs, as they have been called, in the Conservative caucus who do not want this element of progress. It may be that Conservative Members who want the amendment package which my colleague revealed today feel threatened by a country which has an official bilingualism policy.


Mr. Belsher:: We are not threatened at all.
May 19, 1988


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On our side of the House we do not feel that. We feel enriched by official bilingualism and we encourage the Government to stick to the position it put forward to the Canadian people on this subject and let us have these important amendments to the Act.
Further on the subject of the official bilingualism policy, I want to turn finally to the actual provisions of the Meech Lake Accord which calls on the Parliament of Canada and the provinces to preserve the situation of the official language minority in their province. I feel that is a step forward. Yet when one looks at the development in the Province of Saskatchewan one has to wonder how that province, which signed the Meech Lake Accord and passed the resolution, could bring forward legislation which is a step backward in the acquired rights of the official language minority residing in that province.

I speak of the Fransaskois who had rights granted in the statute that established the Government of Saskatchewan. And now, after the Supreme Court strengthened and confirmed these rights and pointed out that they were in effect, the Government, the same one that passed the Meech Lake Accord, could also diminish their acquired rights in the Province of Saskatchewan.

I want to suggest on that subject that if the Meech Lake Accord had been constitutionalized at this point, I think-

... I believe that the Fransaskois would have one more argument in their favour, in favour of their official language in their province and an argument that did not exist in the Constitution before Meech Lake. It is a gain. Even so, the attitude of the Government and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his response to events in Saskatchewan is simply deplorable.

We have proposed an amendment to this provision of the Meech Lake Accord. I think if the Accord was a short step in reinforcing the situation of the official language minorities in the provinces, the amendment we proposed is a much longer step. I would like to read our amendment. We would put forward for Clause 2(a) of the Meech Lake Accord the following:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph 2(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (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."
Why is that a killer amendment, I ask the Leader of the Government in the other place, the Minister responsible for interprovincial relations? We ask that this Parliament and the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Government of Canada not only preserve the rights of official language minorities but promote them as well.
We ask in relation to the provinces that they promote as well as preserve, but only from the time they specifically agree to do so. We are thinking of the model of the official bilingualism of a province. According to the Constitution of 1982, a province has the right to opt into official language status. We offer the right to opt in as well to the responsibility to promote in addition to preserve the official language minority's acquired rights and other rights within a province. I do not consider that to be a killer amendment.
If one looks at the list of priorities of the Province of Quebec, that is not part of them. Quebec's priority list deals with matters affecting the Province of Quebec. This amendment deals with the situation of official languages outside the Province of Quebec, as well as inside the province with respect to the English official language minority. Surely this amendment can be totally acceptable and one which would have brought the unhesitating support of-

-of the FFHQ throughout our country. It was an amendment that could have greatly increased support for the Meech Lake Accord.

One of the points made in criticizing the Meech Lake Accord in the manner in which it affects official bilingualism in Canada is the distinct society clause. We in the Official Opposition do not agree with the argument that the distinct society clause prejudices bilingualism. Certainly no one can point to any words or clauses in the Meech Lake Accord which diminish official bilingualism. The critics of the distinct society clause acknowledge that there is nothing specific about it that violates bilingualism, but they try to make the argument that indirectly, recognizing Quebec as a distinct society will have that effect.
Let me make a few points about the distinct society. First, there is no question that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada in a very special way. From the moment in 1774 that the Quebec Act recognized the authority of the civil law and the rights of the Catholics to hold public office, Catholics meaning French Canadians in those days, there has been a consistent acceptance of a distinct constitutional recognition of Quebec's special place in the Canadian Federation. That does not preclude a rejection of the distinct constitutional provisions which recognize the anglophone or non francophone minorities in Quebec, or the francophone minority outside its borders.
The drafting of the BNA Act provided for a specific division of powers in those domains which were considered important to the maintenance of Quebec's distinctiveness, education, courts and civil law. There are other distinctive aspects about Canada than the distinctiveness of Quebec, however. I want to refer the House to amendments which are included in our

Constitution Amendment, 1987
package, which recognize other fundamental characteristics of Canada, which recognize the aboriginal people as a fundamental characteristic of Canada and recognize the multicultural developments in Canada, with millions and millions whose heritage is in the culture which is neither English nor French.
The reaction of the public across Canada to the Meech Lake Accord certainly shows that recognition of other fundamental characteristics of Canada would certainly have enhanced public support for the Meech Lake Accord. In our submission, it is not too late for the addition of those two among the fundamental characteristics of Canada.
When considering another criticism of the distinct society clause, it is important to remember that the distinct society is not a francophone society alone. Many critics feel and fear that the power given to the Government of Quebec and the Legislature of Quebec to promote the distinct society means that a francophone society only will be promoted. That overlooks precisely what is contained in the Meech Lake Accord itself. It is important to read Clause 2 which states:
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;
Those who would argue that the distinct society clause could be used as a device to downgrade or humiliate the Englishspeaking minority within the Province of Quebec are not giving adequate account of the actual language of the Meech Lake Accord and to the fact that such action would not be justified under the very clear language which indicates that Quebec is a bilingual society which includes francophones and anglophones.
It is clear that the distinct society clause is an interpretive provision. In relationship to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not a provision which cancels or diminishes other provisions of the Constitution or of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is meant to be read to interpret them.
There is another criticism of the distinct society clause that I believe is invalid when one considers it carefully. The distinct society clause cannot be used as an interpretive provision to reduce the powers of the federal Government, of Parliament or of the provinces. Clause 2(4) states:
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.
While a proponent of a law before the court may argue that the distinct society clause justified trenching on powers of the federal Government or a provincial government, it is clear that this amendment provides that it is not to be interpreted to do so. However, when one comes to the relationship between the distinct society clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I do not believe the matter is as clear as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) indicated in his remarks. He said he
May 19, 1988
rejected totally the argument that the distinct society clause could reduce provisions of the rights and freedoms granted under the Charter.
Let me give a hypothetical situation that I believe indicates the concerns of the Official Opposition in the amendment to which I will refer. Suppose that five provinces, including Quebec, put forward the same law which is considered by some to reduce the rights of women. I can visualize a situation under the Meech Lake Accord in its present form where Quebec will have an extra argument going into the Supreme Court of Canada to defend that law. The law, in other words, might be found not to violate the Constitution or, putting it the other way, the law might be found to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in four provinces, but not within the Province of Quebec, because a different interpretative provision is being used. As I indicated, I do not think, and I was convinced by the evidence adduced before our committee, that rights can be removed by the distinct society clause or that they can be reduced, but they can be given a different interpretation.
We are arguing that it is undesirable for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have different meanings for Canadians in different provinces of Canada. That is the reason for our amendment which I would like to refer to now and commend to Members of the House, even the Minister of Justice who has rejected all evidence to the contrary, that we should make it clear that the Charter has the same meaning in every one of the provinces of Canada, and for all Canadians, wherever they live.
We are concerned that this very important achievement of 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should not have different meanings in different places across the country, so we have put forward this amendment. However, if you ask if that possibility and concern is fatal with respect to the Meech Lake Accord, if you ask if that is an argument for us to reject the entire Accord with all of its other achievements, my answer is to reflect back on what we did in 1981 and 1982 when we brought back a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which contained Section 33. It contained a clause which permits a province to reject all parts, those that are listed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in Section 33, in other words, to deny very specific provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to deny them 100 per cent to the residents of a particular province.
That is a very serious derogation from the Charter. Yet we were obliged to accept it because we would not have been able to patriate the Constitution and we would not have been able to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms without it. We tried to do it, but we could not get enough support to be able to proceed and patriate the Constitution and establish the Charter without it.
I look at the wisdom we had then to accept the derogation, the notwithstanding clause, and the situation now where there
May 19, 1988

is ambiguity about the interpretation of the distinct society clause in relation to the Charter, and we have an amendment which is being rejected by the Government. If it is rejected, let us proceed, let us put the clarification of the priority of the Charter, along with the notwithstanding clause, as something we would like to see dealt with early, and which our Leader has undertaken will be part of our platform and agenda of the Liberal Government after the Meech Lake Accord is constitutionalized.
Another suggestion in relation to the distinct society clause with which I would like to deal is the suggestion of some that it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that it can tell us exactly what the distinct society clause means. In rejecting this suggestion, I think I can do no better than refer to the arguments made by the Attorney General of Ontario before the legislative committee in that province which was examining the Meech Lake Accord.
It is true that the Supreme Court of Canada Act says that virtually any question can be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, but references cannot be successful when they ask the Supreme Court of Canada to write a book or treatise in effect, about the meaning of a clause. The Supreme Court of Canada can handle, and it is reasonable to put to it, justifiable questions such as, is this legal? Does this comply with the provisions of the Charter? Does this comply with the amending formula?
It is a long, interesting and powerful argument the Attorney General of Ontario made. It cites authorities and comes to the conclusion that when we ask the court what does the distinct society clause really mean-and I am reading here from page 45 of his brief-it is unlikely that the court would be willing to answer any such question.
Courts exist for the purpose of resolving particular disputes rather than writing discursive essays on the meaning of various constitutional provisions. He contrasts that question with the question that was asked of the Supreme Court of Canada back in 1981. The court was asked whether or not the proposed amendment was unconstitutional, a very specific thing. It was asked is it constitutional or is it not, yes or no. It was not asked the difficult question of what it means. Imagine what would have happened if peace, order and good government had been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada in its day, if it had existed then? It is not the type of question about which a court can be asked to give a useful definition. It is too hypothetical to expect a court to be able to deal with it in a way that is really useful.
The final criticism that is made of the distinct society clause is also made of another provision of the Meech Lake Accord, that is that it is too vague and ambiguous. I want to deal with the question of vague and ambiguous, bearing in mind that peace, order and good Government must also be considered pretty vague and ambiguous. Yet it has been pretty useful and has been the basis for founding a considerable number of important decisions, and I want to indicate in connection with
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the shared costs program provision as well, that I do not think its vagueness or ambiguity is necessarily a fault.
The provision that is also criticized as being too vague to proceed is the provision on shared costs programs which puts a limit on the power of the federal Government to establish shared costs programs with provinces which do not want to participate. Again, I think, many of the critics of the Meech Lake Accord have exaggerated very considerably what it is this provision does. Certainly, it does not take away the spending power of the federal Government. The federal Government still has the power to spend money. In fact, the power is specified in the statute, or what will be in the Constitution, in a way of clarity which it has never had before. But the provision itself on the spending power does not eliminate the federal Government's power to spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
It is important to recognize also that the limitation contained in the Meech Lake Accord only applies when we talk about an exclusive area of provincial jurisdiction. I think in a balanced federal system, it is not unreasonable for the provinces, when the federal Government proposes to spend money in an exclusive jurisdiction which belongs under the Constitution to them, to ask them to contribute half or more, perhaps less, but a part of the cost. It is not unreasonable to give the provinces more powers than they have enjoyed until now. This, the Meech Lake Accord does.
People fear that with the power the provinces are given to demand compensation, and if they provide a compatible program or policy, this will create a chequer-board Canada. I want to insist that this provision does not necessarily create a chequer-board Canada. It depends on politics. It depends on the kind of negotiation process that takes place. There will have to be more negotiation if the Government wants to proceed by this route. There will have to be more consideration of provincial priorities. But at the end of it, if the federal Government does not want particular provinces to establish programs of their own and claim compensation, it does not have to proceed through the route of a shared-cost program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I think it is a false criticism to say that this clause will lead to a chequer-board Canada. The federal Government can insist before signing on the dotted line that other provinces participate rather than opting out and claiming compensation instead.
I refer to the ambiguity of the shared-cost program clause. I would like to read it. I would like to read Section 106(A) of the Meech Lake Accord which states:
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 national objectives.

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"Compatible with national objectives" and "program or initiative" have been criticized as being pretty ambiguous language. We in the Official Opposition agree that this is ambiguous language. I want to note an amendment that we have proposed which would make that language somewhat clearer. What we have proposed in our amendment is that what needs to be provided by the province to qualify for compensation is to carry on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards. The language that we have proposed I think is more clear. However, I have to acknowledge that even it is somewhat ambiguous and that there will always be some uncertainty in marginal cases where some type of arbitration is going to be required by a court to determine what it means.
Let me give a practical example. We have before the House now Bill C-89 which, as one of its objectives, provides federal funds for victims of crime. Money is given to the provinces. The wish is expressed in the legislation that they will use it for victims of crime.
Let us say that a shared-cost program is developed in that area and the federal Government offers the provinces the opportunity to participate in this. It is obviously an area of provincial jurisdiction. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Thus we have a province saying: "We will take the money. We intend to build sidewalks with it". How do sidewalks help the victims of crime? I suppose a provincial Government can argue that if there are sidewalks, people who walk on them are less likely to be hit by drunk drivers. That is one argument. A province might say: "We will take the money and we will establish that type of program". Under either version the question that would be asked is: Is this a compatible program which meets minimum national standards? I could not predict with confidence what a court would determine if that example were put as a basis for a demand for compensation by a provincial government opting out of a shared-cost program initiated by the federal Government.
I would like to observe this. Among the provinces I have noted arguments being made that this clause in the Meech Lake Accord has a different meaning. In the Province of Quebec a Minister is arguing that it gives very great latitude to the province. In another province, the Province of Ontario, the premier is arguing that that is a pretty tight definition. How do we deal with an ambiguity like that?
I would like to make a couple of observations about it. I remember chatting with one of the drafters of the International Monetary Fund Agreement. He made the observation that one of the achievements and the glories of that agreement was that it contained no unintentional ambiguities. What he meant by that was that the parties went as far as they could in agreeing but that there were certain things that they just could not agree on.
This could be contrasted with a contract in which people hire lawyers to iron out all the ambiguities. One certainly would not want to be told about a contract by one's lawyer
that it is being left ambiguous because "we want to be able to sign the deal with the other side". In the case of a contract one wants to know clearly what will happen in every eventuality. However, the founders of the IMF, when they were getting together, reached a point where they could see, I assume, that unless there was a little measure of ambiguity there would not be a deal. I have the same feeling, although I was not at the table at the Meech Lake Accord, about the ambiguity, marginal, of the distinct society clause, and about the ambiguity of the shared-cost program provision.
We had premiers and a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who were saying to each other: "We have been able to agree about a number of things. We cannot agree in very precise detail about this. We are prepared to sign the agreement knowing that if this falls to be interpreted it will be interpreted within the context in which one side can make its arguments, the other side can make its arguments, and like peace, order and good government a decision will be made about where the responsibility falls and whether the compensation payment has to be made".
It is not a hot criticism of a constitution to say that it contains some vague language or some ambiguities. In that context, in fact, what started me thinking about this was a fascinating article about the Magna Carta which appeared in the Law Society Gazette of Upper Canada written by James Allan in June of 1987. He analyses a remarkable document which is about 700 years old. In particular he refers to the trial by jury safeguard contained in the Magna Carta.
The amazing thing is that when the Magna Carta was drafted, when King John and the barons sat together and hammered it out, trial by jury for ordinary citizens of the realm was the farthest thing from their minds. That Magna Carta today stands for trial by jury. In the British system there are still portions of the Magna Carta that are the actual current law of the land with respect to trial by jury.
In his concluding observations about the Magna Carta Mr. Allan notes that perhaps the greatest criterion of the longevity of any set of rules or laws is its adaptability. He states that the Magna Carta has lasted so long because of its tendency toward vagueness. "The passing ages were able to put their own gloss on the text".
I look at the shared-cost provision. I note that the federal spending power is still available to the federal Government, that virtually any objective, if the provinces object, could be achieved through other uses and through other exercises of the spending power.
It is not so bad to accept one or two ambiguities, although our amendment would have the effect of making it somewhat clearer and, I submit, would still hold the support of all the partners who initially drafted and approved the Meech Lake Accord. Future interpretation will decide and will settle. The parties who signed the Meech Lake Accord in this form were
May 19, 1988

willing to have the provision settled by the courts in due course.
Again, the critics of the Meech Lake Accord turn to the next provision that they condemn and state that they would be prepared to have the courts settle it, but under the Meech Lake Accord the Supreme Court of Canada will become a stacked deck. I wish to deal with that objection, because I do not think it is valid. We in the Official Opposition reject that particular criticism of the Meech Lake Accord. What is said is that, because the provinces have the right now to submit names to the federal Government from which judges can be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, that provincialists or separatists might be appointed whose perspective on the issues that come before it would be biased.
In noting that criticism, one has to ask how satisfactory is the present system. Certainly it has worked well. I have never heard criticism from any quarter of the Supreme Court of Canada being prejudiced or anything other than objective and excellent in its function and in its standards. The Members of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the Prime Minister. He designates them. Under the present system the tradition is that they are confirmed and adopted. There is not even any reference to the parliamentary committees in the manner that certain other appointments are referred to committees, without the power to veto, but at least with the power to examine them.
If we ever had a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan, who had an agenda of making the Supreme Court of his country politically coloured one way or another, in Canada that would be very easy to achieve in the manner the Supreme Court of Canada presently is. I remember thinking, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) may also remember, that when the patriation package brought forward by the Trudeau Government was under attack, and when the Quebec Government was taking it to court, that if the Quebec Government was unsuccessful at the Supreme Court of Canada, it could make the argument that this is a court that is set up to adjudicate between the claims of the federal and the provincial Governments, but it is 100 per cent appointed by one side, therefore, what type of legitimacy is that?
When one looks at the way the Supreme Court is presently constituted, it is appropriate to consider a change which will produce a balance; a Supreme Court of Canada which is bullet-proof in the sense that neither level of government can take shots at it and say that this is a court whose method of appointment disqualifies it from adjudicating our claims.
When one looks at what the Meech Lake First Ministers have put before us, it seems that it produces a better balance than the present system. There are criticisms made that go too far. For example, if provincialists or mandatees who are going to take orders from provincial capitals are put forward on the lists of one particular province, the federal Government has the choice of going to another province, or if one province does not want to put any names forward, it has a choice of going to
Constitution Amendment, 1987
another province. Outside of Quebec there is a tradition that there are three from Ontario, two from the West, and one from Atlantic Canada. But that is not an invariable tradition. If one region or one province wanted to defeat the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada by not giving names, or giving unacceptable names, the federal Government would have a neat way of dealing with it which would permit the Supreme Court of Canada to continue to function.
In the case of Quebec it is somewhat more difficult because it has the right to three places on the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Government of Quebec wanted to embarrass the federal Government by not putting names forward, or by putting forward unacceptable names, there would be a problem in filling the Supreme Court of Canada with representation from Quebec, and politics could be played with that. But politics could be played both ways with that. There would be pressure from both sides to do the responsible thing, and put forward acceptable names, and to appoint them.
To make a point, I was checking the ages of the present Quebec Justices on the Supreme Court of Canada. Their ages are 54, 63, and 60. The age of retirement is 75. The youngest judge has 21 more years to serve. If there was a government in the Province of Quebec determined to subvert federalism, it could take 21 years to achieve that purpose. If there was a government of that character in the Province of Quebec, it would be a lot sooner than 21 years that the future of our country would be in difficulty. It would not be because of the Meech Lake Accord formula, but because of the fact that a government not supporting federalism was in office for that long period of time in the Province of Quebec.
We proposed an amendment on the Supreme Court of Canada which is helpful. It is the provision on breaking the deadlock. We propose a deadlock-breaking mechanism. It would be helpful to have such a mechanism. I urge members of the Government to consider it. We have provided that if a deadlock does arise, the Chief Justice of the Court can fill the vacancy but only for one year. Therefore, there would be continuing political pressure on the Governments concerned to take their responsibilities and provide for the vacancy to be filled.
With the Meech Lake Accord, one has a solution to the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada which makes it more legitimate as an arbiter of the interests of the two levels of government that so often appear before it to have their disputes resolved.
The next provision of the Meech Lake Accord that we support, but for which we propose an amendment, is the provision for the Senate. The critics of the Meech Lake Accord are fearful of a concern that deserves to be stated. That is, what could happen with the provinces proposing lists and the federal Government obliged to take candidates from that list of that province only? Over time the Senate could become a Trojan horse brought into the federal level of government. It could be filled with delegates of provincial

