1990-12-13

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 46 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Monsieur le President, I have the honour and the privilege to present to the House, in both official languages, the Report on the Ninth Canada-Mexico Interparliamentary Conference, held in Mexico City and Bahia de Banderas from November 12 to 19, 1990. Our delegation had the privilege of meeting with President Salinas of Mexico and the Mexican External Affairs, Trade and Finance Secretaries. Our work sessions centered of course on international trade, the Seasonal Workers Program, cultural exchanges and environmental protection.
I wish to thank all our colleagues for their cooperation and serious-mindedness and our special thanks to the secretary of the delegation, Mr. Frangois Pregent.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the sixtieth report of the Striking Committee.

This report deals with the membership of a legislative committee. Pursuant to Standing Order 113.1, upon presentation such reports are deemed adopted.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the House today a Private Members Bill which seeks to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
This subsection is discriminatory to rural route carriers in that it prevents them from the enjoyment of rights by excluding them from the employee status as provided for in the Canada Labour Code.
These route carriers provide a most valuable service to 1.2 million households in Canada by providing vital communication and contact to the people in rural and often isolated communities. I believe it is unacceptable that rural route carriers, whose hours after long and hard work, who often in our northern climate face the most treacherous of conditions, should be denied the most basic employee rights.

December 13, 1990
Routine Proceedings
I therefore submit this bill in the hope that the House, in its wisdom and concern for justice, see fit to repeal an unjust and unjustifiable provision of the Canada Post Corporation Act.


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

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions that I had hoped to present today but, in view of the fact that speeches with regard to a special motion will be taking place fairly soon, I wish to lay upon the table three petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
They are signed by residents from the province of Nova Scotia, namely, the city of Halifax and surrounding areas. These residents petition the Government of Canada in their opposition to the goods and services tax, in particular as that tax applies to books, magazines and newspapers. All petitioners on these three petitions call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax as it is an impediment to small business as well as to Canadian consumers.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of the great city of Kamloops. These petitioners point out their opposition to the government's goods and services tax, particularly pointing out that it is a very regressive tax in that it imposes the same tax on rich and poor alike. They also point out the fact that on a number of occasions the Liberal senators actually had opportunities to defeat the GST, but chose not to.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a whole pile of petitions signed by residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre in opposition to the GST on everything, including in particular books and magazines.
I also have other petitions signed by residents of Oshawa, Don Mills, Scarborough, Mississauga, and Toronto, as well as from all over Ontario. All these people oppose the goods and services tax. They call upon the
government to abolish this tax, to withdraw this terrible legislation as it relates to books and magazines.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons concerning violence against women and recognizing it as a serious Canadian societal problem.
The undersigned petitioners wish to have the House acknowledge their request that each year on December 6 there be an annual national day of remembrance in honour of the 14 women murdered in Montreal on December 6, 1989.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present some 20 petitions signed by hundreds of Canadians at the Norfolk County Fair and the Caledonia Fair in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. The petitioners call upon the government to get rid of the goods and services tax.
These petitions are just a few of the millions of signatures of Canadians from all across the country and call upon the government to get rid of the goods and services tax.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today on a matter that is a multicultural issue as well as an economic issue that affects in particular the Chinese community in British Columbia and perhaps other parts of Canada as well.
It concerns the dwindling stocks of live rock codfish which is a commodity of high cultural and economic value to Asian Canadians. It also serves many tourists and is a staple fresh food that is always in demand by families in restaurants.
People are very concerned that the sports fishery is overfishing this type of fish in that there is a very limited season for the Chinese community. They ask that the federal government change its policies and overcome the negligence toward the live rock cod fishery so that it will be available on a year-round basis to some 200,000 Canadians of Chinese descent who live throughout the lower mainland. They want to ensure that a year-round supply of live rock cod is available.
December 13, 1990


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today concerning the GST. Inasmuch as it is possible that this will be rammed through the Senate against all the practices that have been in play there for a number of years, I feel it is imperative that these voices be heard one more time. Once again, the plea goes out to this government; please rescind this very unfair tax it is imposing upon the citizens of Canada.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to table a petition which joins the petitions of thousands of other Canadians protesting the GST and, in particular, protesting the government actions both here and in the other place in ramming the GST down the throats of Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous Canadians, many from the beautiful city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who object to the goods and services tax and particularly its application to books.
They would be appalled at the actions of the government puppet in the chair of the other place who is seeking to ram this tax down the throats of Canadians.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and present to this House a number of petitions with respect to GST. There are hundreds of names in these particular petitions. Literally hundreds of thousands and into the millions of Canadians have signed petitions opposing the goods and services tax.
In this particular case, these petitioners indicate in the recital to this particular petition that the Conservative government has imposed since 1984 at least 31 new taxes or tax increases on Canadians. They also point out that since September 1984, when this government came to office, the manufacturers' sales tax has been increased by this government from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent. Now the Conservative government wants to impose the goods and services tax.
Routine Proceedings
These petitioners call on the government to rescind this regressive and unfair tax. I am sure that all these petitioners would be appalled and ashamed at the thuggery in the Senate by Conservative senators who in an illegal fashion are trying to ram the GST through.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition in opposition to the GST. It points out the hypocrisy of the government in increasing the FST by 50 per cent so that it can be replaced with a much higher than necessary tax on goods and services.
If these petitioners could, I know they would also be objecting to the breaking of the rules in the Senate to ram this through.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 392 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 392 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. McGuire: For the fiscal years (a) 1989-90 (b) 1990-91, were any expenditures made in the province of Prince Edward Island under the Small Craft Harbour Divisions and, if so, by (i) federal riding (ii) harbour location, what were they?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consult broadly with Canadians and inquire into and report upon the process for amending the Constitution of Canada, including, where appropriate, proposals for amending one or more of the amending formulae, with particular reference to:
(i)	the role of the Canadian public in the process;
(ii)	the effectiveness of the existing process and formulae for
securing constitutional amendments; and
(iii)	alternatives to the current process and formulae, including
those set out in the discussion paper prepared by the Government
of Canada entitled 'Amending the Constitution of Canada";
That twelve Members of the House of Commons and five Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee; such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated upon report of the Striking Committee no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion, which report shall be deemed concurred in upon presentation;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have the power, to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee, or a sub-committee, have power to travel, and hold public hearings, within Canada;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the parties represented on the Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance with the Committee work in proportion to the representation of the said parties in the House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the service of professional, clerical and stenographic staff as deemed available by the Joint Chairmen;
That the Committee submit its report not later than July 1, 1991, provided that, if the House of Commons is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That changes in membership of the Committee be effective immediately after notification thereof, signed by the Member acting as Chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the Clerk of the Committee;
That the quorum of the Committee be nine Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken so long as both Houses are represented, and the Joint Chairmen are authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when six Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, five Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose the establishment of a Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate on the constitutional amending process.
I wish at the same time to table a discussion paper that examines the current amending formulae, identifies some problems in their operation and sets out for consideration by all members of Parliament a number of options for substantial reform.
Recent events have demonstrated that our present amending process is not adequate to ensure that Canada's Constitution can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The initiative taken today by the government fulfils a commitment made last June, that before we try again to amend the Constitution we must find a better process to do it.
Amid the heat of Meech Lake and all the debate that surrounded it, there was a strong consensus on one thing: that we must find a better way to change the fundamental law of our land. Canadians want to be involved in the process of constitutional change. We in Parliament have an overriding responsibility to preserve this magnificent country. I know that members of this House of Commons and members of Parliament will do their utmost to ensure that Canada is preserved and enhanced for decades and generations and generations to come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
December 13, 1990


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canadian citizenship brings extraordinary benefits to us all, whatever language we speak and wherever we happen to live. We have built on the northern half of this continent one of the most civil countries in the world. Our system of justice, which guarantees equality before the law, is widely respected around the world.
With a population of only 26 million people, we have overcome what is in many instances a very forbidding climate and geography to build the seventh largest economy in the industrialized world and the eighth largest economy in the entire world. This is a remarkable accomplishment for a small nation which has become one of the great trading nations of the entire world, 30 per cent of whose national wealth depends on our capacity to trade successfully into international markets.
While many countries struggle just to put bread on the table for their citizens, Canadians continue to enjoy, despite our economic problems, a broad range of social services and one of the best standards of living in the world.
Canada enjoys substantial international influence and respect as a middle power. We are the only country that is a member of the G-7, of the Commonwealth, and of the Sommet de la francophonie. Indeed Canada was a founding member of the Commonwealth and of the Sommet de la francophonie. I think that the Commonwealth and the Sommet de la francophonie reflect both our opportunities and the cultural and linguistic realities of Canada. It is a tribute to all members of the House that both of these very important international organizations are soundly supported by members of all parties. Canada has moved along, and those are things we have accomplished together.
Millions of people all over the world are lining up today to come to Canada because successive generations of Canadians have succeeded in building not a perfect society, God knows, but an open, democratic, peaceful, and very prosperous country. That is what we now have, and that is what we risk losing.

Mr. Speaker, before you is an assembly of legislators, men and women who have a duty to adopt laws to ensure the unity and prosperity of our country. But above all, we
Government Orders
are trustees of the hopes and aspirations of our fellow citizens. Our responsibility is to give Canadians a Constitution that reflects pride in their history and confidence in the future.

The Special Joint Committee will consult broadly with Canadians on the process for amending the Constitution of Canada. In particular, the committee will be asked to consult with Canadians on the role of the Canadian public in the process, on the effectiveness of the existing process for securing constitutional amendments, on alternatives to the current process. To fulfil its mandate, the committee will have the power to travel and hold public hearings across Canada.
The government has prepared a discussion paper entitled Amending the Constitution of Canada to assist public discussion of this important matter. The document reviews how the current process has operated since 1982 and is designed to stimulate discussion of key questions including public participation and alternatives to improve the framework that we now have.
If we are to devise a better process, a number of questions are simply going to have to be addressed very bluntly. At what stage in the process does it make sense for the public to involve itself: at the very outset, once agreement in principle has been reached among governments or, later, when agreement has been reached on the legal text of a proposed amendment?
How should groups or involved citizens, who now under the Constitution have no formal role in the amending process but who quite properly see themselves as very important stakeholders, seek to be involved in an effective and productive way?
Are the current time periods for adoption of amendments to the Canadian Constitution too long, considering that over the periods allowed elections can and do occur, governments can and do change and extraneous issues may intrude so as to derail the ratification process itself? How long can a country keep going with a process that is clearly beyond in many ways the capacity of human beings to deal with effectively?
Governments do change and always will change. We have 11 of them in Canada that are tied into the amending process. In the normal course of events one

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
sees this happen on a regular basis. This is a fundamental, important and very practical problem.
Should an agreement formally signed by first ministers for tabling in a legislature be considered a confidence measure on which governments can or should fall? It seems to me that is a very important question which should be considered.
The paper also discusses various alternatives to the current legislative model of constitutional reform. For example, the decision-making role of legislators could be shared with or transferred to Canadians across the nation expressing themselves through a referendum.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Or Canadians might be called upon, for example, to select delegates to play a decisive role in proposing amendments or in ratifying amendments in a constituent assembly.
As the Australian experience has demonstrated, referenda can be used for constitutional amendment in a parliamentary federal system. Obviously all members of the House would have not only observations but serious questions in regard to this procedure itself. Some of them I think would probably be, if Canada decided to go that route, what sort of a majority would be needed for an amendment proposal to pass: a simple national majority; a national majority including a majority in a majority of provinces, such as some of the provisions we now have; a national majority with a majority in Quebec on certain issues or in other regions on others?
With respect to a constituent assembly model, a number of important questions automatically arise. Should there be equality of representation of the provinces, representation on the basis of population, or a compromise between the two? What should be the procedure within the constituent assembly for reaching decisions? Should its decisions be binding, or could its decisions then be altered by a subsequent meeting of the same body or a new body to which it allegedly reports? Should they be put to the people in a referendum? Or, should they be recommendations for consideration by first ministers and possible action through the legislative model itself?
These are all important questions but fundamentally I believe they stem from one basic challenge. Can we in this House of Commons make this Constitution of ours the expression of our profound attachment to Canada
and our will to ensure that it becomes more harmonious and more dynamic? That is the challenge.
Can we do better for Canada? Can we make sure that Canada works effectively and well? That is the challenge, and I think the answer to that is yes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I announced the creation of the citizens' forum on November 1,1 said that it is time to consider making reforms to our system that are "bold, far-reaching and unprecedented if need be". This government is committed to modernizing Canada's Constitution.
The citizens' forum is a new way of going about this process that will help identify what kind of country Canadians want. Typically, like anything new in this country, it attracts a certain amount of criticism. But my guess is that when Commissioner Spicer and his colleagues report, having spoken to the people who were left out in the past, after they talk to ordinary Canadians across the country, I think the results they will bring forward are going to be infinitely more beneficial than opinions of constitutional scholars and lawyers. We have heard enough from them in this country and not enough from ordinary citizens.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The citizens' forum will give western Canadians an opportunity to articulate their genuine frustrations with a system of government that seems remote and unresponsive to their needs. That applies in many cases doubly to citizens of the north.
It will ask Canadians in far-flung regions how best they believe they can influence the decision-making process to ensure that it functions in a more equitable manner. It will allow all Canadians to discuss the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country, and the accommodations required in today's Canada for the needs of both linguistic minorities and majorities to be respected.
The impact of regionalism and of multiculturalism on Canadian unity and economic development will also be examined. There was a time and not so long ago, perhaps

December 13, 1990

a decade ago, where the articulation of programs of multiculturalism was hailed as tremendous answer to many of our problems. Yet, now members of those very communities are suggesting to Parliament that there is probably a better way to do it and this must be examined. It is no longer a shibboleth or a slogan that there are real problems that emerge from policies devised in Ottawa that do not always meet the needs of large multicultural communities.
Clearly this government and governments before us and many members of Parliament have been talking too much and not listening enough. We must correct this fundamental deficiency and this government, and I know all members of Parliament will do precisely that.


Some hon. members:: hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The forum will facilitate a dialogue between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians to discuss how the aspirations of Canada's first peoples can be met within the Canadian Constitution. Canadians are also being invited to consider what is best done by governments and what is best done by individual Canadians themselves. The citizens' forum will very probably stimulate discussion on the questions that underlie all of these issues: how to ensure that this country's institutions, particularly Parliament, designed in the 19th century, will be more responsive to the needs of Canadians in the 21st, at the same time whether the division of responsibilities among the federal and provincial governments needs to be changed.
Some answers will begin to emerge as genuine dialogue is initiated across Canada, as reports come in from the parliamentary committees established in New Brunswick, Alberta and Quebec, and of course by hearings initiated by private groups as well as by this committee that will be set up by the House of Commons today.
In light of recent experience, we must also consider how we can go about developing the kind of Constitution Canadians want. Some argue that the best way to achieve meaningful reform is to start from scratch by dismantling our entire system of federalism as we know it today. As I said in Montreal 10 days ago, it seems to me rather obvious that nothing at all can be gained from the attempt to destroy a political system that is reasonably
Government Orders
efficient and respectful of identities, and that has, over 123 years, produced some rather remarkable results.
Rather, I think we have everything to gain by working together, members of all parties, business and labour, provinces and municipalities, recognizing that we have before us an enormous challenge to our national wellbeing. We have everything to gain by working together to improve and modernize our present arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, many Quebecers, in particular, find it difficult to understand how the Constitution, patriated 10 years ago,-the document that should have embodied their desire to flourish within Canada-instead enshrines their exclusion from the constitutional fold.
Because of the unfortunate events that led to the death of Meech, some would have us believe the only way to escape the status quo is to go back to square one and start again from scratch.
For my part, I say the country does not have to be dismantled in order to be later rebuilt. Let's not lose sight of the substance by chasing shadows.
There is another way, a better way, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate the need for fundamental change: it involves building on our strengths and improving our present system to adapt it to today's economic, political and cultural realities.

As I said in this House on November 1, "I believe that if it takes major changes to hold this country together, Canadians want those changes made. I believe if it takes a new process to achieve those changes, Canadians want a new process designed" and that is precisely what we are in the process ourselves of beginning to do today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the discussion paper explains, modifying the current procedure through consensus and agreed practices is not the only solution possible. Nothing in the mandate of the proposed special joint committee precludes an examination of alternatives to the current formulae, nor, indeed, alternative ways of bringing about changes to them.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders

Never again should our Constitution be seen as an obstacle to achieving our great destiny-not in Quebec or in any other region.
Our fundamental document must accurately express who we are and, above all, clearly affirm what we aspire to become. That is the challenge we face.
Let us not be afraid to change our Constitution, but let us have the highest respect for what it should affirm and protect-the land of our ancestors and country of our children.
Together with all those who have placed their trust in us, I propose today that we find ways to meet the demands of a world undergoing swift and deep change.
With respect for what others have sincerely wanted our Constitution to be, but with an awareness of its imperfections and a determination to make it an instrument of unity rather than a source of discord, let us give Canada the possibility of amending its Constitution, in a manner consistent with our history and the needs for our future.
How, Mr. Speaker? All around us we can see in what direction other countries are moving. Look at Europe- at England and France-the mother countries of many of us.
A new, politically integrated and economically united Europe as Chancellor Kohl said recently and I repeat, a Europe where political integration and economic union will be complete. Those were the words Chancellor Kohl used.
But this new Europe is already in the making: in 1992, 340 million Europeans will form a common market; in 1994, Europe will have one central bank; and by 1999, they plan to have a common currency.
Mr. Speaker, Europe is irreversibly headed towards a new form of federalism. We must ask ourselves why this is so. The driving force behind this extraordinary movement in Europe is the French Republic. President Mitterrand himself is one of the great architects of European union and economic and political integration. The President of the French Republic has become the great architect of this political and economic integration. Why? Because the French, the British, the Spaniards, the Italians, the Germans-Europeans in general-consider it the political system most capable of ensuring
respect for linguistic and cultural diversity, economic development and social justice.
The road Europeans are about to take is one that Canadians have already travelled: we have had a common market since 1867; we have a common currency since 1870; and we have a central bank since 1934. Why would we swim against the tide of history by abandoning our federal system while Europeans are discovering what we already enjoy?
About 10 days ago on television, we saw a dramatic illustration of this yearning for closer links when French miners shook hands with English miners, 500 metres under the English Channel. England is now joined to France. That is not merely a symbol. It is the most concrete and conclusive proof that the future belongs to those who unite.
In this House, I represent an electoral district in Quebec. To justify their desire to undo the country, some people in Quebec propose an eventual association with Canada, without any guarantee at all. To them I say: We already have an association, and we will make it even more productive and flexible than it is now, for the benefit of all Quebecers and Canadians-for the benefit of this great country of ours.

Let us all build and not bulldoze. Let's renovate and not raze. It is obvious that our constitutional amending process has not worked to our advantage. Everybody knows that. But we all know something else, something that wells up from our history and that we share as citizens of this magnificent country.
Both the idea of Canada and the ideal of Canada are precious, are of enormous value, and continue to live in the minds and hearts of all Canadians.
The spirit of Canada was not developed as a result of the bringing about of some constitutional document. Canada was not secured by a series of documents pasted together in London or Paris, or anywhere else. Canada already lived in the hearts of aboriginal parents who conveyed to their children an appreciation of the beauty of their natural environment thousands of years ago.
Canada was a dream shimmering on the ocean's horizon when Cartier and Champlain brought the
December 13, 1990

Government Orders
French language and culture to North America. The English settlers, the Irish, and the Scots did not come here to make constitutional amendments. They came here to build a nation where their children could grow in freedom and prosperity and peace. They built better than anybody ever dreamed. The result of their sacrifice, their vision, and their courage was Canada. They did that and it is up to us to maintain it and improve upon it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Generation upon generation of immigrants were drawn here by this dream from every single country on the face of the earth.
We in the House of Commons are the sons and daughters of those men and women who have given us one of the most beautiful and prosperous, and one of the most free countries in the world.
It is now up to us to live up to that dream and to build a country that they would have wanted us to build for our children.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, a discussion paper prepared by the Government of Canada entitled: Amending the Constitution of Canada.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide my party's response this motion to appoint a special committee to inquire and report upon the process for amending the Constitution of Canada.
While the Liberal Party intends to be extremely supportive of this joint committee, we have rather serious concerns and misgivings that I want to point out. I shall be focusing upon the fact that we think this particular committee should have been set up some time ago. In fact, a number of people will wonder if it should not have been set up rather than the Spicer commission. But I will let Canadians judge that.
We are concerned as well about the focus on the amending formula which we believe may be too narrow. We think that the critical question is really the division of powers among the various levels of government.

The constitutional amendment formula is obviously a very important element, but as far as we are concerned the key, the most important question is the sharing of powers.

Let me share with my hon. colleagues some of the concerns and misgivings that we have as a party.
There is another committee that has been appointed. There is already much confusion out there in the country. We fear that this will add to that confused state. Why is that? Well, there is the Spicer commission that is looking at the direction that Canadians want Canada to take.
There is the Belanger-Campeau commission that is looking at the direction that they feel Quebecers want Quebec to take. Alberta has a commission. New Brunswick has a commission. Manitoba has a commission.
We are informed that the Assembly of First Nations has a commission because it does not have confidence in the various commissions that have been set up to date. I am told today that two unions have each now set up a new commission, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the National Union of Provincial Government Employees.

Although the Prime Minister gave a clear explanation about this new committee and raised a number of major issues, it could lead to confusion because I think there are so many similar endeavours now taking place in Canada. People will ask why a new commission, why a new committee? Where will that lead us? Just what will that accomplish?

Many of you will know that the Belanger-Campeau commission is seen as a well-organized group of people who are actually listening. It is certainly highly visible and, whether or not one likes what it is doing, we have to recognize that it is working extremely well in getting the opinions of various people from the province with respect to the directions that they want to take.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
Interestingly enough, to date, only Jean Chretien, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada-and the only leader of a national party to do so-will be making a presentation to the Belanger-Campeau Commission.

I am extremely proud of this initiative on the part of the leader of my party and I commend him for that.

In looking at the Spicer commission, we recognize that it has received, to be kind, less than positive reviews. One journalist has called it useless. Another has described it as out of control and disorganized. There are many other descriptors that I could use. One newspaper headline reads: "Citizens Forum Becoming a Joke".
I want to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said with respect to this particular commission. He has identified the critical issue when he said about the Spicer commission that "if it does not get to work soon with a full complement of members, it is going to lose credibility and that would be too bad because-we felt it was a way of making up for a real gap in the previous Constitution discussion, that is, giving Canadians a chance to be heard."
I think that that is in fact the issue with respect to the Spicer commission. It has been set up, but certainly to date, it has been short of accomplishments.

I am glad that two persons have now been appointed to fill the forum's two vacant seats. Unfortunately the reports I have had seem to indicate that one of the commissioners has yet to take active participation in the work of this forum which might prove to be very important for Canada.

The question that we need to raise is why has the government decided to set up a special committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. First and foremost-and we have to be very honest about this-this committee is a response to criticism. There is no question about it. It is a response to the Belanger-Campeau commission in Quebec which I have identified as working particularly well. I also noted that the Spicer commission was not working effectively yet. I hope it finally gets its act together.
It is also a response to the Prime Minister's failure with respect to the constitutional process and the Meech Lake Accord. If he had been successful we would not be having such a joint committee right now.
That begs another question. Why did the Prime Minister fail? Canadians were wondering what the objectives of his initiative really were. We all wanted to ensure that Quebec was brought into the constitutional fold and that it would be a signatory to that particular document. As Canadians, we wanted that. Most Canadians wanted that.
Because of the lack of credibility of the Prime Minister with respect to a number of promises that he has made, people were wondering whether or not there were other objectives. That started to affect the process in a very negative way.
It was also a flawed process. There have been comments from every part of Canada from virtually every group. We do not have to go through the "dark night and 12 men behind closed doors" routine again. It was not an adequate process. Canadians felt left out. Because they felt left out, they became extremely suspicious of what was happening.
There could have been meaningful, public consultations on the Meech Lake Accord, but the government contended that it was a seamless web that could not be undone. I recognize that there were some consultations, but the problem is that once you say that it is a seamless web and that it cannot be undone, you are in a sense contradicting yourself. People say: "What is the use? This is a charade. This is not a sincere attempt to try to find out what Canadians are thinking."
There should have been more meaningful consultations along the way whenever a new step had been reached. There should have been continuing consultation, and it did not happen.
I will give an example of what occurred after supposedly having had a seamless web and after supposedly being unable to change whatever was necessary. As time ran out and as the Prime Minister and his government became concerned, suddenly the government changed its tune. It said that it might, in fact, accept a companion accord. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that it set up the Charest committee. It came out with its report but, for the most part, its recommendations were ignored.
December 13, 1990

Then, and even later, as we were on the precipice and in spite of having said there was a three-year deadline that could not in fact be ignored, the Prime Minister and his government shifted again. They thought that they should have a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada to see whether or not the time line could be extended.

I believe I have just shown quite clearly that the Prime Minister and his government have known failure in the constitutional process. The committee is urging the House to appoint today is a reaction to that failure, a reaction to a lack of sensitiveness towards Canadians, a reaction designed to reset the sights, if that is possible. I sincerely hope it is not too late.

It was really the Prime Minister, through a lack of sensitivity and through an inappropriate process, who killed Meech Lake and what could have been salvaged from it. For example, many constitutional experts say that three out of five amendments could have been passed with the 7-50 formula, that is, seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population saying yes. Those were immigration, distinct society, and opting out of federal programs with full compensation which is something that can happen now. We all know that that 7-50 formula could have given us those particular requests that Quebec wanted. Only two of the amendment would have required unanimity. They were the provincial role in the appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and a veto for Quebec on constitutional amendments.
By virtue of packaging the Accord in this particular way, the Prime Minister set up an objective that was virtually impossible to reach. He rolled the dice too late, and Canada lost.

He put the bar too high and missed, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for Canada and for all Canadians.

I want to talk briefly about the amending formula. Many of you will know that there are presently two concurrent amending formulae for the Constitution of Canada. One requires, as I indicated just a moment ago, seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the popula-
Government Orders
tion to support certain proposals. In these cases there is a three-year deadline.
The division of powers to which I have referred, and which is to me the most significant challenge that we have before us right now, can in fact be changed by virtue of the 7-50 formula, that is, seven province agreeing and that they have 50 per cent of the population.
Yes, there are some matters that require unanimity and they have no time limit, such as the changing of the amending formula and clearly, we should be looking at that.
One of the reasons that Meech Lake failed is because this amending formula that the Prime Minister proposed had no real significant mechanism for public input. There were obviously some discussions. There was in fact some input, but the process of input was flawed. People along the way felt that the deal was made. It was a seamless web that could not be undone. They felt left out. They felt as if they were being had.
Let us stress that there is nothing in the 7-50 formula or in the formula proposed in the Meech Lake Accord that would not have permitted the Prime Minister and his government from having a significant, detailed, ongoing public input for all Canadians from throughout the whole nation.
I think it is important when we talk about the 7-50 formula to take just a moment to try to understand where it came from. Many members will recall that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, felt that he could, as Prime Minister, patriate the Constitution. We will recall as well, that he was supported by premiers Davis of Ontario and Hatfield of New Brunswick. However, eight premiers of those other eight provinces opposed this patriation in this way and proposed this 7-50 formula which Mr. Trudeau accepted.

In my opinion, it is extremely important to understand that the 7/50 formula is not perfect. Very few are, but this one, nevertheless, contains some positive elements. It is obvious that this formula does not adequately meet the aspirations of Quebec men and women. I suggest it was not the formula per se, but the way it was used which caused the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. Consultations were inadequate. They should have been ongoing. There was also the government's uncompromising attitude towards changes suggested by the Liberal Party as

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
well as a great many organizations from all parts of Canada.

This Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which my colleagues and I hope will be extremely successful, is getting off to a shaky start. One newspaper columnist has called this committee "Mulro-ney's new illusion". He goes on to say: "It is entertaining a dangerous illusion to imagine that a committee created in desperation will succeed where for so long all of the specialists have failed", and all of the previous efforts over the last 30 or more years have failed.
As I have indicated, this committee has a narrow focus. It deals primarily with the amending formula. It could in fact lead us, unfortunately, into error because that is not the major question. It is an important question, but not the major one. To us, it is the division of powers, looking at what each level of government can do that we must in fact tackle. The focus of the committee should be on the sharing and the redistribution of powers. It must be because that is the challenge, the reform of federal institutions, such as the reform of Parliament, clearly the Senate, no doubt the House of Commons could come in for some reform, as well as possibly the Supreme Court of Canada.

As a party, we insisted on the sharing of powers, not only on the constitutional amending formula, because we felt it was truly the key element, the number one challenge today for our country.

Let me talk about shared powers. Members will know that there are clear powers for the federal government, and as well, clear powers for the provincial and municipal governments. In fact, these powers for the national government are clearly defined in the Constitution Act, 1867. Let me give just a few examples.
There is very little debate about defence, currency and postal services. These are all in the national government's mandate, if you wish, they are in the federal jurisdiction. Here are some examples of some which are in the provincial jurisdiction: the laws governing property rights, municipal institutions, local works, regulating the issuance of local licences, the creation of municipal
infrastructures, etc. There are, however, many areas where the lines have become blurred and therein lies the challenge, therein lie the difficulties, and therein lies the need for debate, discussion, and study.
In the area of health, the federal government makes a large contribution to the health of Canadians through the provinces and imposes, and justifiably so, certain standards and criteria that need to be met and adhered to. There is a significant decrease in the contribution, I might say, by the federal government to health and education. In education, there is still a substantial contribution, as it should be, but because there is a contribution from the federal government and because education is a provincial constitutional responsibility, there is some blurring, some confusion, some difficulty. The area of culture is another such challenge.
Aboriginal rights, while primarily federal, still have some implications for the provincial and municipal infrastructures. Immigration, again this is a blurred area and one that needs to be sorted out. We have international trade, communications, and the list goes on.

Concerning shared powers, I believe that what is of prime importance for me and my colleagues is to understand that some powers belong exclusively to the national government. Other powers belong to the provinces while others of course belong to the municipalities. In some areas, it is perfectly clear. For instance, National Defence belongs unquestionably to the federal government. On the other hand, all legislation dealing with property rights mainly belong to the provinces. On the other hand, there are some areas where the lines have become blurred, such as health, education, culture, native rights, immigration, trade and communication which should be examined to determine exactly who must assume responsibility.

Again I repeat, and I want to accentuate, the real issue is not the amending formula. It is one issue, it is an important issue. The real issue is shared power. I have tried to capture that element, that message, with the following question: how can the various levels of government best reorganize so that they best respond to the needs of all Canadians, wherever they live in this great
December 13, 1990

country. That is the real issue. This commission ought to have such a mandate.

What level of government can better fulfill the needs of all Canadians whether they live in this or that province, or in either of the Territories? What jurisdiction can better meet the needs of our fellow citizens? We feel this is where the challenge lies. We are now faced with major difficulties everywhere in Canada.

In summary, let me offer the following: The Liberal Party is willing to support the government's motion to create a special joint Senate-Commons committee to consult with Canadians and inquire into and report upon the process for amending the Constitution of Canada. We are supportive of this motion, in principle. However, we do have certain concerns and misgivings. We support this resolution because we are actually trying to help in a non-partisan way the Prime Minister to get out of this difficulty, this mess that he has created, because we truly want to work co-operatively to help Canada and Canadians.
We in the Liberal Party are willing to put aside partisan politics to work for the future of Canada. We are indeed, my hon. colleague, and I would hope that other hon. colleagues representing other formations politiques would be willing to do the same.
Some of the shortfalls of the mandate of the proposed committee are, as I indicated-

-much too narrow a mandate. I suggest we should look into the amending formula and that this process should give rise to a number of other questions, but I feel nevertheless that shared powers is truly the key issue.
Why do we support this government's decision to create such a committee? It is very simple. We are trying to help in a co-operative and non-partisan way the Prime Minister to get out of this constitutional mess that he has created and we also do want to help the Canadian
Government Orders
people. We are willing to work all together for the future of Canada. There is no other reason.
But let us not forget that if, in the end, the Canadian people, whether Natives, Francophones, Anglophones, new Canadians, do not feel they really belong in this great country, if they feel that they cannot participate fully in the decision-making process, in the economic, social, cultural and linguistic life our society, if each region does not feel fully integrated, we will have failed.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are debating this motion today. I know that it was the government's intention to avoid having this motion debated and that the Liberal Party was willing as well to forego a debate on this issue. But with this proposed committee we are talking about the Constitution of Canada. Parliament must be involved. Canadians must be involved and Canadians must be kept informed. My party is committed to these principles and that is why we forced this debate today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we oppose the government's motion for several reasons. Let me say at the outset that opposition to this motion is not opposition to constitutional renewal. Quite the contrary. We are opposed to this motion because we want substantial, meaningful constitutional initiatives. The proposed committee offers a one-dimensional response to a profound national crisis. It is an incomplete answer to a large and complex issue. The issue, the question, is what kind of Canada do we want to create and how do we create it?
This committee is being formed to discuss how we can get there, but nothing about where we want to go. We should begin by identifying some of those basic principles for a nation with a vision, a nation that knows where it wants to go.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My vision and my party's vision for this nation is based on the principles of a commitment to social justice, a recognition that we have a responsibility to care for each other.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
Our principles are based on a recognition of the value of diversity, that the Canadian nation will not be built on homogeneity, but true respect and celebration of our many cultural communities, of Canada's first nations, on francophone and anglophone linguistic groups.
Therefore, there must be a recognition in our Constitution of collective rights and collective responsibilities. As well, we have individual rights under the charter. We have to look to what makes us collectively a nation. If there is to be equality for all Canadians, we must ensure that the rights of groups and communities are respected. That may require different constitutional arrangements with different groups, whether those groups be aboriginal people or Quebec. Real equality comes from acknowledging diversity within one nation, and through that we will find a common bond.
From these basic principles we can move to really building a constitution. Canadians are looking for real meaningful constitutional renewal. They are looking for a constitution that reflects the reality of Canada, the reality of Canada as it is as we move into the year 2000. Canadians are looking for a constitution that meets the needs of aboriginal people, of women, of minorities, of Quebec, of the north, and of the regions of this country from coast to coast to coast.
This proposed committee will address only some of these issues. It will look at a narrow aspect of the Constitution. Its deliberations can easily be ignored by the government and will be ignored, if we look at the past record of this government. We oppose this motion, not because we do not care about Canada's future but because we do care about Canada's future.
Canadians know where New Democrats stand. We stand for one Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to the Arctic Ocean. We stand for one Canada that celebrates its diversity, that brings people together in a commitment to creating a caring and a just nation for everyone.
There is little evidence to justify any faith or trust in this government's commitment to building a constitution through an open and democratic process. Let us look at the record.
First, there was the agreement at Meech Lake in 1987: 10 premiers and the Prime Minister drawing out a map for the future of Canada without talking or listening to
the people who would have to use that map, the people who would have to follow its directions.
How was this map presented to Canadians? The Prime Minister said that not a word could be changed, not a comma could be changed. Throughout the debate he polarized Canadians by saying that anyone who expressed concerns about the accord, anyone who raised options to what was in the accord, had to be anti-Quebec. It was a divisive strategy. It was a destructive strategy for this country. If I may say so, it is one of the most destructive things that this Prime Minister and this government have done in this country, and that is why we are now at the point that we are at in 1990.

And what about the process that followed these events? A committee on Meech Lake was established, a committee that sat for a month, never left Ottawa and had very few opportunities to listen to what Canadians had to say. The Senate held numerous hearings. The ensuing recommendations were ignored.
When it realized it should listen to Canadians, the government finally appointed the Charest Committee. Our party and many members of this House took the committee seriously. We worked very hard to try and find solutions and reach a compromise.
Although it had little time, the committee tried to listen to what the people had to say.

The Charest committee did find a compromise upon which all three parties of this House agreed. What did the government do with that report? It ignored it. It ignored it like it has ignored all the recommendations coming from public hearings, whether those public hearings be on trade, GST, green plan or the Constitution. This government has public hearings. It hears, but it does not listen to Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Charest committee was ignored. Then, true to form, the Prime Minister called together the premiers for one more back-room, closed door session, and Canadians were forced to live with the consequences.
December 13, 1990

The Meech Lake process failed, and the price of that failure has been a high one, with growing alienation in Quebec, in the west, among the aboriginal people of Canada, and indeed among all Canadians.
What lessons has the government learned from the failure of this process? Has it learned that Canadians have to be involved in every step of the process? Has it learned that Parliament has to be involved?
Let us look at the government's two most recent initiatives.

First, we have the Citizen's Forum on the Future of Canada, the Spicer Commission. The words "future of Canada" sound wonderful, Mr. Speaker, and if given a broad mandate, the Citizen's forum could be a very worthwhile exercise.
However, we are not really sure what the forum's mandate is. There is a lot of confusion about this, Mr. Speaker, because once again, the Prime Minister made a decision without consulting Parliament, without consulting the leaders of the opposition parties and without consulting members of this House. In fact, as events unfold, it is becoming clear that even members of the commission do not know the forum's mandate.
The Spicer Commission could have had a clear and realistic mandate if there had been consultations and if there had been a commitment. It may be possible to accomplish something, Mr. Speaker, at least I hope so. The New Democratic Party will do everything it can to make this work, and we urge the government to do the same.

Today we have this proposed joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the amending formula to the Constitution. Once again no consultation: no consultation from the Prime Minister with the leaders of the opposition, no involvement of this House in looking at long-term efforts on the Constitution. A discussion paper tabled after the Prime Minister spoke, not shared with the parties before when this motion was being presented, is unacceptable. It is the same old process in the same old way. It must change if we are going to save this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Government Orders


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Each time since June 23, that an initiative has been put forward by this government, we say to ourselves: "Has the Prime Minister learned anything from past mistakes?" Evidently not, Mr. Speaker, and this is sad. Not in a partisan way; it is sad for Canada. We have to learn from our history. That is what the constitutional debate is all about now. We have to learn from our mistakes. They are clear and before us. But why does it not happen? That is the question Canadians need an answer to.
To have a discussion paper upon which a committee is to be formed not even presented to members of the opposition before the debate is inexcusable. It is arrogant and, as I say, it continues the same old process in the same old way. It is unacceptable. That is exactly why we wanted a debate on this motion today. That is why we simply refuse to rubber stamp this committee.
We also have a strong belief that this committee is too narrowly defined. The issue of the amending formula is an important one. As the member for Yukon, I certainly do not have to be reminded about what a unanimity provision in the amending formula on the future creation of provinces means to my home territory. I understand the importance. My party understands the importance of the amending formula.
The fundamental question here is whether this committee addresses the real issue. We say it does not. What Canada needs to know is not just how we are going to get there but where we are going.
It is also a question of priorities. What about aboriginal issues? Members of the government have said that any progress on constitutional issues regarding aboriginal people will have to wait until the conclusion of the Spicer commission. Aboriginal people are saying-and we are saying it-why do aboriginal people have to wait while for some reason this committee can go ahead and travel across Canada?
Given the broken promises of the government to aboriginal people, given the events of the summer, given that, as we speak, thousands of aboriginal people throughout the country live in poor housing conditions and have no chance of employment, I would suggest that aboriginal Canadians cannot wait. Has the Prime Minister learned nothing from the summer of 1990? If any committee should be travelling across this country now, it should be one on aboriginal affairs trying to deal with

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
the very complex situations of first nations across this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: What I am saying here today is that the constitutional debate that takes place should be both more immediately relevant and broader in scope than that envisioned by this proposed joint committee.

My party, as you know, has made numerous concrete proposals in this regard. We proposed the establishment of a constituent assembly. We asked that a Standing Committee on the Constitution be set up by the House of Commons, and renew that request today. If we have standing committees on transport and on agriculture, we can also have a committee on the Constitution, i.e. on the country's future. Such a form would allow broader discussion of the constitution, in particular of an amending formula. In short, a standing committee would allow us to examine the Constitution as a whole, instead of doing so in piecemeal fashion, as the motion put forward today by the government seems to be intended to do.

In conclusion, what I am saying and my party is saying is that it is not enough to strike a committee and travel around the country to discuss the amending formula, no matter how important that amending formula is, because Canada is not just about an amending formula; it is about people living together. We have to get to the heart of the matter; we have to talk about Canada itself.
When we talk about Canada, let us talk about national institutions, something this government seems determined to destroy. Let us talk about universal social programs, something else this government is obviously determined to let go. Let us talk about an economy that serves Canadian families throughout this country. Let us talk about a vision for Canada. Rather than look to an individual or an elite for that vision, let us look to the Canadian people: aboriginal people and women, people from the regions across the country, from Quebec; farmers, environmentalists, and minority groups. The vision is there. It is a vision of diversity within this country, and of acknowledging diversity within one nation.
Leadership is about bringing those visions together, and that is what we in this party intend to do.
We must work together to renew Canada, to give to our nation a new sense of direction and a new sense of purpose. We have a nation like no other and an opportunity that few on this planet have to build a society of people living together, sharing with each other, caring for each other, and celebrating the richness of our common humanity.
The responsibility we are charged with as members of Parliament is to bring Canadians together, to find solutions to our conflicts and to build for the future.
I want to propose, today, an amendment to the government motion, recognizing that the Speaker will need to make a ruling on this. I propose this amendment because I feel that through this we could fulfil our responsibilities to the Canadian people, to really address all of the issues.
Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"a standing committee of the House of Commons be appointed to consult broadly with Canadians and inquire into and report upon all matters related to the Constitution, including the amending formula".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has received the motion in amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon and will take it under advisement.
Ten minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Shefford.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last three speeches, I had the distinct impression there was a lot being recycled here. About ten years ago I heard a speech in which the Prime Minister at the time used exactly the same terms. Three years ago, when I heard the Prime Minister of Canada talk about Meech Lake, it was the same speech, the same terms, the same old song. And when I hear hon. members repeat those same platitudes, I have to say we are very, very skeptical.
We are convinced this committee is doomed to failure. Mr. Speaker, when your house is on fire, it's too late to worry about the plumbing! To think they can reestablish a consensus in this country through an amending formula, Mr. Speaker, is utopian. It's a diversion, and it's a waste of time. They would have Canadians believe that
December 13, 1990

what is basically wrong with this country is the amending formula mechanism. This paper isn't even up to the standards of Political Science 101. Any student could have written a better paper than this. The text simply dishes up old nostrums that have been around for ages: the referendum model and the constituent assembly model.
Mr. Speaker, for many years, political observers have longed for this kind of process. However, we all know it is not part of Canada's tradition and that the present amending formula, which requires unanimity, will never be amended to allow for these alternatives.
No wonder the Prime Minister is panicking. Every time he makes a speech at a fundraiser, he has to announce a new committee. Thank goodness there aren't too many fundraisers right now, Mr. Speaker!
I think this initiative is worthy of a minor "Impro" league. He started with his so-called Spicer Commission-which is a big farce, even English Canada doesn't take it seriously, while it is completely ignored in Quebec-and now, he has just created a committee on plumbing. If any questions are asked, he might be willing to create a third committee on the division of powers and upon further questioning, he would probably appoint a fourth, fifth and even sixth committee.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that all these committees will not prevent Quebec from going ahead. Those who look at the world through rose-coloured glasses and think it will be business as usual are wrong. I may remind the Prime Minister that in his speeches before the demise of Meech Lake, he himself referred to the last chance, the last opportunity. Today, in his attempt to resurrect old political science papers, the Prime Minister is deluding himself.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept the motion by the New Democratic Party which is more honest, in my opinion, because it is more open, while the position of the leader of this party is also far more realistic.
Mr. Speaker, this committee will never be able to come to grips with reality. It will be useless.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Hamilton East on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have ten minutes to ask questions to the leader of the New Democratic Party. She wants to take the opportunity to make a speech. Fine. I want to make one too, but this is a question period. So, she should give others a chance to ask questions too. After all, we are more directly concerned by this issue than she is.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the previous speaker's comments simply by saying that despite our differences I am sure that no one in the Conservative Party, in the Liberal Party, or in the New Democratic Party feels that debating Canada is a waste of time.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the New Democratic Party a question. I must say that I found that she missed a tremendous opportunity in her speech. I found it remarkable that she began with partisan shots, unable to put the country ahead of party. It is simply not true that the Liberals opposed this debate. The fact is there is all-party agreement to have a one-day debate and the leader might well have reflected that.
She stated very clearly that her party stands for one Canada. That is a truly remarkable statement to those of us who fought the 1988 election, when her party in Quebec came out with a vision that was clearly at odds with the rest of the country. It is certainly a remarkable statement for those of us who saw the by-election of Laurier-Sainte-Marie where her candidate, in order to garner votes in that election, turned her back on Canada and the leader of the New Democratic Party did not denounce her. It is certainly a surprise to those of us in Quebec who have heard countless times the member for Chambly take a position which is clearly at odds with the members of the rest of her party. My question to the leader is, she may stand for one Canada, why does she not tell that to the members of her party in the province of Quebec?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am the leader of the New Democratic Party. I speak for the New Democratic

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
Party. I stand in support of the member for Chambly who speaks with conviction as a Quebecer for Quebec interests within this party and for a united Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, you will permit some skepticism on our side. I was watching television about a month ago when the leader of the New Democratic Party said the Constitution was not a problem, the Constitution was not an issue, that what we should be looking at is strictly the economy. I am happy to see she now understands that the Constitution is very critical to the future of this country.
If in fact she speaks as the leader of the New Democratic Party, why is she afraid to speak before the Belanger-Campeau Commission and to tell the people of Quebec exactly what her party thinks on this issue?

Why is she not prepared to go before the Belanger-Campeau Commission and state her position on the Constitution instead of sending the member for Chambly. He is for sovereignty-association, but she is not. Why does she refuse to make a presentation?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am accountable to my party. I am accountable to the people of Canada. I am not accountable to the Liberal opposition.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: However, I will say that both in Quebec and outside of Quebec I have spoken about our party's constitutional policy. I will continue to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the NDP says we touched a nerve. Indeed it does touch a nerve when the leader of her party claims that they are the people who are speaking for Canada. However, she does not have the courage to go into the province of Quebec to speak about the federalist position of her party before the Belanger-Campeau commission, but she is prepared to send the member for Chambly who is clearly saying one thing in English and another thing in French. One of the criticisms we have had of the government over this debate has been that the Prime Minister and the government have said one thing to English Canadians and another thing to Canadians in the French language.
There is one party and one leader who are prepared to say the same thing in both languages. It is the Liberal Party and it is the Liberal leader who has the courage to go before the Belanger-Campeau Commission and tell Quebecers and Canadians about his hopes and dreams for Canada.

I find incredible and insulting that the government leader and the leader of the New Democratic Party refuse to state their constitutional policy for Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: They do not have one. They are afraid!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we are considering today a motion to establish a Special Joint Committee of the House to inquire and report upon the process for amending the Constitution, including alternatives to the present formula and other ways of changing it.
Mr. Speaker, certainly the amending formula is one of the contributing factors that lead to the Constitutional deadlock, but it is not the only one. The process itself was brought to a standstill because the Prime Minister refused to work as hard outside of Quebec as he did to sell the Meech Lake Accord to the people of Quebec. What he did is do a good job selling Meech Lake to Quebecers, but he did not say a thing about it outside of Quebec.
I know because I represent an anglophone riding outside of Quebec. Brian Mulroney and his gang did not come to Hamilton to explain what Meech Lake was about. Instead, they stressed upon the people of Quebec that to reject the Accord was to reject Quebec. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I did not reject Meech Lake. Nor did I reject Quebec.
My constituents have no understanding of what the Meech Lake Accord was. Some of those who were against the Accord do not want the separation of Quebec. They want Quebec to remain within Canada. After the failure of Meech, I think that we will now come to realize, with the work of the Belanger-Campeau Commission and the recognition of the people outside of Quebec, that the situation is serious. We have finally reached the point where Canada must welcome Quebec within the Canadian family.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Too late!
December 13, 1990


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know my friend, Jean Lapierre, knows how much I bled in the Liberal caucus over the issue of Meech Lake. I want to tell him, and through him to Quebecers, and through them to Canadians, that the people outside Quebec who rejected Meech Lake did not want to reject the people of Quebec. For the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney, who for three years travelled into the province of Quebec telling Quebecers, "A vote against Meech is a vote against you", and for the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who want to facilitate the separation of Quebec from Canada by telling Quebecers, "The rest of Canada does not care", I say to them, you are wrong. The rest of Canada wants to make a home for Quebec within the Canadian family. If we do not, if we fail in this initiative, and I dare say with the proposal of the government we are heading for failure, it is not only the federal Parliament of Canada that will pay the price but it is the country of Canada.
To have a Canada without Quebec, to have a Canada without one of the founding people who have contributed economically, socially, culturally, linguistically to the very fabric of our nation, that is to have no Canada at all. Perhaps there are a lot of Canadians with blinders on. I believe some of those Canadians were in my own party and I said so. However, the time has come to take those blinders off and recognize that not only do we have a country that is worth saving, we have a very special part of that country, indeed, a unique and distinct part of that country, known as Quebec, which must be made to feel at home again in the Canadian family.
How many Quebecers looked at the rejection of Meech as Canada's last chance to say no to Quebec? We have had another chance. Unfortunately, with the federal process which is being launched, not only by this particular committee but by the Spicer Commission, we are frittering away precious time in which the future of our country hangs in the balance.

After refusing to testify before the Commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec, the Prime Minister actually believes that his initiatives here in Parliament will help Canadians meet the constitutional challenge. After refusing to recognize the main constitutional problem we must deal with in the near future, the
Government Orders
Prime Minister thinks he is proposing adequate solutions. He does not understand the problem, and he is proposing the wrong solutions. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can solutions be effective if the problem is ill-defined?
On November 30, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister was going to appear publicly before the Belanger-Campeau Commission. We already know he made several statements behind closed doors and we also know that the closed door process no longer works. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister answered no, saying that he failed to see why the Prime Minister should appear before the various commissions involved in studies and inquiries on the future of Canada. For shame, Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister himself will not appear before the Belanger-Campeau Commission on the future of Quebec! With or without the Prime Minister of Canada, Quebec's selfdetermination will have a major impact on Canada's self-determination. If Quebec decides to go its own way at the end of March, Canadians will lose a great deal, Mr. Speaker. Canadians outside Quebec have the most to lose if the Prime Minister is not prepared to speak for a united Canada before the Belanger-Campeau Commission.
I believe the Prime Minister should acknowledge that national unity is his responsibility. Let's not fool ourselves, Mr. Speaker. Whether we like it or not, by reflecting on its own political and constitutional future, Quebec is actually determining Canada's future. With all due respect for the other provinces, I think we must admit that Quebec and Quebecers are the best informed on constitutional matters. It is not the first time they are dealing with these questions. We could even say the Constitution is a national sport in Quebec, and as with hockey, there are a number of well-trained teams, expert coaches, commentators who are well-informed and a veiy partisan, well-informed and knowledgeable public. The French in the St. Lawrence valley are past masters in the constitutional arts, and they also have the most experience in this field.
The 1982 Constitution is the seventh political or constitutional regime the French in Canada have known. The French regime, which started with the founding of Quebec in 1608, was followed by the British occupation after the Conquest in 1759, and then the Treaty of Paris

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
in 1763, which ceded French Canada to England. In 1791, the Quebec Act granted the right to speak French, practise the Catholic religion and use the Civil Code. The 1840 Act of Union united Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and in 1867, the British North America Act created Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord, to Francophones, was their eighth constitutional event, and following its demise, may be sure there will be a new eighth constitution for the people of Quebec, with or without Canada. The various constitutional crises we have known so far, Mr. Speaker, arose from the French Canadians' need to have their language and culture recognized and protected.
It would not be going too far to say that the very nature of Canada is determined by the fact that a francophone community and an anglophone community live side by side.
French Canada has always viewed the 1867 confedera-tive pact as a pact between two peoples. This fact must be understood, Mr. Speaker, because it is still an important aspect of the on-going constitutional debate. Canada is a federal country, at the expressed request of French Canadians under the leadership of Georges Etienne Cartier, precisely so that they and the institutions that meet their needs may prosper in this land of America. Georges Etienne Cartier was successful in promoting his vision over the will of John A. Macdonald who wanted Canada to be a unitary state. Had Quebec not insisted there would have been no enduring constitutional debates throughout this century.
Chances are there would have been no amendments in 1982 had it not been for the rise of the independence movement in the Province of Quebec during the 1960s and 1970s. There would have been no Meech Lake had nobody felt the need to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold. But then, Mr. Speaker, nor would we be confronted with an impending and serious crisis had the Prime Minister and his colleagues done their best to give all Canadians an enlightened explanation on the nature of the Meech Lake Accord. No, he chose instead to remain silent, Mr. Speaker. From the moment the accord was signed in 1987 until the very last minute he
buried his head in the sand and let people interpret the arrangement as they saw fit.
So when the situation really turned bad he resorted to blackmail and attempted to manipulate the various parties in the dying minutes. This explains why we are now in this serious predicament.
The Conservatives played the constitutional game like a bunch of amateurs without giving it every consideration it deserved, and now they are taking the same approach with the Spicer commission.

The reason for the failure of the Meech Lake Accord was that the Prime Minister and the government never went to the rest of Canada to explain the real meaning of the process. Frankly, it played the constitutional game in an amateurish way and it is in the process of doing the same thing again. The Prime Minister said: "I rolled the dice." The Prime Minister said in The Globe and Mail that he created the constitutional crisis so he could force the parties to the table.
I fear that with the Spicer commission and with the parliamentary committee the Prime Minister is about to play constitutional roulette once again with the people of Canada. He is doing that because, instead of having a thoughtful, planned process of open constitutional reform, for five months after the death of Meech he did nothing. Then, he launched the Spicer commission which has been roundly criticized on all sides and which does not even have a full complement of full-time working members.
The constitutional clock for this country is ticking and we have a Prime Minister who is using amateurish approaches to try to solve a very difficult problem. Contrast that with the approach taken by the Belanger-Campeau Commission.

Whether we like it or not, the first challenge will come from Quebec. All political, social and economic actors are now seriously considering Quebec's political and constitutional future, an exercise which is not being done in this House, Mr. Speaker. The opposing teams stand face to face. Experts one after another express their views. Every day the newspapers are full of briefs and comments of every description. People are following the debate very closely. And what is heard is beyond the
December 13, 1990

imagination of any other Canadian who even bothers to listen.

It is important that I say this in English, Mr. Speaker. The rest of the country has yet to realize that we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis which could result in the end of Canada. I hope that in some small way this debate and even the debate of the Spicer commission and, certainly, the debate being undertaken by the Belanger-Campeau Commission will send a signal to the rest of Canada that Quebec has waited too long and the rest of Canada must wake up if we are going to be able to save the country in time.

First of all, listen to what Quebec social groups and unions are saying: They already want to leave.

They are already speaking about what they will do after the beginning of a sovereign Quebec.

Moreover, it is not only unions and social groups who are saying that, Mr. Speaker, but also financial organizations such as the Mouvement Desjardins.

When a major financial institution of the nature of the Mouvement Desjardins calls for independence, we know that the time for Canada is quickly running out.

Moreover, the Conseil du patronat wants Quebec to be distictive not only through its language, but also through a whole series of other institutions including the Civil Code, the Revenue Department, networks of manpower centres and financial institutions. Others, such as the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, although they would prefer to keep a Canadian money system, are already talking about the possibility of a separate currency for Quebec. Poeple have to listen, Mr. Speaker!

Listen Canadians, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, although it would prefer to keep a Canadian money system, is already talking about the possibility of a separate Quebec currency. Time is running out and the Prime Minister does not have the luxury of the years and years of the three-year process of Meech. What he has is
Government Orders
time running out on him, with federal initiatives that show little leadership, little planning, and little understanding of how grave the situation is.


An hon. member:: It is true!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The ideas submitted to the Belanger-Campeau Commission are each more daring than the next. Many are asking for the Quebec people to decide the issue in a referendum held as soon as possible. This Commission is supposed to table its report at the end of March, which means that the Quebec government would then have definite recommendations available and could act quite expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me for describing in detail the process taking place in Quebec, but I did so because I wanted to compare it with the process here at the federal level.

I wanted to speak in detail, Mr. Speaker, about the Quebec process because I think we have to contrast that with the absolute lack of leadership and planning to save Canada on the part of this Prime Minister and this government.
The Spicer commission was cobbled together at the last second. The resolution about which we are speaking today was brought about as a response to an immediate political problem of the Prime Minister. Where has he been since June 23, when he knew that the constitutional clock was ticking? Where has he been? Why does the government not expand the terms of reference of this committee to make sure that it deals, not only with the important issue of the amending formula, but also the other questions that Canadians want put on the table?
It is simplistic and naive to suggest that the death of Meech was only a result of the formula of unanimity. The death of Meech was the result of a federal Prime Minister who was unwilling to speak out in the rest of Canada as eloquently and as vociferously as he spoke out in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I can speak with credibility on this issue because I spoke in the same language, with the same words, in every part of the country and I can tell you that the death of Meech which started the clock ticking for Canada was a direct result of the mismanagement and the amateurish approach of the government. I fear that we are about to repeat the same process with this position.

I pray for Canada, Mr. Speaker. I pray for Canada and I do not care what political party one belongs to, but I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, Canadians should wake up because the clock is ticking. We need a new deal for Canada and we need a new deal for Quebec in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Laval-Ouest, very briefly.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Hamilton East and I must congratulate her, for she did take a stand for the Meech Lake Accord and supported it. Now, her leader will go to Quebec to appear before the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission and force down the throat of the Quebecers things they may not be interested to hear.
I would Like the hon. member for Hamilton East to tell me how she will react to Mr. Chretien's testimony before the Belanger-Campeau Commission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I was among those who wanted Mr. Chretien to go before the Belanger-Campeau Commission so that he could explain directly to the people of Quebec what his aspirations were for the future of Quebec within Canada. It is a well known fact that he opposed the Meech Lake Accord, but we also know that, during the after-Meech-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.01 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the government's white paper on Public Service 2000 tabled yesterday confirms the concerns of the Liberal Party and Public Service employees that real consultation is not part of the agenda of the government.
The document was prepared without consultation with employee representatives and far from being a discussion paper, it is riddled with dictates like "the government will", "the government has decided", "the government will require". There is no strategy in place for a dialogue. In fact the President of the Treasury Board has sent out mixed messages about whether the paper will even be referred to a special committee as recommended by the public accounts committee.
This is the acid test on whether the government really wants to consult with Canadians or just with corporate Canada. PS 2000 is now under the microscope. The Liberal Party, the Public Service, and Canadians are watching.


AWARD OF EXCELLENCE IN ARCHITECTURE
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: On Tuesday, December 11, Mr. Speaker, I attended a meeting at Mont-Rol-land's cultural and community centre. The meeting had been organized to celebrate the fact that Boudrias, Boudreau, St-Jean and Associates, an architectural firm of my riding of Laurentides, has been given a mention for the Ordre des architectes du Quebec Award of Excellence. The firm Boudrias, Boudreau, St-Jean and Associates received this excellence award mention for the quality of their work in renovating and enlarging the cultural and community centre of Mont-Rolland. This very functional building is greatly appreciated by Mayor Gilles Legault, his councillors and the residents of Mont-Rolland.

I want to congratulate Boudrias, Boudreau St-Jean and Associates for their outstanding work, and I commend them for receiving the excellence award mention from the Ordre des architectes du Quebec.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: This weekend, Mr. Speaker, I will be joining more that 5,000 people in Rimouski where, together, we will express our total disagreement over the cut-backs imposed by this government to the CBC, more particularly the savage reductions affecting eastern Quebec television stations.
Mayor Roger Theriault of Baie-Comeau, a community well known to the Prime Minister, I should think, said that these cut-backs are "a low blow which torpedoes the nascent regional conscience".
It is not too late for the Prime Minister to listen to his own electors, Mr. Speaker. These people, and the electors of Rimouski this weekend, as well as those of eastern Quebec and all the other regions of Canada hard hit by these unacceptable and harmful cut-backs are asking that they be rescinded.
The government must rescind these cut-backs immediately, re-instate these essential regional voices, and stop strangling everything that does not originate from major centres.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House today the problems eight villages of the Lower North Shore suffered because of Canada Post's poor delivery service.
For over two months, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the villages of Baie Johan-Beetz, Kegaska, La Romaine, Harrington Harbour, Mutton Bay, La Tabatiere, Aylmer Sound and Tete-a-la-Baleine get their mail with delays of up to 10 days in some instances.
That unacceptable situation results from changes made by Canada Post regarding the air transportation of postal matter to the Lower North Shore.
The Lower North Shore had managed to set up a good postal service for itself over the past few years. Then, a decision by the Canada Post Corporation in the spring of
1990 brought radical changes to the transportation and delivery of postal matter, which caused the service deterioration now facing the region.
Mr. Speaker, this situation can no longer be tolerated. Steps must be taken to restore decent postal service for the people of the Lower North Shore.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has excluded the north from the national forum on Canada's future. Once again the north has been shut out.
The forum's chairman is quoted today as saying he would have preferred to have a northern aboriginal representative appointed. Obviously, the Prime Minister did not agree. Obviously, the Prime Minister has forgotten his pre-election commitment to stop treating the territories like poor cousins.
For this Prime Minister and this government, Canada seems to stop at the 60th parallel. People who live south of 60 are given a voice in the national constitutional soul-searching, but the residents of the far north, those who occupy 40 per cent of Canada's land mass, who make their contribution to this country's sovereignty and prosperity without the services other Canadians take for granted, are continually denied the opportunity to participate in the strengthening of this nation. Northerners are Canadians too. We have something to contribute. The people of the north will not forget that this Prime Minister thinks we have nothing to offer.


CANADA'S GREEN PLAN
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the media and opposition parties have been attacking the green plan for being vague and not going far enough.
As one who has been involved with environmental issues for over ten years, I believe the critics are wrong, wrong, wrong. The green plan is a comprehensive agenda for decisive action on the environment with

December 13, 1990
defined targets and schedules, supported by $3 billion in new funding.
Other countries have developed similar plans, including the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Australia. Frankly, not one of these countries comes even close to Canada in terms of committed funding, targets and schedules, scope and the extent of public consultation and participation in the formulation process.
If the critics expended more of their energy in constructive pursuits such as becoming full partners in the green plan solution, the common goal of a healthier environment would be reached in less time than any of us have ever imagined.


THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, three victims of the drug thalidomide spoke before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare this morning. The three, representing 72 others like them, asked for monthly assistance based on the severity of disability instead of equal lump sum payments irrespective of severity as chosen by this government.
After 30 years waiting for compensation, desperation has forced these people to bring their case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It shames me to say Canada is the only remaining country that has not yet come to the aid of its thalidomide victims despite their obvious need. Thirty per cent cannot find meaningful jobs, and another 30 per cent rely on their families for support. I and the member for London East ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to grant the request of the 75 Canadian thalidomide victims who have waited so patiently for redress. Please meet with them soon for the sake of justice, or do they need to wait for the judgment of the United Nations?
Is ^	^


CHILD CARE
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1990, the minister Monique Landry
presided at the official opening in my riding of Laval-Centre of the first day care center made available in an office complex in Laval.
The "Genies en herbe G.L." center is an initiative of the engineering firm Gendron Lefebvre, with the support of Edifice G.L., the City of Laval and the Quebec child care services bureau.
Each year, this organization gets generous financial assistance from the government of Canada. The center accomodates 60 children, including 8 newborn, and there is an outdoor playground designed especially for children.
The location and layout of the center allow parents to come and see their child during the day. The community of Laval is grateful to the Gendron Lefebvre firm for this praiseworthy initiative.


RURAL DIGNITY
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth anniversary of the founding of Rural Dignity, a grass roots organization based on the principle that there are three great federal institutions which hold this country and rural communities together: the post office, the CBC and VIA Rail.
There are now thousands of rural Canadians, ably led by organizers like Cynthia Patterson and Barb Bonneau, who are fighting the cuts which threaten their communities and their way of life, like the closure and privatization of 5,200 rural post offices.
At one time the Prime Minister said that Canada is a country of small towns and big dreams. The last six years of population loss, poverty, privatization and lost services have been more like one big nightmare for rural Canadians. Grass roots movements like Rural Dignity Canada prove that rural Canadians are not going to stand by and watch the government gut their communities and their way of life.
There is a warning in this for all government members from rural constituencies; they had better pay attention to what their rural constituents are saying or face the consequences in the next election.
December 13, 1990


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a GST-related fact-finding tour of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan in my capacity as Official Opposition critic for revenue. I met with western Canadians in 17 communities ranging from cities the size of Calgary to towns like Turtleford, Saskatchewan.
I spoke with them on radio talk shows, on the streets, in town halls and in malls. I met with mayors and other local politicians.
I wish to advise the House of three basic facts which I confirmed on my visit. First, western Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to the GST.
Second, western Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to the imposition of the tax on January 1, in the face of the clear need to rectify many obvious flaws in the proposed legislation.
Third, western Canadians are overwhelmingly in support of the Liberal senators' fight to defeat or delay the imposition of a tax they view as being forced on them by what many describe as the Mulroney dictatorship.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we often talk about regional development, and since September 1984, in conjunction with our economic partners in Abitibi, we have managed to get six Community Futures Committees from the Conservative Government.
I have always said to my constituents that these committees provide the perfect vehicle for consultation. The PQ member for Rouyn-Noranda, Mr. Remy Trudel, who ran as an NDP candidate in Temiscamingue in the last federal election in 1988, agreed not long ago that federal CFC was "the ideal formula for consultation" and "a genuine socio-economic summit".
Mr. Speaker, every community in Abitibi will draw on its strengths to start developing new industries and diversify its economy.


LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome - Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in the December 12 edition of La Presse, journalist Mario Fontaine reported, and I quote: "When Jean Chretien appears before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, he will try to play down his federalist image". The journalist went on to say that the atmosphere at Liberal Party headquarters was very tense.
Along the same lines, backroom adviser Senator Riz-zuto said that Mr. Chretien would be very flexible and indicate that he was receptive to Quebec's aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. What kind of credibility can Quebecers expect from a man who obeyed his mentor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and condemned the Meech Lake Accord, a man who stated that "Canada is not negotiable", a man whose wonderful promises made in 1980 were soon forgotten in 1982, a man who convinced western Canadians he would put Quebec in its place?
I am sure there are many people who, like me, are waiting for December 21 to hear the Chretien creed, new style, adapted to its audience and to the circumstances.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this week's nominees for the corporate welfare bum of the week award are: Prairie Oil Royalties Company, which had a profit of $5.1 million in 1989, a bonus of $1.6 million in tax credits, and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: Ranger Oil, with $32.6 million U.S. in profits in 1989, $3 million U.S. in government hand-outs and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.

December 13, 1990
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Ranger Oil, with $32.6 million U.S. in profits in 1989, $3 million U.S. in government hand-outs and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: Our last nominee, Northgate Exploration, with $5.3 million profits in 1989, with $1.4 million in government handouts and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: With the gulf crisis driving the prices of oil on a roller coaster ride with Santa Saddam at the wheel, our nominees, along with other oil companies are in for some treats with the consumer, being the Xmas turkey.
For the winner: I'enveloppe, s'il vousplait, monsieur. The winner is Ranger Oil, our corporate welfare bum of this week. Congratulations to our winner, Ranger Oil. You can be sure that they are not a "Lone Ranger" when it comes to profitable oil pricing.


CANONIZATION OF MARGUERITE D'YOUVILLE
Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, Pope John Paul II canonized the first Canadian saint, Marguerite d'You-ville, founder of the congregation of the Sisters of Charity.
Today, as they did 250 years ago, the Sisters of Charity help street people, offer assistance to battered wives, provide hospital care, provide shelter for children from troubled families, help teenage mothers, visit the sick, help our schools, and so forth.
My own family can bear witness to the dedication of the Grey Nuns, and the people of my riding are very proud to have the mother house of the Sisters of Charity of Quebec, headed by Sister Yolande Bonner, in their community.
Congratulations to all the members of this order who today continue to uphold the ideals of their founder, Saint Marguerite d'Youville, which are fraternity and justice.


SOCIALIST AWARDS
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough- Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, we have the weekly socialist awards of excellence.
The nominees this week are: one of the Quebec members of the NDP who preaches sovereignty for Quebec while remaining a party member who supposedly favours federalism. Louise O'Neil, NDP candidate in the recent by-election in Laurier-Sainte Marie who, after losing to the Bloc Quebecois, decided to end her political charade, leave the NDP and join the separatists.
The envelope, please: And the winner is the New Democratic Party, the party that preaches unity to English Canada while telling its Quebec candidates that preaching separatism is all right as long as one of them gets elected. Hypocrisy runs rampant once again in the NDP.
It is obvious to any thinking person that the only hope for a united Canada is the Liberals under Jean Chretien.
I call upon every member of the NDP who really cares about Canada to come and join us over here.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is about something that pertains directly to the executive authority of the Prime Minister. Under section 34 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister in effect appoints the Speaker of the Senate.
Yesterday, in what has been called "the worst example of parliamentary dictatorship", the Speaker of the Senate broke the rules of that place in an attempt to force through the GST.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why has the Prime Minister allowed the Speaker of the Senate, his appoin-

December 13, 1990

tee, to carry out these improper actions? Inasmuch as the Prime Minister in the House this morning said that he did not intend to bulldoze Canadians on the Constitution, is it not time he and the government stopped trying to bulldoze Canadians when it comes to the GST?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever observed such a disgusting spectacle as the attack the Liberal Senators have made upon the Speaker of the Senate. It is unprecedented, absolutely unprecedented.
I am sorry to note that the Leader of the Opposition associated himself with that, because the Speaker of a House has the authority and responsibility to maintain law and order in a Chamber. It is about time that he has put his foot down. I think he should be applauded and will be applauded by all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course I am not sure where the next question is going to. I listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. I listened also to his argument in the preamble that, because it was tied to the appointment by the Prime Minister, the question was appropriate.
I have serious doubts as to whether or not questions ought to be asked in this place that go directly to the heart of proceedings in the other place. I think for the moment that has to be my ruling.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by the ruling because the Deputy Prime Minister has in effect admitted that the Speaker of the Senate is acting under the instructions of the government and the Prime Minister.
-I-	^


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a document from the Department of Finance in which the government admits that the GST is flawed and that it intends to change it in a number of ways.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: If the government is admitting that the GST is flawed, why, instead of trying
Oral Questions
to bulldoze it through, doesn't the government withdraw the GST, axe the tax, and give all Canadians a break?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has misinterpreted the response to the earlier question that he posed.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What I am saying and what is clearly obvious was that the Speaker's ruling in the other place was upheld by a majority of the members. That is consistent with the traditions of the House over there.
It is rather strange that when a challenge was made about a Speaker's ruling and the Liberals would challenge a Speaker's ruling and defeat it, all was well because majority ruled.
What is at issue here is that the majority has changed. It now is a Conservative majority, and that is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is failing to accept.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister speaks of a majority of senators, but Canadians will not forget that this majority was created when the Prime Minister packed the Senate with a bunch of GST-loving Tories who are ignoring the views of a majority of Canadians who say they do not want the GST.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments suggested in the document of the Department of Finance confirm that the GST includes a number of errors, particularly as it applies to tourists and cab fares. So I ask the minister, since the government finally admits that the GST contains errors, at least in these areas, why does it not mention books as well? Why does it still insist on taxing books? Again, why is the government so intent on taxing books? Why?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition wherein he takes issue with the actions of the Prime Minister in

December 13, 1990
Oral Questions
invoking section 26 of the Constitution, I might just remind him that that action was perfectly legal and it has been upheld by at least three court cases.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the leaky GST amendments, a copy of which I have in hand.
These amendments propose a series of changes to take effect at the same time as the present GST before the Senate is to take effect, on January 1. Is this not proof that the bill is badly flawed? Is this not proof that the Prime Minister and this government should have told the truth to Canadians, that the bill is wrong and should be withdrawn?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been all these months. Both the Minister of Finance and myself, in this House and outside, have indicated that we were listening to Canadians.
We have already made, as the members knows very well, a number of improvements in the operation of the GST. We have done it. We will, as necessary, continue further improvement to the GST when the bill receives Royal Assent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is the same government that told us there was only one budget leak. That is how honest this government is.
I would like to ask the following question of the minister who has just replied.

Why did the minister choose not to advise the House when he realized there were major flaws in his legislation? Why did he hide that information from the House? Why does he want to introduce a bill through the back door on Parliament's last sitting day before the Christmas recess? Why did he hide the truth from Canadians.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, never did the government hide the truth. Quite the contrary, and I am amazed that a member who has been in this House for so long, at least for me because I am a relatively new member- Every time a budget is tabled we introduce a number of bills related to the budget, and in turn these
are followed by others to make improvements and close loopholes. In the case of this major reform we consulted with Canadians. That is what we have been doing since August 1989, and we will seek every means available to ensure that the tax is as fair, as equitable and as effective as possible.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Clearly the government is intent on ramming through the GST. It is unfortunate that the Liberal senators did not vote against the GST on first reading or on second reading, or we would not be at this point now.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said at various times that there are flaws in the GST. The Department of Finance has now released a document saying that the GST does have flaws. Surely it is the government's responsibility to get it right the first time. It obviously could not with this tax. It obviously could not bring in a fair tax system.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister do the right thing now and withdraw the GST?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. Leader of the NDP that we shall do no such thing because this reform is very good reform for the economy of Canada. It will inject in the economy $9 billion, and this is what we are waiting for.
As for technical improvements, she knows as I know that as we go along, as we consult, as we are informed of possible improvements, we bring them on side. What is wrong with that? We are an understanding and attentive government.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is also a government that says to Canadians: "Just trust us".
During the free trade debate there were a lot of promises made about lowered prices and a level playing field. We do not have any of that. The economy is in shambles. There are not more jobs, there are fewer jobs, and now the government says: "Just trust us. We will fix up the GST. Don't worry about it". We are worried about it.
December 13, 1990

This is the worst tax at the worst time. This government knows it. Experts know it. Canadians know it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now bring in a fair tax system and withdraw the GST today?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed: 48 countries, among which are the most modern countries in the world, have such a tax.
I know that the opposition parties have had a fixation. They know that taxes are unpopular. They have been attacking this tax with great vigour, but they have been carried away by their own speeches. I am not.
This is a modern reform. It has been called for for 50 years. Committee after committee has recommended it. We are doing it. It is a tough thing. In so doing we are also listening to people and, when we can bring in improvements, we are doing it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This government keeps saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is doing a tough thing. What Canadians wish is that it would do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, the battle opposing the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Senate goes on. This government will just not give up. While the battle goes on, the victims are forgotten. And who are those victims? They are, Mr. Speaker, the million and some unemployed men and women in Canada as well as the small businesses that can no longer manage to survive.
It is time this government recognized it made a mistake. It is time for them to swallow their pride. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister finally swallow his pride and withdraw the GST as common sense would dictate?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that we will do no such thing because, she can say what she pleases, the GST is an excellent tax and a fair tax. Of all comparable systems, it is the fairest because of the tax credits.
That being said, the hon. member requested that we change our policy. To that I say, as we say in English, the proof is in the pudding. If you look at the interest rates today, you will notice that they are down 15 basis points. They have been going down for several months now. That is our goal and it is achieved through a serious
Oral Questions
policy designed to control inflationary pressures. These pressures are decreasing. Like all Canadians, we are delighted. The big winner is not the government but the Canadian people.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I have always heard that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. Perhaps that is why the government is trying to jam the GST down the throats of Canadians. The draft press release, leaked yesterday, confirms to Canadians that the government has not thought through the GST. On top of the flurry of draft regulations coming from the Department of Finance that have just been sent to tax experts, we now know that the tax needs to be amended even before the bill has been passed through the Senate. This confirms that the government is rushing to get this tax through, in the desperate hope that Canadians will forget before the next election.
Why will the government not admit that it is simply not capable of implementing the GST three and a half weeks from now? Why does it not step back, withdraw the tax, start over, and give Canadians genuine tax reform?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that we will be in a position to implement it. We have, in the past, brought forward improvements.
I will repeat, this is a very important reform that covers a lot of ground in the taxation area. There are areas, not necessarily of very great significance, that can be improved. We are working on them. It is a fact that we have been improving it since August and that we will continue, as we do with all tax bills.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort to the Canadians who still do not really know what it is they are going to have to comply with in three and a half weeks' time.

More specifically, the draft press release proves that the government intends to introduce changes. At his meeting with students from Vancouver, the Prime Minister said that he felt it was too bad the tax was applied to books. Does the government intend to show students that the Prime Minister really believed what he said? Is

December 13, 1990
Oral Questions
the government prepared to promise that its bill to amend the GST will also abolish the GST on books?


Gilles Loiselle: The hon. member said that Canadians will not know what taxes they will have to pay. I think they know perfectly well. In fact, they said as much in the polls. When we are talking about certain categories of people or businesses, that is another thing altogether. We have to upgrade the system we have, and that is what we are going to do. As for the tax on books, I may remind the hon. member that at the present time we have a federal sales tax imposed across the board, more or less. We are going to remove it, and we will also grant tax credits, so that people who might be penalized by this tax, people on low incomes, will have more money in their pockets than they did before.
Furthermore, by injecting $9 billion into the economy, more people will work, they will have better salaries and they will be able to buy more books.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The issue being decided today is really based on trust. Canadians are asking themselves why should anybody in this country believe the Prime Minister's declaration this morning that he wants to establish a committee of the House of Commons and Senate to repair and to modernize the institutions of Canada when this afternoon his appointee in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate, is going to cut off debate and ram through the GST?
Doesn't the Prime Minister understand that he who destroys and corrupts our institutions cannot heal those institutions?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would want to put his question with less use of provocative language.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in another way, out of respect for this Speaker in this Chamber.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. How can Canadians take seriously government initiatives to repair, modernize and make relevant our institutions, when this same government has been in the process of destroying institutions in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the hon. member, who has had a distinguished parliamentary career, would engage in the kind of abusive and unparliamentary reflection that he has just cast on the Speaker in the other place.
I think that he may very well want to rethink that because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, surely what is at issue is that after eight months of consideration in the other place, it is time to make a decision. It is time to call the vote and it is the responsibility of the Speaker to maintain law and order and ensure that-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will move on. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals so full of sound and fury signifying nothing.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals fought the GST the way David Peterson fought the free trade agreement, by going to Japan. That is the way the Liberal Senators, who had opportunities to defeat the GST time and time again but did not take those opportunities.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
December 13, 1990


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that I asked him to put his question. I am going to have to move on if he does not.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If the government has admitted, as it has, through what we have come to know from this draft press release and ways and means motion, that the GST bill was flawed, would they not finally do the right thing with respect to the GST, admit there are many other things in it that have to be corrected, withdraw the bill and bring it back to the House so we can have another crack at it.


Gilles Loiselle: No, Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the government is willing to correct the things that the minister has indicated he wants to correct, why is it not willing to bring the tax back to the House of Commons so we can look at the inadequacy of the indexing, so we can look at the way it affects families, so that we can look at all the other injustices that this bill institutes, and do something about them?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, our documents pertaining to this tax and the bill itself were in front of this House since 1987 I think. If there were any constructive proposals to come from the other side of the House we would have found out by now.


HARBOURFRONT CORPORATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73 authorizes the Minister of Public Works to separate the development and program functions of Toronto's Harbourfront Corporation by dissolving the corporation and selling off its assets.
Will the minister tell us what economic factors prompted him to agree to a sales deal that will give three developers, Konvey, Rampart, and Huang and Danczky a $36.4 million benefit, a sweetheart deal, thanks to public funds?
Oral Questions


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague opposite to give me the source for those very unimaginative and I would say completely inaccurate figures. As he knows Darcy McKeough, a fine administrator, went over much of the plan of Duncan Allan, an outstanding Ontario civil servant, and we found that the Darcy McKeough proposal was very well accepted in Toronto.
The Toronto mayor, Mr. Eggleton was pleased with it. In fact, many of the media people there congratulated us in getting this unanimous agreement between so many levels of government for such a constructive project.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is not up to par because a government-financed appraisal reveals the stench that surrounds the deal.
For example, Konvey gives up properties worth $1.2 million in exchange for $6.2 million in benefits. Rampart walks away from a $10.6 million in return for $23.1 million prize. Huang and Danczkey gives up properties worth $6.1 million in return for a $25 million reward.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Will the minister move to end this deal, or is he going to be content to let the stench of corruption taint the atmosphere of this deal?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: the hon. member has any serious concerns or problems with this particular proposal, I think he and his colleagues should sit down with some of the people in the Ontario administration, check with the mayor of Toronto, drop in and see Darcy McKeough and reflect upon the values of real estate in Toronto these days and maybe he will revise his estimates.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. He claims that the Darcy McKeough proposals have been endorsed by the city of Toronto. In fact, on Monday they were rejected by a vote of 16 to one as being totally inadequate. Only the mayor voted in favour of them.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I never said that.

December 13, 1990
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tory developers.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Since when has the Government of Canada departed from the principle of paying fair market value for land that it takes from property owners?


An hon. member:: Since Elmer took over.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The minister for privatization has said in the Toronto media that they did not pay fair market value. He says, "I am not arguing the figure. We paid a premium to get these three buildings off the south side." Why would the government pay a premium instead of fair market value when it has an obvious and full power of expropriation to take the land and not be bullied by developers into giving them premiums like this.


An hon. member:: Tory developers.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: want to thank my colleague opposite for his usual penetrating look at the obvious. I never said that the city council endorsed it. I said that Mayor Eggleton was in favour of it.
In terms of abandoning the principles of fair market value, we have not abandoned those principles.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How can the minister say that they followed fair market value principles when his colleague says they paid a premium? Real estate appraisers who were paid for by the federal taxpayers and hired by the Government of Canada found those figures, to which my colleague referred, that show that instead of paying fair market value, the government has paid $36.4 million more than fair market value.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is the government's own hired appraiser.


An hon. member:: Resign.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: think my colleague's appraisals and his estimates for fair market value have the same relation to reality as Mr. MacEachen's projections for budgets. I think they are very inaccurate.
If the member would look at the present market value for real estate in Toronto, and if he would do a little research for a change, he would find that his figures and the figures of his colleague are in accordance with
general Liberal economic and fiscal projections, terribly inflated and not very substantive.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It relates to the two year old, three volume commissioned survey on West Block asbestos leaked yesterday, which has been hidden in the bowels of his department since December 1988.
The minister and the government is doing a lot of bragging lately about their green plan for the Canadian environment. The principles of the green plan, with all its talk about public information and consultation, ought also to apply to Parliament, MPs and our staff.
To have kept this report secret from the Speaker, from the Board of Internal Economy, from West Block MPs and from parliamentary employees for two years while spokespersons denied any danger was scandalous and unacceptable.
When was the minister made aware of the report and what did he do about it? In view of the fact-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -that yesterday the minister said he would check and report-


Mr. Speaker:: There is a question. I am sure the minister would like to deal with it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I know that you share my concern at the complete lack of factual information that has just been delivered to the House.
As you and I have discussed today, the administrators of the House of Commons were made aware of this particular report.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: When? When?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Shortly after it was completed, I say to my colleague from British Columbia.
If my colleague opposite is so concerned about it, as I indicated to my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond yesterday, I am quite prepared with the consent of the Board of Internal Economy to let him see the report or table it in the House. There is no mystery about it.
December 13, 1990


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the information that we have is that answer is simply not true and not correct.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member is saying that the answer is not inaccurate. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify his position and put the question.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the information that we have, that answer is not accurate.
My supplementary question, in this case is directed to the Minister of Labour. If the Minister of Labour had done his job and proclaimed Parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which was passed by this House four and one-half years ago, then our employees would have the right to know and to act, and we would not have this problem.
When will the Minister of Labour do his job as Parliament directed and give our employees the same basic health and safety rights as all other workers in Canada have? Will he have Part III of that act proclaimed now?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, one would believe that the hon. member would know that the proclamation of the act is not the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax will be disproportionately brutal on the north. Northerners pay more than those in the south, 40 per cent more, generally.
Now the GST is threatening the economic viability of northern publishing companies which have developed a successful industry by using northern authors and settings. It is clear these concerned northern citizens are in the hands and at the mercy of the government.
Will the acting Minister of Finance recommend that books be exempted from the GST to alleviate the unbearable pressure on publishers and consumers from the north and across Canada?
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would not share the analysis made by my hon. colleague.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: You don't live there.


Gilles Loiselle: It is not a fact that such will be the effect of the GST. Obviously, she has been listening to her colleagues. She should listen to us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated many times, one of the heavy costs of living in the north is transport. The hon. member knows very well that people who bring things to the north have to pay a very heavy federal sales tax, which will be removed after implementation of the GST, hopefully very soon.
Credits will be available to members of certain communities. Notably, Indian communities in the north will have credits while not having to pay as much tax as other Canadians. I think on the whole they will be better off after reform.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear. I have just returned from the Northwest Territories where one of my constituents said to me that northerners this winter will pay $150 to $200 more to have their fuel tanks filled this winter. Try that on for size.
The cost of transportation is not going down. The cost of fur is going down. Unemployment is going up. The cost of living in the north is 40 per cent more than it is in the south.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you, the government fully intends to make changes to the goods and services act. We also know the government intends to tax all goods and services in the north, including transportation services.
Why will the government not exempt northern goods and services that are so vital to northern residents? Why does the minister opposite not take the opportunity to be merciful and listen to northerners who speak the truth?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Oral Questions


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it seems we cannot win. When we listen and propose changes, we are accused of making changes.
I fully sympathize with the fact that we are now living in a very difficult environment. We know that. We forecast that in our last budget. We must come out of it as soon as possible. Part of the solution is through the force of our economy and the exporting companies. Many of the companies operating in northern parts of Canada will benefit greatly from this tax, bringing prosperity and more jobs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In the face of this economy, the real victims are the consumers and small business. Tax experts have said that the launch of this bill is going to be a disaster. There are close to 300,000 to 400,000 small businesses that have not even registered.
In the face of all of the difficulties that are facing consumers and small business, how, in good conscience, can the government proceed when it is overwhelmingly obvious that the negative effects are going to outweigh any positive effects?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that question. I would like to take this advantage to let the hon. member know that in fact there are over 900,000 businesses that have registered.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Registration applications are coming in at over 100,000 a week. We are capable of processing up to
175,000	per week. Added to that, a recent Deloitte & Touche poll concluded that in the retail sector alone- and this is over a month old now-over 80 per cent of retailers were prepared for a January 1 launch.
I can tell the hon. member and this House that we are ready to go January 1. The business community is getting there. It will be there with the services that are being provided by Revenue Canada. We will have a launch on January 1 for the benefit of all Canadians coast to coast.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about the number of businesses that have registered, but the real winners so far are the bigger businesses and also the government.
Studies according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses show that consumers and small business are losing confidence and are not advancing with this bill. Why does the minister not address those who are suffering the most?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this tax change is to assist those who are suffering the most.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: That is why we are moving in this phase of tax reform, for the benefit of those that suffer, in order to make them more competitive and more productive which will, in return, create more jobs and more productivity and a better economy in the country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: Will you socialists keep it down so that we can at least have an exchange here?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister could conclude his answer.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points out the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses' study which is some months old. In fact, I think it is nearly one year old.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: The study that I referred to is a Deloitte & Touche study done for the retail sector which is comprised primarily of very small businesses.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: That study concluded that 60 per cent- Howard, will you shut your trap, please?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Beaver River.
December 13, 1990

Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
The government certainly knows that there is widespread public opposition to increased taxation. People do not mind paying taxes, but they are concerned about tax dollars disappearing into the spending machine of the government.
In light of these concerns, has the government considered establishing a deficit and debt retirement fund to which any excess revenues would be applied?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, since 1984, the government has followed a very clear policy of deficit reduction and expenditure control. We have been very successful transforming a $16 billion operating deficit into a $10 billion surplus. What a performance.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Loiselle: We are looking at all the possible options, including that one. When the minister, my colleague, is here and comes forward with his budget, the hon. member will see what our decisions are.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to this minister.
Is the government prepared to introduce changes to the Income Tax Act, similar to section 110.1, to allow gifts to the Crown which can be applied directly to the deficit or the debt? Or else, second, is it prepared to introduce changes to the Financial Administration Act which will help ensure revenues go to reducing the deficit and not for further spending?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think that we would, of course, want to apply any additional income from our taxation system to deficit reduction. The particular suggestion made by the hon. member will be looked at and I thank her for her suggestion.


FOREST RESOURCES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. Quebec Forestry Minister Albert Cote has inferred several times that the federal Forestry minister was trying to interfere with Quebec's provincial jurisdiction over forest resources.
My question is this: Could the minister give the House the assurance that the agreement proposed by the federal government to Quebec on August 24 respects the areas of jurisdiction of each government in this country?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the assurance that the federal government's proposal is aimed first and foremost at co-operation and partnership with all members of the industry, starting with the Government of Quebec.
We have always recognized Quebec's responsibility for proposing and maintaining regular forestry programs. With our next series of agreements, Mr. Speaker, we want, above all, to establish an effective partnership in order to accelerate the process of forest development in Quebec, especially in private woodlands.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, he tabled the Public Service 2000 white paper. In his press conference, the minister demurred when asked which committee of the House he will be referring the white paper to. He declined to give any further details.
Will the minister now advise the House which committee he will be referring PS 2000 to, and when we can expect this to happen?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will do

December 13, 1990
Oral Questions
precisely what I told the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I would do when he wrote to me to ask this.
As I was about to enter the House yesterday, I was informed that the NDP did not like the idea of a special committee and that it would prefer a standing committee. I heard other remarks from the Liberal opposition that there are too many committees already.
I have asked the House leader on this side of the House to contact his colleagues to inform me of the desire of the opposition. Then, we will make a decision.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board also stated that he now intends, after going through a task force and a white paper, finally to get into meaningful discussion with the unions involved. Is that a commitment, and what are this minister's plans for communication with the union?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, they are very serious plans indeed. I would like to invite the unions now to be in touch with us. We have made public our intentions. I have told them that we will be prepared to negotiate and discuss with them.
I would also indicate to the hon. member that early in the new year I will put forward a full consultation process which will include, of course, any member who will want to come and state his or her mind on these very important matters. We are talking here of a major change made for Canadians. We have a fantastic civil service in Canada. We need to modernize it and remove the weight of Ottawa from it's back so that it can go on and serve the citizens.
I am determined to do that and I will welcome the contribution of anyone in this House to do that.
* *


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has demonstrated the meaning of the Conservative dictatorship, "My way or no way". The minister is politically blackmailing business across Canada in order to sign up for the government's GST. Sign up-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I know that the hon. member would want to withdraw the word "blackmail". If he indicates that he is doing so, I will let him finish the question.


Jim Karygiannis: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. Numerous businesses will suffer across this country. The minister clearly does not understand the meaning of the word democracy.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he not finally realize that this tax is flawed? He should withdraw it, go back to the drawing board and start all over again.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to my comments in a speech in Toronto earlier this week where I pointed out quite clearly and categorically to the business community, to those in the minority that have not yet prepared or registered for the GST, that if they do not register for the GST they will not be eligible for an input tax credit. They would not be eligible for the federal sales tax rebate on inventory. They would not be able to receive the up to $1,000 grant for start-up costs for small businesses.
What I am saying and repeating here today is for those businesses that have not yet registered, I think it is good business to do so in anticipation of a January 1 start.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that I have several rulings to make. I think it would be of convenience to all members if we went ahead first with the usual Thursday question. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have the usual question for the government House leader. Can he indicate to the House what the business will be for tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and the remainder of next week?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the motion to
December 13, 1990

establish the special committee on the amending formula of the Constitution.
Tomorrow, I will be calling for report stage and possibly third reading of a number of bills which are important, though non-controversial, and hopefully they will be dealt with expeditiously: Bill C-63 on race relations, Bill C-68 on Yukon mining, Bill C-72 on the polar commission and Bill C-82 dealing with Quebec harbours.
On Monday, I hope to call for report stage under time allocation Bill C-84, the Petro-Canada bill, and on Tuesday, third and final reading of Bill C-84.
I will be in discussion with House leaders of the other parties with respect to further business for the rest of next week.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, if I may. Members on this side of the House would like from you, particularly in view of what happened to my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte when he raised a question and then was asked by the Chair to rephrase the question, in which he obliged the Chair and then stood in his place for his customary second question and was thereafter informed by the Chair that he was out of order.
This may have been an inadvertence on the Chair's part, but members on this side, and particularly the hon. member, would like to have a full explanation if not today, perhaps tomorrow, as to what transpired, denying him the opportunity to phrase a second question which we believe on this side was very germane to the discussion which was taking place today.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can settle it now. I do not want to in any way offend the hon. member who is an experienced member of this House but as I heard the question, he was clearly linking the Prime Minister with comments including the word "corruption". I felt that that was out of order. I may not have made it clear that I felt that he should go to his second question and get on with it.
Speaker's Ruling
If I have erred by moving too rapidly I, of course, apologize but that is the explanation I give. I thank the hon. member for asking the question.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Tuesday, November 27, 1990, the hon. member for Shefford raised a question of privilege related to a request he had submitted to the Board of Internal Economy to fund research for his group and to fund the office of the leader of the group. As Chairman of the Board of Internal Economy, I wrote to the hon. member to inform him of the Board's decision.
The hon. member had read the letter into the record and went on to challenge the fairness of the Board's decision, arguing with some vigour that "all hon. members should be treated the same" and that he and his colleagues must have the same rights and privileges as any other member in this House. The hon. member concluded with these words "-I beseech you to reverse your decision and if you refuse, you should at least have the decency to explain why."
These are strong words indeed. It appears to me that in presenting his impassioned case for additional funding for his group, the hon. member for Shefford has implied that the Chair has dealt in a high-handed and unfair manner towards certain members of this House. Furthermore, his words leave the entirely erroneous impression that the independent members in his group are being discriminated against.
As your Speaker, I cannot allow these erroneous impressions to stand unchallenged for they cast doubt on the impartiality of the Chair and risk tarnishing the whole House with the brush of unfairness.

First, let me state clearly that board decisions are made by the Board of Internal Economy, not by your Speaker. As Speaker, I am the chairman of that board and I preside over the deliberations of members, from all sides of the House, who sit as voting members of the board. These include the Deputy Speaker, the hon. government House leader, the hon. President of the Treasury Board, the House leader of the Official Opposition, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the

December 13, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
chief government Whip, the Whip of the Official Opposition, and the hon. member for Lachine

 Lac-Saint-Louise.

The Board considered the request made by the hon. member for Shefford that additional funds be made available to his group for research and for the office of the leader of the group. The Board decided not to make an exception in this case and not to make additional funds available at this time. The Board could have decided differently. For the moment, the decision stands and I can only reaffirm it.

That being said, however, it is important to note that the decision does not mean that the members in this group are impeded from full participation in the work of the Flouse or that they are being deprived of support necessary to represent their constituencies adequately. The hon. member for Shefford argues that the nine independent members for whom he speaks require additional resources. Each member of this House receives a global budget which covers basic staff salaries, normal operating expenses of a constituency office, and related travel expenses. It is important to note that each of these members, like every other member of the House, enjoys the full flexibility to assign these financial resources as he sees fit. For example, under their global allocation, most members of the House will employ up to five staff persons to whom they assign research or administrative duties either in Ottawa or in the constituency, as they judge appropriate. The global budgets of these nine members taken together total close to $1.5 million.
In addition to the global budget, the House provides each member with a fully funded Ottawa office and coverage of important ancillary costs like telephone, postage, printing and travel. Such then is the level of support that the House of Commons offers to each and every individual duly elected to serve as a member of Parliament. It is in this context that the case of the hon. member for Shefford should be viewed.

One can well understand the reasons the hon. member for Shefford may have for pressing the Board of Internal
Economy to recognize himself and his colleagues as an entity and to grant them additional funds accordingly. To date, these efforts have proven unsuccessful, but it is a long and dangerous leap to conclude from there that the basic rights and privileges of those members are somehow being abrogated.
A search of the Debates will show, on the contrary, that the hon. member for Shefford and his colleagues have been extended every courtesy by this House and that the Chair has safeguarded their participation in ways that are fully in keeping with our procedure and practices.
In Question Period the group was recognized for questions immediately on the return of the House in Septembe and have since been recognized most days when they sought to question the government or to make statements pursuant to S.O.31.

These brief remarks have sought to explain to all hon. members and to the public who are watching the House of Commons funding of an infrastructure supporting the hon. member for Shefford and his colleagues. I trust that they will dispel any incorrect perceptions about the situation, and clarify that the support and funding available to every private member of whatever political persuasion is fully available to members who have identified themselves as the Bloc Quebecois.

There are profound differences of opinion as to the best solution to the political and constitutional dilemmas we now face. The depth of the conviction with which these opinions are held and the very complexity of the issues before us make for a highly volatile situation. The Chair pledges to do its utmost to continue to serve this House in as even-handed and impartial a manner as possible. Meanwhile I ask for the continued co-operation of all hon. members so that, however vigorous and hard-fought our political battles, the work of this place will reflect the seriousness and the civility our constituents have a right to expect.

I have another ruling.
The hon. member on a point of order.
December 13, 1990


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask you this: If I require some clarification on this point of order, should I request it now or wait until you have given your ruling on the other point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: If I finish the other point of order, it may perhaps resolve some other problems, or at least be a step toward resolving some other problems. I would ask the hon. member to wait.


ANNAPOLIS VALLEY-HANTS-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants rose on November 21, 1990 to declare that he was and wanted to be known as and registered in our records as an independent Conservative.
The hon. member for Calgary West intervened to make the point that in the Appendix to Wednesday's Debates members are listed by affiliation to parties recognized under the Canada Elections Act or as Independents, with no other possibilities in terms of that listing.
The Chair then indicated that the matter was the subject of discussion outside the Chamber and expressed the hope that it could be satisfactorily resolved.
Our further discussions on this matter were neither conclusive nor determinant of the issue. Before the Chair could so report back to the House, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants again rose on December 10, 1990 to press for recognition as an independent Conservative.
In his passionate appeal to the House, the hon. member referred us to numerous precedents where members having been elected under one label declared themselves under another affiliation and were so recognized.
He maintained that the political system in this country is based on the election of individuals whose party affiliation is incidental. The hon. member for Calgary West continued to insist that to invent a political affiliation which did not exist under the Canada Elections Act and to request the Parliament of Canada to approve the designation of that political affiliation in its written records when it does not exist as a label one can use in
Speaker's Ruling
running for election in this country would be a serious mistake.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands submitted that the hon. member for Calgary West was seeking to alter the rules under which we have operated here by reference to changes in the Elections Act made in the 1970s. He concluded that based on precedents it would be entirely proper for the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants to choose his designation and insist that it be inserted in the Wednesday listing as an Appendix to Debates.
The Chair concluded the exchange by asking if any member could advise the Chair if there was any legal impediment against the hon. member calling himself an independent Conservative of the House. None was identified.
The Chair promised to return to the House with a reasoned response and is prepared to do so now.

It is, perhaps, paradoxical that the political affiliation of an hon. member, which is so fundamental to his or her self-definition is, in our official records, given only marginal expression. As far as this House is concerned, a member is designated by political affiliation only in the weekly appendix to Debates, and only in appendices to Journals and the bound volumes of Debates. There are, of course, other applications of these designations as, for example, in the electronic Hansard or in miscellaneous listings of members of the House. However, these applications might be described as derivative in that they depend upon or are drawn from the listing which appears in the weekly appendix to Debates. Therefore, the designation of political affiliation in Debates must be the primary focus.

With very great respect to those who maintain an opposite view, the Chair must advise that it can find no prescription limiting the designations inserted under political affiliation in the Appendix to Debates to those parties officially recognized as such pursuant to the Canada Elections Act.
The absence of such a limiting prescription must be weighed against the combined weight of our past practice in this regard and our long-standing tradition of respecting the word and legitimate demands to self-definition of individual members.

December 13, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
Having tried to perform this balancing act in the present instance with very great attention and care, the Chair is persuaded to yield to the request of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants and accordingly hereby direct that he be listed as an Independent Conservative in the weekly Appendix to Debates, in the Appendices to the bound volumes of Debates and Journals, and in any documents or circumstances consequential to those Appendices.
I recognize that this was not necessarily a particularly easy decision to make, but I hope that it meets, after the long discussion that took place, with the approval of the members of the House.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, may I say I am extremely disappointed by the answer you gave to the very clear question put by the member for Shefford. In his question he had asked you to justify-


Mr. Speaker:: There is a long-standing tradition in this House. As the hon. member seems to be doing, it is not in order to comment on a ruling made by the Chair. If the hon. member has a question I will certainly try to answer him here or even in my chambers. After this caveat, he may continue.


Louis Plamondon: I will ask my question, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to refer to the beginning of the questions of the hon. member for Shefford when he said "-please, at least have the decency to justify-". In the response you gave there was no justification for the fact that, for example, a group of Social Credit-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much having to interrupt the hon. member. It is true that the hon. member for Shefford used very strong language. I took that at the time because, as I said in my judgment,

-my colleague the hon. member for Shefford made an impassioned speech.

If the hon. member will read carefully what I have just said, it is abundantly clear that the board made a decision. The board made that decision. All I can say on that is that it made that decision today. It might make another decision on another day, but it is not for the
Chair to give the reasons that the board may or may not be prepared to give. That is the situation. The application went to the board. The board has made the decision and for now, as I said,

-that is the situation of all members of the group.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me 30 seconds it would be enough to complete my remarks. I am not going to make a 15-minute speech. I am simply saying that on page 5 of your text it says "the rights and privileges of members are being abrogated". Well this answer breaches my rights as member of a group, if I compare it with answers given to the Social Credit Party which had only six members in 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: Please, I fully appreciate the point of the hon. member, but we are having an argument. At the conclusion of the argument my responsibility is to make a ruling. The House now has that ruling. Should the hon. member wish to pursue the matter he has every opportunity to rise in the House during the oral question period and direct a question to the representative of the Board of Internal Economy.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Just a point I would like to clear up, Mr. Speaker. Since you say in your ruling that there cannot be an exception this time, I would like to know an exception to what?


Mr. Speaker:: When I said that, what I meant and what I think is clear if one reads the text is that the board has made no ruling that would give any funding to one particular bloc outside the traditional parties. Clearly, if one looks carefully at my ruling, the board might do something else at another time.
If the hon. members wish to pursue with members of the board or through a question in the House to the representative of the board who is charged under our rules to answer for the board, then of course that is their privilege.
I think the Chair has exercised considerable patience in this matter. I would certainly ask the hon. members to read carefully the judgment, because I think they will find that the answers are there. When hon. members read it they should remember that the Chair by itself

cannot intrude into the workings of the board, nor would it be proper for me to comment thereon.
What I have explained to the hon. members is that if the board does not wish to give additional funds to a group within the Chamber, that is the board's decision. If the House wishes to overrule the board, that is enough.
Out of respect for objections which are about to be raised in the House-and I know they are coming-I think hon. members will have to accept the judgment. If they wish to raise it again at another time or in another way, please use enough inventiveness to not be challenging the judgment in its particular form.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, not in connection with your first ruling, but with your second. Since you have recognized that our hon. friend has the right to be designated as he wishes, could you tell us if we should formally advise the House of our intention to be designated as members of the Bloc quebecoisl Could you tell us exactly what is the procedure in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the application of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, it would be immediate. I am sure that hon. members might wish to avoir une discussion avec la Table.
Sometimes the Chair has to ask for the co-operation of hon. members. I really think on this issue hon. members are abusing the patience of the whole House. I will move on to Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Mr. Andre's motion to appoint a Special Joint Committee to inquire and report upon the process for amending the Constitution of Canada.
Government Orders SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has now had an opportunity to consider whether the amendment moved this morning by the Hon. Member for Yukon was in order. The purpose of the main motion is to create a Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate with the limited mandate of mainly looking into the Canadian Constitution Amending Formula.
The purpose of the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Yukon is to widen the mandate to include all matters affecting the Constitution, and, if adopted, the Standing Orders of the House would as a result be changed because the amendment also seeks to create a new Standing Committee.
In my humble opinion, the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Yukon extends beyond the scope of the main motion and by widening the committee's mandate, becomes a substantive motion which requires advanced notice and calls for a debate of its own as a main motion.
I refer my hon. colleagues to Speaker Lamoureux's ruling of September 26, 1967, and February 23, 1968. Citation 437(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, will further explain this ruling. I appreciate the graciousness of the House in allowing me a few moments to ponder this question of procedure.
Resuming debate. The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has the floor.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the motion before us to establish a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on the constitutional amending process.
If there is one item upon which I believe we can agree in this House, it is that a better way must be found to amend the Constitution. This became particularly clear during the Meech Lake process.
As the Prime Minister said in his address to the nation on June 23, 1990, after the failure of the accord:

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
It is essential that we find a better way to amend the Constitution1 'to reconcile the need for public participation and open democratic process with the legal requirements now in the Constitution".

Discussions surrounding the Meech Lake Accord made us realize that people see the main aspects of constitutional reform in many different ways. That is why the Prime Minister established the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future on November 1, so that we could have a consensus on the fundamental values and aspirations of the Canadian people which we must take into consideration during our constitutional reform.
The Special Joint Committee and the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future complement each other, Mr. Speaker. Both will give Canadians the opportunity to take part in Canada's constitutional changes.

Canada's search for an appropriate amending formula began long ago and has a rich and varied history.
The British North America Act of 1867 did not provide a formal amending procedure and when Canada achieved de facto independence from the United Kingdom in 1926 with the publication of the Balfour report, there was no agreement in Canada on a formula to amend the Constitution.
The power to amend our Constitution was left, therefore, with the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and in the intervening years up to 1982, a number of amendments to our Constitution were achieved by this route-the transfer of provincial jurisdiction over unemployment insurance to Parliament in 1940 and the sharing of provincial jurisdiction respecting old age pensions in 1951, to name only a few.
However, it was never satisfactory to Canadians that we had to go out of the country to amend our Constitution and during the 1920s and 1930s, the search for a domestic amending formula was on in earnest.

Following the release of the Balfour report, an attempt was made for the first time in 1927 to solve that problem at a meeting attended by representatives of the central government and the provinces.
The participants studied a proposal put forward by the then Minister of Justice, M. Ernest Lapointe, recommending that the Constitution be patriated and that a special amending procedure be added.
However, as with many previous attempts, negotiations on a new amending formula failed.

One constant question that permeated all discussions on this matter throughout history was how to combine the elements of stability and flexibility in an amending formula that would permit patriation of the Constitution from Britain.
In the numerous attempts to secure agreement on an amending formula, on only two occasions were the Prime Minister and premiers able to reach unanimous agreement in principle in an amending formula as part of a patriation proposal. They were the Fulton-Favreau formula in 1964 and the Victoria amending formula of 1971.
For that reason, it is interesting to examine these two formulae in a little more detail.
The Fulton-Favreau formula was drafted in the form of an act in 1964 and, like many previous proposals put forward at federal-provincial conferences, it was highly complex.

Any constitutional amendment would have been made by legislation of the Parliament of Canada and the approval of provincial legislatures would have been required in many areas.
Unanimous consent was required on certain matters, particularly the division of powers. Otherwise, there were different degrees of flexibility depending on the subject of the amendment.
Contrary to the Fulton-Favreau process, the 1971 amending formula suggested in Victoria was relatively simple. It was quite different from all other amending formulas in that no constitutional amendment would have required unanimous consent by all provincial legislatures.
December 13, 1990

Government Orders

Amendments to key areas of the Constitution, including the distribution of powers and matters excepted from the exclusive power of Parliament, would have been made with the consent of Parliament and the consent of the legislatures of two Atlantic provinces, of Quebec, of Ontario and of two western provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population of the western provinces.
Amendments applying to one or more, but not all, of the provinces could be made with the consent of Parliament and the legislatures involved.
Amendments to the Constitution would have taken the form of a proclamation of the Governor General rather than an act of Parliament.
Finally, provision was made for Parliament and the legislatures each to exercise certain exclusive powers of amendment.
The Victoria formula abandoned the full rigidity of the specially-protected elements of the Fulton-Favreau formula and introduced the notion of regional protection.
In the end, of course,-


Louis Plamondon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBiois):: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: If this government thinks that the appointment of this committee is so important, how come we do not have a quorum, Mr. Speaker?
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBiois):: I see a quorum. I might add that the Chair and not the hon. member should check and decide whether we have a quorum. Debate. The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear you say that only the Chair can call a quorum. As far as I know, any member can do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBiois):: You stated earlier that there was no quorum. However, what you just said is closer to what is considered proper in our Standing Orders. The hon. minister of Justice has the floor.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the Victoria formula abandoned the full rigidity of the specially protected elements of the Fulton-Favreau formula and introduced the notion of regional protection.
In the end, of course, neither formula was adopted and it was not until 1982 that a made-in-Canada amending formula was finally placed in the Constitution as part of the 1982 Constitution Act.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the 1982 Act was imperfect because Quebec was excluded from the agreement. The consequences of this exclusion are now history. We are still trying to find an appropriate amending procedure, that is a procedure with a reasonable degree of stability and flexibility.
This procedure should allow the people to participate and particularly allow Canadians to reach their constitutional goals.

As the Prime Minister said in his November 3 speech in Mont Ste-Anne:
If it takes major changes to hold this country together, Canada
wants these changes made -(and) if it takes a new process to achieve
these changes, Canadians want a new process designed.
Canadians want to be able to achieve their constitutional aspirations. They do not want to have their dreams for this country blocked by an inadequate and inflexible procedure.
Hon. members, parliamentarians, play an important role in the constitutional process. If the process is not working, it is important that we consult with Canadians to find better ways of attaining our constitutional objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I call on all members to support this motion in order to give Canada the Constitution its needs now that we are getting close to the twenty-first century.

I would just conclude by saying that in the current amending formula, the Parliament of Canada has a crucial role to play in implementing constitutional

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
change. Therefore, it seems to me highly appropriate that an examination of that process, in light of its failure recently, should be made-


Mr. Rocheleau:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret having to interrupt the minister, but the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer is rising on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: We have been called to maintain a quorum in the Elouse, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the government members are not present. Is that committee important or not? Could you please check if we have a quorum?
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I see that we have a quorum. The hon. Minister of Justice still has the floor.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to conclude by saying that given the role of Parliament in constitutional amendment according to the current provisions of the Constitution, that it is highly appropriate that the Parliament of Canada take the leadership in trying to determine a process that would respond to the concerns that have been raised by the people of Canada. Parliament must try to develop proposals that hopefully can gain the broader support of the other participants in constitutional amendment in this country and therefore, make the change of the Constitution in Canada and the development of the constitutional process something in which all Canadians can take pride and feel their involvement in.
I would, Mr. Speaker, on that note, urge the support of all members of this House of the motion before them and their support for the initiation of what I think is going to be one of the most important processes that any member of this Parliament could engage in in the course of a political career, a process that is absolutely essential to the preservation of Canada's future as a united and prosperous country.
-


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I was one of the members last spring who spent a lot of time on the special committee of the House looking at the Meech Lake Accord. Our caucus and other caucuses as well spent a lot of time looking at the recommendations we made under the very able chairmanship of the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Unfortunately, the day after those recommendations were made, they were put aside by the powers that be in the government.
What I want to know from the Minister of Justice is, what guarantee can she give us at this time, once this committee is struck, that the government will pay attention to recommendations that that committee may make? We had a unanimous report of the House of Commons by members of all three parties, and I think we had a consensus of what Canadians wanted in terms of the Meech Lake Accord, yet, that report was ignored by the government. What assurance do we have from the Minister of Justice that come next summer, if once again we have a committee report that is unanimous and reflects what people in this country are saying, that report is not going to be ignored?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is correct to say that the work done by that committee was ignored by the government.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It was worthless.


A. Kim Campbell: I do not think it was worthless at all. In fact, I think it was an extraordinarily important exercise and I can congratulate everyone who was involved in it.
The problem at that time was that we were engaged in the process of constitutional change under the rules that came to us with patriation in 1982, which was at the denouement of a time frame that was determinative of the ability of the will of the First Ministers who had originally signed on to bring the agreement into force. That was hardly the ideal kind of circumstance into which to examine and evaluate the broader question of constitutional reform and how it might be brought into place. It was also, of course, not the case that the subject matter which the committee dealt with was the broad process. It was an attempt to try to see if in the context of



December 13, 1990

Government Orders
the Meech Lake Accord some agreements or some provisions could be recommended that might possibly salvage the accord.
As the hon. member will recall, on June 9, 1990, an agreement was reached by First Ministers. Much of the work of the Charest commission in which the hon. member participated was part of the environment in which that agreement was reached and, as they say, the rest is history. I do not see anything to be valued or anything to be gained by rehashing that.
I think it is precisely because we have lived through that time-and that parliamentary committee's activity was part of a process of trying to bring about constitutional change-that we can see the problems in the process. I think there is no group of people who are more profoundly aware of the difficulties we faced in that process than members of Parliament and, because the Parliament of Canada is one of the chief actors in the current amending formula, I think leadership must come from the Parliament of Canada, which is both Blouses of the federal government.
The hon. member's experience and that of many other people in that House would be enormously valuable. There is no guarantee that recommendations made by a joint committee will ultimately find their way into the Constitution. We do not have in the Parliament of Canada the unilateral right to change the Constitution. But before we can even begin to address that question, the question of process has to be addressed. So the recommendation of the committee is obviously going to be terribly important. What will happen to it after that is not solely within the hands of the House, but I can give the hon. member my assurance that I personally am deeply committed to seeing this process succeed, and I am very confident that the results of that committee's deliberation will be of inestimable value. I cannot think of a better process, whether it is with private consultations, or whatever. Notwithstanding that the people in justice like to arrogate the law unto themselves, I cannot think of a better forum in which to come up with recommendations that are both legally sound and sensitive to the human and political realities of Canada. I think the hon. member has an enormous amount to contribute, and I can give him my commitment that I will be most interested, and I believe the government will be very interested and will make as much use of the results of the committee as it is possible to do.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the minister's speech, I wonder if she sincerely believes that Quebeckers will fall for such a diversion. We had the Charest Committee which watered down the Meech Lake Accord. The five requests were minimal, and yet they were rejected by English Canada. The Charest Committee was set up, and its report was shelved. The Spicer Commission was set up, and now another committee is being set up.
Are we taken for fools or what? Only fools would believe that striking a committe will do little more than buy time. Will the Quebecers in this government lend themselves to that musical chairs game for the sake of visibility, to be seen once in a while on television and defend the interests of Quebecers in committees that will end up concluding just the opposite of what the Belanger-Campeau Commission concluded? How can a central government be expected to decide by way of referendum whether a province is to remain or not a part of Canada? Come now! If Newfoundland decided to leave, do you think that holding a referendum in the rest of Canada would prevent Newfoundland from leaving? Would a referendum held across Canada cancel out one held in Quebec? Be serious!
There are two founding nations in this country, one of which is pondering over its membership in this great big Canadian family. This kind of committee will travel across Canada, lull people, buy time and create a diversion. Would it not be wiser to allow the province of Quebec and its people to calmly think about its future without all these committees? Such committees are only good to buy time, in the hope of seeing the Quebecers, the francophone people of Quebec, be put to sleep again so that they will behave like the sheep they once were and swallow false promises like the ones made to them about the repatriation of the Constitution by all provincial premiers of Canada and Prime Minister Trudeau at the time of the referendum.
We had been promised that the Constitution would be repatriated. In the end, with such a committee, the Constitution was repatriated omitting one of the founding nations, that is to say Quebec. And we are to believe that the new committee will provide the answer to the

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
problem, as we did after the 1980 referendum, and be put to sleep again. We have come this far and the failure of Meech provided the motivation the people of Quebec needed to decide to take their destiny in their own hands, without the help of any committee. Such committees are nothing but a masquerade in democracy, when, in fact, the answer is very simple: two sovereign nations with a monetary union.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is, of course, entitled to his own view which he expresses in the House with considerable force. I am not sure that he speaks for all Quebecers when he makes that statement.
The important point is to have a process that allows people, not simply to express their views, but to begin to develop and formulate their views. That is why, as part of the process for establishing this joint committee of the House and Senate, the government has tabled a discussion document which sets out the history of constitutional amendment in the country and poses some of the possible options that members may wish to consider as a starting point, as opposed to an answer.
The joint House-Senate committee to examine the amending process of the Constitution is complementary to what has become known as the Spicer committee, the Citizen's Forum. The Citizen's Forum is designed to ask Canadians to have a dialogue with one another about what kind of country they want and the role of the official members of the commission is to gather those insights, to stimulate the discussion, and then to bring to the Government of Canada, and also to this House, a report on the state of the nation.
It is a unique and very valuable process that involves all Canadians and not simply the traditional elites who have, for most of our history, monopolized the discussion of constitutional change. I think the process is important.
I would take exception with the implications that the hon. member stated because I come from a province that did support the Meech Lake Accord. I strongly supported the Meech Lake Accord and I supported it when I was a member of the provincial legislature in British Columbia, before I had any conception whatsoever that I
would be foolish enough to subject myself to the amount of travel required to come to Ottawa.
I have a passionate commitment to the survival of the country and to the respect for the rights of Quebecers and their ability to find their place in the sun. I am deeply hopeful that it will be possible in this country to find a process of constitutional change and a process of accommodation that will enable us to protect that existence.
Frankly, I believe that the wonders and beauties of my province, British Columbia, are part of the patrimony of every young Quebecer and I would say that anyone who wished to deny young Quebecers that patrimony is going to have to answer them very strongly.
Therefore I believe that this process will contribute to the efforts of many Canadians to preserve what we believe is something quite extraordinary in the context of the countries of the world and to preserve it in a way that all Canadians will be able to fulfil themselves and be true to themselves. This is a very important step in that direction.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this government motion to set up a special joint committee to examine the formula for amendment to the Constitution is, I am afraid to say, just another desperate, cynical move by the Prime Minister to correct somehow all the damage done by the failure of the Meech Accord. That failure, I might say, resulted from the stubborn inflexibility of the federal government and the government of Quebec.
The core provisions of the Meech Accord could have been saved if the Prime Minister had acted sooner in dealing with the proposed amendments, especially the proposals of the Charest committee report.
But, no, the Prime Minister and the government ignored all attempts to amend the Meech Accord. They kept rolling the dice and waited until the eleventh hour until that date when the Premier of New Brunswick, Premier McKenna, made proposals for a companion resolution in an attempt to break the deadlock that had developed with respect to the Meech Accord. It was an attempt by the Premier of New Brunswick to have the best part of the Meech Accord, the core provisions, go through.

&

December 13, 1990

Time and again, attempts were made in the House to amend the Meech Accord so that it would be acceptable on a broader basis in the county. This party, the Liberal Party, put forward nine amendments on two occasions when that proposal was before the House, but they were turned down systematically by the government. I believe other opposition parties did the same thing.
As I say, finally, at the eleventh hour, the Prime Minister decided to set up the Charest committee to examine possible methods of breaking that log-jam, based on the proposals made by Premier McKenna. The Charest committee did its very best and put out a report, but it was too late in the day due to the three-year deadline for accepting amendments to the Constitution which is in the present amendment formula. I will deal with that in a minute.
The present amendment formula, which was adopted in the Constitution of 1982, requires that an amendment be agreed to by seven out of the 10 provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada, plus the House of Commons and Senate of this Parliament. It also requires that when an amendment is initiated, either in a province or at the federal level in Parliament, that the required number of provinces must adhere within a three-year deadline from the date of the first proposal of an amendment in one of the houses of a province or of the federal government.
Because a lot of people did not know, I want to point out that most of the Meech Lake Accord-a good three-quarters of it-could have been accepted under the seven out of 10 amendment formula. Only three provisions in the Meech Accord required unanimous consent. The general amendment formula of 1982 was seven out of 10 provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population, but there were certain measures that required unanimous consent-


Jean Corbeil: Name them.


William Warren Allmand: Name them? One was the amendment formula itself, one was the amendments to the Supreme Court, and I forget the third one.


Jean Corbeil: What was the main one?


William Warren Allmand: Well, I don't know. What was the main one?
Government Orders


Jean Corbeil: Quebec integration into the Constitution.


William Warren Allmand: No, no. The hon. member does not know the Meech Accord, himself. The Meech Accord dealt with the distinct society. The distinct society provision did not require that, if that is what he is talking about. The distinct society provision only required seven out of 10 provinces to agree to that particular proposal. It did not require unanimous agreement.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 provinces agreed to all of the Meech Accord. Two did not. Two, at the last minute, were left opposing but, even then, I think Manitoba would have come on-side, if we had not run out of time and if the Prime Minister had not waited until the last minute, rolling the dice, as he said he had done.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


William Warren Allmand: If the Prime Minister had taken the measures that he took late in the day, if he had taken those in January or February and set up the Charest committee at that time, then-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there are some members in this House who do not have much respect for democracy. They are shouting from their seats because they do not like to hear what is being said. Even the members in this party over here, who participated in this ridiculous charade that took place at the time, only moved afterwards.
The point is that at the last minute the Prime Minister set up the Charest committee and then ignored its advice. If he had done that at an earlier date, the five core provisions proposed by the government of Quebec would have been accepted.
What was the amendment formula before 1982? I have just described the amendment formula of 1982. Well, before 1982, of course, there was no specific amendment formula. The Constitution of 1867, which was a statute of the British Parliament, did not provide for an amendment formula. Amendments were made by an address of the Parliament of Canada to the British Parliament requesting an amendment. But a constitutional convention had grown up whereby the federal government did not make such an address unless there was unanimous consent of all the provinces. That was a very inflexible amendment formula and it was very difficult to obtain amendments to the Canadian Constitution which was basically the British North America Act of 1867.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I would like to help my colleague. There was never unanimous consent for the rapatriation of our Constitution. Consequently, the British formula was not that demanding. A large consensus because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Shefford, but that is not a point of order. It is debate. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon member would listen, I pointed out that there had been a constitutional convention, not a constitutional law, prior to 1982 that the federal government would not make an address for an amendment to the British Parliament unless there was unanimity. That was not written into law, but in fact it was the constitutional Convention of the day and, up until 1982, that was the practice that was followed.
It was extremely inflexible and that was why there had been many attempts to obtain a more flexible and more reasonable amendment formula. It was attempted with the Fulton-Favreau formula. It was attempted at Victoria. It was attempted in the late 1970s. Finally, in 1982, an amendment formula was approved.
What is interesting is that the hon. member for Shefford said it was approved against the agreement of Quebec. I must remind the House that the formula that was agreed to-the formula that is now in the Constitution-was agreed to by the Premier of Quebec with seven other provinces. Those were the eight provinces that agreed to that amending formula, contrary to the proposal that had been put forward by Prime Minister Trudeau and supported by Premier Davis of Ontario and Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick.
The Prime Minister of Canada, with New Brunswick and Ontario, had provided a formula with a veto power for Quebec. The eight other provinces got together and came up with what is now the amendment formula and proposed this. Finally, the Prime Minister of Canada agreed to it. I think that has to be clear on the record. In any case, we finally did get an amendment formula in 1982.
As I answered to the Minister of Labour, the amendment formula itself could only be amended by unanimous agreement of all the provinces and the federal government. It cannot be amended by the seven out of ten formula.
In discussing how we can change the amendment formula, we must keep in mind that we will require the agreement of every province in Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate.
For a moment, I want to refer to the formula that was tentatively agreed to at Victoria in 1971, known as the Victoria formula. This was the preferred formula of Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party.
According to this formula, Quebec would have had a veto, Ontario would have had a veto, two Atlantic provinces out of four had to agree to the amendment. If there were not two, that would be a veto from Atlantic Canada. Two western provinces had to agree to the amendment, representing 50 per cent of the population of the western provinces.
Under that formula known as the Victoria formula, Quebec would have had a veto power, but no, that was rejected. Mr. Bourassa first accepted that, went back to Quebec and faced with a lot of controversy in his province, turned down the Victoria formula plus other measures that were included in the Victoria proposals for constitutional change.


Jean Corbeil: He never accepted that. That's wrong.


William Warren Allmand: The Fulton-Favreau formula of 1964 was somewhat similar to the formula that we have today, but it left to unanimous agreement a large number of constitutional items, including the division of powers. Under the Fulton-Favreau formula for constitutional
December 13, 1990

change, you needed unanimous agreement to change anything to do with the distribution of powers. Other things could have been changed by a two-thirds of provinces with 50 per cent of population. In any case, the Fulton-Favreau formula was never accepted.
With respect to the establishment of this committee, yes, this party is willing to support the establishment of a committee to examine how we can better amend the Constitution, but we think that that cannot be the only matter to be considered by that special joint committee.
It is impossible to sit down and discuss how to change our Constitution without at the same time considering other important constitutional matters, including the division of powers and the Senate. I would say as well the place of aboriginal peoples in this country. It is a shame. It is a bit of a scandal that that has gone on so long and not being able to agree to the true place of our aboriginal peoples in this country.
In the Constitution agreement of 1982, it was provided that there would be three First Ministers' Conferences on aboriginal self government. Those three conferences were held. Not much headway was made. A fourth such conference was held after the Conservatives came to power in 1984.
Another matter that I would suggest has to be dealt with at one time or another is our basic language rights. While the Constitution agreement of 1982 has some good provisions with respect to language rights in it, there is a need for more change to provide greater equality, greater equity for English and French speaking minorities across this country.
In particular, I would hope that some day section 59 of the Constitution agreement of 1982 would be abrogated because section 59 puts certain restrictions on the use of English in the Province of Quebec, restrictions which are not imposed on French language minorities in other parts of the country. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I voted against that provision in 1982.
In considering proposals for constitutional change before this committee, I do not think the committee should be too uptight or too reticent to consider measures that are sometimes referred to as distinct for Quebec or special for Quebec.
I voted for the Meech Lake Accord. I had accepted it, even though I would have preferred that it be amended. It did not bother me that we had a provision in our
Government Orders
Constitution that Quebec was distinct, because it has been in effect distinct for a long time. It is the only province with the civil law.
Arrangements have been made over the years for it to have its own pension plan different than the Canada Pension Plan. There were special arrangements for immigration, student loans, tax collection and so on. These have not hurt the Confederation. This could not be done on a wide scale basis, but to take into account very special needs of Quebec language and culture and other matters that are close to Quebec's heart, I think that we have to consider these and put them in the Constitution in one way or another so that it is fair for all provinces.
As I say, it will not be something new. It was done since 1867. If you want to be serious about this, it was done from the time of the Quebec Act in 1774.
There are, of course, other studies going on at the present time with respect to constitutional change, and that is why at the very beginning of my remarks I accused the Prime Minister of a bit of ad hockery, of desperation in setting up yet again another forum for constitutional change.
A few weeks ago he set up the Spicer commission, or the people's forum to listen to Canadians with respect to the future of this country on constitutional change. Already two members of that special commission have resigned, and two new ones have been appointed.
All this demonstrates that the Prime Minister did not give much attention to this in the first place. These things were set up quickly. The terms of reference were set up quickly. Not enough instruction was given to the chairman, and not enough information was given to members of the commission before they accepted to sit with this very special commission.
This commission is already under way. We have the Belanger-Campeau commission which is sitting in Quebec. The provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba have also set up commissions with respect to constitutional change, and so has the Assembly of First Nations.
Next Monday, the leader of this Party, Mr. Chretien, will appear before the Belanger-Campeau commission to put before them a comprehensive approach to constitutional reform for Canadian unity and for federalism.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
I must remind this House and members of the public that the Liberal Party of Canada was the first party, as a matter of fact, to accept the five basic proposals put forward by Mr. Bourassa in 1985 for constitutional change for adherence to the Constitution.
Later, those five proposals were put into a format known as the Meech and then the Langevin Accord. At that time, there was an addition of other measures which were not present when Mr. Bourassa made his original five proposals.
I have stated-it is well known-that Mr. Chretien, the leader of the Liberal Party will appear before the Belanger-Campeau commission on Monday and will be the only leader of any political party to appear before that commission to stand up for Canada, the federal system and Canadian unity. He will be the only leader to speak for Canada before that very important commission.
In conclusion, let me say that from 1970 to 19721 sat as a member of the last Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate with respect to the Constitution. I have the report here, The Constitution of Canada: Final Report, 1972 which was a very comprehensive study.
What we need is leadership. What we need is hope. I hope that this committee, although it has certain limitations, will be able to provide us with some of that hope and some of that unity.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's note: Member spoke in lnuktitut.\
Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask some questions of the hon. member with regard to the north. We have been feeling rather left out as northerners and as aboriginal people. I do not think that is a surprising statement because, as we heard earlier, yesterday the north and aboriginal people were ignored once again in terms of the Spicer commission, the Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada.
I just wonder what hope do we have because right now under the amending formula, although in the past there has always been bilateral negotiations between the Government of Canada and any territory wanting to become a province, under the amending formula that is a change. With all of those roadblocks in the way, how can we be assured that our desires, our aspirations will be recognized in any form, allowing for this present government's attitude in ignoring the wishes of the aboriginal people as well as northerners?
We spent two years going to towns and cities, large and small, in this country listening to Canadians with respect to the Constitution. We at that time supported and backed the Victoria formula as the best formula for constitutional amendment. I think what is important is that leadership has to be shown if we are to truly unite this country once again and turn back the tide of separatism on all sides.
Quebec was not rejected at the time of the Meech Lake Accord. Eight provinces were in favour of Quebec's proposals. The perception was an unfortunate one coming out of the fact that the Meech Lake Accord failed. Certain resolutions at Sault Ste. Marie and other municipalities gave the impression that Quebec was not wanted. I want to say that Quebec is dearly wanted. There is a great appreciation in this country for Quebec's language and culture, thousands of children all over this country are doing immersion in French. Both parts of Canada would be great losers if this country were to divide.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, historically new territories were admitted to the Confederation by a simple vote of the territorial assembly and the federal Parliament. This was the case with respect to Newfoundland in the late forties. It was also the case with respect to the other provinces at a much earlier period. One was to presume that if one day the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were to become full provinces, they would do that through a decision taken in their own legislative assemblies and in this Parliament.
However, since the Constitution of 1982 it became a case where they required seven out of ten provinces with 50 per cent of the population to accept a new province. Then with the Meech Accord it was recommended to be even more stringent.
Finally, we in the Liberal Party presented an amendment to the Meech Accord to permit the admission of the northern territories on a basis that was somewhat similar to what had taken place historically, on a one-to-one basis.
December 13, 1990

That was one issue which was difficult to understand because it was never part of the five proposals put forward by Mr. Bourassa for adhesion to the Canadian Constitution. In the five proposals that he made, he never mentioned at all what would be required for the acceptance of new provinces, especially provinces from the north. However, once the Meech Accord was published, the Langevin accord was published, we saw that that was in there. When we tried to amend it, we could not understand why the federal government and Quebec would have been so intransigent in not agreeing to something more reasonable when it had not been the basis of their proposal in the first place.
I would hope that there would not only be a fair amendment formula for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in any new constitutional amendment formula, but that also there would be greater recognition in the Constitution for aboriginal rights and for aboriginal self-government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words on the resolution before the House today. It calls upon Parliament to create a special joint committee to study the amending formula, which in reality is the whole process of amending our Constitution. They take us into the area of a constituent assembly, constitutional conventions, the wisdom or lack thereof of a referendum to determine the Constitution of this country, as well as technical things like how many provinces or what majority in the House of Commons it may take to amend the Constitution of Canada.
I want to be very direct with the few concerns that I have about the internal process of constitutional change among the parties in this House. I have been through the process now about three times: in the joint committee back in 1980-1981 for patriation of the Charter of Rights, in the joint committee on the Meech Lake Accord in July and August 1987 and, more recently, last spring on what we call the Charest committee of the House of Commons looking at the modification of the Meech Lake Accord.
One of the concerns I have is that the Prime Minister has to be more forthright and more direct with the other parties in the House when it comes to forming a committee, sharing information, and trying to achieve what we all want in this House with a few exceptions,
Government Orders
which is a strong, united Canada recognizing all of our diversities and differences.
When this committee was to be struck there was no phone call to the Leader of the New Democratic Party or, to the best of my knowledge, to the Leader of the Liberal Party, or to my friends in the Bloc Quebecois or anybody. There was no call. There was no consultation with the critics on the opposition side. It was the same when the Spicer citizens' forum was struck. There was no consultation.

In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, when Premier Bourassa decided to appoint the Belanger-Campeau Commission, he had many consultations with Opposition Leader Jacques Parizeau. They met several times and there were consultations between the Liberal Party and the Parti quebecois concerning the two co-chairmen of the commission. Consultations went on over several days. It was the same thing in the other two or three provinces where they established commissions or committees on the Constitution, Mr. Speaker.
But here in this House there was not even a phone call from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition or to the hon. member for the Yukon concerning the appointment of the chairman of this commission. Perhaps Mr. Spicer was the appropriate choice, perhaps not. But since we are dealing with the Constitution of Canada, now is not the time to show partisanship, because in principle this issue ought to unite the political parties and the Canadian population. But there was no consultation between the Prime Minister and the other members of the House.

I would have thought after the problems around the process of the Meech Lake Accord that the Prime Minister would have done that. We had today, for example, the tabling of a discussion paper about what is going to be referred to this special joint committee. Once again, that was not shared with the opposition before the decision was made to strike this particular committee.
I say to the Prime Minister that if we want to make this work, and we had better make this work, it is easier to happen if the Prime Minister and the minister responsible were to treat this in a more non-partisan way, in a more apolitical way. It would be better for this House

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
and better in terms of the spirit of constitution making in this country.
It is very important that we get on with this work. In our party we would like to see this committee look at more than just the process. The process is extremely important, and it has to be looked at before we can implement the content. I know that we know that, but it seems to me to be more important and more relevant if this committee had a mandate that looked not only at the process but also the content of what people want in terms of constitutional change. We can deal with both.
Once we report, especially if we have the unanimous report of the three major parties in this House, it is important that the Prime Minister of this country make a commitment that he will use it as the basis of any consultation that he undertakes on behalf of the Government of Canada on constitutional change. That did not happen last June after the special study on the Meech Lake Accord, chaired by the member for Sherbrooke. Those are important things in terms of the internal process of how we operate here in this House.
It is very important that we ask who speaks for Canada in this debate. Quebec is doing what Quebec is doing with the Belanger-Campeau Commission. Manitoba is striking a special committee. There is one in Alberta. There is one in Nova Scotia. There may be others like it in Ontario, very shortly.
In terms of Canada it is important that this Parliament has a position that stands up for and defends this country. It is very important that be done. When we draft a constitution it is important that that constitution be the constitution of the people that represents the people of this country. It is not a constitution that represents only politicians and governments of this country or premiers or prime ministers.
That was the fundamental problem with the process around the Meech Lake Accord. I do not blame the Prime Minister of Canada entirely for that. The amending formula was inherited from 1981, through the then negotiations led by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. This time, in what I consider the Canada round, we must come up with a more democratic way to amend our Constitution. We must look very seriously at the option of constituent assemblies or perhaps constitutional conventions across this country where people are gathered to write their own constitution.
If we look back at the original union of this country, we see that it was more than the politicians who were involved back in the 1800s. In Philadelphia, in the United States, it had a constituent assembly, although not a very broadly based one, where the states all sent a number of delegates to negotiate on their behalf. Once it came up with what it thought was the Constitution of the United States, it went back to the various states and had vigorous debates in the various assemblies. One by one, they approved the Constitution of what became the United States of America. We must broaden that process.
We will have failed this country if we do not make a recommendation from that committee that broadens it into one form or other of a constituent assembly or constitutional conventions at some part of the process.
We must also have mandatory public hearings. We have done this fairly well in this House, but it is often after the fact. We did not have public hearings before the drafting of the accord that we call the Meech Lake Accord. We had public hearings after the drafting of the accord, and those public hearings did not travel with a committee across the country. We stayed here in Ottawa and had people come to us, rather than us go to the people, which is the wrong way around.
I hope we have learned that the Constitution belongs to the people of this country. We start with the people of this country in various parts of Canada. We build a constitution for them, with them, every single step of the way.
In that Canada of the future we have to recognize that we are a diverse country. We must build a country that is built on co-operative federalism if it is to survive. We have to recognize the uniqueness and the differences of the province of Quebec and enshrine those differences in a constitution.
Most Canadians are in agreement that Quebec is unique and different in terms of culture, language, education, communication, and immigration. It should be looked at differently in the province of Quebec. That must be accommodated, as we must accommodate the differences and the uniqueness of our first nations, the aboriginal peoples of this country, in their evolution toward self-government and in the recognition of their
December 13, 1990

distinct languages and distinct cultures as well. Those are two things which make this country unique and different.

The belle province of Quebec is different, what with its distinct society and the reality of the French language. Laws are different in the Province of Quebec. Culture, the Catholic religion, a lot of things are different.

As well as the differences with our aboriginal people. In addition, we have linguistic duality in terms of making sure we protect the linguistic minorities and help them to grow.
I see the minister across the way from Montreal who is responsible for the Official Languages Act and is a spokesperson in many ways within government for the English minority in the province of Quebec. It is also important that we have roughly one million francophones outside Quebec who need some more constitutional guarantees if this country is to stay together.
In addition, we have to make sure that we have some flexibility in this country for the other provinces as well. I do not share Clyde Wells' point of view that every province must be treated with absolute equality. I do not share that point of view, for there are legitimate differences not only in Quebec but in the other provinces as well. I see the member for Beaver River here. Her province of Alberta has some different arrangements with the federal government from what we have in Saskatchewan. I will give two examples of what I mean.
The family allowance legislation applies universally in this country for eight provinces. The two exceptions are the province of Alberta and the province of Quebec, with different arrangements with Ottawa in terms of how family allowances are delivered in those two provinces. And so be it. There are some slightly different arrangements. That is Canada. That is part of our flexibility.
Another example is the collection of taxes in this country. One province, the province of Quebec, collects its own personal income tax. Three provinces collect their own corporate income tax. Quebec and Ontario have done so for a long time. In 1981 the province of Alberta decided to do the same thing so it collects its
Government Orders
own corporate income tax. That is what we have, a co-jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments in many areas of Canada. If we can have that kind of accommodation, that is good for this country in terms of recognizing our diversity and differences and, instead of letting those differences divide us, having those differences unite us and flower in this country and make it all to better Canada. I think that is within the realm of reality.
I remember very well when I was a university student listening, with admiration, to the talk in this country about co-operative federalism by then Prime Minister Lester Pearson and opposition leaders like Tommy Douglas and Robert Stanfield. They talked about co-operative federalism, recognizing our differences and building on those differences and building on that diversity, and using that to unite this country into a country which has many cultures, two great languages, and the first nations, aboriginal people.
That is what we must do. We must come up with a way of making those accommodations and building that national consensus because, if we do not do that, it is bye-bye to this country.

And the hon. member is right, this is good-bye Canada.

It is really tragic in this debate that we have had some rigidity from people like Clyde Wells on one side and the Prime Minister on the other side. I think a great number of Canadians were looking for an accommodation and looking for a compromise.
I am very concerned about this country, about the future of Canada. I think the government is destroying Canada. It is destroying this country, not only in terms of constitutional change but also in terms of the national institutions of Canada such as the CBC, the post office, VIA Rail and the trade deal with the United States. Instead of trying to strengthen and build the links from east to west and north in this country, it is building more and more links between the north and the south, into the United States, and importing into Canada more values from the United States of America.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
Those things are hurting this country. Those things are Balkanizing Canada. The government had better wake up and smell the coffee in terms of that reality. We have never had a federal government and a federal Prime Minister who have been so unpopular as they are today. They are unpopular because of the way they have handled the Constitution, because of the GST and the divisiveness of that tax, because of the trade deal, and because of what they are doing to our national institutions.
It is about time that someone started to speak for Canada in this country. It should be the Parliament of Canada, this institution, that speaks for Canada.
When we look at the prospects today, they have probably never been as dim for this country, so it is about time we get our act together as federal parliamentarians and start standing up for what is good about Canada and pulling ourselves together rather than tearing us apart. It is easy to take cheap shots at so and so and such and such a party. There are differences in every federal political party in this country. I have my Liberal friend from Newfoundland saying look at so and so in the NDP. Look at all the people in the Liberal Party. There are all kinds of Liberals that have diverse views. There are many Liberals in Mr. Bourassa's government who have all kinds of diverse views.
['Translation\
A lot of people in the Liberal Party of Mr. Bourassa are in favour of Quebec sovereignty or of Quebec independence yet they stay in the Liberal Party.

If we are going to start playing those kinds of games and having the federalists in this country divide off one against the other and fight off one against the other and making a partisan issue out of the future of Canada, then there is not much future for this country. I say that to my friend of the Liberal Party from Newfoundland.
In conclusion, we have to stand up for this country. For me Canada is not on the table, is not negotiable, is not for sale. This country must stand together. The way to unite and keep it one country is to recognize our diversity, our uniqueness and to build on that diversity
and that uniqueness and make this an even greater country in the years that lie ahead.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. DeBIois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the Elouse that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Western Arctic-Land Claims; the hon. member for Surrey North-Medicare; the hon. member for Malpeque-Financial Institutions.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the hon. member for his comments and ask him a question or two.
I notice in my travels across the country that there is enormous confusion. Last spring when we were going through the pain of the Meech Lake Accord, the Charest commission was set up and people wondered what that was going to accomplish. It came and it peaked and since then it has disappeared completely.
At the beginning of November the Spicer commission was set up, and I think people are wondering what it is going to accomplish. Now, just a matter of weeks later, we see the Prime Minister announcing that there is going to be a joint Senate and Commons committee to try to determine the amending formula.
I think people right across the country are asking, what is to be accomplished by all these things? The hon. member has clearly brought that to the forefront, that people are definitely concerned and there is an enormous amount of confusion across the country.
People are feeling adrift about our constitutional situation. I believe that not only are people right across the country concerned, but I am wondering perhaps if the government itself is adrift in its own idea of constitutional matters, not knowing exactly which way to turn, and of course fearing that it will maybe widen the divisions within its own caucus.
I was wondering about this discussion paper, was it shared even with the Tory members? The hon. member mentioned that it was not shared with the opposition. I wonder if this was a surprise announcement perhaps at a fund raising dinner recently by the Prime Minister. Was his own caucus aware of it? Did they have a chance to discuss it fully and know what was in it, or was the Prime Minister acting unilaterally in coming forward with this?

1H
December 13, 1990

I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's comments on that.
Finally, I would like to ask the hon. member his feeling about Section 41 of the Constitution of Canada where it says that:
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:
In other words, for any amendment we would need unanimous consent. I will just direct my hon. friend to that section in the Constitution.
I was wondering and would really appreciate his comments in light of the First Ministers' conference in Ottawa in June which we witnessed. I would be interested to ask his comments about the need for unanimous consent by all the provinces in Canada. We saw it was disastrous and we are still going through the pain of the death throes of Meech Lake that we saw in June. I would like to understand his viewpoints on how the Prime Minister and the government of this country think that we would come up with unanimous consent again in light of Section 41 of the charter?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The first issue is a discussion paper, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak for government members of the House. I assume they did not see the discussion paper either. It would be quite an insult to members of the opposition if it were shown to the government members and not the opposition members. I assume they did not see it, but how do I know?
In terms of Section 41 of the Constitution, there are three ways to amend our Constitution. That is one of the ways. That comes from the patriation of 1981. Section 41 says that in order to amend our Constitution for things like the office of the Queen, the Governor General, federal institutions, the use of the French and English languages, we need the unanimous consent of all the provinces and the federal Parliament which is the House of Commons and the Senate. This is one thing we should take a look at. We could have more flexibility in amending the Constitution.
I do not have any pat answers for that. It was spelled out back in 1981. I was a member of that committee. These were the important national institutions. It was important that Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec would
Government Orders
approve before we could change an important institution like the Supreme Court of Canada, or the monarchy, or the Governor General or the Senate. There is a real problem with that, but there are also some good arguments for it. Hopefully, we can look at some ways- whoever is on that committee-to make that a bit more flexible. I see that as one of the purposes of this committee being struck today.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebec's political sovereignty is in the best interests of Quebec and of Canada. The purpose of this committee, again, is to create a diversion, it is an expedient.
I believe that Quebec's political sovereignty seems, unless of course Quebec would give up taking on its full distinct character and specificity-which would be unthinkable-the ultimate choice determined by history and strengthened by two irreconcilable visions of Canada. Quebec's political sovereignty has become the logical choice, in the best interests of Quebec and the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, because of the cleavage concerning Quebec's status within the Canadian Confederation. There is a lack of understanding about the very philosophy of the main constitutional changes to be considered. There is the systematic refusal from the English-speaking majority of Canada to recognize Quebec with special status and to give this province the necessary powers to promote and protect its specificity. There is, Mr. Speaker, the gradual weakening of Canada's provinces.


An hon. member:: Come to the point!


Gilles Rocheleau: I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that some of my colleagues would like to object. I will simply refer to the Charest committee which was created last spring by this same government. I will remind you, Mr. Speaker of the Citizens' Forum which was established lately, again by the same government, by the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney. There is also, Mr. Speaker, the committee we want to create today. This is simply a device, Mr. Speaker, intended to create a diversion. It is an expedient on the part of the government and I think we cannot go on being part of Canada It is just a matter of time, Mr. Speaker. We have to wait for the Belanger-Campeau Commission to table its report at the end of March and we will see that Quebec wants to be the master of its own future, that it wants its sovereignty.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
We have nothing against English Canada, and I think that if Quebec attains full sovereignty, we will then be able to talk-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for York South-Weston is rising on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You will have noticed that there are several other members who wish to ask questions of the previous speaker. The present member speaking is not being fair in allowing sufficient time for others to ask questions. I am sure he wants to act as fairly as we act with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So I would ask the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer to briefly conclude his remarks since other members want to speak on this issue.


Gilles Rocheleau: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend from Saskatchewan a question, because they are also distinct from Quebec over there, also distinct from Alberta.
I would like the last hon. member to tell me if the people from his province want to be deceived again by the federal government, by the Prime Minister, with the establisment of this new committee rather than wait for the results of the Belanger-Campeau Commission?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all for the independence of Quebec. I do not favour at all an independent Saskatchewan or Newfoundland or any other Canadian province for that matter. I am for an independent and sovereign Canada. However, I can understand the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. But I am not a Quebecer. I am Canadian and I want our country to stay together. We need Quebec to have a great Canada, a different Canada.


An hon. member:: Yes, to pay taxes!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this proposal from the Mulroney governement. We have moved an amendment to discuss the process of amending the Canadian Constitution and the amending formula itself. I sat on the committee that was chaired by the hon. member for Sherbrooke and we made many propositions but they were ignored by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I asked the Minister of Justice a question because now that those new propositions were made to us we want to know if those propositions-

Will these recommendations be taken by the Government of Canada and used as its position when it bargains on the Constitution? I am being very brief because I want one or two Liberal questions if possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The period for questions and comments has now ended. I am sorry, but the period is over. The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think all members know that my colleague has been waiting to ask the member about the policy differences between the leader of the New Democratic Party and Mr. Edmonston. I think if we ask for unanimous consent, the House might grant it so we can ask that question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no consent. Debate resumes. The member for Nunatsiaq.

On a point of order the hon. member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just wish to indicate, and let the record show, that it was the Bloc Quebecois that denied the opportunity to this House to continue asking questions on this important issue.


Louis Plamondon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I hardly accept my colleague's comment, as it was he who interrupted my colleague from Hull-Aylmer as he was just starting to speak. Had he not interrupted him, he would have had enough time to ask his question.


An hon. member:: Of course.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I request the cooperation of members on both sides of the House. Messages have been exchanged from one side to the other. I recognize the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, the amending formula is a very important one for northerners. I want to use my time today to express the concerns of northerners with the current amending formula and recent and ongoing attempts to change it. I also want to touch on the issue of territorial attendance and participation at federal-provincial constitutional conferences and similar federal-provincial meetings.
I would hope that governments in this country have learned from the events of the past three years that constitutional changes cannot be made in this country without the full participation and involvement of all the people. I used the word "participation" deliberately. Asking people for their views with no intention of listening to them is a recipe for failure.
We have been left out, excluded and forgotten once too often. We will not allow it to happen again and we can take some comfort from the support ordinary Canadians have given to us during the last constitutional round.
We span four time zones, Mr. Speaker, and sit, if you look at a map, on top of six provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. The area of the territories is basically what was left after the other provinces were carved out.
The physical distances are enormous. The distance between Baffin Island, the most eastern part of my riding, and Yellowknife, the capital of the Northwest
Government Orders
Territories, on a map is similar to the distance between Quebec City and Edmonton.
Greater than the physical distances within the territories are the psychological and political distances between the territories and the federal and provincial governments of the country. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories have a constitutional status which is unique in the country. Most of the time, because we are not provinces yet, the north is simply forgotten in major, national decision making.
We are very much part of the national psyche. Yes, everyone acknowledges that Canada is a northern country, but we are not allowed to participate in the constitutional development of the country.
There are 52,000 people in the Northwest Territories and 25,000 people in the Yukon. That is a small population, less than the population of the city of Ottawa, but in a democracy, size is not a determinant of political voice.
The fundamental principle of democracy is one person, one vote. But in constitutional negotiations, the most essential and primary discussions, the northern territories do not have a voice. We elect representatives to our territorial legislatures, just as provincial voters elect their representatives to their legislative assemblies. At the constitutional table, provincial voters are represented by their premiers who have a vote at that table. The voters of the territories do not have a voice at that constitutional table. Our elected leaders are not allowed to vote. We are told that the federal government is our voice and that the federal government will look after our concerns.
I want to make something clear to the House. The federal government does not and cannot speak for northerners at the constitutional table. We have seen the evidence of that in the last round of constitutional talks. During the last minute negotiations at Meech Lake, our territorial government leaders were allowed to speak for 10 minutes to the federal and provincial premiers and were then politely asked to leave. "Thank you for your time, but we do not have time for you." That is basically what they were told.
There is no accountability in such a situation. Another basic principle of democracy is the accountability of the elected representation of the people to the people who elected them. The federal government is simply not

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
accountable to the people of the territories and, hence, cannot represent us.
Like other Canadians, we deserve to have our own accountable representative at the constitutional table. No other part of the country is denied a voice at the constitutional table like we are. As I said earlier, the recent practice has been to invite the leaders of the territories to some meetings, not all. The invitation is at the discretion of the Prime Minister who is supposed to be representing us because they will not allow our territorial leaders.
If the northern government leaders are invited, they are shown into the meeting room, permitted to make a statement, and ushered out again. This situation is unacceptable. It is demeaning, and it is insulting.
Under the Constitution Act, 1982, the Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were assured of participation at constitutional conferences when an agenda item directly affected the territories. The 1983 constitutional amendment also assured them of participation in constitutional conferences dealing with aboriginal issues.
In 1983, 1985, and 1987, the territories were invited to the constitutional table. At constitutional officials' meetings held between 1983 and 1987, representatives of the territories were full participants.
The territorial governments also attended some annual premiers' meetings but were excluded from the crucial August, 1986 Edmonton Premiers' Conference on the Economy. That conference dealt with Quebec's constitutional demands and it was at that conference that the premiers agreed to make Quebec's demands the constitutional priority.
The territories were told at the time, however, that the discussions did not affect them and they were not allowed to participate in-


Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: I remind the gov-ernement that if this bill is so important, why is it that
again we do not have a quorum in the House? This is the third time!
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I see that we do have a quorum. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq may continue his presentation.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. member considers it a very important-


Jean Corbeil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Minister of Labour on a point of order.


Jean Corbeil: I just want to ask you if it is in the code of ethics of this House for an hon. member to disappear behind the curtain immediately after having requested that the quorum be checked. If he is interested in having a quorum, he should remain in his place to make sure that it is the case instead of wasting the time of the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are perfectly aware that it is the responsibility of the government to maintain a quorum in this House. Obviously, there has been much negligence on the part of the government and the Minister of Labour has reason to be annoyed because his colleagues do not think that this debate is important. But if some hon. members ask to call quorum, it is out of respect for


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but once again, messages have been sent and received. Now I give the hon. member for Nunatsiaq the opportunity to address his colleagues.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the hon. member who raised that phoney objection was probably not very interested or he would not keep telling us about the lack of quorum.
The territories were subsequently shut out of the Meech Lake and Langevin Block meetings. In September, 1988, the current Prime Minister admitted that the territorial leaders had been treated like the poor cousins of Confederation. He pledged to change this situation, but that promise was made just before the last election
December 13, 1990

was called and, of course, like so many other of the Prime Minister's promises, it has not been kept.
The north is remembered, it seems, when we have something the rest of Canada wants-our resources, for example. We are not a storehouse to be plundered. But that is how we have been treated. We do not get any royalties from the development of our natural resources. How many Canadians and how many members of the House know that? AH the royalties flow out of the territories.
And now, the environment. Protecting the environment has become an essential component of the government's agenda because of public opinion and pressure. The new focus on the Arctic environment, we feel, has not sprung from a deep concern within the government, but rather from the pressure of ordinary concerned Canadians.
Because of our small population and our limited tax base, we are financially dependent on the federal government and we do not fully control our destinies. Over the past couple of decades, through a process of devolution, we have been taking over more and more of the powers exercised for us by the federal government. Except for the control and management of our natural resources, the territorial governments function essentially in the same way as provincial governments, but we are not yet provinces.
Provincehood is not just around the corner. It will be several more years before either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories are prepared to become provinces, and the Yukon will probably achieve provincehood first. In the Northwest Territories, we are discussing the division of our territory into two territories. The eastern territory will be known as Nunavut.
Although all of this is some time away, this is to show that we have constitutional aspirations and objectives. Wc do not want to be cut off at the pass, and we do not want the door shut in our face. We do not want our options to be limited. We want to make our decisions out of a full range of choices, the same choices other regions of the country had before they became provinces.
We are not asking for anything more than anyone else had in the country. We are asking simply for the same treatment.
Government Orders
When the various regions of the country became provinces, they did so in a bilateral agreement with the federal government. Saskatchewan, for example, and Newfoundland negotiated on a bilateral basis with the federal government. No other province in the country had a role in that decision. The matter was negotiated and agreed to by only the region concerned and the federal government. That was the way new provinces were created in this country until 1982.
In 1982, the new amending formula changed that practice. Under the new amending formula, the creation of provinces suddenly was subject to the agreement of seven out of 10 provinces having 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
The seven plus 50 rule was a dramatic departure from the historical practice. The territories saw their constitutional aspirations being limited. Another concern was the fact that changes could be made to territorial boundaries with the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. No voice was given to the territories regarding future changes to their borders. Boundaries of existing provinces could be extended into the north without any consultation with the Northwest Territories.
The north protested. The entire legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories flew to Ottawa to express their concerns through the government.
A year later some progress was made. In the 1983 constitutional conference, the federal government, nine provincial premiers, the leaders of four national aboriginal organizations, and the leaders of the two territorial governments signed the constitutional accord. That 1983 constitutional accord contained an agenda of issues which all the participants had agreed to discuss at future constitutional meetings.
The amending formula issues identified by the territories-namely, the creation of new provinces and the extension of provincial boundaries into the territories- were on that agenda for future constitutional discussions. That agenda, Mr. Speaker, remains unfinished. Although there were two more aboriginal constitutional conferences after 1983, one in 1985 and one in 1987, these issues were not discussed. The federal government had changed and aboriginal self-government had become the primary focus of discussions.

December 13, 1990
Government Orders
The amending formula's impact on the territories was left outstanding, despite the first ministers' commitment to deal with it.
The amending formula contained in the Meech Lake Accord made the situation even worse for the two territories. Under Meech Lake, unanimity was required for the creation of new provinces and every province would have a veto over whether the territories would become provinces.
The Meech Lake amending formula allowed the extension northward of existing provincial boundaries upon the unanimous consent of the provinces and Parliament.
These decisions were made without consultation with the territories. These decisions were made behind closed doors at meetings to which the territorial leaders had not been invited. When the territorial leaders asked to participate, they were denied the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the unanimity amending formula in the Meech Lake Accord set back the constitutional progress of the territories. Not only were we set back, we were held back. Meech Lake entrenched the colonial status of the northern territories. Meech Lake made the territories perpetual colonies.
What northerners objected to in Meech Lake was the additional powers every province in the country gained over our destiny, at our expense, while we were denied a voice.
1 want also to point out to hon. members that, despite northern concerns about the two aspects of the 1982 amending formula, northerners also achieved something under that formula. The 1983 constitutional conference I referred to earlier achieved agreement on constitutional amendments affecting aboriginal peoples. That constitutional conference, chaired by the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, resulted in constitutional amendments dealing with aboriginal rights.
Attached to the 1983 constitutional accord on aboriginal rights was a schedule, a motion for a resolution to authorize the Governor General to issue a proclamation amending the Constitution of Canada.
Under the amending formula of 7 plus 50, resolutions were introduced in the legislative assemblies of the
provinces and the Parliament of Canada to amend the Constitution of Canada. These resolutions were passed by the provincial legislative assemblies and the House of Commons and were proclaimed by the Governor General in June 1984.
Northerners were pleased with those amendments. Northerners had fought hard for those amendments. Northerners had a large role in the achievement of those amendments.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have much to contribute. But we continue to be denied the opportunity to do so. Northerners were excluded from the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. There were no northerners appointed in the initial round of appointments. The Prime Minister could have corrected this by appointing someone from the north to fill at least one of the two recent vacancies created on that forum. The north once again has been made to feel like outsiders looking in. Mr. Speaker, you cannot build a nation if you let some people in and leave others out. You cannot have a whole and healthy nation if you have insiders and outsiders.
Let us do things right this time. Let all parts of this great country bring their wisdom and experience to the table, allow all peoples of this nation to participate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, December 12, 1990, the debate on the motion now before the House is deemed completed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
December 13, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Order made Wednesday, December 12, 1990, the division is deferred until Monday, December 17, at 7 p.m.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop a rainforest policy with specific guidelines ensuring that Canada will not finance, directly or indirectly, any development activities which may destroy or degrade tropical rainforests.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my motion with regard to our world's very fragile rain forests, their continued destruction, Canada's involvement in that process and some suggestions as to how the Government of Canada can prevent the continued destruction of our world's precious rain forests.
I have said many times when talking of environmental issues-and yesterday in this House in speaking to the government's green plan which it has brought in, which we all agree is a very vague paper presented to the Canadian public, that in many ways is toothless-that when it comes to discussing environmental issues, environment is one issue that knows no political borders.
If we pollute oceans, if we destroy rain forests, the effects of that degradation is felt, not just outside of the borders of Canada, but it is experienced and felt by Canadians as well. It influences our well-being as Canadians. Environmental destruction, wherever it occurs in the world, eventually affects the life and the lifestyle of others and Canadians.
When we talk about environmental destruction affecting our lifestyle, we have to realize that there can be negative effects to our lifestyle in terms of our own
Private Members' Business
health degradation. But also, we have to recognize that it is our lifestyle here in Canada which contributes to so much of the environmental degradation that occurs in the world. Certainly, that is the fact when it comes to the destruction of our world's tropical rain forests.
It was felt just a few years ago that tropical rain forests were disappearing from the face of the earth at the rate of 11 million hectares a year. In fact, evidence today suggests that we are losing our tropical rain forests at almost twice that rate. At least 16 to 20 million hectares of tropical rain forest are lost every year.
One of the problems that contributes to this is the fact that Canada and other developed nations around the world are major importers of tropical hardwoods. Europe and Japan dominate the world's consumption of tropical hardwoods, but Canada imports tropical hardwoods to the extent of $120 million annually. Our primary imports of tropical hardwoods consist of plywoods and other wood-fabricated products, used in the construction industry and furniture-making industry. In Canada, our main source of imported tropical hardwoods is Indonesia. Indonesia and Malaysia alone account for more than half of hardwood log exports in the world. Throughout my comments I will give specific examples of the impact of the destruction of tropical rain forests.
The state of Sarawak in East Malaysia has the highest rate of logging in the world. Seven square kilometres of tropical rain forest are lost every day. At this rate, within seven to eight years, the rain forest of Sarawak will be logged out completely. Not only is this devastating to an enormously important ecological system, but also it brings about the result of destroying the homes of native persons who depend for their survival on eking out an existence in tropical rain forests.
Timber extraction methods currently used are 99 per cent unsustainable. Even selected and selective felling, in which only a few desirable species are extracted from tropical rain forests, happen to destroy up to 70 per cent of any forest. To date, the only people who are able to successfully harvest tropical hardwoods from ram forests are indigenous peoples, rubber tappers and, in Brazil, the nut gatherers who have demonstrated how to extract rain forest products without destroying the ecosystem at the same time.

December 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
It has been shown that tropical rain forests in their natural state are more valuable to this world than their destruction for the timber products which we purchase in the developed world.
One of the environmental non-government organizations in Canada which has been very sensitive to global environmental issues is Probe International. It was just a few weeks ago that I received from them one of their Probe Alert announcements that talked about Cameroon rain forests which are currently under siege. What is happening in the Cameroon at the present moment is that the World Bank and the African Development Bank are busy preparing forestry loans for the African Republic of Cameroon. The loans will open the flood gates, as the Alert bulletin says, "to commercial exploitation of the country's remaining primary rain forests." These ancient forests are among the richest in the world in terms of diversity of plant and animal species and are the home of pygmy peoples, hunters and gathers, whose survival and cultural identity are intertwined with their environment.
Cameroon, like much of Africa, has lost vast areas of savannah woodland to export crops such as coffee and cocoa. Another reason why rain forests have been so enormously destroyed world-wide is to cut down the timber, first for sale overseas, and also to produce export crops to bring income to poor countries.
Logging in Cameroon, which got under way on a commercial scale about 15 years ago, has already devoured nearly half the country's tropical forests, notably in the coastal and central regions.
Today, no primary rain forest remains in the central region. If the World Bank and the African Development Bank get their way, Cameroon's rain forests will disappear like its neighbours'.
The Cameroon government, with enormous international debt problems, is desperate for foreign exchange earnings. It is looking to its untapped southern rain forests for solutions. The label is used: "sustainable management"; but it has been shown that when logging is done on a commercial scale, the methods are not sustainable.
Logging leads to mass deforestation. It does not sustain the rain forest's ecosystem as the experts promised. Furthermore, logging roads inevitably open up the
rain forest to colonization, agricultural settlement and cultivation which the land cannot support.
The very construction of roads to haul out logs from these areas creates enormous destruction to the ecosystems in the area.
Canada is a signee and a contributor to the UN International Tropical Timber Organization. This organization was set up in order to try to preserve tropical rain forests. But to date, few measures have been taken that have been effective. The organization is generally considered by environmental groups to be toothless. Canada has played, and continues to play a role in the destruction of tropical rain forests through our importation of tropical hardwoods.
Canada must look at all of its policies internationally to see how we can improve our record. A Brazilian by the name of Jose Lutzenberger, a leading environmentalist and the winner of the 1988 Right Livelihood Award, speaking in Toronto of November of 1987 said: "Rain forest destruction has been called the biggest biological holocaust in the history of life. The resulting loss of biodiversity will affect the entire ecological system on which humanity depends, leading to consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter."
We have many benefits that derive from tropical rain forests which are not well appreciated. Tropical rain forests provide important environmental services such as the prevention of soil erosion and the protecting of watersheds.
Rain forest plants provide valuable medicinal extracts in the fight against leukaemia, cancer and other diseases, not to mention the traditional yield of spices, canon, dyes, pesticides, fibres, nuts, fruit, vegetable oil, waxes, gums and rubber worth billions of dollars.
We have yet to really research and explore all of the benefits that rain forests provide to us as Canadians, and to everybody as citizens of the world. However, we are beginning to understand somewhat, but not completely, the destructive impact of cutting down tropical rain forests.
The clearing and burning of huge areas of Amazonian rain forest has contributed to the greenhouse effect and possibly to the thinning of ozone layers. Rain forest destruction once again threatens the livelihood and possibly the very survival of 200 million people world wide. In Brazil alone, the native population living in the Amazonian rain forest has fallen from 1 million in 1900
December 13, 1990

to under 200,000 today. The reckless destruction of people's homeland is not only environmentally irresponsible. It also violates the International Bill of Rights.
Rain forests are being destroyed for a variety of economic reasons, but often these economic reasons are supported by inappropriate government policies. Canada itself is a culprit of that. Many of the so-called development projects, for example, that have been located in tropical rain forests have been environmental disasters and social tragedies. For example, the Balbina Dam in Brazil flooded 2,400 square kilometres of pristine tropical rain forests and forced one-third of the Waimiri-Atroari Indians from their homeland. Yet not one kilowatt of electricity will be generated from this dam because surveying errors have made it impossible to fill the reservoir with sufficient water.
There are many ways that Canada can improve the record. We are a member of the World Bank and other multilateral development banks which finance so many of the development projects that destroy tropical rain forests. We must bear responsibility for the global problem as it exists. We could have policies that would prevent us from importing into this country tropical hardwoods, for example. Austria is one country in the world that has such policies in place. Australia is considering such a policy.
In other countries at other levels of government, municipalities for example, are putting in place by-laws prohibiting the use of lumber in government contracts. In West Germany, 30 local councils as well as the West German government have voted to stop using rain forest lumber. Forty per cent of Holland's municipalities has the same by-laws in place.
It is important when Canada contributes to development projects internationally that environmental assessments are done prior to funding being put out in support of projects. This should be a factor in all of our CIDA funded projects, but it should also be a factor in the development banks that are supported with funding from Canada.
There are many different areas and policies at which Canada can look. I think it is important that Canada call together a conference of environmental NGOs that would work with bureaucrats and politicians to work out
Private Members' Business
government policies here in Canada which would lead to the preservation of tropical rain forests instead of their destruction.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, this is not simply for the survival of native peoples in Third World countries who must have a voice in the kinds of projects that are supported and take place in their countries. It is also for the benefit and welfare of Canadian citizens as well as other global citizens.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the question of tropical rainforests brought to our attention by the hon. member for Northumberland is a crucial one that has concerned the Government of Canada for some time. Of the numerous threats to our environment, the degradation and destruction of rainforests is the one that has received the most attention by the international community because of its global scope.
Mr. Speaker, forests cover almost one third of emerged land and they support life to a great extent on our planet. They provide humanity with building materials, food, fodder, numerous medicinal plants and, most importantly wood for cooking and heating.
Forests also play an essential role in the environment: they protect soil from wind and water erosion; they reduce flooding risks by absorbing excess water; they purify the air by producing oxygen; they absorb humidity; and they provide shelter for humans and animals.
The consequences of the increasing elimination of the forest cover are very serious. The ground erosion causes a decrease in soil productivity; the loss of firewood sources reduces energy supplies; the threat of extinction of about half of the vegetal and animal species, including several medicinal strains, leads to a reduction of the genetic make-up. The tree loss reduces the forest's capacity to temper the planet's climate by recycling moisture, thus producing a climatic change.
While it is a global phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, the situation is even worse in the tropics where economic and demographic pressures are compelling the people to develop and transform forest areas in order to use them for mainly farming, domestic and commercial purposes. These abusive practices are impeding sustainable devel-

December 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
opment of forests and contribute to depletion of forest capital.
According to experts, demand for wood products from a rapidly growing population, unbridled settling of forest areas, cutting of firewood and industrial development cause the loss of 17 million hectares of tropical rainforests each year. Some 32 hectares of rainforests are destroyed every minute. On a global level, the annual loss of tropical rainforests is equal to three times the area of Nova Scotia.
As regards public assistance for international development, Canada has taken various initiatives to assist in the preservation of these precious forest resources. Since its creation in 1968, the Canadian International Development Agency, which administers 75 per cent of the Official Development Assistance Program, has recognized the importance of forestry in development matters, by supporting numerous programs and projects related to forests.
Throughout the years, developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbeans received CIDA assistance to make an inventory of their forest resources and set up forestry institutions.
Lately, forestry activities of CIDA took a broader dimension, thanks to a better understanding of the diversified function of forests as a source of food, lumber and firewood and for soil conservation and climate regulation. In most cases, the local people participate in those projects. CIDA spends about $100 million a year in the forestry area.
Because forestry has a global dimension, world cooperation is essential in order to take up the challenges developing tropical countries are facing. Canada takes an active part in this area.
In 1985, the forestry and conservation sector of CIDA cooperated closely with the World Resources Institute, UN organizations and the World Bank in order to develop and implement the tropical forest plan, which is the most important international cooperation initiative to this day in forestry.
That plan is a framework for action with an emphasis on a coordinated approach through which many donor countries can cooperate in order to solve the tropical forest crisis. Both that framework and the CIDA program concentrate on a better use of the land, promote
the development of an environmentally sound forest industry, a more efficient use of firewood, the conservation of tropical forest ecosystems and help institutions set up sustainable forest development programs.
Because it involves an international effort, the program can mobilize more resources than any individual country acting on its own. Since the program began, the influx of financial resources to the forestry sector increased by 17 per cent.
From the beginning, Canada has closely participated to the activities undertaken under the program and has provided leadership to expert teams from Canada and from across the world in Peru, Guyana, Zaire and Rwanda, in order to study the needs of these countries in the forestry sector.
Mr. Speaker, the people's participation is essential to forest conservation and management. The local population will take part in tree planting, pruning and cutting activities and can also support forestry institutions and their staff either by teaching or studying in these institutions.
For example, community participation is ensuring the success of the broad-leaf forests development project that CIDA is implementing in Honduras. In the forest villages of the north coast of the country, local populations are replanting trees on small lots in order to create a supply of firewood and are learning new methods of soil conservation to increase their agricultural production. These methods contribute to higher living standards. The project is therefore a success since it addresses at the same time the problems of degradation of tropical forests, forest management and rural poverty.
In another Latin American country, Peru, CIDA has contributed to the implementation of a graduate program in forestry at La Molina University located in the capital, Lima. Part of that institutional reinforcement program included the training of seven Peruvian students in Canada. To protect the ecosystem that the rainforest represents, it is necessary, among other things, to create national and regional reserves by improving planning and management as well as genetic resources conservation.
In Brazil, in the tropical rain forests of the Amazon, CIDA plans to provide technical equipment and training as part of a conservation project. A region will be chosen where the forest is managed by the population and
December 13, 1990

where activities such as picking Brazil nuts are done without cutting down trees.
In Southeast Asia, where certain type of forests are also threatened, the Centre for the Development of Tree Seeds ASEAN-CANADA, whose administrative headquarters are located in Thailand, helps increase the tree seeds supply required for the implementation of the reforestation programs of the Association of South East Asian Nations and for the protection of the gene pool.
Mr. Speaker, we have to face facts: there are industries which depend on the forest. The marketing of forest products is also an essential activity for many developing countries. The industry can prosper only if forests are protected and preserved, and populations will protect and preserve forests inasmuch as their commercial and economic value is recognized.
In North-East China for instance, a CIDA project seeks, within the framework of a comprehensive plan to integrate different aspects of forest management, to increase and make better use of scarce forestry res-sources. One of the goals is to improve tree planting and management methods, protect forests against insects and disease, and introduce better and more environment friendly harvesting techniques.
From an energy standpoint, statistics indicate that 80 per cent of all firewood collected in the Third World is used for cooking and heating, but this source of energy is becoming rapidly depleted.
In the hills of Nepal, where firewood is the sole source of energy for 94 per cent of the population, deforestation has led to serious shortages and massive erosion. CIDA is helping the Nepalese government increase supplies of firewood through the Karnali-Bheri integrated rural development project. Tree planting and soil conservation have helped to slow down deforestation and increase energy supplies in Nepalese mountain communities.
During that time, it was noted in Zaire that firewood shortages were due to the use of open fireplaces that let heat dissipate. Due to diminishing supplies of wood, a more efficient solution was required. That is why CIDA cooperates with the Centre for Energy and Wood Technologies to convince the population to consume 30 to 50 per cent less wood. So far, more than a hundred craftsmen have been trained to build ovens, on a
Private Members' Business
commercial basis, and approximately 900 housewives have been trained to build their own improved oven.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Government of Canada is sparing no effort to contribute to the protection of tropical rain forests through our Official Development Assistance programs.
The problem of degradation and gradual disappearance of tropical rain forests must be addressed at its source that is by the people controlling this precious resource. It is in that perspective that Canada supports the efforts to reinforce the institutions of developing countries that are working at the conservation and management of forest resources, through various public education programs and the implementation of sustainable forest management.
The Canadian government's concerns are thus as great on the international level as they are on the domestic level in relation to our planet's forest resources.

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich

Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting my colleague for Northumberland and state that I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion.
The hon. member has crafted a very skilful motion. It does incorporate the merging between the environment and the economy, and the financing that is necessary to save the rain forests, the policy which she is urging Canada to adopt.
This motion also gives me an opportunity to focus on the very important principle that has to be established at the outset; that our global environmental security is not possible without economic justice for the people who are involved.
I also want to point out that the concern about the rain forest extends far beyond the concern for trees. It is a timely motion as well because we have in our news today the trial of the murder of one Chico Mendez in Brazil. Chico Mendez's death was the worst kind of human rights violation. Fie does not have a life any more. He was an environmentalist working to try to maintain the integrity of the Brazilian rain forest.

December 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
We have today in the news that one of the accused has confessed to the murder. It seems to be a way to cover up who really is responsible for the murder. There are allusions that it will be right up to the highest level in the Brazilian government.
What we are talking about in this motion gives us an ability to focus on the very pervasive concern there is: rain forest, money, human rights violations, and international debt.
I also had the opportunity earlier this fall of meeting Mutang Tuo who is a native of Sarawak in Borneo. He came to talk about the need to preserve the rain forest in his country. I was quite moved, having listened to him, because it is his home.
David Suzuki was before our caucus yesterday. He made it very clear that we in the northern countries do not seem to have a real depth of understanding that there are biological limits, that we are biological creatures, and that air, water and soil do not respect human boundaries. Mutang Tuo did.
When we talk about the destruction of the rainforests, it is not just trees we are talking about, it is indigenous peoples. Rain forest destruction is a major contributor to global warming. As a member of the parliamentary committee on the environment which has been examining the phenomenon of global warming and the threat to our global survival that that presents, this rain forest destruction is very real to me.
Rain forest destruction also reduces natural diversity, wiping out countless species before their potential uses in medicine, agriculture and industry are even discovered.
As Mutang Tuo very graphically demonstrated to me, it is also about the destruction of forest dwellers-human beings. This is not just in Sarawak. It is happening all around the world. It is happening in Malaysia, Indonesia, Cameroon, Zaire, Peru, Colombia and Brazil.
Canada contributes to this problem. This is why this motion is so cleverly crafted. Although we do not import a lot of tropical wood, we are a contributor in a kind of back-door approach through the international financial institutions. Canadians have to realize, and I hope that those who are watching this evening will take note, that Canada does contribute to the deforestation of the
tropical rain forests. Probe International has done a lot of work in getting us to understand this.
In the Cameroons a loan from the World Bank will primarily be used to finance the infrastructure for commercial logging in 3.5 million hectares of rain forest. No environmental assessment is required because of the sort of back-door approach that the World Bank is taking on it.
Another actor in this problem in the Cameroons is the African Development Bank. Here is where the Canadian connection is quite clear. Canada is a member of the African Development Bank and last year gave $130 million to it. The African Development Bank is quietly preparing even bigger loans through the World Bank to help Cameroon devour its rain forest.
What we have to understand is that Cameroon does not have a lot of flexibility in how it addresses its financial problems. It is an underdeveloped country. Canada should be using its role in the international financial institutions, through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-our finance minister is a director of the International Monetary Fund-to ensure through that very direct mechanism that Canada does not contribute to the destruction of the tropical rain forests in Cameroon, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sarawak, Peru and Colombia because we are all going to pay if that rain forest is destroyed.
We are going to be paying, not just in the cost of human rights violations-that is, as human beings we feel for people who are hurt, we feel for the people who are moved off their land and out of their way of life-but also because the destruction of the tropical rain forest is a very real threat to our global environment. This is the issue that is going to be before us over the coming decades, if we have that long.
The Global Conference on Debt and Adjustment recommended that Canada's directors on the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work to solve this problem. I think we have to be very conscious that Canada has an important role. We are one of the G-7 countries.
I want to alert people out there that they have a role to play in this as well. I am not optimistic that Canada is going to take the right approach. I am not optimistic for two major reasons, which are very real to me as a parliamentarian who has been here for just over two years. I participated on the international debt report for the external affairs and international trade committee. The government response to that report, called, "Secur-
December 13, 1990

ing our Global Future", was very disappointing. The government does not seem to have a grasp of the urgency of the international debt problem and the link to the rain forests.
The second reason I am not very optimistic is because recently, just this past Tuesday in fact, the government's green plan has come out and we see once again a sort of inability on the part of the government to understand the urgency of linking the global environment to our own security. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by asking those people who are out there, those Canadians who care about the global environment, to get in touch with your member of Parliament and make sure that he or she is aware of Canada's role in the destruction of rain forests and tell them to stop.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I would like to express appreciation to my colleague, who lives in Ottawa, who has graciously permitted me to speak first so that I can depart this lovely community for an even lovelier part of Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Northumberland in raising one of the most serious and urgent issues on the public agenda for consideration by this House. No subject is more Canadian than forests and no place is more appropriate for the discussion of forest issues than the Parliament of Canada.
The member's concern is well founded. We depend on forests, perhaps in more ways than we have yet learned to count, not just as a source of product and jobs, although these considerations are of vital importance to Canadians. Forests are, as we have rather belatedly come to see, a vital and vulnerable part of the life support system that allows us to exist on this planet. All around the world, trees meet human needs for lumber, paper, food, and medicine; they shelter our fields and homes; they yield fodder for our livestock; they will fuel the fires to cook half of the world's meals today; and, beyond this, awareness has finally dawned that forests are active players in the very process of life. They hold back
Private Members' Business
deserts, they stabilize hillsides, they regulate run-off, clean the air, and shelter countless life forms.
So I share the member's concern because the global forest is under assault and it is in jeopardy. Once it covered most of the planet, now less than a third of the earth is forested. Recent statistics from the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations indicate that the problem is even worse than we thought. Figures announced by the food and agricultural organization in June suggest that the rate of tropical deforestation actually rose by about 70 per cent during the 1980s to the point where some 17 million hectares of tropical forests are being lost every year. Half of Africa's forests are already gone. Much of Central America grows more barren every day. In China and in India, one-third of the world's population puts immense pressure on just one-twentieth of the world's trees.
Can the process be stopped? The evidence up to now is discouraging. We have failed for centuries to replace the trees we use because of short-term thinking, lack of vision, and wrong-headed attitudes. Quite literally, we haven't been able to see the forest for the trees.
But the process has to be stopped or we will degrade our planet and impoverish our children's future. The answer, the solution to deforestation is complex and it is difficult. It has many facets and it will take a lot of effort on many fronts.
Key parts of the answer lie in other areas seemingly unconnected with forestry. Most fundamental, for example, we need to bring the population explosion under control because even a perfect forest program, worldwide, cannot cope with exponential population growth. Experience reveals to us that the only sure way to lower birth rates is to overcome poverty. So the first step in protecting the world's forests is through broad, generalized development programs in such fields as health, food, education, and job creation, with the bulk of the benefits going to the poorest people.
The environmental movement can make a big contribution by helping us to become responsible consumers. The forestry profession which is going through a revolution in its thinking needs to explore and develop whole new areas such as agriforestry and social forestry so that it can make an even more profound contribution. But the member for Northumberland is right in believing there is legislation or regulatory aspect to the solution which means a role that governments, parliamentarians,

December 13, 1990
Private Members' Business
and international organizations must play if they are to be part of the answer. However, I am afraid that I am not at all certain that the approach she advocates is necessary or even helpful.
The member asks that the government develop a rain forest policy with guidelines to prevent Canada from financing projects that might destroy or degrade tropical rain forests. The intent is beyond reproach, but the effect might be somewhat different.
In one sense, the member's proposal is an unnecessary duplication of what already exists. As many members know, for some years now-since 1986-projects being considered for funding by the Canadian International Development Agency have been systematically reviewed, as part of the normal approval process, for their impact on the environment which very notably includes their effect on tropical forests.
The essence of the member's proposal is, in fact, already an integral part of government policy and indeed of the strategy for Canada's official development assistance as tabled here in 1988 by the Minister of External Relations and International Development.
Not only are bilateral projects analyzed for their environmental impact, but Canada has also been a leader in the effort to review such impacts caused by the World Bank's lending practices, particularly in regard to tropical forests.
Major reforms have, in fact, been made to meet those concerns. During 1990, the World Bank released guidelines for the environmental assessment of all its major projects in January and, in September, it issued its first annual environmental report. Just last month, it produced a specific paper on forestry lending policy. Admittedly, it is late in the day, but the changes are coming.
I feel that M-398 essentially duplicates what has already been achieved. True enough, it goes a bit further, but that could in reality prove a weakness, rather than a strength. There are times when a situation is not simple, when, for instance, a project that would destroy 100 trees will in the end save thousands of trees by providing alternative sources of energy. There are times, particularly in multilateral affairs, when it is better to be
involved in the action and in a position to influence decisions, rather than sitting on the sidelines with clean hands but no say.
Rigidly applied, M-398 could be a strait-jacket, a ban on Canadian participation in anything that involves cutting trees in tropical rain forests, and I do not think that that would be helpful at all.
In fact, I feel that we need to move a giant step ahead in the way we think about economics and the environment in this post Brundtland era. When it began to dawn on us, back in the 1960s and 1970s, that there seemed to be a conflict in economic growth and the health of our natural environment, this new awareness from the Brundtland days represented an important step forward in our development thinking.
It was only the first step, and it is time now to make another major advance in the quality and the sophistication of our concepts by absorbing the wisdom offered in the Brundtland report and making it an internal part of our attitudes and our thought processes.
That historic report, the most important document of the 1980s, told us how much damage we are doing and advocated the principle of sustainable development. It did not stop there. It took us another step along the road by arguing very persuasively that the conflict between ecology and economics is an illusion or, at most, a short term effect, and that in the final analysis, there is no conflict because good environmentalism is good economics and vice versa.
I make this point because I think the member's proposal misses the relevance to the tropical forest of this lesson from Brundtland.
Tropical rain forests are more likely to be preserved and looked after if their owners, the people of the developing countries, see them as a source of wealth and benefits, as a valuable asset that must be protected. That implies some degree of use and exploitation. Sustainable development, certainly, but development nonetheless.
A moment ago, I acknowledged that the member is basically right in feeling that some kind of regulatory approach is needed as part of the solution to the rain forest problem. But we cannot chop nature up, and put it
December 13, 1990

in little compartments. Everything affects everything else.
Tropical rain forest depletion is closely linked to such profound issues as global warming and the loss of biological diversity here on our planet. The best way to deal with this is not piecemeal and single-handedly through an isolated ban on Canadian aid funding. That would be a fragmentary and futile approach.
The best way to tackle this issue, and the only way that can really work, is by playing a vigorous role in working out an internal solution and an international solution, one that has the active support of all the players, one that rallies global resources and authorities to deal with a global problem, one that is fully worked out and carefully elaborated, so that it can take into account the endless complexities, and make the interconnections with other related moves that are under way. That is the approach which we advocate. That is the approach which must be taken.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the colleague who has just finished speaking is about to take off for New Brunswick. Having heard what he has to say about what great progress we are making and how wonderfully we are doing in environmental assessments of development projects, I think I should give him a pile of reading to take with him on that airplane. He might come back on Monday a little bit better informed, with a little more understanding of the depth and breadth of these issues.
Some projects do have a direct impact on tropical rain forests. The industrial development forestry project in Peru, mentioned by a previous speaker, extended a $17 million line of credit to Peruvian timber companies to buy Canadian lumber extraction and sawmilling equipment for logging in the jungles of the Amazon. The project also involved $9 million for forestry training and technical assistance. Nevertheless, virtually all commercial logging activities in the rain forest have been proven to cause permanent environmental damage.
We certainly have a long way to go in making our overseas development aid policies more consistent with the words we say about the environment but are far from
Private Members' Business
practising or integrating into our decision making and policies in government programs.
I want to restate a fundamental principle that came out of the Brundtland Commission. It is that we have no economy, healthy or otherwise, without an abundance of environmental resources. Without energy, we do not feed and drive our industry. Without raw materials as resources, we have nothing from which to manufacture. If we deplete our forests, we have nothing to cut down and to sustain the benefit that healthy, thriving forests, properly harvested, can provide perpetually.
There was a third corner-stone of the Brundtland Commission that seldom gets mentioned. We talk about the economy and we talk about the environment and we talk as if we have to balance them and trade one off against the other. That misses the essential message which is that we have to integrate them because, without protecting one, we cannot protect the other.
The third corner-stone is equity. We will not solve the world's environmental problems, whether it be rain forests, global warming, ozone depletion, or anything else, until we address the fundamental problems of a world that is divided between a small proportion of its population who consumes the vast majority of its wealth and resources, and a very large population who lives on minuscule scraps from that very abundant table that we, in the developed countries, are fortunate to have.
We are not going to solve our environmental problems, as my colleague who introduced this motion said, until we deal with the problems of international debt. It is a shame and a disgrace that we in the northern countries receive more money from the poorest people on this earth than goes from our countries to theirs. That set-up is so debilitating that there is no way those countries can get out of the cycle of poverty and population explosion.
Some members may wonder why I am addressing the issue of poverty when we are talking about rain forests. The simple fact is that world-wide the single greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty. It is a population explosion which is based on infant mortality which can be reversed dramatically simply by improving the literacy of women. Yet, we insist on huge megaprojects that support our industries when we go to try to help in the Third World.

December 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
That is why I am talking about poverty. We strip the resources from the poorest part of the world. We make our profits on them and we send virtually nothing of these profits back to the poorest parts of the world. We are engaged, and we, Canada-not the United States, not Britain, not Japan, not West Germany, but we, Canada-are engaged in an economic colonialism that is more devastating than the last century's colonialism when countries were occupied and run from within. We can sit back in our nice comfortable homes and never even have to see the populations, the cultures, and the ecosystems that we are destroying to enjoy our comfort.
Some of the members have spoken about CIDA, but it goes far beyond CIDA. The Export Development Corporation, the trade facilitation offices, and the whole network of agencies that I am only starting to find out about, which support and subsidize trade with billions of Canadian dollars every year, have no requirement to meet any kinds of environmental standards. We take millions of dollars from the taxpayers of Canada to support the export of coal-fired generating systems. When are we going to ask ourselves how we can use those billions of dollars every year to try to export technology and products that are helpful, that will allow the Third World countries to start sharing some of the wealth of this planet and some of the comfort it offers, without doing the destructive damage to the planet that we have done?
I am looking at the green plan. I read it in great detail and then I went back through it today particularly looking for things relevant to this debate. It does nothing to address the whole role of Canada in the international economy and how we are feeding our industries, our jobs, and our wealth off the poverty, the degradation, and the depletion of other people's rights to a decent and fair quality of life. This has nothing about the rain forests of the world. It has nothing about our own old growth forests. It has very wishy-washy policies with very few things in the way of specifics and timetables on how we are going to better manage our own forests.
After nearly two years and $6 million spent on consultation, is this the best we can do when it comes to an invaluable and irreplacable resource of the world?
Mr. Speaker, I see the time for debate is ending, and I urge all members. They know the rules perfectly well. If they want Canada to address the rain forests, all they have to do is not stand up and speak again after I sit down.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have but a minute or two to address what is a very important issue and I would like to take that minute to say two things.
First, I would like to say to the member who moved the motion that we on the government side very much share her concerns with respect to the state of the rain forest. We are veiy conscious of the fact that there is a tremendous connection between economic conditions in the Third World and Fourth World and with the state of the rain forest.
I have had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia during the course of the last 12 months. Although the conditions are not those which most people would associate with that of the rain forest, I did see that there was a very real emphasis on the part of CIDA in ensuring that the type of development policies we had in place were as environmentally friendly as they could possibly be.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you are suggesting to me that my time has expired. Perhaps I could have the opportunity on another day to discuss the issue at a greater length, the sort of length which it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who is here to respond.
I want to go over some of the questions that I raised earlier in the House concerning the financing of medicare and the crisis that has arisen in the country. The crisis is twofold: One is very fast escalating health care costs and at the same time reduction of government payments, particularly federal transfer payments.
In the federal transfer payments it used to be 50-50 until the Liberal government in 1977 brought in the block funding. At that point it was to increase at the level of the GNP plus the rise in population.
Of course the Liberals then brought in the famous six and five which limited the growth. In 1986, the Conservatives brought in the first of a number of budget restraint measures that reduced it to GNP, minus 2 per cent.
Last year there was a further reduction in which they brought in a freeze for 1990-91 and 1991-92, and then it was to increase at the rate of GNP minus 3 per cent.
We now have a number of provinces, led by Mel Couvelier, the Minister of Finance in B.C. and by Mr. Remillard and Mr. Cote of the Quebec government, which are demanding that they be allowed to bring in user fees and extra billing.
Over the last week I have been very pleased with the stand taken by both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare who have risen repeatedly in this House and have said that they will uphold the Canada Health Act. They will uphold all of the five principles that are set out in the Canada Health Act. Also, they will not permit any province to institute user fees or extra billing. I was most pleased with that answer, as were most Canadians.
However, when we have asked the government what it is going to do when it is no longer transferring any cash to the provinces for medicare, so that its only leverage in which it can force the provinces to comply is gone, what then?
That is not some distant time. It has been calculated that the federal government will not be transferring any cash to Quebec by 1995; to Ontario by 1997 or 1998. In fact, I was advised in a meeting I had with the new
Adjournment Debate
minister of health for Ontario, their calculations indicate that it may be even sooner. Of course, it depends on the moneys raised from tax points. With the downturn in the economy, that is a little bit unpredictable.
I guess all Canadians are starting to say that the federal government is not going out of the health care and medicare field with an announcement, but with a whimper. It will simply be reducing its cash transfers to the province so that within the next 10 years it will not be giving any money to any province. The government will simply wimp out. It will have no leverage in which it can insist on national standards. Then the provinces will be able to introduce measures that will Americanize our health care system.
I have three questions that I would like addressed. There has been some debate as to when those cut-off dates are going to be. Can the government confirm the date that the three biggest provinces, Ontario, Quebec and B.C., will no longer receive cash transfers under medicare? It has been said and federal government documents claim it is 1995 for Quebec and Ontario is supposed to be 1997 or 1998. When is that point under the current budget restrictions that were introduced in 1986 and last year?
Second, once there are no more cash transfers, how is the government going to enforce the Canada Health Act? It has no leverage. What can it do?
Third, because of escalating costs, is the government now prepared to use what remaining spending power it has to try to assist provinces in innovative methods of delivery of health care so that all of the health care costs can be brought into the most efficient and effective health care system. Without that all of us know that ultimately down the road there is going to be a real crisis. We must manage our health care system efficiently, effectively and without it becoming such a high cost that the country cannot afford it.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend spouts a lot of nonsense and he knows it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated time after time, after time that the national health system in Canada is supported by this

December 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
government and is in absolutely no danger. In fact, I would like to refer the hon. member to pages 16097 and 16098 of Hansard for December 3, 1990, where the minister addressed the hon. member's question about changes to the federal health legislation, as the hon. member no doubt remembers.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: What's he going to do when he's not transferring the money?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Year in and year out Canadians, when they are asked their opinion about the health care system, have expressed a high degree of satisfaction with health care and this is very significant in itself. Perhaps even more revealing of Canadians' commitment to their health care system are the results of a recently reported opinion survey that was carried out across 10 nations. Among the countries that had national health care systems, satisfaction with the system was the highest in Canada. Most Canadians surveyed regarded the system to be fundamentally sound and 95 per cent disagreed that there were such problems that complete rebuilding of the system was needed.
What is it about Canada's health care system that elicits such commitment and pride from Canadians? I believe that hon. members like my friend across the way will agree that it is the uniqueness of our system and its basic philosophy that our citizens' health and access to quality care should not depend upon their financial means. This has been the guiding principle of health care in Canada since the 1950s and it is just as true today.
Just over six years ago the House unanimously passed the Canada Health Act. This is the act which embodies principles which are admired by Canadians and praised by many other countries around the world. It is a publicly administered system which operates on a non-profit basis, with comprehensive coverage for medically-neces-sary hospital and physician services, universal coverage for all Canadian residents, coverage that is portable and reasonable access to care without financial barriers. Extra billing and user charges are contrary to the principles of reasonable access and such direct patient charges are discouraged.
In the Canada Health Act this government is opposed to such patient charges, both in principle and in practice. That should answer the hon. member's question.
Extra billing and other user charges have been shown to deter the least advantaged Canadians from seeking necessary health care. Three years ago, in April 1987 direct charges to patients were eliminated in Canada under this government's direction.
Suggestions by the hon. members opposite that our government is anything less than totally committed both to the letter and the spirit of the Canada Health Act are irresponsible, inaccurate and misleading. We are fully committed to the principles of the Canada Health Act.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period on November 1, I asked the Minister of State for Finance what specific action he was going to take regarding the criticisms of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions concerning that particular office.
These criticisms were made that week by the Auditor General in his 1990 report. The Auditor General said of the superintendent's office that it was not doing everything possible to ensure that it could sound the alarm in time to prevent a financial institution from going under. So I asked the Minister of State for Finance what he was going to do about it and he brushed off my question and actually said that I was drawing conclusions.
I was not drawing conclusions because that question was based on facts taken right out of the Auditor General's report. I invite the minister to read that report.
In my supplementary I asked the same question, that is, what was the minister going to do about the Auditor General's complaints. Again, I got a vague answer. So I am here again tonight to try to get a satisfactory answer to these concerns. This is a very important question because, as we are aware, it is absolutely essential that we ensure the soundness of our financial institutions. I know that many Canadians have heard the shocking details surrounding the American Savings and Loans scandal where over one-half trillion dollars in taxpayers' money was lost. I think the latest estimate is something like $600 billion.
Certainly Canada has not been without its bank and trust company failures. People may remember the Principal Group and Canadian Commercial Bank failures in the west, the Greymac-Seaway Trust failures in Ontario, or they may be aware of the difficulties facing Standard Trust today in Ontario. I am sure that the taxpayers do
December 13, 1990

not need to be reminded of these events. When the Canadian Commercial Bank experienced difficulties in 1985, for example, taxpayers spent approximately $125 million on a rescue package for the company, which went under anyway.
We as legislators have a duty to see that no more taxpayers' money is lost through the failure of one of our financial institutions. We have a responsibility to protect the people who place their money and their trust in these institutions and we have a responsibility to ensure the soundness and the stability of financial institutions and, indeed, of our financial system as a whole.
Really, the issue before us is the one that, tonight, is the same as I brought in on November 1, that in the 1990 report, the Auditor General said that the Superintendent's office had improvements to make in a number of areas. I want to list just three of these. They do not always write down their findings after inspecting a bank, a trust, or an insurance company and, in some cases, no files were kept; they are not fully using their new computer system which could greatly improve the effectiveness of the office; and, if they are inspecting a trust company, for example, which is owned by a commercial parent corporation, they do not have access to the books of that parent company, even though the parent's financial health could pose a threat to the trust subsidiary. While this last problem should be eliminated by proposed government legislation, this government's incredible slowness in bringing in the legislation may have put at least one trust company solvency at risk.
I know that my time is just about up, but I want to ask again what this government is doing about the problems cited by the Auditor General so that Canada will have the most secure financial system in the world.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here to answer the question about how we protect people who hold interest in our financial institutions.
The hon. member will be glad to know that the primary objective of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is to protect the interest of depositors and to protect the interest also of policyholders by
Adjournment Debate
ensuring the soundness of financial institutions and the stability of the Canadian financial system.
Through a comprehensive framework the office monitors and examines supervised institutions for compliance with applicable legislation, related regulations and guidelines, and it gathers information about the operations of institutions for use in developing sound regulatory policies and assessing strengths and weaknesses in the financial system.
In respect of life and property insurance companies there has been for some time an early warning system in place with respect to deposit taking institutions under federal jurisdiction. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has developed a framework which identifies problems as they may exist in financial institutions.
Action is taken on such matters through discussion with senior management of the institution. The regulatory policy sector of that office identifies trends of problems that might be surfacing, and these matters are drawn to the attention of the examiners.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has studied the Auditor General's report, and it agrees generally with the recommendations that have been made. In Mr. MacKenzie's response he noted that work is well under way to complete implementation in most cases. In other areas he has incorporated the Auditor General's recommendations into his planning documents.
The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation is also concerned about possible financial problems of member institutions. Therefore CDIC is working on standards aimed at promoting sound business and financial practices. If sound corporate governances, practices and standards are in place and followed by member institutions, the incidence of problems should be reduced for the benefit of all concerned.
The federal government has brought forward new legislation which was tabled on September 27. This legislation includes a new power for the superintendent to require controlling owners of financial institutions to furnish information. As well, comprehensive self-dealing rules and a new director's policy are also proposed. These measures supplement the actions which were taken in 1987 aimed at strengthening the supervisory system.

December 13, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Finally, the House finance committee has already begun its study of Bill C-83, and we are bringing forward the rest of the legislative package as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 14,1990