1990-06-20

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the Union des producteurs agricoles on the 60th anniversary of its founding. For many years, the UPA has defended the interests of farmers in the region of Nicolet-Drummond- Bois Francs, and it has a great deal to be proud of.
With 225 officers working in 14 sectorial unions and 14 unions specialized in areas such as milk, beef cattle, eggs and so forth, the UPA's real challenge is defending the socio-economic interests of its 5,000 strong constituency. The Federation de l'UPA de Nicolet is synonymous with the many services that have become available to producers over the years.
Mr. Speaker, this is thanks to the perseverance and energy of farm producers who take part of their precious time to defend the interests of other farmers, and I want to congratulate them for their dedication and the tremendous job they have done.


TRACADIE MILITARY CAMP
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, this week the commission responsible for examining the consequences of expanding the Tracadie military camp received the report on the environmental impact study prepared by National Defence.
After waiting for five years, residents of the region of Tracadie and Allardville-Saint-Sauveur are very worried, considering the many questions that have some unanswered.
We are all aware of the drawbacks of being near a firing range that would allow National Defence aircraft to train in low-level flying near inhabited areas.
The federal government should immediately identify, clearly and precisely, all the components for an economic development program for the region directly affected by this project.
I am willing to listen to all parties, but I repeat my commitment to the people of my riding: I will be the most difficult person to convince that expanding the Tracadie military camp is a good thing.


BILL C-21
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to draw your attention to an article which appeared in The Financial Post on June 14, regarding Canada's jobless. It stated the statistics of Canada's contribution toward job training in relation to other industrialized countries.
Canada falls behind Germany, Japan, Britain and Italy, to name a few. I believe if the Senate was acting for the good of Canada, like it says it is, then it would pass Bill C-21 so that the government can begin to address the need to do more in the area of job training. Of course, this is only one area of concern that is being held up in the Senate.
I continue to hear from many expectant mothers who had planned to take advantage of the extended maternity leave benefits offered in Bill C-21. They are most upset that the stalling of the Senate is playing havoc with then-lives and those of their unborn children.
The Senate's partisan gamesmanship is certainly not in the best interests of these mothers-to-be.


HERITAGE LANGUAGE CLASSES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, many members of Parliament have received letters and

June 20, 1990
petitions from Canadians who are concerned about the funding cuts to heritage language classes.
I have here hundreds of letters from constituents which state that the total Secretary of State budget has been cut by only 5 per cent, but heritage schools have been cut by 100 per cent for a total of $4.1 million. There are 129,000 students across the country enrolled in heritage schools receiving instruction in 60 languages.
By cutting heritage language schools the government is destroying the most cost-effective program ever offered for the delivery of an effective language training program.
In Vancouver East over $138,000 has been cut from 30 heritage classes, many of which will have to close or charge a higher tuition fee making them inaccessible to children from low income families.
I call on the government to reinstate full funding for heritage language classes today.


WORLD CHILDREN'S FOLK FESTIVAL
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, from June 23 to July 1, the city of Beauport will host the 4th World Children's Folk Festival, a major event of the summer in the Quebec City area.
Nearly 100,000 spectators are expected to attend this great popular festival featuring ten young folk troupes from eight countries, including France, Mexico, Hungary, Colombia and the Soviet Union.
Today I would like to pay tribute to the organizers of this festival, especially to the president, Marc-Andre Touzin, and the hundreds of volunteers throughout the riding of Montmorency-Orleans who will house the 400 young dancers and singers who are to perform in a dazzling display of rhythm and colour until July 1.
Mr. Speaker, I invite the people of Montmorency- Orleans and all the Quebec City region to join in this great festival of children of the world.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed the Prime Minister put on a pathetic performance in the House yesterday.
He tried to blame everyone in the country except himself for the Meech Lake mess. Well, he won't get away with it, Canadians will make sure of that.
Who decided to leave the First Ministers' Conference until it was too late? Was it the premier of Manitoba? No. Was it Sharon Carstairs? No. Was it the NDP leader in Manitoba? No. Was it Brian Mulroney? You betcha.
In fact, he admits the timing was all very deliberate. He said he rolled the dice. He bragged about it. He even gloated over it. Now we know the result. The Prime Minister blew it. He has made a complete and utter mess of Meech Lake.
It is time the Prime Minister stopped looking for scapegoats. It is time he accepted responsibility for his own actions. Canadians do not deserve such a poor performance from the Prime Minister.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the first nominee for the corporate welfare bum of the week is Consolidated HCI Holdings Corporation. It had profits of $20 million in 1988 without paying a penny of tax.
The second nominee is Cairn Capital Inc. which had profits of $17 million in 1988. For producing these profits, it received a tax credit of $243,000.
The third nominee is BMO NT Financial Corporation. It did not pay any tax on profits of $8 million in 1988.
The envelope, please.
And the winner is: From these financial corporations that play shell games, the winner is BMO NT Financial, because the "NT" stands for "no tax". BMO NT Financial is the corporate welfare bum of the week.
June 20, 1990


VETERANS' BENEFITS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that maximum rates payable for funeral expense assistance for eligible veterans has been increased from $2,000 to $2,940, a 50 per cent increase.
This announcement is yet more positive news. Hon. members will recall that last week the Department of Veterans Affairs signed an agreement with British Columbia for 200 long-term beds for veterans worth up to $35 million.
In addition to this, there will be increased income protection for spouses of veterans who are in long-term care centres, a special trust fund for the benefit of needy veterans, using moneys left unclaimed on the death of a veteran, payment of attendance allowance to widows for one year after the death of a veteran, and interest on moneys administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of veterans.
These continuing improvements are evidence of this government's high regard for veterans and their families.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, this month and the following summer months in Prince Edward Island will be exciting times for Islanders.
Numerous festivals and events across the province will take place to celebrate the heritage and tradition of the Island.
From Anne of Green Gables to our Malpeque oysters to fresh lobsters and potatoes, the Island has so much to offer.
Visitors keep coming back because the quality and richness of Island life is hard to match.
Islanders make visitors feel at home. Our glorious beaches and beautiful landscape make it even harder to leave.
1990-91 is special in the tourism industry as we remember our rich Celtic heritage and celebrate a special Irish homecoming. The theme for this celebration is We're Akin to Ireland.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow colleagues on all sides of the House to come to Prince Edward Island and enjoy one of the world's greatest Islands.


CITY OF AMOS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for several months, the Mayor of Amos, Jean-Paul Veilleux, council members and the general manager, Real Borde-leau, have been trying to obtain justice from CN with respect to renewal of the lease for a community parking lot.
The City of Amos does not agree with the rent increases proposed by CN management; it considers them to be excessive and unfair. The City of Amos is prepared to accept a normal rent increase based on the cost of living, especially since the city receives no revenue from this community parking lot.
Once again, CN property management in Montreal show that they could not care less about the people of Amos by charging an exorbitant price for this community parking lot.
Mr. Speaker, I ask CN property management to consider the request of the City of Amos for the welfare of the people of Amos and surrounding areas.


COMPARATIVE POLITICAL INTERNSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Helen Graves, organizer of the 1990 Comparative Political Internship Program and the 26 university students from Michigan who have worked with us in Parliament as our interns since May 9.
For the record, these interns are: Nawal Amori, Jennifer Bednar, Paul Berg, Kristen Brown, Lee Colum-bino, Renu Daga, Darrell Donakowski, Jeremy Efroym-son, Elizabeth Gnegy, Jodi Goldman, James Green,

June 20, 1990
Oral Questions
Donald Kennedy, Denise Legault, Kimberlyn McNally, Michael Morris, Anthony Nitsos, Gerrald Ottenbreit, Brian Parillo, Jennifer Perlove, Kenneth Ross, Judy Samp, Dennis Santillan, Ona Sostakas, Laura Van Hav-ermaat, Julie Zazula, and Stephen Pancratz, my excellent intern.
Dr. Graves and interns, we wish you much success in your future and we thank you for your contribution to us.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, as our constitutional problems unfold, Canadians are rightly asking how we got into this mess. The people in my riding, like the rest of Canadians, do not understand all that is happening. I do not understand it either. It leaves me frustrated and angry. I want my country back; I want my country back from the extremists; I want it back from the regionalists; I want it back from the special interest groups; I think all Canadians want their country back right now.
Premier Peterson said in Newfoundland this morning that what unites us is our ability to solve problems, not to create them.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, it is common sense, it is now time for all Canadians to say: Long live Quebec! Long live Canada! Our country first and foremost!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the critical path which the Prime Minister established for resolving the constitutional impasse continues to unfold, I would like to ask him for an update on developments in Newfoundland and Manitoba.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the latest developments of which I am aware are that Premier Peterson accepted the invitation of the
premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to visit the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly this morning.
I believe I can fairly say that he made one of the most impressive speeches that has been my pleasure to listen to on behalf of the unity of Canada and the desirability of passing Meech Lake.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was clearly an accurate statement because the member for Willowdale is in agreement.
It was a most impressive statement in which Premier Peterson, who had participated at the 1987 Meech Lake Agreement, and then the 1990 agreement, brought forward arguments on behalf of the unity of Canada and the compelling and urgent nature of concluding Meech Lake so that the country could move on to other important matters such as aboriginal concerns that we wish to deal with on an urgent and comprehensive basis. I understand that Premier McKenna is before the legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador as we speak.
My hon. friend will remember that Premier McKenna was the first to have some reservations about Meech Lake, but those were fully satisfied in the meetings in Ottawa 10 days ago. He went back, and the legislature of New Brunswick passed the Meech Lake Accord, bringing the number to eight legislatures representing 94 per cent of the population of Canada that, as of this moment, have already passed the Meech Lake Accord. I think that is very good and encouraging news.
With regard to Manitoba, I understand that the House is meeting, or will be meeting very shortly. I know that there is a unique situation in Manitoba because of the difficulties inherent in a minority situation. It has the only one that exists in a legislature in Canada. So there have been special problems for Premier Filmon and for Mrs. Carstairs and Mr. Doer that we recognize and seek to accommodate. I think on behalf of all Canadians, and in the same spirit of generosity that Premier Peterson put forward this morning in Newfoundland and Labrador, we simply ask the leaders of the three parties in Manitoba to please, on behalf of Canada, make an extra effort to make sure that the Meech Lake Accord is ratified.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
June 20, 1990


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, considering the very real problems with the time frame in Manitoba, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the various suggestions that have been made for extending the deadline for ratifying the accord, and whether he sees any possible solutions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I can say in a non-critical way without any recrimination, I think it is probably fair to say, at least the reports were, that the problem 11 days ago originated from a procedural fault in the introduction of the original motion. That was used to delay by some 10 or 11 days consideration of this important matter by the legislature of Manitoba.
Human mistakes do occur everywhere. They occur in this Parliament, they occur in all freely elected Parliaments. But, it is our belief that this flaw of procedure can be corrected. I believe the premier and the two other leaders wish to have it corrected and that there is time under the rules of the Manitoba legislature to correct this situation and to move on and to cause that legislature to do within the timeframe, namely, before the twenty-third, what legislatures are elected to do, to be seized of a problem and to vote it either up or vote it down.
I believe that if it comes to the Manitoba legislature for a vote, pursuant to the undertakings given by the three leaders that the Manitoba legislature will substantially support the Meech Lake Accord with the companion resolution because of what it does for Canadian unity and what it does for aboriginal justice in Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, certainly no one in this House denies the importance of solving the problem. Can we take it from the answer the Prime Minister has given that the government, having examined all of the various proposals made for ways of extending the deadline, is not able to propose any way which would be effective for doing that?
I want to ask the Prime Minister further whether he is prepared to meet with aboriginal leaders to see if he can earn their co-operation in seeing the constitutional impasse resolved?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks about extending the deadline. I have just tried to indicate to him that the present deadline suffices. Irrespective of the fact that the Manitoba legislature has already lost 11 days from what appears to have been a defect in the procedure in the bringing in of the resolution on June 11 after the signing ceremony, it is our advice that under the rules of the Manitoba legislature, if the three party leaders and the three parties are in agreement, while time is short, it can be done. It should not be forgotten that the Manitoba legislature and the people of Manitoba have had and have taken a great deal of time by committee to consider the implications of Meech Lake over many months prior to June of this year. There have been very extensive public hearings held on Meech Lake already. Under the rules of the Manitoba legislature, we are informed that the Meech Lake Accord could indeed be passed by the twenty-third with ample time left for public hearings in respect of the companion resolution which would ensure that all Manitobans are heard again, if need be, on the implications of the companion resolution.
It should never be forgotten that full and complete hearings have already been held on the Meech Lake Accord. Meech Lake, we are told, could be passed within the present time frames. There would be ample opportunity for public participation in respect of the companion resolution and so Canada would conserve and strengthen its unity and Manitoba would have done its duty toward the people of Manitoba by ensuring that they are heard again in respect of all the considerations in the companion resolution.


CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I want to ask if it is now a condition for getting a grant for Canada Day celebrations that a mayor or other official must have their picture taken with the local Tory MR In this respect, has the minister received a complaint from Mayor Steve Olynik of Greenfield Park in Quebec that the member of Parliament for Saint-Hubert made such a request, made such a condition for delivering the Canada Day cheque? Does the minister think that this sort of behaviour is consistent with the spirit of Canada Day?

June 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, there were some 270 projects approved by a remarkable Canada Day committee under the chair of Mrs. Geraldine Doucet.
The committee worked very hard and I think brought forward some very excellent proposals which were all, of course, approved and will bring great credit to our ability to celebrate together a very important Canada Day.
From what I understand, there were on some rare instances, opportunities for an MP to deliver some of the larger cheques. I am not fully conversant with how all of this takes place, nor am I really conversant with what took place between the mayor and the MP. I personally have not spoken to the mayor. He has not called me on the subject.
I will certainly look into the matter and get back to the member at my earliest convenience.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister when he or his department decided to have these cheques delivered by local Conservative MPs instead of having them mailed, and why is he making assistance for Canada's national day into a partisan act? What is the rationale for this abhorrent policy?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the committee operated in a very honourable fashion and examined all of the projects that were brought forward. Those projects were all approved by this independent, impartial committee and it is my understanding that all of the projects that will go forward will be carried out with a great deal of enthusiasm and will be very helpful in celebrating Canada Day this year in the country.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week, the Prime Minister admitted he had planned the countdown, rolled the dice and then convinced first New Brunswick, then Manitoba, and finally Newfoundland.
Clearly, his plan has fizzled. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister when he will show some leadership. What is he going to do next? What are his plans today? Canada deserves a definite reply today!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently, the hon. member misrepresented what I said because she refused to go on and quote the rest, when I said we had no intention of isolating anyone, and that we proceeded this way because it seemed reasonable to do so, and because by doing so, we were pursuing the fundamental goal of Canada's unity. In any case, you have to have some idea where you are going when you get involved in complex negotiations, and we abided by some very important principles which were hailed as such, not only by the hon. member but also by other members of her political party, following the successful outcome on June 9.
Today, the hon. member is asking me about our plans for the future. I can inform the Leader of the New Democratic Party that we remain confident that MPPs in Newfoundland and Manitoba, who still have enough time, will agree to vote for the Meech Lake Accord. There will be a vote Thursday evening or Friday morning in Newfoundland. According to the Standing Orders of the Manitoba legislature, they still have enough time to proceed with the required vote. I am therefore confident that the leaders of the three political parties in Manitoba and the premier and the Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador will ensure that these votes take place, so that Canada will be able to preserve and reinforce its unity by the evening of the 23rd.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister talks about the confidence he has in other legislatures to take the action to further the constitutional process. I would then have to question the Prime Minister as to why his government wants to bring forward a resolution today that talks about exerting influence on those legislatures, if he has such confidence.
The Prime Minister talks about what Manitoba can do, and I want to remind the Prime Minister that the agreement that was signed on June 9 by the premier of Manitoba, clearly states underneath the premier of Manitoba's signature: "subject to the public hearing
June 20, 1990

process". I will further draw to the Prime Minister's attention the Standing Orders of Manitoba which state:
(2) Prior to the sixth day of debate on such a motion, that motion shall be referred to a Standing or Special Committee of the House ordered to receive submissions from the general public and to report back to the House.
Clearly Manitoba has Standing Orders, and I guess the Prime Minister is asking Manitoba to break this agreement.
Is the Prime Minister saying, by his comments today and by the resolution he wants to bring forward, that Manitoba should break its own rules and the rules that the premier signed with the agreement of June 9, 1990?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want Manitoba or anyone to break any rules. I indicated to the member from Toronto in an earlier exchange that it was the view of the Government of Canada that, notwithstanding the fact that 11 days have already been lost because of a procedural defect in the introduction of the original motion, there still remains under the rules of the Manitoba legislature time to pass the Meech Lake Accord by June 23.
That is not just the view of the government. I would point out to my hon. friend that on June 11 in the Winnipeg Free Press the NDP House leader stated:
The rules for dealing with constitutional amendments are quite clear, (NDP House leader Steve) Ashton said, adding none of the votes in the process require unanimous consent-
A simple majority vote is required to move the legislature into committee, he said.
Since that time there has been paralysis in the Manitoba legislature, not because of anything that has been done by my hon. friend or a member of this House. But I ask her to reread the statements made by the House leader of the NDP who said on the 11th that a majority was all that was required, the implication being that one person could not and should not be allowed to hold up such an important, vital, national matter.
My hon. friend asks a question about the matter coming for consideration before the House this afternoon. On October 6, 1983 the then Prime Minister of the day introduced a resolution in this House which con-
Oral Questions
eluded with the House inviting the government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to take action as expeditiously as possible in order to fulfil their constitutional obligations and protect effectively the rights of the French speaking minority of the province.
On February 24, 1984 the same government introduced another resolution which concluded with the House urging the Government of Manitoba to persist in its efforts to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the province and protect effectively the rights of its French speaking minority, and so on.
This is not an intrusion into the rights of a legislature of another jurisdiction. This is simply, with ample precedent to guide us, the Parliament of Canada saying to the nation and saying respectfully to the legislators in Manitoba that "there is a most serious constitutional matter before the nation. You have it within your power to resolve this matter within the time frames of the 23rd, and please, in the interests of Canadian unity, use your best efforts to make sure that it is done".


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister would like to quote from 1983, I too would like to quote from 1983 from a book entitled Where I Stand by the Prime Minister, in which he said that he was concerned about the constitutional process and he felt that the debate should be open to the public at all times. He stated:
There would be no sessions behind closed doors.
At that time the Prime Minister also stated:
The test of great leadership is to harmonize divergent views into
an eloquent and thoughtful declaration of national purpose.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the government wanting to applaud because I think any of us could applaud that fine statement. But I want to ask the Prime Minister: in order to live up to those fine words, what is rthe Prime Minister's plan now? We are now just a couple of days away from the deadline. Canadians have a right to know what is the plan of the leader of the country for the constitution of the country.


Mr. Gauthier:: You have answered that.

June 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member from Vanier, says that I answered that and he is quite right, but I will be happy to try again.
I should tell my hon. friend that I thank her for that quote. It was one of the finer ones.
I want to tell my hon. friend that the resolutions from Mr. Trudeau and his colleagues, supported by the member for Winnipeg South Centre, then Winnipeg-Fort Garry, led the debate on both of these important resolutions.
I supported both of these resolutions because I thought it was important that the Parliament of Canada send a signal, however respectful, to the legislature of Manitoba or to any other legislature that in the national interest the time had come to act to protect minority rights, and in this case, to help bring about a more united Canada.
I think it is entirely appropriate that this be done by the Parliament of Canada. That is what we are here for, to speak for Canada, and now is the time for all Canadians to speak for Canada.
I tell my hon. friend that one of the things she might do, and I say this respectfully, is to call the member of the Manitoba legislature of her own political persuasion, Mr. Doer, who is doing a tremendous job, and call the others who may have doubts and ask them in the national interest to support Meech Lake so that we can move to questions of aboriginal justice.


PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister and it concerns the administration of the Montreal Port Authority.
The Prime Minister will know of reports whereby the insurance firm of Charbonneau Dulude acting as consultants for the port authority recommended the awarding of a contract to Pratte-Morrissette, a company having as chairman one of the partners of the consulting firm recommending the award of the contract to start with.
Has the Prime Minister verified these allegations? Is he satisfied that the Parliament of Canada Act and the spirit of the conflict of interest rules have been strictly adhered to?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I read the same article in The Globe and Mail today, and quite frankly, I saw nothing in it that would cause me to believe that there had been any conflict of interest or that the insurance contracts in question went to anybody other than the lowest bidder back in 1984 when, as my hon. friend knows, there was a Liberal administration in the land up until September 4, 1984. My hon. friend knows those contracts were let before September 4, 1984. I see no reason to go back into my hon. friend's administration to investigate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport or the Deputy Prime Minister the following supplementary question in the same regard.

This is the third time in less than a week that the Port of Montreal Corporation has been the subject of controversy for the way it awards contracts, for its purchasing policy and, earlier last week, for wasting public funds.
I would like to ask the government opposite if they are prepared to ask the Auditor General of Canada to investigate the contracting and administration policy of the Port of Montreal Corporation.


Philip Derek Lewis: 
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In its report tabled Monday the Tory dominated House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations denounced the Government Information Bureau on the GST as having an impossible, time consuming and costly task.
Will the minister show respect toward the consumers of Canada and simply call off this ridiculous and excessively expensive PR job that members of his own party disagree with and that now clearly lacks credibility?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the hon. member's comment. I have here the report that was tabled by the standing committee and I would just like to quote the summary, Mr. Speaker, where it says that the committee believes that competition and consumer information are the best assurances of protection from business people who might abuse the GST. That is exactly what the government has done.
A little further, it says: "The government should subsidize an independent body with full power to educate consumers on the effects of the GST on prices with the elimination of existing federal sales taxes. This body would be composed of representatives from business and consumer groups; of limited size, it would be active for a short period and should be profitable."
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
By accepting his position, Mr. Nickolas Murray clearly put himself in conflict of interest. Given his lack of judgment-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Eugène Bellemare: -and therefore lack of credibility, should the government not at least now withdraw his appointment as chairman of the government's GST information office?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite inappropriate for a member of this House to accuse here in this Chamber the chairman who just resigned from the Consumers Association of Canada.


Don Boudria: Why did he resign?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why did he resign? Tell us why.


Pierre Blais: He worked on behalf of consumers, Mr. Speaker-


Don Boudria: He was dismissed!


Pierre Blais: -for fourteen years. The hon. member should especially look at the work Mr. Murray did for fourteen years. The government appointed him chairman of the information office because it believed he was able to protect consumers' interests over the next year and a half as he did in the past fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. A1 Adair, Minister of Transportation and Utilities for the Province of Alberta.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Prime Minister. His government's February budget launched another in a series of vicious, ideological attacks on aboriginal peoples and brutally slashed the government's program for native peoples in this country.
How can the Prime Minister now blame aboriginal leaders for delaying approval of the Constitutional Accord? Does he not see that their position is a direct consequence of his actions in the February budget?

June 20, 1990
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think my hon. friend would want to correct a serious misstatement. I never once blamed the aboriginal peoples for anything. I have believed from the very beginning that, if anything, the aboriginal peoples were, are and continue to be victims of historic injustice which this nation must seek to correct.
As a result of which, my hon. friend will recognize that this year the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have a budget of in excess of $3.5 billion, up nearly $200 million from last year, and total funding for aboriginal peoples from all departments will be over $4 billion, which is the largest amount ever expended in history by the Government of Canada, and we plan to do more each year on behalf of the aboriginal peoples.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that the native people in this country have been victimized for years and years. How does he expect cutting their media budget this year will reverse that victimization? How does he expect cutting programs for their language retention and for their cultural organizations will reverse that victimization? How does he expect that cutting the funds for their representative organizations, which also assist natives in making representations to constitutional debates, is going to reverse that victimization?
He did blame Phil Fontaine of the Manitoba Chiefs yesterday.
When the roll of the dice was taking place, did the Prime Minister expect that the native people of this countiy would be paying the price?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. My hon. friend continues to do a disservice to the facts by suggesting that I blamed Chief Phil Fontaine. I did no such thing and the record will sustain what I have just said. I also said that the Manitoba Metis Federation, representing approximately 80,000 native Manitobans, on June 18 actively supported and called on the Manitoba Legislature to stop the procedural blockage of the resolution. I quote Mr. Dumas who stated: "We have considered the latest undertaking by the Prime Minister and believe it is now
in our interests more than at any time in the past, that we take advantage of the provisions now before us which are possible following the approval of the accord".
The Manitoba Metis Federation is calling on the Manitoba legislature to pass it now because there are untold benefits to come from the proposals.


Robert Evans Skelly: What about aboriginal organizations in this country? What about the cuts?


Mr. McKnight:: What about the SFIN? Check the SFIN.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to my hon. friend that the Government of Canada now expends in excess of $4 billion a year, up $200 million from last year.
My friend talks about communications programs. Let me talk to him about the negotiations which led to the final agreements with the Dene-Metis on their comprehensive land claim, and others in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The Government of Canada has concluded all of these agreements-


Robert Evans Skelly: What about money for representative organizations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I ask my hon. friend to listen to this. The Arctic claims will put 575,000 square kilometres of land firmly and irrevocably under Indian and Inuit ownership and transfer $1.3 billion to the native peoples of Canada, making the natives the largest single land holders on the North American territory. That is what they wanted. That was refused for decades.
As Le Devoir states this morning, and my hon. friend should listen to this-

"By saying no to Brian Mulroney, the Manitoba chiefs have turned down the only hand that was seriously extended to them in six years. The Conservatives have an undeserved reputation as shallow, unscrupulous business people, but it was under their administration that the historic wrongs done to native people began to be righted. It is Brian Mulroney, 'the company lawyer' who gave back to northerners the land that Mr. Trudeau, 'the father of the Charter', reserved for the oil companies."
June 20, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, and it is about a problem that will not go away, and that is the sale of Route Canada.
The records indicate that the workers are owed over $9 million. Will the minister offer some assistance to all of those workers and their families who are deprived of their economic livelihood because of the failure of this company?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of the question not going away. It is just that my hon. friend keeps repeating the question. There is nothing new in the question my hon. friend asks.
The bankruptcy trustee is in a position to look after the employees of the company. The government is not in a position to do that for every company. In fact, we have no reason to believe that the bankruptcy trustee is not looking after the interests of the company with respect to wage settlements, vacation pay and pension entitlements.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, at the invitation of the minister last week, I went to the bankruptcy trustee and the records indicate that Revenue Canada, as the Minister of National Revenue stated yesterday, is almost all paid up. Royal Trust has been paid well over $38 million. The Royal Bank has been paid in excess of $15 million and Triathlon Leasing has been paid millions. It seems that all of the lawyers and the trustees and the receivers are being paid their legal fees and there is close to $9 million owing the workers.
The question is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Will the government that is supposed to be showing care and compassion for the workers of this country show some care and compassion for the workers of Route Canada and reimburse them for their lost wages, their seniority and their pension benefits?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will respect its obligations under the law, as my hon. friend would expect. We do not change the law retroactively to look after one
Oral Questions
company or another in accordance with my hon. friend's wishes.
I understand that prior to the bankruptcy employees received all wages owing and vacation pay to labour code standards. They were owed pay in lieu of notice and severance pay pursuant to the labour code and also extra vacation pay.
Labour Canada has advised the bankruptcy trustee of labour code indebtedness and the employees are being represented by their unions in the bankruptcy proceedings.
In other words, we have lived up to our obligations as the Government of Canada, as we are expected to, and we are waiting until the bankruptcy is wound up to see what other obligations there are.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Science. This week, the National Research Council announced sweeping organizational changes without yet having made public its five-year plan for the council.
We know that the minister has had that plan in his possession for over a month now. Will he explain to the House why he is holding up the NRC five-year plan, and why has a major reorganization of the council been announced without a long term plan in place?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the organizational changes at the National Research Council are meant to strengthen their ability to do research and to do long-term directed research, which is what I understand the member really wishes to have.
With respect to the five-year plan, I do have that plan in my possession. I have asked for some very minor changes. I hope the council will agree to those very shortly.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary concerning the NRC's Industrial Research Assistance Program, which has an outstanding record and is probably a perfect example of government assistance to research in the private sector. However, when it brought down its budget, the government decided to turn subsidies to businesses into loans. Could the minister give the House the assurance that this

June 20, 1990
Oral Questions
decision will not affect IRAP and that the NRC will remain in charge of this program?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, IRAP will stay with the National Research Council.


John Paul Manley: As a grant?


NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the question of land claims in northern Canada and other parts of Canada were raised earlier in the Question Period today, I wonder if the Prime Minister could clarify the question of the status of some of the land claims that have been dealt with recently and the direction that they are moving currently.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have reached with the natives an unprecedented number of agreements. There was an agreement in principle with the Council of Yukon Indians on their comprehensive land claim in March of 1989, and then a final agreement in March 1990. In April of 1990, there was an agreement in principle with the Inuit of the Northwest Territories.
The native land claims go to the heart of the fundamental and historic grievances of the native peoples in Canada. By way of illustration, the Arctic claims put 575,000 square kilometres of land firmly and irrevocably under Indian and Inuit ownership and transfer more than $1.3 billion to the communities. Together the land area passing into Indian and Inuit ownership is more than the combined areas of the four Atlantic provinces, and will make northern natives the largest land owners in North America.
In addition, these three agreements contain arrangements for a guaranteed native share in land and resource management outside of the areas of ownership.
I wish to make two final points. In the proposal that was made to the natives this week, a fundamental and historic grievance was dealt with when the government undertook to resolve the joint definition of treaty rights and the establishment of a royal commission on native
affairs of the stature and the impact of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
This could bring historic changes to the native peoples. It is to be built on a 50-50 proposal, 50 per cent native, 50 per cent named by the Government of Canada. The chairman is to be sought from among distinguished Canadians, my own preference being someone with a long-lasting knowledge of this issue, and although presently occupied, I hope that we would be able to persuade him to accept the chairmanship of this historic royal commission into native affairs, namely, the Hon. Ed Broadbent.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, the best thing, it seems to me, that the Prime Minister could do at this time to help the situation would be to begin to admit to himself and the nation that he has been part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
I ask the Prime Minister whether he remembers the resolutions that he recalled in the House today of 1983 and 1984 in which this Parliament was asked to pass a resolution, and did, with respect to Manitoba, that these resolutions did not have the desired effect, that they were counterproductive. The Prime Minister does not mention that. He does not mention that what he is trying today did not work in the past.
When will the Prime Minister stop misrepresenting the history of these kinds of resolutions and when will he stop misrepresenting the situation in Manitoba. The leadership of Manitoba signed the document here in Ottawa a week or so ago subject to political hearings, subject to public hearings. It is right in the document and yet the Prime Minister gives the impression that that is not the case.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not misrepresented a single thing in regard to the resolutions of 1983 or 1984.1 indicated that they were brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau. I believe they were supported by all parties and that was the extent of the comment. I indicated that they were designed to encourage the Legislature of Manitoba to
June 20, 1990

Oral Questions
take cognizance of a very important problem and to pass something pursuant to an undertaking.
I can remember my discussions with Premier Pawley at that time. I was the new Leader of the Opposition. I had discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau, with Mr. Broadbent and Premier Pawley. Premier Pawley felt very strongly that it would be appropriate and helpful for the Parliament of Canada to speak out on that issue at that time, which is why I was honoured to be able to rise, as the new Leader of the Opposition, and commit the entire support of the Progressive Conservative opposition to the proposal brought forward by Prime Minister Trudeau.
We seek to be helpful. We are not seeking to exacerbate any difficulties whatsoever. I think, however, it is appropriate that the Parliament of Canada have an opportunity to speak out, not with nastiness, not with malice, but to try to encourage fellow Canadians to understand that there is a most serious matter in play and that we have a unique opportunity between now and Saturday to bring Canada together in a firm and unequivocal manner that will make all Manitobans and all Canadians proud of our citizenship.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Prime Minister was only telling half the story with respect to 1983 and 1984.
If he really wants to be helpful-


An hon. member:: What were you doing, Bill?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I do not need any lectures about standing up for Canada. I am not the one who sold the country out in the free trade agreement. I am not-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, instead of recounting history partially, instead of bragging, instead of being so full of himself, why does he not meet-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Papineau-St. Michel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Today, a number of countries decided to boycott the inauguration of the new Romanian president, Mr. Ion Iliescu. Since it is now clear that the election in Romania was marred by many irregularities and that the new government may be as dictatorial as the previous one, what explanation does the Prime Minister have for Canada's decision to approve this brutal regime by attending today's ceremonies? And will the government continue its CANDU program, after two Canadian MPs who visited that country made it abundantly clear that there were incredible problems to be overcome before the program could become operational?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel knows perfectly well, about a year or a year and a half ago, the Canadian government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was one of the most vigourous critics of the former administration in Romania. And at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Canada was one of the countries that spoke out most vigorously against the previous regime. We assisted the democratic process, but we are also disturbed about certain developments. The state of democracy in that country remains precarious, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the positions taken by Parliament are respected by the administration in Bucharest.
The hon. member's comments are well taken, and I can assure him that we will be consulting actively with the opposition parties on this important question, and he may rest assured that we will always continue to abide by the basic principles that have always governed Canada's international stance in this particular area.

June 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, an Order in Council appointment made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), it is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee indicated on the attached list.


PETITIONS
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 four petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House of Commons the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
This report calls upon the House of Commons to change the Standing Order which would designate the privileges and elections committee the monitoring committee concerning House of Commons broadcasting.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS) ASSISTANCE ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to amend the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canadian representatives on multilateral development organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank cannot vote in favour of any project unless there has been an environmental impact assessment done of the project and unless that assessment has been made available to members of the public.
This bill was patterned after a similar bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Pelosibill, and is meant as a means of ensuring some accountability and good judgment on the part of these Canadian representatives.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of people from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are very concerned about the government's intention to move ahead on the proposed goods and services tax. Although 80 per cent of Canadians oppose the tax, the petitioners point out there are various objections to the tax and ask that the tax be dropped, or that the Liberals in the Senate vote against the tax this afternoon, and defeat it that way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in another petition I have, the people are concerned about
June 20, 1990

the government's cut-backs to VIA Rail and are asking for full passenger rail service to be implemented.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from people in Westwold, British Columbia. They point out that their town has been in existence more than 100 years, and that the government has closed another post office when the post office indicates that they received a profit last year of $149 million. They feel this is wrong and that these profits are being built on the backs of communities like Westwold, British Columbia, and consider it to be very undemocratic and, quite frankly, anti-western Canadian.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition from several hundred workers, most of them residents of Hearst, Ontario, a petition that, like so many others, is against the GST.
Your petitioners say that the goods and services tax proposed by the Minister of Finance is an unfair form of taxation because it does not consider the ability of taxpayers to pay.
I wish to table this petition, and I hope the government will listen.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise once again pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present this petition.
The constituents are asking me to present this petition in opposition to the goods and services tax. They point out that they are very aware of the unfair taxation system in our country, and are asking the Parliament of Canada, both the House of Commons and the Senate to kill the bill, so that there can be a system of taxation introduced that respects all Canadians and does not favour the favourites of the government.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present five petitions, signed by some 235 persons, which have been approved by the Clerk of Petitions as being correct in form and content. Some 45 of the petitioners come from the constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, approxi-
Routine Proceedings
mately 150 from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and another 40 from Edmonton, Alberta.
They are petitioning Parliament to reject-and Parliament of course includes the Senate-the government's proposal for a goods and services tax. Instead, the petitioners are suggesting that we reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They ask that Parliament ensure there is no tax on goods and services such as hair cuts, fast food, piano lessons, skating lessons, and other non-luxury items. They ask that the government cease with the proposal which will tax diapers and coffins, taxing Canadians from the cradle to the grave.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have one further petition signed by some 340 persons from the community of Robson, British Columbia, in my constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke. That is virtually every home within the community of Robson.
These petitioners have pointed out that the existing full service post office in Robson fills all the postal needs of the people in that community, whereas other types of services that have been proposed offer only reduced service from that which is now enjoyed, and the interests of the community can best be served by maintaining the existing or equivalent postal service.
They ask the Parliament of Canada to urge that the existing essential postal service in Robson be maintained, at least until such time as there is a bridge built to replace the Columbia River ferry that has been abandoned.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have seven petitions to submit to the House today with approximately, as close as I could count, 1,500 additional names. I might add that this brings to a total of 337 the number of petitions that I have submitted on behalf of residents of Okanagan- Shuswap against the goods and services tax, with over 16,900 signatures or approximately 32 per cent of the registered voters in the constituency.
They are calling upon the government to reject the goods and services tax as an unfair and Draconian tax measure. They are asking the government to ensure that

June 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
there is a process of fair tax reform that will provide a healthy climate for future economic growth in Canada.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen -Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and once more present a petition against the goods and services tax.
This particular petition is signed by quite a number of residents of Kapuskasing, Ontario, and I add their signatures to those of thousands of others that I presented before the House. People have not given up the possibility that this government will come to its senses, stop the goods and services tax and bring in a tax that is fairer for all Canadians.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The attached petition is certified as correct.
The petitioners think that the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of the lack of regard for taxpayers' ability to pay. The government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place, which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden. The government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels. Whereupon the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to table petitions from Hill View, Newfoundland, and other parts of Canada.
The petitioners argue against the proposed GST. They strongly oppose this tax. They claim that it is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians and it will hit them with higher taxes, higher interest rates, higher unemployment and higher inflation. We already see that the unions in their negotiations are building in protection against the 7 per cent GST.


Mr. Dan Heap (IFinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from people in many parts of Ontario who are concerned that the government's proposed goods and services tax is unfair, especially because it does not address the unfair taxation
system currently in place, which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations to ensure that when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab. Therefore, they ask the government to cease with the proposal which will shift the tax burden to ordinary Canadians through this regressive consumption tax.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Vancouver, British Columbia. Interestingly enough, it was signed before the present constitutional crisis in Manitoba.
Whereas the government, through the Department of the Secretary of State, has eliminated funding to the Native Communications Program thereby eliminating 11 aboriginal newspapers, two magazines and the National Aboriginal Communications Society; and whereas the department has also reduced funding to the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program by 16 per cent, thereby cutting back the possibility of aboriginal television and radio to reach people.
The petitioners ask for the reinstatement both of the Native Communications Program and the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program at full level funding, and pray that the Secretary of State conduct consultations with the groups funded under the program to devise plans for the future that will serve the needs of the department as well as the aboriginal people and their media.
I am pleased to table this petition. I hope the Prime Minister is listening to it.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from several hundred petitioners from communities throughout the Algoma-Man-itoulin area, including Gore Bay, Chelmsford,
June 20, 1990

Manitowaning, Richard's Landing and Blind River, in which the petitioners make representations to the government concerning the planned reduction in housekeeping services to veterans and substantially increasing the cost of long-term care. The petitioners note that veterans have already given service to their country and call on these budgetary measures to be rejected by the House of Commons.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the persons who signed this petition would have been dismayed to witness the government's callous disregard of the Senate attempt to solve the unemployment insurance problem that they have petitioned Parliament about in the form of Bill S-17, which was defeated at first reading by the government members the other day.
The petitioners are concerned about the cuts in the unemployment insurance program in Canada and they petition Parliament to reject cuts in that program. They urge the government to propose more meaningful reforms, concentrating on labour force development strategies and a full employment policy with effective regional development policies.
I submit that these petitioners, all from the province of Newfoundland, have a legitimate grievance that they present to this Parliament and would ask the government to agree to the Senate amendments to Bill C-21 and get the bill passed promptly.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a number of petitions from my constituents who oppose the goods and services tax.

They are vigorously opposed to the new goods and services tax because it constitutes an unprecedented attack against the incomes of Canadians and will not only force them to pay higher taxes but also expose them to higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition that has been certified correct as to form by the Clerk of Petitions.
This petition was signed by approximately 50 individuals from all parts of Canada. I think it is safe to assume, given the subject matter of the petition, that they were riding VIA Rail.
They call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail's national network and to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment. They want a passenger train act giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and a revised costing arrangement with the railway companies. They have joined with Transport 2000 and Rural Dignity of Canada in order to obtain justice and satisfaction to legitimate demands.
I suspect that those people who are riding the Much Music VIA Rail train will also be sending in these petitions.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first one calls upon the government to acknowledge the injustices done to Ukrainian Canadians during the First World War and after.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo and his situation in Taiwan and calls upon the Government of Canada to take several measures.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 293, 299, 301, 303, 306 and 312.

June 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings

EXPENDITURES ON R, D&D, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY


Ms. Callbeck: For each year since 1984, has the government contributed in cash or through preferential tax treatment, to (a) research (b) exploration (c) development (d) each of any other aspects of energy and alternative forms of energy (e) energy efficiency and conservation and, if so, what amounts and, in each case, leading to what economic spinoffs, including job creation, and how do these expenditures compare to those made in (i) Europe (ii) Japan (iii) the United States?


Hon. Jack Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a)-(e) See attached tables.
The major benefit of federal government expenditures on Research, Development and Demonstration (R, D&D), energy efficiency and alternative energy has been the conventional energy fuel expenditures saved. For example, about $9 billion per year in conventional energy expenditures have been estimated as being saved as a result of consumers' response to energy price increases and efficiency and alternative energy program activities since 1973. This corresponds to a saving of about 20-25 percent in the nation's annual fuel bill. The government's expenditures on R, D&D have contributed significantly towards this goal by developing more technically and commercially attractive products and technologies. In addition, these expenditures have contributed towards the country's energy diversity, in part by reducing the use of oil/oil products and by exploiting viable energy alternatives to oil/oil products. For example, the contribution of renewable energy (excluding large scale hydro) to Canada's primary energy supply has increased from about 4 percent in 1975 to about 7 percent in 1986. The equivalent oil value of this energy is almost $2 billion per year.
The major spinoff associated with efficiency and aler-native energy expenditures has been in terms of the economic activity generated. In less than ten years, Canada has established an impressive array of diversified energy management and renewable energy companies. This industry is comprised of approximately 4,500 firms,
employing 77,000 Canadians with annual sales of about $7.5 billion. While several of these firms are small, the employment and sales are well distributed across the country. In general, this industry is relatively labour intensive. A 1987 consultant study concluded that an expenditure of about $38,200 (1984 dollars) generated one person-year of employment in the energy management industry. For the period 1978 to 1984, approximately 142,200 person-years of employment were generated as a result of energy management investments of the seven specific areas studied.
Table 1
Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Expenditures1
(Millions of 1988 U.S. Dollars)
Region	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988Canada2	550	447	432	348	328European Community	447	603	574	446	naUnited States	2587	2586	2308	2038	2043Japan	2823	2968	3039	2635	2159
1. Data extracted from the most recent IEA (International Energy Agency) annual review publication entitled 'Energy Policies and Programs of IEA Countries - 1988 Review1.
2. On a per capita expenditure basis, Canada ranks about fourth compared to all other iEA countries - generally behind only Japan, Switzerland and Italy.
Table 2
Direct Federal Government Expenditures on Efficiency, Alternative Energy and Exploration
(Millions of nominal dollars)
Area	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988Efficiency and Alternative Energy1	372	200	38	32	51Exploration2	1703	1534	1332	380	335
1. Expenditures shown are for fiscal year. Expenditures (in millions) incurred in 1985 (most recent available) by other countries were: Japan, $242; United States, $869; United Kingdom, $235; Sweden, $485; and West Germany, $942.
2. Includes Petroleum Incentives Administration (PIA) expenditures for calendar years 1984 through 1987. The majority of expenditures incurred under PIA were through the Petroleum Incentives Program (PIP) for eligible asset, development and exploration costs. Also included are expenditures incurred under the Canadian Exploration Development Program (CEDIP) for calendar years 1987 and 1988.
June 20, 1990


Mrs. Gaffney: 1.	Has the government awarded a contract to the American Chemical Society of Columbus, Ohio entitled "Preparation of the Domestic Substances List as Required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act" and, if so (a) for what amount (b) did any Canadian companies bid on this contract and, if so, which ones (c) was the American Chemical Society the lowest bidder and, if so, what was (i) their bid (ii) the bid of each of the other bidders (d) was there a call for tenders and, if so (i) in what location (ii) at what time was it announced?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, does the American Chemical Society possess any specialized expertise or knowledge of "Canadian domestic substances" beyond that which would be found in Canadian companies and, if so, of what kind?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Acting Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
a)	Environment Canada has awarded, on a sole-source basis, a $1.8 M contract (Preparation of the Domestic Substances List (DSL) as required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act) to the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) of the American Chemical Society to assist with a very specialized requirement.
b)	No
c)	N/A
d)	No
2. The use of the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) is necessitated by the recommendation of the Consultative Committee that the Domestic Substances List (DSL) be formatted on the basis of Chemical Abstracts Registry Numbers and Chemical Abstracts nomenclature. Industry was particularly insistent on this point. Chemical manufacturers and importers now operate in a global market and, consequently, it is important that any Canadian regulatory scheme identify substances in a manner consistent with that of our major trading partners, particularly the United States and Europe. Chemical Abstracts Services has been asked to evaluate the name of each substance accepted for the Domestic Substances List in order to validate nomenclature and registry number acceptability. As the originators and owners of the Chemical Abstracts Services Registry Number system, only Chemical Abstracts Services can
Routine Proceedings
certify substance name/registry name equivalency and, when necessary, generate new numbers.
Chemicals Abstracts Services is not tasked with the provision of any information relative to the import, manufacture, use, distribution or availability of substances with Canada.
Background Information
Environment Canada is in the process of building the Domestic Substances List (DSL) required for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Until this list is finalized, the new substance notification provisions of the Act can not be implemented.
In compiling the DSL, the Department has adhered as closely as possible to the recommendations of the Environmental Contaminants Act Amendments Consultative Commitee, a multistakeholder consultation group consisting of representatives of the federal government, the provinces, labour, industry and non-governmental environmental interest groups. Accordingly, all substances considered for the DSL are based on nominations submitted by Canadian industry. Environment Canada evaluates these submissions to determine their consistency with statutory and administrative criteria for inclusion on the list. Consequently, Canadian industry and the Department jointly determine the ultimate contents of the DSL.
In order that the Domestic Substances List (DSL) required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) be prepared as expeditiously as possible, Environment Canada has contracted Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) of Columbus, Ohio to assist in its compilation.
Environment Canada is committed to formatting the DSL in terms of CAS Registry Numbers and substance names structured according to CA nomenclature rules. As CAS is the originator of the CAS numbering system, it would be impossible to proceed without their involvement.
CAS has also advised Environment Canada on approaches to the collecting and compiling of DSL data and is assisting with the development of publication procedures.
Five contracts ($3.8 M total) have been awarded to CAS on a sole-source basis.

June 20, 1990
Routine Proceedings
CAS has a unique experience in the area of chemical substances inventory development as a result of its participation, as prime contractor, in the two main inventory exercises that have been carried in the world so far, namely in the U.S.A. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington) and in Europe (Commission of European Communities, Brussels).
Environment Canada has been advised by both these agencies that the involvement of CAS in the Canadian inventory project must be viewed as a necessary and essential condition for the success of the exercise and the credibility of its output.
One country, Australia, has attempted to prepare a similar list without the benefit of outside expertise. The effort has been in progress for four years and has been less than successful. To our knowledge, the level of expertise and highly qualified assistance required to build the DSL is not available from any other source, neither in Canada nor elsewhere.
The comprehensive assessment process specified in CEPA for new substances, imported into or manufactured in Canada, cannot be implemented until this list is completed.
CAS is owned by the American Chemical Society and operates on a non-profit basis.


[Stage Direction]
Subsequently, a letter was sent by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Services to the people involved in the development of the report: tribal, provincial and other Indian organizations; police commissions; chiefs of Indian police forces; RCMP commanding officers located at detachments across Canada; and solicitors general and other provincial ministries involved in Indian or policing matters. This letter indicated that consultations on the implications of the principles and conclusions of the report would begin this spring.
The first of the consultations were held in Halifax, with the chiefs from the four Atlantic Provinces (May 9) and in Toronto (May 10) with the representatives of the Province of Ontario and the Ontario First Nation organizations.
The consultation process is being co-ordinated through the Indian Affairs regional offices in the provinces and territories. The timetable is still being developed. The process will involve meetings across Canada with the Indian, provincial and federal representatives involved in the development of the report as well as other interested parties. To date DIAND has received three written responses to the report.
2) The estimated cost of the report is as follows:
$23,100.00 -Travel for cross-country consultations variously involving a representative of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the RCMP, the Department of Justice and 2-3 DIAND representatives.*
Mr. Nault: 1.	Can the government provide the specific details of any consultation process to be undertaken with respect to the Indian Policing Policy Review Report and, if so, what are they?
2.	Can the government provide the total cost of the Report, including (a) salaries and travel of public servants involved from all departments (b) translation, design and printing (c) distribution and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1) In February 1990, the Thsk Force Report on Indian Policing Policy was sent by the then Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Kim Campbell to the chiefs and councillors of Indian bands across Canada indicating that there would be another round of consultations with the organizations contacted and other interested parties. The letter also invited comments.
$51,900.00 -Contract to prepare draft findings. $43,825.15 -Translation, design and printing of report. $2,371.88 -Distribution.
*To serve on a Task Force forms part of the duties of a public servant, therefore there are no additional salary costs associated with this task.


Miss Grey (Beaver River): Has the government provided, directly or indirectly through any Crown Corporation, funding or any grants or contributions to an organization called "Manitobans for Meech Lake", headed by Mr. Patrick Riley of Winnipeg, Manitoba?


June 20, 1990


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: To the best knowledge of the Government: No.


Mrs. Gaffney: 1.	In the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C., has renovating and redecorating been done since the appointment of Mr. Derek H. Burney as ambassador and, if so (a) what work has been done (b) what is the cost of each of the renovations and redecorations?
2.	Is there any art in the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. donated by Imperial Oil and, if so (a) what is the estimated value of the art (b) in what locations is it displayed in the Embassy (c) who is allowed to view it?


Right Hon. Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Burney was appointed Ambassador in January 1989. The new Embassy building was not open at that time. The first staff moved into the building in February 1989 and the official opening was held in May. A great deal of work remained to be done to complete the building even after occupancy began. This work was in conformity with the specifications of the project. In the period January 1989 to the present, the total costs have amounted to $1,350,940.
The Canadian Embassy in Washington has been the beneficiary of loans and donations of Canadian art from Imperial Oil and 15 other Canadian corporations or individuals. In addition, Canadian corporations are actively sponsoring exhibitions of Canadian art and artifacts in the Embassy Gallery (and the Canada Room) and performances by Canadian artists in the Embassy theatre.
The art is distributed throughout the Embassy, together with works commissioned/purchased by the Government. The Imperial Oil collection is featured in the dining room on the sixth floor where it can be seen by guests at breakfast, lunch, dinner and receptions. As it is on loan to the government, the value is not known by the government.


Mr. Harvard: The 1985 Budgetary pamphlet entitled "Securing Economic Renewal, IMPROVED PENSIONS FOR CANADIANS", on page 7, regarding survivor benefits, said "that benefit will be no less than 60 percent of the full pension that was being paid; - ": does the current benefit level conform to that statement and, if not (a) what is it (b) if it is less than 60 percent of the full pension, are there particular reasons
Routine Proceedings
that it has not been adjusted to the 60 percent rate, and, if so, what are
they?


Hon. Michael Holcombe Wilson (Minister of Finance):: The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, which came into effect on January 1, 1987 established new minimum standards for federally-regulated pension plans. It included a requirement that pension plans provide a survivor benefit. Hence, since January 1, 1987, the pension benefit paid to a plan member or former member who has a spouse at the time the pension benefit commences, must be in the form of a joint and survivor pension benefit. Plans are allowed to reduce benefits on the death of either spouse to an amount not less than 60 per cent of the amount payable when both were alive. Further, the plan sponsor is permitted to reduce the initial pension benefit payable provided that the actuarial present value of the benefit in joint and survivor form is no less than the actuarial present value of the unreduced initial pension benefit payable in the normal form provided by the plan. At the same time, plans may be more generous, i.e., have no reductions on first death, have no actuarial adjustment for the joint and survivor provision, etc.
A plan member or former member may elect to receive pension benefits as though there were no spouse. This option requires, however, that in cases where such an election would reduce the pension benefit on the death of the plan member or former member to an amount less than 60 per cent of the amount which would have been payable if both spouses were still alive, that the non-member spouse sign an agreement which effectively waives his/her entitlement to a joint and survivor pension benefit. This written agreement must be deposited with the pension plan administrator.
In cases where a separation or divorce has taken place, a pension plan may provide for the payment of a joint and survivor pension benefit as two separate pensions. When this occurs, the actuarial present value of the two pensions must not be less than the actuarial present value of the joint and survivor pension benefit.
In cases where a plan member or former member dies before becoming eligible for early retirement, the surviving spouse is entitled to that portion of the pension benefit credit to which the plan member or former member would have been entitled to on the day of death, (calculated as though termination of employment and not death had occured) and attributable to that member or former member's membership in the plan after December 31, 1986. A pension plan may provide for an immediate pension benefit equal to or greater than what

June 20,1990
Routine Proceedings
is provided by the pension benefit credit just described. Where a member or former member of a pension plan died before payments begin but after becoming eligible for retirement, the person is deemed to have retired for purposes of the survivor benefit and to have been entitled to a joint survivor pension benefit.
In cases where the surviving spouse is entitled to a payment under a group life insurance plan on the death of a spouse, the pension benefit payable may be reduced by an amount equal to that part of the group life insurance payment that can be considered to have been paid by employer premiums. There are two conditions placed on this reduction: the actuarial present value of the reduction may not be greater than the amount of the payment to which the surviving spouse is entitled under the group life insurance plan; and if the pension plan is a contributory one, the reduction may not lower the benefit payable to the surviving spouse to an amount which is less than the member's required contributions plus interest.
When the new act came into effect on January 1,1987, plan sponsors were given a period of grace to actually re-draft the texts of their plans, providing they gave an undertaking to make the benefit changes effective to the date of the new act. Hence, the new provisions of the act are now in place.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
*	* He


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Motion for the Production of Papers No. 16.
GOVERNMENT TRAVEL Motion No. 16-Mr. Milliken
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all receipts for DND Administrative Flight Services used by Ministers of the Crown during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988, together with all correspondence concerning such flights, the dates, times, costs and duration of each such flight, the origin and destination thereof, the names of all persons on each flight and the reason for the use of the government aircraft.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board stated in the House on October 24, 1989, the present practice of reporting ministerial travel expenses was established by a cabinet decision in 1963 and has been followed by every successive government.
Under new guidelines announced by the President of the Treasury Board in the House of Commons on October 24, 1989, the Comptroller General of Canada will make available on a regular basis: (a) travel expenses of each minister, (b) the number of times that each minister used the government aircraft, (c) the date, the itinerary and the names of all passengers on each trip in a government aircraft, (d) the reason for the use of the government aircraft, (e) the cost of the government aircraft.
The system is in place as of April 1, 1990. When completed, the first quarterly report will be made available through the Comptroller General's office.
Regarding the use of government aircraft during the period from November 1988 to August 1989, 220 trips were made totalling 1,413.2 hours of flight.
The first report was tabled under this on, I believe, June 18, 1990. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion or to transfer it for debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the material requested in this Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers was the same material asked for by the Auditor General in the preparation of his report to Parliament.
I do not feel the request is an unreasonable one. Since the government is refusing to disclose this very important information, I have no alternative but to ask that the matter be transferred for debate. I say that the stonewalling should stop.
June 20, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 97(1), transferred for debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we finish Routine Proceedings, there have been discussions among the three parties as well as the independents of the House. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to take effect tonight after the House adjourns at the conclusion of its debates.
The motion is this:
That the sitting be suspended until the Call of the Chair;
That, when the sitting is resumed pursuant to this Order, the House shall revert, if requested by the Government, to Routine Proceedings and, otherwise, shall consider Government Orders;
That, if at any time during the suspension of the sitting the Government so requests, the Clerk may publish a Special Notice Paper and, notwithstanding any Standing Order, no later than twelve hours after any notice shall have been given, the Government shall be deemed to have leave to proceed with it; and
That, if at 11.59 p.m. on Monday, June 25, 1990, the sitting has not been resumed pursuant to this Order, the House shall be deemed to have been adjourned until 11 a.m. on TUesday, June 26, 1990.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that we have been involved in the consultations. I am advised by the staff of the NDP caucus that we are to say yes to this motion because they would like us out of their hair for a while.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think I was somewhat instrumental in getting that order to the House. I would like to thank the government and the members of the New Democratic Party for their graciousness in allowing for the Liberal caucus to attend a very important convention in Calgary, choosing the next Prime Minister of this country. For that I thank them very much.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary referred to discussions among party leaders and others. I think he mentioned independents. I am not sure just exactly, and that is why I say "others". Also, I am very glad the government has brought forward this motion to heed to the convention that we have had in this House since the Second World War to pay respects to national
Routine Proceedings
conventions, be they of the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Conservative Party.
I was also getting irritated when I read some of the statements of my House leader about why we were going to sit the rest of the week when we could not do a crazy thing anyway about some of the problems that affect the nation.
I am very glad we are using common sense in this case. I certainly think the motion should carry with all the qualifications imposed by the parliamentary secretary.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with that. I would like some clarification, although I appreciate the logistics of the 12-hour clause.
I am wondering what may be made available for those of us who live farther than 12 hours away to get back to Ottawa in an emergency situation, if that arises.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, being one of those members who lives farther from this august institution than does the hon. member, I know the problems of which she speaks.
We will do everything in our power to assist members in the event that the House is called back for any reason. I can also assure members that we will do all in our power to make certain that there is adequate notice.
Under the conditions of the convention and other items, we do feel that it is important that we have this time slot available, just to provide the House with the opportunity to deal with important issues of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestions which have been called both modest and full of common sense.
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 20,1990
Government Orders POINT OF ORDER

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before we begin Orders of the Day, there have been consultations among the parties and it has been agreed that it would be appropriate, if a party wishes, to split its 20-minute speeches and 10-minute question and comment periods among members.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been those discussions. We have no problem with any party splitting its time.
However, I want to indicate at this time that the government, certainly in the initial stages, will be using the full time allotted to each speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to give my support to this proposal.
Of course, I wish I had all my caucus members here and could say the same thing, that we would like to share time, but we will take up the required 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions after the first round.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved:: That:
Whereas the Prime Minister of Canada and ten Premiers reached an agreement in principle at Meech Lake on April 30, 1987;
And whereas eleven First Ministers of Canada signed the 1987 Constitutional Accord on June 3, 1987;
And whereas the House of Commons has twice adopted the Constitution Amendment, 1987;
And whereas by June 3, 1990, seven legislative assemblies representing 91 per cent of the population of Canada had also authorized the proclamation of the Constitutional Amendment, 1987;
And whereas in the light of the national debate over three years and public hearings by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, and hearings in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba, and hearings by the Special Committee of the House of Commons on New Brunswick's proposed Companion Resolution, concerns of Canadians have been identified;
And whereas First Ministers met on June 3, 1990 to address the concerns of Canadians and determine the basis for completing the ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987;
And whereas First Ministers reached the 1990 Constitutional Agreement on June 9, 1990 which committed the Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987 for appropriate legislative or public consideration and to use every possible effort to achieve a decision prior to June 23, 1990;
And whereas the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick unanimously authorized the Constitution Amendment, 1987 on June 15, 1990;
And whereas eight Legislative Assemblies representing 94 per cent of the population of Canada have now authorized the proclamation of the Constitution Amendment, 1987;
And whereas the Legislative Assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland have not yet authorized the Constitution Amendment, 1987;
And whereas it is important for the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland to exercise their role under the terms of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 and to vote on the Constitution Amendment, 1987;
the House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987 by June 23, 1990, so that Canadians can complete an important act of nation-building and thereby open the process for Canada's future constitutional development, including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation, and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution urging the Manitoba and Newfoundland legislative assemblies to exert all possible efforts to bring about the full ratification of the Meech Lake Accord by June 23, 1990.
By doing so, as the resolution states, Canadians can complete an important act of nation building and thereby open the process for Canada's future constitutional development, including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation, and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada.
June 20, 1990

Government Orders
As Minister of Justice it has been my pleasure and privilege to speak to Canadians many times about the Meech Lake Accord but, as I have said before in this House, I first came to speak about the Meech Lake Accord as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia. In June 1987, when the final version of the accord was initialled, I was a member of my province's legislature. At that time I welcomed the Meech Lake Accord, and in the ensuing three years I have continued to believe in and to support the accord. I continue to believe that it is important for my province, for western Canada, and for Canada as a whole.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the accord has been a subject about which there has been a great deal of public mystification. As often as possible I have tried to demystify it. I believed in 1987, as I do now, that the Meech Lake Accord is good for all of Canada. As a British Columbian, I believe it is good for western Canada.

The Meech Lake Accord brings Quebec back into the Canadian family under very reasonable conditions. It puts an end to the bitterness and ostracism experienced by Quebec since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, and makes Quebec a full-fledged Canadian province.
The Meech Lake Accord paves the way to a stronger Canada in which the federal government will work with stronger provinces, not against them, and in which all provinces will be treated equally.
The Meech Lake Accord recognizes the distinct identity of Quebec society within Canada. It gives the provinces a voice in federal institutions such as the Supreme Court. It confirms the power of the Canadian government to establish new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and the right of the provinces to withdraw from such programs and receive reasonable compensation, provided they offer their own programs on a basis compatible with national programs.

The Meech Lake Accord recognizes the need to move on to the next phase of our constitutional reform, to close out the agenda of the 1980s so that we can get on with the agenda of the 1990s.
I believe passionately and deeply in the importance of the accord as a device for enabling us to continue the kind of nation building that has created the most extraordinary country in the world today.
The accord will allow us to deal with the kind of problems and issues that a dynamic society like Canada constantly faces with each new generation.
I also believe that failure of the accord would be deeply injurious to the future of our country. That is not to say that the accord is perfect and could not be improved.
Indeed, at the recent first ministers' meeting, Meech Lake was improved as a result of proposals put forward by Manitoba, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick and the negotiations of all First Ministers.
Newfoundlanders and Manitobans have every reason to be proud of the contributions that they have made to this process.
As a British Columbian, I am keenly aware of the vital importance of Senate reform to western Canada. It is clearly of great importance to many Canadians in Atlantic Canada as well. The Meech Lake Accord guarantees Senate reform will be on the agenda at annual conferences on the Constitution.
Pursuant to the 1990 constitutional agreement, Senate reform based on agreed objectives will now be the key constitutional priority. The process will be accelerated and an intergovernmental commission will hold hearings based on objectives approved by all First Ministers, leading to a First Ministers' Conference on Senate reform by the end of this year.
If Senate reform is not achieved by June 1, 1995, the representation of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland in the Senate will automatically rise from six to eight.
As Premier Filmon noted, this provides a commitment to Senate reform every bit as strong as the commitment that was originally given to Quebec for the current round of constitutional negotiations.

June 20,1990
Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, another important issue discussed at the First Ministers' meeting was incorporating in the Constitution a general clause stating the fundamental characteristics of Canada.
The First Ministers made a thorough review of this question and took note of repeated and unsuccessful attempts over the past twenty years to draft a clause that would satisfy all concerned.
Finally, they agreed to refer drafts submitted by the federal government and Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia to an all-party Special Committee for public hearings.
Premier Filmon called this "a major step forward" and noted that we now have "an open process that allows Canadians to actively participate in the definition of their national identity".
At the urging of Manitoba and Newfoundland, First Ministers also re-examined the distinct society clause and, in particular, its relation to charter rights and its impact on the distribution of powers.
The view of the federal government and the vast majority of legal experts has always been that inclusion of the distinct society clause in the accord does not endanger charter rights or alter the distribution of powers, as some have claimed.
Reassurance was provided by six eminent jurists that charter rights will not be infringed or denied by the linguistic duality distinct society clause, and that the clause will not create new legislative authority for Parliament or any provincial legislature.
The 1990 agreement also improves the possibilities for resolution of the concerns of the aboriginal peoples. As minister responsible for aboriginal constitutional matters, I restate this government's commitment to completing unfinished business in this area. As we stated in the last Speech from the Throne, aboriginal matters will be among the government's top constitutional priorities following ratification of the accord.

If all governments sit down at the same table and break the constitutional impasse, the accord will make it possible to achieve progress on the constitutional amendments required to meet the native people's concerns.
Furthermore, as a result of the agreement reached in 1990, it will be possible to establish a separate constitutional process for native peoples; a constitutional conference of first ministers will be held every three years, the first one in the year following proclamation of the Accord.
Obviously, the solution to questions affecting native people is closely tied to passage of the Meech Lake Accord.

Its failure is the real threat to making progress on aboriginal matters and on other important constitutional matters, as our present constitutional impasse would continue and the environment for constitutional discussions would likely be polluted for many years.
The consequences of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord should not be overstated, but neither should they be ignored.
I am deeply concerned that many people across Canada underestimate the effect of the rejection of the accord. Three times in the last decade-in the referendum, at Meech Lake, and most recently at the first ministers' meeting, Quebecers have said "yes" to Canada.

In 1980, Quebecers voted strongly for Canada. Imagine their disappointment when an agreement was negotiated in 1982 without their signature, without the province that is the homeland of one of the two founding peoples of this country.
Quebec's constitutional proposals are the most modest ever put forward in modem times.
Two provinces have yet to ratify the Meech Lake Accord and time is almost up. We are at a turning point in our national life and the stakes are high, very high.
We are at a critical period in our history. Without the accord, our existence as a united country and our will to continue to live together will be in question.
June 20, 1990

We do not want to leave this problem as an inheritance to the next generation of Canadians; we do not have the right to do that.

Let us not jeopardize the gains made in the Meech Lake Accord and the 1990 constitutional agreement. More important, let us not jeopardize the future viability of our nation.
It has struck me in the course of the public debate about the Meech Lake Accord how young we are as a nation when it comes to constitutional amendment. It is only since the repatriation of the Constitution in 1981 that Canadians have had the opportunity to enter into this process in a serious way and that the final decision about amendments to our Constitution has lain in the hands of our own governments.
The amending formula that was part of the repatriated Constitution in 1982 requires that constitutional amendments be put into effect through a ratification process in the legislatures of this country. The process leading up to the Meech Lake Accord is perhaps the first serious, nation-wide use of the process that came to us through the 1981 constitutional repatriation.
We have discovered in this process that there are difficulties with it. In the course of the negotiation of the Meech Lake Accord and the process that arose after it leading to the negotiation of the companion resolution just recently, there have been critics who have said that the process is not sufficiently open, who have criticized the meetings of First Ministers in attempting to come to a solution to our constitutional problems.
We face before us a challenge of trying to reconcile, on the one hand, the desire of Canadians to participate broadly in the constitutional process and, on the other hand, the requirements of the Constitution that at some point consensus be reached and ratified through the legislative processes in the Parliaments of the nation and the provinces.
This requires that at some point during the process responsible, accountable, political leaders must take the responsibility to articulate what they have heard from Canadians in resolutions and present those resolutions before the legislatures.
Government Orders
Clearly, for constitutional amendments to take effect, those resolutions must be similarly worded in all of the legislatures of the country. Therefore, there has to be consensus reached among First Ministers as to precisely what they will present to their legislatures.
We have learned a great deal from the process leading to the Meech Lake Accord and the companion resolution. I believe that the challenge of trying to reconcile these two broad concerns, on the one hand to be able to use effectively the amending process set out in the 1981 Constitution to achieve constitutional gains through the ratification of amendments by our legislatures and, on the other hand, to involve a broad range of Canadians, will be a challenge that will continue to be with us for some time ahead.
But what I find most difficult to understand about the process since the ratification of Meech Lake is the concern of some Canadians to somehow deal at once with every issue of constitutional reform that faces us as a country.
We are new to this process. In many ways we are children in the area of constitutional development. This has not been something that we have had solely in our hands for a long period of time in our country, unlike many of our neighbours and associates around the world. So we have to learn that there are processes of setting an agenda, of establishing priorities, of dealing with issues one at a time and gradually, over the years, building a corpus of a made-in-Canada Constitution.
My concern is that many Canadians have lost sight of precisely what it was that the Meech Lake Accord was intended to accomplish. The Meech Lake Accord is in many ways a small chapter in Canadian constitutional development. The Meech Lake Accord was designed to address a very specific problem, and that was the exclusion of Quebec from the constitutional process in 1981.
My own province was a very active participant in the negotiations leading to the repatriation of the Constitution. In fact, my province and other western provinces were very strongly concerned about the implications of a repatriated Constitution on the ability of those provincial governments to continue to operate.
There was much concern in the early 1980s about the effect of an entrenched Charter of Rights, for example, particularly the effect of that Charter of Rights to impose upon the prerogatives that under our system of

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
parliamentary supremacy had been so important to the Parliaments of Canada's provinces.
So, in the impasse that existed around the repatriation of the Constitution, there was a deadlock at that time as well. My province, the province of British Columbia, contributed very significantly to breaking that deadlock when it brought to Ottawa an expert in constitutional matters who devised the compromise which was at that time the nothwithstanding clause.
For my province, as well as others, the notwithstanding clause was the key to reassuring them that the patriation of the Constitution of Canada and the entrenchment of the Charter would not infringe upon their legislative prerogatives.
Mr. Speaker, we may have a different view about the notwithstanding clause now, but in the early 1980s it was hailed by many as a great and classic Canadian compromise, notwithstanding the fact that it permitted provincial legislatures and the Government of Canada to clearly override charter rights.
I believe that at the time, because it permitted repatriation of the Constitution and permitted the beginning of a process that has matured us in many ways, that has created enormous legal challenges for us, that has created great challenges to all governments in trying to work and operate consistent with the principles of the charter, that it was a positive contribution. But I would be the first to recognize that it may be a contribution that Canadians want to rethink.
What is important is that at that time there was a spirit of give and take and a willingness to make concessions on the part of the federal government and the governments of most of the provinces in order to ensure that there was support for the repatriation of the Constitution.
What we have been asked to address in the Meech Lake Accord is infinitely more modest than the challenges that faced us in the repatriation process. We are asked to recognize the aspirations of Quebec to ensure that it can defend and protect its own particular cultural entity.
So the process that led to the Meech Lake Accord was initiated at the instigation of the other nine provincial premiers who wanted to deal with that unfinished business. It is of great concern to me that there are those now who criticize the Meech Lake Accord because, in fact, it was designed only to deal with a limited agenda. The Premiers at that time recognized that the limited agenda addressed by the Meech Lake Accord was of fundamental significance because once dealt with it opened up the possibility of dealing with serious, fundamental, broad-ranging issues in Canadian society, that it was the key to unlocking a door that would open up a bright, constructive and fruitful future in Canadian constitutional development.
I think it is important at this time to remind Canadians that the Meech Lake Accord is simply the step in a long path that will continue to occupy us as long as we are a dynamic, changing, growing and developing society.
So, Mr. Speaker, we should not jeopardize the gains made in the Meech Lake Accord and the 1990 constitutional agreement. More important, let us not jeopardize the future viability of our nation.

As Premier Wells said in his closing remarks after the meeting of First Ministers, we must think of Canada first, consider the national interest first and our individual regions second.
That is why we are here today to take a stand for Canada, not as westerners or easterners, not as British Columbians or Newfoundlanders, but as Canadians.

Now is a time for Canadians to come together. It is a time for bridge-building and nation-building by all Canadians. It is time we came together in this country, not for the sake of Meech Lake but for the sake of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the legislatures of Newfoundland and Manitoba to put Canada first and ratify the Meech Lake Accord.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by taking the minister up on her closing remark. I agree it is time to come together and to see the Meech Lake Accord proceed to get through this constitutional impasse. I rise to support this resolution which urges the
June 20, 1990

two provinces which have not yet ratified the Meech Lake Accord to do so.
The minister recalled her own situation when the Meech Lake Accord was first introduced three years ago when she was a member of a legislature. I, myself, at that time was a member of this House. I served on the Meech Lake committee with my colleague the member for Papineau-St. Henri in the summer of 1987 when we reviewed the Meech Lake Accord. I sat again with the committee of the House of Commons, now called the Charest Committee, which reviewed the McKenna resolution submitted by the province of New Brunswick and which made recommendations unanimously supported by the House. So, like the minister, I have had some association with the process of this matter over the last three years.
I wish I could agree with the minister that the problems which she acknowledges so fully, the crisis to which she has alluded several times during her speech, are the result of us being new to the process of constitutional amendment, of us not having had the responsibility of amending our Constitution under present rules except since 1982.
But from where I sat I could see a very different problem. When I see this resolution, which may be interpreted by some as positioning two provinces for holding out, being brought before the House now, although I support the resolution, I feel bound to say in my remarks that I think the problem lies somewhere other than with two provinces and somewhere other than where the minister has suggested, with inexperience.
I suggest that what has gone wrong-and so much has gone wrong that I think even members of the government are hastening to characterize this as a critical situation with serious implications for financial markets, with serious implications for the future of our country- has been the approach that the Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has taken since the Meech Lake Accord was passed to try to make it part of the Constitution of this country.
In light of the strong feelings that I and so many Canadians have on that subject, on the subject of how this file has been handled for the last three years, it is appropriate for me to put on the record my own experiences and some of my own observations about this very sorry story.
Government Orders
We all knew from the time of patriation in 1982 that it would be essential that the province of Quebec, as a government in Canada, give its approval of the patriation and of the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not for the legalities of it or for the constitutionality of it, but because we knew we had a lot of constitutional work yet to do and we knew that the participation of the province of Quebec was an essential element in that.
It was with joy, for my own part, that I received, as we all did, the agenda put forward by the Government of Quebec after the Bourassa government took office. It put forward five points for what could be called, in the context of the debate, renewed federalism. I had been here for a while and I recognized that this list, these five points, were a reasonable agenda. Unlike past sets of agendas put forward, this was a reasonable agenda that could work in a federal system, and I supported it as a basis for negotiation. When the Meech Lake Accord resulted, I looked forward to the work that the committee would do to try to assure that the Meech Lake Accord would lead, as the patriation had, to a kind of consensus in the country and, even more, to an act that would unify the whole country. However, the strategy that the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, adopted was the opposite.
The minister tried to answer the critics about the idea that constitutional amendment can be done by a small group of men sitting behind closed doors. I do not have too much difficulty with that idea. I agree with her to a point. It is impossible for the amending procedures to be met unless there is some element of negotiation and compromise to produce a resolution that has a hope of acceptance in all the legislatures of the country and in the Parliament of Canada. So there has to be an element of what you could call executive federalism.
It took place back in 1981, that famous "kitchen cabinet" meeting at which representatives of three governments sat together and worked out compromises which resulted in the patriation and the Charter of Rights. You need something like that. I am not critical that Meech Lake was produced at a meeting like that. But to say that the Constitution limits the process to that is a misrepresentation. It is obvious that a strong element of public participation, support and contribution needs to be part, in any democratic society, of the amending of the constitution of a country. Ever since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms became part of the constitution of this country, for the first time the Canadian people

June 20,1990
Government Orders
began to feel that they owned the Constitution of Canada. It did not just belong to governments to adjust, to wheel and deal, to pass powers back and forth. It belonged to the people of this country.
I recognize that some kinds of compromises cannot be made in public and need to be made in private. However, I do not believe that the whole deal should be one from which the public is excluded. That just will not wash.
Mr. Speaker, you might think-I see you looking a little suspiciously-that this is something I gained by the wisdom of hindsight, looking back at this process. I want to say that my Liberal colleague and I, when we sat on the Meech Lake committee, saw instantly, as I think most Canadians did, that there was room for improvement of the Meech Lake Accord.
I think I can quote the minister and what she said a few moments ago: "The week long meetings of First Ministers resulted in substantial improvements in the Meech Lake Accord."
Well, you know something, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal caucus recommended in August, 1987, a list which contains all of the improvements that she says occurred to First Ministers a few weeks ago when they met to see if they could improve the Meech Lake Accord.
We called for public participation. We recognized something so important that I think it is worth putting on the record. Although you could say that Quebec's problems, Quebec's demand for renewed federalism, Quebec's agenda, should be given priority it is a mistake to have a constitutional round that is described as the Quebec round.
I will tell you why. In a country like this with so many regions, every round has to be the Canada round. You cannot tell people we are just looking at Quebec's priorities now and as soon as they are finished we are going to look at yours.
Most Canadians, and I say this with respect to my fellow Canadians, tune in late. They may not be aware that in August, 1986, the premier of their province agreed that we would deal with Quebec's problems first and then deal with Manitoba's, Alberta's, New Brunswick's, or Newfoundland and Labrador's, or some other province. They tune in late and they see that the only thing on the agenda is the Quebec issue.
We in the Liberal caucus knew that and recommended in our minority report, which the government would not even allow us to include in the majority report, a broader agenda, not to take anything out of Quebec's list. We wanted Quebec's list to be there and you can see that from the record. We also wanted every region of this country to have its own reasons for supporting the Meech Lake Accord.
We urged the government to broaden it, to have public participation. People can read our report. It is a short report that we wrote back in 1987 which shows that if the government had not taken the tactic that it did, and if the minister is right in saying that the thing was much improved a week ago, I think we would have achieved those improvements two and a half years ago. We would have had broader public participation and a package in which every part of the country could see something of their priorities. It would have been truly a Canada round.
I am not sure how far she meant to go in her remarks, but I was pleased to hear the minister saying that we should think again about the notwithstanding clause, whether that has any place now that the constitution has been patriated.
In the Liberal minority report in 1987 we recommended seeking to remove the notwithstanding clause. That would have been a good item on the agenda for that meeting, not for the next one.
I know you cannot completely reform the Constitution all in one step. I know that. It cannot be done. You cannot deal with a thousand different items in every kind of detail. The goal would have been, as we recommended, to give every Canadian and region of this country a reason for wanting to see the Meech Lake Accord succeed. You know, that is what happened in 1981. After the executive federalism feature, real public
June 20, 1990

hearings were held, very different from the public hearings that this government allowed on the Meech Lake Accord where only egregious errors could be admitted.
In 1981 an honest committee sat. Opposition members, the public, and others made suggestions for amendments and they were taken. They were taken in order to give the people who submitted those ideas a real sense of participation in their Constitution.
I want to come now to the Charest Committee. The Charest Committee which had a majority of government members referred back to the meetings that took place in 1987. I am quoting two sentences from page 7 of the report: "The First Ministers who signed the accord back in 1987 took the position that it should be passed, unchanged, unless there was some egregious error. The body of evidence presented to your committee"-that is the Charest Committee-"is that most Canadians perceived at least one such oversight and that was the failure to include the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the selection process".
Well, we saw many more egregious errors and so did the rest of the Canadian people, but for a committee with a government majority to put out a report recognizing even one egregious error is, I think, some support for the thesis I am advancing here that the problem has been the leadership provided by this government since the Meech Lake Accord was achieved.
I want to move forward to the work of the Charest Committee and close my remarks as quickly as I can. If there was one thing we concluded from the public hearings when we went all over the country in such a great rush, and where we sat late on nights when the public was willing to appear at eight or nine o'clock in the evening, it was that there was nothing wrong with their country. They told us they were proud of our country, that they wanted our country to stick together, that they were not fed up with having to accommodate regions with different ideas, different values or a different language. They told us the opposite, that they could not understand how we could have been led into so much trouble for a country where the desire for national unity was so strong.
They told us what is, in a sense, the explanation for why I am standing to support this resolution today. They told us that they wanted their political leaders to solve
Government Orders
these problems. They did not fully understand whether June 23 was a real date, or whether it was an arbitrary date, perhaps imposed by Quebec. In our report we were able to explain the significance of June 23 and why it is so important that the constitutional impasse be resolved, if it can be, by that date. They want the political leadership of this country to keep this country going, not to lead us into further division.
I recall so well the arguments that this government made to try to stick-handle or manipulate the support for the Meech Lake Accord that the constitutional process requires. I remember when the government accused the opponents of Meech Lake of being anti-Quebec. I remember when it accused them of being anti-French. I remember, and I am glad the minister did not do it today, the government using a heavy reliance on the disaster scenario, that if we do not support this accord and if we do not see it go through, there is going to be a terrible disaster, one argument after the other put forward to try, in a way, to force support for the Accord to take us through the constitutional impasse.
The reason that these extreme means have had to be used is because of a refusal by the government to follow a more democratic process, to open this process to public participation and to open it to improvement. The agreement was reached on a Saturday night, which in many ways can be called the Saturday night special because people felt, and some premiers have said, they had a gun held to their heads. Subsequently, by the Prime Minister's own admission, we learn this was a calculation of his and a belief he had. I did read today's Globe and Mail, and I saw very clearly that one counts backwards. The idea was to put maximum pressure on participants. I am characterizing this as putting maximum pressure on the participants so that the agreement would go through.
I rise to support this resolution. I hope that the constitutional impasse will be traversed and that Canada will get through it. But also, I cannot believe that the Canadian people will ever forget how we were led here. I believe that the government will be held to account for it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders provide for the first speaker from the government and the first speaker from the Official Opposition to have unlimited

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
time. The Leader of the New Democratic Party does not have that opportunity.
There has been some discussion, and I am wondering if the House would be prepared at this time to give unanimous consent to allowing the member for Yukon to have her speech with unlimited time. I can assure you there will be no intention of abusing that, should permission be given.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government not only do we welcome that proposal, but we look forward to the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion before us. Before I get into my remarks, I would like to mention what the motion is. This is not a debate on the Meech Lake Accord. The Meech Lake Accord was passed by this House in 1987. It is not a debate on the package that was signed on June 9, 1990 by the First Ministers.
The motion clearly states and asks this House to urge the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about the full ratification of the Constitutional Amendment of 1987.
First of all, I think it is very important to bring to the attention of those watching and to the people in this House that we are not debating the merits of the Meech Lake Accord. That has been done in this House. Therefore, I want to say that I feel very strongly that the bringing forward of this resolution at this particular time is simply another manoeuvre by this government to manoeuvre a process, rather than to show leadership on this issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to this motion. I am not expressing opposition to the content of the Meech Lake Accord, the companion resolutions and what is in the June 9 agreement. That is not the object of this motion. But I do object to this motion which is brought at this time simply as a manoeuvre, rather than this government showing some leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to put the blame on someone else. That is clear. It is a cynical approach and it won't work.
Canadians have watched the constitutional process evolve. For three years, Canadians have been on the outside looking in. They wanted to participate but the government refused to let them.

Canadians have expressed legitimate concerns. They have proposed imaginative solutions but have been told by the government that they are causing problems and getting in the way. Canadians have been shut out of the constitutional process, and they know who shut them out. They know who has brought Canada to the brink. The government can try to shift the blame, but the people of Canada know that it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for this crisis. He must accept that responsibility.
Instead of wasting the House's time with yet more manoeuvres, perhaps he should be looking for solutions and providing leadership, working to unite and not divide this country.
The Minister of Justice spoke about building bridges. Well, I suggest to the Minister of Justice that the Prime Minister is not building bridges, he is blowing them up.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party voted for the Meech Lake Accord in 1987. It did so, fully aware the accord was not perfect. My party voted yes, although it was unable to get the amendments it had proposed through the House, and today it still thinks these amendments would have improved the Accord. Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party voted for Meech Lake because it supports Quebec's five conditions, including the one on a distinct society.
We have not changed our position during the past three years, Mr. Speaker. At its convention in 1989, the NDP confirmed its support for Quebec's conditions. At the same time we realized it was necessary to deal with other issues in the Meech Lake Accord, so that Canadians would be able to support the accord. We made some sound proposals.

June 20, 1990

Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, in 1987 we made specific recommendations, not a long list, three simple recommendations for amendments. Had they been adopted at the time, I believe we would not be in the situation we are in today.
These amendments address three basic issues; the ability of the north to become a province in consultation with the federal government when the people of the north felt that this was an appropriate time. Second, to acknowledge the multiracial, multicultural heritage of our country, to address the issues of aboriginal people, as well as to ensure that minority rights and sexual equality were maintained.
Throughout, our criticism of the accord has been a criticism of process. Three years ago, 11 men signed an agreement which would have incredible ramifications for the future of Canada. We believed that it should be the Quebec round. We wanted to see Quebec fully in the Constitution of Canada because we believe in a united Canada, of which Quebec is a part.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: But, those 11 men who signed that constitutional amendment in 1987 did so without understanding just exactly what it was that would cause the people of Canada to raise questions in subsequent years. It is crucial to emphasize that it was 11 people who signed that accord, 11 people of privilege in a nation that is 50 per cent women, with a multicultural population, and with aboriginal peoples who were here long before any of us.
The 11 people around that table could not fully comprehend how the Meech Lake Accord would affect these Canadians. Input should have been invited, but it was not. Instead, the Prime Minister and the other First Ministers came out of that meeting and said: "We have formed a seamless web. We will only discuss egregious errors". The first egregious error was that nobody knew what egregious meant. It seems to me that at least politicians should speak in a language that people can understand.
Excluded from the process were native peoples, women, the north and Canada's multicultural and multiracial population.
In 1987 there were public hearings. There were hearings for one month, August, in Ottawa. If there was ever a process designed to ensure that very few people would be able to come, that was it. Not only was a wide diversity of groups from across Canada excluded from that limited process, but following that, in each subsequent budget in 1988, 1989 and 1990, this government has made those excluded groups the victims of its attacks in the budget.
Women's groups saw their funds slashed by the government. The budget for the communications programs of aboriginal peoples was slashed. The Assembly of First Nations, a principal organization representing the aboriginal people of this country, had their core funding completely eliminated as did 29 other aboriginal organizations. What kind of a message is that to aboriginal people when this government is saying that it wants to include them in the process and we decimate their organizations so that they do not have the ability to be in that process?
This government has systematically silenced the voices of women and the voices of aboriginal people and, at the same time, it is saying: "Trust us, we will look after you". Canadians do not trust this government, and that is quite clear. It is my belief that if there had been an open constitutional process from the beginning, one in which all Canadians were included, we would not be in the situation we are in today.
I believe there would be much more understanding between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are a large and diverse country, and we often do not know each other well. That is true for all provinces and territories of this country. The Constitution of Canada must be written by the people of Canada.

After the proposals by the NDP and those by Mr. McKenna, the Conservative government decided to appoint a constitutional committee. The Charest Committee, although it had very little time, did a remarkable job. It heard witnesses and answered their questions. The Charest report contains a number of important proposals.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
It was really encouraging for our caucus, Mr. Speaker. However, we soon realized that the Prime Minister had no intention of taking the report's recommendations seriously.

When the Charest report was being written, the New Democratic Party tried very hard to ensure that it could be a unanimous report, and it tried to negotiate in that report a way to address the concerns that the witnesses had expressed to that committee. We tried to be as conciliatory as we could because we felt that it was important for the country at that time for all three parties to be unanimous in saying: "yes" to Quebec at the same time as addressing the other outstanding issues.
The NDP felt that it could be done, that it was not an impossible task to do. We did not have a list of many things, but there were a few essential issues.
The Charest report should have been followed up by an immediate, open and public meeting of First Ministers. Time and again in this House I urged the Prime Minister to call for such a meeting. The Prime Minister continually responded that the time was not right and that there was not enough consensus among the First Ministers.
We now know that the Prime Minister had no intention of calling a meeting until a crisis situation was created. He had no intention of holding open public meetings where the people of Canada could see what was going on. I think we make a big mistake here if we say that the flaws in the process were just the flaws of the last two weeks. It is the flaw from 1987. It is the flaw of not beginning to deal with the issues, to listen to the voices that were out there throughout Canada: in Quebec, in the provinces, in the maritimes, the Atlantic, the west and the north. It is the flaw of ignoring all those voices and continuing to say: "This is a seamless web".
During those three years, there was time to have adequate public hearings so that we would not have the situation now in Manitoba where apparently there is not sufficient time to complete the process, a process under their regulations.
When the Prime Minister finally called the First Ministers together at the beginning of this month, we
saw the same mistakes repeated over again; closed doors, long sessions and isolation for the First Ministers.
The environment and the process created is not a rational process for deciding the constitution of a democratic nation, and subsequent events have certainly shown that. This motion today serves no purpose. We have no authority to tell Manitoba and Newfoundlanders what to do. We have made the statements in this House about how we feel about the Meech Lake Accord and what our position is as a House of Commons. Are we now proposing, through this motion, to tell the people and the elected leaders of Manitoba and the people of Newfoundland and the leader of Newfoundland, what they should do? I can tell you, coming from an area of Canada that is not central Canada, if you wanted to inflame the regions in this country and say your democratic processes, your First Minister who signed that agreement cannot be trusted and tell them what to do, this will assure it.
We could support a motion brought forward by this government that enhances the positive process of constitutional development. We cannot support a motion that ensures there will be a negative result in those very two provinces which are mentioned in this motion.
[Translation\
Once again, Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been forced on Canadians. Although this agreement was an improvement over the initial accord, we could not expect Canadians to support it without reservations. Many Canadians who were excluded are sceptical about the results. They would have liked a chance to examine these changes.
Native people are sceptical more than anyone else, Mr. Speaker. They know better than anyone what it means to be excluded from the decision-making process. They understand the consequences of that exclusion. They have had that experience.

The aboriginal people of Canada sought a role in the process of constitution making for many years. The federal government was not interested and aboriginal concerns were set aside. The Prime Minister has warned time and time again that the government of Manitoba was warned time and time again that the Government of Manitoba required adequate time to hold public hearings. Just as he did not listen to the people of the north
June 20, 1990

and just as he did not listen to the aboriginal people and to the women of Canada, he did not listen to Manitoba.
If Manitoba is running out of time, we take no joy in that. But if Manitoba is running out of time, it is the fault of the Prime Minister and no one else. The actions of Elijah Harper representing aboriginal people are actions that he can take as a democratically-elected member of the Manitoba legislature.
Mr. Harper is a member of a group who for too long has been ignored. We cannot as a nation in any way point the finger at aboriginal people for what is happening. It is not just the Constitution or the Meech Lake Accord. It is the accumulation of decades, a century of neglect, stealing the land, and acting like a conqueror, although there was no war and aboriginal people were not conquered, that has created this situation. Finally, it is the lack of respect with subsequent governments, and on this I will say it is not just the responsibility of the Prime Minister, it is the responsibility of all those Prime Ministers who went before him as well. This is how they have treated the aboriginal people and this is the result.
The constitutional process followed by this government has been shameful. The people of Canada can see through this process. Now the government is wanting to present a motion which will have no effect and does not enhance a positive process but simply points the finger at Manitoba and Newfoundland to share the blame. I suggest to the government that it might look in the mirror if it is looking for someone to blame.
The Prime Minister, in his wisdom last week, talked and bragged about his negotiating skills.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: When he talked about rolling the dice, it was like talking about the Constitution as a game of Trivial Pursuit, not the pursuit of a just Constitution.
Now is the time to try to move forward. It is time to show leadership and to find solutions. I believe as a country we are capable of that, but I do not believe and
Government Orders
Canadians increasingly do not believe, that the Prime Minister has shown that he can lead this country.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am discouraged by this resolution. It is destructive. It is vindictive.
The government is imposing a constitution on Newfoundland and Manitoba. For a constitution to be valid, it must not be imposed; the people must support it.
Together we must find a way for all Canadians to support our Constitution.

We must find a way together to address in a meaningful, concrete way the concerns of aboriginal people, the importance of Quebec being fully in the Constitution and recognizing the distinctness of Quebec. We have to go beyond empty promises. We have to find a way to ensure that the five principles that Quebec put forward are maintained, and we have to find a way together to reunite this country.
With all its flaws and all its injustices, our country is nevertheless a marvellous achievement, an achievement of diverse cultures coming together, of peoples creating great bonds against very wide geographical distances. We have to work together with a common purpose. We must maintain the country that is Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: If we are to save this country, if we are to move on and build another society, we need to find a resolution to the crisis. This motion put before us today is not a resolution. The decision has been taken in this House. It is simply a cynical way of trying to out-manoeuvre. We do not need more manoeuvres. We need some real leadership.
I call once more upon the Prime Minister to make immediate and positive efforts to find that solution. It is in his hands. I assure him, if he does, that he will have the whole-hearted support of my party.
We have to look at a new process, a meaningful constitutional process. I want to make a suggestion because, yes, it is easy to criticize. I was not a part of that process in 1987, 1988, 1989, or 1990. We have to look for a new process because this one is not working. I would like to make a recommendation because at our last convention the New Democratic Party called for the

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
establishment of a standing committee on the Constitution which would look at such things as public education, the funding of conferences to bring together a cross-section of people to discuss the Constitution, the requirement to hold hearings, and the encouragement of public participation in forming the Constitution of this country.
Constitution building is not an ad hoc crisis oriented process. I think this is a positive suggestion. I would like to say that over 43 years ago F. R. Scott and David Lewis in their book Make This Year Canada suggested the notion of a constituent assembly in order to construct a just and fair Constitution.
I would suggest to the House that this is a notion worth considering. Executive federalism is not working. We see it now; we have seen it over the last three years.
I remind the House that this is a system that France used in 1958. It was interesting when I met with Nelson Mandela this week that he raised that this was a proposal he had for his country, that there be an elected constituent assembly to form the constitution of his country, a constitution formed by the diverse groups in his country that would reflect that.
It is an issue and a suggestion that I think requires some study. That is again why I propose that this House consider such a standing committee and this proposal because it is clear that we need a new process. Yes, the existing process is fatally flawed, but I feel as leader of the New Democratic Party that I have a responsibility. I have a responsibility to show some leadership, even if the leader of this country is not prepared to do so.
Now we must turn to looking at a new process that will involve all Canadians. Whether or not Meech Lake and the companion amendments, we are going to be continuing constitutional talks. I want to suggest that there is great validity in looking at how we are going to do that in the future.
In summation, I cannot support this motion because this motion is presented cynically, not to advance any particular cause, not to advance constitutional discussions, and I would assume not to debate the merits or the demerits of Meech Lake. That decision has been taken in this House. For that reason I cannot support this motion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion which is a motion of encouragement, a motion whereby members of the House of Commons urge the members of the legislatures of my province, Manitoba, and the province of Newfoundland to exert their efforts to bring about full ratification of the constitutional amendment, 1987 by June 23,1990. However the motion does not stop there; the motion goes on.
The reason for it is so that Canadians can complete an important act of nation building and thereby open the process of Canada's future constitutional development, including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation, and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada. It is the body of that motion which I want to address this afternoon.
There are those who would say that this motion is inappropriate. While I speak today I remind my colleagues that both in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba the leaders and elected members of those two provinces in their respective Houses are debating the same issue.
I have just heard the speech of my premier, Mr. Filmon. In my mind, as he made his address to the legislature, he put before members of that House the achievements that were made respecting Meech Lake, the need to bind the wounds of our country, and the need to pass Meech Lake. The issues discussed in Ottawa some two weeks ago resulted in the companion resolution. He just made the recommendation that members of the Manitoba legislature should adopt the Meech Lake resolution.
As I stand here I know also that the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, is addressing the legislature on the basis that we are not only members from specific or particular provinces and territories, but that we are Canadians first.
I thank both of them for the manner in which they are conducting the debate. I know that members in this House would want to conduct the debate on exactly that same level. It is also important to note that we are elected members of Parliament. In this Chamber we have the right and indeed the responsibility to speak for our constituents, to speak for the entire country, and to bring to the issues of the day a spirit, a vision, or an experience which has been moulded by the fact that we
June 20, 1990

sit in a national House and that we are from day to day on the great issues of the day confronted or faced in debate, in conversation and in association with the aspirations of the people of Canada from the various regions.
It is always easier to take a specific view and hold to that view. It has been my experience over the some 18 years I have been here that it is always more difficult but extremely necessary to mould one's views on the basis of what one has heard from one's colleagues and what one has experienced throughout the breadth of our wonderful country.
It is not the Parliament of Canada telling Manitoba legislators or members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland what to do. Rather, Parliament speaks for all Canadians. I believe that we cannot simply seek public office in order to hold office, but the requirements of office demand us to speak on the great issues of the day.
In 19811 had the opportunity as the then spokesperson for the Official Opposition to lead our committee in the long debate on the patriation of the Constitution, both during the special House of Commons and Senate hearings as well as in this House.
There were three issues which faced us at that time. One was patriation of the Constitution. Should the Constitution be in Canada and should we as Canadians and as a mature country have the opportunity to discuss our Constitution, to debate it, and to change it?
I was a strong supporter of patriation. In those days as well, I had some misgivings and indeed criticisms of the process. We also said that if we had a Constitution in Canada we had to have a method, a formula, whereby we could amend the Constitution.
Colleagues will recall that there was a proposal at that time which was generally referred to as the Victoria proposal. It found its way also into the 1980-81 proposals. Through the process the amending formula was changed. I had the privilege in committee to move the 7/50 formula which today is the central part of the debate
Government Orders
as we look at unanimity and what effect it would have as we try to change the Constitution.
The third issue was the matter of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how we balanced a charter and the protection it gives or, more important, the symbolic protection it gave to those Canadians who did not have the heritage of the British parliamentary system? How did we blend a Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the supremacy of Parliament?
At that time I had disagreements with some of my Conservative colleagues in the provinces. I say that and take this historic journey but for a moment is for this reason: After we were through the process and after we had been through the Supreme Court where, as members will recall, there was a reference made as to how much support a government needed in order to change the Constitution and bring it from England, a decision had to be made.
The decision that had to be made was that after the process is complete, despite the criticisms whatever they may be, there was only one decision that every member of the House had to decide upon and that was: Were these constitutional amendments right for Canada?
I remember the debates within the caucus. Members know that we cannot discuss those debates here but I remind members that a decision was made at that time by the opposition party that we would support patriation, we would support the amending formula and we would support a Charter of Rights of Freedom. The issue at the time was, what in our hearts and our minds did we believe was right for Canada.
There were members of the House at that time and they are still here as members today, who opposed it at that time. One of the reasons they opposed it was the unfinished business. Primarily, there were two examples of unfinished business in 1981. This is not put forward as criticism because I am a sincere believer that, through the British parliamentary system, constitutions evolve and develop. One never has, at any point in time, the perfect document.
There were two issues that concerned us. One was the fact that the province of Quebec was not a signatory to the constitution. There are those in this House and especially members opposite who, at that time, convinced me that the signature had to take place because the government of the day, in the province of Quebec, would never sign the constitution. You have to remem-

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
ber that that came one year after there had been a referendum, and a solemn commitment on the part of all of us, that we would ask what was Quebec's expectation and how could we mould them into the constitution. That was the Meech Lake Accord.
Second, was the matter of aboriginal rights and how to bring the aboriginal people into the Constitution. I remind members that during one Saturday morning sitting of the special committee there was a proposal from one of our aboriginal members at the time. Today, that proposal is section 35 of the Constitution. It recognized, for the first time, the aboriginal people and the equality of those people in the Constitution, apart from section 91(24), which refers to Indians and land reserved for Indians. I remember asking the leadership at the time if this is what they want? Did they want us, as elected members, to support this proposal? The answer was yes. They also said that it does not go far enough and there will be another day when they will want to have their issues more fully addressed and placed in the Constitution.
In fact, in the Supreme Court decision relative to native rights, one could argue that section 35 is given more Native rights within the constitutional framework than possibly what was even contemplated by those of us who wrote it, back on that Saturday morning.
There were these two unfinished pieces of business, which takes me to Meech Lake. What I find interesting about Meech Lake is that virtually everyone who has addressed Meech Lake agrees with the principles of Meech Lake. They agree with the five principles. That does not seem to be the major issue. When I speak to my friends in Manitoba and in other provinces, that generally is the position they take.
Second, there is the argument relating to process and the arguments relating to the fact that this is the opportunity to meet that requirement to fulfil unfinished business. Since 1984, I have been a member of a government caucus. With the exception of a nine month period in 1979, I was always in opposition. Also, since 1984 I have been a member of a caucus that has a large number of members of Parliament for the province of Quebec. That was a unique and new experience for most of us who have been around here for some years as
members of the Conservative Party. What I have discovered is that they have a love for Canada, a love for country, a love for their province equal to that of mine. They might express it in Canada's other official language more often than I do. But, the fact of the matter is that the Meech Lake Accord for them, and for me, and therefore for other Canadians, was simply a recognition not only of the reality of Canada but the need to bind old wounds.
While I know that politics involves a confrontational system, I believe that political life and public debate too often emphasizes the negative. It emphasizes the conflict and that is what makes the news. That is not a criticism. That is also the manner in which the media has to operate.
I believe the test of the validity of someone in public life is not whether they are controversial but when he or she must a decision for the good of the country. That is when we are tested most, and this is one of those moments, that is this moment. That is this moment for us in Manitoba. That is the moment for us in Newfoundland and that is the moment for us in Canada.
What has come out of the Meech Lake process is not an argument about its fundamentals but an argument about process. Let me address that first.
The Prime Minister and the Premiers of the ten provinces, as well as the leaders of the Territories, have clearly stated that this should be the end to the type of process and, quite frankly, debilitating manner in which we have had to change our Constitution. I remind you that this is still the first decade in which we, as Canadians, have had to wrestle with the process of changing our Constitution. Before that, it took place in England. I take great comfort in the communique on the companion resolution which states that this process will not happen again. I take great comfort in it, and for that very reason commend the Meech Lake Accord, not only to this House, but to my fellow Manitoba citizens and legislators in Manitoba.
My second point concerns the aboriginal people. I had the honour to be the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for nine months. Those of us who have at all been exposed to the aboriginal plight in
June 20, 1990

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
perceived and real wrongs respecting that history. That is not the purpose today.
The purpose today is quite simply this. We have two legislatures who are struggling at this moment with passage of the Meech Lake Accord. I wish them well. I believe sincerely that at the end of the day prior to June 23 as the legislatures face the awesome responsibilities, as we in this House have had, they will make a decision not only to pass the Meech Lake Accord but to do it with honour.
Second, this will open the door for Senate reform. It opens the door for consideration of the manner in which the Territories could become provinces, to join in a greater way the constitutional family of Canada.
It brings about the possibility of examining the Canada clause and more fully expanding in definitional form what is the nature of Canada and what is the multicultural heritage of our country. Obviously, from that background I look forward to its inclusion at the appropriate time.
In conclusion, there is finally only one question before us. It is this. Canadians look to our American friends to the south and sometimes shy away from the manner in which they project their nationalism. I think from time to time, Sir, it is good for us to speak about Canada, not about the provinces or the regions from which we come, but the fact that we all share a heritage, a citizenship which is the envy of the world.
I am not here today to tell you about the dire economic consequences which I personally feel could come if Meech Lake is not passed. I know one thing. As in a family so in a country, when there is division you are weaker. Even when you patch up the differences the knowledge of difference remains.
This Parliament and the legislatures have a responsibility to remind Canadians that our Canadian citizenship is based on tolerance, on democratic values and an international obligation. The international obligation is simply this. It is to convey to the rest of the world that we are people who have learned to grow together, who celebrate our differences but who always remember that we are not living in a cheque-book confederacy, that at the end of day I mark up what I receive for my area as against what the next fellow receives for his or hers.
Rather, we contribute to the country and in so doing we get benefits which are the envy of the world.
Sir, I commend not only Meech Lake to the legislatures of the two provinces as they wrestle with this issue, but also that they see this as an opportunity to address some of the grievances that have been exposed and also to see themselves as the nation builders which I know they want to be.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. minister. I appreciate the depth of his remarks and have long admired him in the House, even though I do not agree with him on Meech Lake.
He supports a resolution that calls upon the provincial governments of Manitoba and Newfoundland to pass Meech Lake basically because their premiers have agreed to it. Then he went on to say that we have to end this type of process, that is, the process that led up to Meech Lake. He has acknowledged the difficulties of that process. That process has been called executive federalism. That is to say the Premiers and the Prime Minister get together and basically make the decisions to the exclusion of Parliament, some critics say, and to the exclusion of people in the provincial legislatures.
I want to ask the minister this. Is it not inherent in Meech Lake that this process is going to be perpetuated? For example, every year there will be a premiers' conference at which will be discussed the Constitution.
It seems to me what will happen at those premiers' conferences is that we will see more and more the erosion of federal power. I predict that the next one will be on telecommunications, followed by the environment and other areas. The provinces will come to say: "We want these powers. We want a change in the Constitution". All the federal government will do is say yes or no, but it will still create a pressure to take away federal power.
Today the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggested a different process. She quoted Nelson Mandela. She talked about recommendations made by Frank Scott and David Lewis in the past. They talked about constituent assemblies involving people. She gave a modem update, that is, in the form of a standing committee of the House that would continue with education of people
June 20, 1990

so that they could understand these constitutional processes and so that they could participate.
The minister has had a lot of experience, as he mentioned, in Constitution-making in this House. Does he not think that this process will never really be changed until we get into the Meech Lake pattern of executive federalism in which the Premiers and the Prime Minister do most of the constitutional governing of this country at the expense of the House of Commons which, today, is almost irrelevant in terms of the constitutional debate?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know the phrase "executive federalism" has found new usage in Canada, especially since the week long closed door debate.
I think it is important in a federal state that First Ministers come together regularly to discuss the issues of the day. As the hon. member wall know, we have had regular conferences, for example, on the economy. I think it is very important that that take place.
I also believe that we should have the First Ministers discuss constitutional issues. I do not think that that is the issue.
I think the question is this. Do we expand that process to one which will allow discussions by Canadians before the fact as opposed to after the fact?
If we look at the Meech Lake discussions in August of 1987 here in Ottawa and, for example, at the Charest Committee report, many people would argue that they were more processes of ratification rather than developmental processes of the Constitution, even though people were very sincere in the approach and the work that they did.
I believe that all First Ministers, both provincial as well as the Prime Minister, have now gone through a process whereby they recognize, as they did in their communique, that they must change the process. I cannot project that it will be a constituent assembly. But I do know that on issues concerning aboriginal rights, for instance, the Prime Minister gave directly to the aboriginal people in his communique of Monday last their legitimate participation at the table.
Whether or not this could be expanded beyond that point, I think would need discussion. I am not opposed to it, but I think it would need some agreement.
Government Orders
We do not want to falter again on the process. I ask my hon. friend to look at the American system and to consider the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1790. He knows how long a period of time was involved there. It was not an open process, yet it involved elected members. But out of it came a constitution and a willingness not only to respect it but also to try to change it. The Americans have a method to change it, just as we are now developing a process for change in our country, especially in the last decade.
I say to the hon. member that I would not foreclose any of the options. I do not think we should be opposed to Meech Lake and the bringing of Quebec into the Constitution or, for that matter, bringing aboriginal discussion into the Constitution and hopefully finalizing it, or Senate reform simply because the process we have been through has not been totally to our satisfaction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks, I was informed that the Prime Minister might come to the House in a few minutes. I will be pleased to interrupt my speech as soon as he arrives, with the hope that you will let me speak again later in this debate to conclude my remarks after he and the opposition leader have made their speeches.
I want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I believe there is unanimous consent to allow that.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kindy:: No.


Some hon. members:: Shame!


Alex Kindy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said no, there is not unanimous consent.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that I will support this motion because I think that it is important and useful at this time when not only elected federal officials but also representatives of the various provincial governments are involved in this great constitutional process. I think that this resolution is in no way unfair to the legislature of Manitoba or Newfoundland. And unlike my colleagues in the New Democratic

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
Party, I think that the Parliament of Canada can very well express its wishes and hope that two provincial legislatures support a constitutional process approved not only by the Prime Minister of Canada but by the ten provincial premiers as well.
That being said, I nevertheless remind you that the present constitutional impasse goes back several months, I would even say a few years. As soon as a new government was elected in New Brunswick, it was clear that it would be difficult to obtain from this legislature the same consent given previously by the former premier of the province. I can only regret that it took so long to decide to seek an appropriate compromise in response, first of all, to the questions of Premier McKenna, and subsequently to the objections raised by the Manitoba legislature following an election that produced minority government with Premier Filmon, and finally, to the objections raised by a newly elected government in Newfoundland. In any event, I want to say, first of all, that I voted for the Meech Lake Accord, probably because I felt that Quebec's five demands were and still are reasonable, moderate and a good basis for arrangements that would benefit all Canadians.
It formed the basis for negotiating a constitutional agreement which at the time received the unanimous support of the First Ministers. If the proposals made by the Government of Quebec were reasonable and still are, as I believe they are, then why did the present text of the Meech Lake Accord cause such aggressive debate, such dissension, suspicion and distrust? Why did this draft accord a rouse greater anxiety about the future of our country than any other event or initiative had done in the past years? Having watched the Meech Lake debate very closely, I am convinced that the problem was not the five demands of Quebec but the process by which these five demands were met. The Prime Minister, who I am sure was acting in entirely good faith, thought that, by giving the other provinces the same terms he gave Quebec, he would be able to settle this constitutional problem. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, although many Canadians are prepared to accept a strong Quebec, there are many people in this country who do not necessarily want a weak Canada. Personally, as a
Quebecer and a Canadian, I feel it is very important to obtain the full consent of the Government of Quebec to the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was and still is the objective of all parties.
Unfortunately for many Canadians, the Prime Minister of Canada abdicated his role as defender of the interests of the Government of Canada to obtain a constitutional accord, apparently at any price. However, I was delighted with the action taken by Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, who on March 21 proposed a way to try and resolve the constitutional impasse.
This suggestion, which I think came very late in the day, was a praiseworthy initiative that should have come, not from a provincial premier but from the Prime Minister of Canada himself, many months ago.
The Government of Canada, in response to the companion resolution proposed by the Government of New Brunswick, appointed a parliamentary committee, commonly referred to as the Charest Committee, which held public hearings across the country, heard hundreds of witnesses, received thousands of written submissions and made a series of suggestions not to undo Meech Lake but to renew the support previously given by the Parliament of Canada through the three party leaders in the House. There was support for Meech Lake, but the report also recommended some additions and improvements, somewhat along the lines of the suggestions made by Premier McKenna, to resolve this constitutional impasse and thus ratify the Meech Lake Accord.
I am glad to say that throughout this political process, the Liberal Party of Canada set aside political considerations and fully co-operated with the government. From the outset, the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Right Hon. John Tbrner, supported the government's action on Meech Lake. Subsequently, the vast majority of Liberal members in this House voted in favour of the accord when the debate on Meech Lake was held. And quite recently, when the Charest Committee was appointed, all four Liberal members signed the Charest Committee's proposals and joined forces with the government and the New Democratic Party to seek a solution to the constitutional impasse.
June 20, 1990

There were those marathon meetings that lasted nearly a week between the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers to try to find a compromise that would enable the various legislatures that had not yet ratified the Meech Lake Accord to do so.
I must say that some of the suggestions made by the members of the Charest Committee were accepted and I think that is an important factor which made it possible for the Prime Minister of Canada to obtain the co-operation of all First Ministers who were present at those week long negotiations. An agreement was finally reached because some proposals that had been unanimously accepted by all members of the parliamentary committee chaired by our colleague, Jean Charest, were acted on.
But I must say that I had a feeling right after this agreement was reached following that long week of negotiations among the first ministers- I say that because I saw in the newspaper the day after the agreement that some representatives were very disappointed with what had happened. I quote from an article in The Globe and Mail that said:
"Agreement is faulted by women and natives". The article states:
But Judy Rebick, president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, said she was "disgusted" by the process. "Women, aboriginal people and multicultural groups were excluded. The decisions are still being made by middle-class white men in Ottawa".
The article goes on to state:
The Assembly of First Nations, which represents native groups, was not available for comment. But Ethel Blondin, Liberal MP for the Western Arctic and a leading native spokeswoman, said she feels betrayed by Mr. Mulroney.

It is obvious that what is now happening in the Manitoba Legislature is a reaction quite similar to the spontaneous reaction of our colleague, Ms. Blondin, who found it wrong that at the end of this long discussion that lasted nearly a week, the Prime Minister invited the representatives of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in to talk and publicly consent, in front of the nation, to this process that had just been accepted by the First Ministers of Canada. But those who were most
Government Orders
conspicuous by their absence from that happy Saturday evening were of course the representatives of the native peoples. I wonder why the Prime Minister of Canada did not have the good idea to bring these people into the final moments of this long discussion that lasted nearly a week, so that they too might accept this compromise in Canada's interest.
I must say that the recommendations of the Charest Report, in particular recommendations 9, 10 and 18, were not followed up either by the Prime Minister of Canada or probably by the provincial premiers. If more serious, sustained attention had been given to these recommendations of the Charest Report, I do not think we would have the objections now being raised in the Manitoba Legislature. In any event, I can only regret what is happening.
I sincerely hope that the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland will approve this compromise agreed to by the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers. What is at stake is our concern that each and everyone of us can live in harmony in our country. The original objectives of the 1987 constitutional exercise must be realized. I think that if the Prime Minister makes it a point of honour to say that the 1982 round was incomplete, he too must admit that the 1987-1990 round is also incomplete.
The resolution before us clearly indicates that if, on one hand, we hope for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution Amendment before June 23, 1990, on the other hand there is also an important step which will have to be taken in the future constitutional development process with a view to dealing with, as the resolution puts it, the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation, and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very heavy program which leads me to conclude that the effort of this government and of the Prime Minister to improve and finish the 1982 constitutional undertaking is neither perfect nor complete and that there is still a lot of work to do. I hope we will be able to do it, that we will be able to take that step and to deal with the following stages with enthusiasm and honour because we find the incidents of the last few weeks very unfortunate. I hope that on the evening of June 23 all Canadians will be able to celebrate the

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
completion of this constitutional stage which, in my estimation, is very important.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I listened to as much of the hon. member's speech as I possibly could and found it very interesting.
One of the comments the hon. member made toward the end of his remarks was about some of the difficulties we are facing in the land right now with this whole process of constitutional reform. That is to say we seem to have a lot of people with their own agendas, which is understandable. I do not mean to speak of that in a derogatory manner. But people have individual concerns that they want raised as constitutional issues. The difficulty we seem to be facing today is that there is a sense in the country that unless we are successful in doing all of this in this process that somehow in some way we end up limiting the constitutional possibilities in the future.
I am just wondering if the hon. member could comment on that concern in the sense that we can build the nation using this as the first of many steps of constitutional reform that we need to see.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will respond very briefly to the question because I believe my time has almost expired and I know the members of the House want to listen to the Prime Minister.
I think the hon. member is quite right. There is not much point in considering future discussions on Senate reform, aboriginal rights, multicultural linguistic minority rights and territorial participation in the federation if this constitutional exercise is not concluded this coming June 23.
I share the views of my colleague. At this stage of our constitutional discussions it is essential that we complete this round first. It is obviously not perfect, but it is essential if we want to deal with other issues in coming months and years.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a meeting with the agricultural leaders of Canada in preparation for the Houston Summit. I was advised of the very gracious gesture by the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel in accommodating my speaking here today. I wanted to thank him personally for that.
It is with some poignancy that I recall it was some 30 years ago that the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and I as fellow students at Laval University in Quebec City were discussing at great length some of the same constitutional problems that are before this House today.
I remember the member as an active participant in those debates. Some of the questions raised then, as I think back, have bedevilled Canada ever since. I think some of the solutions that he and other members have put forward have been incorporated into a broader perspective that we all hope will bring greater unity and harmony to Canada.

I personally thank the hon. member for Papineau- Saint-Michel, former minister in the Liberal government, for his kindness in offering his place so that I could take part in this debate today.

This week, as few times before, Canadians feel the weight of our history. After a long and sometimes difficult journey, we are now only three days away from June 23. Today, the past of which we are all so proud is balanced against the future that we all so ardently desire.
In April 1987, in the Gatineau hills, we began a voyage that has led so far to the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord by eight provinces representing 94 per cent of the Canadian population and by the Parliament of Canada. The path has led us to the legislatures of Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba, on whose steps an anxious nation now waits.
When First Ministers met on June 3, the concerns raised in the three years since the accord was first signed were all part and parcel of the problems that were on the table for resolution. For seven difficult days these issues were debated, analysed, and discussed at great length. Proposals were exchanged and ultimately an agreement
June 20, 1990

was arrived at. This agreement is reflected in the final communique dated June 9, 1990, with the appropriate caveats as expressed by the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the premier of Manitoba.
The Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador undertook to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the Meech Lake Accord, for appropriate legislative or public consideration and "to use every possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990".
Since then the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick has unanimously adopted the Meech Lake Accord, together with two companion resolutions.
Today, with this motion, Mr. Speaker, we as members of the Parliament of Canada simply and respectfully urge the Legislative Assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland to bring about the full ratification of the Meech Lake Accord.
There is no attempt by the Parliament of Canada to intrude upon anyone else's jurisdiction, but the national Parliament, using precedent from past decades and past years, has both the opportunity and the obligation from time to time to speak out and respectfully urge other legislatures to take cognizance of important matters, and this is one that is important to the future of the country.
We all appreciate the heavy responsibility which now rests on our fellow legislators in those provinces who must complete the ratification process. We have the greatest respect for the rules of their legislatures and for the procedures to which they have chosen to subject their decisions. But there is a compelling national interest that the Meech Lake Accord be brought to a vote before June 23.
As all parliamentarians know from experience, political will can always overcome procedural obstacles.
I am advised by Premier Wells that the free vote which he plans for the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly will take place either late Thursday evening or early Friday morning. I salute him on selecting this method which included consultation by the members of the House of Assembly with their electors for voting on the accord and on the companion resolution. True to his signature, he has asked the members of his legislature to
Government Orders
express their opinions and to vote on this crucial question before the deadline.
Premier Wells has extended an invitation to myself and to the other First Ministers who signed the communique to address the Newfoundland House of Assembly on the subject of the Meech Lake Accord.
Earlier today 1 had the opportunity to watch part of a quite remarkable address by the premier of Ontario to the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, a very compelling and eloquent statement on national unity, strongly urging the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord in the interests of Canada's well-being. Premier McKenna, I understand, was there this afternoon.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have accepted the kind invitation of Premier Wells, and I will be speaking in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador tomorrow.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The situation in Manitoba is obviously less clear-cut. The Manitoba legislature and the three party leaders in particular face a difficult choice. Nothing is more difficult to manage politically than a minority government situation. To have done so while dealing with a constitutional provision of enormous importance is for Premier Filmon a great challenge. I know that all Canadians wish him well in this very challenging endeavour.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Both Mrs. Carstairs and Mr. Doer in fact played significant and helpful roles during the Ottawa conference, and they will no doubt deploy every effort to ensure passage of the Meech Lake Accord.
If they accept, as I do, that the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord is essential for our future unity, they will of course weigh carefully the meaning of the words "every possible effort" and do everything in their power to allow the elected members of their legislature to express their views on our constitutional future before June 23. They will want, I am sure, as many of us will, to reflect again on why it is so vitally important that the Meech Lake Accord be ratified.
What must be remembered is that in the referendum campaign of 1980 Quebecers were promised a renewed federalism. They voted for a new Canada, proud of its past and confident in its future, to which everyone would contribute their own particular values and their convic-

June 20,1990
Government Orders
tions and their dreams in order to build a better Canada for themselves and for their children.
Yet, in 1982, Quebec, which had only two years earlier chosen to keep its destiny linked to that of Canada's, was not a signatory to our Constitution. Canadians know in their hearts that one cannot build a strong, durable country on such questionable foundations. Clearly, a new effort on another day was required by all of those who love Canada to make this nation whole again.
What happened at Meech Lake was precisely that: ten premiers representing four different political parties from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia, and the three leaders in this House of Commons, overwhelmingly said that a new day had arrived to make Canada whole again.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Provincial first ministers recognized this in Edmonton in August, 1986 when they issued the unanimous declaration designed to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in the Canadian federation.

The unanimous decision by the provincial premiers in Edmonton to promote Quebec's return to the constitutional fold was an intelligent and generous response to the legitimate demands formulated by the Bourassa government.

In 1985, with a federalist Liberal government in office in Quebec, five principles for the resolution of our problem were laid out and the way began to be cleared to continue to build our common destiny. The success of Meech Lake in 1987 was, above all, a gain for Canada, for all of Canada, for the strength and unity of Canada. That is why I think that this House twice adopted the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
Meech Lake affirms the principle of the equality of the provinces. It clarifies and confirms the spending power of the federal Parliament in respect of programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It strengthens through entrenchment the Supreme Court of Canada as the
highest court in the land. It provides the provinces with a say in the selection of senators, although in all cases the final decision on appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and appointments to the Senate rests with the Government of Canada.

Like many of my colleagues in this House and like many Canadians, I realize that this agreement, essential though it is to our country's future, will never be able to respond to all the aspirations nor appease all the fears of certain groups or individuals.
Mr. Speaker, that is not its purpose. As a Parliament cannot be defined by the stones used to build it, no constitutional text can ever contain the entire soul of a nation. It is my profound conviction that we can judge the effectiveness of a Constitution by its ability to inspire respect for institutions and affection and compassion for humankind.
Like thousands of Canadians, I felt the breath, the spirit of Meech Lake on that Saturday night, on June 9, 1990, when the Premiers of all Canadian provinces and the leaders of the Northwest Territories and Yukon appeared in turn before the television cameras to express, in terms most eloquent, their pride in having been able to contribute to the unity of this country, a country we all love: Canada.
Through the voices of the Premiers the same message came through, loud and clear: Canada is a magnificent country, and we have a responsibility to future generations to preserve it and make it grow. And that is exactly what we are doing with the Meech Lake Accord.!

With our constitutional process unblocked by Quebec's return to the table, we will be able to turn our attention to an agenda such as Senate reform and aboriginal constitutional matters.
Premier Penikett of Yukon said on June 9:
After three years of debate and discussion it is clear to us that constitutional evolution is not a series of discrete steps but a fluid process. We will meet again as we have in the past and I hope work together to create a Constitution which all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, French and English, east and west, south and north recognize as the sum of this country.
June 20,1990

If, despite the agreement reached at the Ottawa Conference Centre, the remaining ratifications were not obtained, no one here or anywhere else can say for sure what our future might be. I for one, cannot tell this House if or when another opportunity to make the changes so important to so many Canadians-Senate reform, further gender equality rights and aboriginal rights-would present itself again.
Quebec, in confidence and maturity, has proposed to return to the Canadian constitutional family. If we do not seize this chance now, if we do not seize this glorious chance now, who can say if and when it would arise again.
The uncertainty caused by the failure to resolve our constitutional problems could harm our chances to regenerate the outstanding economic and employment growth that we have known in the recent past, and I believe are poised to achieve again over the next few years.
I am deeply encouraged that the legislators of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador are now debating this historic accord. I express the fervent hope of members from all parties of this House that they will pass it within the time frames.
I also call upon the other legislatures to ratify the companion resolution agreed to in Ottawa which provides progress toward the goal of Senate reform; the protection of gender equality rights; a fairer deal for the territories and for linguistic minorities; and important gains on aboriginal constitutional issues.
The aboriginal peoples have the assurance of a separate constitutional process dedicated to aboriginal constitutional matters that would involve their participation in First Ministers' Conferences every three years.
We placed before a meeting of the representative group of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs on Sunday a proposal that would provide for, first, a federal-aboriginal process to set the agenda for the First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal matters and the acceleration of the holding of the first conference.
Second, a commitment by the Government of Canada to full constitutional recognition of the aboriginal peoples as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
Government Orders
Third, the participation of representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada at any future First Ministers' Conference held to discuss the recognition's clause.
Fourth, an invitation to participate in all First Ministers' Conferences where matters being discussed directly affect the aboriginal peoples.
Fifth, a most important historic matter for the aboriginal peoples, the joint definition of treaty rights.
Sixth, the establishment of a royal commission on native affairs of the scope and the impact of the historic Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission that made such a beneficial change 25 years ago, and this new royal commission on native affairs can do at least as much to advance the cause of aboriginal justice now and into the future in Canada.
This six-point proposal is, I think, generous and comprehensive in response to the legitimate demands of aboriginal peoples. It highlights as well the consequences to all of us in not succeeding in restoring the full constitutional family to the table.
I have said in this House, and others have remarked upon it as well, that I remember well under the 1982 Constitution being called upon as Prime Minister of Canada to chair a First Ministers' Conference seeking an amendment to provide for justice for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I believed then and I believe today that that amendment so vital to the well-being of the aboriginal peoples of Canada would have been achieved had Quebec been at the constitutional table at the time, because the government of Quebec had clearly signalled that it would support that kind of an aboriginal initiative for justice.
The absence of Quebec already at that time had taken a terrible toll on something that we all hold dear, and that is the promotion of instruments of greater justice, greater fairness and greater equality for the aboriginal peoples.
In spite of the very comprehensive nature of the proposal that we have put forward on behalf of all parliamentarians to secure greater justice for the aboriginal peoples, clearly a condition precedent to this taking place is the return of Quebec to the constitutional table because Quebec is an ally of the aboriginal peoples and it is in Canada's interest and in the interest of the aboriginal peoples that Quebec come safely home to the

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
constitutional table and thereafter the first matter that will achieve greater justice and greater dignity will be the aboriginal peoples themselves.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: So, Mr. Speaker, we can either reap the benefits of constitutional evolution or pause with regret to contemplate what might have been.
I respectfully urge the political leaders of Manitoba to honour the commitment given solemnly on June 9, 1990, to use every possible effort to achieve a decision on the Meech Lake Accord prior to June 23, 1990.
Ten days hence, on July 1,1 believe that we will all be able to celebrate together a new beginning of our future as a more united and more confident Canada, the kind of Canada that will engender greater social justice, greater equality of opportunity, greater prosperity for our children, greater dignity for all of its citizens, and a Canadian citizenship that will be a source of pride for all the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to begin by saying that it is very clear, in spite of the Prime Minister's words and the applause of his supporters, that it is his mishandling of Canada's present constitutional situation that has created a serious and difficult circumstance for our country.
It did not have to be this way. Three years ago, we of the Official Opposition, offered a number of amendments, proposals regarding the constitutional accord of 1987, which, if they had been accepted, would have removed the concerns about that accord which had been expressed by many Canadians.
These amendments that we proposed were consistent with Quebec's five proposals, proposals which have been acceptable, generally, to parties in this House.
This Prime Minister and his government stubbornly rejected these proposals. They rejected, out of hand, these Liberal amendments. If they had been accepted, it is high likely the constitutional impasse that has worried Canadians for the past several months would not have occurred. This is one reason why I have to say it is because of this Prime Minister and his government's
mishandling of the constitutional situation that we have the current atmosphere of crisis and impasse.
We believe the Prime Minister showed a lack of essential leadership by waiting to try to resolve the constitutional impasse until after Premier McKenna had made his proposal for a companion resolution. It was clear from the time that proposal by Premier McKenna was made, and even before, that only the dynamic created by the Prime Minister and all the Premiers sitting and talking around the same table could lead to the development of a consensus for a solution to the constitutional impasse.
We know all too well how the Prime Minister absolutely refused to convene a meeting of First Ministers even though we of the Official Opposition Had been calling for just such a meeting for months for the reason I have just given.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister always answered our requests for such a meeting with basically the same argument. He said it would be premature to call a meeting of First Ministers and that Senator Murray was still out there somewhere, searching for common ground.
We now know and Canadians now know that was not the reason for the Prime Minister's delay or his refusal in convening a meeting of First Ministers. No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the reason at all.
On Monday, June 11, the day after the signing of the communique for the 1990 companion accord, after a week of discussions at the Conference Centre between himself and the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister gave an interview to The Globe and Mail of Toronto, and in that interview he said he had held a strategy meeting with his advisors and in talking about that meeting stated:
And so I decided after consultations with my colleagues, mostly with Senator (Lowell) Murray and Paul Tellier, Norman Spector, people like this, that-I remember when I told them, I called them right here, I asked them to come and see me, and I told them when this thing was going to take place. I told them a month ago when we were going to start meeting. It's like an election campaign, you've got to work backwards. You've got to pick your dates and you work backward from it. And that-and I said that's the day that I'm going to roll all the dice. It's the only way to handle it.
Q: And this was a month ago?
A: About a month ago.
Q: Roll of the dice, this was a conscious, obvious decision.
June 20, 1990

A: You had to roll all the-the only way that this could be done was
to roll all the dice.
Mr. Speaker, what a shocking admission. Is this the way to run a country, much less reach a decision on its constitution? Obviously, in the view of Canadians this is not the way to run a country or a constitution; it is not even the way to run a crap game.
The timing of the First Ministers' meeting had nothing to do with finding common ground among the First Ministers. But by the Prime Minister's own admission, it had everything to do with creating the crisis atmosphere which sometimes works in labour-management negotiations.
But as I have said before in this House, constitutional negotiations are not labour negotiations. They are matters of much greater consequence and much greater sensitivity. They should not, they must not be left to the last minute as the Prime Minister did, as a conscious and deliberate act. Also, the Prime Minister has no right to stake the future of this country on the roll of the dice. You do not roll the dice with the future of Canada as the stake.
The Prime Minister well knew that there was a time limit, a June 23 date. He well knew, or should have known, that Manitoba's legislature had a debating and a public hearing process it had to go through under its rules in order to deal with and make a decision on constitutional matters.
The Prime Minister well knew, or should have known, that in any legislative body, in any legislative process, there is a risk of procedural problems and procedural hang-ups. In the case of Manitoba, there was a requirement for public input and all of these things. The working out of the procedural problems, the requirement for public input could and would use up precious time, time that was all too short and limited.
Yet, by deliberately waiting until the last minute, the Prime Minister invited these problems, the very problems he was talking about in this House just a few minutes ago. He invited them himself. I could say that he created them through his delay and his devious manipulation of the constitutional discussions.
In the way he did it, he did not ensure there was adequate room, beyond all question, for the legislature of Manitoba to work its way through any possible constitutional problem or to have the hearing process
Government Orders
that the degree of public interest in that province would warrant and which its own legislature rules required. The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone, must bear the responsibility for the mess that has been made by him and his government of the constitutional situation. It is his mess and it is his responsibility. He cannot shift any blame or responsibility for that situation to anyone else. He should look at himself in the mirror and recognize that he is responsible for the difficult situation the country is in during this current constitutional impasse.
By his own admission he created this difficult situation and this mess in a deliberate way. He did so, as he told The Globe and Mail, in a way for which he has no apologies at all for the process he organized, one carried out in secret, one without participation of the public, one done in a crisis atmosphere and at the very last minute. For this, as he told The Globe and Mail he has absolutely no apologies.
He certainly owes an apology to Canadians for the mess he has made of Canada's constitutional situation. He owes Canadians more of an effort than he has been making up until now to try to clean up that mess.
I welcome, and we welcome, his announcement that he will speak to the Assembly of Newfoundland. But another of the major areas of concern is that of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Prime Minister sent Senator Murray to talk to the aboriginal leaders in Manitoba but they were not satisfied with what Senator Murray had to say. Yet the Prime Minister has for days refused to take the extra step we recommended, to go himself to meet and talk with the aboriginal leaders in Manitoba.
Today in his speech the Prime Minister spoke about the generous package which was offered at the last minute to the aboriginal leaders. But the Prime Minister has not explained why that generous package was not put forward to the provincial premiers and the aboriginal leaders during the week of discussions in the Conference Centre here in Ottawa. If that had been done, we might be in a very different situation today when it comes to whether or not the impasse will be broken and the accord will be adopted and proclaimed by June 23.
If he is going to meet and speak to the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, the least he could do is also

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
go and meet with the aboriginal leaders of Canada and talk to them about their concerns and what he and his government intend to do to respond to them in a meaningful way. This is an aspect of leadership, and if he expects to be looked upon as the leader of this country, he must take more meaningful action than he has done to resolve this difficult situation. Yet, we see he has left himself with almost no time to spare to work it out.

As I said on June 11 when I spoke in this House in response to the Prime Minister's statement in which he reported on the discussions that took place between him and the provincial premiers:
We understand the importance of the 1987 constitutional amendment, the purpose of which was to make Quebec a full member of the constitutional family. With Quebec back in, we can fully discuss all the constitutional changes being called for by groups and regions throughout our country.

We recognize there is much more still to be done in order to have a Constitution that responds to the needs and concerns of our aboriginal people, women, minority language groups, multicultural groups, the Territories and those who want a reformed Senate. As I said in the House last Monday, if we stay together as a country, then everything and anything is possible by way of constructive constitutional change, by way of working out how we can live together in a better, more secure and more constructive fashion. If we do not stay together as a country, then nothing is possible and everything that we have concerns about in regard to how we live together will be meaningless and irrelevant. Therefore, we must strive to maintain the unity of this country in spite of what I believe the Prime Minister and his government have done to weaken this unity and the strains they have put upon it.
The Prime Minister came into office pledging that he would bring about a new and greater national reconciliation. Yet, especially in the past three years under his Prime Ministership, we have had a great and troubling increase in the divisions and tensions between regions and groups and in expressions of disunity among some of the people in this country. It is now clear that the Prime Minister must take the blame and the responsibility for these divisions, tensions and disunity. It is now clear he created the conditions for it by the way he mishandled our constitutional situation through delay, manoeuvre and manipulation.
All of us must work to ensure the preservation and the strengthening of Canada, in spite of its present Prime Minister and government. We must work to ensure it stays united until and long after the people of Canada can and will exercise their judgment in an election and make the changes it is already clear that they want to create and to ensure a better and a more united Canada with a welcome place in it for all its people and all its regions.
On June 11, I said in this House we believe that the final communique setting out the accord of 1990, signed by the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister, during their week-long conference, can provide the basis for the successful resolution of that constitutional impasse. I went on to say that I hope the New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland legislatures will accept this agreement, this accord of 1990, and thereby will approve the 1987 constitutional amendment before June 23. New Brunswick has now done so. The Newfoundland House of Assembly will vote tomorrow or Friday, but the matter remains before the Legislature of Manitoba.
I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, in being asked to make a decision on the motion before us, we are being asked to deal with a motion which requests that the legislatures of Newfoundland and Manitoba take prompt decisions on the constitutional accord of 1987. This motion does not ask this House to pronounce itself again on the constitutional accord of 1987. This is something it has already done. Also, this motion, this resolution, does not ask this House to lecture or to instruct the members of the legislatures of Newfoundland and Manitoba on how to go about their business, how to cany out their responsibilities. It gives no instructions or advice on procedures they should follow.
I do not think that the members of the legislatures of Newfoundland and Manitoba need to be lectured by the Prime Minister or his ministers in this House. As I said on June 11, I am confident that the members of the legislature of Manitoba and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland are very much aware of their responsibilities for the future of Canada and I am sure they take these responsibilities very seriously.
June 20, 1990

In this connection, I want to remind the House of the words of Clyde Wells, the Premier of Newfoundland, to the House of Assembly of that province on the morning of June 11. He said: "I am confident that the members of this honourable House and, indeed, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorans will express their views on the basis of their own sincere convictions and with the future of Canada foremost in their minds and their hearts".
I say now as I said June 11 that calling upon us, the people of Newfoundland and in fact all the people of this country to keep the future of Canada foremost in our minds and in our hearts are wise and welcome words from the Premier of Newfoundland. They should serve as an example and a signal for all of us.
I believe it would be in the best interests of this country and its future, if the present impasse could be resolved by June 23. It would be better if the uncertainty created by the Prime Minister's mishandling of the constitutional situation could be, if not removed, at least lessened and not extended beyond June 23 if at all possible.
For these reasons, I support the motion before us, not because it is necessary in any constitutional or legal way to resolve the current impasse but because we Liberals want to send a strong message that Canada is worth preserving, that Canada must be preserved. We should all give priority to making sure it is preserved in the interests of all its people, all its regions, for our children and the future generations.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but leave my notes as I start this speech, which I had not planned to do. I am forced to do it by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the House who I think has made a bit of an incredible statement in the present circumstances.
I find it a bit awkward that he would ask the Prime Minister of Canada to take the blame for any problems we would have had with the present constitutional debate while the future Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada takes to hiding from the present constitutional debate. In fact, the context is unique in itself as the Leader in the House of Commons for the Liberal Party today says that he supports the resolution put before the House, but the future Liberal Leader who is now in
Government Orders
Calgary cannot tell Canadians where he stands on the most important issue before us today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean J. Charest: It is quite an incredible situation for all of us. Canadians will be the judge.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has been in a state of constitutional crisis for the past several weeks and even months. It is not the first time in our history that our young country is going through such a crisis. In fact, 25 years ago, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, made public an interim report saying that Canada was facing the worst crisis in its history. Well, 25 years later, we are once again facing one of the worst crises in our history.
Between 1965 and 1990, the Canadian people have debated constitutional issues a number of times. In 1967, our centennial year, Ontario Premier John Robarts called a conference to discuss the future of the Canadian federation. In February 1968, Prime Minister Pearson called a constitutional conference to discuss findings contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. They talked about the formula for amending the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Canada and the possibility of involving provinces in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, which we find in the Meech Lake Accord that we want to see ratified in 1990. They also discussed linguistic rights and regional disparities, issues that are just as important today.
At the famous constitutional conference held in Victoria in 1971, they went back to the issues discussed in 1968 and reached a consensus on the condition that the First Ministers consult their respective legislatures within 12 days and return with their opinion.
We know today what happened after that constitutional conference, when Mr. Bourassa made an important decision and said on behalf of the Quebec people that he was not satisfied with what they were offering him.
We always think of the failure of 1971 when studying the Meech Lake Accord. In 1976, Mr. Trudeau proposed another constitutional initiative, based this time on the patriation of our Constitution. In fact, Mr. Trudeau was always true to himself: after 1976, every constitutional

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
initiative that he proposed had the patriation of our Constitution as its main objective.
At that time, he proposed three options for the patriation, but the provinces-and Mr. Lougheed from Alberta was their spokesperson-gave him the following answer: "There will be no patriation of our Constitution until we have the opportunity to discuss the roles, the jurisdictions and the powers of our provinces. We have to discuss the substance before we can discuss the form." The premier of Alberta said at that time-and it is interesting to note that today because, after all, we are talking about things that were said and written in 1976-that the provinces wanted more power, Mr. Speaker, in the area of immigration. Imagine, in the area of immigration!
What does the Meech Lake Accord do if not precisely respect the wish of the vast majority of provinces in 1976? At that time, Premier Lougheed told the Prime Minister of Canada that he wanted to discuss language rights and other powers. He also said, among other things, that he wished that a requirement to hold annual first ministers conferences on the economy be written into the Constitution.
That request, Mr. Speaker, was presented in 1976, not in 1987, not during the Meech Lake negotiations three years ago. That was the wish Premier Lougheed of Alberta expressed in 1976 on behalf of his colleagues, the other premiers.
In 1976, Mr. Speaker, the Parti Quebecois was elected. That election completely redefined the constitutional picture in Canada. In 1977, Mr. Trudeau reiterated his intent to patriate the Constitution, and he also put together a royal commission of inquiry, known as the Pepin-Robarts Commission. In 1965, we had the first interim report, by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission and in 1977, the idea was revived by the Pepin-Robarts Commission.
In 1978, a White Paper was tabled. That White Paper, Mr. Speaker, prepared in 1978, stipulated that the Canadian Senate was to be replaced, or reformed by July 1st, 1979! The federal government intended to reform the Senate within a year. What was planned? A House of Federation House where half the senators would be appointed by the provinces, and half, by the federal government.
I refer to that, Mr. Speaker, for all those who are shocked today because the Meech Lake Accord gives the provinces a say in choosing senators. Can you believe that in some areas of Canada, people are shocked because the provinces will now be able to submit names-even if, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the final decision is still going to be made by the federal govemement- whereas in 1978, Mr. Trudeau was planning to let the provinces appoint half the members of the new Senate.
Nothing new there, Mr. Speaker. All this to tell you that there is not much that is new in the Meech Lake Accord. And this is only up to 1978. As well, in 1978, as in 1968-there seems to be a 10-year cycle here-the Supreme Court of Canada was an issue again. In 1978, Mr. Trudeau also proposed that the provinces play a role in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is not very surprising in a federation where the highest court of the land makes the final decisions and is the arbitrator between the provincial and federal jurisdictions. It is not surprising that we can expect the two levels of government to have their say in the appointment of those arbitrators. Don't you think that is only good common sense? In any case, I do. Mr. Trudeau thought so in 1978, Mr. Pearson thought so in 1968 and I believe Mr. Mulroney's opinion on the matter is the same in 1990 as it was in 1987-1988.
In 1980, Mr. Speaker, there was the referendum in Quebec. I do not wish to drag on on this subject. Suffice it to say that a commitment was taken, a commitment to a renewed federalism, a clear commitment, in any case, clear enough so that the vast majority of Quebecers could understand it as such. And several important politicians in this country went to campaign in Quebec, including our colleague from the House of Commons, the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is here today. He was among those who went to Quebec, with the Prime Minister of Canada, to make this commitment to Quebecers. But, unfortunately, for all sorts of reasons, it was not possible to respect fully the commitment made in 1980.
I do not want to go into detail; suffice it to say that two things happened in 1981-1982. First of all for the first time in its history, the Quebec National Assembly had its powers curtailed without its consent. That was the reality of the year 1981. We can look at it from every angle and
June 20, 1990

try to blame it on whoever we want, but it is a fact and no one can deny it. Second, that curtailment of powers was decided against the will of the province of Quebec and of the Quebec National Assembly which had passed a bipartite resolution agreed to by both the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec Liberal Party condemning these action of the federal government. It is in the history books and it is what we will remember about 1981-82 in the years to come.
In 1984, a new Federal government came to power, and in 1985 a new provincial government was elected in Quebec. Mr. Bourassa came into office and had his mind set on an important decision which was to be expressed in a speech delivered by his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Remillard, in the spring of 1985 in which he stated the will of the governement of Quebec to get the province back again into the constitutional family. Indeed, Mr. Bourassa felt at the time that such an invitation was being extended to his province. And at that time, the Governement of Quebec did state the five demands to be laid on the table, that is the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, some additionnal powers as regards immigration, which was part of the 1975 discussions, entrenchment in the Constitution of the three seats on the Supreme Court that Quebec holds today, another proposal that was discussed in 1968 and in 1978, certain conditions to the spending power of the federal government and also a veto power for the province of Quebec.
In August 1986, the provincial premiers, without the federal government, decided to go along with this and set as their top constitutional priority the return of Quebec to the Canadian fold, based on Quebec's five conditions. This was not much of a surprise. Later on, Mr. Speaker, there was in 1987 the Meech Lake Accord negotiation, the Langevin Accord negotiation on June 3, 1987, and sometime later, more specifically on June 23, 1987, the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord by the Quebec National Assembly, which brings us to June 23, 1990, because it must be said that the three-year time limit was not chosen by Brian Mulroney or anybody else, but by the rules set in the 1982 Constitution which provided that when a legislature adopts constitutional amendments, they must be dealt with within the next three years. There was, therefore, no discretion there.
Government Orders
Since then, the accord was ratified by the House of Commons not once but twice because, apparently, once was not enough, it had to be done twice. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this accord has been widely debated in Canada ever since.
Since 1987, there were a number of parliamentary commissions. Were there three? No. Were there four? Do you think there were four, Mr. Speaker? You are not sure? Let me tell you how many. You can double this figure. There were altogether eight commissions! In British Columbia, the Meech Lake Accord was debated and adopted. In Alberta, it was debated and adopted. In Saskatchwewan, it was debated and adopted. In Ontario, there was a parliamentary commission; the accord was debated and adopted. In New Brunswick, a parliamentary committee held a very very long debate. The Meech Lake Accord was adopted there this week; it was also debated in the legislature. In Nova Scotia, it was debated and adopted. In Prince Edward Island, there was a parliamentary commission and the accord was adopted. In Quebec, there was a parliamentary commission and the accord was adopted. In Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I think there was a parliamentary commission, but I am not sure; the accord was unanimously adopted and later on almost rejected. It was rejected recently and now, it is debated for the third time.
This is the point we have reached in the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, there was a parliamentary debate, a committee, a task force, the so-called Manitoba Task Force on Meech Lake-I have the document here. What they heard, which is worth repeating, is what appeared on page 2 of the English version which read:

The hearings conducted in Manitoba were the most extensive held in Canada. Over 300 Manitobans made presentations before the task force. Over 40 individuals and organizations for Manitoba who did not appear before the task force submitted written briefs. All of the presentations of briefs are listed.
The Meech Lake Accord, the companion resolution, everything around this constitutional debate has been debated extensively for the last three years. In fact, by going through the chronology of events I have just gone through since 1968, most of the issues debated today in

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
the Meech Lake Accord have been debated in this country for close to the last 30 years.
There is no issue. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no issue in this accord that is new to Canadians. There is no issue that has not been extensively debated, including the committee that I chaired that heard more than 160 witnesses. We received close to 900 briefs, travelled to Yellowknife, Whitehorse, Vancouver, spent three and a half days in Winnipeg, Manitoba, spent several days in the national capital region here, and spent two and a half days in St. John's, Newfoundland.
This debate and these accords have been extensively debated as well as all the issues that are found within them.
I think it is important today to remind ourselves of these debates, what they contain, and what we have said. The question put today before the House of Commons is extremely important. The House of Commons is in fact calling upon the legislatures of both Newfoundland and Labrador and the legislature of Manitoba to put this question and this issue before their legislatures for a vote.
That is what is most fundamental in our country and consistent with the commitment made by the premier of Manitoba, Mr. Filmon, on June 9, when he signed the agreement with the other premiers of this country and the Prime Minister of Canada. That is what is being asked by the House of Commons today of these two legislatures so that we can finally get over this debate.
One of the questions that has come up more recently is that we should extend the delay. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that question has also been studied extensively and in fact the committee that I chaired studied that question very closely.
The first recommendation that we made in our own report published on May 17 says very clearly, and it is not by accident that it is the very first recommendation made, that your committee is of the opinion that June 23, 1990, is a political reality.
There is a reason for that, Mr. Speaker. This debate has gone on long enough. There have been eight parliamentary committees. The issues debated within these accords have been debated close to 30 years. The moment of truth has come. Legislatures must face up to that moment and put this accord to a vote.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think there are some lessons we can learn from the present debate.

There are conclusions to be drawn from this debate, Mr. Speaker.
In any case, I drew my own conclusions, which bind no one. After chairing a committee that produced recommendations which were received with much emotion, mind you, I can tell you that I had a chance to think. One thing I observed is that the amending formula we used this time had its first test, because it is only eight years old, at the expense of the Meech Lake Accord. It is unfortunate, but that is a fact. The Meech Lake Accord paid the price of being the first test of an amending formula that we did not fully know or understand. That is the price. It means that next time, constitutional agreements will be negotiated differently, not in the same way.
The second thing I observed is that Canadians everywhere want to take an active part in developing and amending their Constitution. That is very clear from the experience we just went through. It came out clearly from the hearings we held.
The third thing I observed, and it is worth mentioning, although it may seem obvious to you, but some Canadians who have not yet realized it must be told that Canada is a land of regions, a vast country where people live differently from place to place. We do not always share the same experiences. We do not always perceive things, events and even documents in the same way. This means that Canada as a country is cut out for federalism.
Mr. Speaker, here is the fourth point: Although Quebec will not be reconciled constitutionally, in spite of my hopes, it will be reconciled in other ways. It will be reconciled in Canadian political circles. And this was made apparent in the experience the government of Quebec went through recently with the government of Canada which stood by Quebec on this constitutional issue till the end. Quebec also had unfailing ally in the person of the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, for whom it might have been relatively easy in political terms to oppose the Meech Lake Accord, in view of the upcoming elections in his province. There was also the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Getty, who was under pressure from his own party to oppose the accord following a convention held a few months ago. In spite of
June 20,1990

Government Orders
the pressures, he stood up for Canada and he stood up for Quebec too. That has to be pointed out.
Premier Devine of Saskatchewan, who will also run in a provincial election in the next few months, stood up for Quebec and for Canada. He went all the way, Mr. Speaker, on June 9 this year, as he had on June 3, 1987, in the Langevin Building. In Ontario, Quebec had Premier Peterson's unfailing support. I may not be Liberal, but such facts must nonetheless be recognized. There was also Mr. Rae, from the New Democratic Party, and Mr. Harris, a Conservative, for whom it might have been easy to object to the whole thing- But no, Mr. Speaker, they stood up for Quebec all the way, as did Premier Buchanan from Nova Scotia. Premier Ghiz, from Prince Edward Island, who is very articulate-I know that for a fact, having heard his testimony before our committee-took a passionate stand for Quebec. These things must be said. It is unfortunate that Quebecers can not be reminded of that enough. After all, they were not always there to witness those moments of passion and demonstration of commitment to Canada and Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I also came to the conclusion that our country is one of the few countries in the world, though I do not know them all, where the feeling of belonging to one's country is not the same from one area to the other. Let me explain that, Mr. Speaker. We must admit that a Quebecer will feel like a Canadian only inasmuch as he or she can be recognized as a Quebecer first and that is true for francophones and, in some cases, for anglophones.
The natives of our country offer another example of different feelings of belonging between individuals and between groups, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have come to realize in the last few days that a native will only feel he is a Canadian if he or she is recognized in our Constitution.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I really wanted to say that because we, as Canadians, are different from the Americans who, it appears, have a single allegiance to their country, their flag and their national anthem. We are only beginning to sense these great changes, these things which make us different.
Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as you and
others may remember, I was part of the 1983 debate when this House unanimously passed a resolution encouraging the Manitoba legislature to pass legislation on constitutional changes which would entrench French language services within that province.
Those motions, presented at two different times, were passed unanimously by this House. That was done in a non-partisan manner and with acceptance from all quarters of the House of Commons. That was done because we believed that the minority rights of the French speaking population in Manitoba must be protected.
It was not an easy task for many of us from the province of Manitoba. It was very obvious at that time that the resolution put forward by the Pawley government was not accepted by the majority of people in the province of Manitoba.
This House decided to intervene and passed the resolutions I spoke about. We could not have done anything more destructive. Not only did it not change the minds of the provincial Conservative MLAs in the legislature of Manitoba, because they continued to ring the bells and they continued to prevent the passage of that legislation, but it made it very difficult for those of us who were standing up for French language services in the province of Manitoba to explain our position within our own province.
I spoke after the present Prime Minister and after the present member for Winnipeg South Centre, the then member for Winnipeg-Fort Gariy. I thought we were doing the right thing at that time, but I can tell you that the two motions passed by the House of Commons at that time did not have the desired effect.
I can tell you, after spending a week in my riding, that if this motion were put to a vote tonight it would have exactly the same effect in the province of Manitoba this week. There are people in our province who would like to see Meech passed. There are others who have grave reservations about the Meech Lake Accord but are willing to accept it because they believe it might be the right thing to do to promote the unity and the strength of

June 20,1990
Government Orders
our nation. But the one thing they will not accept is the interference of the Prime Minister of Canada.
I say that in a non-partisan way. I listened to the leaders of all three parties in the Manitoba legislature when they spoke on national television earlier today and they were saying exactly the same thing.
People in Manitoba, for whatever reasons, feel they have been manipulated when it comes to Meech Lake. The member of the Conservative Party who spoke just before me said that we have already had public hearings in Manitoba. That is true. However, it was known by the Prime Minister and this House that the three provincial leaders in Manitoba had promised that there would be further hearings after the first ministers' meeting which took place two weeks ago. That was known. That was not a surprise. That was known before those people came to the week-long meetings at the Conference Centre. It is part of the written agreement signed by the premier of Manitoba. It was stated when those same three people left Ottawa to promote Meech Lake and the companion accord in the province of Manitoba.
The technical slip-up by the Attorney General of Manitoba, which resulted in longer and longer delays occurring in that province, does not give any one party or all three parties the right to cancel public meetings in the province of Manitoba. No attempt to rewrite history in advance is going to be acceptable. No attempt to cast the blame ahead of time is going to be acceptable to the province of Manitoba.
When I spoke in 1983 on the French language services issue I spoke with emotion. I said that the people of my province were not bigots. Certainly, some people may have opinions which we would not find acceptable. That is the state within our nation. People have different views. People have unacceptable views from time to time.
The vast majority of those people want to have Quebec stay within our Confederation. The vast majority of those people would make accommodations if they saw that happening, but they cannot be manipulated time after time and expected, as a result of the motion here on June 20, to pass major constitutional amendments within
the next three days. They cannot be expected to go against their word with regard to public hearings.
The Prime Minister, in his infamous countback from June 23, miscalculated. He made a technical mistake of his own. He made an error, and no bullying tactics by the House of Commons is going to do anything to help the public mood in the province of Manitoba.
As I said, in 1983 I spoke for French language rights in the province of Manitoba. That was not popular. I voted for Meech Lake in 1987. I spoke in favour of Meech Lake in 1988 during the election campaign. Those were not popular stands. I continue to believe that the Meech Lake Accord is the basis of a real accommodation for Quebec within our society. I believe it is an acceptable accommodation for Canadians, albeit at great emotional cost to many Canadians.
Some are concerned about the erosion of central powers by the federal government, a belief that the federal government has given up too much of its decision-making role to the provinces, especially in the area of social programs. There are others in our society who believe that there has been a loss of charter rights through the Meech Lake Accord. Those are valid opinions. I do not happen to share them, but they are valid opinions.
Those of multicultural and multi-ethic backgrounds in Canada feel excluded. They were ignored in Meech Lake, and they have been basically ignored in the three years since June 23, 1987.
However, as has been very evident over the last week and a half, it was the aboriginal Canadians who most severely and personally felt that they were being ignored. There is no one in this House who would ever deny that they are a distinct society. They are our first distinct society, and they should have been recognized. There should have been efforts to accommodate their concerns within Meech Lake within the last three years. A letter sent to Manitoba chiefs by the Prime Minister two days ago was not acceptable.
During the last three years those same aboriginal Canadians have felt threatened by this government. During Question Period today the government talked about its accomplishments in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Government members talked about other of its accomplishments, but they did not talk about how
June 20, 1990

native people feel about this government. They did not talk about what is happening out there.
Let me give you an example. It is a personal example but it hits home very well. Last night I was speaking in Thompson, Manitoba, at a gathering of students in the Access and NTEP programs, two programs that will lose their funding this fall. This program has existed in a number of forms over the last ten years. It has promoted and helped to educate native people as teachers, nurses and social workers. Last year that joint federal-provincial program was dismantled by the federal government. There was one year of extended funding. Some students in that program do not know where their funding will come from as of August 1 of this year, one month from now. Because of the federal government's cutbacks, there will be no new students accepted in those programs as of this fall.
We have a shortage of native teachers, native nurses and native social workers. We need more natives in engineering and other technical areas. How do you expect those people to take the great leap of faith to sign Meech Lake on the basis of some future goodwill by this Prime Minister when those same people are being denied their educational potential this coming fall? The government has made many other such cutbacks which have hardened the resolve of native people in this country.
Elijah Harper is one of my MLAs and I am very proud of the stand he took last week. He and I have both spoken in the past about the need to accommodate Quebec. He and I have both spoken about the need to protect native rights. We have said that those are joint common causes that should be worked on together by our nation. Elijah Harper, by the way, was one of those people who spoke in favour of the entrenchment of French language services. He did that in a riding which is 90 per cent Saulteaux and Cree. He spoke out about the need to defend the French minority and let that message go home to the province of Quebec.
For the last three years many native Canadians have been willing to accept the Meech Lake Accord. They had hoped that in that time the Prime Minister and others would take the necessary steps to show good faith. That did not happen.
Government Orders
The manipulative way that the province of Manitoba has been treated, the way that the native people feel they have been treated over the past three years, has made it very difficult to pass the Meech Lake Accord in the province of Manitoba in the next three days. I do not believe it will happen.
It will be a sad day for our nation. I am very concerned about what will happen on June 24, 25, and afterwards, because we do need to show goodwill. We do need to show faith. We do need to show a desire to bring this country together. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the last three years were wasted.
Many people spoke out. Many people kept their own personal concerns to themselves. But there was not enough goodwill, not enough work, not enough honesty by the Government of Canada and it will have to accept the blame for the failure.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me begin, if I may, with the words uttered by my friend from Churchill as he concluded. He is, as he knows, a member whom I respect in the House. He said that the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that is precisely the question that we are debating here tonight, whether or not the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that there is a genuine feeling throughout this House that it would not just be a shame, it could almost be a tragedy if that work were wasted.
There has been talk here, rather to my surprise, of bullying and of blame. As someone who has been involved in these discussions and these negotiations, and who is not myself blameless, I can certainly say that if blame were our purpose I could give you a list as thick as the Toronto telephone directory of people to whom blame can be ascribed.
But surely that is not our purpose because that takes us nowhere. What we want to do now in these last hours of this debate is find some way in which we can bring Canadians together to achieve, not an end, but to achieve a beginning, first, of constitutional renewal but then, and I think this is a much larger question, the beginning of a process of national renewal because none of us who has lived these last months can doubt that there are profound problems in this country that go

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
beyond disagreements that arose in a particular negotiation among First Ministers.
These are the last hours of this debate. It is a question that is of fundamental importance to the whole country. By the turn of events the last debate will occur not in this Parliament but in the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly do not take my place in this Chamber to try to lecture the elected members of those two legislatures. I know better than that. I tend to share something of the view of my colleague from Churchill with regard to the counterproductivity of one legislature trying to lecture another legislature. It is not any more helpful in politics than it is in other aspects of life for people to undertake that sort of conduct.
But, Sir, I think it is, on this question that is so fundamental to the country, legitimate that we express our views in these final hours in the hope that our views might be useful to the individual members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the individual members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have this final decision to take.
Let me begin with four propositions which inform my approach to this crisis in our national life. First, I believe that we are the luckiest country, the luckiest people in this world. Some of that good fortune we have earned ourselves. Some of it was given by God or was earned by others before us who surely have a right to expect that we would treasure and respect what it was that we inherited.
Second, there is an anger and a distemper in Canada that is more widespread that I can ever remember before. Hatred, Sir, is not too strong a word for some of the emotions that I have seen and heard. Obviously, anger that strong reveals a frustration that is profound and that is personal and we must all ask ourselves seriously why people are so angry and what we need to do to rebuild the basic bonds of goodwill that any community needs to hold itself together. We cannot repair anger by blaming others for it, but if we do not repair that anger it will feed, it will grow and it will tear this country apart.
Third, Meech Lake has become far more than a document signed by First Ministers. It is a symbol. More accurately, it is several symbols. For Canadians who
oppose it, it is a symbol of something they dislike-a process, a government, a perceived unfairness; for some, unfortunately, a people.
For the wider world it is a symbol of the stability of Canada, whether we are a country the world can count on or a risk. For many Quebecers the symbol is direct and it is personal. Acceptance or rejection of Meech Lake is seen as acceptance or rejection of Quebec; not Quebec as the author of five conditions, not Quebec as a participant in an amending process, but Quebec as a partner in this country.
I have heard opponents of Meech Lake tell me that if Meech Lake is rejected Quebecers would be angry for a while and then would forget. Well, Sir, I do not believe that. Of course, I can be wrong, as we all can. But I have spent three decades in national affairs trying to understand what makes our different communities work and work together. All of that experience tells me that this rejection of Quebec as a partner in Canada would damage this country permanently.
I have no right to decide for others, but I pray that Canadians whose decisions might affect Meech lake would consider my view and would consider the consequences if I happen to be right.
The fourth proposition concerns aboriginal rights which appears to be the issue which was causing people to urge Elijah Harper to stop constitutional reform. I have some history on the question of aboriginal rights.
In 1973, Flora MacDonald, Frank Howard and I moved a motion that caused the first acceptance by a parliamentary committee of the concept of the legitimacy of aboriginal title. I have been involved throughout my public life with native people. I simply cannot understand the logic which says Meech Lake must be killed in order to advance aboriginal rights. Killing Meech Lake has the opposite effect. It makes action on aboriginal rights more difficult to achieve.
Aboriginal interests are, by definition, constitutional interests. If there is a constitutional impasse, nothing will be done on aboriginal rights. That is not theory, that is history, that is recent history. That is what happened when we tried to deal with aboriginal rights in 1985 and did not have the votes because Quebec, which would have voted for change, was not a part of the Constitution.
June 20, 1990

The only way to make progress on aboriginal rights, on Senate reform or on the other priorities agreed to by the 11 First Ministers is to start with what we have. To reject Meech Lake is to reject progress on aboriginal rights. Anyone who takes that action should be fully aware of the consequences.
Sir, I can fully understand why the National Citizens Coalition would act against aboriginal interests, but I cannot understand why Indian leaders themselves would do that.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is critical. There is not much time left. But there is still time to succeed if we really want to. Meech can still be signed by Manitoba and by Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not over yet.
In the last three years, many have said that Meech was dead. Yet, it made it to this day. Maybe there are still some nice surprises left in Meech, one last time! I wish it were so with all my heart, for our greater benefit and for the benefit of our country, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, all of us watched, some of took part in that long discussion of seven days and seven nights. The most poignant moment on that ninth of June was when the pen passed to premiers whose earlier positions had put the Meech Lake Accord in doubt. Those premiers, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Filmon and Mr. Wells put their pen to paper at the end of the day, and in so doing demonstrated the best of Canadian qualities.
They had travelled far, they had strong views, principled positions and deep concerns. But in the overriding interests of keeping this country together-and I trust that is the overriding interest of all members of this House-they compromised, and all First Ministers compromised. They vowed to take Meech Lake back home, to put it to the representatives of their peoples and to let democracy take its course.
Other societies and other countries do it differently. They deny legitimacy to the concept of compromise. They do not accept that different parts of their societies can hold different things to be true. They prefer to
Government Orders
resolve their differences through fiat or through fighting. That is not Canada. That is not the unique achievement which is admired around the world without reservation or without caveat. That has not been our experience, and it never can be if we wish Canada to continue.
Eleven days ago, eleven First Ministers made a solemn pledge to each other, to the Canadian people and to future generations. The three Canadian premiers who had travelled so far promised to use every means at then-disposal to allow their people to decide on their Constitution. That was eleven days ago. Three days from today, Meech Lake will pass into history. It will either pass into history as a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again. Or it will pass into history as a serious step backward for our country.
As was indicated in debate earlier today, and as I believe Premier Wells has now indicated, Newfoundland will vote, either tomorrow or on Friday in the House of Assembly. As the House knows, debate has now begun in the Legislature of Manitoba. That debate was delayed longer than anyone anticipated by procedural difficulties. The fact of that unanticipated and procedural delay has created a special situation that nobody anticipated. There was a commitment to make every effort to ensure that the agreement reached, after careful compromise and discussion in the best Canadian tradition, would be moved through the legislatures of the respective provinces. It is clear that the country is counting on that.
Just as procedural moves delayed debate in Manitoba, so surely procedural ways can be found to move debate forward so that the word of the three leaders of Manitoba can be honoured and so that the country can move forward to other priorities, whether those priorities are constitutional or whatever they are.
Just prior to the conclusion of the last conference on the Constitution in Ottawa, I spent two days in Europe in separate meetings with the foreign ministers of NATO and of the Helsinki process. Naturally, whatever point I tried to make in advancing the foreign polity of Canada, I was asked about Canada's problems at home. I was asked by incredulous ministers from Hungary, Germany, the United States, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
They could not believe that a country as envied and respected as Canada would put itself at risk, and particularly, that we would put ourselves at risk over the question of how we deal with different cultures. Because that is the signature of Canada, that is the success that is admired around the world, the success the new governments in Czechoslovakia, a united Germany, and a new South Africa, will want to copy.
Nelson Mandela left Canada this morning. I had the privilege of bidding him bon voyage. He spoke to this House and to the people of Canada of his hopes for his people. He spoke of a country which would discover tolerance and compromise, which could learn to live in unity, which could consecrate itself anew as a nation among the leading democracies of the world. He spoke of the bitterness, the intolerance, the hatred and the prejudice which have governed South Africa. He spoke of Canada as a society to be admired, a concept which inspired him as he faced the enormous challenges which lie ahead.
Nelson Mandela was right. What we have achieved here has been achieved nowhere else on this earth. We are a society of many cultures, many regions, many races. It is a society that has always said yes to compromise and no to intolerance. It is a society which says that different cultures, different regions and different races can more than co-exist; they can thrive and prosper in community with diversity.
The history of this remarkable land has been a continuous act of affirmation. We can never forget that the existence of this country was not a given, that the building of Canada has been a task accomplished against the greatest odds; geographic, economic and demographic. Tending the community that is Canada requires great care. How ironic it would be, how wasteful if, at a time when the rest of the world was thrusting forward with vision, the people of this country were to turn away from our strength and our future.
The Parliament of Canada has spoken. The Parliaments of eight provinces of Canada have spoken. The premiers of all provinces are committed to letting their people speak. Let that process proceed. Let history judge the results. Let us all pray for Canada. Then, together we must define new shared goals for Canada which reflect the new realities of this new world in which we live.
Everywhere in this world, there are dramatic changes that shake old conceptions and raise new hopes. People everywhere are hoping to become what we are. That is the reality.
There are serious differences in this country. There are serious issues to resolve. We have to find ways to define this country that make sense to all of its people. We have not yet succeeded in doing that. That is what the bitterness of these recent months has demonstrated. In doing that, if we succeed we can preserve one of the most respected nations in the world. That is the issue now.
This is the challenge that faces us, the legislature of Manitoba and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have the right of the final vote to decide the future of this accord, of this process, in many ways perhaps of this country. The next step is for them. I say this as only one member with some experience here; the work is not over for us. Then the challenge to all of us is to recognize that this country is not as united as it needs to be, that the goals we have set for ourselves are not as contemporary as they need to be, that the definition of this nation does not mean as much as it should to people in different parts of the country.
This is not something which should not cause us to lay blame or to distribute retribution. It should be a challenge to us all, to get on with the redefinition of this extraordinary country. But I fear deeply that, if we fail in the challenge that is before us now, we will not have the opportunity to move to that new agenda.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the viewpoints expressed by my colleague and I appreciate many of the things that he said.
I have a couple of questions about some of the phrases that he used in terms of anger and intolerance, that he sees across the country and I have certainly have seen that, as well, in our home province of Alberta.
The hon. member used the words bitterness and intolerance. He stated that Nelson Mandela and he talked about where we say in this country yes to compromise and no to intolerance and that we should be proud of community with diversity.
June 20, 1990

In his wide experience with people from these countries where they are experiencing pain and are undergoing reform situations, as Nelson Mandela in South Africa, as well as in eastern Europe, what do they see as an example of democracy in Canada? We are seeing that the government cannot handle community with diversity, when people feel that they should represent their constituents and they were excommunicated from the caucus within a matter of 12 or 14 hours. Also, what do they see when the Prime Minister says he rolled the dice as we have heard about so much.
When the First Ministers were brought to Ottawa they were physically beaten down with tiredness. After seven days and seven nights-we all saw it on TV-those of us who were not allowed to witness those meetings, saw those men were so physically exhausted that you could almost see them at the point of saying, I'll sign anything, I'll do anything, just let me go home to bed, please. What do these other countries feel and think when they see such things in our country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments that I would like to make in response to that question.
The first is, I think the hon. member will admit that she exaggerates and she, perhaps unwittingly, makes comments that are insulting and demeaning to the Premiers of the country. They are elected leaders of their provinces. They are accustomed to pressure. If she stays here longer, she will grow more accustomed to pressure too. They are accustomed to pressure and they are accustomed to making decisions under that kind of pressure. They did that. Theirs is not a leisurely life. Nor is the procedure of making decisions at federal-provincial conferences in private, a new procedure. It is the procedure that has, in fact, prevailed for some veiy long time.
The second comment that I would make responds directly to the question that she asked. I cannot answer for Nelson Mandela but let me quote a leading Canadian, Paul Desmarais, who has had experience not only in this country, but around the world. I do not always quote him with approval, but he said, the other day, that he wished the citizens of Canada would show the same respect for this nation that foreigners do.
Government Orders
Yes, it is true that there are imperfections in this country. It is true that there are faults in the way this House of Commons works. It is true that our democracy works imperfectly. It is true that we need to have changes. It is also true that the system here is better than what it was. It is not what it should be but it is better than what it was. It is true that there is a serious problem in the country, a serious lack of a national will that can bring people together. In part, that is because people define their constituencies too narrowly. In part, that is because people who come from one part of Canada speak only for that part of Canada and not for the whole nation. In part, it is because we are too focused upon narrow interests and not enough upon the larger interests.
My part of Canada and hers would not be as strong as it wants to be without the context of the whole country. Special interests that too often define and narrow debate in this country, would not be preserved as much as they need to be, without a whole nation that is marked by tolerance and by growth. Those are some of the questions that are at issue. She and I will disagree about particular instruments that might be used. We do not disagree about the fact that there is a distemper in the country that must be addressed. I hope that she will try, as I will try, to rise above party affiliations, to rise above particular commitments that we might think we have, to look at the whole country. That is what I ask the members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador and Manitoba to do tonight.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would simply like to say to the right honourable minister that his experience and reputation with regard to national unity are already well established. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is the one who has listened to and understood for the longest time the wishes of official language minority groups. He established in 1979 the House Committee on Official Languages, and I would like to thank him for that and tell him how useful this committee has been to advance the cause of linguistic minorities. I would also like to tell him that his speech deeply moved me. With regard to the exercise we are or will be completing within a few days, it is for us Canadians the first time we are going through the exercise of amending our Constitution. This is the first

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
time since its patriation in 1982 that Canadians are called to amend substantially the Constitution of this country. Like him, I regret very much that in 1982 the process was flawed and that Quebec did not feel welcome.
Today, we have a provision inviting Quebec to join the Canadian family by signing this resolution or constitutional amendment. Since I am deeply concerned as he is that we might be living the last hours of a very important and misunderstood process, I would like to ask him here in this House how he sees the Canada of tomorrow. I know it is not easy, but is he seeing a united Canada on June 24 and 25? Is he seeing a Canada whose elements stick together, a Canada respectful of minority groups, a Canada without resentment nor hate towards anyone? If Meech lake fails, does he think that Canada will say on June 24 or 25: This is how it happened, there is nothing we can do about it! Or, is he, like me, preoccupied by the seriousness of the matter and does he try, as I know he does, to explain to all Canadians that this is a critical time for Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the tone and substance of my honorable friend's remarks. The answer depends on the results of the vote in Newfoundland, Labrador, and Manitoba. I hope it will be a success, I believe it will be a success. But it is not the end of all things. Among the things we have experienced and discovered these last few months, there is, in the first place, the fact that some of our achievements are not shared strongly enough throughout the country. I think, and I am not speaking as a minister but for myself, we must reexamine our own ideas on the country. We must do it in a really open way. It is time to speak again of national objectives for Canada, of objectives which can reunify all Canadians, but we have to do it in the context of the profound changes which await us in our country and internationally.
I remember, if I may be allowed a partisan recollection, a time in the life of the party in which I have worked my life when just after the debate on the flag when my party was deeply divided, when it risked becoming a captive of the past. Leaders in the party at that time had
the sense to draw our membership together to focus on what was then called a national conference on Canadian goals, not to talk about what we had been, but to talk about what we could become.
The party of the hon. member underwent a similar experience in Kingston after the election of 1958. It may be in this time of such disrespect for our political parties there is a lesson that the country can learn from them. It may be that it is time for us now, together and without agendas written in advance, without too many assumptions, to try together in this country to define what the national goals of this country as we enter the next century should be.
As the hon. member will know, whatever doubts one might have in Canada about our good fortune, those doubts are not held elsewhere in the world. Our imperfections are known. If they are not known, my friend from Spadina will raise them in the House of Commons and others will, which is part of our democracy. Our faults are known. Our weaknesses are known. But there is no question that we have both the responsibility to establish leadership in the world and an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate that people of differences and people of genius can build things together.
I think that is a goal that is worthy of the next century of Canadians. I believe that that is a goal that Canadians in this House of Commons of all parties would want to pursue. I do not see the Meech Lake debate as ending things. I do not see this, in fact, as a constitutional question. I think this is a question that has to do with the purpose and the nature of the country.
While these months have been terribly difficult for all of us, I think that they may well have driven us more quickly than we might otherwise have arrived to face that reality and to undertake that kind of searching of the soul of this country, that attempt to define what it is we want to become that is overdue.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the motion which is before us tonight urges the legislative assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland, and I quote from the motion, to:
- exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987 -
That is the Meech accord.
-by June 23, 1990 -
June 20, 1990

In this motion we are not discussing once more the value of the Meech accord. We will not be voting on an approval or disapproval of the Meech accord, nor will we be discussing or debating the value of the new accords reached on June 9 after a long week of discussion by the First Ministers of this country. No, we are not discussing those new accords either.
What we are discussing here today is a plea from this House to the legislative assemblies of Manitoba and Newfoundland that they pass as quickly as possible the Meech accord.
Why is such a motion necessary before this House? Does the government doubt the good intentions of the political leaders in Manitoba and Newfoundland? Why is this motion necessary?
Mr. Speaker, to fully understand this motion I think we have to look at it in conjunction with, first of all, Senator Murray's expedition to Manitoba on Monday when he preached to the aboriginal leaders of that province and to the legislators in their provincial assembly.
We also have to look at this motion in conjunction with the answers that the Prime Minister gave to questions in this House yesterday when he also put the blame for the situation which the country is in on the backs of the political leaders of Manitoba. As far as I can determine, the purpose of this motion is an attempt by the Prime Minister to re-establish his credibility because of the mess we are in, the fact that he caused a lot of that mess, and to shift the burden to other individuals.
If there is a constitutional crisis in this country today, and I believe there is one, it is principally due to the cynical and scheming actions of the Prime Minister.
According to the interview that he gave to The Globe and Mail on June 11, he admitted that he deliberately delayed the calling of a First Ministers' Conference in what appears to be an attempt to create a pressure cooker atmosphere. It worked to a certain extent. It certainly worked to the extent that he was able to get an agreement on the night of June 9, an agreement that all premiers signed, some of them conditionally. We now see that that agreement was fraught with great difficulties, in particular the procedures required in several of the provincial legislatures.
Government Orders
Here we have a Prime Minister who waited to the last possible moment to call the First Ministers together. Despite repeated calls from members of the opposition parties in this House and from the Premiers of several provinces, including Manitoba and Newfoundland, who said to the Prime Minister that they needed time to steer corrective or add-on resolutions through their legislatures. But no, the Prime Minister took a casual approach. He said that all was well, that the three legislatures in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Manitoba would pass the accord as it was, that no change was necessary, that no First Ministers' Conference was necessary. It is now clear that he was wrong.
I hope that the accord will still be passed, but the crisis we are now in was not necessary. If the Prime Minister had called the First Ministers together last year when many of these issues were known, or at the latest in January, February or even March of this year, rather than on June 3, there would have been time to work out the difficulties that we see today, difficulties with respect to aboriginal peoples, with respect to women, and with respect to the Charter of Rights.
The Prime Minister, until Premier McKenna, made his proposals in March, was totally inflexible and arrogant. Worse still, we now find that he almost plotted and planned the delay in calling the First Ministers together, as he said, to roll the dice on the right day, all of which is set out in the article in The Globe and Mail of June 11.
There is also in the attitude shown by Senator Murray, the Prime Minister, and some other members of the government, an attitude that parliaments and legislators do not really count. What really counts is the executive side of the government. In other words, if the premier signs, that is it, it should be done, that there should not be time for adequate debate and discussion, that rules in parliamentary systems are not really necessary. If it is necessary, you suspend them. Well, we know that this government is probably the worst for that sort of thing in the history of Canada. According to my records, this government has imposed closure 34 times since 1984, which is more than any other government prior to 1984 going back to Confederation.
This government also day after day suspends the rules. If they feel they do not want to listen to petitions from hon. members, they just suspend the rules and move that we go right past them into other business. Senator Murray is up in that other place, but he was preaching to the people in Manitoba the other day. They have this attitude that procedures, rules, traditions, parliaments, and legislative assemblies are not really important.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
Those rules and procedures are there to protect the liberties of members of the House of Commons, in particular members of opposition parties and independent members. There is a reason for those rules, and you do not suspend them without reason.
When we go back to the beginning, we see that after he was elected to office Premier Bourassa of Quebec made five proposals, five demands which he thought were necessary for Quebec to sign the Constitution of 1982, and all parties in this House agreed to those five proposals. I agreed. My political party agreed. We all agreed. Those proposals, of course, then were agreed to at the first Meech Lake conference by all the provincial premiers, and they signed a document to that effect.
It was only after the document was written up in legal language, when those five proposals agreed to were put into legal language, that some objections began to arise. Objections arose because while people agreed to the five proposals they saw impacts that the document made on other areas of Canadian life and on other Canadians that were not expected, and they did not want those sort of impacts. While they agreed to the five proposals, they did not want any other rights or traditions reduced.
There was also objection because many Canadians, and especially the aboriginal Canadians, felt that things were left out that should have been put in. Canadians who came here from other countries, other than Britain and France, thought that they should be recognized in some way or other. There were objections to the way in which the Meech Lake Accord was drafted and the way it impacted on other things and what was left out.
This is the sad part of this whole debate: individuals, parliamentarians, and legislators objected from time to time to the Meech Lake Accord, but it never meant that they were against Quebec, or against the legitimate aspirations of Quebec, or that they were against Quebec as a distinct society. No, they supported those things, but they wanted their own rights, their own qualities, and
their own expressions protected in the Constitution as well.
During the debate in 1987 the Liberal Party put forward nine amendments to the accord. They were all defeated by the government. They were not even listened to seriously. They were defeated. They were tried once again in the Senate. They were defeated once more. For most of us in the Liberal Party-and this was the official position of this party-despite the flaws, despite the inadequacies in the Meech Lake Accord, we thought it was best to vote for it for the greater good of this country and for the unity of the country. I was one of those who voted for it. I felt that what I did was right then and I support my position, although I still feel that the accord has flaws.
Once the debate was over in this House and the accord was passed by eight of the ten provincial legislatures, the discussion went on. It went on in New Brunswick. It went on in Manitoba. It went on among Canadians throughout the country, many of whom were not satisfied with the accord, continued to campaign against it, and wanted amendments.
Despite the fact that questions were raised in this House, demands were made of the Prime Minister and of other ministers to do something about the impasse that was continuing in Manitoba, in New Brunswick, and later in Newfoundland because Newfoundland rescinded its agreement to the accord. There were continuous demands of the Prime Minister to go out there, to call the premiers together, to do something to break the impasse, to consider some amendments, to be flexible, and to make some changes that would meet the aspirations and the requirements of other communities in Canada. Nothing was done.
Time went by, month after month, until March of this year when Premier McKenna tabled a resolution in his own House to provide for a companion accord. He proposed that we accept the Meech Lake Accord fully as it was, but he put forward another accord which would add on other provisions to satisfy the criticisms that were being made by certain Canadians.
Following that, the Prime Minister set up the Charest committee which studied Mr. McKenna's proposals and other alternatives. The blockage started to come undone and everybody was happy. Those of us who wanted to see
June 20, 1990

the country united were quite happy and pleased with some movement forward, all of a sudden, to save the accord, to save the country, and to meet the aspirations of Canadians who were not happy with the accord.
What seemed to make many of us in this party happy was that the recommendations of the Charest committee of this House contained many of the proposals that we had in our amendments of 1987. Many of the things that we said were necessary in 1987 were recognized in April 1990 as being essential to get the Meech Lake Accord through.
We know the history. Finally the Prime Minister calls the First Ministers to supper on June 3. They sit in a pressure cooker atmosphere for one week, in private, with most Canadians not knowing what was being proposed and counterproposed. They came up with the two companion accords of June 9.
We in the Liberal Party feel vindicated to a certain extent, because once again many of the provisions in these companion accords were similar to the amendments we made in 1987.
Once again those of us who loved this country and wanted it to stay united were quite pleased with the results. We did not like the process. We did not like the way it was done, but we were happy to see all the provincial premiers and the Government of Canada agreeing on how to resolve the crisis.
As I said, now we are faced with the procedures in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. We see that we have only three days left to meet the deadline. The Prime Minister is putting pressure, and it seems putting the blame for that situation, on the leaders of Manitoba and the leaders of Newfoundland. I think that is wrong.
The fact of the matter is that one year, two years, two and a half years went by when something could be done to resolve the differences and to resolve the pleas of many Canadians with respect to the accord. Nothing was done. Unfortunately, it was left to the last minute. I think the Prime Minister and the government must take responsibility for that. If the Prime Minister had not been so inflexible, the process which led to the Charest committee and to the companion accords of June 9 could have been done at an earlier date.
Government Orders
Then again we have the situation with our aboriginal people. As I said, the other day Senator Murray rushed to Manitoba with a six-point program. As a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I examined that program. It looks very good to me, but to expect our aboriginal people to be presented with six proposals in the morning and to give an answer at the end of that day, or even the next day, is totally unacceptable.
Our aboriginal peoples have been betrayed over and over again by governments in Canada, both federal and provincial. Even when we have put our signatures to paper on treaties and other documents, we have done the very opposite of what we said we were going to do. One can easily understand how our aboriginal people could look on those six points put forward by Senator Murray on Monday as something of a Trojan horse.
Their experience has led them to believe that they cannot trust us. They are suspicious of every sort of proposal that we make to them. Even when it looks as good as a Trojan horse, they do not want to accept it right away. They want to look at it over and over again. They want to discuss it with their own people. They want to know what it will really do for them. Why at the last minute are those proposals, as good as they might be, being put forward to the aboriginal people of this country?
Even in the companion accords of June 9, all that was given to the aboriginal people was the right to have more First Ministers' Conferences with respect to their issues. On June 9, the aboriginal people only got promises of more constitutional conferences. On June 18, they got a six-point program but no time to consider it as a people should be able to do. We have to remember that most of the associations and tribal councils in this country do not have the resources behind them that the Government of Canada has. The do not have the lawyers, the accountants, and the specialists to examine and look at those things in the same way the Government has, so when they are up against the government of Canada they react with suspicion and with doubt.
Another area where the Prime Minister bears a lot of responsibility with respect to the situation we are in is the way he went about this country promoting a disaster scenario with respect to the Meech accord.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
How many times have I heard the Prime Minister say to those who in good faith put forward or suggested amendments to the accord: "Why are you against the province of Quebec? If you defeat this accord as it is, you will drive Quebec out of Confederation" or words to that effect.
Either you do it this way or there will be a constitutional crisis; therefore you had better do it this way and no change is possible. By repeating that over and over again-and some of his ministers did the same thing-it led Quebecers to believe that the Meech accord was absolutely essential for them, that if they did not get it their province would be in ruin, and that it would be an insult to their province.
I have spoken to many Quebecers. They have not read the accord, but the accord has become a symbol for something much greater than the contents of the accord itself. It is like a flag. It represents the following for many Quebecers: if you are for the accord you are for Quebec; if you are against it you are against Quebec. There is no consideration for the fact that most of the provisions in the accord apply to all the provinces, not just to Quebec.
The Prime Minister by his rhetoric over the last three years in trying to get provinces and individuals to support the accord went so far that he created this disaster scenario. Now we are faced with a disaster because it is not being approved in the manner which he would like and which I would like.
He threatened those who opposed. Those who questioned and wanted amendments he accused of rejecting Quebec.
I want to make it very clear that many people who accepted the five proposals of Premier Bourassa, including the distinct society, were quite ready to agree to most of the Meech accord but simply wanted changes that would take into account their own special place in Canada.
As an anglophone Quebecer, if I can call myself that, I have never had any problem with the distinct society. I accept totally that Quebec is a distinct society. It is the only jurisdiction in all of North America with a majority of French speaking people. We have the civil law. In Canada we collect our own income tax. We do not use
the RCMP, nor does Ontario, as a provincial police force. There are many other distinctive qualities. This goes back to 1774 in the Quebec Act when the British recognized Quebec in a very distinctive way as opposed to other colonies in their colonial empire.
There is a long tradition of recognizing distinctive features about Quebec. Some Canadians say: "Well, other provinces have distinctive traits as well." That is true, but some people are not anxious that their distinctiveness be recognized and others are not anxious that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is about nothing less than the fate of our country. No one should underestimate the seriousness and urgency of our situation.
One thing I heard consistently as I crossed this country was the clear, unequivocal statement by all Canadians of how important it is for us to stay together, to stay whole, to stay unified. How good we feel as Canadians, how proud we are, how respectful we are of the kind of nation we have become, the nation of freedom and opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, through this very difficult period that many of us have lived one thing was very clear. The situation had to be addressed and addressed with a great degree of urgency. The time for healing had really come upon us. We really had to start coming back together in a very important manner. This is not a time for procrastination, it is a time for decision. The Fathers of Confederation faced the same challenge 123 years ago when the very idea of Canada was tested.

Different leaders, different parties and different provinces, but they all understood that the great nation they were looking for simply could not be unless there was a will to compromise.

Our greatest successes have been achieved when we put Canada first. . .first in our hearts. No obligation is more compelling than the duty we have to this great nation of ours. Canada is a precious land of boundless energy and promise.
June 20,1990

My family came to Canada and made Montreal their home. They raised me to value my heritage, to seize the promise of Canada and to cherish Quebec. I am an anglophone Quebecer. I have lived all my life in Quebec. I have seen all the changes that have occurred in that time, along with the emergence of a new Quebec. I have also lived through the moments of tension and crisis. I cannot forget the presence of troops on the streets just 20 years ago. These memories are etched in my memory forever. I cannot speak for all Quebecers, but if you ask me if Quebec should be called a "distinct society", how can I answer anything but yes. Quebec is a "distinct society". It is a fact and an integral part of that distinctiveness is, as the Meech Lake agreement makes absolutely clear, the anglophone Quebecer.
My riding of Pierrefonds-Dollard is a microcosm of Canada. My neighbourhood, half English-speaking and half French speaking, with people of origins from all over the world, ask me to send their message to the legislators and the people of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador. They say: Put Canada first, protect and defend this glorious and magnificent country of ours.

Canadians everywhere convey the same message and keep saying: Together, we will go far!
Mr. Speaker, constitutional speeches may help promote unity, but it cannot be achieved unless people have confidence.
Quebecers sought our confidence when they said no to independence and yes to renewed federalism. With the Meech Lake Accord we wanted to express that confidence to honour Quebec and Quebecers, and to enable them to regain their dignity and their place in Confederation.
But this promise has yet to be fulfilled and time is running short.

Now, more than at any other moment in our history, we must keep our faith with each other. Only then, can we go forward to build a new, vital and dynamic Canada of the 21st century. The world is watching us. They witnessed our evolution as a nation, one that stands firmly on the side of justice, fairness and of freedom. Nelson Mandela appreciated this and so should we all. We cannot throw away all that we have built and all that we can be. We must not fail our own ideals. We must not
Government Orders
compromise ourselves by pursuing anything less than the excellence which only a strong united Canada can achieve. Across the continents and around the world, the gentle breeze of liberty is blowing. Old walls, old barriers and prejudices are being dismantled, not by powerful dictators and their armies, but by ordinary people. This is the world of Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela. In this dawning of a new era, hope lives. Today, civilization cries out, not for a narrow, limited view, but for generosity, understanding and true vision.
We are at a crossroads. Down one road, the high road, lie unity, prosperity and greatness. Down the other, the narrow road, we and our children face division, intolerance and despair. That high road is beckoning us now. It is the only choice we can make.
We have so much to offer each other. Together we can continue to build a strong foundation of courage and hope for all Canadians. We can continue to free our society from the shackles of bigotry and racism and advance the noble cause of equality. Is it possible that we have forgotten all that unites us? Have we forgotten what makes us unique among all the nations of the world; our two official languages, our aboriginal heritage, our multicultural fabric, our dedication to peace and human rights, and our caring and tolerant traditions. These are among our proudest achievements, achievements which set us apart and which can lead us to excellence. They are what make our Canadian citizenship among the most sought after in all the world.
The Prime Minister told this House a few days ago what is at stake. He said: "There is a new world to be won. Canada needs to turn the page, at last, on a long, controversial and crucial period-we need to recapture the sense of tolerance and common interest and common purpose that lies at the root of our success as a nation".
For me, our greatest duty as Canadians now is to truly know and accept each other better. Wherever we live, wherever we come from, we are all Canadians. We have worked to build a house of freedom and compassion, with a strong foundation to support newcomers from all over the world. Ours is an "open house", to every culture and every origin, where equality and justice are a promise made to each other. Erecting barriers of ignorance or fear is not the Canadian way. Instead, we build bridges to truth and understanding. Our tradition is to heal wounds, to correct injustices and to right wrongs.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
There is only one way to dispel fears and misconceptions in a democratic society. It is to reach out to individual Canadians of good faith. It is to stand up and be counted and not to yield to lesser obstacles. Canada is more than earth and mountain and stone. Canada is a state of mind, a quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the House is a strong appeal to the two legislatures to maintain confidence in Canadian unity.

We respect those legislatures and the people they represent. We acknowledge legitimate concerns and aspirations. We have pledged that they will be addressed fairly and resolved speedily. Once again, as has been the Canadian way, we ask that trust be exchanged for trust.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier called Canadians to that duty a century ago. Speaking in Quebec City, he said, and I quote:
What this countty needs above all is peace, concord and union between all the elements composing its population. Let us show to the world that if we reverence the past, we also have regard for the future. Let us show to the world that unity does not mean absorption, and that autonomy does not mean antagonism.. .and in all the vicissitudes of our situation, let us always remember that love is better than hatred and faith better than doubt, and let hope in our future destinies be the pillar of fire to guide us in our career.
Let us all be faithful to that duty in the hours to come. That is our answer, our only real choice.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the issue we are discussing today is among the most difficult that Canadians can face or that Parliamentarians can ever have to deal with. It is an issue which must be beyond partisan politics, because it is an issue which divides parties. It divides families. Canadians are not united on the issue about which we speak.
The Constitution is probably one of the most difficult of all issues we have had to face throughout our history and, indeed, our Constitution has been an issue that has been with us since before Confederation and will be with us for many years to come.
Let us look, however, just at the recent history, the past decade. I was there, as were many many members of this House, when the referendum of 1980 was being decided. I went to Quebec at that time to fight to keep Quebec in Canada. Part of the promise delivered by those who voted against separation, the promise of those who were fighting to keep Canada united, was that Quebec would have a renewed federalism. This manifested itself in the Constitution accord which a separatist premier of Quebec refused to sign. It manifested itself in the Meech Lake Accord, which all 10 premiers and the federal government signed. Then it manifested itself in the companion agreement signed just recently.
This companion accord made changes to the Meech Lake Accord in an effort to deal with some of the problems contained in it. Canadians had many concerns about Meech Lake, and the First Ministers, having heard these concerns, met. All of those concerns were represented at the table. This is why the companion accord was signed, dealing with these issues in a way that Mrs. Carstairs, Mr. Doer and Mr. McKenna, who had previously been opposed to Meech Lake, were able to give their support to the package.
We recognize, on all sides of this House, that this may not be the perfect package. It does not have all the answers to all of our constitutional problems, but is merely one step in a process of constitutional reform.
Probably, most of the debate over Meech Lake has focused on the so-called distinct society clause for Quebec. It is simply a recognition of Quebec's unique problems as the home in Canada of the largest portion of Canada's francophones, francophones who are still in a minority in Canada. It is a recognition that they have different cultures and different institutions which have been part of the Confederation agreement for more than 123 years.
But this distinct society clause has caused much anguish. I believe that the companion accord has dealt with it in a responsible manner. They have attached a legal opinion from some of the best jurisprudential minds in Canada saying that the distinct society clause does not overrule individual charter rights.
June 20,1990

I may be accused of some bias, Mr. Speaker, but I could not help but be impressed by the words this morning of the Premier of Ontario when he spoke to Newfoundland.
He indicated there that even if this legal opinion were wrong and at some point in our future it were held that it could be used to impinge on certain individual rights, it could only be done in the province of Quebec. It would only be Quebec legislation which, in furtherance of protecting its unique and distinct status, might be able to overrule certain charter rights at a certain point.
Quebec is a province that wants the distinct society. The distinct clause is also supported by the major leading women's group in Quebec, so who are we to say that even if our legal opinion were wrong, that Quebec should not be able to determine certain rights to protect its own distinct francophone status.
A lot has happened that is causing us dismay. Bill 178 and the use of the notwithstanding clause were not appreciated by the rest of Canada. There is some evidence that some Canadians want to get even. Even the Premier of Manitoba changed his mind about Meech Lake after Bill 178 was passed.
Maybe we can criticize Quebec, but surely let us look at the signals we have been giving to Quebec: tramping on the flag in Brockville; Ontario municipalities passing English only by-laws. What signal does this send to a people who are Canadian, who are our brothers and sisters?
Quebec has said yes to Canada three times in this decade: once at the time of the referendum, once at Meech Lake, and once on the companion accord. How many more times is Quebec going to say yes to Canada if Canada says no to Quebec?
The political reality is that if there were an election in Quebec and Mr. Parizeau were elected, Quebec would be leaving Canada. He has said that he is there not to keep Canada united, but to break up Canada.
There is a symbolic mythology, apart from its meaning, which pervades the whole Meech question. It has come to be a symbol of whether we want Canada to stay together, whether we are prepared to say yes to Quebec after it has said yes to Canada three times in this decade.
Government Orders
Do we know with certainty whether Quebec voters will reject a separatist alternative? Can we say for certain that they will come back to the table? Can we afford as a nation to start this process all over again? Should we not be getting on with other issues as well, not only the companion accords and further enhancements to our constitutional process, but dealing with the severe economic challenges we face?
We have so much to do. Perhaps in the past we have said that in Canada our unity was founded on the rail from coast to coast. But perhaps we have put too much stake in ribbons of wood and steel and not enough in the great human spirit of humanity, sharing and caring about our nation. Together we can be strong.
The risk of not standing up for this accord is enormous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Liberal Party has split the last 20 minutes. The hon. member for Willowdale and the hon. Member for Glengarry-Pres-cott-Russell have both taken 10 minutes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain emotion that I am addressing this House tonight. So far I am the only francophone outside Quebec who has had the opportunity to take part in this debate.
I listened carefully to the speeches made by some of my colleagues, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State who, as usual, has enriched this House with his eloquence. I must say that I share many of his feelings. It is perhaps unusual for us to talk this way about our colleagues opposite but that is what is called for today, I think.
Mr. Speaker, ever since I was a kid, I have been hearing about our national unity and how it is threatened. I remember very well the October crisis of 1970, the election of the Parti Quebecois in 1976 and the fears it gave rise to, the 1980 referendum on the future of Quebec and all of Canada and, let us not forget this component of the referendum, the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, that I had hoped for and agreed with, and finally the defeat of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec and the renewed interest in national unity not only in Quebec but throughout Canada.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders

We in this Parliament did not invent the subject of discussing our Constitution. Canada has had 24 constitutional documents, Orders in Council, Acts of the British Parliament, Acts of our Parliament. I want to take a moment and describe perhaps a component of one of these acts, namely, the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which, after all, is the law that gave this country its independence over foreign affairs and its independence generally.
At that time Canada, New Zealand and Australia were granted this independence. We in this country, of course, could not take advantage of all that was given to us and all that we had earned at that time. We could not do it because we had not yet resolved a difficulty within our own country as to how it was that we would amend our Constitution in the future and how we would deal with such issues as constitutional amendments. So our constitution stayed in Britain.
I suppose in typical Canadian form of compromise and sometimes delay, 51 years later it finally came home. That was a very historic day, April 17, 1982. I was a member of the Ontario legislature at that time, a brand new member, and I had the privilege of viewing, like many other Canadians, what was happening before us on that great historical day. Of course, many of us said at that time that it was not over, and it certainly was not. We were back almost immediately talking about constitutions again.
On April 30, 1987, the First Ministers of our country, the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues signed the Meech Lake Accord. I was watching television that night when I heard of the signing of the accord. I was really taken by the fact that, at last, we would see an end to some of the disagreements that we had had. I was so optimistic and so pleased, not only for myself but for my family, for my children and for my country.
Within a few days things looked as though they were unravelling again, but finally they got back on track and on June 3, the Langevin document was signed, if that is what we call that document. Let us call it that for the purposes of this discussion.
Then I became very optimistic again, as I think all Canadians were, about the process and the possibility of
putting this national unity issue finally behind us and working towards the great potential that we have as a nation.
We in this House, after much debate and some difficulty-difficulty within my own political party and all political parties and I do not think that we were the only ones who had difficulty-adopted this accord. It was adopted in the other place and then finally it had to be adopted again by this House. It was adopted by legislatures right across the country save and except two. Then there was the subsequent withdrawal of a ratification. We got to a point that was what I would call very close to that eleventh hour. The concern then heightened.
Constituents of mine in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell a few weeks ago were having very serious reflections on just where we were and where we were going.

My constituents, Mr. Speaker-and I know I have the privilege of representing a special riding, almost surrounded by Quebec, but still an Ontario riding where French-speaking people are in a majority-worried about their future, the future of Quebec and the future of the whole of Canada.

The electors I represent understood one point very well. Perhaps not all of us in this House and in other legislatures, or even some Canadians understood the following point. Heaven forbid that this country were ever to become divided by the withdrawal of one of the provinces, namely Quebec. It would not only be Quebec withdrawing from the rest of the country, but a big component of the country would not be there. There is no question Canada would not be a member of the G-7 group of nations without 25 per cent of its population, a great proportion of its riches and everything else that would be gone if that were to happen.
It is not just one part of the country that loses, Mr. Speaker. The whole country would lose were that to happen. It is you and I and everyone out there listening to the House of Commons debates tonight, all Canadians. Perhaps some regions of the country would suffer financially more than others. I do not know. But very few, if any, would ever gain from that kind of proposition and disunity.
June 20,1990



Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying either that if the accord is not ratified this is the end of it all. This would be irresponsible on my part. What we have to do is try our best to ratify, and encourage others to ratify the Meech Lake Accord. As far as we are concerned, in this House, it is done. We are not being asked, tonight, to ratify the accord, but simply to urge others to do it, as agreed between the various government leaders.
Mr. Speaker, if all Canadians do this kind of soul searching about our future, I am convinced they will realize, as I did, not that the agreement is perfect, it is not-however, the previous one was not perfect either, nor the one before it-they will realize that having amended our Constitution so often, having had that kind of debate in the past, we will continue to do so in the future.

In conclusion, let us remember that this accord is not the end of constitutional discussion, it is merely a component of the continuing process. We have had discussions in the past.
Let us pass this accord. I hope that it passes. If it does not, I do not want to pretend that it will be the end of the world. That would be irresponsible. We will all have to work together after June 23, pick up the pieces and try to build again. I am sure that we would. I am confident that we would. But why at this point would we want to risk it. This is no time to play Russian roulette with the future of our country.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very grave concern in my heart about the future of Canada, the future of this country. I have heard people say that those of us who have that concern are fearmongering. I cannot believe that anybody could characterize the concern that all of us feel here in this House and across this great nation as fearmongering because there is ample reason for that concern.
I believe that those who raise the spectre that fearmongering by raising concerns is counterproductive to this process are putting their heads in the sand and misunderstand the very deep feelings in Quebec and the gravity of the situation with which we are faced. Those who would say that our concern is fearmongering are doing a disservice to this country.
Government Orders
I believe that we in Canada right now are at a crossroads of choice. Either we can open our minds and our hearts and generously embrace our future as one Canada, one single country, one entity, a Canada that is rich in diversity but bound by a common determination to survive against sometimes incredible odds or we can continue to pursue a debate that will only lead us to a mean and bitter end, an end not worthy of the country that we have come to expect Canada will be in the future and has been in the past.
During the recent discussions at the Congress Centre in Ottawa, some wise soul in the audience made a sign which read very simply: "Nine plus one equals ten. Ten minus one equals zero". No more words need to be said because I believe with all my heart that that is so. We cannot have a Canada that lacks a great and vast geographic part of our country and still have a Canada that is a Canada at all.
In Manitoba, where I come from, the skies are clear and wide, bright and blue and to me they symbolize the spirit of the people of Manitoba. I believe that Manitobans are warm. I know that Manitobans are generous. I have watched as Manitobans over the years have embraced new ideas and other cultures with gladness and with joy. Manitobans, I also know, love this country with a great profundity and they want to see it stay together more than anything else in the world. I also believe that Newfoundlanders want the same and have the same warmth and generosity of spirit in their hearts.
So what are we to do about this awful pickle that we are in? How are we going to solve the dilemma that we find ourselves faced with? I do not believe that the way to do it is by attributing blame. History will take care of that, if there is any blame to be attributed.
Instead, we have to search actively for answers, for solutions that will keep this country together. That is our job as leaders and we cannot rely on process to substitute for that responsibility either.
We must exercise the leadership that has been vested in us by the people of Canada, be it at the federal level or at the provincial level, or wherever it might be. If it is only the leadership of a group or a society, we must

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
exercise that leadership, too, to find a way out of this dilemma that we are in.
There comes a time when personal political fortunes and personal political dreams become very insignificant in the greater scheme of things when we are faced with something like this. There also comes a time when heavy though the mantle of leadership might be, it must be borne bravely, or it must be cast aside and left for others to pick up and carry on.
The Meech Lake Accord is a simple document. There is nothing terribly complex about it. It is an affirmative document. It is a positive document. It says yes in almost every line. It says yes to the aspirations of seven million Canadians first of all. It says yes to the federal government in the matter of the spending power. It also says yes to the provinces and it respects our diversity and our differences in the same manner. It says yes to the provinces on the question of immigration. It says yes to the provinces in the matter of having a veto. It says yes to the provinces on the matter of appointing judges and senators.
I cannot think of a single thing in the accord that says no to anyone in this country. In fact, the accord even says yes to those who are not mentioned in the Constitution at this time. It says yes to those who have constitutional aspirations for the future because it is only by completing the unfinished business of 1982 and by embracing Quebec and bringing Quebec back into the circle of Confederation that other reforms can be initiated; other reforms that will allow Canada to say yes to those who have constitutional aspirations.
It is a simple fact that we cannot undertake any other constitutional reform until Quebec is brought back into the circle of Confederation.
Aboriginal concerns about constitutional recognition cannot take place without ratification of the accord. The addition of other recognitions must also wait until the accord is ratified. We cannot deal with things like Senate reform, if we determine in the future that that is what we want to do, until Quebec is back in the Constitution.
So why would we not want to do everything that is humanly possible to achieve that simple goal, to bring our country back together, to knit it into one 10-province family with two territories waiting in the wings, looking for a future that they will develop and be able to reach
and aspire to in a whole and complete Canada. Why would we not want to do everything within our means, within our reach, to ultimately accomplish that goal?
If the accord is the affirmative statement that I really believe it to be, why would we ever want to turn it down? Why would we not want to say yes immediately, openly, freely, and hold out our arms and embrace the opportunity that is afforded to us here today.
I cannot believe that we are so narrow and so warped in some sort of selfish dissatisfaction-maybe we are overfed, maybe we are over rich, or maybe we are over lucky, but I do not believe that we are so steeped in that kind of narrowness that we cannot endorse a document that I understand most deeply to be a confirmation of everything that we hold dear as Canadians. It is confirmation of all those things that we like to think of ourselves as being: open-hearted, generous, warm, kind, tolerant. Canadians have a conceit that we are all those things, and I have that conceit as well. But if they are true, if indeed that is what we are and that is how we see ourselves, and if that is what our identity is, then how can we turn down this opportunity to use that character to embrace the very simple aspirations of Quebec and get on with running the country?
I believe in my deepest heart that we are all those things. So it is with the utmost astonishment that I have watched the debate these past 16 months over something that is so generous-spirited as the inclusion of the distinct society designation for the one province that by its very existence lends so much to the roots of that Canadian character that I just spoke of. It is because of Quebec, because of the fact that a country had to learn to live with differences at a very early stage in its development that we have that conceit of being tolerant, open, generous and kind.
Oddly enough, nobody else seems to disagree that Quebec is indeed a distinct society. As a matter of fact, I have listened one after another to provincial leaders across this country tell us that Quebec is a distinct society, and that they agree that is so. That includes premiers who are having difficulties right at this moment.
What appears to bother us is the fact that somebody wants to write it down. We want to write the words "distinct society" and to us in English Canada that sends
June 20, 1990

a thrill of fear to the very core of our being and we believe that will have some negative impact on us.
This might be understandable. In the weeks that I spent travelling across the country with the Charest committee, I came to understand something about us in Canada that I did not understand before. This discussion about two Canadas, the two solitudes, two nations, is not only steeped in language, although we often point to language as being the one to blame, it also is based on the fact that we have two very distinct approaches to the way we do business in our provinces and the way we deal with the business of writing laws and rules.
English Canada lives by the common law, the unwritten law, the rule of the understatement. We have a profound and deep understanding that what is not written down sometimes means more than what is.
French Canada lives by the civil law, the written law, which demands that things be written down, because if they are not in writing they have no legal meaning. Those people are steeped in that cultural understanding. It goes very deep.
It seems to me that these two ideas are at the veiy centre of the discussion about the distinct society and they come into conflict time after time after time.
I believe that this is what was at the root of the western premier's insistence in 1982 on the inclusion of the very much maligned notwithstanding clause. It seems to me that Mr. Lyon and Mr. Lougheed were also steeped in their very deep understanding of the unwritten law and they feared being hemmed in by the words in the Charter of Rights.
In fact, is there anything to fear from the words "distinct society"? I have every profound belief that there is nothing to fear in those words.
In fact, at this very moment, if the Supreme Court were to be studying a matter of the Constitution, they would take into consideration the fact that Quebec is a distinct society in making a judgment. They did so when they handed down their decision about the signage law in Quebec. The words "distinct society" were written into their decision when they said that while both languages must be placed on the signs, French could take precedence and English could appear in smaller type.
Government Orders
People also seem to worry that the distinct society will give Quebec an advantage over other provinces. That simply is not true.
It states what is a fact: Quebec is distinct. For purposes of the law in Quebec that is a very important fact. Something many women's groups have said is that somehow the words "distinct society" will affect their rights under the charter. I do not know how that could be when the distinct society clause affects only the people in Quebec and the women of Quebec are not worried about the inclusion of that clause.
I really have no understanding of where those fears come from. We must put them aside and come to the understanding that the words "distinct society" do nothing at all to hurt, abrogate, or denigrate anyone else in Canada. They are a statement of fact and they are necessary to the people in Quebec in order to interpret their law.
If in some comers of the country we are going to ask any question at all, and if we are still confused about whether we should pass the Meech Lake Accord, in my opinion there is only one question that we should be asking: Is there anything at all in the Meech Lake Accord that hurts anyone in Canada? I have to say: "No, there is nothing. There is not a word that hurts anyone in Canada."
That is the question that the people and the leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador must ask themselves: Is there anything in the Meech Lake Accord that hurts the people of Newfoundland or Labrador? The answer is no, there is nothing that hurts the people of Newfoundland or Labrador in the Meech Lake Accord.
The people in Manitoba must ask themselves: Is there anything at all in the Meech Lake Accord that hurts Manitobans? The answer is no, there is nothing in the Meech Lake Accord that hurts the people of Manitoba in any way.
There is something that does have the possibility of hurting the people of Labrador, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Quebec, and all the rest of Canada. That is the lethargy, the lack of positive will, the inability to grasp this opportunity and take the responsibility to pass the Meech Lake Accord, to say yes, to take affirmative action, and to overcome whatever processes, problems or

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
barriers which might seem to be in the way. If that is not done, it could have a very profound effect on all of us.
In closing I want to say that I know that all the leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the leaders of Manitoba understand this issue very well. I feel very strongly for the terrible trauma they are going through and for the dilemma they are in. Even at this moment I know that they are wrestling with these very heavy questions and the tremendous burden of responsibility that they bear for the future of this country.
I believe, with all my heart, that they will come up with the right answers and that they will find the solutions we all seek. My appeal this evening is not to those leaders. My appeal tonight is to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to support their premiers and to support their representatives in doing whatever it is they must do in order to pass the accord so that we can get on with the business of building this wonderful nation.
My appeal is to the warm, generous, tolerant people of those two provinces and the rest of this country to support our provincial leaders in their search for solutions, to say "yes" to Quebec and to say "yes" to Canada.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her remarks.
The hon. member closed her remarks by saying that she is appealing to the people of the provinces of Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Labrador. Unfortunately the people are the ones who have been left out of it because of this heavy-handed, top down approach. It is up to the politicians now to decide what will happen. We see quite clearly that the fundamental flaw of the Meech Lake Accord is that the people themselves have had veiy little to do with it.
The hon. member also mentioned in her speech the rhetorical question: is there anything in the Meech Lake Accord that hurts Manitoba or Newfoundland and Labrador? Possibly, at this point, it would be academic to say no, there isn't really anything wrong with it because once we bring Quebec into the constitutional family all will be well.
I would argue, being one member of the family of Canada and certainly a western Canadian, that I am a brother or a sister in the family of Canada, that Quebec
is in the Constitution, that it is in the family of Canada and always has been, quite clearly, legally, and constitutionally since 1867.
Maybe nothing now will hurt Manitoba or Newfoundland and Labrador, but I would like to ask a short question about the comments made that the Meech Lake Accord says yes to everybody and everything. I would just like the hon. member to make a couple of comments regarding whether there is anything in the Meech Lake Accord that should hurt these other two provinces if Meech Lake is not ratified?
Yes to Senate reform, is that a possibility with the unanimity clause as it stands right now? Are we saying yes to a person like Elijah Harper who is exercising his constitutional right to do what he is doing now because he believes in it, whether we agree or disagree with it? Are we saying yes to Elijah Harper's constitutional right? Are we saying yes to this because of vetoes to all linguistic groups in Canada of whom we should be proud rather than only saying yes to the main two linguistic groups?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her questions. I know she wants to understand the accord. I think her questions were searching and appropriate.
I am pleased to answer again-and I do not want to sound repetitive-that the answer to your question is yes. In fact the Meech Lake Accord and ratification of the Meech Lake Accord allow us to proceed with Senate reform. Yes, ratification of the Meech Lake Accord allows us to proceed with responding to the needs and the constitutional aspirations of the aboriginal people. Yes, ratification of the Meech Lake Accord allows us also to proceed with the constitutional aspirations of other minority groups in Canada who may want to be included in the future.
Until constitutionally we bring Quebec's signature to the document, we cannot proceed with any of these reforms. In the interests of this country and in the interests of all the people I know the hon. member represents so well and so whole-heartedly, I know she would want also to help us make that appeal to the people of Canada, the people of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, to support their leaders in searching for answers and solutions, to say yes to. . . Quebec, and
June 20, 1990

to say yes to Canada so that we can get on with the rest of the business of the country.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate for a very positive and progressive debate. The feelings communicated to the people of this House and to the people of Canada were strongly held on the part of those members, sincerely and honestly held on the part of those members.
I have always been a supporter of the Meech Lake Accord, as have many members in my party, but I have always had a number of concerns about the process, about what was included in the accord, and about what was excluded from it.
I do not think any constitutional document, no matter where you look in the world or even the constitutional documents of this country, can fully address the aspirations of the people of Canada. It is widely recognized that these are imperfect documents, but they are vital documents as well, documents always being corrected and improved upon.
The process in Canada is always a little difficult, but as we move toward protection over the hundreds of years we have been in existence more and more we will see the Constitution reflect the aspirations of the people of this country.
I also recognize the importance of Quebec becoming a full participant in the Constitution, a signatory to the Constitution, and a full participant in future constitutional discussions and developments. It is extremely important for this country to claim to exist as a national state when 25 per cent of its population has not agreed to the fundamental law of the country and does not make any sense at all. We have to strive to make sure that Quebec is a signatory and is a full participant.
I also argued over the months since the accord was signed that there is really nothing in the Meech Lake Accord that is inconsistent with Canada's constitutional tradition dating back, not only to the Treaty of Paris in 1763 or the Proclamation of 1763, but even to the edicts of the military government that took over Quebec after 1759. Those military governments recognized, in order to maintain the security of Quebec and North America, that the right of Quebec to its religion, its civil law, and
Government Orders
its language, were critical elements. Back then even the successors in terms of military government to General Wolfe, recognized the distinct society in Quebec and the importance of that society to the continuation of British North America.
I think there has been a problem and I think there is some blame that has to be laid. After the signing of the Meech Lake Accord and the endorsement of the accord by the eight provinces and by the Parliament of Canada, I think there was an obligation on the part of the federal government or an obligation on the part of the government that sits opposite to cross Canada and to explain to the people of Canada exactly what that accord was all about. This is where the initial failure of leadership took place.
I can say as a person who represents the most western province, British Columbia that there was an absence of any government representatives in that province to explain to people exactly what the Meech Lake Accord was about, why it was a good thing for Canada, why it was a good thing to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec society within the accord, and why the accord should be adopted, not simply by every legislature and the Parliament of Canada but also by the citizens of Canada who could take up that document and that Constitution as their own, be proud of it, and have nothing to fear from it.
That is where the initial failure of leadership came because the Prime Minister of this country did not go around and talk to the people of Canada, explain what was in the document, and explain the advantages of that document to Canada: the advantage of bringing Quebec back into the constitutional family and the advantages which would proceed in the future in terms of addressing other constitutional requirements if this constitutional amendment were passed in the time set out for it to be passed.
That is when the debate was hijacked by western extremists, by people like APEC. People who wormed their way into the debate eventually took the leadership of the debate and turned this document, in western Canada at any rate, into something that the people of that region feared, loathed, and wanted to see defeated.
Also I think some people had the worst intentions in mind. They wanted to attack the French speaking people of this country, were intolerant, and wanted to use the

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
intolerance that was growing in Canada at that time as a vehicle to defeat the Meech Lake Accord and to defeat the constitutional amendment. I think the blame for that hijacking of the debate around the Meech Lake Accord by extremists on the language issue and by extremists who wanted to force Quebec out of Canada can be put squarely at the door of the Prime Minister of this country.
As one Liberal member suggested, rather than going around the country and saying "you must accept this" and "not to accept this is to be anti-Quebec" was not the argument that registered well with the people of Canada.
My finding, when explaining this document to the people in my constituency, was that many of them had not even read it. Many of them had not seen the document. Many of them who had scanned the document did not understand it and needed some explanation. They needed the authorities there that they could consult, trust, and rely on to explain the document to them.
Who did they have? They had Preston Manning, they had the Reform Party, they had APEC, and they had a whole series of people who wanted to use that document for their own purposes, whether political or whether to increase the intolerance between groups in this country. I think it was a shame that those people were allowed to hijack the debate because of the failure of the leadership on the part of the Prime Minister of this country.
Mr. Speaker, there are other things that have contributed to the disunity of Canada. I think that those contributions to the disunity of this country, again, rest squarely on the shoulders of the Conservative Party opposite and the Conservative government opposite.
My family has been in this country since before it was a country. They moved to Canada east in 1819 from Ireland. They did not consider themselves English Canadians because Irish was the language that was taken away from them by the English in Ireland and they did not see themselves as English Canadians. But they did see themselves as Canadians nevertheless.
They have been here since 1819. They drilled in the Rebellion of 1837, on the side of Canada. They fought in wars, both in western Canada and in Europe on the side of Canada. My family, over the five generations that they have been here, have committed themselves to Canada
and we hope will be able to commit ourselves to Canada in the future. That is certainly my commitment and I know the commitment of one other Skelly in this particular House.
We are concerned about what is happening with this country because this country was put together contrary to all the predictions of the experts on how a country should be put together. The geographers told us that the natural lines of trade are north and south with the various regions of the United States and that you could not pull a country as large and diverse as distant from shore to shore as Canada, together. Yet, Canadians and Canadian governments over the years, through the active involvement of government in the process, managed to turn this country into the nation that everybody predicted could not exist and would ultimately fall into the jaws of the United States.
The fathers and mothers of Confederation actually put this country together and it is always a problem keeping this country together. It is a problem that those of us who enter public life, whether at the provincial, municipal or federal level, always must address ourselves to. We know if we neglect this country at any particular time or neglect the sinews and glue that hold this country together, then it is going to spring apart. We have to take good care of the sinews and glue that hold this country together.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs talked about Canadians as being some of the most fortunate and luckiest people in the world. To some extent, some of us are the luckiest people in the world. Some of us are, but not all of us are.
I think that some of the policies of this government, over the last few years, have contributed in a very dangerous way to disunity in this country and contributed to disunity in such a way that the country is being pulled apart to the point where it is not willing to accept the Meech Lake Accord.
I look at this government's action in destroying the VIA Rail system. It was that railway that pulled this country together from sea to sea and Canadians are proud of that railway. It is a railway that served virtually every region of the country and a railway that could have been held together by government not simply dismissed and destroyed. That railway was perceived as being a symbol of Canada, and an important symbol that pulled
June 20, 1990

the people of this country together in recognition of this country, Canada.
This government has attacked senior citizens through the clawback program. The one thing that this country stood for was that pensions would be the same, whether you lived in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or on the coast of British Columbia. The value of universal programs in this country was to maintain this country and to maintain social programs at a certain standard in every region of the country. By undermining the universality of those programs, the government again has removed some of the sinews and glue that keeps this country together and keeps us thinking as Canadians. Some people suffered as a result of that. Other people did not suffer.
Another example of what the government has done is the unemployment insurance legislation. Some people in Canada are going to be paying a greater penalty than others as a result of what that legislation will do. You cannot have a country where everybody pulls together, where everybody considers themselves fortunate, where everybody contributes and has the same aspirations for the future when some people pay greater penalties for being a Canadian than others. That is a serious problem which is a result of the policies that this government has brought down.
If this government had been more sensitive to the need to maintain programs in Canada, to maintain the symbols of what this country is all about, then I think there would be stronger support for this government and for the Meech Lake Accord and for keeping this country together. I do not think we would find ourselves in this House of Commons, at the eleventh hour, trying to talk two legislatures into approving something which on the one hand they see as against their best interests but, on the other hand, feel they are forced to accept in order to keep the country together.
I think that the Prime Minister and the government in the last two years have contributed, to a great extent, to the disunity of this country. As a result, Meech Lake tends to fall on deaf ears, especially for the people who are paying a higher penalty for being Canadians than others because of the inequality in the legislation that has come down as a result of this government.
Government Orders
I do not think there has been any more important group that has been hit by this than the aboriginal people of this country. In the February budget these people were the hardest hit by the budget reductions. Why did the government focus its attack in the budget on the native people of Canada? The government cut back native print media so that newspapers used by native organizations and tribal councils are now being forced to shut down. Newspapers like the Micmac News that first brought to the attention of this House and to the Nova Scotia Legislature the injustice practised by the Nova Scotia justice system against Donald Marshall; newspapers that in the north and in western Canada are agents for providing literacy training and providing retention of native languages were totally eliminated because their budgets were cut 100 per cent. Many of them will be gone by the time this summer is over. Why were aboriginal people singled out by this government, by the vicious Thatcherite kind of budget that this government imposed on native Indians?
Native broadcasting was cut by 15 per cent. Native people, with an oral language tradition, relied on native broadcasting, both radio and television broadcasting, again to preserve their traditions, to preserve their languages. Yet this vehicle for preserving the language of native people in this country and for keeping their traditions intact was cut by the government. Natives do not see this government and its proposals as supporting their aspirations. They see themselves as being singled out for an attack by Canada. How can Canada now expect native people to want to support the Constitution of a country that they feel does nothing but marginalize them, force them to the outside of society, both in economic and social terms. Now they want native people to endorse the Constitution?
I think it would be a matter of good faith on the part of this government to reverse those cuts, to say they were wrong because they were an attack on native people. I think that would be absolutely necessary in order to get the native people on side, because right now they feel the most attacked of any group in our society.
The Prime Minister sent his agent, Senator Lowell Murray, to talk to the native people and to MLA Elijah Harper out in Manitoba and made them a whole series of offers about involvement in the first ministers process, so that they could be involved in the first ministers process. Why did the Prime Minister not make that offer

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
before? The Prime Minister went to Manitoba and offered a royal commission into aboriginal issues, a royal commission that would be the equivalent to the bicultur-alism and bilingualism commission of years ago.
The natives have specifically asked not to have a royal commission. The Prime Minister has offered any number of things. Native people remember when this Prime Minister made promises to them coming out of First Ministers' conferences. Those promises simply were not kept.
This is a release by the Prime Minister of Canada in 1985. He promised after a First Ministers conference in 1985:
My policies and those of my government are based on certain
principles:
-the special relationship between Canada and the aboriginal peoples should be strengthened;
How? By cutting their budgets? By making it more impossible for them to operate their media and their representative organizations? Is that how the Prime Minister is going to strengthen the relationship between aboriginal people and the Government of Canada? In fact, this promise was not kept and the native people in this country are suspicious of this Prime Minister keeping any of his promises to them at all.
Aboriginal rights, especially the right of self-government, should have constitutional protections. In the land claims settlements just discussed by the Prime Minister in the House today, the rights of self-government were not, specifically not, constitutionally protected.
Current funding levels of programs designed to correct the serious inequities which exist for native people and native communities will be maintained. In fact, the inequities have grown as a result of cut-backs in funding for native people from the Secretary of State's department. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development says the funding for Indian Affairs is increased. In fact, for certain native programs it has been capped.
Because of the growing population of native people, the amount of money going to native people in this country per capita has been going down. How can the Prime Minister expect the native people of this country to believe him when he has certainly not kept the
promises he has made in document after document after document. They are tired of listening to promises that are not going to be kept.
If the Meech Lake Accord is to pass and be accepted by Canadians, we must have some kind of change in the kind of leadership that has been shown by this government. We have to see policies brought down in this House that do not protect some Canadians and punish others and then expect to see those Canadians pull together at a time of need for national unity.
If we are going to see the Meech Lake Accord passed and accepted by Canadians in the future, we will have to see a government that embarks on policies that brings this country together and holds this country together and treats some people much better than this government has.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that I am not particularly joyful as I rise in the House this evening, at the eleventh hour of a great constitutional debate, to speak to the motion before the House, a motion that urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to ratify the Constitution Amendment, 1987. Nevertheless, I am optimistic, and I am convinced that the accord, as negotiated, will be ratified on time.
Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing, as we have been for the past three years, a constitutional document, but we are also talking about the future of our country. As a Quebecer, I want to be a full participant in Canadian society. As a Canadian, I want a united country from coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, in politics we must have a number of goals. The question that often arises is the following: What do we, as leaders of a country, want to leave to future generations, to our children and grandchildren? My list is not very long, but I think it will meet with the approval of all members of this House. We want to leave a country that is strong and united. We want to pass on a prosperous country; we want to pass on a country which is fair; we want to pass on a country where every citizen, man or woman, can find respect. And we want to pass on a country which gives its citizens the opportunity to realize their potential.
June 20, 1990

Mr. Speaker, I think that Canada, on those five scores, is showing a rather impressive record, but still incomplete, a record that the accord we are discussing today could enable us to improve in a major way, while enabling us to realize in a more concrete way the goals we had set for ourselves. Of course it has to be done by welcoming Quebec in the great Canadian constitutional family, and this will enable us to go forward to realize some of the goals that we had set for ourselves and that still need more improvement.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I rise today not as a minister, but as an ordinaiy member of this House, as an ordinary citizen, as a French-speaking resident of Ontario whose ancestors came from Quebec. Throughout my life, Mr. Speaker, I was given several opportunities. First, when I was very young, I had the opportunity to learn both official languages of Canada. I was given the choice, and I made a decision. I can say today that I have no regret.
I also had the opportunity to study in Ontario and in Quebec, and I still consider myself fortunate today. Afterwards, I had the opportunity to study in the United States with the assistance of two institutions, Hydro-Quebec and the Arts Council. The two levels of government helped a young student to develop and reach his goals.
After graduating in the States, Mr. Speaker, I had the choice either to stay south of the border, or to come back to Quebec, and to Canada. I decided then to come back to my country, because of the values we share here, the tolerance, the openness of mind, the faith in our future, the willingness to build a country, to assert ourselves, all of which I could not find anywhere else. I willingly made those choices, Mr. Speaker, I made those decisions, I said yes to Canada.
Nowadays, we are discussing a constitutional agreement, one in a series of several such accords. It is not the first of its kind, nor the last, Mr. Speaker. We have to realize that a Constitution is a dynamic, living instrument, one that reflects our society.
Today, we are discussing a document approved by all the First Ministers of the country, a document which would allow us to pursue our constitutional evolution. The requests dealt within the document-I will not read them to you because they are quite well known by now-were the minimum demands of a people, one part
Government Orders
of our country which had been excluded from the constitutional agreement of 1982. By ratifying the accord, we could proceed to a new round of constitutional review.
Then, as Canadians, the question we should ask, and probably the question many people outside of the country are asking themselves, is what will happen if the accord is ratified and what will happen if it is not? Where will we go after the signing of the accord? How can a single piece of paper take such a vital importance for the future of our country?
Mr. Speaker, all of us Canadians have made tremendous progress in dealing with many problems to make Canada more competitive and put the country back on the right economic track. We have won greater confidence in our abilities and more respect internationally as a member of the Group of Seven or G-7, the world's leading industrialized nations. Mr. Speaker, there is a new entrepreneurial spirit in Canada, a new economic vitality, supported and encouraged by all levels of government that represent the key to a strong, dynamic and competitive nation. We must not forget that a good economic performance is what guarantees fair and generous social programs for the country. The Canada we are building for this decade and the next century will have to meet society's demands for a higher standard of living, environmental protection, better health care and a better education system.
How can we maintain our momentum and reach these objectives that will enable Canada to play an important role in the world economy? The answer is obvious. We must remain a united country. Social justice cannot exist without economic renewal. Economic renewal cannot exist without national reconciliation. This goal can be reached by ratifying the Meech Lake Accord, thus ensuring social peace and economic prosperity for Canada. Not only will the accord allow Quebec to regain its place in the Constitution but it will strengthen all of Canada. A strong federal government with strong provinces is essential to the country's success. The accord gives all provinces without exception an equal voice in changes to national institutions, important institutions like the Senate and the Supreme Court. That defines the new federalism. We believe it is the only way a country as big and as diversified as Canada can find its place on the international market and in a global society.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
Meech Lake will unite the Canadian family while enabling all Canadians to proceed to the next stage of their constitutional and economic expansion. We will turn the page on the 1980s and open a new chapter on the 1990s. Meech Lake will give us the economic stability that is essential to attract foreign investment and prepare Canada for the international challenges of the coming years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question: Should Meech fail, should Meech not be ratified-and I think we are now well into the eleventh hour when, as political leaders of the country, we have to entertain the possibility that the Meech Lake Accord might not be ratified before June 23-we must seriously consider what might become of Canada after June 23.
Nobody can really predict the outcome of such an eventuality, and I must confess that, like anybody else, I do not have a crystal ball to gaze into the future. For sure, the sun will rise in the early hours of June 24. Still, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of possible scenarios, most of them not overly optimistic. I can tell you that if Meech Lake is not ratified, unfortunately I am among those whose outlook on the days ahead is rather grim. The signature of the Meech Lake Accord is a unique accomplishment which several former Prime Ministers have been unable to achieve. It is the result of efforts of goodwill and of a spirit of compromise and fairness which have been the hallmark of our country's history. And I am sorry to say that, should Meech Lake fail, that spirit will be the first victim.
The accord was initiated when Premier Bourassa put his five basic conditions on the table and the other nine premiers accepted to take Quebec back into the constitutional family. It was said repeatedly that those five conditions are the most reasonable ever asked by a premier from Quebec. Jack Pickersgill had this to say about Quebec's willingness to compromise, as shown in its conditions, and about the consequence of failure: "If Quebec is rejected, if this agreement becomes a disagreement and if such an opportunity to get the approval of Quebec's constitutional authorities is lost, I believe that we will not get another chance before another generation and never with such reasonable terms." As I was saying, that willingness to compromise will be the first victim of the failure of the accord. And the message that Canada will send to the rest of the world if this accord fails, after three years of discussions and after being signed by all eleven First Ministers, will be most
disconcerting. How will the international community react? Economic impacts are already being felt. Several foreign investment projects are already being delayed or shelved.
If the accord should fail, Mr. Speaker, what we would lose next I am afraid would be the confidence of other countries which do business with Canada. A major force is at stake, although we cannot assess its impact just now. I can assure you that there would be an impact both nationally and internationally. Political uncertainty and disagreement are not conducive to foreign investments. This burden would be made heavier as a result of our constitutional situation. The progress we have made so far in the area of Senate reform, Indian rights, women's rights, as well as the constitutional expectations raised in other groups would be short-lived. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out further constitutional reform in the absence of Quebec around the constitutional table.
Mr. Speaker, I have listed three major victims of a possible failure of the accord. However, I sincerely believe that what would suffer most would be our pride, pride in ourselves as a people who have always shown understanding, compassion, justice and tolerance, pride in our own country, this great and magnificent land which is the envy and admiration of many other nations. Those who would cause this accord to fail, for whatever reason-and I will not mention any name-would have difficulty explaining to Quebecers on June 24 that Canada said no to them once more. They would find it difficult to explain to Westerners and Atlantic Canadians that the Senate reform is impossible. They would find it difficult to explain to our trading partners that while walls are crumbling down all over the world, that nations are seeking a global market, we, as Canadians, have erected new barriers to make us less competitive. They will be hard pressed to explain to their children how they could let Canada drift apart.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening I spoke of options, of opportunities. In the next few days, we will have the option and the opportunity to say yes to Quebec and, as much if not more important, to say yes to Canada. Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian and a Quebecer, I would not want to intrude in any provincial jurisdiction, but I simply want to support the motion before the House this evening and urge all Canadians from coast to coast to take that step ahead, to say yes and proceed to
June 20, 1990

the next stage, to continue to build this great and magnificent country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord was a flawed document from the very beginning. It is flawed both in process and in substance. This document has torn our country as it has never been tom before, and that is the result of its flaws and the Prime Minister's penchant to conquer by discord.
There is no doubt that Quebec should be brought into the Constitution, but this document, with all its flaws, I believe will not work. That is why I must oppose it.
This discord was hatched in darkness and nurtured on fear. It has nothing to commend its passage. Moreover, it ignores Canada's first people and that has nurtured anger, fear, discrimination and despair. It has been a classic example of how a constitutional document should never be undertaken. Its genesis occurred in secret and grew on doubt, confusion, suspicion and misinformation.
For three years the Prime Minister repeated over and over again that the document had to be accepted as it is. Not an i could be undotted or a t uncrossed. Then we had that marathon, week-long spectacle here in Ottawa where the Prime Minister rolled the dice. What a cynical way to build a nation's most fundamental document and to build respect among colleagues. Not being satisfied with rolling the dice, he had to brag that he did it deliberately and thus inflamed the atmosphere to the awful state we have today.
A constitution must involve the people of a nation, not just the First Ministers. It must reflect the views, the aspirations, the hope and the will of all of the people. It cannot be hatched in darkness, in secret, in manufactured desperation.
The people must have a constitution that takes into account all of the people and especially our aboriginal peoples. By any ethical standard, they should have been
Government Orders
the very first to be consulted and to have their grievances adjudicated in fairness and generosity.
I want to say, and I will do so briefly, something about this canard that Quebec was left out of the first round. Sir, this is just not true. It is true that Quebec was not there, but Quebec was not there because the Levesque government chose not to be there for its own reasons.
We must have a complete, proper and functional constitution, but it must be consummated for all of the people, bom in light, and approved by all. Anything less, Sir, I can neither support nor accept. A valid constitution belongs to the people, not to the government.
Mr. Speaker, we come to life and sometimes forget that we are finite beings, but we are not. However, our country should outlast us all for many generations after all of us will have been forgotten. The world may little note nor long remember what we say here, but our descendants will long remember what we do here. Let us not fail them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Miramichi for giving me the opportunity to use the rest of the time allowed to the Liberal Party to take part in this important debate. I think it is appropriate to put the debate into the context of a motion that the government is proposing and that urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland legislatures to complete the ratification of the Constitutional Amendment, 1987 before June 23 1990, Saturday of this week, so that Canadians can complete an important act of nation-building and thereby open up the process for Canada's future constitutional development, including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is more or less what the motion proposes and we, on this side, hope that the two provinces that are still hesitating will hear the message that members of this House are sending and accept by the deadline of June 23 the constitutional proposals known as those of the Meech Lake Accord. This motion

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
reminds me of moments in 1986 and 1987 when the Meech Lake Accord was discussed in this House and at the Liberal Party Convention held here in Ottawa. In November of 1986, the National Convention of the Liberal Party approved a proposal very similar to the motion which is before the House today. I want to remind the House that it was we of the Liberal Party that proposed to amend the Meech Lake Accord precisely to strenghten that accord and to give it a national relevance. Here is, in substance, what was contained in the resolution proposed in November 1986 by the Liberal Party. We proposed adding a preamble to the Constitution to preserve and promote the linguistic duality and to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness, the multicultural character of Canadian society, the contribution made by native people, as well as the advantage of developing the Canadian economic union.
We introduced in this House nine constitutional amendments which were all defeated by the government. It has now come back with a motion very similar to what we were proposing three years ago.

History will say that this Liberal Party proposed three years ago some important amendments to strengthen the constitutional amendment. We do not have the pretension that we knew all about the process and that we would be able to propose things that would be perfect. I am not that naive. It is the first time since 1982, since we patriated our Constitution, that we Canadians go through the process of amending our Constitution. It is a lengthy process, a complicated one, one which, in my opinion, and I guess it is an opinion shared by many Canadians after this experience, is faulted, is in need of change.
Over the last few years in trying to explain to people in my riding, at the University of Ottawa, in my meetings with constituents, in meetings even with public servants not very long ago, I asked the simple question: "What does Meech mean to you? What does Meech mean to us? What does Meech mean? What does it encompass?"
I issued the challenge that if anybody in the room could tell me what the five conditions of getting Quebec into the constitutional fold are, I would buy him or her and a guest a supper at the Parliamentary Restaurant.
I never lost that bet, never once, and I made it umpteen times at the University of Ottawa. Nobody could give me the five conditions. Yet here we are wondering today why we are getting that kind of reaction. Well, I share the blame with all of us here in this House. We did not succeed in getting the message across to Canadians. We did not succeed in making them understand that we are not trying to make Quebec any better, greater or more powerful than any of the other provinces, but are trying to recognize the distinctiveness of that province.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Quebecers speak French. Quebec is the only province with a French majority. It has a different Civil Code, which has applied since Napoleon and is unique to this province. It has cultural and social traditions-as evidenced, for instance, in its music and its poetry-it is a distinct society in the Canadian context. It might not be the only one, but it really is one. I recognize it, and so did my party.
Secondly, it was said that Quebec would have its say in immigration matters. The Cullen-Couture agreement exists since 1976 or 1977, I think- It was agreed that through the Meech Lake Accord, all provinces would be given that same right. That does not strike me as such a big deal! These powers already existed under our statutes, but now they would be enshrined in the Constitution, for all provinces if they agree. I think that was pretty clear.
Third, Mr. Speaker, there was the matter of veto rights for Quebec on constitutional amendments. There was also the federal government's spending powers in areas under provincial jurisdiction. There was a desire to restrict those powers. There is nothing new here. It was discussed in 1970, in Victoria, and in 1976 here in the House. This is not new. There was the question of Senate reform and giving the provinces the right to submit a list of candidates, and also that Quebec, since it has a different legal system-the Civil Code-would from now on be entitled to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court.
That is what Meech boils down to, and that's all. However, many Canadians are still very hazy about all this. Today I heard some very eloquent speeches in which it was said that the whole issue had been so poorly explained that today, Mr. Speaker, there is resentment and hatred in this country, and it's true, and it is just
June 20, 1990

because people don't understand. I find this very depressing, because once properly explained, it is a matter that is certainly not difficult to understand.

In affirming the constitutional role of the elected legislators of this federation of ours, and their right to decide, which is what we are going through now in this process, all this motion does is urge that Manitoba and Newfoundland exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the constitutional accord of 1987.
We have affirmed that deep commitment to this country. We would like to reaffirm that constitutional amendments can be made with care, understanding and generosity.
I think people have read into Meech much more than is actually there. I have heard some of the speakers on the government side today say that will be a disquieting and worrisome on June 25, June 26, or thereabouts, but I join some of my colleagues on this side. I think that if we do not get Meech it may not be the end of Canada. I hope and pray that it is not, but it will be a different Canada, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that. I believe that strongly.
Will it be more generous, more understanding to the native people and their rights, to the minorities and then-rights? Will the majority of Canadians, English speaking, be more understanding of the minorities after if Meech does not pass? I do not believe that.
Will they be more caring, more generous? I do not believe they will be. I do not think that if Meech is defeated that that will make the majority more understanding of the minority expectations, dreams, or rights, for that matter.
A Constitution is made for minorities, because we are all in some sense part of a minority. God knows we have minority rights now in our Constitution; minority rights are there. They are not always applied, I agree. I could give the House possibly a long speech on minority rights in this country.
I was the one who got up on my feet the day after the Prime Minister announced the Meech Lake Accord, the Langevin Meech Lake Accord, and asked the Prime
Government Orders
Minister about promoting minority rights across this land. I thought that was the normal thing; preserve, yes, but promote also because preserve means status quo, promote looks forward, moves. I was told to be patient, that it will come in the second round. I was veiy disappointed.
Since then I have asked the Prime Minister in this House many times to convene a federal-provincial conference and get on with solving our constitutional impasse. I was told: "Wait, it is not the time. My emissary, Senator Murray, is out there consulting with the provinces". I understand that process.
However we are now at the eleventh hour. I say to the Prime Minister: if this thing does not go through and if they do not hear our plea in Manitoba and Newfoundland, there is only one person that I will blame and that is the Prime Minister of this country.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's remarks. I certainly have to agree with him that we are at the eleventh hour. In fact, on June 27 last year, the last day that the House sat, I asked the very same question: "We are less than one year now from Meech Lake. What is to be done about it?" The answer was: "Wait, everything is under control." We have seen that that obviously has fallen flat.
People who come to Ottawa and watch, people who are watching their TVs tonight, people who are watching to see what is going to happen in effect with Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, and people across the country are frustrated about the whole process.
I am hearing over and over again the problems with the Meech Lake Accord. First, there are objections to the process whereby Meech Lake was developed and this whole top down approach that I have mentioned so many times in this House. As I said, people feel frustrated. Second, there are objections to the high priority which Meech Lake gives to Quebec's constitutional demands while failing to address the constitutional demands of other groups. I just heard from my hon. friend that everybody is talking about minority rights. I think it is very interesting to note that that is so important. Finally, there is this rigid amending formula that I have mentioned in this House so many times as well.

June 20,1990
Government Orders
I would like to ask a question of my hon. friend. Come June 24 or June 25, can we say as members in the federal Parliament of Canada that Canada is bigger than Meech Lake, or is Meech Lake so overpowering that absolutely nothing can be done? Will the Meech Lake Accord, in his estimation, solve all of Canada's problems?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the answer can be anything else but that this will not resolve all our problems. It never had that pretension anyway.
The Meech Lake agreement, like the 1981 constitutional patriation documents and the Charter of Rights, never had the pretension of answering all Canadians' expectations or answering all of our hopes and dreams, although I believe it is a step in the right direction.
I must admit that I agree with the hon. member that the process has proven incredibly difficult and possibly flawed. I have a quote from the Prime Minister, himself, when he said in the House on June 11 of this year: "This process has proven to be increasingly unsatisfactory in several respects and must be changed. There should, first and foremost, be ample opportunity for Canadians to participate in the process".
That process is flawed; let us change it. As far as I am concerned, on the 25th we must stand together in this country, go forward and continue to build this country of Canada in a way that it is generous, open, free, and absolutely democratic, for the sake of our kids. I do not think that we can do it in one shot.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House for debate today is that:
The House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment, 1987 by June 23, 1990, so that Canadians can complete an important act of nation-building and thereby open the process for Canada's future constitutional development, including the important issues of Senate reform, of aboriginal rights and linguistic rights, of territorial participation in the federation, and of providing a process for a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada.
I want to stand and speak in support of the motion. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am probably the least partisan member in this House and I think all members recognize that. On the question of the future of Canada, I cannot find it in my partisan heart to actually see this issue in
partisan terms. I cannot see the issue in partisan terms, so I am not going to involve myself in assigning blame. I am not going to blame the Prime Minister and I am not going to blame the provinces. I want to spend my time trying to explain why I would recommend to the legislatures of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador that they support and pass the Meech Lake Accord with the attachment of June 9.
I do this because I recall very vividly three years ago. I remember the meeting at the Langevin building and I remember that weekend very well. I am not a betting person but I was prepared to take bets and I did not give the Prime Minister a snowball's chance in hell of coming out of that weekend meeting with any sort of agreement. I recall that very vividly.
I think I speak for all members in this House when I say how surprised we were that a unanimous agreement came out of that. In fact, on Monday morning, following that culmination of the Meech Lake process, everyone stood in this House and gave the Prime Minister a standing ovation. I did, and my colleagues in this party did. We all stood because we recognized that finally Quebec was pulling up its chair at the constitutional table and was going to participate now in the building of this nation.
It was an important element in the whole process of constitutional development. We were all very pleased. There were 10 premiers' signatures on that document, and the Prime Minister's signature. Ten and one; 11 signatures.
I have talked to a lot of young people. What they cannot understand at all in this country is whether a person's signature is worth anything any more. Is not the person's word and signature a bond any more? That is what young people say to me.
I was talking to a young chap the other day who said: "Well, if they signed it, they should stick by it, and if there are things you don't like, you work to change them". And all of this malarkey about process. Every Canadian has a different process, probably a lot better process than was followed. But that is the process that was inherited. You talk about process in 1982? It did not even go to the provincial legislatures.
June 20, 1990

If one were to examine in retrospect the document that former Prime Minister Trudeau gave to the country, people today would find fault with the notwithstanding clause. Where has there ever been a perfect constitution? Name the constitution that is perfect. Name the law that is perfect.
I saw a law come through Parliament-one page, two clauses-and we did it all in 15 minutes. It went to the Senate, and it found there that there was a comma in the wrong place which changed the whole meaning. It had to come back to Parliament and go through the process again in 15 minutes. It is not a perfect document and nobody says it is.
The Meech Lake Accord, of course, is not a perfect document. I want to say that I cannot accept the fact that it was made by 11 elitist people, 11 people of privilege. Of course not. They are elected. The premier of Ontario, whether I like it or not, he is not in my party, he was elected by the majority of people in the province of Ontario. Therefore, he represents the people of Ontario. The integrity is in the fact that he is elected. This is a democracy. They are not people of privilege. They are people who are elected.
So those 11 people signed the document, and eight legislatures ratified it. Two have not; Manitoba and New Brunswick.
There was a change of government in Newfoundland and that government deratified it. What a cockamamie way of making a constitution. Can you believe it? Who would ever come back and sit at the table thinking that there is integrity in this group and they would stick with what they have agreed to? By the time the ink is dry on the document, you find half the governments have changed. They have new stripes, new motivations, new politics and they do not like it. Throw it out. What a heck of a way to operate a country.
I have talked to people who are not from this country. They are absolutely amazed that we are risking the breakup of this nation, as we know it today, over this question: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
When one province came into Confederation, it was written into the Constitution you need to have a colour for the margarine. Believe it or not.
Government Orders
I say that the people who signed the document have a responsibility to have it ratified. They had a responsibility. I do not think it is out of place for us, as a federal Parliament, with elected members to have a national vision of Canada. I represent the riding of Nickel Belt, but my first commitment is to Canada because I am in a national Parliament. Therefore, I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility for the federal Parliament to ask two of its confederated partners, namely Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, to pass the Meech Lake Accord. I think it is quite within our responsibility to do that. I have no compunction whatsoever in asking those two provinces to ratify the Meech Lake Accord.
There is no question in my mind that the whole process of Meech Lake was to bring Quebec into the constitutional family. The Edmonton declaration where the nine premiers of the provinces-the Prime Minister was not present-declared that the next round of constitutional talks was to bring Quebec into the constitutional family. That was the purpose. If we do not fulfil that commitment, we put in jeopardy any future changes to the Constitution of this country.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the offer made to aboriginal peoples is a fair one. I ask them, through the medium of this television, to reconsider. It is a fair proposal.
Meech Lake was signed and the ratification was supposed to take place, but it did not take place. Then started the dance. I could find a lot of fault with the way the Prime Minister may have handled it, but that is beside the point. The whole process of bringing the premiers together was to reach some consensus on getting this passed. The whole purpose is the welfare of the nation. That is the overriding concern. I cannot fault the Prime Minister for attempting to use every opportunity to make the premiers recognize their responsibility.
I have been really impressed with some people in this whole process. I want to tell you that I was very impressed with the Premier of Alberta, who actually stuck to his guns at one of his conventions in the Province of Alberta. He stuck to his support for Meech Lake, and won. If ever a person had as a concern Senate reform, it was Don Getty. He went into the Meech Lake Accord with the concept of a Triple E Senate. He did not come out with a Triple E Senate. I suspect he recognized

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
that the greater concern was to bring Quebec into the constitutional family.
I think people are putting their heads in the sand if they do not sense the mood across the river. It is not one of frenzy, but it is quiet certainty.
I recall very well the referendum debate. I was sitting on the sidelines. I saw all the municipalities across the country passing motions and sending them to Quebec. My municipality sent a motion which said: "Oh, Quebec, we love you, we love you. Just say no, and we will make it all right". That is what we hear. Just ask: "Will you love me as much tomorrow as you love me now?" That is what happened. I see the same dance happening again. We are sending all the cards saying: "We love you". Well, I do not think it will work this time. Once caught, twice shy. We have a responsibility as federal parliamentarians. That responsibility is the question of seeing Canada whole, as it is.
Meech is not the end, Meech is the beginning. It is promised in the attached document that we will look at and correct the process. That is fine. We will do that. But I think the first priority, and one that we owe the next generation of Canadians, is to deliver this country as we know it today on to them so they can build on this and make it a better country.
That is why I stand and speak in favour of the motion. It should be approved and, God, I hope it is.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and then I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from Nickel Belt a question.
Mr. Speaker, I share his view. I absolutely support the Meech Lake Accord and I am convinced it is not only the right move, it is the best move for the country at this time.
I also share his view and recommend to all Canadians, particularly those in Newfoundland and Manitoba, and our aboriginal citizens everywhere, that we consider that the truly positive and constructive benefits of the Meech Lake agreement will bring a common direction for our country, committed at last to new constitutional progress, a new Senate, aboriginal reform, aboriginal rights,
pride in a common vision of our country, common identity, economic stability and new prosperity, a renewed international strength and influence and the time and energy for other things, other challenges such as the environment and the economy.
I would like to congratulate and commend all those Canadians such as the hon. gentleman from Nickel Belt who have participated in this debate on the Meech Lake Accord over the past three years and who have stood so solidly behind it.
In particular, tonight I would like to commend and congratulate those legislators in Newfoundland and Manitoba who are wrestling with this issue at this very moment. I am confident that they will discharge their duty in the best interests, not only of their provinces, but of all of Canada.
In the final analysis when we talk of certainty, there can only be certainty where there is trust. Surely we have now learned that only where there is trust is it possible that a great country such as Canada can find its true potential and its destiny.
In these final days we do place our trust in our fellow citizens in Manitoba and Newfoundland. I do not believe they will let us down.
I believe there has been a paralysis in the constitutional affairs of Canada ever since the patriation of the Constitution. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman from Nickel Belt if he believes that the constitutional paralysis that we have endured for so many years will now be cured with the passage of the Meech Lake Accord and with the existence at the one constitutional table of all the provinces and the federal government of Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question.
I want to respond appropriately because when the Constitution of 1982 was negotiated in the kitchen of a room in the Chateau Laurier it seemed that Rene was not in the kitchen with Dinah in the discussions on the constitution.
Rene Levesque was not there and all the other premiers who were there came up with a deal. They did not hesitate to say that Levesque was in high dudgeon and left. That is too bad.
June 20, 1990

But Quebec was out of it and did not attend constitutional conferences after that. In fact the ones the Prime Minister referred to with respect to aboriginal people failed, with five provinces and the federal government voting for it, and Quebec was not there.
A major player represents she million people. How could we exclude six million people from the negotiating table? If they are not at the negotiating table, in fact our family is not complete. There is somebody missing at the table.
I think the Meech Lake Accord brought Quebec in. Certainly after the Meech Lake Accord was signed, it was a departure to see the Premier of Quebec talking about our country, our Canada. Meech Lake provides the opportunity for further changes to the Constitution and the accompanying document. Now all these things can go forward. I think it is very important that Meech Lake be approved.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt for his support of the motion.
Above all, I would like to thank him for the very eloquent and noble way in which he has reminded us all of the real purpose of Meech Lake. I would like to ask him one question. Does he not find it surprising that our Liberal colleagues across the floor keep saying that they are hesitant about Meech Lake because it does not do enough for the promotion of minority rights, for aboriginal people and so on?
They have been in power for all but six years of the last 50 years, why did they not do it then?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I started out by saying that the one thing that I will not do is attach partisan politics to my view of Meech Lake and the wholeness of Canada. I will not comment on whether Liberals did it better than Conservatives. I think that is falling into a trap.
I can find a whole zillion things such as tax changes and social programs about which I am the most partisan
Government Orders
member in this House. As a group, Tories are an acronym to me. Individually, some of them are not too bad. The same with Liberals. On this whole question of Canada and Meech Lake, I cannot project an image to Canadians that I want to get down into the specific, partial gutter and start throwing snowballs at the Liberals or Tories.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, with only a couple of minutes left, I must say that it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to be the last speaker in this debate.
As the hon. member who has just finished said, and as Churchill said: "We are near the end and we are at the end of the beginning", for Canada is still a very young nation. We have only just begun our constitutional development.
There are three days left, and two provinces are in final debates leading toward ratification of the Meech Lake Accord. I have always had a sense of faith about this issue. Sometimes it does seem to defy logic. This evening they are still debating in Manitoba and Newfoundland the ultimate destiny of this accord. If we want to contemplate the worst, we can be very worried about it. For Canada, I prefer to believe in the best.
These great issues bring out the best in us. For Manitoba, for Newfoundland and for every province, obviously there have been some difficult concerns subject by subject, clause by clause, word by word. There is compelling evidence that Meech Lake is good for Canada. Therefore, if it is good for Canada, it is good for every province and for every Canadian.
As we in Canada continually struggle for a common sense of national vision and identity, we sometimes lose sight of the very distinctions which make our nation great. Canada is comprised of many different meanings for many different people. What distinguishes this country, though, is its very capacity to promote and protect such differences while remaining true to the ideal of one united land.

June 20, 1990
Government Orders
As we look to Canada's future with this vital issue still to be resolved in the next few days, let us reaffirm our common commitment to building this country in tolerance and respect for one another. I believe and I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that you believe that that is what Canada is really all about.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 10 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, this sitting is suspended to the call of the chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 10 p.m.

Tuesday, June 26, 1990