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
legislators who, if they had to make decisions, would phone their head office in the province from which they came to take orders on how to vote, not on provincial matters, not on federal-provincial matters, but on matters that are exclusively within federal jurisdiction, that is, the business of the Parliament of Canada.
In examining that criticism, I have to admit that that could happen over a very long period of time. The thing to remember is that the Meech Lake Accord amendment on this subject is meant to be a temporary provision. It is meant to put pressure on the federal Government and on the provinces to reform the Senate to deal with the legitimate grievance of the regions of the country where the federal Government and the Parliament of Canada does not recognize their concerns. It is meant, in other words, to make the Senate fulfil more of the original aspirations for it, so that it truly reflects the various regions, minorities and other non-majoritarian interests of Canada.
Will this temporary measure be a temporary measure? I think the signs that it will be are good. First, the possibility of the Senate being reformed without some radical type of surgery like the one proposed in Meech Lake is very unlikely. We have had 110 years to reform it. The difficulty in examining reforms are that there are so many options that it is difficult to get a consensus to any one of them. That has been one of the main difficulties. Another has been that the Senate is a very attractive patronage place for the government of the day.
When it comes to changing the Senate, it has been very difficult. Governments have been under understandable political pressure to leave it the way it is and to use it in a way that it has traditionally been used. At least the Meech Lake Accords stops that incentive against Senate reform. It removes any ulterior motive that the federal Government might have not to reform the Senate. On the provincial side, some argue that it gives the provinces a particular incentive to keep things in a temporary situation so that they can continue to nominate their own candidates. That is not a guaranteed benefit to the provincial governments. After all the federal Government is not obliged to appoint anyone to the Senate. It is not like the Supreme Court of Canada where there is strong pressure that it be kept to its full strength at all times. That is not the situation with the Senate.
I want to note a very positive development on which I would like to see building take place on the Meech Lake Accord, namely the statement by Premier Peterson of Ontario. To help speed the process of consideration of reform, the Government of Ontario will not submit names to the federal Government. I would like to see other provinces say the same thing. Even more so, I would like to see the federal Government say for its part in order to assure that reform really does take place that no new Senators will be appointed for a certain lengthy period of time as a way to ensure that real effort be made to reform the Senate.
In our amendment, and I want to draw the attention of the House and of the country to it, instead of referring to a list from the provinces for this temporary situation, we are proposing that Senators be chosen by election in the provinces to fill the vacancies. This is meant as a temporary measure, but it moves toward an elected Senate. We hope that if done it will remove any argument that the provinces have some ulterior benefit in being able to name candidates that might encourage them to keep the Senate in its temporary state which Meech Lake will create rather than get down to business and really work to reforming the Senate.
I want to commend that amendment to the Government. I do not see how it can call it or any of our other amendments killer amendments. I hope it will be considered as a way of enhancing support for the Meech Lake Accord.
I want to turn next to the veto power which is of such concern to so many people, namely the unanimous amending formula referred to in connection with the Meech Lake Accord. Again, like so many other parts of the Meech Lake Accord, there are a lot of misconceptions. First, we already have certain provisions in the Constitution of Canada to which amendment requires unanimous consent. It is not a long list, but there are some.
Second, we are not in the Meech Lake Accord extending the requirement for unanimous consent to the entire range of changes to the Constitution. Most of the features of our Constitution that you would want to change or might want to change do not come under the unanimity list to which the Meech Lake Accord adds. For example, the distribution of powers is something that will still be done under the seven provinces containing 50 per cent of the Canadian population rule. Then we have the fundamental characteristics of Canada, those additions to the list that I indicated earlier that we in the Official Opposition would like to make fundamental characteristics, the aboriginal issue and the multicultural fact. In fact, the distinct society clause can be changed without unanimous consent. It is another one of the provisions that is there under the seven provinces containing 50 per cent of the population of Canada rule. Many concerns that exist are exaggerated because of the sense that the amending formula will require unanimity far more broadly than really is required.
Another strange belief that, of course, is not justified about the Meech Lake Accord is that the unanimity rule is now required for the federal Government to exercise its own powers. The unanimity rule does not apply to laws introduced by Canada or laws introduced by any province. It only applies to changes to the Constitution. Our view in the Official Opposition is that the amending formula, the requirement of unanimity, is extended too far, that Senate reform would be more likely under the seven provinces containing 50 per cent rule and that the provision relating to entry of new provinces into Confederation should not be put under the unanimity rule.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), has made the case for us that provinces in the
May 19, 1988

future should be able to enter in the way they have in the past. That is one of our amendments as well. The most serious criticism made of the unanimity rule and one that I think is unjustified is that it ends the sense of national purpose in Canada. I think people argue that if you need unanimous consent then there is no national purpose that is larger than the constituents whose consent is required. The clear answer to that is that the unanimity rule does not extend very much further under the Meech Lake Accord than it did before. In our view it should be narrower, but there is still a tremendous amount of constitutionalizing that will be done on a tighter approval basis than total unanimity. I understand you are seeking the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for giving me this opportunity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Sikh Organizations-a) Minister's letter to Premiers/Policy of Department; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Fisheries-Reported spill of sulfuric acid into Straits of Georgia/Preventive measures to contain effluent; the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Financial Institutions-Bill C-81-Mouvement Desjardins.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn, and the amendments of Mr. Turner, Vancouver Quadra (p. 15617), Mr. Broadbent (p. 15618), Mr. Caccia, (p. 15618), Mr. Johnston, (p. 15618) and Mr. Roman (p. 15620).
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have concluded the specific points I wanted to refer to in the Meech Lake Accord. I have explained our amendments and indicated why we find the Meech Lake Accord a positive step forward and why we intend to support it. The Minister of Justice when he stood up to introduce this order of business was very critical of the Senate. I do not think his criticism was justified.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I think the Senate has done nothing more in the process than to demonstrate what ought to be done with the amendments that have been brought forward by the Official Opposition, how compatible they are with the Meech Lake Accord, and how they take nothing away from the constitutional priorities of the Province of Quebec. Surely, it also demonstrates how other matters could be added, matters including multicultural-ism, the strengthening of the economic union of Canada, the establishment of a proper voice throughout the entire Meech Lake Accord for the northern people of Canada who were sidelined by the Meech Lake Accord, hopefully through an oversight, but one which could easily be corrected and which the Senate did correct. I regret that no effort has been made to amend the Meech Lake Accord and to see if that can be done within the context of an agreement so that this important constitutional step which is a positive step can be taken.
In conclusion, I think that the Government has made a terrible mistake in tactics in insisting that the Meech Lake Accord is a seamless web, that it is perfect and that only egregious error would justify reopening it. If surveys tell us anything, the Government ought to recognize that Canadians would like to see some of the important points the Official Opposition has made adopted in the Meech Lake Accord.
Finally, I want to assure the Government that our support is firm. We want this constitutional step forward to take place, but an examination of the state of support across Canada might indicate that its adoption or constitutionalization could be greatly enhanced by the consideration and acceptance of the amendments which have been put forward by the Official Opposition.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to begin by saying how very appreciative we are that the Meech Lake Accord should return to the House. We are not particularly appreciative of what the Senate tried to do with the Accord, but the other place has given us the opportunity once again to discuss the Accord, and for that we are very grateful.
I say that because in the view of Members of this Party, Meech Lake and what has been said about Meech Lake over the past several months has reinforced rather than diminished our support for the Accord. It has reinforced in several important respects our belief that Meech Lake is actually stronger and more effective than we had even dreamed at the time that it would be.
Let me start by giving a few illustrations of the fact that in our view, Meech Lake is stronger, better and more effective than we ever dreamed it could be. The first illustration concerns what happened with the introduction of Bill 2 in the Saskatchewan Legislature, effectively limiting the long established legal rights of the Francophone linguistic minority in that province. If Meech Lake were already in effect, it is our

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
firm belief that that limiting action of the Saskatchewan Government would have been declared contrary to the Constitution as amended by Meech Lake.
I know that it might sound incredibly machiavellian to suggest that a Premier would want to limit francophone rights so that when Meech Lake kicked in, he would have fewer rights to preserve. However, I honestly believe that despite the fact that the Premier signed the agreement and despite the fact that the legislature passed it by a 43 to 3 vote, he circumvented it. He said to himself: "If I wait until the provisions of the Constitutional Accord are formally adopted, I will find that it is the duty of this province to preserve the legal rights of the francophone minority, including the right for the translation of laws into French". This is because Meech Lake, as we have been reminded many times, requires provincial legislatures to preserve the official linguistic minorities of Canada.
I recall that on the committee, there was some discussion about whether the Accord should not both preserve and promote linguistic duality. Many of us thought that that would be desirable, but then we realized that to have all the provinces of Canada, and particularly, I may say, the western provinces, agree to preserve linguistic duality would indeed be a very major step ahead. We assumed that the provinces would be preserving everything from French on cornflakes boxes in British Columbia to the legal language rights of the Francophones of Saskatchewan.
With this rather transparent attempt to restrict the rights to be preserved, we have been shown vividly the importance of the clause in Meech Lake requiring the preservation of existing minority language rights.
As a second illustration, we have also realized over the last several months that many of the naysayers on Meech Lake, including the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, are effectively saying that two linguistic Canadas are being created by Meech Lake, French in Quebec, English everywhere else. Time and time again in the past several months, we have heard this. It would seem to me that those who keep saying this have simply not read the new Section 2 of the Constitution embodied in this Accord. Above all, they have not read that the duties of the provincial legislatures to preserve linguistic duality are duties that are shared and must be shared just as much by the legislature of Quebec as by any other legislature.
The two Canadas, one French and the rest English, seems to me to imply that there would be no provision in Meech Lake requiring the legislature of Quebec, as it does of all other legislatures, to preserve linguistic duality. I think that a very large disservice has been done to the very goal the former Prime Minister wanted to achieve; namely, an officially bilingual Canada, when even he suggests that Meech Lake is destroying that goal and that vision. It does a very, very serious disservice to the Accord.
I noticed just the other day that in the National Assembly of Quebec, specifically April 29, the Minister responsible for languages, Guy Rivard, made it absolutely clear, if there had ever been any doubt in the mind of Mr. Trudeau or anyone else, that Quebec's large 200-year old anglophone community is "an integral part of the character of our distinct society". So the succession of fears aroused in the last several months, that somehow the Accord is going to divide us into a French Quebec and an English everything else are simply not justified and must be dissipated.
A third development over the last several months which has shown the strength of Meech Lake is in the area of federal spending power. We have had a succession of journalists, I am sorry to say, and politicians, I am even sorrier to say, suggesting over the past several months that under the new constitutional Accord it will no longer be possible to have national social programs. Just today I read a CP story in The Toronto Star which said that the Accord would "limit the right of the federal Government to introduce new national shared-cost programs like medicare". This is simply not true. This just instils fear in the minds of people, particularly the disadvantaged and disabled in our society, that we will never again be able to have national shared-cost programs like medicare. Of course, if that were true, we would be justified in being fearful. I would be fearful, too.
I have talked to large numbers of people in the Coalition for the Disabled, visible minorities, and many others, who say that they have now been convinced there is no longer going to be any kind of social program possible for them in the future. The naysayers and scaremongers who are saying these things apparently do not yet grasp the fact that for the first time it is now written in the Constitution of Canada that there can be national shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. That has never ever been in the Constitution of Canada. Ever since Borden, federal Governments have engaged in spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in developing shared-cost programs, but it has never been constitutionalized. So, far from retreating from the possibility of having national shared-cost programs, and I am thinking primarily of social programs but there would be economic programs as well, the Accord strengthens and constitutionalizes the possibility of future programs.
I am sorry to say that Mr. Trudeau has also added to the fears. He, who never launched a national social program in 16 years, who helped unravel several of the programs we did have, particularly that of post-secondary education, has the gall to suggest that we could not have national social programs under Meech Lake. It is just incredible gall.


Ross Belsher: Now you're talking.


Pauline Jewett: That is what he has been suggesting while fanning the flames of fear.
May 19, 1988

I remind everyone in the Chamber that it was in the 1960s that we got our national social programs in key areas like medicare and the Canada Pension Plan during what we called an era of co-operative federalism. That is the kind of federalism that Meech Lake itself embraces. We did not get those national programs through dictation or usurpation of power. We got them through discussions between the federal and provincial authorities. In the case of medicare, it started when only two provinces were in agreement and then others came on board.
That was the era of the development of national social programs, and I am sorry to say that after the 1960s not only did we not have any more national social programs, but we found under the Established Programs Financing Act the federal Government relinquishing any authority over the spending of federal moneys, particularly in the area of postsecondary education.
That simply would not be possible under the Accord we are discussing once again today. A program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, initiated by the federal Government of Canada, and several provinces will undoubtedly have been talked to about it and will have indicated they are interested in participating in it, will only develop as the provinces themselves agree to spend the money for a program compatible with the national objectives of the program. In other words, national objectives have never been in our Constitution before. People talk about Balkanizing Canada. It is the contrary that is becoming increasingly evident over recent months.
National objectives can be just what you want them to be. They can be as tight as you want to make them. If the federal Government has the political will to do so, if you had a federal Government that really wanted accessible and universal child care on a non-profit basis, and unfortunately the present Government does not have that particular will, and you established those national objectives under the shared-cost program arrangement, it would be pretty difficult for any province that joined in to then spend that money on roads and bridges. That is what they have frequently done in the field of post-secondary education because Mr. Trudeau did not have any national vision on that matter. It would be very difficult indeed.
Just as I spoke a moment ago about the Province of Saskatchewan possibly trying to limit the French language rights that it would need to preserve before Meech Lake kicked in, so I think the federal Government itself has limited what it will do on child care and refused to define national objectives because it knew once Meech Lake became effective it would have to define national objectives. Even the federal Government is somewhat guilty of trying to implement certain policies before the strength of Meech Lake is finally put into the Constitution.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Another area which has been much discussed by the naysayers is what Meech Lake does to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The criticism is not only extreme, it is wrong. I read in the press that the Charter is practically being destroyed as a result of Meech Lake, that the Constitutional Accord alters the basic rights and powers spelled out in the Charter, and that the distinct society rule of interpretation will remove from Charter review any action by the Quebec Government or any other government under the linguistic duality rule.
There is a misperception that actions taken under the Accord either to preserve linguistic duality or promote the distinct identity of Quebec will be immune from Charter review. There is a misperception that they can freely infringe upon the Charter, which is simply not the case.
The final report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons last September pointed out that by virtue of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, any law, federal or provincial, or governmental Act that is inconsistent with the Constitution, including the Charter, is to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. What could be clearer?
Unless a new set of constitutional principles evolve in the future which none of us can even imagine, legislation or governmental action taken in furtherance of linguistic duality or the distinct society would be subject to Charter review according to normal constitutional principles.
We know that the rights in the Charter are not absolute and are, themselves, subject to Section 1 of the Charter, the reasonable rights section. A legislature must prove that any reasonable limit it wishes to apply to any particular right or freedom, including equality and non discrimination rights, can be demonstrably justified. That same proof would have to be provided if a legislature pursued a policy attempting to preserve linguistic duality which might limit one of the freedoms in the Charter. The onus of proof is on the legislature.
The same Charter review that applies now to all legislative Acts will apply to additional rules of interpretation relating to the distinct society and linguistic duality clauses. I suggest it is mischievous for commentators to continue saying that the Charter can be abrogated by the Meech Lake Accord.
The First Ministers contributed to the problem somewhat by removing two sections from the Charter and inserting them in Clause 16 of the Accord. This suggested that other parts of the Charter were not as important, but the explanation given for the inclusion of Sections 25 and 27 was that they were interpretative clauses relating to cultural matters.
Since the Accord primarily relates to linguistic and cultural matters, it was argued that it was important to include them but their interpretation would not affect the multicultural heritage of Canada or the rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. I can sympathize with the concern of women and

May 19, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
minorities that the inclusion of those two sections somehow minimized their rights. That is why one of our amendments recommends that at least Section 28 of the Charter dealing with equality rights of men and women should be added to Clause 16 of the Accord.
The key section of the Charter, Section 15 dealing with non discrimination on the basis of race or sex, and Section 15(2) providing for affirmative action for disadvantaged groups, remain intact and will continue to exist without any effect from the Meech Lake Accord. Therefore, I hope we will not have to continue listening to what I must unfortunately call fear mongering. None of us want to receive letters from groups in our society about whom we are concerned, saying that they have been told that their rights will be abridged as a result of the Meech Lake Accord. That is simply not true.
In addition to our amendment to include Section 28 in Clause 16 of the Accord, we have also suggested other modest amendments about which my colleagues will expand. They relate to the unfair treatment of the Yukon and Northwest Territories by providing for unanimity in order to bring them into the nation, which is a far higher degree of consensus than has ever been required for other provinces.
We also want them to be able to make appointments for Supreme Court judges. We are very concerned about the absence of any provision in the Accord for the resumption of conferences on aboriginal rights, particularly native self government. The Native Council of Canada only recently published copies of its proposed draft companion amendments. All of them are included in our amendments that we proposed to the First Ministers. The first draft companion amendment is the reinstatement of the aboriginal reform process. The second concerns territorial representation in the Supreme Court, and a third is the establishment of provinces in the territories.
The Native Council of Canada also hoped to present a companion amendment relating to women, but I have not had seen that yet. In any event, they stated in their press release that the New Democratic Party has not taken seriously their proposal for companion amendments. On the contrary, the very content of its companion amendments is what we have already put in our amendments. The Council may say, and I think it does say in its press release, that the companion amendment approach is not anyone's first preference, that it would rather have the Accord amended. I can only agree with the Council. We want to have the Accord amended directly as well.
Our amendments, at least in the areas I have just been discussing, are similar to its companion amendments. There may be some later time down the road, but at the moment we in the New Democratic Party are still arguing that the small package of amendments we proposed before and are proposing again in no way gut the Accord. In no way do they deny the fundamental principles, but they do produce a degree of
fairness for northern people, native people and for women, that is not now present in the Accord.
We are still working to get our amendments adopted. There are two new premiers since we last spoke in this House and we are hoping that perhaps, with their understanding, we will be able to get our amendments back to the First Ministers. We are not trying to amend the whole Accord. We are not in any sense reducing the importance of the fundamental achievements that have been accomplished by the Accord. Indeed, we think these modest amendments would in fact enhance the Accord.
We have also suggested subjects for constitutional conferences to come. We have looked at the revoking of Section 33 of the Charter. That has to be revoked. The section allows the provinces and the federal Government, for that matter, to ignore the Charter for a five-year period on any particular legislation. It is crucial that it go in the next round of constitutional conferences.
We have also said that the changing nature of Canadian society, the increasing ethnoculture reality of today's society, should be an item of top priority on the agenda of the next Constitution conference. We have made several other suggestions, above all about the process of constitutional making. We must have input from the public through legislative committees, federal and provincial, and through public hearings, before First Ministers meet as well as after, and we continue to press that as hard as we possibly can.
We think, however, particularly in the light of some of the events that have taken place in the last month since we discussed Meech Lake, that a really very significant achievement was brought about. True, it was 11 men sitting around into late hours, but they did represent all the political Parties. They did discuss and debate the issues, although in private, on the basis of about 60 years of discussion of these matters, and intense discussion on the Quebec agenda for the previous two years.
I spent a weekend recently pretending that I was all 11 First Ministers, wondering if I could, as a woman, come up with a better constitutional Accord. With the exception of the amendments we have proposed, I had to come to the conclusion that this was really an historic achievement. The last time we had men sitting around doing something for us was the famous kitchen cabinet back in November of 1981, when three men arranged things to almost completely forget women and native people. That was about the worst example in my memory of people sitting around in a closed environment, a kitchen, in that case. If ever there needed to be a woman in the kitchen, it was certainly then. They came up with some pretty shocking anomalies and forgetfulness.
I do not think that has been the case this time, with the exception of some proposals on which we have made our amendments and which I have gone over today.
May 19, 1988

We should also look at the fact that not only did the premiers represent all the provinces and all political Parties, but also that the agreement that they reached at Meech Lake and then subsequently in finer print at the Langevin Block, was only the fourth time in Canadian history that unanimity among the partners has been reached on a constitutional amendment. Getting agreement on important constitutional change in Canada is about as rare as Haley's Comet. It happened in 1940 on unemployment insurance and it happened in 1951 and 1964 when concurrent jurisdiction over old age pensions was being achieved. Those are the only times we have achieved agreement in the last 50 years until the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord.
We have now seen four of the provinces approve the Accord. Two more provinces, probably four more, will have approved it through their legislatures by fall. After the hearings are completed in the Ontario Legislature, it is expected to go through. It will go through the New Brunswick Legislature after hearings have been held there. I understand they will begin in early September. I regret very much that the Government of Nova Scotia decided not to hold hearings. We have protested that vigorously. The Government of Nova Scotia has appeared to decide to present the matter to the legislature for approval without hearings. Saskatchewan held hearings and Manitoba will hold hearings.
One naturally wonders about two provinces. There has been great speculation about them as they have new premiers since the Accord was achieved. That is Manitoba and New Brunswick. As I just mentioned, they will both be holding hearings and as a result of those hearings, I hope they will be able to support the Accord. I found it quite incredible to be told by the Liberal Leader in Manitoba that Meech Lake was dead. I do not know how she can speak for members of the other two Parties. She has just over a third of the seats in the legislature and cannot simply proclaim Meech Lake is dead. I think members of the New Democratic Party would certainly not accept the Leader of the Liberal Party speaking for them, nor do I expect would the Conservative Members of the Manitoba Legislature.
It looks very much like the New Brunswick hearings will begin in September. British Columbia will be presenting a resolution very soon, as will Newfoundland. So the possibility of reaching provincial consent to the Accord, I think, is really very great. It surprises me all the more when I pick up the newspapers and read almost daily that Meech Lake is on the rocks, that it will not be approved and that it will have to go back entirely to the drawing board. That is certainly not the way I read the developments of the past four or five months.
I want to close by not only emphasizing what a historical achievement this has been, how rare it is that we can get agreement and how good, by and large, the agreement is, but also to point out that when we really start looking at all the potential changes in the agreement, any one can find probably 50. You can sit down and do it as I have done myself. Then one comes to the conclusion that very few of those changes
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that one can dream up to be made to the Meech Lake agreement are ones which would receive unanimous agreement.
I mentioned some time ago whether or not the First Ministers should not have minority language rights promoted as well as preserved. Indeed, the special joint committee recommended that that should be the case. However, I think I am safe in saying that in British Columbia, for example, it was a fairly major achievement to agree to preserve minority language rights. I am speaking in respect of it being a major achievement for Mr. Vander Zalm, the Premier of the province. It was a real step forward. Whether he would agree to go additionally to promote at this stage is doubtful. Preserve, as I pointed out earlier, can mean a very great deal.
Even the New Democrats in British Columbia in their suggested amendments to Meech Lake did not make that one. So when we pick out whatever proposal it is we will find that some provinces would agree with it, some groups in society would agree with it, others would disagree with it and others would not even put it on the agenda.
It is in the context of looking at all the proposals we have heard over the last several months, and the realization of how difficult it would be to put all these together in one package that would be acceptable, and in the context, too, as I have stressed in my remarks today, of the strength within the Meech Lake Accord itself, once we get over all the naysaying, that I-and I hope and trust I speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party-recommend most warmly the adoption once again of the constitutional Accord by this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now deal with Private Members' Business in the order shown on today's Order Paper.

Since it is 5.43 p.m. the Chair has a suggestion to make to the House. It is that the matter which we were to discuss today during Private Members' Hour, which is a motion moved by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault), keep its order on the list of precedence and we deal with it tomorrow. Would that be the wish of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the negotiations and I would in no way wish to take time from my hon. colleague. I think that the Speaker's proposal that tomorrow, if the Hon. Member is here-we all know that the Hon. Member

May 19, 1988
Adjournment Debate
who was scheduled for tomorrow cannot continue with consideration of his private member's business at that time. So we agree to postpone this evening's debate until tomorrow, if we have unanimous consent, and that we give it a full hour, but that there is no precedent established by our dealing with our colleague in this amicable, generous way.


Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). As you know, these matters are postponed from day to day, and I greatly appreciate his gesture and that of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand we have the unanimous consent of the House for adjourning debate on the motion by the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) until tomorrow. That shall be done.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the House always seems to make a mountain out of molehill. We have fifteen minutes left before the adjournment debate begins. I don't know whether Members who are to speak to the adjournment motion have been advised that they can come to the House fifteen minutes earlier. However, if they are watching us on television, I would ask them to report to the House for the adjournment debate. There are three Members on the list. So if they could pick up their papers and come to the House as soon as possible, we could proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So if I understood correctly, they will get the message.

We will call it six o'clock now. If a Member is late, we will wait for that Member. However, there is a Member here who is ready to proceed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
SIKH ORGANIZATIONS-MINISTER'S LETTER TO PREMIERS/POLICY OF DEPARTMENT
['We shall resume debate but do so very briefly.\nThe motion to ajourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, on April 18, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) questions regarding the advice he had gratuitously given provincial Premiers to boycott meetings organized in communities in their provinces by a number of Canadian Sikh organizations. I referred to the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Organization, and the World Sikh Organization.
The questions resulted from the fact that there was a gathering in Toronto organized by a variety of organizations.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that there were a number of temples involved. Others asserted that the three Sikh organizations had been among the sponsors of this event.
In responding to my question the Minister spoke of gatherings of moderate Sikhs which occur in various places. He mentioned a quite distinctive event in Edmonton organized to honour the Prairie Link newspaper where he said many moderate Sikhs had appeared. He then declared:
If we want Sikh communities in Canada to be governed by the moderates who want to live within the rules of Canada, a large part of our challenge is to be seen to be associated with those moderates.
In the case of the World Sikh Organization, in particular, representatives of which have been appearing before the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, and whose members in fact have not been charged with terrorist activity-certainly they have not been found guilty of any such activity-I asked him what he had to say to the suggestion that his blanket charge in his letter to the Premiers reflected a deplorable attitude, that it expressed a matter of judging people long before they had been found guilty in any court of law. I suggested that he was opening possibilities of Sikhs being found guilty by association with organizations which themselves might, in the case of the World Sikh Organization, have a particular concern about the creation of a distinct state of Khalistan. But he said that it is doing so by peaceful means and not by any kind of violence or any kind of terrorism.
In response to this question the Minister declared:
There is a small minority within the Sikh community in Canada that is running not only against the rules of order of Canada but that is running against the preferences of the great majority of Canadians of Sikh origin. We cannot leave that great majority of Sikhs without support. We need to support them and we need to do it evidently. The Hon. Member needs to do it, I need to do it and my colleague needs to do it. That is what both she and I were doing this past weekend.
Let me say that the Minister and his Department have not been doing that "evidently". He has been adamant in his refusal to appear before the standing committee, or at least he was through to the meeting this morning. He is preoccupied with security considerations and with charges of terrorism against organizations and their members. The Government of Canada has in fact not followed the advice which the Minister himself was giving to us today.
The concern that I am expressing goes far beyond concern about a letter, three organizations, and advice given so gratuitously. The Department of External Affairs has intervened in all manner of areas relating to the Canadian Government and the Canadian Sikh community.
In discussions with the former Secretary of State, the now resigned the Member for Rosedale, Mr. Crombie, when I congratulated him in the House for having created the Chair for Sikh Studies and having provided funding from the federal Government to match community contributions, he alluded to
May 19, 1988

the pressure that had been put on by the Department of External Affairs and by the security agencies of this country in opposition to that.
The Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, which ought to be that organization of moderate Sikhs if there is to be such a national organization, has been denied any funding for a couple of years. It has been forced into the basement of a Canadian Sikh because of lack of funds to carry on its endeavours.
As the Minister stated, if it were true that the Government of Canada was supporting those organizations against which no charges have ever been made, and if it were doing the correct thing for the Sikh community as a whole instead of expressing in one way and another the suspicion of Sikhs generally about what the Government of India wants these days, then I would have less reason to be here this afternoon protesting.
There are the most serious actions being taken by the Government of Canada in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a leader. Those actions destabilize the community, cause difficulties, and create a lack of harmony among the ethnocultural communities in Canada.
This is a most serious matter. I hope that whoever responds to this on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs might be equipped to take my message back to the Department, because I am very much afraid whatever I am going to be given in the next few moments will be some more claptrap and preoccupation with one small point, quite missing large national realities and multicultural issues of the most far-reaching significance to the Canadian people.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member, and I assure him that the Department will be advised of the new points he raised tonight.
It is important to stress at the outset that the letters sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to the Premiers were not directed at the entire Sikh community in Canada. The overwhelming majority of Sikhs in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Indeed, the Sikh community has made an enormous and undeniable contribution to Canadian society since the beginning of the century.
It should also be noted that the Minister told the Premiers that it was his view that participation in Sikh community activity by members of Government was valuable for them, both in keeping abreast of the interests of the Sikh community and in encouraging that community to participate fully in Canadian life.
The letters of the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred only to three groups which exist largely or exclusively to promote the creation of an independent Sikh state in India known as Khalistan. Some members of some of these groups have advocated violent means to achieve their ends. It is the
Adjournment Debate
advocacy of violence which is of greatest concern. The Canadian Government cannot remain silent when individuals or organizations threaten violence to achieve the dismemberment of a country with which Canada has friendly relations. Hence, the Minister's letters asked provincial Premiers to do no more than avoid appearing at events and activities organized by those groups.
It was not suggested that politicians avoid receiving or meeting with any individuals, no matter what views they may espouse. It is the attendance or participation in events or functions sponsored by those three organizations which is of concern. When political leaders openly associate with such groups, whether they intend to or not, they lend credence and support to the objectives for which those organizations stand. Moreover, those organizations have taken advantage of politicians attending their functions, for example, by having them photographed under the "Khalistan" flag.
If the situation were reversed, most Canadians would strongly object, as would the Canadian Government, to leaders of other countries giving support to anyone who promoted the dismemberment of Canada, particularly through violent means. In such circumstances Canada would certainly seek to have the Government of that country not give or be seen to give, any type of support to such activities.
Finally, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible for developing foreign policies which benefit all Canadians, as well as for providing advice and guidance on those policies. It would be an abdication of those responsibilities if the Minister were simply to ignore a matter which has serious foreign policy implications for Canada's relations with a friendly Government such as India on an issue which it regards as being vital to its national survival.
FISHERIES-REPORTED SPILL OF SULPHURIC ACID INTO STRAITS OF GEORGIA/PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO CONTAIN EFFLUENT


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to elaborate on a matter that was raised in the House some time ago. It concerned an environmental spill in the Strait of Georgia from the Crown Forest Products operation outside Campbell River. The matter involved the spill of approximately 30 tonnes of 97 per cent sulphuric acid into the Strait of Georgia. The matter was not reported.
There are several things which can be learned from this experience. The first thing is that the matter was reported some time later by employees of the operation to the provincial Ministry of the Environment, to the federal Ministry of the Environment, and to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the subsequent examination of this matter the people at Fisheries and Oceans who examined the question did not report back to the employees. There is a very energetic environmental committee in that operation, and to date they have had some less than exciting results in attempting to relate to management on important matters of environmental concern in that pulp and paper operation. It is incumbent upon

May 19, 1988
Adjournment Debate
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, and all federal government Departments concerned with enforcing environmental matters, that they recognize and respect employee environmental committees. After all, this is an important source of information.
It is my hope that there will be a recognition and a statement by the Minister that, any time a matter is reported by an individual or an organized group concerned about the environment, not only the company will be consulted about the matter but indeed the employee environmental committees will be contacted, briefed on the findings, and encouraged at any point to report any further concerns they may have.
There are environmental committees working in a large number of pulp mills on the coast of British Columbia. They provide a very important service to the employees who work in the pulp and paper industry and in the specific operations. In fact, they provide a service to the management and owners of those operations, as well as to the people who live in the area and who are concerned about the environment.
It is my hope that the Minister will not overlook this, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) will write to the chairperson of the environmental committee of the Crown Forest Operation in Campbell River, and that indeed regional officials will brief that committee on the outcome of the examination of the spill and will work closely with it in their future endeavours to make the environment in that area safer and cleaner.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the matter of an acid spill in British Columbia at the Crown Forest pulp mill near Campbell River was raised in the House some three weeks ago. I would like to take this opportunity to outline our understanding of the spill and the steps taken by officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in response to the incident. I might also add that officials of Environment Canada co-operated with DFO in a joint review of the spill.
As the matter is currently being investigated under the authority of the federal Fisheries Act, I am sure Members will appreciate that, in order not to jeopardize the investigation, only a overview of the incident can be presented at this time.
Information that a spill of acid had occurred at the Crown Forest Ltd. pulp mill near Campbell River, B.C. was first brought to the attention of DFO on April 20, 1988. This information was passed on to the Department by a concerned mill employee. Details of this spill were provided to officials of the Province of B.C. by the company on April 22, 1988. The brief summary I will give you now is based principally on those details provided by the company.
On March 25, 1988 sulphuric acid spilled or, as the company prefers to indicate, "leaked" into a sewer over about a three-hour period. This loss of acid apparently occurred
following repairs to a pump in the mill when a pump drain was left open allowing the acid to escape into the mill's effluent sewer system. The acid flowed from the mill's sewer system into the marine environment through an underwater mill effluent diffuser in Discovery Passage, part of the Straits of Georgia.
The company has estimated the loss of acid to be approximately 31 tons or 3,700 gallons. The company concluded that this acid, which was discharged over a three-hour period, along with regular mill effluent through its effluent diffuser, would not have any environmental impact. For this reason the company did not consider it necessary to report this spill immediately either to provincial or federal authorities. However, to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents, the company has reviewed operating procedures in the mill and is considering the installation of a pH alarm system in its control room and another alarm system within the mill where the leak occurred to detect leaks anywhere in the acid storage area.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, federal officials were not notified of the incident until almost one month after the event. Because of this significant delay, an environmental impact assessment of the spill could not be carried out. Nonetheless, an investigation of the incident was conducted by both DFO and Environment Canada. DFO has asked Environment Canada to review the spill reporting procedures at this mill to determine if procedures or works, additional to those proposed by the company, are required to prevent future spills and to ensure proper spill reporting. I am pleased to report that the company has now agreed to report all spills of this nature in the future.
I would like to assure this House that the Department takes seriously all spills of hazardous chemicals that might occur not only at pulp mills but also at other industrial facilities. For this reason DFO, in concert with Environment Canada and provincial authorities, will continue to respond to and investigate spill events that could affect fishery resources and take appropriate action in response to such spills.
I would also at this time like to thank my colleague for the further information and points that he has raised this evening. I can assure my hon. colleague that the Minister will be advised of his points, and a response will be given on what action the Minister deems necessary.



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Adjournment Debate will be suspended to the call of the Chair.
May 19, 1988

At 6.05 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall resume debate but do so very briefly.
The motion to ajourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 20, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers