1988-06-14

Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to 34 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4511, 3324525 to 332-4529 inclusive; 332-4536, 332-4549, 332-4550, 332-4562, 332-4571, 332-4584, 332-4590, 332-4596, 3324602, 332-4645, 332-4647, 332-4651, 332-4652, 332-4705, 332-4719, 332-4749, 332-4750, 332-4757, 332-4758, 332-4762 to 332-4768 inclusive; 332-4775, and 332-4781.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Sixty-fourth Report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE- PRESENTATION OF FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.

The committee recommends that we continue to use every available means to provide emergency humanitarian aid to Ethiopia but that, unless the International Red Cross is allowed back into the area along with other international organizations, Canada allow no new government-to-govern-ment bilateral aid to Ethiopia.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


RAILWAY ACT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an Act to amend the Railway Act (delimiting telephone areas).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill I have the honour of tabling in the House today is to authorize the Governor in Council to instruct the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, commonly referred to as the CRTC, to harmonize the costs of telephone services within a given socio-economic region.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the entire matter of longdistance charges is governed by three criteria, namely, commonality of interest, contiguity and distance. These traditional criteria create regional disparity and inequity among citizens in the same region, and the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that within the same socio-economic region, Canadians will not have to pay long-distance charges when they have to make calls within these cities.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?

June 14, 1988
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Gabriel Fontaine: If the House agrees, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise):
That the sixty-fourth report of the Striking Committee, presented to the
House earlier, be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of constituents who believe that the Government lacks a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that the proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability as a country to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
There are a number of other points which I will simply bypass in order to get on with the Leaders' speeches. The basic line of the petitioners is that they are asking that Parliament now dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity either to accept or to reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce two petitions from the residents of Spadina and nearby.
The first petition concerns immigration and the promise made several times by the Minister that unmarried sons and
daughters of all ages will be considered as members of the family class of immigrants. As well, it has been promised for two years that the Government would remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more, the distinction between them in regard to sponsoring their parents of any age. These promises have not yet been fulfilled. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada cal! upon the House to ensure that the Government fulfil these promises now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, this petition from Spadina and nearby is from citizens who are concerned that the Government, without a mandate from the Canadian people, is negotiating and trying to conclude a trade deal with the United States which would compromise Canadian sovereignty and deny Canadians the opportunity to develop our economy on our natural resource base without gaining access to the American market.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement in a national general election.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions on the same subject. I am pleased the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is in the House today. These petitions are from people in Port Alberni, Delta, Mission and Vancouver, British Columbia. Again, it concerns the high incidents of crime, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, committed with knives. This is on the increase in all major cities across Canada.
Whereas the federal Criminal Code and court decisions allow citizens to carry knives for self-defence, and the carrying of knives is directly responsible for knives being used in a variety of crimes, the petitioners ask Parliament to amend the federal Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places. The only exceptions would be those whose use of a knife is integral to legitimate work or those carrying a knife for religious reasons, such as is in the case of Sikhs.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition from the Town of Stayner, Ontario, in the riding of Grey-Simcoe, signed by many citizens who call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of extremely rare situations in which abortion is performed in order to save the life of a mother.
I am pleased to be associated with and fully support this petition.
June 14, 1988


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, if questions 291, 292 and 293 could be passed as orders for returns, these documents could be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House wish to consider questions 291, 292 and 293 as orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

MCCLELLAND & STEWART LTD.


Mr. Shields: Since April, 1968, have (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts been provided by any department, agency, board, commission, council or Crown corporation of, or associated with, the government to McClelland and Stewart Publishing of Toronto or other McClelland and Stewart enterprises and, if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (if) in what amount (til) for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Mr. Shields: Since April, 1968, have (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts been provided by any department, agency, board, commission, council or Crown corporation of, or associated with, the government to Key Porter Publishing of Toronto or other Key Porter enterprises and, if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (it) in what amount (iff) for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Mr. Shields: Since April, 1968, have (a) grants (*) loans (c) loan guarantees (d) contracts been provided by any department, agency, board, commission, council or Crown corporation of, or associated with, the government to Prairie Publishing of Winnipeg or other Prairie Publishing enterprises and, if so, how many and, in each case (i) on what date (It) in what amount (it'i) for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.


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


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982-
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is affirmed.
(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:
[Stage Direction]
June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"25.(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:

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

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

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

[Stage Direction]
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
IOIB.	(1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
IOIC.	(1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
IOID.	Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
IOIE.	(1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"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:
June 14, 1988

[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;
(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."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Constitution Amendment, 1987

[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 amendments of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra, p. 15617), Mr. Broadbent, (p. 15618), Mr. Caccia, (p. 15618), Mr. Johnston, (p. 15618) and Mr. Roman, (15620).
Mr. Speaker:: Continuing debate. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, one year ago the First Ministers of Canada signed the Meech Lake Accord. It was a rare and memorable occasion in the history of our country. For the first time in living memory there was unanimous agreement on a major constitutional amendment. For the first time in a generation there was an answer to that troubling and difficult question; What does Quebec want? For the first time in a decade, we were able to see the way ahead to the next stage of our constitutional evolution as a people.
No one who was there in the old railway station that day will ever forget that day, the great sense of joy, the great sense of pride in our country.

As it happened, Mr. Speaker, the sentiment of June 3, 1987 was summed up by the next day's banner headline in Le Devoir, and I quote;
Le Canada dit oui au Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Accord reflects our history in that it recognizes the linguistic duality of Canada, and Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada, within the federation-those are key words in the document-while affirming the equality of the provinces. It reflects the aspirations of our people in the recognition that indeed in our judgment there is room enough for all of our citizens to affirm their identity as Canadians. It reflects the reality of our country, this vast, magnificent land stretching thousands of miles from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia, a federation in which the diversity of our regions very much contributes-not damages-very much contributes to our national interest. There are some of the realities about Meech Lake; a sense of history, a sense of country, and a sense of reality.
I am the first to acknowledge that the Meech Lake Accord is not perfect, but we will leave to others the theories of constitutional perfection. We had to deal with the Canada that was left to us with Canada as it is, and that is a Canada that, in 1982, achieved the patriation of its Constitution and the entrenchment of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms without the assent of Quebec, principal home of one of our two official
June 14, 1988
language communities which gave rise to Canada, the existence of our country at the very beginning. As a result, the 1982 Constitution Act, which I have no hesitation in acknowledging had been intended as an instrument of unity, had become the opposite even before the ink was dry. This was a deep and a lasting wound on the body politic of our country.
In fact, by deciding to proceed without Quebec, and this was a value judgment that was made, the federal Government of that day ensured, first of all, that any attempt to reintegrate Quebec would take place in isolation in the future, any Prime Minister or any Parliament called upon to deal with this festering problem would have to do so in isolation, thereby depriving the federal Government of the flexibility inherent in a comprehensive negotiation. Because of this isolation, any formula to bring Quebec into the Constitution could be portrayed as giving in to Quebec or giving up too much for Quebec.
Not only was Quebec isolated in 1982, but the prospects of future constitution reform were also effectively blocked. That was the situation we inherited at Meech Lake and that, Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to say was the situation that we remedied at Meech Lake on behalf of a united Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now the hurt of 1981 will be healed at last and the country whole again will be able to move on to the constitutional, social, and economic challenges of a new decade and a new century.
Much has been said and written about the Meech Lake Accord in the year since the First Ministers signed the document. Hearings have been held, speeches have been made and reports have been published, but nothing that I have heard or read persuades me that the Accord should be reopened. We said, in fact, that we would reopen the Accord if an egregious error were found in it. None has been found.

I am more persuaded than ever that the Meech Lake Accord is a valuable instrument of healing for Canada. And I am quite persuaded of the urgency for all Hon. Members of moving ahead with the immediate ratification process.
I will not have it said of this House and this generation of Canadians that we allowed this opportunity for national reconciliation to pass. Quebec has said yes to Canada twice, in the referendum of 1980, and in adopting the Meech Lake Accord in the National Assembly in 1987. But once before, in 1981, Quebec was left isolated and alone; we must not allow that to happen again in 1988. It is time, once and for all, for the rest of Canada to say yes to Quebec. And the way to do so is to proceed with ratification of the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this House and remaining legislatures to do so. Then we can at last turn this page in our history, and get on to the next chapter in our constitutional development. Our constitution is indeed a document for the ages, but it is
June 14, 1988

not cast in stone. Our nation's constitutional development did not end with the British North America Act of 1867. It did not end with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. It did not end with the Constitution Act of 1982. And it will not end with the Meech Lake Accord of 1987. At every stage of our constitutional history, as we have settled the agenda of one generation, we have gained the freedom to move onto the next.

And so it was, Mr. Speaker, after the BNA of 1867 which settled the powers of the federal Government and the provinces and established the goal of "peace, order and good government" in the management of our national affairs; and so it was after the statute of Westminster of 1931 which saw our nation achieve autonomy in the conduct of foreign affairs; and so it was after the Constitution Act of 1982 which saw patriation of our Constitution and the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and in the next round which will take place, Mr. Speaker, just as surely as summer follows spring in Canada, we will deal with the outstanding issues of Senate reform, aboriginal rights, and enhancing the role of linguistic and cultural minorities in Canada.
Are we as a Parliament, as a people, to hold Quebec's constitutional reintegration hostage to the pursuit of perfection in these other areas? Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Surely, we have a much better chance to improve our Constitution with Quebec as a full participant at the constitutional table. Surely, no Government in its right senses would try to proceed to these other issues without the participation of Quebec.
The Meech Lake Accord is entirely consistent with our constitutional character as a nation. It affirms the federal nature of Canada. Since Confederation there has been a constitutional division of powers and responsibilities and obligations in Canada. And the discussions that led to the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord culminate over 20 years of constitutional debate. The Accord builds on the constitutional discussions of 1968 to 1971. It builds on the constitutional exercise of 1975 and 1976, and on Bill C-60 in 1978. It builds on the negotiations that followed the referendum in 1980, as well as the patriation exercise in 1980 and 1981.
[DOT] (U30)
We have gained much in the Meech Lake Accord in the national interest and for the benefit of all Canadians. We have gained the signature of Quebec on our Constitution, ending its divisive and potentially dangerous estrangement from our constitutional family. In the process, we have strengthened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because, for the first time, Quebec has accepted its moral significance and political legitimacy. That means that all the laws of Quebec will be subjected to the Charter, and the Charter will be interpreted in light of Quebec's distinctiveness, as it is now interpreted in light of Canada's multicultural and aboriginal heritage. We have broken out of the constitutional strait-
Constitution Amendment, 1987
jacket, the dead-end, and gained the ability to move on to the next stage of constitutional reform.
Since 1982, constitutional reform has been effectively blocked. By way of illustration four difficult and challenging and important conferences on aboriginal rights ended in failure in some considerable measure because Quebec declined to participate actively. With the return of Quebec we have increased the chances of success very greatly at a future conference dealing with the outstanding issue of aboriginal self-rule. Surely, if there is one group of Canadians which needs and deserves that degree of justice and equality of opportunity it is our aboriginal peoples. The Meech Lake Accord makes justice much more possible for each and every member of our aboriginal communities across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As for our official language minorities, English-speaking in Quebec and French-speaking in the rest of Canada, we have affirmed not only their vital presence but the role of the provinces to preserve their rights. This is in addition to minority rights entrenched in the Charter. These are first-class Canadian citizens with full Canadian citizenship wherever they live. The role of the federal Parliament and the Government of Canada to protect minority rights at all times wherever those minorities live remains a moral and a legal obligation of the Government of Canada.
When we say that the provinces have a role in preserving minority language rights, we will work for that in the broad, generous sense of that word.

We in the Federal Government will continue to "promote" as well as preserve the rights of official languages minorities, through instuments such as Bill C-72, the amendments to update and strengthen the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we concluded an agreement with the Governmnet of Saskatchewan, providing assistance to improve the situation of the 25,000 Francophones who live in that province. That is a tangible sign of our duty and our obligation with respect to linguistic minorities throughout Canada.
In some circles, Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake has been extraneously and erroneously linked with recent events in Saskatchewan. Indeed, that has often been tried with the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake accord was not in effect in 1886. It was not in effect in 1905. It is not yet in effect in 1988. For our linguistic minorities, the Accord means that their rights have been afforded an added measure of constitutional recognition-a "major step in the right direction" in the words of Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987

The Accord for the first time affirmed the authority of the Parliament of Canada to launch programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. We have affirmed the federal character of the Supreme Court of Canada which is, in my judgment, entirely consistent with its ultimate role as the final arbiter of Confederation. Even more so, with its expanded role in interpreting the Charter it is entirely appropriate that the provinces play a role in submitting nominations for Supreme Court justices. It is entirely in accordance with reality.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to compare short lists of the federal Government with the provinces and the bar for this position you would no doubt find in almost every circumstance almost entirely the same names. But the national Government decides in all circumstances and therefore has the absolute and final say.
With respect to the Senate, pending effective reform, we have struck an interim agreement that also reflects the federal character of the upper Chamber in this federation. Vacancies will be filled by Ottawa from lists of competent people submitted by the provinces.
With respect to immigration, which promises to be a central public policy issue for many years to come, both in terms of economic development and social justice, we have also reaffirmed the federal nature of this issue.
Finally, we have institutionalized and constitutionalized the annual First Ministers Conference on the economy which we began in Regina in 1985. This annual meeting on the economy has proven to be an invaluable instrument of policy planning and co-ordination between Ottawa and the provinces and has introduced new discipline into the budgetary planning process.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a unitary state. Regardless of what some people claim, Ottawa is not the omniscient, omnipotent source of wisdom and power in this land. There are those who say that too much has been given to obtain Quebec's signature. And there are those in Quebec who say that we have not conceded enough. On the one hand, you have those who regard themselves as being in sole possession of the truth, who have always treated Quebec's legitimate aspirations with ill-concealed contempt. On the other hand, you have those who have always rebuffed sincere efforts at reconciling Quebec's legitimate needs with the national interest, whose only interest in constitutional discussions is to sever links with the rest of Canada. And somewhere in between, Mr. Speaker, you have the vast majority of people who regard Quebec as their home, but Canada as their country.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, you have the vast majority of Englishspeaking Canadians in other provinces who want Quebecers to feel at home in Canada.

The Meech Lake Accord reflects that idea and that reality of Canada. Opponents of the Meech Lake Accord would have Canadians believe that it somehow represents a decentralizing thrust when in fact it is a pragmatic representation of the reality of our country.
Compromises were made at Meech Lake, honourable compromises to improve as well as reflect the situation we inherited. But nowhere at Meech Lake have we made compromises as significant as those that were made in 1982.
In 1982, Canada achieved patriation and an entrenched Charter of Rights but only at the price, the tremendous price, of a notwithstanding clause. So while the most fundamental rights of Canadians were guaranteed in 1982, the federal Government agreed that Parliament or provincial legislatures could override these fundamental rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Nowhere in the Meech Lake Accord is there a compromise or a concession of the magnitude agreed to by the federal Government in 1982.


Mr. Waddell:: There is still a notwithstanding clause.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Rather than criticize and live in the past, we tried to build on the good, and there was much good about the process in 1982. We accepted the advances that came from 1982 and moved on as a nation to the challenge of some day together, all Parties and all Leaders, completing the work of Confederation, which brought us to Meech Lake.
[ Translation]
We have affirmed the linguistic duality of our nation, and the distinctiveness Quebec brings to our country. This constitutional arrangement simply reflects reality. Not that Quebec is special, just that it is different and, distinct within Canada. Language and culture in particular give rise to this fact.
We do not close our eyes to Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada, rather we embrace it, for it enriches our national culture, and strengthens our national identity as Canadians on the northern half of this continent.
The Meech Lake Accord acknowledges the distinctive character of Quebec, while upholding the principle of equality of all the provinces. The other arrangements contemplated by Meech Lake are equally consistent with the constitutional evolution and the practical reality of Canada.

On spending power, for example, while affirming the federal prerogative, we provided for opting out with compensation for provinces which meet national objectives in programs of their own. However, opting out with compensation is not a new idea.
June 14, 1988

It was not dreamed up at Meech Lake. Prime Minister Pearson first introduced the possibility of opting out of shared cost programs through the Established Programs Act of 1965. This applied to matters such as hospital insurance, old age assistance, the welfare portion of unemployment insurance, and vocational training. This is nothing new. Under these conditions social programs have been established in the past, they are being established in the present, and they will continue to be developed for the national good in the future.
With regard to the role of provinces in the appointment of Senators, Members will recall the federal Government's Bill C-60 in 1978, 10 years ago, which envisaged that half of the Senate appointments would be made by the provinces acting alone. Under the Meech Lake Accord the provinces can appoint none. They simply have the right to submit lists of competent candidates with the decisions in all cases being made by the federal Government. That is a far cry from the concession made by a federal Government 10 years ago.
As for the Supreme Court, and this interests every Member of Parliament very much, Members will recall that at the Victoria Conference in 1971 the federal Government proposed a provincial role in nominations. The federal Government would not have retained the final say over who was appointed. This is part of what transpired. This is not something that we dreamed up at Meech Lake. This is calling back on parts of our history.
The immigration provisions of Meech Lake entrench the essential features of the Cullen-Couture agreement of 1977 entered into by the Government of Canada. Let me quote an analysis not of a Member of this House, not of a political supporter, but a very distinguished jurist who exercises his power in another jurisdiction, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Hon. Ian Scott. He analysed the last 10 or 15 years, and this was his assessment:
Most of these proposals, including those advanced by the federal Government prior to 1981, would have established a far greater role for provincial
Governments than is provided for in the Meech Lake Accord itself.
I think the analysis of Attorney General Scott is one that all Members of Parliament from all Parties in every jurisdiction should read very, very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord, like all previous constitutional amendments, is not without its imperfections. Our Constitution is being improved with Meech Lake, and it can be improved in the future. I believe we can all be assured of that. The Meech Lake Accord incorporates improvements to the Constitution Act of 1982, just as the 1982 law brought improvements to the BNA Act. At each stage of our constitutional development, we have improved our constitutional structure. All Members of all Parties in this House can properly feel proud of this achievement. With Meech Lake, we have achieved the best possible arrangement under the circumstances. We are correcting the grave historical error of Quebec's absent signature, and we have obtained it on terms
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that are consistent with our history and our constitutional evolution. As Prime Minister of Canada, as Leader of my political Party, I am proud of the Lake Meech Accord.

Canada is one of the world's youngest nations but one of the world's oldest democracies. It is a country with an Atlantic heritage and a Pacific perspective. It truly is a land for tomorrow, perhaps the most bountiful and blessed country on the face of the earth. In this beloved country, which has been enriched by wave after wave of immigrants coming from around the world to build a tolerant and splendid new society on the northern half of this continent, the Meech Lake Accord brings us together as a people. That is our point of departure with Meech Lake, building one Canada, united and strong.
What is it that we all have in common? The answer is simple. All Members of this House, of whatever Party, whatever region, whatever background or whatever religion, are all Canadians and we all very much love our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is always with a sense of pride and responsibility that I take part in a debate on the fundamental law of our country. Like the Fathers of Confederation and those Canadians who succeeded them in this chamber, we must meet the challenge of having our collective identity and values reflected in our Constitution. We are at an important stage in the constitutional evolution of our country. I am Canadian. I am proud to be Canadian. That is why I have dedicated a large part of my life to serve my country as an elected representative. I do so because I want to build a Canada that is stonger, a Canada that is more just, a Canada that is more equitable, a Canada that is more united. I do so because I want to continue the Liberal tradition, but more importantly, because we must shape the future of Canada. In this regard, I have always been concerned with Constitutional issues and the unity of our contry.
I admit that I am not the first or the only one to promote excellence, harmony and Canadian unity. The fondamental law of this country, the Constitution, flows from and reflects the perpetual evolution of our nation. Constitutional evolution proceeds as a result of initiatives that flow from the needs and aspirations of our society. Each time, we search for excellence. Each time, we make progress. But each time we undertake such an exercise we are bluntly reminded that perfection is out of our reach. But I believe firmly that we must always persist. We should never be discouraged. The constitutional initiative we are looking at today is unrelated to the ones that have come before, nor is it different.
The objective of this initiative, to return Quebec to the Great Canadian constitutional family, is not only noble, it is absolutely essential. That is why I support it energetically. That is also why I am working energetically to improve it.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
The whole history of our country is one of meeting great challenge and reaching historic compromise. In founding a parliamentary democracy the Fathers of Confederation recognized that a federal state, with powers shared between the provinces and the central Government, would best respect regional distinctiveness and yet ensure a strong national identity. There has been a perpetual ebb and flow in the powers of the provinces and the federal Government. The British North America Act of 1867, which defined that relationship was amended and refined many times to reflect the evolving priorities of our country.
There are two views of Canada which compete for dominance whenever we discuss the constitutional reform. One is the sense of a very centralized country, one Canada. The other is a concept of a very loose Confederation, such as a community of communities or the idea of deux nations. I see the Constitution differently. These two polarized and conflicting views do not reflect the whole debate, nor do they represent the sum total of constitutional discussion in this country. I have always believed in a balanced federalism, a federalism which is in equilibrium, a Canadian federalism. That has always meant to me a strong federal Government and strong provincial Governments operating in their own jurisdictions. Canada has one flag, but it does not fly only over Ottawa. Neither is it a patchwork of provincial emblems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that the test which must be met by any proposal to alter our Constitution is not "does it serve this or that level of government?" There is a higher test. The questions that must be asked are: "Does it respect the principles upon which this nation was founded? Does it enhance national unity? Will it work?"
Canada is a great tapestry. Through its intricate weave there are many competing strands, but there are five strands that are essential to the whole. The first is our sense of Canadianism, our love of country, deeply rooted in our history, our geography and our unique environment. The second is our linguistic duality and Quebec's place as the primary, though not the exclusive, source of the French language in Canada. The third is our aboriginal heritage. The fourth is the multicultural nature of Canadian society. The fifth is the paramountcy of individual rights over the powers we have given to Governments. I believe we must constantly review and renew each of these strands; our sense of belonging to this vast land; the essential role of our two founding languages, the special place of our first peoples; the rich and diverse legacy of those who have freely chosen to become Canadian; and the primacy of the individual in Canadian society.
In amending our Constitution, we must always be aware that the Canadian identity can only be preserved by strengthening and not weakening these continuing strands.
The genius of Confederation in 1867 was that it gave us a living document which could evolve to respond to the changing expectations of our people. The British North America Act in 1867 was not a perfect document. It was a compromise. It had several flaws, most notably the flaw that it could not be amended by Canadians in Canada.
Our constitutional evolution began almost immediately. Our country grew and expanded. It moved west and north. We created new provinces out of existing territories. We built an infrastructure quite deliberately to hold this vast and extraordinary nation as one. We built a railway. We established a postal service. We built a national highway. We created a great national public broadcasting system. We created a national airline. We put in place a national unemployment insurance scheme, a national pension plan and a national medicare plan. We heightened the dream of a fair, independent and sovereign Canada.
For nearly 50 years following Confederation there was a strong pull to decentralize this country. Many of the constitutional decisions of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in Great Britain strengthened provincial rights, but when we were faced with national emergencies in the Depression and the two great wars, it became clear that only with a strong national Government could we respond to those challenges. Then, of course, the courts began to reflect that understanding.

[ Translation]
Canada did not achieve full independent nationhood in 1867. It was only with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 that we achieved control over our own foreign policy. It was only in 1949, that our Supreme Court became the final court of appeal in all legal matters, replacing the judicial committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain.
But the goal of complete independence from Britain was still to be achieved. We were still obliged to seek the approval of the Parliament of Westminster for any amendment to our Constitution.
This question was resolved when our Constitution was patriated in 1982. However, this enormous step forward was made without the participation of Quebec. Quebec is a full-fledged partner in our Confederation and must be a full-fledged participant in our evolution as a country.
The question of Quebec's place in the Canadian federation lies at the very heart of our existence as a nation. All too often the aspirations of French-speaking Canadians were met by a wall of indifference. The Riel crisis, the Manitoba school question, Regulation 17 in Ontario and conscription were the source of many French-English tensions. The Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism set up by Prime Minister
June 14, 1988

Pearson in the 1960's sounded the alarm: the country would face serious difficulties if there was no fundamental reform.
In Victoria in 1971, the Liberal government, of which I was Minister of Justice, tabled a proposal which I believe remains a model of political consensus. All ten provinces agreed to an arrangement which recognized the linguistic duality of this country and provided an amending formula which gave a veto right to Quebec and to each of this country's other regions. But the Victoria agreement collapsed almost immediately. Quebec withdrew its support in response to mounting pressure from within that province. It was already clear that the feelings provoked by the constitutional debate were running so high that they could no longer be ignored.
The election of a Parti Quebecois government a few years later crystalized the debate on the future of Quebec in Confederation. A polarization of ideas rapidly developed. That division culminated in the Referendum Debates. The debate was difficult for Quebecers and for many Canadians as well. It pitted family against family, and friend against friend.
At an important point in the debate, Prime Minister Trudeau delivered an historic speech at the Paul Sauve arena. He told thousands of Quebecers that if they rejected the seduction of independence and opted for Canada there would be a renewed federalism. His message was very clear. And it was clearly understood. On the day of the vote, a majority of Quebecers, and a majority of French Quebecers, said a resounding "Yes" to Canada.
Long after referendum day the wounds and the scars were still evident. Friendships had been broken. Dreams had been shattered. But the promise of a renewed federalism remained well alive in the hearts of Quebecers.
After a long and difficult round of negotiations the constitutional agreement of 1982 was proclaimed. It was both historic and essential. We, as Canadians, finally patriated our constitution with our own amending formula and our own Charter of Rights. Since then Canada can amend its own Constitution without reference to the British Parliament. But the Quebec government did not accept the terms of the agreement. They refused to sign it. A majority of the members of the National Assembly, representing all political parties confirmed the decision of the Quebec government.

Although Quebec, constitutionally and legally, was bound by the Constitution, was bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Quebec was an unwilling partner. The elected representatives of Quebec rejected the constitutional arrangement in 1982 because, among other things, it failed to recognize the distinctive character of Quebec.
One only has to travel to Quebec to realize that it is a province unlike any other. It is the only province where a majority of our citizens speak French. It has its own civil code, it has a special culture, a distinctive flavour. The distinct character of Quebec is a reality which enriches our country.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Because Quebec was not a full partner from 1982 onward, thousands of Quebecers felt a sense of betrayal and a sense of exclusion. That situation could not be allowed to continue. I am proud to lead a Party which took the initiative to end that impasse. In early 1986, on behalf of our Party, I presented new constitutional proposals to do just that. I acknowledged that Quebec did have a distinctive character. I responded constructively to the five proposals presented by the newly elected federalist Government in Quebec. Our response received widespread support in Quebec.
Premier Bourassa characterized our proposals and those responses as constructive, precise and concise. Quebecers generally considered them to be progressive. At St. Hyacinthe, Quebec Liberals embraced my proposals. At our convention in November of 1986, 3,000 Liberal delegates from all across Canada resoundedly endorsed a confirming resolution.
This was a Liberal initiative, it is true, but partisan politics have no place in the process of making it possible for Quebec to join our Constitution, and that is why we depoliticized this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We have always considered it to be a matter transcending differences between political Parties and a subject that challenged each one of us to find a Canadian solution.
The history of recent years has clearly demonstrated that Quebec's absence from the table, even temporarily, impedes any future constitutional development and weakens our country. Indeed, no future constitutional change or reform is possible without the participation of Quebec. Those who oppose Meech Lake as an imperfect document fail to take that into account.
I do not believe that the Meech Lake Accord is the strait-jacket that its detractors paint it to be. It does not extend the unanimity rule to the entire range of constitutional changes, including the division of powers. The distribution of powers can still be changed under the 50 per cent, seven-provinces rule. The unanimity rule in the Meech Lake Accord extends to federal institutions but will not extend much further than it did before. I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), however, that constitutional reform should not be a casual affair carried out in haste in the early hours of the morning. It should be a well conceived, well thought out, well executed, deliberate effort to reinforce Canadian unity. We deeply regret that the Prime Minister missed that opportunity to present Canadians with a more complete set of amendments to the Constitution.
Quebec must be a full partner in the Canadian family, politically, emotionally, and psychologically. It is for this reason that I support the Meech Lake Accord despite its flaws. We do not look to this Accord to solve all the unfinished

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
business of Confederation. That being said, we still believe that it could have been a better document.

Mr. Speaker, when the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Accord presented its conclusions, our party submitted a minority report. In it we proposed changes which would considerably improve and enlarge the Meech Lake Accord. These changes reflect the goals and aspirations of all Canadians. We believe that the aboriginal peoples should not be excluded. Most important, they should not be made to feel less important than other Canadians, because this is not the case. We cannot always be proud of the way we have treated our aboriginal peoples. We have ignored and forgotten them too often. Aboriginal peoples should be recognized as constituting a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of the Canadian society. Aboriginal rights should be a priority in constitutional discussions. That is why our amendments propose that the issue of self-government for aboriginal peoples be put on the agenda of the next round of Constitutional discussions.
Mr. Speaker, since the earliest colonization of North America, our country has welcomed people from around the world. Millions of people from every part of the globe continue to join us. They bring with them a set of values and cultures that enrich Canada and make it a better nation. Our Constitution should therefore recognize the contribution of our multicultural communities. We are proud of the multicultural nature of Canada.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands as one of the greatest achievements of our constitutional development, and it must be paramount. The basic rights and freedoms of Canadian men and women must never be diminished. In particular, we must safeguard the equality rights of women as they are enshrined in the Charter. While we believe that the possibility of discrimination is very remote, we want to ensure that our fundamental rights cannot be threatened by imprecise language.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that we believe in an elected Senate. We want to reach this goal in the foreseeable future. I advanced this course in a debate with the Minister of Justice three years ago in this House of Commons when we debated Senate reform. We propose to eliminate the rigid unanimity rule for Senate reform and return to the formula of seven provinces and 50 per cent of our population.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I believe that our current amendment reflects the demographic and territorial facts of our country. Our proposal would accelerate the move from an appointed to an elected upper House. We would have Senators elected now, when vacancies occur rather than appointing them from provincial lists. I believe that the democratic rights
of all Canadians would be strengthened by giving them the power to elect all their national representatives.
Canadians living north of the 60th parallel have been deprived by this Accord of the chance of any future representation in or appointment to the Senate. We propose that the citizens of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have the right, as do all other Canadians, to senatorial representation. We also suggest that the eventual provincehood of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories be resolved, as it has been in the past, solely by the federal Government and the potential province in question.
We believe that the clauses in the Accord dealing with the appointment of Supreme Court justices could lead to an impasse between the federal and provincial governments. Parenthetically, I believe that the Prime Minister was wrong in his analysis of the 1971 Victoria Charter as it related to Supreme Court appointments.
We have, therefore, suggested a solution which would ensure that the Supreme Court has a full complement of judges at all times in the event of an impasse. It would also protect the basic rights of northern Canadians by granting their governments the same rights as the provinces have under the Accord to nominate candidates to the court.
Another area of the Accord which I have studied very carefully is the provision on shared cost programs. It is my view, certainly shared by the Attorney General of Ontario, that the Accord does not basically change the division of powers as they reside in the federal and provincial governments. In so far as it relates to the federal spending power it probably strengthens its power because it explicitly recognizes for the first time that that power can operate within areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Meech Lake Accord specifies that national shared cost programs are to be established by the Government of Canada and that if a province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives it is entitled to reasonable compensation.
We believe that this clause should be clarified to ensure that Parliament sets those national objectives and ensures that there are minimum national standards. We would ensure that the minimum standards are met by the provinces in order to qualify for compensation. I do not believe, however, that allowing provinces to opt out of some federal-provincial programs, as has occurred-and the Prime Minister recited this-in the past, will damage our unity.
We also believe that to put the issue of fisheries on the agenda every year would create unnecessary instability in the fishing industry. Three of the four provincial Governments in the Atlantic region have expressed their deep concern that any transfer of this jurisdiction to the provinces would result in anarchy in the fishing industry in the Atlantic. For that reason we propose that the issue be dealt with once and for all at the
June 14, 1988

first constitutional conference called for within the terms of this Accord.
One of the major thrusts of the Meech Lake Accord was the obligation on the part of provincial governments to preserve minority language rights. This strengthening of bilingualism in itself is a step forward for official language groups and ought to be noted. We in this Party, however, want to offer even more protection to official language minorities by ensuring that Parliament is responsible, not only for preserving, but for promoting the status of official languages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: For this purpose we have introduced an amendment which would allow any province to adhere to this requirement should it choose to do so. All political leaders in this country have an obligation to ensure that the spirit of the Accord is upheld.
The Prime Minister mentioned Saskatchewan. I am deeply disappointed that the Government of Saskatchewan introduced a language law which the Prime Minister admitted to me here in the House of Commons contravened in spirit and in letter the constitutional Accord. This legislative action was taken by a Premier who sat and negotiated at the table. It was introduced into a legislature which ratified the Accord. Yet our Prime Minister praises that Premier. On his visit to Saskatchewan he should have told that Premier to withdraw the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: There are other changes to the Constitution which we have not proposed in our amendments. The reason we have not proposed them in the amendments before Your Honour is that the rules of the House do not permit amendments to parts of the Constitution that are not touched by the Meech Lake Accord. However, these further amendments are part of our constitutional agenda, as are the amendments introduced in the Senate and in the House of Commons in identical language. We would ensure that Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed. That is to say, the notwithstanding clause which allows both levels of Government to enact legislation exempt from some of the most important sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Prime Minister characterized this erroneously, I believe, as a compromise which made 1982 possible. But in any event, the fact that he failed to obtain provincial approval to omit this clause when he had an opportunity to do so underlines his lack of personal commitment to the Charter.
In future constitutional discussions we propose to eliminate the phrase "where numbers warrant" in the clause relating to the administration of minority rights in education. We would rely on the general interpretation clause in the Constitution,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
which would allow schools to be set up in a minority language where that was reasonable.
These are my Party's proposals for constitutional reform. They are the focus of our vision of Canada. They reflect the central realities of our history. They mirror the great tapestry which is our country.
I believe in a federalism in equilibrium. I believe in a balanced federalism. A balanced federalism is the Meech Lake Accord plus the amendments we have submitted to the House. That is the formula for our future. That is the prescription for national unity. That is the formula that responds to the difficulties that have been found in this Accord across the country.
I renew my undertaking to argue for this balanced view here in the House of Commons, across the country, as part of our platform during the next election, and as part of our program when we form a government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I understand that there can be disagreement, but I am going to continue my efforts to persuade those who do not share the vision I have tried to describe of a balanced federalism.
I urge all Members of the House, indeed I urge all Canadians, to accept the fact that constitutional reform is an evolutionary process. The Meech Lake Accord is not ideal. That is true. But it does have the overwhelming advantage to national unity of bringing Quebec to the table and bringing Quebec back to the Canadian family. We have to build on that unity before we move on to any other constitutional reform.
Let us not lose sight of the goal or turn away from the challenge before the House. Let us move forward with purpose toward realizing our dream of building a stronger, more confident, more united Canada. The greatest enterprise we have ever undertaken is this country itself. It is an enterprise which every generation must enhance. It is an ideal for which every generation must strive. It is a dream which every generation must rekindle. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to share that dream. I am proud to stand for a Canada that is sovereign and that is just and, above all, that is united.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, today's debate will have major historic consequences for this country. That is clear. In fact, in the twenty years I have been a Member of this House, few debates have been as important as this one.
In the sixties, Mr. Speaker, Canadians all over the country were asking: What does Quebec want? That was the question in Jonquiere, in Vancouver, in Toronto and in the Prairies. All Canadians were asking the same question. Since then, our history has known some difficulty and I would even say

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
tumultuous times: the October crisis and the federal Government's excessive reaction which lead to the totally unjustified imposition of the War Measures Act; the election in Quebec of a government dedicated to Quebec's independence from the rest of Canada; the referendum in which the majority of Quebecers said yes to Canada; the patriation of the Constitution which gave Canada its own Constitution and its Charter of Rights, but unfortunately isolated Quebec from the rest of Canada; the negotiations that started after the meeting of First Ministers in 1986 in Edmonton, where it was decided that the next constitutional priority would be to include Quebec in the constitutional process, which led to the Meech Lake and Langevin meetings in May and June 1987, which produced the Accord.
Mr. Speaker, what does this Accord give us? Quite simply, it gives us Quebec's answer to the question: What does Quebec want? And the answer is: Quebec wants to take its place proudly within Confederation as a member of the Canadian community, fully participating in our tradition of co-operative federalism. Quebec wants the rest of Canada to reaffirm our history and incorporate, in our Constitution, that which has been unique and distinct since the inception of this country.
That is the very essence of this debate. Mr. Speaker, Quebec has said a clear and decisive yes to Canada, while reminding us of what we really are as a country, and ten provincial Premiers and three federal Parties answered a decisive yes to the concept of a great country with a distinct society.
Like other federal leaders and Members of both sides of the House, I have travelled recently in the Province of Quebec.

It is a fact that the vast majority of Quebecers are very positive about the Meech Lake Accord. It is not just the journalists and politicians in the Province of Quebec. We hear it in the streets of Quebec and in the hearts of the men and women of this province. They are positive about this Accord because they realize that Quebec is not a province like the others, and they like the idea that, at last, the rest of Canada has agreed to include this concept in the Canadian Constitution.

Today, however, I want primarily to direct my comments to Canadians outside the Province of Quebec. I want to explain to them why I believe this Accord is not only good and desirable, but why it is so very important at this precise moment in the history of our country. We have heard a great deal about the terms of this constitutional Accord, and I speak frankly when I say we have heard a lot of nonsense from many parts of our land and from people who, in my judgment, ought to know better or ought to have made an effort to actually read the document before they spoke out. As a consequence, there are
many legitimately perceived misconceptions about this deal, but they are, nonetheless, misconceptions.
There are issues, particularly outside of the Province of Quebec, which have to be addressed and addressed frankly so that the people of Canada will understand that this deal was negotiated in good faith by Premiers who put it on their agenda, and it is accepted in every corner of the Province of Quebec. The people of Canada have to understand that it is good not only for Quebec, but it is good for Newfoundland, Ontario, the Prairies, it is good for all of Canada. We have to understand that.
Many people have said that this Accord drastically changes Canada, that too much has been given away by the federal Government and that the Accord is badly flawed. I want to respond to these arguments because I believe they are fundamentally wrong, and this Accord is fundamentally good. There are those who say that the Accord with its distinct society provision supersedes the Charter. How often have we heard that? How often have otherwise reputable newspapers published, and I speak frankly again, such nonsense? The reality is that courts in Quebec, before this Accord was even written, have referred to the distinct nature of Quebec society in their interpretation of our Charter, and in these judgments, the Charter provisions prevail. They were not abandoned. They prevail in those decisions in Quebec courts, and I say they will prevail in the future. The Charter is not threatened by this Accord.
Professor Peter Hogg of the Osgoode Law School, one of Canada's truly distinguished constitutional scholars, stated quite categorically in his commentary on the Accord:
The new Section 2 does not override the Charter... 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. If the law was contrary to the Charter ... then the law would be invalid.
My Party supported and fought for the Charter in 1980 and 1981. We would not have supported this Accord had we believed the Charter was endangered or diminished. I say that with great conviction. There are those who say that the federal spending power will be diminished or significantly altered as a result of this Accord. As a Leader of a Party which in the past has pioneered medicare in Canada, which led the fight for pensions, social housing and other programs, and which is now involved, along with others, in asserting the need for a national child care program, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this argument, if it turned out to be true, would have been of great consequence for members of my Party. But again, what do we see? In the Accord, we see for the first time the federal Government's right to create shared cost programs in areas that have hitherto been exclusively reserved to the provinces in the written Constitution, which is now to be enshrined in the letter of the law in the Constitution of Canada. That, if anything, is an expansion of the federal authority, not its reduction.
No longer will it be necessary for the federal Government to obtain legitimacy for such action either from past precedent by
June 14, 1988

courts or from the highly contentious use of its spending authority. It will now be written in the Constitution. The federal Government will still have the right to decide where and how and on what terms it spends. It will have the right to attach strings to such a program. It will be the Parliament of Canada that will decide here in this debating Chamber, with all Parties representing all regions of Canada, what the national objectives of such a spending program ought to be.
In so doing, in order to be effective in a federal state, we would have to obtain the co-operation of the Provinces. I repeat once again, we are spending within provincial jurisdictional authority in this kind of activity, and any Government which is sensitive to the legitimate role of the provinces, which does not see the provinces simply as some unfortunate encumbrance around the neck of the central Government, any central Government knows this. Indeed, that is the way we got national programs in the past. It was absolutely essential to obtain crucial provincial support, and that is the kind of approach the New Democratic Party believes ought to be taken. In other words, it will ultimately be a matter of public pressure and political will in deciding whether new social programs are created, just as it was political pressure and political will in the past that led one of my predecessors, Tommy Douglas, and his colleague, Woodrow Lloyd, into action that first brought hospitalization and medicare to the Province of Saskatchewan and, subsequently, because of political pressure, persuasion and argument, we had national programs established in this field.
My Party would not have supported the Accord had we believed that federal Governments would not be able to continue their right of showing this kind of imaginative leadership in the future, whether on child care or some other important aspect of social policy.
There are those who say we are going to create a chequer-board Canada with a variety of social programs. That is another argument that has been trotted out again and again. The Attorney General of Ontario addressed the Ontario Legislative Committee on this subject. I agree with the Prime Minister and would urge every Canadian who is sensitive to the importance of this debate to the future of our country to read the fascinating submission and argumentation on the subject by the Attorney General of Ontario. It is a first rate argument and a first rate scholarship on the history of our Constitution. He said in his address that those who argue against a chequer-board Canada in this sense are more interested in proposing a radical agenda for change in the future of Canada than they are in terms of accurately describing the past reality or the present circumstances.
The truth is that there are already variations in the design and delivery of programs for Canadians in various parts of the country. That is what a federal Constitution, in part, is all about. It is this very flexibility that allowed Quebec, for example, to create the Quebec Pension Plan, which has been regarded not only as a model in this country but as a model in many other countries. Such variations on a theme, if I can put
Constitution Amendment, 1987
it that way, are a reflection of the difference in public pressure and political will of Governments. Residents of Manitoba, under a succession of New Democratic Party Governments, pay no hospitalization premiums, while Canadians living under different political Parties in the Province of Ontario do.
The point I want to make is that it is not the Constitution that requires one thing to be done in one region and a different in another. What is crucial here is the political decisionmaking of the people in any given province. All they have to do, if they do not like the present circumstances in terms of this kind of program, is to vote for a different Party and make sure that their political will is expressed in the legislature of that province.
Meech Lake will not change this. However, neither will it reduce the ability of a federal Government with the will to act boldly and decisively on behalf of all Canadians.
There are those who say that the federal Government lost too much with this Accord. We have heard this argument very often from the same people who, in 1982, said that that Constitution Act was a veritable grab by the federal Government in the provincial domain.
Yet if we look at the situation with care and get beyond the rhetoric, the Accord does not change the division of powers one iota as they are outlined in Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act. In fact, the distinct society and linguistic duality section of the Accord state quite clearly that it does not affect the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces.
As John A. Macdonald noted in 1867, under our Constitution the federal Government retains, in his words, "all the great subjects of legislation". The federal Government retains the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, including the provinces. It retains the residual power which gives it the power to make laws in areas not clearly delegated to the provinces. It retains the extreme power to disallow provincial legislation which, fortunately, has not been used in decades.
It has jurisdiction over, just to name some areas, the military and defence, the money supply, the financial system, the public purse and borrowing, the criminal law and corrections system, trade, commerce and navigation. It retains by virtue of the 1947 Letters Patent the exclusive right to make international treaties. It retains by virtue of the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy the guarantee that in the event that a provincial law is inconsistent with federal law the federal law shall prevail. It retains concurrent powers with the provinces over immigration, agriculture, old age pensions and resource exports. In short, the federal authority to provide leadership in great national issues in the country remains as strong today and will remain as strong after Meech Lake as all Canadians desire it to be.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
What then did the federal Government give up, if I can put it that way? None of these many powers, for sure, which I have just listed. However, provinces will now have the right to nominate appointees to the Supreme Court bench and to the Senate. With respect to the Senate, I dare say Canadians are no more enthusiastic about patronage appointees coming from the provinces than they have been about those coming exclusively from the federal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: On a more important matter, what is wrong in the federal strategy with the provinces having a right to participate in the selection of Supreme Court judges? Surely that change as well as many others was long overdue in our federal Constitution. It is one that we strongly support.
The arrangement arrived at in the Accord is a completely reasonable one. It is an example of the kind of co-operative federalism that my Party has always supported. It is one that we think is desirable in the future.
While giving the provinces a say in a very limited range of federal institutions, it retains for the federal Government the great subjects of legislation that John A. Macdonald wanted and that subsequent federal Governments have used to build railroads, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and to create a vast public transportation system. It retains the power the federal Government used to help create a system of social services that is among the very best in the world.

Finally, Madam Speaker, there are those who say the Accord makes matters worse for minority language communities, this as a result of the unfortunate plan of action adopted by the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Devine, in response to the Supreme Court's decision on the rights of Francophone minorities.
In fact, Madam Speaker, he has opted for diminishing the rights of Francophone minorities in his province, rights which had been conferred on them by the former Northwest Territories Act. Madam Speaker, no one in Canada could in good faith support this kind of action. However, I wish to point out that the Act was adopted before the Meech Lake Accord became law. The Government of Saskatchewan can for the time being proceed, on the basis of this Act, because it contains no constitutional guarantees for language minorities. But there are such guarantees in the Meech Lake Accord.
Under the Meech Lake Accord, the Government of Saskatchewan and the other provincial governments will be required to preserve linguistic minorities. Given the pressures of the media, culture and assimilation that threaten them, preservation of these minorities requires more than the passive support of the provinces.
One might expect the Supreme Court to interpret this commitment to mean that action is required of all provinces,
although the Constitution in its present form does not require them to take any action.

The Accord does not undermine the division of powers. It does not supersede the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not diminish federal spending power. It does not create a chequer-board Canada. It does not give control over the Supreme Court to the provinces. It does not diminish the rights of linguistic minorities.
What it does is complete the job with patriation that was started in 1982 by allowing Quebec to come fully and proudly into the constitutional fold. It allows and, indeed, encourages Quebec to become a full member of the Canadian family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It does that, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and I have all argued today, in a manner that is completely consistent with the best traditions of our country.
It allows us to recognize Quebec's contribution to Canada's history. It recognizes what is already implicit in our law, whether we consider the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act of 1774, the 1867 Constitution Act, Quebec's unique civil traditions, or successive judgments by the Supreme Court of Canada, which all provide historical evidence that Quebec is not a province like the others and is now, and has always been, a distinct society within the Canadian family.

The Accord recognizes a specific historical fact: That Quebec is a distinct society within Canada, with its own language, its own culture, its own history and its own customs, of which it is proud. The Accord recognizes that francophones are the majority in Quebec, but it must be remembered that they are a minority in the other regions of Canada and in North America.
The Accord also recognizes that, while they are proud of being Quebecers, they are also proud of belonging to Canada.
A growing majority of Quebecers believes that the best possible future for Quebec is within Canada. They see this Accord as an integral part of the history of change, social progress and impressive gains of Quebec society expressed in this tradition; Quebec society has developed rapidly since the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
Further, there are many Quebecers, and I wish to underline this today particularly for Canadians living outside the Province of Quebec, for instance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), who feels so strongly that this Accord could represent a last chance of rapprochement between Canada and
June 14, 1988

Quebec that he and others have indicated they would leave public life should it fail to be ratified. Should that happen, Madam Speaker, should we allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers, should we fail to grasp the historic significance of this moment, I believe that future generations of Canadians will live to regret it.
As I see Quebec in my travels, I see Canadians who are nationalists in the tradition of my Party as social democrats, like Robert Cliche; I see nationalists in the Province of Quebec like Robert Bourassa in the tradition of his Party in the Province of Quebec; and I see nationalists in the Conservative nationalist tradition like the Minister of Transport himself. They are uniquely Quebec, yes, and they are strong nationalists-
[ Translation]
... the pride of the Province of Quebec is its culture and language.

-but there are also links with the common philosophical ideology of the rest of Canada.
Therefore, we have an obligation in this country to be aware of the consequences of what we might lose if we do not act. We see in the Province of Quebec men and women of good faith, pride in their province deeply embedded, and particularly I speak today of francophone Quebecers, many of whom were on the "oui" side of the referendum, if we are frank as well, who have said, whether they are Conservatives, Social Democrats, or Liberals, that they want to give Canada a chance because in their hearts they are Canadians and good Quebecers. I say to the rest of Canada that we must listen with care. We must respond with a clear mind and an open heart. We must respond by saying "oui" to the Province of Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In short, we must accept this challenge. We must accept this Accord.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I wish to turn to the amendments my Party has supported and will continue to support. As we stated the last time that the Accord was before the House, and as I have made clear in a letter that I sent out in September, 1987, to the First Ministers and to the Prime Minister we believe that the amendments that we have proposed are fully within the spirit of the Accord, and that they could be adopted without unravelling or upsetting the Accord in any way.
We want fairness for native Canadians, the first peoples in this part of the planet. We want it in the form of guarantees of future conferences on aboriginal self-government. Surely, it ought to have been in the Accord.
We also want fairness for northern Canadians who have lost the right of appointment to federal institutions that Canadians in other parts of our country enjoy. We also want their right to possible provincial status not to be encumbered by the unanimity rule that we find in the Accord.
After having fought long and hard for constitutional recognition of sexual equality in Section 28 of the Charter a few years ago, a number of Canadian women are now concerned that this right might be undermined. By simply adding section 28 to section 16 of the Accord, out of an abundance of caution as we have said, we could provide a reassurance of fairness for Canadian women.
We have every intention of voting for these amendments, and we will continue to press for them after. But if they should fail, we will be strongly supporting the Meech Lake Accord.

With this Accord, Madam Speaker, the future of our country is at stake. On the one hand, we can take this accord and a united country and try to go forward together, to dialogue and discuss together in order to develop a common approach to our country's problems. We can take this Accord and work together to achieve self-determination for native people, a constitutional agreement on the fundamental role of ethnic and cultural minorities, an improved constitutional decision-making process to include guarantees of public participation. And we can talk about removing Section 33. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, we can continue to have the deadlock of years of bad will, a constitutional impasse that existed without the full willing participation of all Canadians, men and women. That is the choice facing us. For my part, I am proud to stand up and be counted among those who say yes to a united Canada. I am proud to say yes to Quebec. I am proud to say yes to a real future as a country.
Madam Speaker, the conquest is past. In our generation, it is time to finally walk together as equals.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
June 14, 1988


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Conservative Government introduced a northern and isolated areas tax deduction program for areas below the 55th Parallel. In doing so, many communities became eligible but still many others were not despite the fact they are quite isolated.
The criteria for an area to be designated isolated are out of touch with reality. For example, the Town of Canso is eligible for the deduction despite the fact that a hospital, museum, library, drugstore, school, et cetera, are to be found there. Meanwhile, areas of the province such as Loch Lomond, where a resident has to travel 30 to 50 kilometres even to find one of those services, are not designated as isolated.
The federal Conservative Government must review the manner in which it designates isolated areas so that equity and fairness are delivered to all rural Canadians.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter sent to Pierre Juneau, President of the CBC, by Dr. Dennis Culver of Elmwood, Ontario. I totally concur with the letter which says:
Dear Mr. Juneau:
On Saturday, May 28th, 1988, I watched The National news together with my children. I noted scenes from a commentary on an abortion symposium being held in Toronto this week. I am of the opinion that the scene of an abortion procedure being actually performed under local anaesthesia was carrying things just a bit too far.
This sleazy kind of reporting has no place in the living rooms of our household. I and a number of other physicians feel that life at all its stages is to be protected, particularly the unborn child, who represents Canadians of today who are most vulnerable.
This promotional film clip from Henry Morgentaler's clinic I find quite distasteful, and I would like some assurances that your reporters will show some responsibility in the future.
It would be most appreciated if the CBC would show some sensitivity to the position that many Canadians are quite appalled by the deliberate destruction of 60,000 unborn Canadians within the presumed safety of their mothers' wombs each year. This is a disgrace.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, one of the big issues before this Parliament is whether the Government should spend $8 billion on nuclear submarines. The Government and Parliament want to hear from Canadians on how they feel about this issue.
I have here a resolution passed by the Vancouver City Council on May 31, 1988:
THAT the Vancouver Members of Parliament, as well as the Minister of National Defence, be advised that council is opposed to the Federal Government spending $8 billion on nuclear submarines when there are so many other pressing needs in our communities, and that there are much greater direct benefits to be realized, including employment creation, from a similar expenditure on a municipal infrastructure program;
The Clerk of the City wrote to me saying that the proposal was rejected because the federal Government had rejected a proposed S14 billion joint federal-provincial-municipal fund for improving municipal infrastructure. It was generally agreed there would be a far greater gains realized by this country from the expenditure of this money on municipal infrastructure rather than on the nuclear submarine program.
This is not a left-of-centre City Council. This is a right-of-centre City Council. They are against spending $8 billion on nuclear submarines, and I think the country is against it as well.

[ Translation]



THE LATE FRANCINE MCKENZIE

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: On behalf of my colleagues from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the late Mrs. Francine McKenzie, the chair person of the Council on the Status of Women, who passed away last week-end.
A woman of superior intelligence, she had fought for women issues with insight and realism until the very last moments of a career cut much too short. She was said to be a pragmatist while remaining a great humanist. She had spent a lot of time on some of our most pressing issues, namely, women's economic equality, security of income and family policy.
Moreoever, under her leadership, feminisim has acquired a new connotation which makes it possible for women's message to be heard and understood by men, something I fully support.
I would not want to omit any reference to the noteworthy and remarkable intervention made by Mrs. McKenzie when she appeared before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada and stated that Quebec women should
June 14, 1988

not fear being deprived of their equality rights within the context of the "distinct society".
To her husband, Mr. Bob McKenzie, a Quebec City parliamentary reporter, to her children and relatives, we wish to offer our deepest sympathy.



BY-ELECTIONS LAC-SAINT-JEAN BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to read this morning that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as a result of the June 20 by-election, might build a $40 million road from Lac-Saint-Jean to James Bay. If the campaign gets any tighter perhaps the Prime Minister might consider sacrificing his pet prison at Port-Cartier by moving it from his riding to Alma in Lac-Saint-Jean, which prison he previously moved from Drum-mondville. Or, he might consider putting the Agence Spatiale in Chicoutimi North, or even testing the nuclear submarines in the deep waters of Lac-Saint-Jean.
Better still, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I should resign my seat in NDG would the Prime Minister call a by-election immediately and promise to build three new senior citizens residences and complete the work on the Lachine Canal and the Port of Montreal? Thank God for by-elections!


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1941, the Soviet Union began its first mass deportation of the Baltic people from the Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
In one night, 60,000 men, women and children were torn from their families and homes and deported to Siberia, loaded like cattle into boxcars. Many died during the long journey. Those who survived were sent to forced labour camps where conditions were primitive, harsh and inhumane. Larger deportations were to follow.
These deportations were but one step in the long process of "Russification" of Soviet occupied countries. Earlier, in 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukrainians were starved to death by a Soviet imposed famine in their own homeland.
On the anniversary of these deliberate acts of genocide the Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian communities in Canada and all over the world join together to commemorate the tragedies their people endured and as a reminder of the need for vigilance in the defence of freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, last night on The Journal, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) stated that the goal of the Conservative Government's defence policy was to ensure increased Canadian responsibility for the defence of Canada. In this respect, Conservatives and New Democrats would appear to be in agreement. Canada does need to assume greater control over its own defence. Unfortunately, the Government's proposal to buy nuclear powered submarines will have the opposite effect.
Nuclear technology or, for that matter, any technology, is not the way to responsible or independent action for global survival. Only policy can do that and, unfortunately, instead of adopting a non-provocative defence posture designed to ensure Canadian security without threatening the security of our superpower neighbours, the Government's proposal will tie Canada even closer to the war-fighting strategies of the United States and to the insecurity for the human race that such thinking involves.
The Minister has rejected policies designed to reduce superpower rivalry. Instead his proposal to purchase nuclear powered submarines will increase our ultimate military and policy reliance on the destabilizing and globally dangerous policies of the United States. That, Mr. Speaker, is not Canadianization as the Minister so fatuously called his policy. It is a Conservative high-tech version of the Liberals' deference to the United States' perception of the world that has strait-jacketed Canadian defence policy since the 1950s.



CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade tabled its 1988 annual policy statement entitled "Clearing the Way for Progress". One of its principal recommendations is that the space agency be located in the National Capital Region.
I fully endorse this recommendation. I have spoken to this effect many times in this House, in Ottawa-Carleton, and

June 14, 1988
across the nation. When you fully understand the role of the space agency, the importance of the space program in the national agenda, and the merits of where the agency can best fulfil its responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, you can only conclude that it has to be located in the National Capital area.
I have and will continue to direct my energies to persuade the front benches of the Government and, indeed, all Members of this House, that this important national agency be located where it can be most effective, in the National Capital area.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Government has a habit of preaching one way and acting in another. In adopting this practice the most recent Minister to join the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse).
In a letter, rich with environmental prose and addressed to Pollution Probe members, dated May 30, 1988, he writes:
We want to work closely with industry and the provinces to enhance
environmental quality.
Yet the same Minister is unwilling to support the Canadian Association of Re-refiners, the people who recycle oil thus practising energy efficiency and sustainable development. In actual fact, re-refiners in Canada are in trouble. Their urgent pleas for assistance from the Ministers of Environment and Energy have fallen on deaf ears.
If the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) believes the words he writes, he should act and act quickly in support of this industry before it is too late. Words and letters of self-praise are not enough.



ABORTION


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the January 28 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Morgentaler case, we now have no abortion law. The consequences of this can be readily seen.
Abortions at Dr. Morgentaler's Toronto clinic are up 33 per cent. Abortions at Dr. Robert Scott's Toronto clinic are up 200 per cent. The Ontario Liberal Government is proposing to use
public moneys to pay for abortions at women's health clinics. Therefore, we should anticipate that the number of abortions will increase dramatically.
Recognizing that abortion is a fundamental issue and that each Member of Parliament has both the privilege and the responsibility of taking a position on such issues, the Government sought the unanimous consent of the House to have a free vote on several different options to give the Government direction in preparing new legislation. Regrettably, the Opposition played petty politics with the lives of the unborn and said "no".
I would urge all my colleagues in the House to treat this issue with the urgency it demands and put the resolutions to debate and a vote as soon as possible.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of South Africa has now been defined as terrorist. How else to describe a Government that would bring to trial and condemn to hang the six black citizens of Sharpeville who are thus held accountable for the actions of a mob?
In most countries people are not held accountable for actions they have not been proven to have caused, but not if you are a black in South Africa.
In most civilized countries the courts do not allow the testimony of confessed liars to bring the innocent to the death chamber, but it is possible if you are black and innocent in South Africa.
Most countries are concerned about being considered a part of the world of nations characterized by humanity, respect for human rights, equality and civilized behaviour. Most such countries would respond to the pleas for clemency of the Sharpeville Six from the leaders of civilized nations of the world, but not South Africa.
In most countries, and this is the greatest error of the six, it is not a capital offence to demand freedom and equality.
As South Africa sinks into the inevitable and violent consequences of the terrorist actions of the regime that rules it, many of the world leaders who plead for the lives of the Sharpeville Six will be burdened by the guilt that they themselves must bear for ignoring the pleas of the 23 million who have asked for action against this terrorist regime commensurate with their actions against other regimes they have defined as terrorist.



June 14, 1988

[ Translation]



FREE TRADE


Gabriel Fontaine: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Leader made public the so-called Liberal alternative to Mulroney's trade pact. There were four outstanding mistakes. Quebec was not mentioned. For that matter, have they not always forgotten Quebec? And yet, the Quebec Government and all the political parties in that province are saying yes to free trade.
Second, the West is not mentioned. But, have the Liberals not always forgotten the West? I refer to the national energy policy. And yet, the West is saying yes to free trade.
Third, business people are not mentioned. And yet, they are selling for $95 billion a year to the United States. Why shouldn't they have their say?
Fourth, our main customer the United States, is not mentioned. What good or service salesman would ignore his main customer while re-organizing his sales network by overlooking his regular clients and neighbours with whom he is making money?
Mr. Speaker, so much for the Liberal's expertise on free trade!
 *
*



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the previous speaker directed his ammunition toward the Liberal Party, because that means he has finally recognized who is on the verge of forming the next Government. I would like to challenge him on the issue of the trade deal. We got a taste of free trade in the riding of Hamilton East through Firestone.
Not only did Firestone pack up and leave Hamilton, leaving 1,400 workers without jobs, but to add insult to injury Firestone could not run the machines in Des Moines, Iowa.
Believe it or not, Firestone has actually come to Hamilton, set up a temporary hiring agency beside the union hall, and is asking our workers to go to the United States so they can teach the Americans how to run the machines that were paid for by Canadian taxpayers' dollars so that more jobs can be exported to the United States.
The Government should be demanding interest on the interest-free loan of $13.5 million that went to Firestone which
funded machinery which is now being used in the United States, operated by Canadian workers. What an insult to Canada, what an insult to the Canadian workers.
That fund should be set up for the workers at Firestone to save jobs, not to export them to the United States which is what we have done with this trade deal and this gutless Government.
* *
*



AIDS DISEASE-INCIDENCE AMONG HOMOSEXUALS

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, world attention is focused on the AIDS crisis as international medical leaders meet in Stockholm, Sweden. There is a new AIDS case diagnosed every 14 minutes in the United States, yet medical research is not even close to discovering a cure.
In Canada 82 to 90 per cent of all AIDS cases are found among homosexual men. We must show compassion, love, and understanding toward the homosexual community and do everything we can to find a cure for this dreadful disease; however, we cannot accept their lifestyle as an alternative to the norm.
I have in my hands a pamphlet put out by the Ontario Government on AIDS entitled "Let's Talk". Nowhere in this pamphlet does it tell our young people that AIDS is primarily found amongst male homosexuals as a result of their sexual practices and in particular the practice of anal intercourse. The power of the homosexual lobby at Queen's Park and in Ottawa is most evident.
I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to give all the facts clearly to our young people when directing new dollars to educational material. We also call on the homosexual community to exhibit self control in their sexual lifestyle because it not only affects their own community but society in general, not to mention the unbelievable burden it will place on health costs in Canada in the years ahead.
* *
*



APARTHEID


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dissatisfaction with the Government's halfhearted approach to the question of apartheid in South Africa.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in 1985 that "if there are no fundamental changes in South Africa we are

June 14, 1988
Oral Questions
prepared to invoke total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime".
We can see that the Government is reneging on that commitment. Last week the South African Government renewed the state of emergency. We know that it continues to occupy Namibia illegally. Now once again we see that the South African Government refuses to bend to public demands that the Sharpeville Six be given a retrial.
Mr. Joshua Nkomo, one of the founding fathers of the modern state of Zimbabwe, who is here in Ottawa, should serve as a reminder to the Government that Canada should be taking a leadership role in championing the movement against the racist policy of apartheid.
I call on the Government to take these concerns to the G-7 Economic Summit which will take place later this week in Toronto and once and for all act to on this stated commitment to get tough on apartheid.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, more and more strategic military experts believe that the Prime Minister's plan to purchase nuclear powered submarines is absolutely wrong, and the Cabinet is obviously split on the issue. To spend billions and billions of dollars on nuclear powered submarines is a wasteful and dangerous extravagance for a Canadian Government.
Will the Prime Minister address the House in response to this question and advise us whether he is now willing, upon reflection, to cancel his Government's decision to purchase nuclear powered submarines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is no. My right hon. friend will be aware of the White Paper brought in by the Government of Canada pursuant to, I think he will acknowledge, many years of neglect of the Armed Forces of Canada by predecessor governments.
Political decisions have been made or are in the process of being made with a number of important objectives in mind: the sovereignty of Canada, the defence of Canada, and the respect of our alliances.
It is a very important proposition that this be done while supplying the men and women who serve Canada in the military with first-class equipment at all times. We have a first-class military which was not always treated in the manner
in which it should have been. The White Paper and our policy resolve to change that on behalf of Canada.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the statistics in percentage of Gross National Product which the previous Trudeau administration dedicated to defence are at least as high as those dedicated by this Government. I think that should be pointed out.
The Prime Minister knows that our Party is committed to NATO and continental defence. Does he really feel that spending upwards of $16 billion of taxpayers' money is an intelligent use of our funds?
Perhaps I should put my question to the Minister of Finance. Is that an intelligent use of our funds in fulfilment of defence obligations when there are far more pressing needs for the use of those funds?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed there are very important and pressing needs coming from all elements of society. We try to accommodate those needs and have been successful thus far within the fiscal framework set out year by year by the Minister of Finance, which is a rather unusual habit in recent years in Canada.
There are demands for child care, for example, which are very important and which shall be met.
The very distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs yesterday announced brand new programs on behalf of the veterans of Canada who need and deserve our help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There are programs for regional economic expansion. I agree with my right hon. friend that all of these matters are very important. However, the defence of Canada is vital. We are not going to contract out our responsibilities to defend the integrity and sovereignty of this nation. We are going to stop the erosion of the Canadian Armed Forces which went on for the previous 20 years. We are going to make sure Canada's men and women serving in the Armed Forces go first class and that this country is given first-class equipment at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If the Prime Minister and his other Ministers had the good sense and judgment of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, we would be far less concerned about the way his Government is being run.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 14, 1988


PURCHASE OF NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs exhorted the United Nations to reduce world militarization, in particular by adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Treaty calls on the countries of the world to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile the speech his Minister gave to the United Nations yesterday with his Government's decision to buy nuclear-powered submarines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, refers to the very good sense of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Of course he is right. Just the other day the Minister of Veterans Affairs was saying how saddened he was that the Leader of the Opposition was leading the Liberal Party in such a leftist fashion away from our traditional alliances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Did you say that, George?


Mr. Gauthier:: He denies it.


John Napier Turner: You did not say that, George.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact, Mr. Speaker, he is going to take the Leader of the Opposition to the woodshed and straighten him out once and for all.

Regarding the Opposition Leader's question, obviously, as he knows very well, to ask the question is to answer it. There is no contradiction between the speech and the policy of the Canadian Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the testimony to the sagacity of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I point out that in 1979 he spoke strongly against the concept of free trade with the United States.


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


John Napier Turner: A lot of good sense. So did the Prime Minister.


Lloyd Axworthy: I said testimony to sagacity, not duplicity.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You can do better than that.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will try, Mr. Prime Minister.
The point of the bizarre and unanswered questions with respect to the whole negotiation on trade, is why the Government has succeeded in getting an exemption for beer but did not make any similar attempt, or gain any similar exemption, for the crucial resource of water.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I think we now have an answer to the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Or for blood, for that matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not know what the Prime Minister washes his hair in.
A senior official of the Inland Waters and Lands Directorate of the Department of the Environment has now stated in an interview with the Associated Press that the Canadian Government during the negotiations put forward a specific request that water be exempted, but in the last hours of that negotiation the Canadian Government once again conceded and was prepared to withdraw its demand that water be exempted.
If that is the case, if water policy is left unaffected as the Prime Minister and his Ministers have been saying, why did the Government originally request an exemption? And, far more importantly, why in the eleventh hour of the negotiations did the Government once again concede on this very important issue which affects all Canadians?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the water in the hon. gentleman's knee has moved to his head. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that obliges Canada, or forces Canada, to sell water to the United States. The only mention of it, in fact, is bottled water, water in bottles, I suppose, Perrier water-that kind of water the hon. gentleman might be used to.
There is no danger to Canada's water resources. In addition, our Government, through our colleague, has announced a policy that we are not going to permit large scale sales of water as a natural resource to the United States. We must be believed, because the Newfoundland Coalition for Equality

June 14, 1988
Oral Questions
which had a big workshop on Sunday in St. John's had the awesome number of 25 people turn out to protest, and across the country there were perhaps 2,000 scattered here and there on this mighty day of protest. So they do not believe this kind of twisting of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: After that convoluted answer, we know that water is certainly not the favourite drink of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is self-explanatory.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT WATER BE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: If I may be
allowed to continue my question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister asserts that there is nothing obligatory, but the fact is the tariff schedule contains a reference to water, not mineral water, not aerated water, not whatever kind of water the Minister swallows or swishes, but any water is included in that agreement.
Therefore, considering that the United States is now taking liberties with the agreement and putting forward major proposals to change the rules dealing with subsidies, changing the rules dealing with the dispute settlement mechanism, I would ask the Hon. Minister if Mr. Burney, as he now continues the renegotiation of the agreement, is prepared to request specifically request that water be excluded under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and that that exclusion be written into the legislation the Minister is presenting to the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, like Winston Churchill, I have at times drunk water but only with a great deal of distaste, and when I had no other choice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is why I sometimes sympathize with the Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the question of water, Canadians do not need a U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement to protect our sources of water. The Governments they elect, as long as they continue to elect us, will protect the water. Perhaps we would be in danger if the Liberal Party got in power because its Leader himself, in his famous book which I do not have here at the moment, suggested this might be an article for trade between the two countries. Why don't the two of them get together and discuss their preferences, with water or without water?


TAX REFORM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Four years ago this summer the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and myself had an interesting debate in the course of a general election during which the Prime Minister said to the people of Canada that he believed in tax reform and, to use his immortal words, he believed that the rich should pay, and they should pay handsomely.
The Institute for Research and Public Policy yesterday published its analysis of the so-called tax reform of the Minister of Finance. It reached this conclusion, and I quote:
-the majority of families were worse off in terms of disposable income in
1988 than they were in 1984.
It goes on to state that the only people who will be paying lower taxes after four years of Conservative government will be the richest 1 per cent of Canadians. Those earning $117,000 a year will get a $3,500 tax cut. All other Canadians will pay more.
Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when he promised tax reform in 1984?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member would like to get another point of view on this, a very informed point of view. Let me provide it for him.
That particular study ignores the impact of the change in capital gains taxation-


Lloyd Axworthy: That's a big help to families.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the change in film taxation, the change in MURBs, and the change in earned depletion, all of which will reduce the impact of these tax shelters that have been brought in over the years. So there is a major negative impact on people in upper income brackets.
The other thing that this particular study does is it ignores the broad impact of economic policy by the Government, that
is,	the fact that 1,300,000 jobs have been created. It is very, very clear that we are number one in the industrialized world in terms of job creation.


John Edward Broadbent: We are talking about tax reform, come off
it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party wants to talk about tax reform.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what the question was about.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am talking about tax reform, but I am also talking about tax reform in the context of total economic policy, that is, the effect that it has on people
June 14, 1988

who are working today. There are 1,300,000 more people working today. That is one of the reasons why we have seen tax revenues go up for the Government of Canada.
This is a healthier economy. It is because of the tax reform changes and other changes that have been brought in by the Government to improve the operations of the economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF TAX REFORM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who made the promise in 1984. It is the Prime Minister who is in the House. It is the Prime Minister who has the obligation to answer for his record, not the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that working men and women pay income tax on unemployment insurance benefits and that pensioners at the poverty level continue to pay income taxes, does the Prime Minister believe it is just that the only Canadians paying lower taxes in 1988, compared to when he was elected, are the richest 1 per cent, and they will have a $3,500 saving? Is that his concept of fairness?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will perhaps want to review some of the data on which he bases his question. With tax reform, 85 per cent of Canadian households will pay less income tax. Nine out of ten senior citizens will pay less income tax. Some 850,000 Canadians will no longer pay any income tax. They will have been removed from the rolls. That includes 250,000 seniors.
Among the many initiatives taken by the Minister of Finance-and I think indirectly my hon. friend in the past has made reference to some of the initiatives that he viewed as helpful in terms of establishing a greater degree of tax fairness-most objective people will recognize that there has been both the growth to which my hon. friend, the Minister, referred, plus a much greater degree of tax fairness across Canada since the Government was sworn in.
One of the consequences of that is a greater degree of fairness in regard to the number of people paying tax, and the number of people who have been removed from the tax rolls. I would think my hon. friend, the Leader of the NDP, would want to celebrate that kind of achievement on behalf of the ordinary taxpayer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would celebrate if the Prime Minister was dealing with the right year. The Prime Minister talks about reduced taxes this year compared to the big increases we saw in the previous two years of Tory Government. The study does not make a comparison with this year and last year. It makes a comparison with the period in which the Prime Minister made his promise in 1984.

That is the real context. Is the Prime Minister of Canada pleased that 99 per cent of Canadians have to pay more tax, while only the richest pay less? This is Conservative justice! Is the Prime Minister pleased with this program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has already indicated, we do not necessarily accept all the data and conclusions drawn by the gentleman who prepared this source document. Many factors enter into an economic paper and I will give him another one that has an impact on government revenues and the fiscal situation. Last Friday, for example, Statistics Canada indicated that 41,000 new jobs were created in Quebec last month alone, whereas in the 55 months of the previous Liberal Government, 40,000 new jobs were created in Quebec. More jobs were created in Quebec in one month of Conservative Government than in 55 months under the Liberals, and that has an impact on the revenues of the Government of Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario met in Montreal to take stock of the situation, and, more specifically, to talk about economic and fiscal issues. Their conclusion as that the federal Government was on the wrong track, and that increases in interest rates, together with the increased value of the Canadian dollar compared to the American dollar, were having a disastrous effect on the Canadian economy and that high interest rates were causing inflation.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance when he will see the light and espouse the view of the chambers of commerce, economic research institutes and now the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, that his monetary policy is having a disastrous impact on our country's economy and that our workers will have to bear the consequences of that policy a few months from now.

June 14, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have to draw the Hon. Member's attention back to what happened in the 1970s and the early 1980s. He just referred to workers paying for the policies that we have introduced. I ask him to think back to the 1970s when the previous Government ignored the pressures of inflation. Over the last four or five months we have seen pressures building up in terms of 5.5 per cent and 6 per cent inflation in non-energy, non-food areas. That is the signal for inflation about which we are concerned. That is why we are following the policies that we have been following with respect to the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada.
I caution the Hon. Member that this is not to the extreme that he implies in his question. Interest rates, while they are higher than they were two or three months ago, are still lower than they were last October.


EQUITY IN TAXES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance seems to think he is the only one who is in step, but isn't his monetary policy following the same line as his fiscal policy, which in fact is based on President Reagan's recommendations?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Reagan, the President of the United States, made much of the fact that the Canadian Government was following the same policy as the U.S. administration, raising the taxes of people on low incomes and reducing taxes for people who earn more. The same issue was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and it was President Reagan who was proud of this fact. So ...


Some Hon. Members:: Question! Question!


Raymond Garneau: Don't get excited!
Why is the Minister of Finance, instead of taking the advice of Canadians, following the policy of the U.S. President who raises the taxes of the less fortunate and reduces the taxes of the rich?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we started our policy against inflation in this country in June last year. That was before there were any changes in the policy against inflation in the United States. We have a Canadian policy for Canadian inflation, to deal with our problems here in Canada. The Hon. Member asked whether the Government of Canada would be prepared to listen to the advice of other legitimate commentators. There are economists today who give legitimate advice on inflation. There are many views on the problem, but the Canadian Government's policy is definitely Canadian.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, like the rest of us, I am sure, was shocked when he found out that the Department of National Defence had been testing highly toxic nerve gas at the Defence Research Establishment in Suffield, Alberta, and to learn that this nerve gas had been released into the atmosphere at least three times during the past year.
Does the Government of Canada manufacture this nerve gas at Suffield? Does it import the nerve gas? If so, from whom? Why did the Government allow this nerve gas to be released into the atmosphere without prior notification to the people living in the adjacent areas?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has never made any bones about the fact that at Suffield, in an isolated area, we have tested nerve gas in small quantities, in laborato-, ries and elsewhere, in order to protect our own troops in case they were ever faced with this situation.
I should point out in the case of the testing done outside, it was between 1.4 and 1.5 kilograms of nerve gas that was used in an area of 12 square miles from which everybody else was excluded at the time the tests were conducted.
At the present time we are negotiating in Geneva on the quantities countries can have for their own testing, and the suggested level is 1,000 kilograms. This was 1.4 to 1.5 kilograms.


QUERY ON ORIGIN OF GAS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Associate Minister of Defence. He did not answer the question whether or not Canada was manufacturing this nerve gas at Suffield. If not manufacturing it, was it importing it? If so, from whom?
The Government has allowed the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. It has committed us as a country to purchasing a dozen nuclear powered hunter killer submarines. Now we find out that we are testing chemical weapons. These are the same weapons that we saw during recent events in the Iran-Iraq war. It is a very serious matter.
Are we manufacturing this nerve gas as a country, or are we importing it? If so, from whom? Will the Minister commit the Government that whenever this testing will occur in the future the residents of the area will receive prior notification?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that testing is done on the

June 14, 1988

Suffield range where there are no residents living. It is quite an isolated area.
I happen to believe that, because we deploy some of our Armed Forces in places such as the Golan Heights, Cyprus, and in some other areas where perhaps someone else might use nerve gas, we should test it in order that we are prepared to protect our own forces in case somebody uses it against us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That's not the question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I do not want to have them exposed to somebody else doing it and we know nothing about it.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF CANADIAN DISTILLERS' PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last fall the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare tabled a report in the House entitled "Booze, Pills & Dope: Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada".
One of the recommendations suggested the CRTC require beverage alcohol advertisers to provide public alcohol abuse educational messages.
The Association of Canadian Distillers produced a public service announcement for television that related equivalent amounts of beer, liquor, and wine as being equally dangerous to those who drink and drive, and the CRTC disallowed the announcement.
Will the Minister undertake with his cabinet colleagues the necessary review to allow this type of public service announcement to be aired on television?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the role of the CRTC the Hon. Member will know that it is a quasi-judicial body. In respect to the representations that were made on behalf of the Government respecting alcohol advertising, it is my understanding that the CRTC has ruled that the ads that were submitted for approval from the distillers' association, while equivalency was one of the arguments, there was no counterpoint to that relating to use or abuse, especially keeping in mind that the Government has come in with a drinking and driving program in co-operation with the provinces, and also the drug and alcohol strategy.
If the distillers' association wants to come in with a program such as I suggested, that is, 15 per cent of its advertising to be used for alternate advertising, that is fine, and I wish that it would do so. The question it would then have to answer to the
Oral Questions
CRTC is, how it is relating this to abuse rather than attempting in some way, as identified by the CRTC, to have its name in the public relating to advertisements, even though they were equivalency advertisements.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. DR. JOSHUA NKOMO
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Joshua Nkomo, Senior Minister in the President's Office, Zimbabwe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it is a question that no other Minister can answer.
When the Prime Minister said over the weekend that the allegations against the Member for Joliette were unfounded, what was that statement based on? Had the Prime Minister received a report from the ongoing inquiry by the RCMP? If not, why did he make that statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know it will surprise the Hon. Member, but the statement was made on the presumption of innocence.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me then ask the Prime Minister the following question. With an investigation going on, would it not have been better, and would his office not have been stronger if he had refrained from making comments, or reserved comment until the result of the investigation was known? That is what the Minister of Supply and Services did.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is going to go down in the annals of hypocrisy, asking me to refrain from making comments about defending the integrity of someone after all the members of the Opposition in the Liberal Party have been doing is slander Mr. LaSalle and saying that he is guilty without any evidence being brought forward.


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This has been said by Liberals in the House of Commons, and that is a disgraceful way to do it.

June 14, 1988
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Boudria.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the plan of Energy, Mines and Resources to start seismic testing in the Queen Charlotte Islands, despite the fact that there are important commercial fisheries there, and despite the fact that scientists raise the issue of the effect on fish and whales.
Would the Minister not agree that, prior to any such seismic testing, there ought to be a full environmental assessment of the consequences, and that there ought to be a public inquiry, a public process as part of this environmental assessment?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was based on a study that had been done in concert with all interested parties, in connection with which there had been considerable public participation, on the basis of which it was decided that the testing in question would not compromise the heritage values surrounding the proposed park.


REQUEST FOR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, while there is scientific opinion on both sides of this issue, and certainly in the State of California, and also information from Norway suggests that the effects might be detrimental, the State of California is not going ahead on the basis of scientific assessment.
Will the Minister assure us that there will be a full environmental assessment before the area is opened up to exploration and drilling? Will he also assure us that this will include an opportunity for the public to take part, given the very great importance of this question for the environment and the supposed commitment of the Government and the Minister of Energy to include the environment in all economic decision making?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has implied that the public has not been consulted or involved in any process leading up to the decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, in
addition to public consultation, there has been very close cooperation among all the relevant Departments and Ministers, including myself and my Department and the Department of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The information I have, with which I am totally satisfied, is that every due care is being taken to protect both the natural environment and the parks and heritage values at stake surrounding the proposed national park reserve in the area.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Solicitor General. Media stories have given rise to worry and concern among the loved ones of the victims of Clifford Robert Olson, as well as the parents of young and teen-aged boys and girls, who fear that if released this criminal will live in their town or city.
Is any consideration whatsoever being given to granting this criminal a parole on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis in the immediate future, or at any time before he dies?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that I cannot speak for the National Parole Board which has complete jurisdiction in this matter. However, I can tell him and those families affected that Mr. Olson will not be eligible for parole until the year 2006. In addition, over the past several months we have changed the criteria for releasing people on parole so that now the only criterion is whether or not releasing a person would constitute an undue risk to society. I would think it would go without saying that Mr. Olson would.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that the Canada-U.S. trade deal prevents the Government from taking proper action on unfair competition from U.S. farm products coming into Canada or putting in place proper import controls. For example, the Broiler Egg Hatching Agency has been asking the Minister for months to put in place import controls on their product. Three producers have already gone out of business because of unfair competition.
June 14, 1988

How many producers of this commodity is the Minister prepared to see put out of business before he will bring in proper import controls?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the content of the Hon. Member's question bears no greater degree of accuracy than that of his Leader's question yesterday with reference to the FT A and our dairy policy.
The Hon. Member knows there is a process which you are required to enter into and have concluded. As I indicated yesterday, we have already moved a long list of items from the tariff list to the import/export list. When that is done, notification of our trading partners is required under GATT. We have served notice to the Americans with reference to the dairy aspect and we are awaiting their response only with reference to a timetable for meetings to discuss the level of imports.
We are not quite to that stage with reference to this particular industry. However, we gave a firm commitment when we established the national agency that we would complete the process and we have every intention of following through on that commitment.


HORTICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us, with respect to the control of bulk shipment and consignment selling of fruits and vegetables, when he is going to bring in legislation and regulations to control the situation? He will recall last year that the cherry industry in southern Ontario was destroyed because of his lack of action. Is he prepared to bring in legislation and regulations this summer to control that, or is that industry going to be sacrificed on the altar of free trade as well?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize that legislation has been on the statute books of this country for about six or seven years.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is the amendments we need, John.


John Wise: It has been used only once or twice. Indeed, when we were in Government in 1979 we utilized it.
We have given a commitment that we will be bringing forward amendments to the CAPS Act. We have every intention of fulfilling that commitment. Again, it requires notification of trading partners, which notification has been completed.
This is an important piece of legislation and will give that industry some safeguards it has not had for the last seven or eight years. When the Bill is introduced in the House I hope
Oral Questions
we have unanimous consent from both opposition Parties to move it through the House in all stages, hopefully in one day.


PIPELINES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Regina is one of the few major cities in the country which does not have a safe and adequate long-term supply of water. In fact, in the last election the Prime Minister promised a water pipeline for the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw. In the first Question Period after the 1984 election I asked him to indicate when we could expect some action on his promise. He replied "Soon".
Four years have passed and southern Saskatchewan is experiencing a terrible drought. I ask again when does the Prime Minister intend to act on his promise to ensure that the people of Regina and Moose Jaw have an adequate long-term supply of water?


Some Hon. Members:: Soon!


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well the action taken by this Government and my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in putting forward a water supply for the people of Regina that was not only adequate but also consumable. I think the people of Regina would recognize that as a fact.
The other thing I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member is the action taken by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Government of Saskatchewan, in developing the water supply in the South Saskatchewan River system.


PROJECTED PIPELINE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Prime Minister. The promise was a water pipeline so that Regina would have an adequate long-term supply of water. People are rationing water. We do not have a long-term supply. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is trying to buy a seat for his friend, Lucien Bouchard, with taxpayers' money.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask on behalf of the people of Regina and Moose Jaw is when will the Prime Minister fulfil his commitment to the people? Can we expect some action? Like I asked in 1984, when will it be done?

June 14, 1988
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, constituents in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean will be very upset to hear an NDP Member criticizing the federal Government for trying to help a peripheral region. The New Democrats ought to be ashamed of objecting to measures aimed at helping a remote region.
With regard to the people of Saskatchewan, I think they will recognize very, very quickly that this is the Government that most quickly responded to their needs in a dozen different areas, including agriculture for openers.
With regard to the matter raised by my hon. friend, the Premier and I, at the ministerial level, have had important discussions which, no doubt, I believe will give the people of Saskatchewan a degree of satisfaction in that area, as we have done in so many principal areas of life on the Prairies.


AIDS DISEASE-INCIDENCE AMONG HOMOSEXUALS
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Ontario Government has come out with an information packet on AIDS called "Let's Talk", but it does not address the fact that the greatest purveyors of this disease, 82 per cent to 90 per cent, are male homosexuals, obviously a result of a powerful lobby.
The Minister has indicated that new dollars will be allocated toward education on AIDS. Will he assure the House that young people will be made aware of the consequence of the sexual lifestyle of homosexuality? Will he call upon the homosexual community to exercise self-control in sexual practices in light of the consequences, not only within that community but, indeed, all society?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government has announced, as Members of the House well know, an additional $129 million for the AIDS program over and above the $39 million which the Government announced previously. As part of the program, Mr. Speaker, education always has a twofold effect. We believe that with more education especially vulnerable young Canadians can be given correct information.
With respect to high risk groups identified in the war against AIDS, there is no question that as we can bring more information forward it is helpful. In terms of people taking responsibility for their actions in changing high risk sexual
practices, obviously that would be helpful in reducing both the incidence and spread of AIDS.


NEWFOUNDLAND-HIBERNIA OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, for nearly four years the Government has been flogging Hibernia offshore oil and gas development as an electoral carrot holding it up before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last Thursday in St. John's, the federal Minister of Energy said that the development is basically on hold because of the inability of the Government to reach any kind of deal with the consortium headed by Mobil Oil. Last night in Calgary-a few days later-the same Minister suggested that a deal was imminent.
My question was for the Prime Minister who has since disappeared, but I suppose it will now go to the Member for St. John's West-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -and is straightforward. Can the Minister tell the House today exactly what is the status of the Hibernia oil and gas potential development? Can he tell the House what concessions have been made by both Governments, particularly by the lead Government, the national Government, to stimulate Mobil Oil and its partners to have a look at Hibernia development?


Hon.   Gerald. S. Merrithew@Minister of State (Forestry and Mines: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Energy I do want to report that negotiations have been going on for some time now. Offers have been made to Mobil and its partners.
Hopefully, as the Minister of Energy has said publicly, we will be able to get on with this particular project, but the matter is clearly now in the hands of the companies to respond to the offer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, a short supplementary.


SHARING OF ROYALTIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland traditionally has the highest level of unemployment in the country and we badly need high quality good paying jobs. I want to tell the Minister that we do not want a job today if we sell out our rights and the royalties forever to Hibernia.
Can the Minister assure the House today, and through the House the people of Newfoundland, that the Government will
June 14, 1988

resist the temptation to boost its sagging political fortunes here in Ottawa, and the sagging political fortunes of the Peckford administration, by giving away the shop to get a quick announcement on Hibernia and, in the process, deny Newfoundlanders and Canadians their rightful share of the royalties to Hibernia development in the decades ahead?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there was a meeting in Calgary yesterday with representatives of Mobil and the other persons involved in the consortium. It was a very positive meeting. Intensive negotiations are now following as a result of that.
The Government, well aware of the needs of Newfoundland and, in fact, all of Canada because all of Canada will benefit, from Newfoundland right to Alberta, with the development of Hibernia, has made the company a most generous and comprehensive offer to assist in this period of low oil prices.
We don't know-this has nothing to do with elections-if the latter goes forward we will be delighted. If it doesn't go forward, we will be very sorry but the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada will know we did one hell of a lot better than hon. gentlemen opposite who stopped progress on Hibernia for 10 years while in office.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for York Centre on a question of privilege and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Regina East.


PRIVILEGE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising from the Question Period out of an accusation made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I attempted informally across the floor to give him and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) notice of the fact that this question was being raised. Both have left the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: That is perfectly relevant.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I gave them notice. They have left the House. I, of course, have not seen the "blues", but the statement that I have coming from the PHme Minister was, "All of the members of the Opposition are accusing"-meaning the Member from Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-"of being guilty". I call on the Prime Minister to apologize and to withdraw that allegation.
During Question Period today and yesterday I asked questions about allegations against the Hon. Member for
Privilege-Mr. de Jong
Joliette made not by members of the Official Opposition but made by a Tory organizer named Glen Kealey-


Mr. Speaker:: As I understand the question of privilege, the Hon. Member for York Centre is advising the Chair that he has not yet seen the "blues" but that his memory is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "All of the members of the Opposition are accusing" and then went on. I have not seen the "blues" either. I think the appropriate thing to do before we get into a lot of peripheral matters, which have nothing very much to do with the words complained of, is for me to examine the "blues" very carefully. I will report back to the House, and I may call on other Members to speak.
With that in mind, I might ask the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) to conclude his remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude, but at the same time while you are examining the "blues" you may find similar supportive unjustified allegations made by the members of the government Party, and I would appreciate your examination of those remarks as well.


Mr. Speaker:: There was an exchange. I cannot, any more than other Hon. Members, remember every word. I think the best thing to do at the moment is for Hon. Members to look at the "blues". I know the Hon. Member for York Centre will do so, and so will others on the government side. I will examine them and come back to the Chamber, and if there is any need to raise the matter further I will ensure that that is done.


John Napier Turner: Ask for your own independent set of the "blues".


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) suggests that I get my own independent set of the "blues". I thank the hon. gentleman very much for that advice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


ALLEGED IMPUTATION OF MOTIVE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also invite you to check the "blues" in terms of the response which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave me.
I understand from his response to my question that the Prime Minister imputed a motive to me that I was not concerned about the interests of the constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean. By the Prime Minister's reply he seemed to indicate that the interests of the people of Regina were at odds with the interests of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean.
I would suggest, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that you check the "blues". I believe the Prime Minister was imputing a motive in terms of my question and I ask your ruling on that at some time.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I will of course consider what was actually said and I will return to the Chamber at an appropriate time. If necessary, I will hear the Hon. Member further.



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).
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. Following him, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) rose to speak in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. Following him, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) rose to speak in favour of the Meech Lake Accord.
I hear people in my constituency of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and elsewhere around the country criticizing the Meech Lake Accord as a document that somehow diminishes the role of the Government of Canada. It struck me, as I listened to the Leaders this morning, that the very best thing I could do would be to reproduce those three speeches by those three Party Leaders and send copies of them to those people.
When the national Leaders of our three main Parties are speaking in favour of the Meech Lake Accord, that most surely represents a deliberate and clear conclusion that this is not an instrument for weakening the Government of Canada or the central purposes of our country but rather for maintaining and strengthening them. Each of the three Party Leaders represents the collective wisdom, advice and counsel that each would have received from those experts in matters of constitutional law, Canadian history and indeed partisan considerations, and in all cases they came forward to speak in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. That is not the position that would be taken, I submit, by national Leaders of any Party if in fact the Meech Lake Accord were, as its critics allege, somehow weakening and undermining the Government of Canada and its positive role in Canadian federalism.
Let us not make perfection the enemy of the good. That statement was made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister this morning, and I was so happy to hear him succinctly express something that in other forums I too have been trying to express. For example, in connection with disabled Canadians, I have recently been saying that part of the difficulty in Canada is this image of perfection that is held out. As soon as we begin to recognize that the image of imperfection is more accurately
reflective of human condition and human society, the closer we will be to realism and in turn to a more gentle and caring society. If it applies there, it is no less true in application to matters of constitutional law.
Perfection in a Constitution perhaps could be achieved by each of us individually, sitting in the splendid isolation of our libraries or some other quiet place, putting pen to paper and writing down what according to our own personal lights might be the perfect Constitution for Canada. The beauty of a democracy, however, is that there is never any one person who has all the answers, and that what we achieve is truly a blending through political debate and through political compromise of various points of view.
Certainly, I agree with all of those who spoke, the Prime Minister and the two opposition Leaders, who said that we do not have in the Meech Lake Accord perfection. There are points in the Accord with which I do not agree. My own view with respect to the Senate, for example, is that the only way to reform the Senate is to abolish it.
I am a native of the Province of Ontario where there was an elected Upper House under our Constitution from 1841 to 1867, as for instance so did the Province of Prince Edward Island at one stage in its history have an elected Upper House. We went through that experience and found it was unnecessary. We found that indeed, in a democratic country like ours, with all the different levels of Government, we have more than enough elected representatives to speak for and to represent the Canadian people.
I have deeply held views on the importance of ending the existence of the Canadian Senate as an institution that has long since outlived its historical role in this country. Yet, there is in the Meech Lake Accord provision for getting on in the next phase with discussions to see how the Senate can be reformed. Each of us, I submit, must look at the Meech Lake Accord, and although there are parts in it that may rankle and may not accord with our own views, we have to see that there is something greater here.
I have listened to a lot of debate and discussion. I see in the House the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). He and I were debating this issue recently, not in the Chamber but in fact in a television studio. There were many people who came forward from the audience and expressed their concerns and points of view. What struck me as I heard some of these criticisms was that there seems to be a propensity in Canada for loading on to whatever vehicle is passing all the freight that it can carry. I do not know if this comes from something in our pioneer background. People were scattered across a fairly empty land. Someone who was stranded in the North was happy to see the bush pilot arrive, and those on a homestead were happy to see the wagon finally come by. They wanted to get everyone on the aircraft or on the wagon at once. Our approach intrinsically seems to be that whatever is going by, we want to load all of the traffic onto it.
June 14, 1988

I see the same thing happening with the free trade debate. We are dealing with a treaty that governs the trading arrangement between two countries, and on the one hand some Canadians are saying that that document is the panacea that will solve all of our problems. At the other extreme, people are saying that with this approach, in 25 years the country will be gone. They are putting onto the free trade debate all kinds of issues relating to cultural sovereignty and the like. No matter how many times they read the document and see that those issues are not touched, no matter how many times Ministers of the Crown rise in the Chamber to give assurances of that, there are still people who want to load all of this extra traffic onto the vehicle of the free trade debate. The same is happening with Meech Lake.
I am hearing the argument, for example, that the position of native Canadians, the position of women, the position of disabled people and the position of so many other groups in society will be adversely affected by the Meech Lake Accord. I would like to speak to that for a moment or two. There is one historic moment here that we must recognize. This is not the one and only time, the now or never chance, that we will have to deal with all of these issues of aboriginal rights, the position of women and the position of Canadians with disabilities, but it is the one and only time, the now or never chance, to say yes to Quebec.
In 1980, Quebec said yes to Canada and Quebec is still waiting. That was the verdict of Quebec in 1980 when the people of that province held a referendum to make a choice between thinly disguised separatism and a renewed federalism. As someone who believes profoundly in the importance of referenda and plebiscites in our system, I watched closely what happened in the Province of Quebec. I saw the people of that province at organizational levels, levels of families and parishes, and everywhere possible meeting and debating. It was a cathartic experience for Quebecers to be put to that choice. They made the choice and in the majority they said yes to Canada, yes to renewed federalism.
There was another chance after Quebec was sidelined in the 1982 approach to amending the Constitution and entrenching the Charter. The result of that in 1982 was Quebec's isolation which, as J. W. Pickersgill has said, was to leave a grievance and a wound open in Canadian political society.
The 1987 constitutional accord has again held out to Quebec the promise of a renewed federalism. This is the second chance and the second time that Quebec has said yes. This time it was not the people in a referendum, it was the men and women who are the democratically elected representatives of the people of Quebec voting in the Quebec Legislative Assembly who voted in favour of the Meech Lake Accord.
As in baseball, whether you are playing for the Toronto Blue Jays or the Montreal Expos, the rule is three strikes and you're out. So it is in constitutional law and what is happening in this
Constitution Amendment, 1987
country in terms of the position of Quebec in relation to the rest of the country. Quebec has said yes twice and it must not have to say that again. Quebec has now made its position clear.
All the years when I was growing up in Ontario, living in the West, and living in Quebec, I heard other Canadians ask, "What does Quebec want?". The answer came in five very specific questions, very specific answers and proposals by Premier Robert Bourassa. It was to those five specific proposals that a response has been made and embodied in the Meech Lake Accord.
We have voted in this House on this question before and we voted affirmatively. Now, months later, we are being asked to do it again because the other place has succumbed to the smaller view of Canada, the Lilliputians who tied down with a thousand small threads the great giant who otherwise could stand and walk proudly and freely.
Let us transcend the legitimate but smaller points of debate. In the symbolism of politics I believe that some statements and some acts can transcend and transform. There is now an opportunity to transcend, to go beyond the legal minimum of what national unity requires and into a patriotic sharing of the full promise of Canadianism.
I will vote again in favour of the Meech Lake Accord because I believe that we in the Parliament of Canada must say yes to Quebec and to renewed federalism which meets Quebec's needs to preserve and promote its distinct society within Canada yet safeguards the federal Government's role as the voice of all Canadians and respects the equality of all provinces. Not to do so would cast doubts about our commitment here in the 33rd Parliament to a renewed federalism which, I repeat, acknowledges the reality of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.
I believe we are long past the point where the Accord can be reopened or renegotiated. I believe there has been no demonstrated need to reopen it or to renegotiate it. Take for example the submissions made by some of the women's groups in Canada which say that somehow the Meech Lake Accord is going to undermine the position of women in Canada.
I have here the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 says that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination including discrimination on the basis of sex. Has Section 15 of the Charter been repealed? No, it is still a vigorous and entrenched part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, by virtue of the Meech Lake Accord, is now going to apply to all Canadians including Canadian women who live in Quebec.
This not an undermining of the position of Canadian women but an enhancement of it by the very fact that years after the Charter was included in our Constitution the Government of the Province of Quebec has signed its agreement, indicating that in laws enacted in that province, it will be subject to Section 15 and all other provisions of the Charter.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
There are other provisions in the Charter. There is Section 28. Again, I mention this in the context of some of the lamentations which are being made by women's groups. Section 28 says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred
to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Has Section 28 of the Charter been ripped up? No, it has not. It is still in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has not been repealed, it is there. It is guaranteeing the protection, the equal rights, and the equal freedoms of women with men in Canadian society.
Therefore, why in this debate in our country are groups trying to undermine the effort to, at long last, bring Quebec fully into a renewed federalism by trotting out arguments that the Meech Lake Accord is somehow detrimental to the position of Canadian women? It is a snare and a delusion to argue that way. I must say that those who so argue are doing a tremendous disservice to the great possibilities and prospects which are currently and have historically been before us for a renewed federalism along the lines set out in the Meech Lake Accord.
When the joint Senate and House committee heard testimony on this point there were many who spoke to this very issue. For example, on the issue of sexual equality-and I am not leaving this point because I believe it is fundamentally important and the one that raised perhaps the most concern before the committee-William Lederman, the dean of Canadian constitutional scholars, to name but one, told the legislators on that committee that the Charter "speaks loudly and clearly and it rides right through".
The Meech Lake Accord does not change the Charter. The Charter is there with Section 15 and Section 28. That is why even, for example, the Federation des femmes du Quebec and Quebec's Conseil du statut de la femme told the committee that women's rights are not threatened by the distinct society clause.
The distinct society clause is an interpretive provision in the Constitution, as is the section that talks about our Charter being interpreted according to the multicultural traditions of Canada, and as are the other interpretive provisions to be found therein. There is clear need to think back to that referendum and to what the people of Quebec said with eloquence which speaks so loudly when, in a deliberate act of casting a ballot, men and women indicated a conscious choice which they had made.
There was moving testimony given before the joint committee by Yolande Chaput-Rolland, an ardent partisan of federalism, a renewed federalism, in all she said and fought for during that referendum campaign in 1980. This is what she told the committee:

For me it is really the first time that I have felt I won that referendum.

"For me it was really the first time that I had felt, yes, I won that referendum". Let us answer Madam Chaput-Rolland and every other Canadian who is prepared to go beyond the points of difference, the legitimate but smaller issues, and see an historic opportunity to move Canada to a new plateau in its evolution.
This is the unfinished business that was begun by a former Prime Minister in his effort to entrench the Charter of Rights, to have an amending formula that would allow Canadians to see our own Constitution amended here in our own country. That process was begun but it has yet to be completed. We are now in the process of completing it.
I stand as the representative for the men and women of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, an Ontario constituency, and say with deepest conviction as a Canadian that I will stand in this House and vote in favour of the Meech Lake Accord.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments? Debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, one year after the Meech Lake Accord was born, a date historians will not remember as a great day for Canada, a strong case can be made for rejecting it. Canadians would be badly served by this Constitutional Accord. It was arrived at without public consultation, driven by the notion that a yes vote for Canada in the 1980 Quebec plebiscite requires reciprocation. It makes only one province responsible for the promotion of linguistic rights. It is based on an outdated vision of a Canada mortgaged by the distinct society concept which could lead to the two-nation idea, a view of Canada pursued by the Progressive Conservative Party in the 1960s. It would jeopardize the equal opportunities provided to all Canadians in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is where I disagree fully with the Hon. Member who just spoke.
The process also must be severely criticized. The way the Accord was arrived at can only be described by one word: awful. The process pre-empted any reasonable thoughtful input by any interested citizens, who were left out in the cold by 11 omniscient politicians playing kings. Interested Canadians were politely listened to by the joint parliamentary committee but their concerns were ignored. Indeed, the process did not produce a single amendment. What a disgraceful performance, so much in contrast with our fine democratic traditions and practices.
As many have noted, the Accord reveals a severe imbalance. While each of the proposed changes transfers powers to the provinces, there is no transfer of power to the federal state. If the Accord is approved, the national Government will emerge
June 14, 1988

weaker. At a time when social programs, education, environment, international issues require new and creative federal roles, Ottawa strips itself of powers needed to tackle the future. What a vision of Canada this Progressive Conservative Government reveals.
Fortunately, Canadians have realized the dangers of the Accord. Public support has rapidly been declining. Provincial premiers who signed the Accord are gradually being knocked off by their electors. Witness New Brunswick and Manitoba. Some of those in power have admitted there are flaws. Time will take care of these short-sighted self appointed constitutional wizards, unperturbed by the absence of public input, inebriated by power, blissfully applying the "trust me" school of decision-making. If you have ever searched for a classical example of pornography of power, there is one here.
The disturbing fact about this Accord is that while technically it has not yet and may never come into force, its spirit is already being applied in the shaping of laws presently going through Parliament. The Environmental Protection Bill presently in the Senate is a case in point. There is the pathetic scene of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) first trumpeting this Bill as the strongest ever federal legislation in Canada that will remove and prevent all polluting evils from the face of the nation. He emphasizes that the federal Government will proceed on its own in enforcing its legislation. However, one day he appears before the legislative committee sheepishly requesting amendments to his own Bill. Why? Because Ottawa must consult first with the provinces before making federal environmental regulations.
The federal Government yields again when it decides not to apply federal environmental protection standards if a province comes up with provisions considered to be equivalent, whatever that word means. What has happened? There is no political will. The Government has given up on its federal mandate. It will not establish national standards of environmental protection for all Canadians.
The Meech Lake virus has infected the thought process of the Government and weakened Canadian federalism. The Coalition on the Constitution, which is comprised of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Citizens Network on Waste Management, Energy Probe, Pollution Probe, in a letter to the joint committee dated December 10, 1987, made two significant points regarding the Accord and the environment. First, commenting on the environment Bill, they said that this is a step backward from existing federal law. Second, commenting on Section 9 of the Meech Lake Accord which allows provinces to opt out from national programs, they said that this provision could apply to national environmental programs, undermining the ability of the federal Government to provide national standards of environmental protection.
The same can be said, alas, for national social programs because they too will be affected.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Another upsetting aspect of the Accord is how Canada and Canadian society are described, something that you could call the heart and soul of the Accord. A constitution should make the citizen say with a certain degree of pride: "Yes, I recognize myself in that definition of Canada". That is what a good constitution is all about. Instead, we see a definition which excludes millions of Canadians. If you are an aboriginal, you have been left out. If you do not speak English or French, and many good solid decent citizens do not speak English or French, you have been left out.
In other words, the Accord fails to describe all the people of this country: the new Canada that has emerged in recent decades and first Canadians.
The description of the Canadian society in the Accord is not the Canada of today, it is the myopic view of tired politicians who failed to recognize the society they were supposed to understand and represent. What did the 11 wizards do in the middle of the night while the nation was sleeping? They provided, if indeed the courts will accept at all the distinct society notion, a springboard for special status to one province, thus laying the foundation of a duality which could lead to the creation of a two nation Canada. That is what they did. What a prospect. This is certainly not the Canada Canadians want for themselves, for their children or for their grandchildren. The evidence produced in the Senate, and the contributions made by Senators, is sufficient to convince any reasonable person that the Accord should not be supported. The evidence contained in Issue No. 6 of the proceedings of the Senate submissions group, most ably chaired by Senator Molgat, says it all. I would like to quote from the report which deals with the comments of 43 groups and individuals on the Accord.
Many Canadians fear that the rights accorded to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be diminished by the linguistic duality and distinct identity clause. Women's groups, French speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, English speaking Canadians living in that province, to name but a few groups, want the Accord amended to ensure that their charter rights will not be diminished by the "linguistic duality-distinct society" clause.
And I quote again:
Aboriginal organizations stated that they are left out of the description of Canada ... Aboriginal people asked to be recognized as distinct societies.
Some witnesses say the Accord does very little to promote multiculturalism. They request that it also be recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and so on.
One has to conclude so far that the only parliamentary institution which has really defended the views of people, the rights of Canadians, and made a really powerful contribution to this debate, is the Senate. The Senate held hearings that were meaningful. It moved amendments and certainly did not vote for the Accord. The House of Commons hardly had a debate a year ago on this matter. One would think, then, in light of the evidence brought out in the Senate, in the wake of the language dispute in Saskatchewan, in light of the defeat of Premier Hatfield and Premier Pawley, in light of the tensions

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
caused every day by Bill C-101 and the pending Supreme Court decision, in light of the substantial decline in public support for the Accord, that the present Government would stop and think instead of having the Prime Minister engage in threats against those who do not agree with the Accord.
Would it not, I ask, be in the public interest to find out what "distinct society" really means in constitutional terms, what the consequences would be to national unity if such a term were to have legal meaning? After all, a reference to the Supreme Court is not novel. In 1981, former Prime Minister Trudeau referred the constitution proposal of that time to the Supreme Court. "Oh, but listen", some say at this point, "you don't need to worry too much now. If amendments are needed, there will be a chance to make amendments on a second round. Approve the Accord now. We can improve it later". I submit, this is utter nonsense. These people who are not accepting changes now will not accept changes in a second round. If they are serious about changes, why not make the changes now? Why go ahead with constitutional changes when almost everyone agrees it is bad for Canada?
The amendment the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and I are proposing tries to define Canada and Canadians. It is a description of the Canadian people in contemporary terms, the very people for whom this Constitution is written. We wrote this motion with three thoughts in mind, first, to offer a mirror of contemporary Canadian society, second, to strengthen the notion of one Canada with two official languages and, third, to highlight an historical fact and evolution over time. In our amendment, aboriginal Canadians are included. Canadians who do not speak either English or French are included, and the distribution of English and French speaking Canadians across the nation is described. This amendment describes today's Canadian scene, the new Canada to which present and future generations belong. If, in reading this amendment, each Canadian recognizes himself or herself, then we will have succeeded in our effort. I invite the House to examine it and support it. Our amendment reads:
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).
In so doing, we bring together a concept, a mirror of Canada, which we think is contemporary, one that does not leave out one Canadian citizen, because one would be too many. We recognize in this motion the linguistic duality of this country and the spread of the population from coast to coast according to the language they speak. When we hear someone in this House say: "Let us not make perfection an enemy of the good", we believe that kind of approach is a signal for settling
for less than mediocrity. We do not want to have a Constitution that is less than mediocrity. We have had the time and we have the skills and ability to produce a Constitution that corresponds with the composition of the society of today, not only that, but a Constitution that will not lay the foundation for division in future times. The Conservative Government vision of Canada is the wrong vision. It must be rejected.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I am reminded that he was the former Minister of the Environment, a portfolio in which precious little was accomplished. Yet day after day we hear him comment and criticize the great work our Government has done on the environment. We hear again today some relatively hollow remarks from the Hon. Member with respect to the Meech Lake Accord.
I am not sure if the Member was in the House this morning when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke, but I disagree strongly with the Hon. Member for Davenport when he says the Accord should be a perfect document. We are not saying it is mediocre. We are saying it is a good document. One of the telling points the Prime Minister made, I thought, was that Quebec should participate in the final completion or other phases of the document to deal with the aboriginal people or if there are some issues surrounding women as well. Why would the Hon. Member deny the people of Quebec the right and obligation to participate in future improvements to that important document?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the majority of people in Quebec would want to have the best possible constitutional agreement that can be arrived at, and that the majority of Quebecers do not really wish to be singled out and given a special status. That is what the issue is all about. Quebec's vision of its own role in Canada is one that encompasses this nation from coast to coast. It wants to be in a Canadian federalist state in which no one is given special privileges. I am sure that Quebecers are the last ones who would want to be given special privileges.
What I am saying in my intervention is that we have here a document which was arrived at without public consultation. That in itself is a poor process. In a way it is a signal to members of the public that politicians know better than they, the people for whom the Constitution was written. I am saying that this proposal which we have before us today makes only one province responsible for the promotion of linguistic rights. That is not the approach that Quebecers or anyone who speaks French in Canada would want to have. We want to have this responsibility across the nation, as it should be because in law and linguistically we are a society which speaks two languages.
We are saying that the concept of a distinct society could lead one day to a two-nation Canada which is a concept that the Party of the Hon. Member fondly developed in the 1960s and one which it has flirted with on more than one occasion.
June 14, 1988

That in itself is reason enough for speaking against the Meech Lake Accord. Who wants to lay the foundation with this document for future generations of politicians to say: "Well, there is a distinct society clause in the Accord which allows, gives us the premise, the jumping board to claim one day that actually one province should become a separate nation"? That is not what the majority of Quebecers want. The Hon. Member has it all wrong.
If one looks at the totality of the document before us and the impact that it has and adds to that the description of Canadian society in Section 2(1), which is so outdated, one cannot help but say that this exercise, this drafting has to be sent back to the drawing-board to be started all over again. In the long term it is not a real definition of Canada. It is not a good document in the long term for Canadian unity.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is talking about the idea of perfection, and I gather he is, then I think he is being misleading. I do not know what he did before he was a politician, whether he was a teacher, a businessman or something else. In any endeavour I think one works toward the greatest degree of success along with a number of men and women attacking the problem. However, there comes a point in time when a decision has to be made and we must move on. One cannot keep striving for that perfection. Maybe that is what he was trying to do in the environment portfolio when he was Minister. Is that the reason he accomplished nothing?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to boast about my record as Minister of the Environment. I would seriously question the Hon. Member's concept of a healthy democracy when constitutional amendments are made and the people who will be affected by them are not consulted and when no amendment will be accepted in the process. That is not a definition of perfection. That is simply a definition of healthy democracy which we apply in our country in every walk of life. We seem to have forgotten that in the evolution of this most important and central document, the Constitution of Canada. What is wrong with healthy consultation with the public?


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker-*


Mr. Prud'homme:: Time!


John Horton McDermid: -I want to question the statement that the Hon. Member made about public consultation on the Constitution and on the Meech Lake Accord. The Constitution has been the subject of consultation with the provinces and with people from all walks of life for many, many years.
Back in 1980 and 1981 when the former Prime Minister and most of the First Ministers reached an agreement on the Constitution, it was done with a great deal of negotiation and bargaining in the back rooms. We all remember the Hon. Roy McMurtry, the Hon. Jean Chretien and the Hon. Roy Romanow and the deals they were cutting in the back kitchen to bring the Constitution together for the First Ministers of the
Constitution Amendment, 1987
land. We remember at the time the joy there was because a decision had been made, although it was not perfect. We also remember that at the time one province was left out. The Meech Lake Accord has a great deal to do with bringing that province in.
Since that time there has been public consultation among people in all walks of life. The Hon. Member knows that full well. If the Hon. Member had paid any attention to the election campaign of 1984 and the speech that the Prime Minister gave in the Province of Quebec on the constitutional Accord and bringing Quebec into our Confederation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, he would know full well that there has been a great deal of public consultation going on since that period of time. For the Hon. Member to stand up and tell the Canadian people that there was no public consultation is completely erroneous. I do not believe there is a Canadian who would buy the nonsense that the Hon. Member is trying to spread.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I would always defend the right of the Parliamentary Secretary to disagree with me. Nevertheless, that does not take away from the fact that his knowledge of historical facts is totally incorrect.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to elicit a comment from the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) by way of a question. The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) referred to the Hon. Member's remarks as being somewhat hollow. I would ask the Members of the House not to impute motives or try to castigate Members who hold legitimate opinions. One can have one's opinion about this agreement. One can be for it or one can be against it.
I say to the Hon. Member for Davenport in support of his remarks that there are two competing visions of this country. One is a vision of Canada wherein Canadians owe their attachment to the country as a whole, a Canada greater than the sum of its parts. The other vision is that one owes one's loyalties to the particular province or region from which one comes.
The former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, in his remarks to the Senate on March 30 really made that point when he was referring to Henri Bourassa who said that many generations of Quebec politicians will have fought for the establishment of the French fact in Canada, not in Quebec. He saw this as a retreat from that way of viewing the country.
Does the Hon. Member care to make any additional comments about what I feel, and what I beg all Hon. Members to understand, is a very legitimate view of what Canada is all about?


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret to interrupt but it may well be possible as the debate goes on for the Hon. Member for Davenport to be able to respond. However, there is some indication from Hon. Members that there does not seem to be complete consensus within the Chamber to extend the time for questions and comments. That time has expired.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State (Treasury Board).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me. I just wish to explain something to the Elouse. On the day that the House order was made to frame this debate, that is, May 17, there were consultations among all Parties in an effort to put the House order to the House and to have it approved.
Unfortunately, my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), was not in the Chamber at the time that order was being negotiated, and he came in just immediately prior to it being called. At that time, I went over to the Hon. Member and we discussed the matter. His concern was the length of time for debate. I indicated to him at that time that I was sure that I had the authority on behalf of the government Members to suggest that the amount of time allowed to him to speak could be extended, as far as we were concerned. I wish to reiterate that comment to the House and put it on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. friend. I do seek the indulgence of Members if I run slightly over the time, but I do not expect to be much in excess.
The 1987 Constitutional Accord, which like others I refer to as Meech Lake, has been with us now for almost one year. Despite the conspiracy of silence, one might call it, established among our so-called political leaders and some of our aspiring political leaders, Canadians are slowly becoming aware of what is truly at stake in Meech Lake. The result of that awareness was predictable. The more Meech Lake is understood, the more it is being rejected by Canadians. Some Canadians see it only as a problem for themselves, and that is understandable. For example, the native peoples, women, representatives of the Yukon and the Territories, and so on, have pleaded their cases eloquently at every opportunity.

The proposed constitutional amendment is invasive in that it affects every aspect of our economic and social fabric, even our political geography. When we talk about Meech Lake, we are talking about the future of Canada, the Canada we have known for 121 years, the Canada we love and the Canada where we have prospered.
Mr. Speaker, my concerns about Meech Lake aren't restricted to a single issue: whether we are talking about the future of Anglophones in Quebec; whether we are discussing the sad plight of our Native people, the weakening of sexual equality, the restrictions that would apply to federal spending powers, the absurd suggestion regarding appointments to the Senate or the dangerous proposal for appointments to the
Supreme Court, my concerns rise from the proposed amendment as a whole.

Thanks to Meech Lake Canada is to be partitioned into two distinct societies based on language and territory: Quebec will be French, the rest of Canada English, albeit with each agreeing to preserve the existence of those whose tongue is alien to the particular society in which they find themselves.
Linguistic genocide, therefore, is not proposed, but neither is a bilingual nation where public services would be available in French or English from coast to coast.
Quebec will have a special status, authority to promote its distinct identity at home and abroad, with additional powers not available to other provinces. What authority remains to the federal Government to deal with the social and economic challenges of Canadians is also being removed.
Canada is to become an association of provincial fiefdoms with semi-annual meetings between First Ministers to coordinate national objectives and policies, and strip Ottawa of whatever other authority the provinces might cherish. Meech Lake is very clearly the beginning of that process.
At Ottawa's expense, the provinces acquire powers in immigration, social and economic areas, appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court, and a veto for each over all major changes, including the creation of new provinces. To make those gains secure, there is an amending formula that puts Canada's evolution on a one-way street to more and more decentralization and the potential break up of the federation.
You might ask, Mr. Speaker: Why do so many accept Meech Lake? Well, most accept it looking through rose-coloured glasses, hoping that the various scenarios implicit in Meech Lake do not unfold. Having listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leaders of both opposition Parties here today, I believe that they are wearing the rosiest glasses of all. They rationalize away what concerns they may have on the ground that Quebec's moral adherence to the Constitution is worth the price. They hope the price is not too high, but they do not know. Some, even our Prime Minister as a matter of fact, admit that they do not know what the price is. What is the meaning of the distinct society clause? "Some day the Supreme Court of Canada will tell us", he says. Yes, indeed, the courts will one day tell us what we have done to Canada through Meech Lake, should it move forward. If we do not like it at that time, too bad. It will be too late to change directions.
Others, of course, embrace Meech Lake because they covet a further reduction of federal authority. If a form of sovereignty association with a unilingual French Quebec is necessary to achieve that reduction, well so be it. Quebec nationalists want it because they will finally have created the long dreamed of deux nations, and the extreme nationalists in Quebec see Meech Lake as a solid stepping-stone to Quebec's independence.
June 14, 1988

When the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the NDP Party (Mr. Broadbent), say: "We now know the answer to the question: 'What does Quebec want?'" I would say we have a vague idea of what the current Quebec Government wants. The two are very different. We have heard all leaders, and we just heard the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) say that Quebec has said "Yes" to Canada and now Canada must say "Yes" to Quebec. In fact, the Prime Minister said very specifically Quebec-

"Quebec said yes twice". That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The people of Quebec said yes in 1980, but the Parti Quebecois Government said no to Canada.
The two are not the same. What the population said and what the Government said are two entirely different things.

In 1980 the Quebec Government said "No" to Canada, and we are not hearing from the Quebec people except through the Quebec Government which replaced the Pequiste Government of Mr. Levesque.
What does this adherence mean? We hear that it will allow Canada to move forward with constitutional evolution, that Quebec will now come to the negotiating table on a regular basis, that this is the Quebec round that has been finished. We have heard all of this, Mr. Speaker. Where do we see any of this in Meech Lake? As a matter of fact, when I look at Mr. Bourassa's comments in the National Assembly, I hear him say, or I read that he has said that Quebec has not lost anything through Meech Lake, that there has been no step backward.

In fact, the Liberal Party, and I quote: "recognizes Quebec's right to determine its internal constitution and to express freely its desire to either maintain or terminate its membership in the Canadian federation". That was a resolution passed by the Liberal Party in 1980, and it has in no way been changed or affected by Meech Lake.

I am not so sure that the attributes of this adherence that are being given to Quebec's signature by Members in the House, and by the Leaders of the Parties, are really those that Mr. Bourassa gives. I see no guarantee that the Quebec Government in future will come to the table, if it does not suit its purpose.
Where are the defenders of Canada in this debate? [Translation]
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am here as one of Canada's elected representatives, and I am ashamed, because our elected politicians have done a disservice to the 25 million Canadians they are supposed to represent. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad moment in our history. It is a sad time for our political system,
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and I think it is even sadder for those in whom their constituents have placed their trust.
Mr. Speaker, this constitutional debate, the most important one of our time, and its effects that will determine the very nature of our federation, of our national, political and economic institutions, and even the future of our country, this debate will go down in history without any expression of dissent from the Opposition parties in this House.
What have some of our political Leaders said about the Meech Lake Accord? In recent weeks, and I will come to some of the comments made today, I heard Premier Bourassa ask: "Who has found a serious flaw in Meech Lake?" The answer to that is: "Who has not?" We can begin with 80 per cent of the lawyers polled by the Canadian Bar Association who responded with various degrees of concern about Meech Lake. The list of flaws and critics is virtually inexhaustible. Only our so-called political Leaders have chosen to duck the issue.
The Prime Minister stood in this House again this morning claiming that no one had found an egregious error. That is simply nonsense and the Canadian people know it. Mr. Lucien Bouchard, who supported the separatist aspirations of Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois, is now an unelected Minister of the Government. He is reported in the May 18 edition of Le Devoir as saying:
[ Translation]
"What we must tell English Canada is that Quebec's aspirations can no longer be kept out. There is a very simple solution-the Meech Lake Accord."
What aspirations is he talking about? Something like the sovereignty-association that he fought for in 1980. It is quite obvious, as my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has just said, that the Accord could provide a way to attain it. And like the Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bouchard divides the country into two language groups, French Canada in Quebec and English Canada elsewhere.
And my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), who is in the House this afternoon, talks in the same way. In an interview in La Presse on May 18, he accuses us, that is Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and myself, whom he considers the old guard, of completely misunderstanding the Meech Lake Accord:
"I said that I was going to Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests, not to defend Ottawa's interests in Quebec."

My friend from Laval-des-Rapides also seems to divide Canada into two territorial linguistic communities. Here we find a fundamentally different view of Canada and even of the role of Members of Parliament. Mr. Bouchard and my friend from Laval-des-Rapides are no doubt sincere in their belief

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
that they are here to defend the interests of Quebec. However, by that they clearly mean the interests of the Quebec Government. Clearly they have no better mandate to speak on behalf of the people of Quebec than I do. Or, would they say an Anglophone MP cannot speak for people of Quebec? If so, would they say that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), a Francophone, cannot speak for people of Ontario? Or, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay), also a Francophone, cannot speak for Manitobans? I do not think they mean that. Therefore, when my friend from Laval-des-Rapides refers to Quebec, I believe he refers to the provincial Government of Quebec and sees this House as a kind of brokerage house for provincial interests which he believes he has a mandate to defend.
I say to you and to him that if we in this House adopt that attitude, who in this Chamber is going to speak for Canada? Who is going to defend the national vision? I would add that I have enormous respect for my friend from Laval-des-Rapides, whose sincerity, dedication and integrity are beyond reproach. That is a healthy and welcome contrast to what I sometimes see elsewhere in this Chamber.
I did not come to Ottawa to defend the interests of the Quebec Government. Premier Bourassa does a good job of that. We here are elected to a national Parliament and we must never forget it. Our duty is to defend the national interest. In doing so, we must be accountable to those who elected us but not to provincial Governments. While we defend and promote the interests of our communities and our regions, we must do so within a national context.
Meech Lake is very much in keeping with the other view, namely that the federal Government and this Parliament are simply delegates of the provinces, like the manager of a condominium project with the responsibility delegated by the owners to take care of the common property, cut the grass, remove the snow, and clean the lobby and hallways. That is not my vision of Canada. It was not the vision of the vieille garde and all those who preceded them, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I want to say, judging by the volume of mail I have received and the reception I have received across this country on many speaking engagements, that this vision of the old guard is strong, healthy and growing every day.
During the past year I have addressed the subject of Meech Lake on many occasions in all the provinces of Canada with the exception, regrettably, of Newfoundland. That experience tells me that Canadians believe in one nation, one society, and when informed they overwhelmingly reject Meech Lake.
I respect the fact that some sincerely believe that the federal Government should be, as it were, a condominium manager and Canada should be divided into two nations, one French speaking and one English speaking. I profoundly disagree and I will fight to defend my vision of the country. I do respect those views, but I do not respect those, and we heard from the three Leaders in this House today, who would have us believe
that Meech Lake is not changing the nature of our federation. Some even pretended, for goodness' sake, that it promotes national bilingualism even in the Province of Quebec. I refer to the earlier speeches of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), my friend from York Centre, and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), and the speeches again given today by the Prime Minister and the Leaders of both opposition Parties. If I may say so, those speeches are replete with naivety, inaccuracies, and even legal stupidities.


Ms. Jewett:: How conceited can you get?


Donald James Johnston: I am glad to see my friend from New Westminster-Coquitlam here today. She said:
If Meech Lake were already in effect, it is our firm belief that that limiting
action of the Saskatchewan Government would have been declared contrary to
the Constitution as amended by Meech Lake.


Pauline Jewett: Right on.


Donald James Johnston: Really? That seems to be the view supported by the Leaders today.


Pauline Jewett: We think it is the right view.


Donald James Johnston: As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, Meech Lake was in effect morally, it being the second province following Quebec to accept it. However, if one reads Meech Lake, which most people apparently have not, it clearly states that provincial legislatures have a role to "preserve the existence of French-speaking Canadians elsewhere in Canada". There is nothing in there referring to the preservation of rights, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister said that today and the Leaders of both opposition Parties said the same thing. One final nail in the coffin of that argument is that Section 2(4) of Meech Lake is absolutely clear: No power with respect to language that belonged to a legislature prior to Meech Lake is affected by Meech Lake.
The Supreme Court of Canada told Saskatchewan it had the power to do what it did, but it would seem the Prime Minister and the spokespersons for the opposition Parties are offering us legal opinions that even a layman would reject reading the text of the Meech Lake Accord itself.
Finally, I ask them this question. If Meech Lake is intended to protect existing rights, then French-speaking Canadians elsewhere in Canada would have more rights in Saskatchewan or in Ontario than they would in British Columbia. Mr. Vander Zalm presumably feels that he would be discharging his role to "preserve the existence of French-speaking Canadians" without adding any rights to his statute books. Why should not Mr. Peterson and Mr. Devine be entitled to discharge their roles at the same level as Mr. Vander Zalm? Some day the courts will answer these questions, but please do not then turn and say that we were not warned about the disastrous consequences of Meech Lake on the linguistic rights of Canadians from coast to coast.
June 14, 1988

Finally I turn to some of the remarkable comments of the Minister of Justice speaking on behalf of the Government, Mr. Speaker. He assures us that the territorial division of Canada into a distinct society of Quebec on the one hand and the other distinct society in the rest of Canada is not to be feared by minorities in Quebec. He said:
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 ...
Those Quebecers from a multicultural community are part of it. Quebec's
English-speaking community is an integral part of the Quebec's distinct
society.
That is an interesting comment. Is that what Premier Bourassa meant when he said in the National Assembly:

For the first time in 120 years of history, the Constitution will recognize Quebec as a distinct society. The Constitution will provide Quebec with the means to preserve and promote its distinct identity and will give a constitutional basis for the French fact in Quebec.

Is the Minister of Justice really telling us that the Quebec Government sees itself as having a role to preserve and promote the English presence in Quebec? If so, how does he view the current policies which forbid the use of English on commercial signs, which limit access to English schooling, which insist on French dubbed films before general film distribution and so on? Does he see all this as changing after Meech Lake when Quebec will set about to promote all elements of its distinct society including the English component? If he does, then the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is rising on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I would like you to remind us of the rule of the debate. I have no objection to listening further to the Hon. Member, but are Members allowed 30 minutes or 20 minutes for their speeches? I think the time of the Hon. Member expired some time ago. We have four Members who want to speak. If the Hon. Member has a few more minutes, then that is okay with me, but he needs permission.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raised a legitimate point of order. As Hon. Members know the Party Leaders had unlimited time. All other Members are speaking for 20 minutes followed by a 10 minute question and comment period. The Hon. Member has spoken for about 21 or 22 minutes at the moment. I am in the hands of the House. I will let him continue for a few minutes if it is the wish of the House.


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


Donald James Johnston: I thank you and my hon. colleagues for the courtesy, Mr. Speaker.
I was pointing out what had taken place in the Province of Quebec and that the Minister of Justice seems to believe that there is an obligation to promote the English component of Quebec society. In light of what we have seen, if he believes that, I would add that he must still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Professor Lederman in the Financial Post on August 31, 1987, an authority quoted with approval in this House by the Government, had it right when he wrote of "the distinct society of French-speaking Canadians in Quebec". That is what Meech Lake is all about. It is about a French Quebec in an English Canada. There are 800,000 English-speaking people in Quebec who are not part of that distinct society. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. Meech Lake is opting for the Belgian solution, which our Commissioner of Official Languages in his recent report has described as a recipe for national suicide. Only days ago as we know Mr. Remillard made the Quebec Government's view absolutely clear. Meech Lake is to support a French Quebec not a bilingual Quebec. For once I found myself in entire agreement with Mr. Remillard because that is what Meech Lake is telling us.
The message is coming through to Canadians despite efforts to suppress debate even in this House. What is that message Canadians are receiving? If you believe in one Canada, you must reject Meech Lake. That is part of the message.

And if you believe that this country should keep a national vision that is greater than the sum of the provincial visions, that is, that Canada is greater than the sum of its provincial parts, you must reject the Meech Lake Accord.

If you believe that the individual minority rights of Canadians, be they linguistic rights or sexual equality rights, should be protected against the collective rights of a distinct society, then you must reject Meech Lake. If you believe that Canada requires national programs meeting national standards or criteria in research, education, training, income maintenance and health and that the federal spending power should be used for such purposes in the future, I should say as it has so successfully done in the past


Marcel Prud'homme: You are totally off.


Mr. Nystrom:: You are totally off.


Donald James Johnston: -then you must reject Meech Lake. If you believe the Constitution of this country should be a flexible instrument reflecting changing economic and social conditions as our country evolves with a constitutional amending formula to allow that to take place, then you must reject Meech Lake.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987

And if you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the 11 First Ministers should not have the power to change behind closed doors our fundamental law, namely the Constitution, you must reject the Meech Lake Accord. And if you believe that the judges of the Supreme Court should not be appointed from among candidates submitted by the provincial governments, you must reject the Meech Lake Accord.

If you believe that the Senate should be reformed to reflect the original intentions of the Fathers of Confederation, namely, to protect the regions against an overbearing central authority, you must reject Meech Lake.
If you believe in that, in a federation like ours the provinces should exercise the same powers and that no one province should have a special legal status which entitles it to exercise important powers not available to other provinces, you must reject Meech Lake.

So, Mr. Speaker, if you see our country as one with two official languages and bilingual institutions in every province, in every region, with sufficient protection for linguistic minorities, you must reject the Meech Lake Accord.

For those who look at this Accord and see where it can take the country, I say to those who voted no in the Quebec Referendum in 1980 that you must also reject Meech Lake.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have tabled amendments, which are found in the Order Paper, seconded by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), which are designed to satisfy the Quebec Government's five demands for moral adherence to the Canadian Constitution. They are virtually identical to those adopted by the Liberal Party at its 1986 November policy convention and were supported overwhelmingly by Liberals from all regions of this country. I say to my fellow Liberal Members in this House and the caucus, regrettably of which I am no longer a member, that if they do not support the amendments brought forward which reflect the mandate given to us by the Liberal Party of Canada, they are turning their backs on the Liberal Party and rejecting not only the Liberal vision of this country of Canada, which we have held through most of the century, but the specific mandate given by the Party at the November 1986 policy convention.
In order to save time, and I appreciate the generosity that Members have extended to me, I will not go through all of these amendments but I hope Members will look at them because they incorporate the Victoria formula, for example for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. They invoke the Victoria formula suggested by the Liberal Party for constitutional amendments. They put in a preamble which recognizes the distinctive character of Quebec as the principal but not the exclusive source of French language and culture in Canada.
They cover all of those points that were subject to the Liberal resolution of November, 1986.
In conclusion, let me say that these amendments are important because the Meech Lake Accord is not acceptable to Canadians in its present form. Those in this Chamber who think this will pass through all the provincial legislatures, I say that they are dreaming in colour. The answer is not simply to reject what we have, it is to come forward with something that will be acceptable to the Province of Quebec and which will be acceptable to Liberals from coast to coast.
I say to those in this House who argue as they have time and time again that it is necessary to proceed with Meech Lake despite its obvious flaws and that it is necessary to adopt it without amendment, remember the wisdom of William Pitt who said in the British House of Commons nearly 200 years ago:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the
argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.
Canadians are not slaves, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) for his excellent speech. I think that he has shown the House that his vision of Canada is shared by many Quebecers and most Canadians.

I would like to ask the Hon. Member a somewhat precise question about the distinct society clause. How does he feel about the distinct society clause not being in the preamble but in an operational clause, therefore giving clear instructions to the courts that they should interpret every other part of the Constitution relative to that clause? It would be interesting to know if the distinct society clause overrides the Charter or overrides anything that is in the Constitution so that that may be interpreted in favour of a distinct society for Quebec. I wonder if we should refer that clause to the Supreme Court of Canada for interpretation before we vote on this important issue.
Second, I wonder if the unanimity clause prevents amendments to the Constitution as far as the Senate is concerned. As the Hon. Member well knows, western Canadians believe that we should have an equal, effective and elected Senate. Will having the unanimity clause in the Accord prevent us from changing the second House in this Parliament?
We have seen what can happen. Last year we were called back to deal with emergency legislation on refugees. The Senate has been holding back that legislation for the last year. Those who are not elected, not responsible to constituents, are holding back our legislation. Will the Meech Lake unanimity clause prevent us from changing the Senate? These are some of the concerns I have, and I am also concerned as to whether
June 14, 1988

or not the distinct society clause overrides the Charter of Rights.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a legal question and I have my own legal opinions, but I do agree that it would be very useful to refer the distinct society clause and a number of other clauses to the Supreme Court of Canada for determination so that Members of the House would vote with the full knowledge of what may be involved. In June of 1987,1 in fact wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting specifically that, and I wrote as well to all of the premiers because the provinces also have the right to refer matters to their respective courts of appeal for interpretation, as in fact the provinces did back in 1981 during the patriation exercise. I think there is a very serious question as to what the implication of the distinct society clause is, not only on the Charter but also on power transfers.
We have heard Members of the House say that there is a non-derogation clause, we cannot change Section 91 and Section 92. However, some of the most important powers in our Constitution, their distribution and application, including communications and much of trade and commerce and the application of the peace, order and good Government clause, have been brought about through the interpretation of the Constitution. As Professor Beaudouin, a proponent of this particular Accord, said-

"It is an interpretation rule that has changed the Canadian federation."

This interpretation clause then is very significant.
With respect to the Senate, that is not a legal question, that is a question of political dynamics. I ask Members of this House who are practising politicians if they know any politician who would voluntarily give up the right to appoint 24 Senators to the Senate of Canada in return for an equal, effective and elected Senate in order to satisfy the concerns of western Canadians. I might say that in the amendments I have put forward, that kind of Senate is put right on the agenda of the First Ministers. The Triple E Senate should be addressed by the First Ministers as soon as possible. In the meantime, no change should be made because if the change which is provided for in Meech Lake is made, then I do not think, and I think the Hon. Member from Calgary shares my view, that we will ever see Senate reform in our lifetimes.


Mr. O'Neil:: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short comment on the Hon. Member's speech and on some of the points of view he put forward. First, I would observe that we have had in Canada a long history of the implementation of the kind of philosophy he advocates, namely that of an extremely strong central Government, the heavy hand of Ottawa coming down on the provinces. We have to ask where that got us, and that is only in recent history.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
If this philosophy is the one that keeps our country together, how is it that in 1980 at the time of the referendum, 40 per cent of the people of Quebec and almost 50 per cent of the French-speaking people of Quebec voted to leave confederation as we know it? If that is the philosophy of success as far as keeping our country together goes, how is it that in 1980, we faced a major constitutional crisis, perhaps the most significant crisis in this century?
The Hon. Member spoke of constitutional documents, their perfections and their imperfections. How can a Member speak with such criticism of Meech Lake when in 1982 there was a constitutional agreement reached which left out the Province of Quebec? The National Assembly of Quebec rejected the document. The Government of Quebec was not a signatory to the 1982 constitutional Accord, notwithstanding the fact that the change which was reflected in that document was the change which was promised to the people of Quebec in 1980, change which was an effort to respond to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec.
In the 1987 Meech Lake Accord, there is a series of constitutional changes that date well back into the history of the Liberal Government which was ruling this country in 1968. Changes to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Senate, the shared-cost programs, references to distinct society, the duality provisions and the role of the provinces, all of these have a history that predates this Government. What was new in 1987 was that for the first time, these elements were brought together and an Accord was reached. That is what eluded Canada before this.
The question for us all to consider is not who will speak for Canada, because there is a far more basic question than that, and that is, will there be a Canada. In my view, there will be a stronger, more prosperous Canada because Meech Lake is the glue that will keep us together.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate to have a debate in this country on centralization or decentralization or whether we should have two nations in order to keep the country together. I have no problem with having that kind of debate, but let us have that debate, because that is what we are talking about. I do not happen to share that view, but let us not pretend that Meech Lake is anything other than a stepping stone to deux nations and to a highly decentralized federation with an amending formula which does not permit the flexibility that we have known historically.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) asks what has this done for us. It has brought us to being one of the seventh largest industrialized countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living known to man. I think Canada has been a great success, though certainly there could be improvements.
The Hon. Member referred to the 1982 patriation exercise. It was former Prime Minister Trudeau who pointed out in the Senate that in fact, of elected Members from Quebec, whether

June 14, 1988
Message from the Senate
in the National Assembly or in this House, comparing the two of them, 109 voted in favour and only 74 against it. The entire Parti Quebecois and only four others in Quebec voted against it. We remember that in this House overwhelming support was given to the patriation exercise in the Charter by Members who represented every single region of Quebec, just as the Hon. Member represents Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
It is simply pure folklore to say that there were not elected Members from Quebec speaking in favour of the patriation exercise. Did anyone really expect a pequiste Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, whose life was dedicated to taking Quebec out of Canada, to sign a constitutional document which would basically bind Quebec to Canada? I think that is somewhat unrealistic.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, and Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
June 14, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 14th day of June, 1988, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program



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).
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I really quite doubt that I am going to have an opportunity to finish what I would like to say with respect to this debate on Meech Lake. I understand that we have perhaps two or three more minutes before this portion of the debate ends.
I quite agree with those who say that Meech Lake has its imperfections. It may very well be, as one Member has indicated, that those who believe that it will ultimately be ratified by the provinces are dreaming in Technicolor. However, let me make myself clear. While it is possible to have alternative visions of Canada, it is not possible to have a vision of Canada which disregards the history of Canada. If Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, that is not established by Meech Lake but by the history of this country.
As one whose family has been in this country for 150 years, the debate, in my view, is not on the issue of whether or not Quebec should be a distinct society, but whether one-third of the population will be considered a part of this society.
I grew up in a nation which, according to all that I experienced, seemed to consist of only two peoples, those who were French and those who were English. For too long this country has failed to recognize that one-third of the population of the country, which proportion is increasing, has been disregarded all too completely. It is true that we have provision for multiculturalism. However, insofar as I am concerned as a representative of that one-third of the population which is not derived from either of the founding peoples, the Meech Lake Accord has one single most notable flaw, that is, its total irrelevancy to me.
If it was important, if it was critical to have Quebec a willing partner in Confederation; it if was important, if it was essential to have Quebec as a part of Canada, it is equally essential to have those who are of neither French nor English origin equally a part. That is just as essential, just as critical. Meech Lake failed one-third of the country. We were not included at the time of Meech Lake.
There has been some question raised about the significance of ascribing to Quebec the status of a distinct society. There is no question about the result which leaves unchanged the situation of the one-third when one looks at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reads Section 15 which is of
June 14, 1988

fundamental importance to those of us who are neither French nor English. It reads:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
That sounds as though it were a ringing clarion call for equality and equal participation of all citizens in this nation. However, there was a bit of work undone and that was the fatal flaw for one-third of us in the 1982 Constitutional Act. That resides in Section 33 which reads:
Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
In other words, the rights of one-third of us can be overruled by a decision of any legislature and as long as that is so Meech Lake is irrelevant to one-third of the population of Canada. While Meech Lake may solve the problems which have been historically rooted in this country, a new problem is created when one-third of us consider Meech Lake inevitable. Until that is changed, until the override is eliminated with respect to equality, Meech Lake is an indication of the incompleteness of Canada rather than its completeness.


Mr. Redway:: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member with respect to the override provisions of the Charter of Rights in Section 33. The Hon. Member indicated that Section 33 was aimed only at one-third of Canadians, those Canadians who are not of French or British origin. He implied by his comments that Section 33, the notwithstanding provisions of the Charter, was aimed only at all other Canadians, those Canadians who are normally described as the multicultural community and come from various backgrounds other than French or British.
I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to leave the impression with this House and the public that Section 33 applies specifically only to all other Canadians, that third of Canadians who are not of French or British origin. In fact, as the Hon. Member knows, that provision, which I am sure offends everyone in this House, applies, unfortunately, to all Canadians, whether they be of British origin, French origin, or any of the other many origins which make up this country.
I am sure the Hon. Member would want to correct the record and ensure that he in no way, whether deliberately or non-deliberately, or just by confusing the issue, leaves the impression that that is the case and that Section 33 applies only to one-third of Canadians when, in fact, it unfortunately applies to all Canadians.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether that question is based on an erudite understanding of those articles of the Charter to which the notwithstanding clause applies or whether it is based on gross insensitivity to the realities of this country. It is true that the override clause applies to Articles 2
Constitution Amendment, 1987
and 7 to 15. It applies to a number of articles that have nothing to do with non discrimination or equality.
If the Hon. Member does not understand it, I know of no situation in this country where the English have been subjected to unequal treatment. I know of no situation in which the English were denied the ability to be pilots in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I know of no situation in which English were not employed or had no access to apartments. I know of no situation of that sort.
The situation of the French in this country was historically much more comparable to that one-third of the population who were denied so many rights. When we look at Section 15 as a guarantee that everyone in this country will be treated equally, we understand that it applies to everyone but that it applies with greater significance to those of us in this country who have been denied the very equality that it refers to, who have been objects of the discrimination to which it refers. That includes Ukrainians, Poles, aboriginal people and members of minority groups.
This is significant because it states that one does not have to be of either French or English derivation in this country to be treated on equal terms. Therefore, Article 33, the override with particular respect to Article 15, is fundamental to the nature of Canada as I understand it. Progress is made in developing a nation of many peoples, all of whom are equal citizens, with preferences to none.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed debating the Hon. Member and working with him in committees. I know that he is a distinguished Member, a passionate speaker, and a career scientist. I do not think he has a legal background.
I have the benefit of having had a bit of a legal background and I want to suggest to him that while I understand his concern about Section 33, and find it equally abhorrent, before we had a Charter of Rights we had ways of defending the rights of all Canadians under our Constitution. I will not get into the whole discussion of the implied Bill of Rights or a constitution similar in principle to that in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not have a charter and rights are not violated with impunity there because of the fact that there is not a charter.
While I find Section 33 abhorrent and agree that it should be removed from the Charter, I cannot conceive of any Government invoking that clause with impunity in respect of the kind of concerns he has expressed here today. There was a government in Quebec that did it as a political tool, but any government that would do this would suffer from the weight of public opinion.
Even with the notwithstanding clause, the Charter was a great step forward. It was a step forward in the progress that Canadians have sought for 120 years to make our rights more formal, more explicit and provided for in constitutional provisions or human rights legislation. Would he not agree that the Charter should be seen in that light, as a step

June 14, 1988
Royal Assent
forward? Even with the notwithstanding clause, the trend was upward and forward to greater protection for rights and more rights for Canadians.
With Meech Lake, however, for the first time we are stepping back from that trend. Now the trend is down. Therefore, I deplore the fact that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was negotiating this agreement he did not use the opportunity to get rid of that notwithstanding clause. That is where his ire should be directed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether my legal training is at all relevant since my hon. colleague, whom I respect equally as he respects me, ended up with the same conclusion as I, that Meech Lake is flawed from the point of view of one-third of Canadian citizens.
When we were dealing with the problem emanating from the failure to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness, we failed to take that opportunity to correct that flaw in the Charter. More than anything else, it is the symbolic value of the Charter that is important, and the importance of recognizing our status within this country. I admit that the Charter was the most significant provision in the 1982 Constitution Act to me and many others.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned.
["Order. Unfortunately I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now\nEntension of Sittings\nexpired. In accordance with Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.", 'Pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act- Chapter No. 18,1988.
Bill C-127, an Act to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act-Chapter No. 19, 1988.


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



Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should make the solution
of the developing housing shortage crisis in Metro Toronto a matter of top
priority in forming housing and financial policies for 1988.
He said: Madam Speaker, I ask you why this House should recommend that the Government give priority to the housing crisis of Metro Toronto. The answer is very simple, for the same reason the Government gives priority to crises in other regions, be they drought on the Prairies or fishing rights in the Atlantic. This motion is not just about a city, it is about a region, what sociologists call "a conurbation," an urban region that is home to more than four million Canadians. They are people who are just as much a part of this country as if they lived in the East, the West or the North. As such, they make a claim on us in this House and in this debate because they are facing a crisis. It is a crisis in meeting a basic human need, a basic human right.
I do not exaggerate when I refer to the housing crisis of Metro Toronto in those terms. There has to be a crisis for most people when the price of an average house in this region has risen since last February from $200,000 to $233,000, and when the rent of an average apartment is over $800 a month, if one can find an apartment. That average is based on the rents for rent control departments as well as those in the so-called free markets.
The social implication of this crisis demands the recognition of this House of Commons. A basic cause of poverty in Metro Toronto is now housing. Where 30 per cent of a person's income was once enough for accommodation, it is now 40 per cent or much more. This vast conurbation stretching from Oshawa, or even Bowmanville, to the east, right around the "horseshoe" to Niagara Falls, a spur going up from Hamilton to Cambridge and Kitchener, is close to 100 miles long and embraces four million or more people.
We have in that area a tragic paradox of full employment and "food banks". That is why we have a new social category called "the working poor". But this crisis afflicts not only low-income people, not only those at the very bottom of the scale. It threatens others who are just above the level of low income. It threatens people who hitherto had enough to provide for themselves and perhaps had a little more to help provide for others. But the escalation of the housing crisis in this kind of conurbation threatens to erode the middle class. Part of its essence has been its ability to provide for itself. The soaring cost of housing now makes many ask if they can do for themselves what their parents did for them. For so long in Canada we have assumed, generation by generation, that each new generation would try to do better than the one before it. Each generation of parents hoped their children would go
June 14, 1988

further than they were able to take them. We are now finding the possibility of a reversal of that. We find young people wondering if they can achieve what their parents achieved, when the sorry cost of housing makes them wonder if their dream of owning their own home is going to be nothing more than that, a dream.
I speak of this as a small cloud on our social horizon. But it is a warning cloud that should alert us to a sinister social change, that is, the erosion of the middle class. I call upon the House to give attention to all who are anxious about housing, the destitute homeless, the working poor, the threatened middle class, none of whom aspire to the so-called "executive homes" that are advertised in the Saturday editions of our newspapers or that some municipal councils favour. I am referring to people who seek what no Canadian should be denied, a place that he or she can call home.
Let us look at some questions that might be raised in this debate. For instance, why do these people not go where housing is cheaper? That is a good question, since housing is dramatically cheaper in some parts of the country. Last February a $200,000 house in Metro Toronto would have gone for $120,000 in Winnipeg, or $84,000 in Fredericton.
Moving is no solution. Metro is where the work is. That is why there may be pouring into this region 100,000 a year. One reason for increased housing prices in Metro is this ingress of people from all parts of Canada as well as from beyond. That is why it is not simply a municipal problem, not simply a regional problem. It is a problem that should concern us all in this House because it is generated by the needs of people from all parts of Canada who are concentrating in one region.
All the efforts of government to decentralize the industry of Canada, to spread jobs around, so that they are more plentiful in other areas has not had the effect to which these sincere desires have aspired. Metro remains the Mecca for job seekers. People will not leave in order to find the blessing of a cheap house and the curse of no job.
Let us look at another question. Why should Parliament care about a problem in Metro Toronto? Why not let the people fend for themselves? A former Mayor of Toronto once said Toronto provides the most unifying effort in the whole of Canada because it gives everybody else in Canada something to hate. So we might ask why Parliament should care about a problem in Metro. I hope that none of us here forget that when money was needed to assist grain farmers Metro Members stood with rural Members to provide what was needed, and stood rightly.
That is what I ask today. My motion focuses on Metro because I speak as a Metro area Member of Parliament. That is where the housing crisis is most acute. However, if any Member of the House wants to amend the wording of the motion to embrace a larger area, I would support any initiative
Housing
that would bear on meeting human need anywhere in the country.
Let us look at another question. What can the Government do? The tone in which the question is normally raised assumes from the outset that there is no possibility. A partial answer would be that the Government should stop exacerbating the problem.
Here is an example of how three levels of government in the Metro area have been guilty. First, many municipalities impose approval processes that are so long and so expensive that they add immeasurably to the cost of every dwelling unit. The Province of Ontario has maintained a rental control system that has often helped the people who have needed it least and left unprotected those who have needed help the most. This is a system that has exacerbated the critical apartment shortage when the Government should have encouraged rental construction. This is a system that has led to property deterioration that has not been a blessing to people. That is not saying that the system should be abandoned. It is to say that the system could be examined, amended and improved.
Let us remember federally that we are not guiltless. Recently the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation unintentionally but no less effectively drove up the price of land in the north-east Metro region by using a sales method that at one time may have been plausible but in this time of crisis served to add fuel to the fire of speculation. It set a new level of price for the cost of land, a level of pricing that was inflationary in itself.
We might agree that if Governments just stopped making the crisis worse they would certainly help. I believe that Governments can do more. I put before the House a 10 point housing program which I believe should be considered by all three levels of government, points upon which all three can cooperate and which can certainly serve to meet the needs of our people in a way that are not being met now.
First, the Government of Canada should devote a major part of the Armed Forces base at Downsview to affordable housing. This act alone could provide 5,000 affordable homes, if CMHC can rid itself of its bottom-line mentality and made sure that the lots were made available to people within the price range of low and middle-income earners.
Second, let these lots be leased rather than sold, or at least be available for leasing. Let them be leased to people who can buy the house and rent the land until they are in a position to acquire the land as well. This method has already been tried and has been found to be effective. When the Malvern housing project was opened by Canada and Ontario in Scarborough less than 20 years ago that was precisely the method that was used. It worked then and it can work now. All we need is the will.
Third, in several elections the Progressive Conservative Party promised to remove the federal sales tax on building

June 14, 1988
Housing
materials used for houses. That promise was not made in 1984, and this Government is not committed to it. Let us be clear on that. But it is a policy that once committed itself to my Party. If it did so again that move could reduce the price of a new house by several thousand dollars, especially for people who would meet income criteria.
Fourth, to put more money into mortgages let us examine the possibilities of a mortgage exchange which would create a secondary market for mortgages. This proposal has already been approved by the Parliament of Canada, a previous Parliament. It has never been implemented for reasons that have never been made clear to any Parliament. But now that we are freeing up the financial services industry, I say again that this idea, already proposed and approved in a Budget by the Parliament of Canada, should be looked at again with a view to opening up the market and making more money available at competitive rates.
Fifth, let us look at subsidizing the interest rates on mortgages for home buyers who meet income criteria. We do that for organizations. The idea that I am recommending is not radical at all. We are already doing it. This Government has already announced it in terms of serving organizations who sponsor co-ops in that way. What I am asking is for this Parliament, for this Government, to look at the practicality and the possibility of doing that for individuals, to believe in individuals, to believe in families as much as we believe in organizations. Will it work? It has already worked. Between the years 1968 and 1972 that method helped fund the purchase of 400,000 family homes in the United States. So it is certainly worth looking at.
Sixth, we need to examine flexible loan structures with a view to enabling people to buy homes with lower downpayments and longer term mortgages. Lower downpayments and longer term mortgages stretch the payment period out. It means that the person might never acquire the home free and clear. "But so what", many people would ask for their priority is not aspiring to own the house free and clear. Their priority is to get a roof over their heads. Therefore, if they have a monthly payment within their means, they want that home with the equity they would build up, however little, month by month. They want it with the assurance of having security of tenure as long as they can pay their monthly payment. What I am suggesting is being practised in other countries where they provide for lower downpayments and longer mortgage periods than we are accustomed to in Canada.
Seventh, the Government should consider imposing a speculation tax on people who buy housing not to use it but to flip it. This type of speculation only increases the problem. The best way to reduce it is to burn the speculator. The capability of a government doing that was already demonstrated by a Conservative Government in Ontario. In the early 1970s the Davis Government did precisely that and it cooled off the
speculative market within days. I can remember the moaning and the groaning of developers whom I knew in the City of Scarborough, at the thought of what this was going to do to them. They are not the only speculators. There are many individuals who try to take advantage of the speculative market. The Government has within its possibility at either provincial or federal levels, or in concert one with the other, to cool that off and cool it off quickly. Even announcing such a tax could turn the spiral of speculation around.
Eighth, in co-operation with Ontario, let us re-examine the fees charged for insurance, legal services, real estate commissions, and other costs added to the price of a home to ensure that the consumer receives fairness.
Ninth, let us investigate the value of an accommodation or rental allowance as a way of helping low-income persons who are now lined up on waiting lists two years long for social housing in Metropolitan Toronto.
Tenth, I urge the Government to make a study of the economic, social, and psychological implications of social housing which is located in what are rightly called ghettos. Such a study should ask the questions: "Is this the only way people can be served? Is it the best way? Are there options open to us?"
I have put forward those 10 proposals to show that there are initiatives open to governments, including our own, to deal with what is a crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, and in the future could become a crisis in other communities. Each proposal is practical, each has been tried; none is radical, none is living in a dream world. All of them can succeed. I sum them up by saying that together they offer hope.
"Hope" was defined by one French philosopher by the word "possibilities". People have hope when they can see possibilities. Part of the burden of life in our huge conurbations is the hopelessness of seeing or at least feeling that we have no possibilities in front of us, no possibility of gaining a home of one's own, no possibility of owning a piece of Canada, no possibility of providing for ourselves and our families as our parents provided for us. No possibility, but instead frustration, insecurity, and anxiety.
I do not believe that Canada has to be like that. I believe that Parliament can change that and offer the people such as I have described new hope and new possibilities, that we can say to people the simple dream that they have is still possible.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond in the 10 minutes allocated to each subsequent speaker. First, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) who spoke very passionately on his Private Member's Motion. I would like to commend him for raising the subject and as a Parliament attempt to deal with a matter that is obviously of concern to Metropolitan Toronto, but also to the major centres across the country.
June 14, 1988

Perhaps the metropolitan area of Toronto defines crystal clear the problem the Member attempted to address. In reference to Toronto, there used to be a saying that everyone's home was their castle. That dream for Metropolitan Toronto is evaporating in the sense, as the Member pointed out in his motion, that there is indeed a housing shortage crisis, yet there is a crisis in affordable housing. Many homes are being built in Metropolitan Toronto and the various suburbs, but they are simply and clearly becoming unaffordable for the average Canadian citizen who resides or wishes to reside in Metropolitan Toronto, and in the major urban centres from one coast to the other.
In Toronto the average young couple is in a dilemma. The dream of owning a first home and then building that nest and moving to the second home is evaporating. For a young married couple in Metropolitan Toronto even the dream of renting is becoming next to impossible. The whole evolutionary process of moving from a starter home to perhaps a larger home to reflect the needs of a family, or perhaps to meet the upward mobility of both parents in terms of their economic livelihood is being stunted, and they are fortunate if they can buy an affordable starter home.
The whole picture of parents aiding their children in the purchase of that first home is also becoming stunted. How can parents who may have three or four children begin to assist one child in purchasing a house, which is now in the neighbourhood of $225,000 or $230,000? How can that parent or parents treat their children equally? It is obviously becoming impossible. In terms of affordable housing, Metropolitan Toronto has, unfortunately, become an exclusive backyard for the well-to-do. This has not happened by any master grand design, but that is clearly the direction in which Metropolitan Toronto is heading.
Without deference to the various municipalities and towns that have sprung up around Toronto, for example, Brantford, Ajax, Newmarket, or Bolton, which are beginning to flourish as they should, but flourishing from individuals who work, shop, and go to Toronto for their various social, cultural, and entertainment opportunities. That should not be the case. The individual ought to have the opportunity of residing and living in that same community without commuting great distances. Those distances are becoming farther. There are people who do the daily trek from Newmarket, Stouffville, Ajax for one hour or an hour and a half into Toronto, they work, and then return because they cannot afford to live in Metropolitan Toronto. Clearly that is wrong.
If we as a Government are to be interested in where and how people live, and why people can live here and not there, and if we have that social conscience as a Parliament and as a Government, and I believe that we can muster that, then we cannot run away from the problem in Metropolitan Toronto, and indeed in the major centres of the country.
In his 10-point agenda the Hon. Member for Scarborough West offered a number of stimulating concepts and ideas that
Housing
we need to address. We need to address those not only as a Government, and as a federal Government, but in partnership with provincial and municipal elected leadership. We also have to bring into that partnership the builders in Metropolitan Toronto, as well as the real estate industry. It goes beyond simply trying to have a program of assistance for that first time home buyer, or perhaps to take the Downsview Airport base and give portions of that land to affordable housing. Those are legitimate programs and proposals that we need to look at.
We also need to look at the speculative real estate market in urban centres like Toronto. The Hon. Member touched on that briefly but we need to delve into it much more seriously. There needs to be some sort of apparatus which would not allow these artificially inflated prices to take root. How many times have we seen in Metropolitan Toronto a real estate market cutthroat competitive to the point where real estate agents, rather than losing a listing, will list a house at an inflated price.
I am not knocking the real estate industry because they have to put food on the table. However, it is clearly wrong to have an agent list a home for $240,000 or $250,000, when it would realistically sell for $175,000 or $180,000, just to satisfy the seller. It is not the individual transaction that is worrisome. It is the collective effect of many real estate agents and companies doing it. Prices will start upward in an artificial spiral and the transactions will legitimize the price of a home at $240,000 or $250,000 rather than a realistic figure of $170,000 or $175,000. Clearly there needs to be a code of ethics in the sense of looking at housing not only as an economic transaction but as the centre-piece of an individual's existence in any major urban centre.
We should also, particularly municipal leaders, look at the question of property taxes. How often do we hear, from our more senior citizen population in particular, that having suffered and sacrificed for 30 years to move from an apartment to a semi-detached to a bungalow or perhaps a split-level, the property tax becomes a problem. The income of a senior citizen in Metropolitan Toronto is so poor that they cannot keep up their homes much less afford the increasing property taxes imposed on them.
It is time to look at that situation because municipalities have to replace their infrastructure and to do so, perhaps they should have a piece of the income tax pie. When you really get down to it, it is unfair, given what we expect from the various city councils and their budgets, to ask them to deliver the necessary services without passing the cost on to individual home owners. It then becomes a vicious circle. The property tax base is becoming archaic and unrealistic. For example, it is time to reform the system so that when people improve their home through an addition, which will be immediately reflected in increased property taxes, we should have perhaps a freeze so that those taxes do not have to be paid except when the house

June 14, 1988
Business of the House
is sold. Otherwise, not only are people not going to be able to afford improvements, we will be discouraging them from making those improvements which keep our city clean and proper.
I hope the House of Commons and the Government take this motion and others very seriously so that we can avoid our major municipalities going the way of New York where apartments rent for $10,000 a month. From that lesson let us learn to be different. Let us learn as an elected body to confront the challenges now for a better tomorrow.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, 1 am very glad to be able to speak on this subject of the housing shortage crisis in Metropolitan Toronto. I join with the Hon. Member who just spoke in commending the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) for having brought this before us today.
I will not take time to reiterate the evidence that there is a housing shortage crisis. It has been well publicized in many ways and the Hon. Member has stated it well. I wish to comment on some of the past and present ways of dealing with the problem, though.
For the past four decades or so, particularly up until the beginning of the 1980s, the Government undertook to solve the housing problem primarily by subsidizing the builders. That resulted not in lower prices to consumers but in much higher profits and the creation of huge companies such as Cadillac which then took their profits to the U.S. so that we do not have the benefit of that tax gift anymore. That gift ran into the billions.
I believe the Hon. Member for Scarborough West is on a much sounder track with his proposals and I will be referring to some of them in a few minutes. Before I do, I wish to comment on the remarks of the Minister responsible for housing at the Co-op Housing Foundation meeting in Vancouver on the weekend. In his address he made two promises which were mentioned in the newspapers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret to interrupt my hon. friend but there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent to the following order being put:
That after the recorded division on the subamendment to Government Order No. 26 later this day, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the further consideration of Government Order No. 23 (Meech Lake) and that when debate is completed on the said order the question shall be deemed to have been put and the recorded division deferred until three p.m. Wednesday, June 22, 1988.
I thank my colleague for his patience.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stackhouse:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should make the solution
of the developing housing shortage crisis in Metro Toronto a matter of top
priority in forming housing and financial policies for 1988.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, when the Minister spoke in Vancouver the major promise he made was to increase the project development allowance for each project to a maximum of $500,000, depending of course on the size and circumstances of the project. The other promise was that up to 50 per cent of the units might be subsidized in each of the new projects, although he indicated that that would be partly by increasing the charges on the non-subsidized units and, of course, it would be subject to provincial negotiation which, as we know, puts it in the possibly far Never, Never Land. However, I do welcome those initiatives of the Minister as far as they go. He did not answer some of the co-op movement's particular requests. The co-op movement, taking the same view, which in part is shared by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, of a public obligation to assist in providing affordable housing, has asked that the Government commit itself to enabling the co-op movement to produce 10,000 units of housing per year.
It points out that in Metro Toronto alone there are 20,000 requests on hand for housing accommodation. It also requested something similar to what was promised, namely, 40 per cent of the unit would be for low income people and 20 per cent for people of not quite such low income. There would be cut-off lines. People with modest income, as the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, said often have great difficulty in Metro Toronto. The Minister's promise as stated was not at all clear on how it would address that problem of those of modest income.
There is a request for a $20 million land trust to enable coops to acquire land for building, but this money would come from existing funds contributed by the co-operatives into the co-op housing stabilization funds. It would require the Government to assist in making those funds available for land acquisition. They also ask that administration of co-op housing units be transferred to the co-operative organizations, not each individual co-op, but the 60 service organizations for co-ops that have grown up in the country. They point to the general experience that co-operative housing after five years or so is so efficiently operated that housing charges are lower than



June 14, 1988

comparable housing rents in the districts around them. In other words, co-ops manage their funds efficiently.
In addition to these, Madam Speaker, I would urge several other points. I agree strongly with the Hon. Member for Scarborough West in saying that we should reinstitute a tax on speculation. Perhaps in the direct sense that must be done by a provincial government-and I am not sure-but this Government could very well do it simply by rescinding its ill-advised capital gains exemption of, I believe, $100,000 at present since that is considered to have done a great deal to inflate land prices in places like Metro Toronto.
There is also the question of lands in Metro. There is more than just the Downsview lands. The federal Government owns a good deal of land in different parts of Metro, which it has been selling off to the highest bidder. Metro council is instituting a reform of its own practices with its own Metro lands, namely, to give non-profit housing first refusal on Metro lands to be sold. That would not produce such a high price in all cases, but it would very directly and quickly go to meet the need of which the Hon. Member for Scarborough West has reminded us. This federal Government would not only with the Downsview land but other lands in all parts of Metro follow the same principle of giving housing, that is non-profit and affordable housing, the first chance whether it is leased or lease-to-buy as the Hon. Member suggests to co-ops. There could be a variation or several plans tried.
I would also agree roundly with the Member's suggestion of removing the federal sales tax on building materials. That would cost some money in taxes lost but I will come back to that. There was a suggestion that a mortgage exchange ought to be assisted financially by the Government. Other suggestions the Hon. Member makes would cost the Government money, and I will come now to that point.
The money is available. It is a question of where the Government's priorities are. The $1 billion that might be squandered on nuclear powered submarines will, which not defend Canada and will perhaps increase the danger of war, would provide a great deal of this housing assistance which the Hon. Member has pointed out is urgently needed and much more clearly needed than nuclear powered submarines. Furthermore, dollar for dollar or billion dollars for billion dollars, building and servicing housing and providing the necessities within housing, furniture and the rest, will create far more jobs than the same $1 billion spent on nuclear submarines.
I hope this Parliament will treat the Hon. Member's motion very seriously and that perhaps we might even have some legislative initiatives in the same direction.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate on Motion No. 156 put forward by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). I commend him for his fine 10-point program. I want to say a few words on the economic situation generally and then speak
Housing
on matters of housing, particularly for our growing elderly population, especially in Metro Toronto and in my riding of Willowdale which is part of Metro.
I believe all Members will agree that a strong and stable economy is a requisite for a vigorous housing industry capable of meeting the needs of Canadians. The actions of the federal Government in managing the national economy well with low interest rates, low inflation rates and the creation of 1.3 million jobs since 1984 had a profound influence on private business and industry. In the field of housing, entrepreneurs and the Government through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have worked together since the earliest days of the corporation in providing decent housing for Canadians, especially for low income Canadians.
This private public partnership arrangement has been of immense importance. In the early days of CMHC, the private sector developed the land and built the housing according to CMHC standards and designs that were fashioned to make homes available to the majority of Canadians. This partnership philosophy has continued through a variety of government programs, and Canada's housing industry has been a powerful ally in making these programs work effectively. The policies and programs of CMHC as an agency of the federal Government since the end of the war have been designed to encourage home ownership as well as to make housing available to those who cannot afford to buy a home, especially those in the low income groups.
The federal Government and other levels of government have undertaken the responsibility of providing affordable housing to low income Canadians. For Canadians who are able to buy homes, the private sector plays the lead role while the Government's supporting activities set the climate. An area of growing interest is the challenge we face in the coming years of housing our senior citizens, especially in Metro Toronto and in my riding of Willowdale. Before too long, one in four Canadians will be a senior. We must prepare now for that day together with private industry, the provinces and, of course, the municipalities.
It will be necessary for the private and public sectors to continue to work together to meet the challenge. We must determine how the housing for senior citizens will be financed, how regulations can be developed to assist rather than hinder innovation and how appropriate levels of support can be provided within communities. Canadians in general and seniors specifically are well housed. Many of them built their homes in days when NHA mortgages and mortgage insurance helped create 25 per cent of all the homes in Canada. They offered low downpayments on long mortgage terms.
There are about 2.7 million seniors in Canada now and they live in about 1.3 million households. Of that number, 1.1 million own their own homes. This is a group envied by those of us who have not yet graduated to the status of senior, though some of us are getting close. This group is fortunate in that 92 per cent of them own their own homes outright. They

June 14, 1988
Housing
have no mortgage whatsoever, and on average, their homes are worth precisely the same as younger households, $57,000.
Looking at the net wealth of senior-led households versus those who are not there yet, the statistics are remarkable. The total assets minus the total debts of seniors versus non-seniors is again precisely the same, $133,000. The principal difference is that seniors have more liquid assets and little or no mortgage. I do not mean to suggest that turning 65 somehow creates riches. It does not, but planning, good fortune and a wide range of other factors have brought the majority of Canadians to this happy circumstance.
As you and I know, Madam Speaker, there is a group of Canadians who are seniors but do not fit the profile of the fortunate individuals I have just described. That is where Governments have historically played the most important role, in helping those who need it most.
In housing, there is a mix of programs available to ensure that senior citizens remain integrated in the mainstream of society. Through CMHC non-profit housing, co-operatives, rent-supplement assistance and residential rehabilitation, Government helps to provide decent, affordable housing.
In the last three years, more than 15,600 social housing units have been added for seniors, bringing the total number of senior units to more than 184,000. The residential rehabilitation program is a tremendous help for elderly home owners to keep their homes in good repair. In 1986, approximately 10,500 seniors' homes were repaired under this program, using a full 30 per cent of the total budget. A special residential rehabilitation program is now available throughout the country for Canadians who become disabled. All that is required is a call to the local CMHC office.
Seniors have built a country which has created much wealth and they have also encouraged the value of compassion. It is an important legacy which we must carry into the future. There is virtue in this and there is also an imperative. Governments, private industry and concerned groups must lift their eyes to this horizon.
Can we ensure that seniors continue to live independently and in dignity? I believe we can, and this Government is taking leadership in preparing an environment that will allow new financing mechanisms, new types of housing styles and a wide range of housing options for future seniors.
CMHC already has a number of important research programs under way in preparation for this changing population. It is already looking at a wide range of styles of housing and at some very interesting new ways of financing these households. A national demonstration project of garden suites or granny flats is already under way and has met with tremendous response. It may be one option for the future.
Many elderly home owners have equity in their homes but lack the income to pay the taxes and keep them maintained.
The federal Government could assist by having property taxes and repairs deducted from income taxes for seniors, or could give a grant similar to that which the province gives on property taxes. Methods of converting this equity to cash are currently being developed by both the public and the private sectors. Reverse annuity mortgages, for example, could allow home owners to take out a significant portion of home equity and use all or part of it to buy an annuity that provides monthly payments for life.
Another option is a sale-lease-back arrangement in which an investor pays below market value for a house in return for a reduction in the rent paid by the seller. Alternatively, the seller could take back the mortgage, ensuring a steady stream of income from the payments. Arrangements such as these allow the elderly home owner to remain independent in his or her own home with security of tenure and an improved cash flow to meet taxes and maintenance needs.
Another area of investigation is the concept of made-to-convert housing which is designed to make it easy for a portion of a house to be made into an accessory apartment during different periods in the life cycle of a family. It could be an income-producing apartment or accommodation for elderly parents. We should also encourage the provinces to gradually reduce rent controls, of course.
An important step in meeting the challenge of housing for the elderly has already been taken. A major national conference will be held in Halifax this October to discuss the issue and to look for solutions.
An incentive for the housing industry to get involved in the problem is a new affordable housing achievement award. This award has been established by CMHC to give public recognition for excellence to those who bring adequate and affordable housing to Canadians.
The Government could lower the tax on building materials for affordable housing, as my friend from Scarborough West suggested. When industries move out, we could use that land for residential and commercial purposes rather than for the present commercial use only. The Government could make available leased federal surplus lands in Downsview and Vaughn, as the Hon. Member for Scarborough West has said, for various types of housing in one community, or could make mortgage deductability available for first time home owners and institute a land speculation tax to cool the market.
Housing the young and the elderly requires urgent and long term planning now. I am pleased to know that once again the private sector is working with the public sector to plan for the future.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I see that I have only a couple of minutes before you call it six o'clock, but I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of the research activities in housing undertaken by the Government
June 14, 1988

to improve the availability of affordable housing to all Canadians in Toronto and elsewhere.
As a result of the consultation process started a few years ago between the Government and Canadians with a stake in housing, the National Housing Research Committee was established. This very important initiative is already paying dividends. The committee includes the provinces, industry and other main players in the housing sector. Its general aims are to facilitate the co-ordination of research, to identify priorities and to determine the most effective ways to use research funds.
One of the main issues being looked at is that of regulatory reform which is critically important, particularly where the pressure for housing is intense, and the greater Toronto area is an excellent example. As we know, one of the major constraints on getting new housing on the market is the availability of land, and most specifically serviced land. In the greater Toronto area, and I am including Halton, Peel, Durham, York and Metro Toronto, official plan approval has been given for the development of 45,000 vacant acres, and they have been zoned for housing densities ranging from 4.5 homes per acre to 9.4. Even at these very low densities, 303,000 new residences could be built and 68,000 of these potential units are scheduled for development before the end of 1989.
At the current pace of development, there is a nine year supply of vacant land. With infill projects and redevelopment, an extra 6,000 units per year could be built. Through the streamlining of some approval and regulatory processes, could we not move to this goal far sooner than the end of 1989?
Furthermore, rather than putting four estate-sized homes on an acre, it would be appropriate for some municipalities to zone for somewhat higher housing densities such as apartments, townhouses or other forms of multiple family dwellings, or perhaps they could be zoned for smaller sized homes. Many of us in this House started off our early years in 800 or 1,000 square foot houses, and I do not believe that many of us really need 4,000 square feet and five bathrooms. Surely home buyers should have a choice between large and small homes.
We know that property taxes paid to municipal Governments are based on house sizes and amenities, and it is understandable that they would be encouraging this type of housing. However, zoning exclusively for huge single-family dwellings is not helping to provide affordable housing as we understand it.
One of the first priorities of this committee was to review the regulatory process with the municipalities which can add substantially to the cost of housing, and there is no question that a number of regulations on the books are outdated, even though they may have-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Unfortunately I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
Entension of Sittings
expired. In accordance with Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 16379), the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (p. 16387, and the subamendment of Mr. Riis (p. 16390).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), the House will now proceed to the defferred recorded vote on the subamendment of Mr. Riis to the motion to extend the days and hours of sitting.
Call in the Members.

(Division No. 383)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin	Guilbault	MitchellBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	NystromBlackburn	Heap	Orlikow(Brant)	Henderson	OuelletBlaikie	Hopkins	PennerBoudria	Isabelle	Prud'hommeDingwall	Jewett	RiisFoster	MacLellan	RobichaudGagliano	Marchi	RompkeyGarneau	McDonald	RossiGauthier	(Broadview-	Waddell-32Grondin	Greenwood) McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Champagne	DarlingAttewell	(Champlain)	DaubneyBelsher	Clark	DesjardinsBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	DommBertrand	Clifford	DuguayBlackburn	Cochrane	Duplessis(Jonquiere)	Cooper	EllisBlenkarn	Corbett	EppBourgault	Cossitt	(Provencher)Boyer	Crofton	FennellBrightwell	Crosbie	FerlandBrisco	(St. John's West)	FontaineCadieux	Crosby	ForrestallCaldwell	(Halifax West)	FretzCardiff	Crouse	Friesen
June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Gagnon
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Grise
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Hicks
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-
Conception)
Kelleher
Kempling
King
Ladouceur
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Marin Martin Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McLean Mitges Moore Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Peterson Plamondon Porter Ravis Redway Reid
Reimer St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Weiner Wenman White Winegard Wise-111


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the Elouse will now continue with Government Order No. 23.
* *
*


THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987
[Stage Direction]
We would certainly agree with the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). We would agree to let the pages go to their party. Maybe, if we sit long enough, they can come back after their celebration and tell us how nice it was.
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, naturally government Members are in agreement with the proposition but not with the premise. If we are to be sitting Thursday night it will be as a result of Government Motion No. 26, and not a motion under the Standing Orders. We are in agreement with the suggestion.


Marcel Prud'homme: Now you're using the book.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair sees that there seems to be unanimous consent with respect to the suggestion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As Acting Speaker and in the name of each and every Member of the House, I say to our pages: "bon appetit".
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was a very satisfying and also very moving experience to listen to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) this morning when he spoke to us about Meech Lake. I must say I also listened with great satisfaction to the Leaders of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) when they set forth their positions.
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).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, since we decided to extend the hours to continue the debate on Meech Lake, and considering that on Thursday we will go into extended hours as a result of the Standing Orders and that the pages have their annual banquet or get together tonight, I wonder if the Chair would seek unanimous consent of the House to allow the pages to leave the Chamber. We will do the services for ourselves.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House also much appreciate the services provided by our pages, both ladies and gentlemen, during the past session.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
However, Madam Speaker, this afternoon I was exposed to the, I must say appalling, experience of listening to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who gave us a picture of Canada that is completely outdated.
If we rise above the melee around Meech Lake and ignore the purely linguistic and legal considerations, we get a very clear impression of what this country is, what it should be, and what Canadians want it to be.
The Accord is the expression of a desire to reaffirm and reinforce the federal nature of our country. This is particularly necessary since for many years, the federal Government did so much to make Canadians forget the federal nature of their country. This attitude, unfortunately, led to divisions, the like of which Canada had never seen before. That is now over and done with, as Professor Kenneth McRoberts of York University said, and I quote:
The Accord will at least have the effect of establishing once and for all that
Canada is a federal State.
Professor Pierre Fortin of Laval University added:
June 14, 1988

Meech Lake is important because of its form and its substance. It fosters confidence in our efforts to build this country in the future, with eleven governments working together in the national interest, instead of just one.
Madam Speaker, I think that the vision of Canada that we see arising from Meech Lake was described far better than any one has done so far by the Hon. Lowell Murray, when he appeared before the Committee of the Whole in the other place on March 31. Senator Murray said on that occasion:
The Meech Lake Accord will help transform our Constitution [... ] into a more authentically federalist document. In so doing, the accord will not revolutionize our constitutional arrangements. Rather, it reaffirms the view of the federation held by a broad spectrum of Canadians. This view is not based on mistrust, a pugilistic vision of competition between the partners of the federation. Rather, it assumes the interdependence of the federal and provincial governments and provides a better reflection of what Canadians want Canada to be-a generous, tolerant and united society which respects diversity and which believes that governments should work cooperatively within their respective spheres of juridiction. [End of citation]
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that it is necessary to add anything at all. That is what the Accord does and the vision of Canada that it defends.
Unfortunately, not everyone shares this vision of Canada. Many prefer the pugilistic vision that Senator Murray spoke of.
And the Liberal majority in the Senate is full of those people for whom federal-provincial relations must be a no-holds-barred combat. For them, the central power is an empire; they are its gladiators and they are sworn to fight for it in the federal-provincial arena.
For the Liberal Senators, Meech Lake is the end of the empire and its replacement by a true federation.
It is not surprising under these circumstances that they applauded when the emperor visited them to inquire about their loyalty. It is not surprising that these Liberal gladiators in the Senate saluted and answered Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant or rather, if I may be allowed a free translation, " Hail, Pierre, those who would like to kill the Meech Lake Accord salute you."
But although they did everything in their power to make their vision of Canada triumph, the Senate gladiators cannot prevent Canadians from hoping for a new era of greater cooperation and respect between the two levels of government and all Canadians.
Most Canadians wants us to pass the Accord, I think, because it will bring about this vision of a Canada of cooperation and respect, of a stronger, more united Canada.
How? That is just the question I intend to answer today.
The 1987 Constitutional Accord recognizes first of all, as Senator Murray said, the interdependence of the federal and provincial governments and is based on the principle of intergovernmental cooperation.
This principle was sorely tested during the events that led to the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. Of course, repatriation, the formula to amend the Constitution in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are achievements worth mentioning.
Nevertheless, there is an extremely important shortcoming: every time, the decision was made without the consent of Quebecers in the National Assembly of Quebec. Quebecers did not take part in the constitutional banquet of 1982. They were kept out.
How can one help being struck by the irony of Quebec's situation in 1982, considering the history of constitutional reform in Canada over the last two decades?
As Gordon Robertson, chief constitutional advisor to the federal Government from 1975 to 1979, pointed out when he testified before the joint committee examining the Accord, it was Quebec that launched the idea of reform. After years of fruitless constitutional debate, Quebecers said no to sovereignty-association in 1980 and yes to the renewed federalism solemnly promised them by the rest of Canada.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
And instead of renewal, an agreement devised behind its back was imposed on Quebec. The Constitutional Accord helps us turn the page on the worst aspects of the 1982 deal, without compromising the major gains. It helps us reunify Canada. But the Accord does much more than help Quebec return to the Canadian fold, Madam Speaker. It sets up a framework which encourages greater cooperation between the two levels of Government. The Accord reinforces the federal nature of major national institutions such as the Supreme Court and the Senate by offering the provinces an opportunity to suggest candidates. Moreoever, the Accord paves the way to a complete reform of the Senate, and the temporary procedure for the selection of candidates reflects the will of the Government to achieve this reform. It shows that for the Federal Government, the type of Senate as it exists now has become obsolete.
In the case of the Supreme Court, the provinces' participation in the selection of judges will also help reinforce the Federal fabric. After all, it is the Supreme Court which is called upon as a last resort to rule on the interpretation of all Constitutional issues, including conflicts between the Federal and Provincial Governments. It is also the Supreme Court which must rule on the constitutional nature of Federal and Provincial legislation.
As far as the First Minister's conferences are concerned, the Accord eliminates once and for all a traditional source of conflict in Federal-Provincial relations. All of you probably know that until 1985, it was the exclusive privilege of the Prime Minister of Canada to call a First Minister's conference. The Provincial Premiers who, by the way, had been meeting for over 30 years ... even the 10 Premiers could not force the Federal Government to hold a Federal-Provincial conference. The situation was such that, before 1985, they spent more time trying to convince the Prime Minister of Canada of the necessity to call a conference on the economy than of the need to co-operate and co-ordinate the economic policy.
As you know, in 1985 in Regina, the Prime Minister and his Provincial counterparts signed a memorandum of understanding calling for five yearly economic conferences. By entrenching these economic conferences of the First Ministers, the Accord adds an element of stability in the relations between the two levels of Government. Likewise, the Accord makes it possible for the Constitutional reform to proceed in a more orderly fashion, free from the arguments which always surrounded the calling of a conference.
We find the same concern for stability in the provisions of the Accord dealing with immigration. Here, the Accord makes it possible for the various Governments to constitutionalize the Federal-Provincial Agreements to administer this shared responsibility. Free from political interference, the Constitutional Agreements will contribute to a long-term planning of Government action in this area. It is also the Accord which will ensure the stability without overlooking the need to protect national interests efficiently.
Under the Accord, it is the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to set "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". The Federal supremacy in the area of immigration is therefore secured.
Madam Speaker, there is another factor which contributes to clearing up relations between governments and strengthening the Canadian federation, namely the provisions concerning the power to spend. This power of Parliament will be maintained and, for the first time, explicitly acknowledged in the Constitution. It seems to me that is one of the factors which has been ignored by the critics of the accord.
Sometimes these people would have us believe that the provinces are forced to join shared cost programs set up by the federal Government in fields under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Of course this idea is akin to the vision some people have of Canada.
Whether you like it or not, the provinces never did have to accept such programs.
The integrity of provincial jurisdiction is acknowledged in the accord, guaranteeing as it does fair compensation for provinces whose programs are tailored to the specific needs of the people and compatible with the national objectives.
According to Queen's University Intergovernmental Relations Institute Director Peter Leslie, this arrangement might prove to be very good for

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Canadians, both as taxpayers and as people on the receiving end of various programs.
He also stressed that the provinces will be in a position to find new solutions to problems which are common to most Canadians, and they will be urged to set up the mechanisms required to reach the national objectives as effectively as possible.
For their part, the joint committee members came to the conclusion that, in fields under exclusive provincial authority, shared-cost national programs can still be negotiated to the benefit of both the federal Government and the provincial Governments, and that basically the proposed change will reaffirm the importance of negotiations. In other words, the accord guarantees that from the outset the federal Government will be inclined to proceed through cooperation and negotiation rather than make unilateral attempts to force the provinces to accept rigid programs. Again this goes to show that after the accord the Constitution will be more respectful of our federal character.
Madam Speaker, this brings me to the conclusion that the constitutional accord strengthens the Canadian federation in two ways.
First it enables Quebec unashamedly to get back to the job of building the Canadian nation.
Second, it ensures that the federal Government and the provinces will make a joint effort in a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation.
Thanks to the accord we will be united rather than divided in our quest for better ways to respond to the challenges of tomorrow.
Certain critics seem to have quite simply chosen the old approach: seek confrontation and send the country down the warpath.
As I see it, Robert Stanfield aptly summed up the situation when he appeared before the Senate committee and said: "Some people do wonder what the Government and the Canadian Parliament are getting out of the accord. Well, among a few other things, the perspective of leading a united country where people fully respect one another rather than a country slowly moving towards self-destruction."
Madam Speaker, that is a challenging undertaking which all Members can proudly support. I hope they will vote in favour of the resolution.


Alan Redway: I wish to congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, on her remarks this evening and to tell her that I whole-heartedly agree with them. As she is aware, I am a whole-hearted supporter of the Meech Lake Accord. Inclusive in that is the provisions of the Accord which incorporate the concept of a distinct society. My own personal belief is that the Accord merely puts on paper what has been and has always been a part of Canadian society ever since our country started and, for that matter, for hundreds of years before there was a formal country of Canada.
I know that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is aware of concerns that have been voiced by approximately one-third of Canadians whose origin is neither French nor English but come from a variety of minority cultures and backgrounds that make up our great country. In my own constituency there are over 70 different cultures and ethnic groups. On many occasions they have voiced to me their concerns with respect to the fact that there is no mention in the Meech Lake Accord of these other ethnic and cultural communities and that they are concerned that this, in some way, may take away from their rights.
Earlier today we heard a comment from another Member of the House to the effect that they voiced that concern, in that they feel that perhaps the Meech Lake Accord overrides the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and takes away some of the rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That concern is also reflected in some of the amendments put forward in the House. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) deals with that concern in one of his amendments. It is also reflected in the amendment put forth by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Roman), that somehow or other the concept of a distinct society for French Canadians overrides the rights of the multicultural communities of Canada.
As you and the Parliamentary Secretary know, Madam Speaker, Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that the Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. That provision relates to Section 1 which says that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it.
In my view, in no way is there any amendment to that Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in no way is the concept of a multicultural Canada overridden by the Meech Lake Accord.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she and the Government agree that the rights of various multicultural communities as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are in no way overridden by the Meech Lake Accord and in fact remain as a solid basis of the rights and freedoms and privileges of all our minority groups as citizens of Canada?
[ Translation]


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that the question asked by my colleague, and especially his preamble, do reveal how much he appreciates the Meech Lake Accord. Concerning minority rights, I think that somewhere in my speech mention was made of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a vested right for Canadian society and it's for keeps.
The reference in the Meech Lake Accord to a dictinct society means a situation peculiar to Quebec. The idea is not to curtail the rights and freedoms of others, but to recognize that Quebec lives in a situation all of its own. As far as the government and I are concerned, there was never any question of denying other groups any particular right or freedom. To my mind, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will prevail for Canada's multicultural groups.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, as a Quebecker, I have always considered it essential for the future of our country that Quebec be a major, full fledged partner in

*
June 14, 1988

the Canadian federation and that it have at its disposal the essential tools for development.
In 1980, when the referendum on sovereignty-association took place, a majority of Quebecers said yes to Canada and to constitutional reform. That was the signal which set in motion the process of constitutional reform and renewal.
However, since patriation, we have all deeply felt Quebec's absence and it was imperative to find a respectable way to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold.
Although I feel that Meech Lake is far from perfect, Madam Speaker, I find it an acceptable compromise to pull Quebec out of constitutional isolation.
It fits our venerable constitution to the realities of the times.
I contend that this debate can be rightfully termed fundamental to the future of Canada. Furthermore, it concerns the Constitution, the uppermost document in our legislative framework.
For some, of course, Quebec should be a province like the others. In their view, any concession to Quebec opens the door to separatism. Their vision of Canada is static and they are neither able to sense the ever evolving reality of our country nor to adapt to it.
Quebec wants certain guarantees with regard to its distinctiveness, to the growth of its population, to its participation in federal institutions, to its full freedom to use the legislative powers granted to Quebec under the Constitutional Act of 1867.
History has shown clearly that there can be no building of Canada without Quebec and that the men and women of Quebec must have their place in life and institutions of this country. In fact, the distinct character of Quebec is a fundamental aspect of Canadian federalism.
The role of the Canadian Government is not a passive one. It has the full right and responsibility to protect and promote the French fact not only here in Canada, but also abroad.
It must constantly define and attune that responsibility in light of changing situations and greater challenges as the country evolves.
Such is the vision that guides us today in this debate on the Meech Lake Agreement.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was among those who supported the motion the first time and I now reiterate my support today.
As for the distinct society concept, Madam Speaker, Quebec's distinct identity is not new. Quebec is the main wellspring of the Francophone community's linguistic and cultural energy and inspiration and, as Senator Eugene Forsey pointed out, Quebec is the citadel of French in Canada.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It is a fact that Quebec is different from the other provinces. Its differences lie in its history, language and Civil Code, its origins, feelings and politics.
Madam Speaker, Meech Lake is not unique in recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. The Constitution Act, 1867, created a federal rather than a Unitarian State, in order to respect and protect the distinct society established within the territory of the Province of Quebec.
Madam Speaker, that is a historic fact, even if the Constitution Act, 1867, does not say so specifically. However, many sections of our Constitution recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides guarantees for the use of French and English before federal courts, the courts in Quebec and in the National Assembly. These guarantees are not found among the other founding provinces. Section 94 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the Parliament of Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all and any of the laws relative to property and civil rights. This section applies to only three of the four founding provinces, namely Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
From the outset, the Fathers of Confederation decided that Quebec's Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure would remain distinct from the Common Law practised in the other provinces. That is, in fact, what happened.
Madam Speaker, although the Constitution recognizes provincial equality, this equality is not a major consideration, because on the other hand, the Constitution provides that on historic and geographic grounds, treatment may differ from province to province. As the Joint Committee pointed out, the principle of provincial equality is an important one, but it should not be allowed to stand in the way of the development of a large part of our country and penalize its population. In 1979, the members of the Pepin-Robarts Commission, in referring to Quebec's distinctiveness, pointed out that in a society in transition, politics take on a new meaning. Because of these aspects, Quebec is a society, it is a province and it is the citadel of the French Canadian people. So there is nothing revolutionary, in this day and age, about the constitutional and exclusive recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
I don't think Quebec will turn inwards or that the Accord will lead to the two-nation or two-Canadas concept. The existence of a political society does not necessarily lead to the creation of an independent State. Quebecers don't want to live in a ghetto. It is possible to have a pluralistic State. The distinct society concept will not affect bilingualism. On the contrary, the Official Languages Act remains in effect. The protection afforded by the Constitution to official language minorities across the country is in no way diminished, and every province still has the option of declaring itself officially bilingual. Finally, Meech Lake obliges governments to preserve Canada's linguistic duality.

Constitution Amendment, 1987
As far as immigration is concerned, Madam Speaker, Section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides for concurrent powers, with federal paramountcy should provincial legislation not be compatible with federal statutes.
Sections 95 (a) to 95 (e) in the Meech Lake Accord which deal with immigration are, in fact, a constitutional rendering of the Cullen-Couture Agreement that will provide Quebec with a sound basis for claiming the right to select prospective immigrants. The Accord guarantees that within the annual immigration quota set by the federal Government for all of Canada, Quebec will have a number of immigrants, including refugees, proportional to its share of the population and, for demographic reasons, it can exceed its immigration quota by 5 per cent.
We cannot help but be pleased with this provision. All the provinces may avail themselves of it, but I believe that especially for Quebec, which faces a serious problem due to a low birth rate, this provision will have major beneficial effects because it will help Quebec protect its particular linguistic character.
As regards the Supreme Court, creation of the Supreme Court of Canada does not go back to Confederation. The Judiciary Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain at that time took the place of a court of appeal for all British colonies and the obligation to apply to it was maintained even after Confederation. The 1867 Constitution Act provided for the creation of an appeal court for Canada.
Section 101 of this Act authorized the federal Parliament to adopt measures to create, maintain and organize a general appeal court for Canada. The court was created by an Act of Parliament in 1878 and therefore Parliament could amend it by a federal law.
In 1949, the federal Parliament abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council and in 1975, it required appellants to obtain authorization to do so, thus giving the Supreme Court effective control over the cases it would hear.
I am glad that paragraphs 101(a) and 101(e) of the Meech Lake Accord enshrine the Supreme Court in the Constitution.
This is even more important because since the Charter in 1982, the Supreme Court influences the evolution of Canadian society as never before. We need only refer to the latest decision on abortion to see what an effect the Supreme Court can have on the Canadian people.
Such a unique court must be enshrined in the Constitution. Furthermore, reports on the Constitution presented over the years are unanimous on this point.
Quebec's civil law legal system is distinct from the other provinces.
It was necessary to guarantee the civil law component in the Constitution. Quebec judges are trained in civil law and
June 14, 1988
practise in French. Their presence is therefore crucial in civil law cases and those pleaded in French.
As for constitutional conferences, Madam Speaker, the Accord also has a provision requiring that a conference of First Ministers on the Constitution be held at least every year, the first one to be held within 12 months of the proclamation of the present constitutional amendment, not later than the end of 1988. The following items on the agenda are expected to be written into the Constitution: Senate reform, roles and responsibilities in fisheries, as well as any other question on which agreement is reached.
But I am wondering: Why did the Canadian Government include none of the matters of concern to it in the agenda of the First Ministers' Annual Conferences on the Constitution. It should have included among other things a provision to abolish the nothwithstanding clause, i.e. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the aim to provide all Canadians with the most complete protection of their rights and freedoms. Also, it could have proposed an amendment to Section 23 of the 1982 Constitutional Act to provide official language minorities with control and management of their publicly supported educational institutions and also to delete the words "where the number so warrants" in Section 23, while recognizing that Section 1 of the Constitutional Act, 1982 applies to Section 23.
Concerning the spending power, Madam Speaker, it has been there for a good number of years. Mr. Pierre E. Trudeau defined that power as the power of Parliament to pay monies to individuals, organizations or governments for purposes which do not necessarily fall within the legislative power of the Parliament of Canada. That power was not provided for in the 1867 Constitution. It is now entrenched in Clause 106A of the Meech Lake Agreement. But the wording is ambiguous. I am thinking for instance to the terms "shared-cost program" and "national objectives".
As pointed out by Mr. John Whyte, the Dean of Queen's University law school, during the Joint Committee's hearings, the uncertainty as to the eligibility to compensation and its related conditions apparently constitute a very strong disincentive for the Canadian Government to engage into certain expenditures related to social social programs. That uncertainty as to eligibility to compensation is a disincentive because it is impossible to know two things: first, the amount of compensation to be paid, that is compensation for which the Canadian Government will be given no credit and for which it cannot be held responsible either. And second, the attainability of the project objectives because no one can say how many provinces will decide, when a project is announced, to bring their own measures in line with the national objectives.
Will that prevent us from having national programs? Does that mean that from now on it will be impossible to establish a national childcare program? What about the guaranteed annual income and medicare? Would unemployment insurance
June 14, 1988

have been impossible under the Accord agreed to by the First Ministers?
Will the possibility of opting out of programs with compensation undermine the quality and uniformity of services throughout Canada? Who will set national goals?
As for the Senate, the amending formula will require from now on the unanimous consent of the provinces. It is too strict even with regard to federal institutions. Isn't there a danger of eventually being trapped within the Constitution? Will Senate reform come to pass? Will we finally see a Senate elected according to the formula adopted by the Prime Minister and his provincial counterparts? A reform of the Upper House is highly desirable, but the proposed amending formula is a strait jacket. It will make it very difficult.
And now, Madam Speaker, I would like to go somewhat against what my colleague from Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) said when she seemed to hold the Senate responsible for holding up the ratification of the Lake Meech Accord. As for me, I say that we must live with our institutions and that, as long as they are not changed, we will continue to respect them and each other. It is only by respecting each other that we will be able to make the changes required to get the political instruments we need to go forward and give Canadians the best Government and the best political system in the world.
Madam Speaker, we know from experience how hard it is to amend the Constitution. The Meech lake Accord is more than just an agreement. It is a unanimous agreement which cannot be dismissed out of hand. This unanimity weighs heavily on all Canadians. It means the pride of belonging to a nation which, despite its regional disparities, succeeds in creating harmony from coast to coast. As Mr. Whyte told the Joint Committee: Those who continue to oppose the 1987 Accord, after it has been accepted and approved by Quebec, must realize that they are not only working against conditions for reconciliation, but also attacking an historic document of reconciliation which will clearly have a long term negative impact on Canada. The deficiencies of the Accord would have to be very serious and have highly probable consequences and I don't think it is the case, Madam Speaker.
This time, Canada and Quebec must not miss the boat, although a few riders could be added on later. There will always be time to correct the flaws in the Accord, Madam Speaker. We are at a privileged juncture. Let us say yes to Quebec.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) for his interesting speech and especially for his interest in Quebec. Madam Speaker, I was thrilled with the first part of his speech, but the conclusion of his statement leaves me somewhat confused, because there he begins to quote and list the weaknesses that might be found in the Meech Lake Agreement, which was unanimous, as he rightly mentioned, and
Constitution Amendment, 1987
because we have certain institutions, he must respect their decisions. I have great difficulty understanding the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice, Madam Speaker, because on the one hand, he says that we must absolutely respect the Agreement as it is, in the interests of Quebec, and he is prepared to defend Quebec's interests particularly. On the other hand, he says that we must respect the decision of the other place, a majority of whose members belong to his party, Madam Speaker.
We know very well that the Senate has a Liberal majority. So how come those Senators decided not to accept a decision of the House of Commons, accepted by all three parties and the Canadian people so that Quebec can return to the constitutional family and they decided for all sorts of reasons that it is not necessary, it is not important, because it is not a perfect agreement? We never claimed to have a perfect agreement. How can you amend a text that you don't even have, something that does not even exist? How can the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice accept the decision of his colleagues, of his caucus, of the Liberal Senators, to say no to Quebec once again and at the same time say, "Yes, Madam Speaker, I voted for the Meech Lake Agreement and I intend to continue to do so"? How can they split their decision? How can they divide their interest for Quebec into sentimental and political categories?


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) for giving me this opportunity to say that, in this case, respect is a matter of respecting our parliamentary institutions that make decisions on the basis of the texts they receive or the bills submitted to them by the House and which may require improvements or amendments or changes to make these bills acceptable.
If I may make a comparison between the texts we send to the other place and the Government's decision to ask us to sit this summer, we must abide by the decision even if we disagree with the Government's proposal, since we will have to bow to the will of the majority, and the same applies to the amendments proposed by the Senate which will probably be rejected by the Government's majority when the Senate has finished its review.
Madam Speaker, I may also inform the Hon. Member that I always agreed with Meech Lake as a way to bring Quebec back in the Canadian constitutional family, but I am also in favour of adopting certain amendments that were unfortunately rejected by the Government majority. Personally, I believe that the proposals made by the Opposition included amendments that would have been acceptable to Canadians as a whole, especially to Native people and other groups that may feel somewhat frustrated by the Accord as it stands today. I look favourably on Meech Lake because of the prospect of a second round of negotiations that will give us an opportunity to correct the weaknesses of the initial document. That is why I am in favour of Meech Lake and why I pointed out the weaknesses of the present version, and I hope that the second

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
round will give us a chance to remedy those weaknesses and make the Accord responsive to the wishes of all Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words in this debate in support of the Meech Lake Accord. I am also very proud to say that all three political Parties are in support of the Meech Lake Accord.

I have been a Member of this House since 1968. In fact, it will be twenty years a little less than two weeks from now, and I remember very clearly when the referendum was held in Quebec eight years ago. At the time, Quebecers said yes to Canada and now it is time for Canada to say yes to Quebec.

In the last 25 or 30 years, this country has spent an awful lot of time and political energy on the constitutional issue. We have talked about this issue month after month, year after year, at various conferences around this country. Now, for the very first time in the last 30 years, we have unanimous agreement on a constitutional Accord for Canada that is signed by all 10 premiers, including the Premier of Quebec.
For me as a Canadian from western Canada, perhaps the most moving moment of the constitutional debate surrounding Meech Lake was when the Premier of the Province of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, sat at that table and put his signature on the Accord with the other Premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

Madam Speaker, it was in my view an historic moment for all of Canada, for all Canadian men and women, since we have now spent the last 25 or 30 years in constitutional debate.
And I do remember the last 25 or 30 years. At first I was only a young lad in Saskatchewan but I have vivid memories of the quiet revolution in Quebec. I clearly recollect the great quiet revolution headed by Jean Lesage, the former liberal premier of Quebec, and his ministers, Rene Levesque, Gerin-Lajoie and many others who were there at the time of the quiet revolution in Quebec.
Afterwards, there was an evolution with Daniel Johnson as leader of the Union Rationale and I recall very well his campaign slogan or "Egalite ou independance". He won his election campaign on that slogan, on that platform.
Madam Speaker, after that I was elected in 1968 and I was here facing Prime Minister Trudeau and others, before the Victoria Conference, held in 1971. And as I remember very well, an agreement was signed in Victoria, in June I believe, by the Prime Minister of Canada and ten provincial Premiers, including also Premier Bourassa of Quebec.
After a few days however, Mr. Bourassa changed his mind, he was won over by many Quebecers such as Claude Ryan
and others and he came back on his position. That was the end of the Victoria Agreement of 1971.
Madam Speaker, after that, as you well know, there came November 15 1976, the election of the Parti Quebecois, the election of Rene Levesque and his crusade for independence and sovereignty-association and the May 1980 referendum.
After that, there was Meech Lake last year. And that is how the constitutional debate has evolved, not only for Quebecers but for all Canadians.
Quebec has been holding out its hand and saying: "Look, we have signed a document, we are ready to come into the Canadian constitutional family, here is a piece of paper, come and sign it with us and approve it with us". We must accept that gesture. We must not at this time fail to reach out to Quebec. We must seize the historic moment and sign the Meech Lake Accord.
I was one of the Members who sat last summer on the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons during July and August hearing witness after witness. I want to refer to the words of Madam Chaput-Rolland which were some of the most moving words we heard about the necessity of seizing this historic opportunity and ensuring that we pass a resolution in this House and all across the country in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. The special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons was co-chaired by Senator Tremblay and the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer). I quote from the report at page 139. Madam Chaput-Rolland said:
I think none outside Quebec knew the reality of the referendum. I travelled throughout Canada, about a few months after. It was all over, eh? Good. It was not exactly all over. Families against families, towns against towns, fathers and mothers not speaking to their children.
During the Referendum we spoke with thousands of Quebecers. Women wanted to leave to their children a country as big as the one they had received from their father. That was mainly the article that reached the heart, because you are right: in this country if we put a little more heart into what we are doing, maybe we would be aware of the hurt we inflict on others.
And then we came home. We went back to the National Assembly, back to our villages, back to our houses, back to the friends that were no more friends; they were on the "yes", we were on the "no". It was not a picnic, it was not a social gathering, it was not a think-tank, it was a battle between brothers, a dangerous, divisive battle, and we still feel it. It was not 100 years ago, it was seven years ago that we lived that referendum.
English Canada could not care less one month after, and it stung me and it stung all of us who fought so hard to remain in Canada and to find ourselves outside of Canada. You know, it was a very dramatic gesture when Mr. Levesque put the flag of Quebec at half mast on the day you were all celebrating here. But our hearts were at half mast too that day, because we were out of a country we had chosen to remain.
So the Accord of Meech Lake brought us something "incroyable" as a gesture of friendship.
It is very important that we all listen to the words of the Madam Chaput-Rolland. She was on the Robarts-Pepin Commission on National Unity and is a very wise and
June 14, 1988

intelligent Quebecer. She goes on to give English speaking Canada a warning. She says:
But surely by now, surely, you all know that if Meech is to fail for whatever reason, there can be no more negotiations, no more justifications. If Quebec is once again to realize that it is more difficult to opt in Canada than to stay out of Canada, then surely, you know that the roads of tomorrow can only lead to another form of independence, but this time not chosen by any political party in Quebec, maybe chosen and imposed on Quebec outside Quebec.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, that is what Mrs. Chaput-Rolland said when she testified before our Special Committee on the Constitution last year.

I accept her warning that if we do not seize this opportunity and accept the Meech Lake Accord as it is we may have some extremely divisive and troubled times ahead in terms of keeping this great country of ours unified.
Therefore, my first point is that we must accept this historic opportunity. My second point is that I believe the Meech Lake Accord offers this country a new vision of co-operative federalism, a vision of national conciliation, of reconciliation that recognizes the great diversity of this country; on one hand a strong federal Government and on the other hand provinces that are treated as equals and respected in their own domains of jurisdiction.
That vision of co-operative federalism is not a new vision in this country. I remember very well the 1960s when Mr. Pearson talked a lot about co-operative federalism and negotiated the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, recognizing that Quebec was different and unique and wanted to handle its own affairs in terms of a pension. Mr. Pearson was moving with the co-operation of both opposition Parties in those days.
Tommy Douglas talked an awful lot in those days of cooperative federalism. In Quebec he had with him Robert Cliche, a tremendous Quebecer who talked about the uniqueness of Quebec and the need for a vision of a co-operative federalist society in Canada. In the Conservative Party in those days there was Robert Stanfield, another great Canadian who recognized the importance and value of diversity in this country and the need for co-operative federalism.
In 1968 Pierre Trudeau was elected. Even though I have tremendous respect for Pierre Trudeau in many areas such as the Official Languages Act, the Charter of Rights, his intelligence, his frankness, and his honesty in terms of conducting public affairs, the one area in which I violently disagree with his philosophy, dream, and vision is in how he saw Canada in terms of federalism.
I think that in that particular area Trudeau set this country back by 20 years. We are now, with the Meech Lake Accord, where Pearson, Douglas, Stanfield, Robert Cliche, and all those other people were in the late 1960s. We had a national consensus then. Since then we have had 20 years of confrontation, 20 years of centralism which was too rigid, and 20 years
Constitution Amendment, 1987
of inflexibility in terms of federalism. Now we are back into an era where this country was 20 years ago. That is another reason why I support the Accord that is before us today.
This afternoon we heard from the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). Although I respect the gentleman, as an Hon. Member opposite said, it was a voice from the past. He spoke of a Canada of yesterday. It is a Canada of yesterday that all three political Parties in this country reject.
I can say that I am proud to see a Leader of the Liberal Party get up and reject that voice of the past and the philosophy of yesterday when he, along with my Leader and the Prime Minister spoke about a co-operative federalism and a Canada that is flexible and built on diversity, with a strong federal Government and provinces that are created equally.
In addition to the historic opportunity and co-operative federalism that the Meech Lake Accord embraces, there are a number of other reasons why I believe this Accord is positive for all Canadians, regardless of where we live.
The third reason is the distinct society. The clause recognizes Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, and I stress that it is within Canada.

Saskatchewan, where I come from, is not a province with a large French-speaking community since only 5 or 6 per cent of the population speak that language. Nevertheless I think it is important to recognize that Quebec constitutes a society different from the rest of Canada. It is not a province like the others. It must have a different status and, as I said, that fact was recognized long ago by Mr. Pearson and his Liberal Government in the 1960s, by Mr. Stanfield when he was leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and leader of the Opposition here in the House, as well as by Messrs. Tommy Douglas and David Lewis as national NDP leaders and Mr. Robert Cliche as NDP leader in Quebec in the 1960s.
And I remember very well the national consensus among the three political parties on issues relating to Quebec and its reality. Quebec is different from the other provinces. I also support the Meech Lake Accord because it recognizes Quebec's distinct society and that reality is now acknowledged in the Canadian Constitution.

The fourth reason why I support the Accord is the amending formula itself. I come from a small province, with some one million people or about 4 per cent of the population of Canada. We maintain the same amending formula that there was before, in most cases. In order for constitutional amendment, the requirement is that the federal Parliament pass the resolution and seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada, also approve.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
That recognizes the equality of the provinces in Canada and recognizes that in a federal state, Prince Edward Island is equal to Quebec, is equal to Ontario, that Saskatchewan is equal to Newfoundland. In a federal state, all provinces must be recognized as equal on the one hand, while on the other hand, there must be some recognition of the population difference. Our amending formula states that we need seven provinces, but those seven provinces must represent 50 per cent of the population of Canada.
Every federal state in the world of which I am aware has a similar amending formula and recognition of the equality of states. For example, in the United States there are two senators per state, whether it is Rhode Island, California, Maine or New York. That equality is recognized in this amending formula.
The fifth reason why I support the Accord is the spending power. My friend, the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), already stated that for the first time in Canadian history the Constitution will refer to national objectives, where federal spending power can be used in terms of national objectives. As she pointed out, Mr. Pearson had attempted this many times in the 1960s without success. For the first time, this will be reflected in the Constitution of Canada as a result of Meech Lake.
The sixth reason why I support the Accord is that it recognizes that this country is a federal state through the way Supreme Court Justices will be appointed in this country. Until now, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or both would unilaterally appoint a justice of the Supreme Court. While a practice had built up whereby provinces were consulted, bar associations were consulted and there was a mechanism for consultation to take place, the federal Government ultimately would unilaterally appoint a justice of the Supreme Court.
According to the Meech Lake agreement, the federal Government can choose from a list that is submitted by the provinces. In other words, there is a co-appointment of the justice of the Supreme Court. I believe that is only proper in a federal state. The Supreme Court is not solely the instrument of the federal court but is in Canada as the highest court of our land which often must mediate between a federal government and a provincial government in disputes. My Party and I wholeheartedly endorse the approach we see in the Meech Lake Accord.
I have stated the reasons why we support the many positive aspects of the Accord. Our Party has suggested for some time that there are some things missing from the Meech Lake Accord. My Leader mentioned today that there is a lack of fairness for northern Canadians, a lack of fairness for women in this country and a lack of fairness for the aboriginal people of Canada.
Last summer, when we were writing this report to present to the Parliament of Canada, our Party, including myself and the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam,	included
addendum B which is found at page 155 of the special joint report. At that time we suggested that the Prime Minister and the premiers go back to the table to try to reach a consensus and clear up at least three areas that are not fair for many Canadians.
The first area of unfairness is the way the Meech Lake Accord unjustly treats the people of northern Canada. The change in the amending formula requires unanimity for the creation of new provinces. That is not fair. My province came into Confederation in 1905 through negotiation between the province and Ottawa. Newfoundland came in in 1949 in a similar fashion, as did Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta. Suddenly, unanimity is required for the creation of new provinces. That is unfair to the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and I urge First Ministers to go back and renegotiate an Accord to include an element of fairness for the creation of new provinces. I believe that would have the support of all Members of the House.
The same applies for the appointment of Supreme Court justices. The provinces will submit lists, but what about the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? They are not provinces and there is no mention in the Accord about the territories. Both territories are treated as second class citizens.
Section 28 of the Charter of Rights talks about equality rights for women in this country. That should be included in Clause 16 of the Meech Lake Accord so that it is very clear there is no discrimination whatsoever based on gender.
Third, there must be an element of fairness in the Accord for the aboriginal people of Canada. Why not do what Pierre Trudeau did in 1981, when he held a conference with all the premiers to discuss women's rights in this country? They eventually agreed, after much pressure, to insert rights for women of Canada in the constitutional agreement at that time. Why not try the same thing in these three areas? If it fails, so be it, but if not, it will improve the Accord and make it much better for all Canadians.
In conclusion, we also suggest that the Constitution should be expanded in the future to recognize not only the duality of this country as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, but recognize the multicultural and ethnocultural reality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. There must be Charter review to do something about Section 33 in particular as it pertains to minorities and visible minorities.
Finally, I believe we should democratize the process in the future, as suggested by the committee, so that more Canadians are involved in the process of constitutional change.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to a comment made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). During his remarks he referred to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) as being a voice from the past. I would like to put to him, as I
June 14, 1988

pointed out earlier in this House, that there are two competing visions of Canada at play here, both equally legitimate. One holds that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts, that there has to be some way for the national interest to find its expression through our federal and national institutions. The other vision is that we owe our allegiance, perhaps, to the provinces or regions from which we come. These are two visions and I think they are equally legitimate. I think it is wrong to refer to the vision I hold as being a vision from the past.
I would also put to the Hon. Member that perhaps there is a curious intergenerational issue at play. I feel many young Canadians and many young Quebecers do not have the same kind of preoccupations held by the Premier of Quebec today. When the Hon. Member talks about voices from the past, I can only tell him that I am happy that the Liberal Party has been the only Party which has focused this debate. The focus on the Meech Lake Agreement has been in the Liberal Party. It had to take place somewhere, and I am glad it has been within our Party. Canadians clearly are concerned. A Gallup Poll in April indicated that support for the agreement had dropped by half in the last year. I am glad there are young Canadians and young Quebecers out there. I could name someone like Timothy Danson, a lawyer in Toronto, the son of a former Cabinet Minister, and John Kaplan, the son of our former Solicitor General. I read in the paper a few weeks ago John Kaplan was travelling throughout the country this summer on a campaign against the Meech Lake Agreement. He says he has agreed to disagree with his father on this particular issue.

1 could speak about Michel Simard, a young Quebecer who shares our vision of this country.

I could speak about a young Canadian of Greek origin. He was born in Canada but his parents came from Greece. His name is Bill Mavridis. He wrote a letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago expressing his concerns and opposition to this agreement. These are all young people probably under 30 years of age. I do not regard them as voices from the past.
All I can say is that the Hon. Member's Party is out of step with the times and his Party will pay for it eventually.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the question was one about two competing visions. I do not really think there are two competing visions. I think there is a great national consensus of three Parties. I ask my friend in the Liberal Party to look at his own Leader's speech today and understand and realize how most members of the Liberal Party are going to vote when it comes to the Meech Lake Accord.
He should also look at the history of his own political Party. If I remember its history correctly, there was former Prime Minister Laurier, one of the great leaders of the Liberal Party, who said: "You get unity through diversity". He did not mean
Constitution Amendment, 1987
great centralization and everything being controlled by Ottawa. Lester Pearson in the 1960s was one of the fathers of the whole philosophy of co-operative federalism. It was Mr. Pearson who brought in the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan and who recognized the uniqueness of Quebec and the diversity of this country. It was the Liberal Cabinet of that day that moved in unison along with the country toward recognizing the vision of the country we now have with the Meech Lake Accord.
It was the Opposition of that day, led by people like Bob Stanfield, who also recognized that Quebec was unique and different and that the country was diverse. It recognized that our country was going to grow strong by realizing its diversity and building upon it. It was the New Democratic Party led by Tommy Douglas and great people like David Lewis who also supported that vision in the 1960s. We had a consensus in those days that Quebec was unique, different and distinct as a society. We realized we had to build this country on a foundation of co-operative federalism, that there was diversity and we needed flexibility and harmony, that we would achieve it through this kind of approach.
Then there was Pierre Trudeau, and I suggest rather than having a different vision, Trudeau was an aberration who set back national reconciliation and nation building in terms of the Constitution of this country by 20 years. In 1988, we are back in 1968 in terms of a national consensus. Today, to his credit, the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) is back where Pearson, Laurier and the Liberals were in the 1960s. Mr. Turner is there now with a majority of people in his Liberal Party. Sure, there are some voices from the past like the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount but Mr. Turner knows where Canada is in terms of nation building and how he wants to organize this great federal state of ours. He knows because that is where his Party was back in the 1950s and 1960s. That is where the CCF was, that is where the New Democratic Party was, and that is where we are today. I am proud because of those reasons that we once again have this national unity in terms of how we approach this country.
I am also proud to say that after Quebec ratified this Accord in a resolution of the Quebec National Assembly-

If I remember correctly, it was in July that the Quebec legislature ratified the Constitutional Accord.

After that, the first province that did so was the Province of Saskatchewan, with the support of all three Parties in that province, including the Leader of the Liberal Party. I am very pleased to see this kind of opening up toward Quebec and toward a vision of co-operative federalism in western Canada, and indeed, all across this great country of ours. Rather than two visions, I think we have some kind of a throw back to the past with Pierre Trudeau, Marc Lalonde, Jimmy Coutts and Keith Davey. Once we go beyond that circle, we are really scrambling to find a few more names.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987


David Berger: As I was saying in my remarks to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), Madam Speaker, I repeat that the House was presented with two different visions of Canada, both legitimate. One vision...

And that is that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts. [Translation]
You will admit that this is not easy to say in French. The other vision is that our loyalty is first and foremost to the provinces or regions we live in. Personally, I feel that there should be a way for national interests to be expressed in a federation. We must find a way for the national interests to be reflected in our institutions, failing that we might witness the break up of our country not because the men and women sitting here in the Canadian Parliament are wiser, but simply because we have been elected to promote the national interests.
The Provincial Governments and legislatures have a more restricted mandate, which is to promote the wellbeing of their province, something which, you will certainly admit, is sometimes quite different from the wellbeing of the country as a whole.
Over the past six months, we have seen just to what extent the Meech Lake Accord is detrimental to the national interest and to what extent the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has failed to understand where the national interest of Canada really lies.
Let us have a look at the debate on the linguistic rights of Francophones in Saskatchewan. Let us remember the remarks which the Prime Minister made-I do not have the exact quote-when he stated that if the linguistic rights of minorities were not well protected, it is because the minorities had been overlooked in 1981 by the previous Government. The Prime Minister has also stated in the House, and I quote: "The only way to protect the linguistic rights of minorities in Canada is to include guarantees to that effect in the Constitution".
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I will say that the Prime Minister is trying to rewrite history. We are aware that the Prime Minister had held several positions and now he would like to play the part of an historian. I feel that Canadians will seek elsewhere an assessment of history.
I feel that the history of our country can be defined as a constant effort to ensure equality among all Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Meech Lake Accord have broken with this tradition. Those who want to have a fair assessment of history should refer to the statement made by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau when he appeared before the Senate on March 30th at which time he reminded us of the efforts of such persons as Henri Bourassa to protect the rights of Francophones in Western Canada: "The purpose was to make sure that Francophone and Anglophone Canadians felt at
home everywhere in Canada". To achieve this, the Constitution of 1867 included such provisions are Section 133 and Section 93.
In the 1960's, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission described the linguistic guarantees which I have just mentioned and which dated back to 1867 as pre-concepts of equality. The commission was seeking equality and increased rights and mention was made in its recommendations about what had to be done for the Federal Government and even the provinces to consider Francophones and Anglophones as equals. With respect to employment opportunities, the courts and services offered by federal Government agencies like the CBC or Air Canada, there is no need to go over all the details of major advances made as a result of work done by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission and of the Official Languages Act of 1969.
The 1982 Charter of Rights enshrined a number of these gains in our Constitution, and we went one step further by including minority language educational rights in Section 23 of the Charter of Rights.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, for 120 years or since 1867 we have been trying to widen, more clearly define and guarantee the rights of all Canadians. That was the work of the Fathers of Confederation. That was the goal of Henri Bourassa, that was the objective of Commissioners Lauren-deau and Dunton, and that is what we did in 1982.
Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) may very well blame us for not doing more and endorsing the notwithstanding clause. There is always room for improvement, Madam Speaker, but at least we were headed in the right direction.
Such was the history of our country until the day this Prime Minister appeared on the national scene. Before he was elected, the curve of rights was pointing upwards, but now it has shifted and the pattern is just the opposite. So far it has been a trend towards more equality and more rights, the ultimate goal-I mentioned this a moment ago-being to have all Canadians, both anglophone and francophone, feel right at home anywhere in Canada.
The Meech Lake Accord is the first historic constitutional document which takes us one step backwards. With the Meech Lake Accord we are not seeking more rights but a political agreement which ignores rights, which creates an ambiguity that ought to be dispelled by the Supreme Court, of course, but still which leaves a cloud of uncertainty over the maintenance of historic rights.
When the Prime Minister never misses an opportunity to blame somebody and say that the rights of minorities are badly protected, when he claims that the only way to protect rights is to include them in the Constitution, he is guilty of shameful hypocrisy, Madam Speaker. If minority rights ought to have been better protected under the Constitution, why did he fail to do just that at Meech Lake? That is the question I would like to ask him today.

June 14, 1988
Perhaps the Prime Minister does not understand the logic of his approach. It has always been in the national interest to recognize the French fact and the English fact everywhere in Canada. It is in the national interest that Canada as a whole feels obliged to promote the two languages. With the Meech Lake Accord, we revert to a less generous vision, where provincial interests are paramount. We said the same thing a year ago, six months ago, during the debate which occurred here in September, in October, but now, recent events have confirmed our position.
With the Meech Lake Accord, we are heading towards a French Quebec and an English Canada. Instead of recognizing that linguistic minorities are an integral part of this nation's fabric, we barely accommodate them. We acknowledge their existence, but without conviction.
One would have to be deaf not to have heard the concerns about the Meech Lake agreement expressed by linguistic minorities during the course of the past year. I invite any Member of the House to read the papers or to obtain a tape of the Peter Gzowski show from two months ago on which he talked about the state of bilingualism in Canada today. He interviewed Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec. Hon. Members will see what they had to say about this agreement and how they expressed their concerns.
Yesterday I had an 11-year old boy who is in grade five, an English-speaking Quebecer, come to interview me. He asked me a number of questions about my political career and about the upcoming election. One question which he asked me toward the end of his interview was as follows. He said: "What is the future of the English in Quebec?" I had hoped that that question had been laid to rest over the course of the past 15 or 20 years. I thought it would be unnecessary for an 11-year old English-speaking Quebecer to ask such a question.
The same thing applies to Francophones outside Quebec. I would have hoped that they would not have to ask questions about their future, that their future would be guaranteed. They would be getting a pat on the back, an extra dose of generosity, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has referred to in his speeches, but which we find absent in the Meech Lake agreement. Why? Because, as I have tried to explain, that is the essence of what this country is all about. Obviously there has been concern with Meech Lake. One does not hear that very often in the House today. Obviously there has been concern because of the actions of certain provincial Governments.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, at the first opportunity following the signing of the Meech Lake Accord when a government had the choice of maintaining or abolishing the rights of its
Constitution Amendment, 1987
linguistic minority, it chose to abolish them. I am referring, of course, to Saskatchewan, the first province to ratify the Meech Lake Agreement and one of its staunchest supporters. Premier Devine of Saskatchewan, said that from now it would be up to his government to decide when and if provincial acts will be translated in French.
Therefore, the rights of the Francophone minority of that province are at the mercy of the majority. Mr. Bourassa did not want to intervene when he went to Saskatchewan because he did not want other provinces to meddle in the affairs of Quebec later on. And here is what Mr. Bourassa said before going to Saskatchewan, in Victoria, on April 12 last, and I quote:

"Mr. Getty ... ", and he is referring here to the Premier of Alberta, " ... was expressing an obvious fact with which I am in agreement. I take care of language questions in Quebec, and he takes care of language questions in Alberta. That is a selfevident fact". He goes on to say: "I don't think I would be justified in interfering in the powers of other provincial jurisdictions, just as I hope that in Quebec we can take care of our own problems on our own".
Again, I think that most Canadians can see that that is a satisfactory statement coming from the mouth of a provincial premier, but it is not the type of vision of this country that we want to entrench in our Constitution.

So, the Saskatchewan matter is a good lesson. It shows the consequence of forgetting the national interest and giving precedence to provincial interests.
I am not blaming provinces, Madam Speaker. They are not required to act in the national interest. Such is not their mandate-it is the national Government's mandate, the mandate of Members here in this Canadian Parliament.
Six months ago, we were told the Prime Minister was relinquishing another aspect of national interest in the area of federal spending power. As we know, under the Meech Lake Accord, provinces can opt out of shared cost programs, with compensation, provided their provincial program is compatible with national objectives.
My concern and that of many others was that it would be impossible to set up new social programs with such a provision. Six months ago our points were rather academic, but today we have an example of new funding programs for childcare services that are satisfactory to no one, including the Quebec womens' groups that oppose the programs. Indeed this is a childcare program in name only, because there is nothing to deal with workers' health, safety, security and qualifications, training requirements, the number of children under the care of each worker, and so on.
This Conservative Government is proposing a program devoid of basic criteria because it fears such criteria would

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
cause provinces to opt out, thus vindicating the Meech Lake's opponents.
I am not asking for uniformity, Madam Speaker, nor that the Canadian Government should dictate how provinces should manage their programs. What I am looking for is a compromise that would come out of negotiations between both levels of government. That is what federalism is all about. Each level puts forward its own vision.
This leads to healthy competition that benefits all Canadians. Indeed, it is the only way to consider new social programs or an overall reform of our existing social programs, because with the huge cost of that reform and that of new programs, neither provincial nor federal Governments can proceed alone. But under the Meech Lake Accord the dice are loaded. The federal Government, as we have seen with childcare, cannot afford to put forward its own concept because it fears provinces would opt out. So what we are left with is a hollow program where the Canadian Government is limited to keeping the books, supplying money to provinces and saying nothing as to program contents. Under those terms, Madam Speaker, there will be no future social program. The federal level will refuse to take up the odium of taxing in order to transfer moneys to provinces without saying anything about program contents.
Many other examples of how the Prime Minister sacrificed the national interest come to mind, but I cannot mention them in a 20-minute speech. We know very well that Quebec asked for a veto for historical reasons. The Prime Minister gave all provinces a veto for a series of issues, like the future of the Senate.
A few weeks ago, a Minister in the Alberta Government said that his province would object to any constitutional reform unless it obtained an elected Senate with equal representation for all provinces. The veto that Alberta has obtained on several aspects of the Constitution will enable it to do so and block the constitutional development of the whole country.
So I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this the way to encourage the healthy development of the country? I am sure that many Quebecers and many Canadians will say no.
Madam Speaker, in the statements by the leaders earlier today, I detected a note of unreality, because they took the Meech Lake Accord as a fait accompli. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Meech Lake Accord will not be adopted in its present form. Indeed, more and more Canadians are asking questions about the Meech Lake Accord and wondering whether it is really the best way to ensure the country's future.
If you allow me to conclude, Madam Speaker, the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party are a step in the right direction because we will have to find a way out, some way to go beyond the Meech Lake Accord, since, as I was just saying, it will not pass in its present form. As I said, the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party are a step in the right direction
but the amendments drawn up by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and myself better reflect the philosophy and traditions of our Party.
Madam Speaker, perhaps on a point of order, I could make a few comments . ..


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: The debate is proceeding in an orderly fashion. It is time to make comments. I shall ask the Hon. Member whether he has further comments to make. It could be taken on his 10 minutes. Then, there would be no problem, because the debate is proceeding in an orderly fashion.
It is a personal comment which I wanted to make. We will thus keep the order in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Then, we have reached the period of questions and comments following the intervention of the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). Evidently, he could answer a question put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). In concluding, I want to say that I understand the enthusiasm with which the signing of the Meech Lake Accord was received. When I say enthusiasm, I am referring to the enthusiasm of Quebecers, because Quebec got what it asked, and more. There is a lot in the Accord that is far removed from the initial positions. However, Quebecers are Canadians too. That is the point I am trying to make today. It is important for us to know what impact this Accord will have on Canada. We should consider the national as well as the provincial perspective, and realize that if Canada is weakened by the Accord, Quebec is the loser.
I want to ask Quebecers and my colleagues here in the House to reflect on the significance of the political achievements of Trudeau, Marchand, Pelletier, Sauve and so many others. These French Canadians imposed their way of seeing things on the entire country. Our economic, social and cultural policies in this country were shaped and influenced by their philosophy. They showed by their actions what French Canadians can aspire to in this country. They can aspire to leadership roles, to positions in which they can influence the direction in which this country is going. We can and must ensure that our national institutions reflect the values, needs and aspirations of French Canadians. They were convinced, and I share their view, that the best way to guarantee the future of French in this country is to involve the entire country in promoting its existence. It is a role that is as appropriate for the Parliament of Canada as for the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National Assembly, and I am referring to the promotion of the French fact. It is a modern vision that recognizes the fact we are living in a global society and that
June 14, 1988

Quebecers should not limit their aspirations to a single province.
As Quebecers and Canadians, we must realize that we do ourselves a disservice if we ignore the national interest and if we undermine the ability of the federal Government to act in the best interests of all Canadians.


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, as I rise to speak in this historic debate, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) that when he says Ottawa has had a role in promoting the French fact, it is fitting that he comes from the riding of Laurier. I think those are almost exactly the words Sir Wilfrid Laurier expressed as his philosophy of the role of French Canadians in Canada.
I am from western Canada and western Canadians in the past, and I think in the present as well, when they really think about it, have looked upon the federal Government to promote their interests and to help them when they were in need of help. The federal Government represents the larger entity that can sometimes deal with problems, both external and internal, which the provinces cannot. Of course that is the flaw in Meech Lake. In my view it creates not one distinctive Government but eleven distinctive Governments. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made this deal to get Quebec to accept the proposals in the 1982 agreement, he gave a lot of other powers to the provinces. In doing that he fundamentally weakened the federal Government.
Some of my colleagues disagree. I respect them, and I do not have a monopoly on wisdom. They may be right in the long run and I hope they are. However, my position is quite clear. I spoke in the House on October 22, 1987, as shown in Hansard at page 10287. I expressed my opposition to the constitutional Accord at that time.
To summarize, I said that I thought it was important to get Quebec's signature on the Canadian Constitution but it was not a priority such that nothing else mattered. The real priority was a good and sound Constitution. I felt the problem with Meech Lake was that it went beyond bringing Quebec into the Constitution. Under Meech Lake I believe the Senate would become a provincially controlled body endowed with enormous powers within 12 years, which would lead to a decline in the House of Commons. I think the Supreme Court will in effect be appointed by the provinces and, instead of a national institution, I see it becoming a protector of narrow provincial interests. I hope that I am wrong.
I see power as shifting away from Parliament, the provincial legislatures, and the people, to a constitutionally entrenched First Ministers' Conference which I see as a new level of super government, therefore weakening our power here in Parliament. By giving the provinces veto power in some key areas we
Constitution Amendment, 1987
make the amending formula too rigid and in certain key areas it will be impossible to change in the future.
If there ever was an egregious error it is in the treatment of northern Canada. Northern Canadians will not get a voice in the Supreme Court. Surely that is an egregious error. They cannot appoint Senators and cannot form new provinces without the unanimous permission of other provinces.
I said at the time that present and future spending programs like medicare and child care could be compromised because the provinces can opt out. Commentators differ on that, but some respected commentators say that it will be difficult to get the kind of national programs which progressive people in this country want.
There are people who say that women's equality rights, so hard fought for in 1982, could be put in danger by this Accord. There is dispute over that. The recognition of duality in Canada in the wording of the Accord neglects the original inhabitants and ignores the present reality of a multicultural Canada. Provincial power over immigration could result in a chequer-board of immigration policies across Canada with the possible restriction on people's freedom of movement from one province to another. I hope that does not happen. To some extent we will have to look to the future and trust that these things do not happen, but I see it as possible because of the Accord.
In my remarks tonight I do not want to repeat those arguments but to deal, instead, with some of the things the Prime Minister said today. I listened carefully to his speech and I share his desire to have Quebec sign the agreement. I share the obvious joy he expressed in being a Canadian. I shared his joy in seeing and experiencing this great country, yet I was disappointed by his speech. I did not think that it was very statesmanlike.
There was no mention-and I do not know that any of the Leaders mentioned this-that Meech Lake was in trouble. The fact is that Manitoba has said that it will probably not deal with it. Sharon Carstairs, who has the balance of power as Leader of the Opposition, says that it is dead.


Marcel Prud'homme: No, you have the balance of power.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: She said that. The Premier of New Brunswick said that he would not pass the Meech Lake Accord without amendments. However, the Accord must pass all the provinces, not just this House.
Yet I got the feeling, when I was listening to him, that it was sufficient for him to get this thing through the House now and deal with the by-election next week or the general election in the fall or the spring. The Meech Lake Accord and those people who believe in it in good faith will have to deal with the fact that it has to get through the provincial legislatures. I ask the people speaking in this debate why they and the Prime Minister did not talk about how it is going to get through. This

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
debate is as though we are debating in a vacuum. The Prime Minister also said in his speech: "We would open the agreement if there were egregious errors and we have not found any".
Surely the provisions dealing with northern Canada, for example, as one of the provisions, are egregious errors and worth changing. Some of us were here in 1981-82 during that historic time when we debated the Constitution not only here in the House of Commons but in the country at large. The Trudeau Government said at first, it could not make any changes. Gradually the Liberals needed the New Democrats' support in western Canada, and they gradually started to listen about making changes. I cite two areas: native rights and women's rights. These are areas where Prime Minister Trudeau came around. The Premiers said that they were not going to make any changes. They threw out native rights and women's rights, but Canadians forced the Premiers to make the changes. When Governments and even Prime Ministers say "we can't make any changes", I say: "You have done it in the past and you can do it again". I think those changes made a better Constitution. I am very proud to have voted for the 1982 Constitution in this House of Commons. I am very sad that I cannot vote for this Meech Lake constitutional amendment.
The Prime Minister said in his speech today that Meech Lake is consistent with the federal nature of Canada. I do not think so. I think it is quite different from the federal nature of Canada. This Meech Lake Accord gets the provinces into federal institutions for the first time. I have heard people say in this debate that those of us who are against Meech Lake do not understand it, have not read it properly, or are missing something, but let me quote Tom Berger, former Leader of the provincial NDP in British Columbia and former Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In The Globe and Mail recently we find that he said the following:
But the provisions of Meech Lake relating to the North and to the Supreme Court of Canada also are of great concern; they may seem peripheral, but they go to the heart of the accord. Their impact is clear: they undermine the legitimacy of federal institutions.
That is a real concern. That is why I think it is different. It changes the federal nature of Canada by putting the balance too much on the side of the provinces. The Prime Minister said in his speech today that this builds on the previous constitutional accord. I kept thinking when he said that about our debate and our own Party, in I believe 1981, in Vancouver at our national conference in which the pros and cons in a very democratic and open debate were voiced on the 1981 proposals. It seems to me that in 1981 and 1982 those who spoke against the Constitution in that debate are now on the side of supporting the Meech Lake Accord. It was the decentralizers and that type of argument which lost the day in 1981 at our convention, and I think lost the day in this House in the vote on the debate, who are now for Meech Lake, with some exceptions.
I felt that the Prime Minister took the low road in his speech today. Let me give two instances. First, he said with respect to
the native people that with the return of Quebec into this deal it help aboriginal people. We have had three years of constitutional talks and no agreement with aboriginal people. Then we had one evening when the Premiers got together and there was power sharing. What the Prime Minister said today demeans the native people. What native groups are out here supporting the Meech Lake Accord? I cannot find any. How can the Prime Minister say that this will help the native people? That statement is demeaning and wrong.
His second cheap shot was against former Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister said that the previous Government put through the Constitution in 1982 with the notwithstanding clause in it; notwithstanding the Charter of Rights, the provinces and this Parliament could overrule the Charter of Rights. I saw Trudeau the night we passed the 1982 Constitution Accord in this House. I thought he would be a happy man but he was sad. I asked him why he was sad because it was his big night. He said he was sad because the Constitution was flawed, referring to the notwithstanding clause. The present Prime Minister came into this House today and said that we have a bad Constitution because the notwithstanding clause was inserted. He bargained with the Premiers but did not remove it. How can he come back to the House and take that kind of a cheap shot at the 1982 Constitution? When he was bargaining with the Premiers at Meech Lake he should have had the notwithstanding clause removed. I cannot see anything that the federal Government gained in this matter. I suppose the gain is having Quebec included.
Perhaps we should be a little honest in this matter. I know that there are people in my Party who hold their views deeply on this matter.


Marcel Prud'homme: And they are all wrong, I suppose?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the executive meeting of the B.C. Party they voted against Meech Lake. When we had a provincial council meeting and an overwhelming vote of about 500 to 50 against it-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the caucus and the Leader?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My colleague asked me about my caucus and the Leader. The caucus and the Leader have voted for Meech Lake. I want to put on the record-and I respect their vote- that the British Columbia Party, in spite of the leadership of the Leader, the provincial Leader, the party president and the caucus, voted against Meech Lake. Why? They obviously hold their views deeply. Similarly in Nova Scotia the Party voted against it. There is a lot of division on Meech Lake.
Let me ask what will happen now. I do not agree with Sharon Carstairs. I do not think Meech Lake is dead. I think Gary Doer's Manitoba is more correct when he says Meech Lake is in trouble and it needs some changes. I think the federal Government should think about how it will make changes to it.
June 14, 1988

From this whole debate and the amendments put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), by members of the Liberal Party and by others, some amendments can be distilled. I think this thing can be changed before it finally passes. I would suggest that the Prime Minister consider sitting down with Mr. Remillard, the Interprovincial Affairs Minister from Quebec, Ian Scott from Ontario, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Mrs. Carstairs, Mr. Doer, a representative of the Premier of Manitoba, as well as the Premier of New Brunswick. Perhaps there may be some amendments that would be acceptable to the various groups involved so that a constitutional deal could go through in the Canadian tradition which is more by consensus than by having something rammed through. If that does not happen, I think Meech Lake will die, and the proponents of Meech Lake have to face that.
I would suggest that in the long term we have to change our method of constitutional amendment. The wheeling, dealing, last minute, back room bargaining is not the way a modern Constitution should be changed. I think there is sufficient good will to have accommodated Quebec and all the other interests, native, women, and multicultural. Some interests will clash, that is true, but other interests can be worked out and we could have an agreement that would have more support.
Meech Lake does not have the support of the people of Canada. Can Hon. Members not see that the emperor has no clothes? Some Members are reluctant to vote for it and will abstain. The whole tone of this debate is different from that of 1982. We as a country can do better. We can come up with a Constitution with which we can all live.
I want to close by saying that I do not know what the future holds for Meech Lake. I think it could be dead and we have to face up to that fact. I have said that Parliament and the Supreme Court are national institutions and the flaw in Meech Lake is that it provides that nominations to the court are to be made from a list prepared by the provinces, in effect giving them control of the appointments, and the same is true for the Senate.
The provisions relating to the creation of provinces in the North and to the Supreme Court of Canada reveal the thinking behind Meech Lake, and that is that national institutions are thought to be without legitimacy unless the provinces share in the power that the national Government used to exercise. This represents, in my view, a diminished federalism, an irresolute idea of Canada. I believe Meech Lake can be rewritten and it ought to be rewritten. It is not my idea of Canada, and I think we as a country can do better.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the question of the status of Quebec after the 1981 constitutional agreement was reached on November 5. The Hon. Member referred to that in his speech and mentioned the vote in the House. He said something about 75 Quebecers, and then I said
Constitution Amendment, 1987
"70". Actually the number former Prime Minister Trudeau referred to in the Senate was 71, and he was referring to some research that had been done by someone else. I have not checked the record myself, but I think we can safely assume that there were 71 Quebec MPs representing the whole province who voted for the agreement, and four against.
The National Assembly of Quebec passed a resolution on December 1 opposing the patriation package, and that resolution was adopted by a vote of 70 to 38. Thirty-eight Liberal Members of the Quebec National Assembly refused to condemn the patriation agreement. So we have a total, therefore, of 109 elected representatives from Quebec, here in Parliament or in the National Assembly, who voted for the patriation of the Constitution and 74 who voted against it.
It might be of interest to the Hon. Member that the resolution that was proposed by the Parti Quebecois at the time reads as follows:
The National Assembly of Quebec,
mindful of the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination,...
declares that it cannot accept the plan to patriate the Constitution unless it
meets the following conditions:
1. It must be recognized that the two founding peoples of Canada are fundamentally equal and that Quebec, by virtue of its language, culture and institutions, forms a distinct society within the Canadian federal system and has all the attributes of a distinct national community.
This clause was opposed by members of the Quebec Liberal Party in 1981 when it was presented in a resolution by the PQ. That same Quebec Liberal Party, several years later, under the leadership of Mr. Bourassa, proposes the same thing that his Party voted against earlier, and that is the identical language we find in the Meech Lake Accord. It makes interesting reading and I commend it to the Hon. Member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, we are coming at this from different parts of the country. People in British Columbia are asking if I can put it into the language of the street: "Why the heck are you giving Bill Vander Zalm and the likes of him power to eventually control the Senate of Canada, power to put their nominees on the Supreme Court of Canada"? They are asking: "Are you crazy, what are you doing?" This is how many of the people of British Columbia feel. I know that Premier Vander Zalm will not be there forever, but that is the feeling of the people of British Columbia.
The Hon. Member is an English-speaking Quebecer, and I realize the difficult position of English-speaking people in Quebec. There is a feeling in my part of the country that we are not opposed to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, providing that minority rights can be protected in Quebec. We know it is a strange situation because the majority is really a minority. The French majority of Quebec is a minority in Canada, so it has to have powers to protect itself. I am not against that and I am not against Quebec signing this agreement. I want to clear this up in case I gave the opposite impression in my speech. I am damn glad that Quebec signed it. I was only saying that we should be realistic. Quebec did

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
not sign before because it was a separatist Government and it was not going to sign anything.
When we make a deal with Quebec, as we did, let us not make it at the expense of the national institutions which protect, in the long run, both French and English. I said originally, if I can use the language of the street again: "You know, Canadians don't think of Mario Lemieux as Team Quebec or Wayne Gretzky as Team Alberta; they think of both of them as Team Canada". I think that Trudeau proved that with his victories in Quebec, and so did Laurier. Canadians, both French and English, think of the whole country.
By rejecting Meech Lake, I am not rejecting Quebec or the distinct society of Quebec or Quebec in Canada. I am concerned about this wheeling and dealing that the Prime Minister has done which has fundamentally weakened the country by ignoring the legitimate aspirations of our native people, of women, and of multicultural groups, and by allowing the provincial premiers, the Vander Zalms and the Devines, into the Supreme Court and ultimately into control of the Senate. We will rue the day when that comes through. I hope I am wrong, but that is how I see it and that is how I think a lot of people in my home Province of British Columbia see it as well.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on this amendment with mixed feelings. First,
I am pleased that we are here to debate a constitutional amendment which will serve its first purpose, that is, to bring Quebec formally back into the Constitution. This is an extremely important part of Canadian history. I, people from my constituency, and others from the North support it, in that we know that it will greatly enhance Canada as a nation. Without Quebec formally in the Constitution, without recognizing the distinct qualities of Quebec, many of the contributions Quebec has made, and the integral part of the spirit, culture, and history of Quebec, we have not been a full and whole country.
While appreciating the accomplishment of that important historic event, I want to speak about some compromises that have been made which I do not believe, if addressed, would unravel this Accord or be in any way detrimental to the fundamental purpose of having the Province of Quebec formally in the Constitution.
As a northerner, as someone from a constituency which has neither been consulted nor has been a party or signatory to this amendment, I rise with some sadness and perhaps some anger to speak about my concerns. It is sad that in so doing it may seem that I do not support the main intent of the constitutional amendment. That is certainly not true. However, it is extremely important for Canadians as a whole to realize the depth of feeling, the depth of solidarity, and the commitment which northerners have to furthering the constitutional process.
The Quebecois could probably best understand the feeling of being on the outside looking in which northerners have about this process. They could in a sense become our soul mates and, I hope, understand that what I have to say does not in any way detract from the important historical event but puts forward a problem that we are creating by rectifying a wrong.
In order for the circle of Confederation to be complete, it is essential that Members of the House also welcome northerners and accept the rights of Canada's First Nations, the aboriginal people. I will spend my time this evening addressing several main issues concerning this amendment, which concerns have been addressed by my Party through amendments that were voted down by the Government. Northerners will not forget which Party voted against the North and against aboriginal rights.
There are four main parts of the amendment which I will address, the first being the unanimity clause regarding the creation of new provinces; the second being the clause relating to the extension of provincial boundaries; the third being the failure to include the territories in appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court; and the fourth being the failure to include aboriginal issues as a priority for First Ministers' Conferences and to redress that particular outstanding federal issue.
First, turning to the question about provincehood, since 1871 provinces came into the Confederation in negotiation with the federal Government. The purpose, one assumes, of this is that it is intended that the federal Government should have a Canadian-wide vision. Provinces, quite understandably and quite responsibly, have a priority of a provincial vision. One must wonder why we have a federal Government if the federal Government's purpose is not to provide an integrated whole and not to have a vision which rises above a parochial provincial one. It is for this reason, I assume, that new provinces historically, the last being the Province of Newfoundland in 1949, negotiated this with the federal Government.
Not only this federal Government but the former Liberal Government did not have this Canadian vision. In 1982, when the Constitution returned to Canada, there was the same issue concerning the creation of new provinces. The current Constitution states that, in order for a new province to be created, seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population must give their assent. The amendment under discussion tonight says, of course, that there must be unanimity in that consent.
I would like to give some examples supporting my assertion that neither the former federal Government nor the current federal Government had a Canadian vision which included the North. In 1981 the former Hon. Member for the Yukon moved an amendment to delete the sections on the requirements for new provincehood as well as the sections on boundary extension. The Liberal Government of the day defeated
June 14, 1988

that motion despite some very poignant pleas about why that should be deleted from the 1982 Constitution.
I quote, for example, one Member who said that should those measures, that is, the measures concerning provincehood and boundary extension, be enacted they would "virtually eliminate any hope that the two northern territories could evolve as a province, as did the rest of the country-this resolution-is offensive, repugnant and also ludicrous". That was said in reference to the provincehood resolution. That speaker went on to say that if these measures were to pass in the 1981-82 Constitution, the Territories "would be condemned to perpetual serfdom and to perpetual colonial status unless these offensive clauses are withdrawn".
The current President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) who made those statements in 1981 and six of her current cabinet colleagues obviously thought very strongly at that time that the clauses related to provincehood and boundary extension were seriously detrimental, since such terms as "serfdom" were used, to the furtherance of the northern parts of the country.
Both the Governments of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories, for approximately the last two years, have been invited periodically to meetings of the Premiers on a number of various issues. They are signatories, for example, to a number of federal-provincial-territorial agreements. Very often Ministers from the Yukon and Northwest Territories attend joint federal-provincial-territorial meetings. In that forum the territories are regarded as a legitimate quasi-provincial Government, if not having all the provincial powers.
It is perhaps important at this point to reiterate that during the joint constitutional hearings held in the summer on the Meech Lake Accord it was clear that many people were surprised that both the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Government were quasi-provincial Governments. The federal Government has devolved many powers to these Governments in the areas, for example, of justice, health, forestry, social services, and so on.
Therefore, in both the territories we have a government leader who is analogous to a premier and a functioning legislature which meets on the same parliamentary rules as this House. These government leaders are elected, as are government members, by the population of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They are elected on the assumption that elected leaders represent the views of their constituents and will do so not only in the territorial forum but in the federal arena.
This assumption was somewhat rudely shattered when the Meech Lake Accord was under discussion. The government leaders of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were not consulted, but they came to Ottawa to make their views known. They were not allowed to participate in the meeting to
Constitution Amendment, 1987
express those views and had to do so through the media and other means.
This is not the way for a country to reach a harmonious confederation. It simply is not at all conducive to the kind of harmony which this constitutional amendment strives to create.
Let me give another example to support my contention that the current federal Government does not seem to recognize that there are two territories in Canada. I received many letters from my constituency about a specific publication called Strengthening the Canadian Federation: The Constitution Amendment of 1987", which was put out by the Government in August, 1987. The front shows a lovely picture of all the flags of Canada. Of course, they are the flags of southern Canada and do not include either the flag of the Northwest Territories or the flag of the Yukon.
One can understand when northerners receive material like this that the message is very clear: "You can dress like us, you can come and talk to us sometimes and we will tell you it's okay, but you will not really be a member; you will be outside looking in".
I do not believe that is a principle which anyone in the House would choose to champion, nor would Canadians generally feel that this was a just and equitable way to treat 75,000 Canadian citizens. The unanimity provision in the constitutional amendment is unprecedented in our history. According to my research, it is unparalleled in other modern federations such as the United States, Australia, and India. None of them require that kind of unanimity for the creation of new states or provinces.
Should the territories become a province anyway? It is important to clarify that neither of the territories at this point are discussing becoming a province imminently. However, we recognize that constitutions lay the foundation for the future. They are not just to redress past wrongs constitutions are written to set the future path. Therefore, we are extremely concerned that we will be permanently locked out of the Confederation of Canada through this unanimity provision.
Some provinces seem to be concerned that if the territories become a province they will lose a greater portion of their federal revenues. I realize that equalization payments are entrenched in the Constitution, but I think it is important to look at what is actually happening. Both in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, at least 70 per cent of our budgets are federal funds. While we may be talking about a different formula, we are still talking about an amount of money which can be equitably divided. Therefore, I find the argument that allowing for the creation of new provinces detracts from the kind of fiscal equity for existing provinces simply specious. I believe it could easily be renegotiated.
I will use the Yukon as an example. In 1985 there was a successful negotiation of a three-year economic development agreement with the federal Government. Many aspects of that

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
particular agreement parallel the equalization and transfer payments that take place between the federal Government and the provinces. We are not talking about a major effect or change. Many of these mechanisms in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are in practice now.
A second argument about the creation of new provinces has been that it will create an imbalance regarding the amending formula and so on. Surely this is a relatively easy matter to address. Is it really being suggested that a country of this size cannot have 13 provinces, considering that the Northwest Territories will be going forward with a division into the eastern Arctic Nunavik and Western Arctic in a couple of years?
Is it really being suggested that this would be totally impossible and that the country could not cope with it? Again, it is simply not a valid argument.
In 1987 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said:
I do not think that anyone can challenge the fact that my Party and this
Government have taken a leadership role in respect to ensuring that as quickly
as possible we move forward in this area of the territories controlling their
destiny and attaining provincial status.
Currently programs are being devolved to the territories.
I do not suggest that there is any intention of duplicity when we see programs being devolved on the one hand and, on the other hand, being given some responsibility without belonging to the club. It certainly gives a message to northerners that they will never have full self-determination, despite what is happening through devolution of powers.
Let me also deal with the issue of boundary extensions. The Accord states that provinces may extend their boundaries, again under the unanimity provision. It was never contemplated in the British North America Act, the Yukon Act, or any relevant statute that any of the existing provinces would extend their boundaries northward.
I believe the idea was first expressed in the 1930s by British Columbia and was reiterated as late as the 1970s. At various times Alberta and Saskatchewan also made the same suggestions.
When I raised this issue with various provincial members and indeed with the federal Government, I was told that no one would ever use this provision. If so, I suggest that it should be deleted.
The practical consequences are ludicrous. For example, if British Columbia suddenly decided to extend its boundaries there would be an uproar.
In the minute 1 have left, I want to quote Trevor Lloyd because what he said is quite pertinent to this argument. He said: "For many years the Canadian North was governed in a prolonged fit of absence of mind". We have an opportunity to redress this absence of mind. The New Democratic Party has proposed excellent amendments which would address these matters.
Let me finish by stating why I think this issue is important. I held a contest for some Grade 6 students in my constituency. They drew posters depicting what Canada Day meant to them. I think they show why northerners are concerned about the future. Helen Weber of Christ the King School has a poster showing Indian people and non-Indians, the gold rush, the Canadian dag, and the past. For her, the future is a question mark. I think it is time to respond to that question mark.
Let me quote Rosanna Dick from Ross River, Yukon, who said: "To me Canada means the Yukon Territory, my home". For Rosanna Dick, Stuart Dolan, Helen Weber, and all those children who feel that Canada is their home and their country, we have an opportunity, through a just amendment that will not unravel the Constitution, to show these children that they have a future that is not a question mark.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for the Yukon exactly what the amendment would entail. Where does she see the opposition to the amendment coming from? Is it simply in an egregious error that perhaps the provinces have not considered it, or does she think that the provinces in fact have their own agendas, in other words, they want to grab the North for themselves? Is it true that, for example, if one is a lawyer in northern Canada, one cannot be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada because under the Accord that is not permitted? I just wonder if the Hon. Member could tell me more precisely what the amendments would propose and where the Opposition, if any, would come from?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: There are several amendments that have already been proposed which I mentioned in my speech. In 1981, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) proposed an amendment regarding the boundary extension. It was in the previous discussions in the 1982 Constitution that boundary extensions should not take place without the consent of those involved, in other words, the residents of the territories. That amendment was, of course, voted down by the then Liberal Government.
In 1987, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) made an amendment in this House stating that aboriginal rights should be addressed and that section of the constitutional amendment under debate tonight should be changed to include acknowledgement of the concerns around aboriginal issues and the concern about the unanimity provision for provincehood. That amendment was voted down by the current Government.
Also in 1987, the Hon. Member for Skeena made an amendment stating that the Joint Committee on the Meech Lake Accord should travel to the North. That amendment was voted down by the current Government. It is interesting that when one reads the report from the Senate hearings, one finds that in fact the Senate committee travelled to the North, it heard what people had to say, and as a result the kind of
June 14, 1988

amendments it proposed-I almost hesitate to say so with some of my personal feelings about the other place-first of all, are similar to the amendments proposed by my own Party and do address the issues I have raised.
I have put forward three Private Member's motions, one for the inclusion of government leaders in further constitutional talks, another for the deletion of the section on boundary extension and a third for the deletion of the unanimity provision with respect to provincial provinces. So Members, hopefully, will have an opportunity to show their solidarity with the North should these be chosen, as well as in voting for my Party's amendments when we vote on this constitutional amendment.
In terms of the question, where does the Opposition come from, it is hard to say. I was not invited to the First Ministers' conference. I probably will be next time, but I was not invited last time. From reading the joint constitutional hearings, I find there are certainly quotes from Senators that certain provinces were jealous of the trappings of provincehood the territories had. Others were concerned about equalization payments, and so on. So clearly it was not a mistake or forgetful lapse. It was deliberate.
One thing that is very important, I think, for people to recognize is that the treatment of the North in this amendment was not an oversight. It was a deliberate act. When it comes to the appointment of Senators, it is a curious thing because, yes, as I understand the amendment, the Yukon would not be able to appoint Senators. I am not sure if the one who is there gets drummed out in some sort of official ceremony-and as I understand it, it could not appoint Supreme Court Judges.
What is interesting about that particular section is that the Supreme Court Judges themselves, as you will know, backed by the Canadian Bar Association, supported a particular amendment to redress that particular issue. Therefore, it is difficult to say where the opposition comes from. I think clearly there are very few issues about which there is some unanimity in the North, and this is one.
I think I can say fairly confidently that we feel this has to be a federal territorial issue because it is the federal Government which is supposed to have the Canadian vision. We do not expect each individual province to have that kind of vision. The hope, I suppose, of First Ministers conferences is that there will be some kind of collective vision. If so, I would say it is limited because we in the territories have to be worried about the bargaining. We have been a bargaining chip before. That was certainly a point the former Member from the Yukon made in the 1981-82 debates on the constitutional Accord.
I think we have to be worried about what kind of powers, what kind of agreements, will be made if, indeed, at some point, 10 or 15 years down the road, the territories knock on the door and say: "We would like to become provinces". What will have to be traded off? I think you trade off in the national interest, not in a parochial interest.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
It is difficult to say what the particular barriers are because they were closed meetings, of course, which is another interesting point about the process. It is interesting when one of the most historic documents in Canada is a very private matter. I appreciate the negotiations being private, but we are not really privy to the kinds of reasons people had for the very serious decisions they have made.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I join in the small but very attentive audience tonight and say what a very powerful statement our colleague has made. I do want to make two minor points that arose, I think, out of an error introduced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). It is not a matter that a lawyer practising in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories might not become an nominee for the Supreme Court Bench, it is if a province is willing to nominate him.


Mr. Forrestall:: Listen to the Prime Minister today and you know differently. The decision will be made by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry, I am talking about nominations. The Hon. Member has obviously not been in a state to listen. In the matter of nominations, the fact is, and I am sure the Hon. Member would agree, as I have outlined, and I just want to correct my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway.
On the matter of Senate appointments, it was the Joint Committee's understanding, under the relative section-and it slips me for the moment-of the BN A Act, the federal Government is still entirely free to appoint Senators from the two territories. That section of the BNA Act would still be paramount.
I would like to conclude my comment with a question. There is an absence of will on the part of both the previous Government and the present Government to include at all conferences, leaders of the two territories, apart from the sort of jealousy that may be involved in provinces somehow including territorial leaders at First Ministers' meetings. I agree with the Hon. Member that there is not that much difference between 10 and 13, should we divide the Northwest Territories. Is there any other reason that the Hon. Member has thought of? Does it relate, for example-and I realize this is a sensitive point- to the possibility that there will be aboriginal self-government in at least one of the territories in the foreseeable future?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I cannot-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has actually expired. However, I think it would only be fair if the Hon. Member would take a minute or so to conclude and answer the question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I cannot intuit what is in other people's minds. I think the land claims issue is

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
certainly a crucial one. Since there are land claims negotiations going on in British Columbia and in other provinces I cannot really see that that would be a reason why territorial leaders would not be included. In the self-government provision, this may have some bearing, although I would find it somewhat obscure. The self-government provision is basically supported by the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It is an issue which they are dealing with through the land claims process. I do not see why that would necessarily affect the provinces.
Of course, as we all know, one of the concerns of aboriginal people generally is that the whole issue of self-government nationally must be settled and must be discussed by the First Ministers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on the constitutional Accord which was made at Meech Lake something over one year ago and which was refined in the Langevin Building in the second meeting of the First Ministers of this land of ours. I appreciate the opportunity to speak not least of all because I have not spoken on the Accord in the House before. Circumstances of one sort and another have conspired against my doing so. Thus, at this late point, quite likely as the last person speaking on the debate in the House of Commons, I appreciate the opportunity to say something about the Accord and perhaps to do so more closely to the perspective I took when very soon after the Accord was arrived at I defended our support of it quite vigorously at a meeting of the Thunder Bay-Nipigon New Democratic Riding Association.
I will be speaking a little more closely to that line this evening than I have felt at times along the way that I would be. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) have expressed doubts and strong criticisms on certain aspects of the Accord. As the person in our caucus responsible for multiculturalism, I have inevitably at times felt some very real concerns about aspects of the Accord.
It has been said by a cynic that nothing ever really happens in Canadian history, that the same fundamental problems are there. We try different ways of solving the problems but we never really get there. If one had the time to do a history lesson one could go back, I suppose, to the constitutional Act of 1791, which is conceivably the first attempt to deal with duality and diversity of people as far as the British Empire was concerned, or one could go back to the Quebec Act and start there looking at the Act of Union of 1840-41 with its imposition upon the French-speaking population of what had been known as Lower Canada. One can certainly celebrate the achievement in Confederation.
Against that kind of background one would have a fair basis for considering what happened in 1982 when the Constitution of Canada was repatriated and when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to it. That was of course a novel development within a parliamentary Government. However, I think that all of those aspects would be less significant than the brutal basic fact of 1981-82 which is that a Prime Minister who had been working for a decade and a half to achieve one Canada and to maintain one Canada would have agreed to an arrangement that left the Province of Quebec out, especially when he had resisted any kind of special status for that Province. That failing, that fundamental flaw in 1982 is surely the most basic fact with which we really have to begin an exploration of what was done last year.
The creation of two Canadas, in a sense-if it is fair to say two Canadas when we think of Quebec had it not come into the Accord in 1982-accepted by a Prime Minister who had fought against special status all those years is the most profound kind of contradiction. For him to leave office with that reality can only leave one shaking one's head over the situation that existed.
Politically, that produced a result and a basis for the Accord of last year, a determination that was clear in a speech made by the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as well as in convention resolutions of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. It was clear that for the three political Parties of Canada the 1982 result could not be continued. That is the context, surely, within which one has to consider what was done in the spring of 1982.
It seems to me that the determination of that former Prime Minister to maintain one Canada is at the very heart of the Meech Lake Accord. Because of his insistence on all provinces being the same it was not possible to work at a different kind of solution. There were years of rejection of co-operative federalism as we all know from near the end of the Pearson years that had broken down by the kind of determination that Pierre Elliott Trudeau expressed time after time. On the one hand he expressed a strong federalism while on the other an insistence on each of the provinces being like the others.
It seems to me that when Quebec was brought in the political inability to concede to Quebec things that the other provinces did not have made it practically inevitable that the Accord would take the shape that it did. That is why in my opinion, if I may be allowed the two proper nouns here slightly out of order, as far as I am concerned the Accord is very definitely by Mulroney out of Trudeau. That makes the opposition of that former Prime Minister all the more ironic because of course his determination to have one Canada with all the provinces having similar powers is at the very heart of the constitutional Accord of 1987, rectifying the shortcomings of 1982.
As far as appreciating this in all of its complexity, I defer immediately to my colleague, our critic, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). With her years
June 14, 1988

of work in constitutional history, constitutional law and Canadian federalism she can do things with all of this that I would not do more than presume to begin with. However, the basic feature of Canadian federalism is that it is a quasifederalism. It is a decidedly odd system in which the federal power has a very long reach which is not unique to our country but which is certainly a very Canadian feature. I refer to the use of the federal power of appointment in terms of appointment of lawyers to judgeships well down into the court system within the provinces.
Provincial Legislatures establish those courts while the persons who preside over them are federally appointed. That is only one of the features that makes our state not a true federal state. Of course, the Senate most obviously represents the same reality. When we roll into it the kind of nationalism that we Canadians feel within our own affairs, finding it so difficult to express our nationalism outside our borders, we devote practically all our nationalist energy to internal affairs. That, of course, makes some of these features of our system very attractive. It would make changes in them of the sort that the Accord would be more difficult for us in the federal House to accept than they we had a more genuinely federal state. Laying aside all of the prejudices that we in our tradition from the days of the CCF through the New Democratic Party have expressed against the other place, laying all of those aside as we have done in accepting the Accord, and insisting that the Upper House of a federal state shall be controlled solely by the central Government is a most unusual feature in a federal state.
To move to a system in which there is a larger provincial involvement serving here as the reality of our regional existence, to have provinces involved in the choice of Senators and Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, is moving a little closer to a genuine federal state. One could worry this particular matter to and fro, having deferred to my good friend and her expertise in this area, I suppose I might refer to the historians who have wrestled with this, particularly through the 1960s and 1970s.
Professor Donald Creighton had his own particular narrow views of what the Canadian state was all about and what the determination of Sir John A. Macdonald was, loading all that significance on our first Prime Minister, as far as the very nature of the state back in the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s was, and again I do not have time to explore that. One could think of the writings of William Morton on this same topic, another notable Conservative historian, and a breakdown of the imperial vision that Professor Morton in his time credited to Sir John A. Macdonald.
The breakdown of that vision came early on. What he failed to face up to in one of his most notable articles on this topic is the democratic reality that destroyed it. Although one may have a federal state, one may have a quasi-federal state, in our time one has certain democratic realities that one has to face
Constitution Amendment, 1987
up to. Those, of course, were the ones expressed by the determination of the three Parties and in the deliberations of the First Ministers.
In linking the First Ministers meeting to the democratic politics I may offend some people who see this as rather a closed session in which something was done very quickly. I think we exaggerate all of that. I realized afterward that there were certainly clues as to what may happen, such things as a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to the Alberta Conservative Party not too many days before the Meech Lake Accord, which gave a pretty fair signal to those listening carefully as to what actually would happen. Again, we are in grave danger of exaggerating if we focus only on the reality of 11 men gathered around a table making this particular agreement.
If we have in the Accord a movement toward a more federal state, and that for all of us who are nationalists and concerned about the power of the federal Government, on the other hand we have something that is surely fully as significant as my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has indicated. He pointed to the clause dealing with the spending power and has asserted that here something is being gained.
If there is one thing that we on the federal scene have ignored for decades past, it is the manner in which the federal Government, certainly from the 1950s and perhaps even earlier, asserted itself in provincial areas of responsibility. One could debate how this was being done very easily. One could question the validity of it. Generally the arguments were made around the spending power of the federal Government and its being quite untrammeled. But when it is exercised in areas of social and cultural responsibility, which are quintessentially provincial, if one reads the BNA Act, the Constitutional Act of 1867, and puts it into a modern context, then all of this activity by the federal Government through all these years in areas of provincial responsibility, without a very clear basis for it, certainly could be debated.
Without spending any length of time on it, we know perfectly well from the Tremblay Commission of the 1950s in Quebec, and probably before that in reactions, there was the most profound reaction in Quebec to all of this. To have in the agreement negotiated by the First Ministers, the provincial Premiers, and the Prime Minister a basis for the federal Government to act in all of these areas in agreement with the provinces is more than just a tidying up of the constitutional scene. It is one that certainly deserves to be recognized, and to have the sense of national objectives. There are those who would have preferred national standards, taking us back to the 1930s and the Rowell-Sirois Commission considering the state of the Canadian federal organization, the weaknesses of the provinces in finances, and so on. In those days, national standards might have been preferable for many of us, but national objectives certainly go a long way toward what we want when we think of achieving programs of one sort or another in areas that are not immediately obviously in the federal area under section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Having said those things, Madam Speaker, about the evolution in a manner that indicates my basic support for what has happened, there are those areas of concern that have been expressed by various persons. Here we particularly have the politics of the situation.
If we consider the manner in which this agreement was arrived at, by contrast fairly quickly, and contrasted to the failure in three meetings of First Ministers to make any significant progress on aboriginal rights, one can understand perfectly well the outrage of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that something should be done so quickly here to take care of this when their long struggle to achieve recognition and clarification of what self-government means had not been achieved.
Given what I said earlier about the length of time that one can look back through Canadian history at attempts to solve the Canadian problem, one might conceivably argue that there is a longer background to the Accord than there is to the attempt to clarify aboriginal self-government, although that would require ignoring the earlier aboriginal history and a century, give or take, of the Indian Act in making such an assertion. I would not want to do it very loudly. Particularly, I would not want to do it in certain circumstances that we can all think of.
The definition of our duality, which is the reality which the coming of the United Empire Loyalists first made after the Canadien and Canadienne had been here, and to have that duality recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian history, with all of our concern about what it may mean in practice in Saskatchewan, in Quebec, if I may be allowed that type of shorthand at the moment, was appropriate. There are persons who are not of Anglo-Celtic or French origin in this country who feel that 35 per cent of the Canadian population are all too neglected in federal institutions time after time, as I can assert categorically as critic for multiculturalism in our caucus, who have some sense of jealousy here about that term being taken and to see the restriction of that term, because we have a refusal in Bill C-93, the multiculturalism Bill which will shortly come to the House at report stage, by the Government to have fundamental characteristics applied to another reality which is the ethnocultural diversity of this country. Perhaps I speak with a bit more feeling because of my intense involvement in these matters, but that is something that should be set right.
When we deal with Bill C-93, given that the Accord says "a fundamental characteristic" as regards duality, why can we not say "a fundamental characteristic of ethnocultural diversity"? It is singular and a recognition that there will be others. Let us define them. Those are the realities this Accord does not deal with. It is necessary to make progress, as the Leader of my Party has declared, for multiculturalism in Canada. There needs to be this recognition and we should have a meeting of First Ministers in order to achieve progress.
Then of course there are the other matters which have been addressed so very well by the Hon. Member for Yukon As well, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. McCurdy), in his much briefer comments, spoke very forcefully about the possibility of an override of all the assurances of equality for women and minorities. That is surely in its way a flaw in the 1982 agreement. We need to find a time when the First Ministers will agree to limit this that so we cannot ever face that sort of experience.
Those are my comments and I thank you very much for this opportunity to comment on the Accord.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. Resuming debate.


Raymond Garneau: Madam
Speaker, I am proud to rise for a third time in this debate on the Constitutional Accord reached by Canada's First Ministers at Meech Lake and the Langevin Block, which today enables us to go through another stage in this country's constitutional process.
Madam Speaker, each participant in this debate tried to express his or her own vision of Canada, a more centralizing or a more decentralized vision of the country, and to me who live in a part of the country where my ancestors along with many others who settled in Quebec had to face major debates, those visions at times seem to be a somewhat irrealistic reflection of reality. But at any rate each one of us has his or her own vision of Canada. I respect each and everyone who does not share my views, just as I hope they will respect my own if they happen to be different from theirs.
Madam Speaker, to me Canada is both a union of citizens and a union of governments. Trying to view this nation simply as a union of citizens is wrong in my view, because this is negating the existence of shared powers between the two levels of government, the federal and the provincial levels.
So there is a union of citizens who, at various stages in this country's history, accepted to renew in a positive way their common will to live together as a nation.
To us in Quebec, this has led at various times in our history to major fights, but at no time did we experience this in a more specific manner than during the 1980 referendum that citizens will live within a country that is called Canada. That will was expressed in a fully democratic way after a debate that was stormy, that was difficult, and as indicated earlier today by my Leader the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he rose in this debate, it was a referendum debate that divided many individual Quebecers, that divided families, that divided groups of friends.
So that union of citizens that is a component of this nation was strongly renewed by a majority of Quebecers and a majority of French-speaking ones during that referendum. That union of citizens is but one component of Canada as we
June 14, 1988

know it. The second component is the union of governments. That is why the Canadian Constitution provides for and specifies the distribution of powers between the federal and provincial governments and contains an amending formula which sets out a number of criteria. These criteria ensure that our Constitution cannot be amended by referendum, because it would mean that a linguistic majority could impose constitutional changes on a linguistic minority or that the majority in Central Canada could impose constitutional changes on other less populated regions of the country.
This union of citizens and this union of governments make up a Constitution which distributes powers between the federal and provincial levels of government and contains an amending formula which, although somewhat complicated, ensures what the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada referred to, this afternoon, as a "balanced" federalism, a balance between federal and provincial powers and outline the way to go about altering ever so slightly this balance.
Madam Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord did not come out of the blue. It happened after long and intensive discussions between men and women of this country. It is the final touch to a symphony, some have called it the unfinished symphony of 1981-82, when we patriated the Constitution and adopted a constitutional amendment without the concurrence of Quebec. And to do this, Madam Speaker, the government of the day went to the Supreme Court and got quite a complex judgment. It interpreted this judgment rather narrowly in order to bypass the tradition which held that, in this country, the law or rule of unanimity prevailed. Mind you, I am not a first rate legal mind, I could be wrong, but as I see it, the government tried to interpret the judgment as much as possible in its favour in a way which allowed it to patriate the Constitution without Quebec's concurrence. When I say "without Quebec's concurrence", I mean without the concurrence of the democratic institutions which the people of Quebec give themselves every four years, that is the National Assembly which produces a government.
It is not fair either to say that this Quebec Parliament only expressed the separatist view: a great many Members voted against this unilateral approach, including such men as Claude Ryan and several of his colleagues who were in the Opposition.
This way of doing things, therefore, placed the democratically elected Members of the Quebec National Assembly in quite a delicate position.
That is why I was saying a while ago that this country is not only a union of citizens or a union of Governments. As one of these Governments, the Quebec National Assembly had expressed its disagreement; through its Government, the Quebec people had said no to this unilateral patriation of the Constitution.
Like a great many other Quebecers, I asked myself with considerable pain the following question: Is this a legitimate step forward? Should we consider the 1982 event as a positive development improving the situation in Canada and moving in
Constitution Amendment, 1987
the right direction? For quite a long time, I was very concerned about this notion because a great many fellow Canadians living in Quebec were deeply humiliated by this approach which the Federal Government had adopted at the time and which the House had confirmed.
Personally, I had come to the conclusion that it was a step forward and that we had to continue working towards a better balance federalism within a better Canada.
It is in this context, Madam Speaker, that I finally accepted the invitation of the Leader of the Liberal Party to resign my position in the private sector and to come here and try to represent this spirit of positive federalism, all the while recognizing Quebec's rights within the Canadian Constitution. It is in this context that I agreed to come to serve on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada in this Parliament.
Madam Speaker, some are blaming me-they did it again this afternoon-for a vision which they feel is much too province-oriented, when I state that I represent Quebec's interests in this Parliament.
Clearly, people may hold different views. Personally, I am not living in a dream world, Madam Speaker, and I do not think too many Hon. Members are. People who come to the House of Commons, have been elected by a specific group of people. They share the same roots in their way of life, in their culture and they come to identify with him. Madam Speaker, it is a fact that we do not hold a referendum each time we stand up to make a speech, but we feel that we are close to our voters, that we live in contact with ordinary people, that we have, as through osmosis, perceptions which make it possible for us to say that in some respect, we represent a democratic base, either an electoral riding, a metropolitan area or a province. We cannot live in a dream world and say that we represent the national interest. What is the national interest of Canada? How is it defined? Why should my Hon. friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) feel that his concept of national interest is better than mine simply because I represent Quebec's interests here.
And if the Canadian Parliament, if this country is not the juxtaposition of the aspirations, the feelings and the way each of the people we represent see things, just what is a nation then? What is a country? We have not been dropped here from the sky. We have been elected by ordinary people and we must represent them. I am proud to say so. Perhaps others will have diverging views. I trust they will respect mine, and as a representative of Quebec here in Ottawa I say that I am discharging my responsibilities as a citizen, that I seek to achieve what we call the national interest. As far as I am concerned the national interest cannot be served properly if in this country we call Canada, 26 per cent of the people are not included politically, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said earlier this afternoon, psychologically and emotionally part and parcel of this country called Canada.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
If we do not have that feeling, how can we talk about national interest and Canadian unity? One of the major accomplishments of this accord is to make it possible for most Quebecers-if we rely on polls, but if I go by my own feeling, by my perceptions, by the findings of God knows how many trips throughout Quebec-to realize that to a considerable extent it represents the aspirations of a part of Canada which had been left behind in 1982.
Madam Speaker, this is why I should like to pay tribute to the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who, in this debate, may have had to fight much harder than any other political leader in this Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: And how!


Raymond Garneau: In some respects it would have been a lot easier for him to give up or let others impose a different vision of this country. The political risks he took were enormous but he realized that Canada could not exist without Quebec being a part of it, not only in the legal sense, but also psychologically, emotionally and politically. Were Quebec not in fact an integral part of this country, Canada would not be what it is as a result of the Meech Lake Agreement, which is indeed the culmination of a very long process. Those who think that it came about overnight are mistaken. We are talking about a process which began ...
I was listening earlier as an NDP colleague mentioned the Quebec Act and the 1791 Agreement. This was the first instance of a certain recognition being given to the notion of a distinct society in Quebec. But Lord it was a process which stretched out over years and years, and generations I would say. When I hear people telling me that to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in the Constitution is to sow the seeds of independence, I say to myself: Good God, in some respects I wonder if we are living in the same country, or even in the same city. I submit that to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec is simply to be realistic. Trying to pretend that reality does not exist is not constructive since reality has a way of bouncing back at every turn. I therefore believe that to recognize Quebec as a distinct society simply amounts to taking our society as it is.
And that is what Mr. Turner, the leader of the official Opposition, was saying this morning when he talked about the Civil Code and the language used in daily life and at work by the vast majority. I could talk about our institutions and about how our democratic process is evolving. And we could also mention the Caisse de depot et de placement and the opting out formula to which Parliament agreed, not only for Quebec but for other provinces as well. All this came about through a necessary political adjustment process. With regard to our political party, I am happy to see that the process undertaken by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party following what is now practically a landmark interview granted to Le Devoir in May 1986 by the leader of the Liberal Party ... We picked up that very promising ball on a fine pass by the leader of the Liberal Party and we met in a place you know quite well, Madam
Speaker, the city of Saint-Hyacinthe. And it is in Saint-Hyacinthe that the General Council of the Canada-Quebec Liberal Party passed a resolution that was very controversial within our own ranks to recognize Quebec's distinct society. Our goal was to find a solution acceptable to Quebec and the rest of Canada in that Constitutional vacuum left in 1982. That resolution passed by the Canada-Quebec Liberal Party in Saint-Hyacinthe was in response to the democratic process undertaken in Quebec not only during the December 85 election but also in the Quebec Liberal Party's platform which led to its election on December 2, 1985. We wanted to give an answer, an opportunity which would be quite generous but realistic. A series of discussions within our own party eventually resulted in our passing a resolution in November 1986.
I think that procedure, which the Liberal Party Leader referred to this afternoon as depoliticizing the debate, allowed the New Democratic Party to adopt a resolution which showed a certain open-mindedness. It also allowed the provincial Premiers to sit at a table with the Prime Minister knowing that if they went in a direction which had already been discussed in Victoria and during the 1981-82 Constitutional process, they had the support of the leader and the majority of the Liberal Party of Canada as well as that of the other political party, and I think it is this depoliticizing which made Meech Lake possible. Of course, there are things I would like to change. I want to ask a question to those who object to the Accord on the basis of its shortcomings. It wasn't perfect in 1981-82, but a lot of people compromised and accepted that it was still possible to go forward in spite of the shortcomings. And why do they think now, when it is so crucial for Canadian unity, that we can only solve the Constitutional problem so important to the Quebec of today when everything is perfect? There will be other Constitutional discussions and other steps to go through in the coming months and years.
I share the hope that one day our Canadian Constitution will recognize aboriginal rights and the importance of mul-ticulturalism, for example. But in trying to do everything right now, we may lose an incredible chance to make a positive step for Quebec, for Canadian unity, and it is because I have a national vision that I persue the national interest and ask to all Members of Parliament and to all Members of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly and of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to really think twice before preventing us from taking that step, a step which in my opinion is important for the unity of our country and which is in the best interest of Canada.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I heard with much interest the speech made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and I should like to put to him some questions and ask him for example what he means by distinct society. Does the formula of the distinct society implies two nations? Could he explain if he interprets the distinct society as including two nations or does he merely mean that it is a culturally different
June 14, 1988

society? Also, I should like to know whether he thinks that native peoples are adequately protected under the Meech Lake Accord. A third question: we realize for example that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon are dissatisfied since, as a result of the formula, it will be extremely complicated for them to become a province. Does he find it fair for those peoples to be prevented from obtaining provincial status? Could he give a more specific definition of the distinct society? Is it, as I said, the concept of two nations as discussed during the sixties and was then rejected by most Canadians?


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, in relation to the Northwest Territories, I think the 1982 constitutional agreement contributed as much to the difficulty as the Meech Lake Accord because it subjected the creation of a new province to the 50 per cent rule, that is, seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada. With the Meech Lake Accord, it is the unanimity rule that applies, but the real difficulty, if any, was created in 1982. Personally I think that the matter can be corrected. We have an amendment that would bring us back to the 1982 rule of seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population. But even then the Northwest Territories and the Yukon will not get the same treatment as Saskatchewan and Alberta did when they became provinces. However I support the amendment that my leader referred to this afternoon which would reestablish the rule of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada. It would make it a bit less difficult.
I can very well understand the position of the provinces. Our Constitution gives specific powers and responsabilities in terms of constitutional amendments and the provinces want to know how many partners will be sitting around the table, as part of the Canadian family. So they too have a say in that regard. But our amendment, which may be discussed later, would reestablish in that regard the amending formula based on seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of Canada.
Madam Speaker, the aboriginal rights are also part of our approach. As we said before, they were part of our constitutional resolution adopted by the Liberal Party of Canada during its November 1986 convention. But there again, the provinces must give their consent. We cannot amend the Constitution without consent according to the prescribed rules in the Constitution and in the amendment formula. And you are aware, as well as I am of steps taken by the former government that resulted in a constitutional conference on aboriginal rights. Unfortunately, there was no agreement. Consequently, I do not know exactly when we will find this open-handedness throughout the country, not only inside the federal Government but in all the provinces as well, so as to reach that recognition which I support.
As far as the theory of the two nations is concerned, Madam Speaker, I do not feel like dealing in semantics. For my part, the distinct society concept describes Quebec as it is now, with a majority of French-speaking people, with a minority of
Constitution Amendment, 1987
English-speaking people and also some representatives from different cultural communities. I think that is an accurate description of Quebec and it is the one I find in the Meech Lake Accord. And if that reality cannot be recognized, I think that Canada is in much greater trouble than some people would like to think. When one does not accept reality, one is on the verge of making big mistakes.


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I wish first of all tonight to congratulate the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) after listening very carefully to his comments. I wish as well to address a few points he made during his speech.
He mentioned the idea of a referendum, rejecting it on the grounds that a majority would impress its will upon a minority. Such is the danger, as he described it, of calling for the opinion of the people in a union of governments and citizens.
It may be that my knowledge of the referendum concept suffers some want. But I still believe in the possibility that during a referendum process minorities might be protected in some way. For instance, a majority of votes could be the rule in each and every area throughout the country. The danger he mentioned might then be stunted. However, in order to settle a disagreement, he admits there still exists a possibility, in a union of governments, to finally let the people decide upon the issue.
Secondly, he talked about the unanimity clause as having been recognized by the Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, to my opinion which stands to be corrected, the Supreme Court found that there was no such unanimity clause. The Member went on to say that at the time, federal Government kept to a strict interpretation of the decision.
On the contrary, in 1981 the Canadian Government decided to meet again with the provinces because the Supreme Court had resolved that unanimity was unnecessary and that the Federal could go ahead with the support of only some of the provinces.
No one knew for sure the exact number of provinces required, and maybe the federal Government could have proceeded with only two of them, namely perhaps Ontario and New Brunswick. Nevertheless, the Canadian Government decided then to try again with all the provinces and see if unanimity or, at least, a large consensus could not be achieved.
Those are the two points I wanted to address by giving my own assessment of the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has one minute left.


Raymond Garneau: I do not want to enter into an argument. We can each have our own interpretation of the facts. The only thing I know is that the unanimity rule had existed ever since the Constitution Act of 1867, but that a major change had been made that went against tradition.

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
I said that, nevertheless, it could be considered a step forward, because of the importance of the Charter of rights. I believe, however, that we have to progress even further and it is for that reason that I support the Meech Lake Accord.
As to the other element, the referendum question, I think we will need many more conferences to define the kinds of referendums we might envisage, but in this case there was no need for such a procedure since there was unanimity of all First Ministers in attendance at Meech Lake and Langevin. With that kind of consensus and the sort of debate I am witnessing tonight, Madam Speaker... I participated in debates which dealt with historic crises, where the galleries were full and all Members in their seats. Why are we here, at 10 p.m. in front of empty galleries and lots of empty seats? The truth is, people have the feeling that the Meech Lake Accord has the blessing of a large majority of Canadians. That is the reason for the attendance we have tonight. We are not in a crisis situation. I note with some satisfaction that the Meech Lake Accord will take us an important step closer to Canadian unity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments are now over. On debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, on October 22, 1987, in this House I had the opportunity to express my views on the subject before us tonight. Therefore I shall not repeat the same speech since it is in Hansard on pages 10 291 and 10 292, for those who might be interested.
So, this is the end of the debate, or almost; a few other Hon. Members will probably speak after me but as my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has said it is already 10 p.m. and you have been very patiently waiting for the end of the debate as well as a few colleagues I will not mention by name. As the Press Gallery is empty, it is less embarrassing to say that there are not too many of us here.
Some think that Canada is going through a terrible crisis although the debate ends very quietly tonight.
Sir Winston Churchill used to say this: "Why does the Mother of Parliaments, the British Parliament. . .

It may be very interesting to other people in Canada who speak English that I am talking in French about the Mother of Parliaments, the British parliamentary system and the British Parliament.
[ Translation]
But as Sir Winston Churchill used to say ... It is a fact that there are only about 300 seats or rather benches, in the British Parliament, to accomodate at least 550 Hon. Members. He used to say that when there was a crisis, you could tell because there was no room left. Paraphrasing him, I would say that there is really no crisis here tonight.
If there is no crisis, why all the fuss made by a small group of people who are very active, very sincere, I will admit, but who persist in seeing in the Meech Lake Accord things which are not part of it. They are wrong. I submit that you cannot build a country with weak hearts.

You build a country with daring people. I repeat, as I said in October and have said for the last 20 years, how daring the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was when he went to Winnipeg and spoke for the first time as a Prime Minister of his determination to give this country a Canadian flag. Did he do it in Quebec? Did he do it in Montreal, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, or Alma where we are going to win on Monday? No, he chose Winnipeg on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion, and he was booed. Mrs. Pearson, Mary Macdonald, secretary to Mr. Pearson, I, and perhaps 10 or 15 other people applauded and over 1,000 booed. Yet he said that this country needs a Canadian flag.

And that is how for the first time, in 1964, Mr. Pearson said: "In the evolution of this country, the time has come to give ourselves a Canadian flag".
Who, Madam Speaker, especially in the West where it encountered so much opposition, would dare today turn back the clock and say that this flag which is now recognized everywhere in the whole world, in the West as in Quebec as everywhere else as the symbol of what unites us, who could dare remove it and say that we should go back to what we had before?
Then Mr. Pearson was gone. He also asked us to give ourselves a Canadian national anthem, the O Canada. I was appointed by him to the Committee established in order that we try and finally come to an agreement to proclaim O Canada as the Canadian national anthem. And, Madam Speaker, while this debate took place in 1966-67, it was only on July 1, 1980, that Parliament proclaimed O Canada as our national anthem; yet we from Quebec ...

We from Quebec have been singing O Canada since 1880. [Translation]
Mr. Calixa Lavallee and Mr. Routhier wrote both the lyrics and the music, and we from Quebec were taking it for granted, but it was only in 1980, 100 years later, that O Canada was proclaimed our national anthem. So you can see that quiet and difficult evolution, but always towards the Canadianization of our institutions. Then came Mr. Trudeau. He felt abnormal that we had to go to the British Parliament to beg for amendments. Let us be frank. The British Parliament was anxious to get rid of that, but it was the Canadians that could not get on together to decide what to do. Well, Mr. Trudeau, in a spite of all the difficulties this represented at the time, succeeded in patriating the Constitution. And then he had an extraordinary dream that I was sharing and still share, to have a Charter of
June 14, 1988

Human Rights. He imposed it at the same time but it is not complete. The Prime Minister unwillingly had to accept the notwithstanding clause, but it was the price to pay to take another step forward towards the canadianization of our institutions.
I heard no one, Madam Speaker and my dear colleague from Laval-des-Rapides, launch great national campaigns since 1982 to ask that the clause which concerns a lot of people, myself as well as many Canadians and Quebecers, be removed from the Charter.
The notwithstanding clause was accepted by the parliamentarians in 1982 because they had no other choice. And today, we have the Meech Lake Accord. Madam Speaker, as I said, it is not the greatest achievement, it is still incomplete, but it is a step forward towards the complete Canadianization of our institutions. It is not perfect. I said in October 1987 as I have always said to my friend Max Gros-Louis, chief of the Hurons in Quebec City: Who am I and who are my French-speaking colleagues to deny our first citizens the right to be recognized in the Constitution? This will come. It is essential. All of us have to decide this evening that the next step should be aimed at our native peoples.
But I do not understand this vision which certain parliamentarians have, I was almost tempted to say, and I do not want to throw oil on the fire, but this obsession so aptly represented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), he ought to remember that he also represents Saint-Henri-not only Westmount-which happens to be the major part of his riding, the obsession to believe that things can be right only in Ottawa, that nothing good can come out of the provinces, that Ottawa bureaucrats are tops, that their provincial counterparts are nothing more than lesser entities. I find that insulting. I find that offending because we live together by choice. Madam Speaker, I suggest that a good many parliamentarians would stand to learn a lot simply by walking around Parliament Hill. They might learn the rudiments of Canada's history.
After tonight's debate let us take a walk around Parliament Hill and let me ask my colleague from Saint-Henri-West-mount and others to tell me more about the statue of Baldwin-Lafontaine located behind the Senate. What does it represent? Why is it there? Just who is Balwin-Lafontaine? Why did someone see fit-as it was, of course-to select Parliament Hill as the site of a statue of Canada's first Prime Minister, Conservative Sir John A. Macdonald? But why did we decide at the same time to erect a statue of Cartier on Parliament Hill? He never was Prime Minister of Canada. It is because some people quite simply fail to appreciate that we once agreed to a partnership in this country and that when the partnership is healthy, when those who contributed to build up this country agree with one another the country fares well, but when we lose sight of the spirit which promted us to live together-for better or for worse, as the saying goes-then the country is torn by dissension.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
My colleague is trying to get us all excited by referring to two nations. Well, the only response that comes to my mind is this: There must be something different in this country because next Friday, June 24, the House will not sit to mark St. John the Baptist Day. Parliament will not be sitting. A week later Parliament will not be sitting either to commemorate Canada Day. I do not know what to make of all this. I often put that question to former Canadian Prime Ministers when they made speeches on the occation of the national holiday-one should not say "national" because it may be dangerous-on the occasion of the patron holiday, but that expression is badly outdated.
But there must be something that makes us different in this country, and because of our differences, we need special clauses. Being different does not mean that we are not as good a Canadian man or woman as the others. It cannot be said that my colleagues here are less Canadian because they speak French. That is the special touch that makes us different as Canadians, and to those who claim that the distinct society clause is a colossal mistake, I say: Don't panic. This is only recognizing real facts. That is what my colleague of Laval-des-Rapides said earlier with great eloquence in a courageous speech. You know, my dear colleagues, that is the few of you that are still here, the difficulties the leader of the Liberal party of Canada has had to express the views he considers acceptable. He said: Obviously, it is not perfect, but we will have amendments.
To my colleagues who think we want to draw a red herring across the trail, I say: "No way". What are amendments anyway? A proposed society. Canadians and Quebecers do have the right to know what you would have done in their place. And what would be your proposed society if Canadians and Quebecers decided to trust you at the next election? We say we would try to convince the provinces to move towards Canadianization and a better understanding, that would be our plan. We think the Senate should work this way. We think that, yes, we should accept more provinces, but in this way. We think that the Supreme Court should be ... That is how you make up a political agenda. That is how you make an action plan. But actually we do have a piece of legislation. We are asked: Do you accept it, yes or no? Well, even though I do not like legislation, in England ...
Those in the British parliamentary system do not like constitutions very much. I have learned from the British parliamentary system that they do not see the need to write everything down.
However, it seems to be different in this country. Everyone wants everything written down about what is their right and what is not their right. Each premier took a step. I hear people talk about them being hidden in the night, sitting all night in a dark room to come up with the Meech Lake Accord. It was the

June 14, 1988
Constitution Amendment, 1987
termination of a long process, as my colleague, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said. It was discussed.

You must come up with something sooner or later. That's what they came up with. I'm telling you again it is not perfect and I think a lot of my colleagues share this opinion. In the past, I have voted for a lot of things which were not perfect. I remember voting in favor of flawed bills under the former Prime Minister of Canada. And, like they say:

You hold your nose and vote for the Bill because it is the best there is in the time available.

What I don't understand is the fact that people who call themselves Quebecers, who claim to understand us, are turning around and becoming very nervous when we talk about a "distinct society". After sitting for 25 years here in Parliament, I try to decipher the messages. I know that we, Quebecers, are loved by a lot of people but, as I said before, it is insulting ... I am convinced many people would love us even more if we were on our knees. But I say no to that! We will be your equals!
I am looking at my colleague who is also my dear friend. He has his pride and so do I. That shared feeling, Madam Speaker, can make for a better Canada where all provinces will be equal.

I am not inferior to my good friend, Mr. Fennell. I am not his inferior, nor am I his superior. This is a federal House, but we are also attached to various parts of Canada.
We are building slowly, gradually, a new country and some people refuse to accept change. They are afraid of change. I am not. I claim that this country is still the best example we can offer to the rest of the world as a place where people very different can live together. I say to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) that the Fennells and the Prud'hommes are going down in this country and being replaced more and more by new Canadians from all around the world.
It is our sacred duty-I say it in English and I will say it in French-to explain to these New Canadians what this country is all about, how this country came together, and why it is that French and English are the two official languages. It is not
because they are the best languages in the world. Perhaps the Italian language is nicer than English. Perhaps the Spanish language is better than French. But the history of this country was developed in a way that English and French are the two official languages. Because we want to be different from the rest of the world, we believe that people who come here should be part of this country and should be respected and understood because they have a lot to offer in the process of building a new country with a new identity, a new civilization. So we say, yes, we will recognize multiculturalism.
But what does multiculturalism mean? We have to know exactly what it means. I see the Deputy Prime Minister here. His name is Mazankowski. It is not Prudowski. He is a very good Canadian of an origin other than French and English. He is no less Canadian because his name is Mazankowski, but he will accept with me that he is surely no better than me because his name is Mazankowski. So we are equal.
I will terminate this debate and thank you for your graciousness, Madam Speaker, in presiding over a very important debate. We will vote next week. I am not afraid, as some are, because there will always be, all across this land, young Canadians who are better than us. In my district we have new young Quebecers who speak excellent French, who speak excellent English and because of the openness of the provincial Government in giving a lot of facilities, some speak excellent Armenian and some speak excellent Greek as well as excellent English and French. This is an enrichment. This is part of the process of building a new Canada and it is part of what we are trying to do tonight. I say to my colleagues, those who are still worried, especially my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), relax, there will always be Canadians who will stand up to defend this country if anybody tries to destroy it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The debate being over, pursuant to the order called earlier today, all questions required to dispose of the main motion are deemed to have been put and the recorded vote is deferred to 3 p.m. on Wednesday June 22, 1988.
It being 10.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

. ''.V.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers