1991-06-18

Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham - Whitchurch - Stouff-ville):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons, with amendments.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to designate the third Monday in February as National Heritage Day, an important day that would give Canadians a chance to celebrate our heritage and our customs, traditions, architecture and history.
The bill amends a number of formal acts in terms of providing for a statutory holiday and I think, in light of Canada's celebration of its 125th birthday in 1992, it would be a good way to start the year.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act to amend the Interest Act (calculation of credit card interest).
Fie said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Interest Act to regularize the charging of interest by credit card companies.
At the present time, if the entire balance is not paid to credit card companies at the time that the first invoice is received, interest is charged on every single cent of the balance, right back to the date of purchase of goods in the first place. This creates some unconscionable charges for interest; indeed, I have seen charges well in excess of
1,000	per cent per annum, apparently quite legitimate according to our banking system. I would suggest that this bill be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
*1*	4*	^

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an act respecting National Heritage Day.


CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: for leave to introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.

June 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Fie said: Madam Speaker, this bill was before this Flouse on two occasions in the last session. The bill attempts to change the Criminal Records Act so that when persons have an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge and conditions have been satisfied they do not carry a criminal record.
It was the original intention of the criminal records provisions in the Criminal Code that criminal records not be attached to people given an absolute discharge or conditional discharge by the court. Nonetheless, the system operates in such a way that even a member of this House convicted some short while ago of a very minor offence and given an absolute discharge bears a criminal record and will for the rest of his life unless he makes a formal application to have that record dismissed.
An absolute ridiculous situation exists and ought to be corrected. I am surprised the government has not already introduced legislation to do so. In the absence of the government acting sensibly, I introduce this bill again.


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

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg -St. James) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-239, an act to amend the Criminal Code (review of convictions).


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (unjust dismissal).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to present to the House for first reading an act to amend the Canada Labour Code relating to unjust dismissal.
The bill would provide that no employer may suspend, discharge or impose any financial or other penalty on a person employed by him or take any other disciplinary action by reason of that person having refused to perform an act that he has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited by law.
This would form an essential component of any whistle-blowing legislation. It is not really directly related to the matter of health and safety but rather to those areas where no current protection exists, such as employee assistance in the enforcement of environmental protection laws, public safety in the shipping and storage of hazardous materials and transport of goods across international borders.
It would assist employees and supervisors alike to help ensure the law of the land is indeed upheld.


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

He said: Madam Speaker, I am introducing today this bill to try to correct serious flaws in our judicial system. This bill, if passed by the House, would establish a real and fair judicial review of criminal convictions. This would be achieved by putting in place an independent body called a conviction review commission. This commission would have the mandate to review criminal matters or cases where serious doubts have been raised and would provide an objective, independent, and fair review of those cases.
Had this commission been in place, it is my strong belief that David Milgaard's case would have been heard again by the courts.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Guy Arsenault (Restigouche -Chaleur) moved: for leave to introduce Bill 241, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
He said: I am honoured to introduce this bill to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (National flag of Canada). The bill provides for the displaying of the Canadian flag on any building in which there is a post office, as well as inside every post office.

June 18, 1991



The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the Canadian flag is displayed on buildings where a post office is located, as well as inside every post office.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
sfc -Je s*e

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and duty to present to this House a petition signed by literally hundreds upon hundreds of people who reside on and around Locke Street in my riding of Hamilton West. They object strongly to the removal of the Locke Street postal station.
We say that it is convenient as it is located in the centre of an active, successful community, central to the many businesses which use the service and highly accessible to public transportation.
What evidence do the petitioners have to support their claim? The post office has been located on Locke Street for 48 years.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista - Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of 120 of my constituents from the northern part of my riding, from the communities of Lumsden, Newtown, Wesleyville, Templeman, Pound Cove, Badger's Quay, Pool's Island and Brookfield.
These are areas in my riding that while not remote are far removed from urban centres. They rely a lot on television to assist in their cultural life.
They note that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has historically been a key element in the federal government's commitment to cultural integrity and national unity. They are very concerned that the program that epitomizes the cultural background of Newfoundland and the maritimes, Land and Sea, has been cut after 20 years of success in the region.
Routine Proceedings
They humbly call and pray upon Parliament to ensure that CBC programming remains intact, and particularly that the program Land and Sea be restored.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, this morning.
The first one talks about the CBC and the cutbacks to the funding for CBC. The petitioners from various places in my riding, the Penticton and Summerland areas, are petitioning Parliament to urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the CBC so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada.
They have asked the government to re-examine its priorities in terms of decreasing funding for Canadian institutions and its insistence on privatization.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
While congratulating the new Solicitor General for extending funding, these petitioners from various places in British Columbia are somewhat critical of the cuts in RCMP funding throughout past years.
They are petitioning Parliament to urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege, indeed it is an honour, to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned that the government has cut back on RCMP funding, which has resulted in a number of subdivisions closing down and a curtailment of RCMP police protection for a number of communities.
They are asking the government to continue at least its traditional financial support. Otherwise, it will off-load an awful lot of costs to local taxpayers and erode a very viable symbol of Canadian unity.
Government Orders PETRO-CANADA

June 18, 1991


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by some 46 of my constituents from the communities of Castle-gar, Nelson, Revelstoke, Slocan, Salmo and South Slo-can. They urge Parliament to reconsider its action regarding the privatization of Petro-Canada.
Among the reasons the petitioners suggest is that Petro-Canada has never really lived up to its full potential in terms of being a leader in environmental action in Canada.
The petitioners would ask that Petro-Canada take the lead as a green energy company helping them make environmentally responsible energy choices.
These petitioners feel strongly. Despite the fact that Parliament has already acted in one respect, they would urge us to take a second look-a famous phrase in British Columbia-and move again to have Petro-Canada fulfil the role that it could and should be playing in the development of our nation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, Question No. 16 will be answered today.


Mr. Milliken: Since Chapter 51 of the Statutes of Canada (1988) was proclaimed on January 1, 1989, what has been the total value of money and property forfeited to the Department of Health and Welfare as a result of "designated drug offences" under the statute, and what portion of the said money and property, if any, was paid to any other government or governments, and which government or governments?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Chapter 51 of the Statutes of Canada (1988) provides for the forfeiture of property obtained or derived directly or indirectly as the result of the commission of specified offenses under the Narcotic Control Act
and Food and Drugs Act. Forfeitures for the calendar years indicated are as follows:
1989	$320,000
1990	$1,060,000
Information is not yet available for 1991.
The amendments require the Department of National Health and Welfare to dispose of forfeited property. Monies obtained from dispositions are deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Consequently, monies may not be paid to other governments.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
I hope that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands appreciates that I stayed up late last night to answer this question for him.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and make recommendations to Parliament on the Government of Canada's proposals for a renewed Canada contained in the documents to be referred to it by the Government;
That fifteen Members of the House of Commons and ten Members of the Senate be the Members of the Special Joint Committee; such Members on the part of the House of Commons to be designated upon the report of the Standing Committee on House Management, which report shall be deemed concurred in upon presentation or; if the House is not sitting at the time of such Standing Committee on House Management Report such report shall be deemed concurred in upon its being filed with the Clerk of the House of Commons.
June 18, 1991

That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its Members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee or sub-committees have the power to travel and to hold public hearings within Canada;
That the Committee provide Canadians with an opportunity to participate fully in the development of the government of Canada's plan for a renewed Canada;
That the Committee have 1he power to hold joint sittings with the committees of legislatures or individual members of provincial and territorial legislatures;
That the Committee develop procedures to ensure aboriginal peoples participate fully in the development of the Government of Canada's plan for a renewed Canada and, in particular, on issues of special interest to them;
That the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be authorized to put in place mechanisms designed to encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals and groups of Canadians;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings or of proceedings of its sub-committees, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons;
That the Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the service of professional, clerical and stenographic staff as deemed advisable by the Joint Chairs;
That the Committee submit its report not later than February 28, 1992, provided that if the House of Commons is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and with the Clerk of the Senate;
That changes in membership of the Committee be effective immediately after a notification, signed by the Member acting as Chief Whip of any recognized party, has been filed with the Clerk of the Committee;
That the quorum of the Committee be thirteen Members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and the Joint Chairs are authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and to authorize the printing thereof, when nine Members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, ten Senators to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee,
Government Orders
He said: Madam Speaker, for some time, almost a year ago this week, this House and this country have been dealing with the consequences of the failure a year ago to achieve agreement on the Meech Lake Accord. We have all known that there are very profound constitutional questions that have been raised. We know that this time it will be more difficult to deal with those issues than it would have been had we succeeded a year ago. We are not here to lament the past. We are here to try to construct a strong future together.
It is important, I think, that we understand some of the particular challenges that face us now. With the Meech Lake approach, it was possible to take issues one by one in the method that had been set out by the premiers of Canada when they met in Edmonton to agree on the approach that was later involved in that accord. That is now behind us. We no longer have the luxury as a country or as a Parliament of dealing with those issues one by one. What we have to do, and it is far more complex, is find ways in which we can deal with several difficult issues together.
A way of expressing this is to say that this is the Canada round of negotiations. That is meant to make it very clear that the concerns of aboriginal people will be prominent in these issues, that the concerns of institutional reform will be prominent in this process, that other issues which are of particular interest to groups in the country or regions of the country will be prominent in this process.
I think all of us in this House understand that while the other issues are of course of very real importance, a central issue that must be resolved here is the means by which this country, which was founded more than a century ago as an extraordinary partnership between two peoples who then went out to draw others in, can maintain the essence of that partnership so that Canadians whose first language is French and Canadians whose first language is English will choose to live together as partners in this common country.
What this particular motion is about is the terms of reference for a committee. There have been some discussions among parties, and I have been privileged to be a part of some of those discussions myself. There are some disagreements as to needs. I believe there are no disagreements as to the purposes or the ends that we are seeking to achieve here. We are looking for a way in which the Parliament of Canada can carry out its functions to create a climate and consider a series of recommendations that will allow the nation to make substantial progress to achieve profound changes in our constitutional arrangements.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Everyone knows that this country is at a crossroads. There are two paths before us. One is the path of partition. The other is the path of renewal. In the months ahead Canadians will decide which path they want to follow. The choice is straightforward. It is the choice of agreeing to live together or deciding to live apart.

It is a choice that Canadians will make themselves. This dusty document that we call a constitution will never be enough to keep us united. Our country, Canada, will remain united only through the will of its population and the strenght of a consensus. If this will and this consensus do not exist anymore, no constitution will have any significance, not simply because we will not be able to reach an agreement, but because a country is more than a mere legal document. Countries do not survive because they have their names on geographical maps. They survive because they have a place in the soul and the heart of their population.
That reality will never change. But there is another reality which also defines the task before us: It is the fact that, everywhere in the country, Canadians want to be directly invloved in the discussions that will determine our collective future. Canadians want to have a chance to express themselves.
They want to participate in the process which will determine whether Canada will continue to exist or not. That is a legitimate request, and we have the obligation to grant them this right.
We members of Parliament, also have another obligation: We must make of this assembly-of representatives elected by the Canadians-a part of the solution that we are seeking together. We are far from being perfect, as individuals as well as an institution. However, this assembly represents the whole country, and it is the only institution to do so. If someone can claim to speak on behalf of Canadians, it is us, the Parliamentarians. The time has come to speak for Canada and to decide together how to bring about the profound changes that our nation requires.
This is, Madam Speaker, the object of the motion before the House. It is aimed at bringing closer the parliamentarians of the people, and at bringing closer together the parliamentarians from Ottawa and those from the provinces and the territories. This motion is also aimed at enabling Canadians to discuss, to change and to develop together specific proposals for a renewed Canada.
In its Speech from the Throne, the government presented the outline of a four stage process for the renewal of the Canadian pact. It is, in my opinion, the most opened process ever devised to enable Canadians to decide the future of their country.
The first phase of this process is almost over. In the next few days, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future and the Special Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution will table their reports. These committees have done an excellent job.
The two reports will help the government develop a series of proposals for a renewed Canada. These proposals will be presented this fall. They will be specific in nature and they will also be made public. They will provide for changes in the division of powers, in our national institutions and in our way of dealing with native Canadians, among other things. The Canadians will be invited to review these measures and improve on them.
The mandate of the Special Joint Committee will be to move us from general ideas to specifics, from assertions to solutions, out of the past and on the way to a promising future.
Before setting up this committee, we consulted with the official opposition and the New Democratic Party. As we debate this motion, I want to put on record that this government will consider carefully any serious amendment to the comittee's mandate that could help Parliament carry out its duty.
I would like to outline the primary criteria which governed the establishment of this committee.
First, it must be a committee of parliamentarians, by this I mean a committee made up of people whose present duty is to help Canadians ultimately find a way to stay together.
It must also be, and this is the second criterion, a committee of the people. It will not be the kind of committee that will sit only in Ottawa listening just to the views of its own members or of lawyers and bureaucrats. This committee will travel to Canadian communi-
June 18, 1991

ties to meet the people and ask them to share their views and tell them what they think of our proposals.
Third, this committee will reflect, through its approach, the co-operative nature of the federation it will help renew. For the first time in the history of this country, a committee will the allowed to consult with other committees or groups of legislators in each province and territory.

These parliamentarians will not meet across the table. They will meet around the table, and they will not simply meet each other. They will be empowered to hold hearings together, joint hearings, in a process designed to make our federalism an instrument of co-operation among Canadians, not division. That unique dialogue can become both a means and an example of the consensus we seek.
I am writing today to the premiers and territorial leaders of Canada to ask for their support. Decisions about their legislatures are for them and for their colleagues to make. However I hope that all provinces and territories will find a way to work with this unique committee of Parliament.
Fourth, the committee will develop special procedures to ensure that the aboriginal peoples of Canada participate fully in the development of Canada's renewal, both respecting general questions which interest them as Canadians and particularly where there is a distinct aboriginal interest.
I have met with leaders of the four national aboriginal associations in Canada to ask their help in designing an agreed mechanism. Most recently I spoke by telephone with Mr. Ovide Mercredi, the new national chief. The language in the terms of reference provides maximum flexibility to create a system which respects the power of Parliament to decide yet recognizes that aboriginal Canadians have interests and have a unique perspective that cannot be met in a normal committee context.
An alternative proposal was to designate certain aboriginal leaders as ex officio members of the parliamentary committee. I considered that carefully. It could create a demand for other ex officio representatives which would have the effect of diluting the position of both the
Government Orders
committee and the aboriginal peoples. The model that we are examining gives aboriginals a wide opportunity to influence decisions that ex officio status would not.
I make the point clearly so that there is no doubt. What we are proposing is a system that would not change in the least the capacity of national aboriginal organizations to come as witnesses, but in addition to that right which is open to them and to other Canadians, there would be a particular capacity to have the perspectives of aboriginal Canadians considered regularly and in depth by the committee that must make recommendations regarding the future of our country.
Finally, this parliamentary committee will be given all the flexibility and all the resources it needs to be open, to be inclusive, to be innovative. The committee can create as many subcommittees as it wishes. If it chooses, some of those subcommittees can take on the character of a constituent assembly on particular issues, always reporting back to the joint committee of Parliament.
The committee will be able to authorize whatever radio and television broadcasts it deems desirable. The committee will be able to create new mechanisms, whether they are round table discussions, specific issue panels or innovative communications channels, to make the discussion and the debate as deep, as democratic and as productive as possible.
I believe that this process and this committee form our best opportunity to bring this country together. The committee is both parliamentary and participatory. The committee will meet with its counterparts across the country, a federal-provincial-territorial experiment, which I believe can help renew federalism itself.
The committee will meet in public. The committee will reach out to Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It will be flexible, not rigid. It will be open, not closed. It will be inclusive, not exclusive, and its work will matter. It will be on the basis of the substance and the success of this committee that Canadians will then decide how we give effect to change that can renew our federation.
This committee has the potential and it has the mandate to change the tone and the content of constitu-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
tional discussion in Canada. If it meets that potential, it can express a consensus on what changes should be introduced by the Canadian government, on what changes should be introduced by provincial and territorial governments, and on what changes should be approached by all of us working together.


Mr. Lapierre:: Not all.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member who was elected as a federalist and now flies other colours says: "Not all" of us. He will have the opportunity to participate as a member of Parliament-his party does not have the status of a party in the House-in these discussions. We hope that he will take an open-minded approach to these discussions. There are people here who would be interested in his point of view. There are people across the country who would be. We hope profoundly that he will be open-minded enough about the country which has given him so much that he will be prepared to consider the perspective and the point of view of others.
I do not believe it an exaggeration to state that never before in the history of this country has a committee had such a responsibility placed upon it. If this committee succeeds, it can be a central instrument of the renewal and the reform of this country.
Some would propose a different mechanism to bring this country together. A popular and prominent alternative is the constituent assembly. I do not dismiss that proposal, nor do I question-the sincerity of those who prefer that option. However, after serious discussion and deliberation, it is our view that that would not be the best choice now. I do not rule it out for the future. Our judgment on those and other options will be influenced both by the recommendations of the joint committee looking at the amending formula for the Constitution as it will be by the success of the committee, the formation of which we are discussing here today.
However, I would like to make some observations concerning the concept of a constituent assembly. First, there is no consensus in the country on how such an assembly would be constituted and how it would work. Even such a prominent proponent of this option as the premier of Ontario recently acknowledged this reality. The breadth and depth of substantive differences in this
country are already such, I would have thought, that we should think twice before adding a new difference on a new process which has never been tried.
How long would it take before agreement could be reached on the forum and the operation of a constituent assembly? What new tensions and emotions might that process evoke? Once the forum was agreed, if it was ever agreed, how long would the process take?
Second, it would be less than sensible, it seems to me, to embrace a process which has been rejected by the province whose participation we require to make our Constitution whole. What purpose would it serve? What message would it send if we adopt the very process to achieve that goal which the province of Quebec has ruled out? It defies logic, it defies common sense to attempt to arrive at consensus on the Constitution through a mechanism which from the beginning would leave out those whom we wish to bring in.
The interests of this country are best served by improving this institution of Parliament, not by replacing it. Premier Ghiz said recently: "We have existing traditions and I don't think we should abandon them". Premier Bourassa echoed those views when he said: "Moi, je fais confiance a la democratic parlementaire".
Finally, as I have argued today, I do not believe the choice of a parliamentary committee implies rejection of the best features of a constituent assembly. Indeed that is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to select the best of both options by adopting special measures to ensure the full and meaningful involvement of aboriginal peoples by putting in place means to encourage joint meetings with committees of provincial legislatures and by mandating this committee to identify and implement innovative ways by which individual Canadians and groups can participate in the work of the committee by these and other means. I believe we have identified and acted upon the best of the parliamentary tradition and the best of the concept of a constituent assembly.
When I look at all the other proposals for a constituent assembly, I overcome my modesty enough to suggest that what I have designed is the most workable proposal that has come forward from any other quarter, although I am naturally prepared to hear other suggestions that
June 18. 1991

Government Orders
will serve all of the interests that we seek, including the capacity for the participation of Quebec.
This committee will require energy, imagination, and the help of Providence as it embarks on its historic task. The tempers of a year ago have subsided but they can Hare again. The wounds which many suffered are beginning to heal, but the healing is by no means over. The sense of exclusion, misunderstanding and mistrust which has permeated this country remains, and it must be addressed.
In the eight weeks I have been in this job, I have listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I have gone deliberately to those who have felt left out or mistreated. I have travelled to the north, to the west, to the Atlantic provinces. I have talked to aboriginal Canadians and several of their leaders. I have visited Ontario and Quebec, met with representatives of women's organizations, of the ethnocultural community and others. While Canadians are still angry at how things have gone wrong in our country, they are now looking for ways to help set things right.
I believe the committee mentioned in the motion before the House today can be one of those ways. It will seek the response of Canadians on specific proposals. It will help Canadians get to know each other, to understand, accept and I hope even treasure the diversity which blesses this country, the diversity which has built Canada and made it the tolerant, understanding and free country that it is.
In the months ahead Canadians must reflect on this country', on what it has accomplished, on the peaceable kingdom it has become, and on the bright future it can hold if we hold together. The Canadian achievement is unlike any other, a country that cares and dares, a country where rich provinces help poorer ones, where health care is a right and not a privilege, where the proud boast of our Armed Forces is that we are the best peacekeepers in the world.
We sometimes forget or deny just how special we are. We forget that this country secured its freedom without bloody revolution. We forget that we have maintained our unity without civil war. We forget that while so many others have chosen conquest and empire, Canadians have pioneered the pursuit of co-operation and of comity.
I want to quote Joseph Howe, Nova Scotia's great statesman, but before doing that I want to say that I note, as you undoubtedly will, that he spoke in a different age with a little less sensitivity to gender equality. But what Joe Howe said more than a century ago was: "Brag about your country, boys". Well, Canadians don't brag much, but there are others in this world who know what we should brag about.
When the Japanese want to learn about peacekeeping, they come to Canada to see how we do it. When anyone in the world interested in how people live together in human communities wants to see cities that work, they come to Canada to see how we do it. When Argentina's Mothers of the Disappeared wanted to learn about putting in place an institution to guarantee human rights and how they could secure those human rights, they came to Canada to learn from our achievement. When the brave democrats of the new eastern Europe want to find out about democracy or want to find out about municipal government, or want to find out about how they can build a social safety net, they come to Canada. When Americans want to figure out how to put together a better health care system, they come to Canada. When South Africans, black and white, want to learn about elections that are fair, legal systems that are just, and human rights that are universal, they come to Canada.
As we enter into this phase of this debate we have to ask ourselves: Is everyone else wrong about this country? Is Canada as ordinary and as common and as disposable as some would have us believe? Have we not built something here which is special and which deserves to be sustained?
Canadians need to ask those questions and we need to answer those questions. Canadians need to get to know each other; not to convince each other that their views are right but to come to accept and to celebrate the diversity that has blessed this extraordinary country. We can only build consensus around Canada if Canadians everywhere come to understand why others have priorities which are different from our own.
I remember several weeks ago coming out of a meeting in the West Block on Parliament Hill. I had just been meeting with members of the Alberta caucus of my party

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
and then with members of the Quebec caucus of my party. That is quite a bit for one night.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Both caucuses, too?


Charles Joseph Clark: In my case it is both caucuses and in the case of the hon. member I suppose it is both members.
However, I came out of the West Block and there was a bus full of students. They were shouting at me. That is not as unusual as I would like people to believe, that people shout at me, except that these w'ere friendly shouts. I went aboard the bus and I talked to the students w'ho were there. They were here as part of the Forum for Young Canadians. One young Montrealer said to me: "Mr. Clark, last week I was a separatist, but that was because I had never met anyone from the rest of Canada, and I am not a separatist now".
Too many Canadians have not met people from the rest of Canada. We see each other through filters, which are often false. We keep our distance. We keep our counsel. We should not do that.
The committee this House is considering today will help Canadians reach out to each other and to us, who they have elected, to build upon what is best about this country. Next year Canada will be 125 years old and next year can either be a requiem or a celebration of this country. That choice is one that Canadians will make. Our obligation today is to give them the opportunity to make that choice intelligently, to make it directly, to make it well, and to make it wisely.
It is in that spirit and for that reason that the government has proposed the establishment of this committee which will be the instrument which can carry the discussions, which can have the effect of leading Canadians into a renewed united future.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate today and my first words will be along the line of the minister's conclusions.
It is quite clear that many Canadians do not realize what is happening in this country. Some would like to break it, while so many around the world would like to come here. That people in this country would no longer believe in its fundamental values and would seek to
break it is a source of great puzzlement around the world.
I would like to say, right from the start, that the Official Opposition in this House shares the views expressed by the minister, on behalf of the government, that an objective and just solution to this constitutional impasse must be found quickly. This is why, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I am happy to tell the minister that we are willing to go along with the approach suggested by the government.
On April 21st of this year, our leader outlined the main thrust of an approach aimed at solving Canada's constitutional problems. "It's time for a new Canada Round of negotiations" he said. "We must have a constitutional process and framework, based on principles which will allow for a quick solution to the current impasse, a solution which is faire to Quebec and to the whole of Canada."
The Leader of the Opposition reminded that it was up to the present government, the Conservative government, to make public rapidly its proposal for constitutional reform, so that hon. members of this House and Canadians in particular, could respond to the initiatives put forward by the government.
The Leader of the Opposition promised at the time- and I renew that promise today-that the Liberal Party would work constructively with the other parties in the House to help solve the national unity issue. The Leader of the Opposition, on our behalf, suggested that the government hold a national referendum to give legitimacy to its constitutional reform project. By trying for a large consensus in a referendum, we might help the acceptance of constitutional resolutions by the Parliament of Canada and all ten provincial legislatures.
Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the need to act quickly. Why did he propose a fast process? This is because, in our Party, we recognize the deadlines set by Quebecers.
There was, in Quebec, the creation of an extended parliamentary commission, the Belanger-Campeau Commission, which recommended to the Quebec National Assembly the establishment of two parliamentary committees, one to study the consequences of Quebec's separation or sovereignty, and the other to receive
June 18. 1991

proposals for in-depth constitutional changes from the Canadian government and other provincial legislatures.
The Bclangcr-Campeau Commission recommended that, after completion of those studies by the two parliamentary committees, a referendum be held in Quebec either on those constitutional offers from the other Canadian provinces and the Canadian government, or just simply on Quebec's sovereignty.
We, in the Liberal Party of Canada, believe that those deadlines are true, are very clear and we want to abide by them, as expressed by distinguished Quebecers who sat on that extended parliamentary commission. It seems very important to us that this constitutional review process be very expeditious.
Of course, we would have preferred that the government of Canada react faster to what was going on and is still going on in Quebec. It is why we looked with some skepticism, some curiosity and even some amazement at the creation of the Spicer Commission, a sort of collective inhibition relief commission which, no doubt, played some role in getting the views, the suggestions, the comments, and particularly, the frustrations of many Canadians. But we were fully aware that that commission did not have the mandate to change the Constitution of this country and to solve the constitutional impasse.
So, several months later, we are also looking forward to sec the recommendations, the findings of that commission and we hope that all of these millions of dollars will not have been spent needlessly.
Moreover, we agreed with the establishment of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, commonly called the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, whose mandate was to study the constitution amending formula, and to achieve better public involvement in the process. But, right from the beginning, speaking for the Official Opposition, we introduced an amendment which would have broadened the mandate of the Committee, because we felt that limiting the study to the amending formula was obviously not the key to the present constitutional frustration or deadlock.
The creation of this new Committee, with its mandate from the government, is really at the heart of the constitutional debate. For that reason, we welcome the
Government Orders
government initiative and agree with the appointment of this Parliamentary Committee, because we think it is receiving the mandate that should have been given to the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee in the first place.
Thus, the government somewhat is belatedly assuming its responsibilities. But we are very happy to learn that it finally does, and that it intends to table a concrete constitutional amendment proposal, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested.
We are all the more happy because the minister told us that it will not be a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, but one which could be improved and amended not only by those who will sit on the Committee, but mostly by those who will appear, who will express their views before the Parliamentary Committee. That is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition had requested. Why are we experiencing this constitutional deadlock? Must I recall that unfortunately the last initiative taken by the Tory government was introduced on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? The famous Meech Lake Accord could not tolerate an improvement. And unfortunately, when a parliamentary committee studied the Meech Lake Accord, many representatives of the natives, of the French minorities outside Quebec, of women's movements told us that they could not accept this Accord for because they had their own reasons, that their objection had nothing to do with an opposition to Quebec legitimate requests.
Many of those people who appeared before this committee created to study the Meech Lake Accord and the companion resolution, the famous Charest committee, told us many times that they accepted the five requests of Quebec, but that the Accord included items that were absolutely unacceptable to them and that they felt rejected, cast aside and left out of. this constitutional reform exercice. I have in mind in particular several witnesses representing the various ethnic groups who now make up the Canadian mosaic which is very different from what it was at the beginning of the century, when the Constitution was written.
Now, all these people told us: We have nothing against Quebec, but this Meech Lake Accord includes elements that we cannot accept because we feel rejected and the Accord will make the Constitution virtually impossible to amend in the future. That is why we cannot accept it.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Now, the reason I say this, Madam Speaker, is to remind members in what context we are living today. That is why it is very important for the constitutional process of the government to be an all-Canadian process this time, and not a Quebece process or one which favours some groups at the expense of others. The Canadian government's constitutional proposal must not only seem to be just and fair for all Canadians, including of course Quebecers, it must be so.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition insisted so much, in his remarks of April 21 last, that this coming round of negotiations be a Canada round. And I am very happy today to note that the minister has just told us that it was the government's intention to make a proposal which would answer both the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers and the long frustrated aspirations of the native peoples of Canada, who insist more and more on having their place in the sun, on being recognized as Natives of Canada and on being treated with justice and fairness as full-fledged citizens of this country.
The government's constitutional endeavour must take into account the legitimate aspirations of the regions of the country. Westerners have for a long time felt that they were incorrectly or inadequately represented at the federal level. So, how is it that today, so many western Canadians insist on Senate reform, on an elected Senate, a Senate better adapted to the needs and aspirations of the regions?
A review of Canadian governments shows that very often electoral forces were such that a Liberal government was represented mostly by members from the center of the country, that is Quebec and Ontario. So, very often, the most important portfolios or Departments were given to members from Quebec and Ontario, since they were few from the west.
Because of this situation, too often people from western Canada did not feel adequately represented by ministers and the Prime Minister. Then, the Conservative Party came into office and for the first time in a long while Westerners were represented by ministers from their own province, their own region, ministers who had important protfolios. These people thought they would be adequately represented at the federal level at last.
However, one of the first measures taken by the Conservative Government was to grant the CF-18 contract to a Montreal company though the lowest bidder was a Winnipeg concern. The western provinces were outraged by this decision and I would say it has marked the Conservative government's decline in the west. For the first time in a long while, they thought they would be equitably represented in the Parliament of Canada. They rejoiced because they were represented by Ministers at last. However, because of the Conservative government's decision the Westerners realized that as long as Ontario and Quebec members would be in force, they would never have an equal opportunity to have their fair share.
That is why Senate reform and a stronger, more numerical and more significant representation of western Canada-and that applies also to the Maritimes- have become so important in the constitutional amendment process that we will be asked to approve in the months to come.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that in its constitutional approach the governement say yes to the demands of Quebec while answering the aspirations of all the other Canadians who want a Constitution that fully satisfies them.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition proposed a constitutional reform plan in nine points. He first suggested a statement on the nature of Canada.
I listened a little earlier to the Leader of the Opposition's splendid description of our country. Now, his words could well be included in the Constitution to give a true description of what Canada actually is. When the Fathers of Confederation wrote the Constitution in 1867, Canada was not as it is today.
Now, it would be useful and important to have a statement on the character of Canada indicating the will of Canadians to cohabit in a federal State, describing clearly the fundamental principles of how such a State would operate and also listing the values we share as Canadians, our attachment to the two official languages that we consider to be absolutely essential, fundamental, the cornerstone of the Canadian State. We would also recognize this new reality, our reality of today, of a modern Canada in this ending 20th century with the diversity of our cultural heritage. We should also recognize clearly and specifically the place, the role and the
June 18, 1991

importance of the aboriginal peoples in the Canadian society.
We also think that Canada, in its constitutional reform, cannot go backwards. In 1981-82, Canadians gave themselves a Constitution, which finally sits at home, a Canadian Constitution, with a Canadian amendment formula, but also with a Charter of basic Rights and Freedoms which is enshrined into the Constitution and which is also another cornerstone of our Constitution.
Thus, it would be important to tell and reaffirm to all Canadians, because we have seen how strongly they want it, our commitment to the reinforcement and preservation of their rights and freedoms through the Charter. We believe it is essential that the constitutional changes suggested by any government, present and future, cannot and should not reduce the primacy of this Charter. I think that, in all those testimonies, people who came before various parliamentaiy committees have praised the merits of this Canadian Charter and stated clearly that they want the Charter to have primacy and remain the most important document for the protection and guarantee of rights, which we gave to Canadians ten years ago already.
We believe that, in light of the evolution of the world economy, the time has come to recognize that our federation has to give itself the required economic tools to better compete in the world market. At a time when we have just signed a free trade deal with the United States, at a time when we witness the explosion of borders in Europe and the creation of an economic common market on that continent, it seems essential to us that our Canadian Constitution guarantee the free movement of goods, services and people in all provinces of our country. How will we, Canadians, be able to compete with the great economic nations of the world if we do not have an economic market in our own country?
We think the time has come for us to reinforce the Canadian economic union through the free movement of persons, goods and capitals. We think the time has come for us to abolish all interprovincial trade barriers in Canada.
Of course, it is a decision that the government of Canada cannot make alone. Provinces have to recognize this new reality. We find it rather interesting that three
Government Orders
premiers from the Maritimes met recently to discuss this issue. The Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec made a similar recommendation. Moreover, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, has also proposed a similar approach for the Prairie provinces.
Everywhere, this initiative gets a very favourable response. Now the government of Canada has to take this opportunity to be in the forefront of this change and include in the constitutional talks that are about to begin the means to reaffirm this Canadian economic union which is essential to our country's prosperity.
I am all the more convinced when I say that because I am under the impression that the government is about to make concessions to provinces in some areas. We, of the opposition party, will certainly be the first ones to hope for a better division of powers and to hope that provinces can have, in certain areas, responsibilities that should have been theirs in the first place. If a new sharing of jurisdictions between Ottawa and the provinces is to take place, Ottawa should not only transfer powers to the provinces in this constitutional reform, but also assert the necessity for the Government of Canada to retain jurisdiction in certain areas.
The Official Opposition cannot accept any excessive reduction in the importance, role and mandate of the central government. We are deeply convinced that what is at stake is the prosperity of all Canadians. A thriving Canadian economy depends on a Canadian government endowed with the means and responsibilities to play an economic role.
Of course, we feel that the time has come to rewrite certain aspects of our Constitution concerning the sharing of powers. In 1991, it is not possible to think of the Canadian Constitution the way it was done in 1867. A modernization of our Constitution is in order. Some powers that are now in Ottawa and some shared responsibilities should be reallocated in the best interests of Canadians.
The approach recommended by the Leader of the Opposition is a practical one. Speaking for the Liberal Party, he said that no power should be considered sacred. The Canadian Constitution can be completely revamped. However, that should not be done in order to give a little more or a little less to any level of government, but in

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
order to find the most practical, economic and useful approach for Canadians.
That should be our main goal in our constitutional reform. We should strive to find a sharing of jurisdictions between the Government of Canada and provincial governments that is for the well-being of Canadians. How can we best serve Canadian men and women? Which government is more apt to do the work as efficiently as possible. So, it is from this perspective that we are ready to receive and consider with an open mind all the suggestions that the government of Canada will make in this regard.
We also mentioned that it was essential to remember, during this constitutional reform process, a group of Canadians that we often neglected and that, unfortunately, we even treated unfairly occasionally. I am talking about the native people. We all remember what happened when the Meech negotiations were coming to an end; at that time, we felt very clearly that the Native leaders wanted to be part of any and all constitutional reform. I, for one, was a member of the parliamentary committee chaired by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Mr. Charest. Time after time, all the witnesses told the committee that they had been forgotten in this round of constitutional negotiations, that they could not accept such a situation anymore and that they insisted on taking part, in the future, in any constitutional negotiations.
Now, the Opposition leader clearly said, on behalf of our party, that it was important that the government recognize, in its constitutional reform proposal, the right of Natives to self-government and that it was absolutely essential to examine the status, rights and claims of the Native people. We think that there is enough understanding and tolerance in this country so that we can establish a relationship on a new basis with the Native leaders; we also think that dialogue and cooperation must be part of the future Canada where we would like to live.
That is why there is a certain feeling of apprehension as we on this side of the House prepare for the proceedings of this parliamentary committee. We are very glad to see the government has agreed to make these hearings public, to have them televised, to have the committee travel across the country and try to meet as many people and as many groups as possible, and that the committee will be able, if possible to have joint
sittings with representatives of the various legislatures and territorial governments. We think it is the only sensible and practical solution, at this point.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, Madam Speaker, we are running out of time. We must act quickly. The country's elected representatives, the members of the House of Commons, can and must do a job they were elected to do. That is why we believe that in this particular context, setting up a constituent assembly, although it may look good on paper, is not particularly useful.
We have a constitutional deadlock, and there are deadlines we must meet. That is why although theoretically, we in the Liberal Party might favour setting up a constituent assembly, we feel we cannot afford to experiment with Canada's future. And above all, we cannot accept the proposal made by the New Democratic Party to create a constituent assembly consisting of 50 elected members of Parliament and 50 people chosen by parliamentarians. To have one hundred people travelling across the country and talking about the Constitution would be like a traveling road show and might compromise the constitutional future of our country.


Mr. Gerin:: Canada's road show!


André Ouellet: We cannot afford the kind of experiment that might compromise the future of our country. Since we all know that the Government of Quebec has clearly and categorically rejected the concept of a constituent assembly and that it prefers to receive specific proposals from the government, we in the Official Opposition wonder why certain parliamentarians insist on promoting an option that has already been rejected by one of the major players in Confederation.
We feel it is useless to impose a procedure that is not acceptable to one of the major members of our Canadian entity. That is why we prefer the government's proposal, which allows for public involvement and participation through a number of subcommittees to be created by the parliamentary committee.
We also believe it is essential to send invitations to all Canadians who will want to appear before this committee. As we see it, there will be three ways of involving the public, which I think makes more sense that having a constituent assembly that would consist of a chosen few,
June 18, 1991

a restricted elite that would meet in a committee and, on its own, determine what our future Constitution will be.
We do not think that is the right answer. We prefer to involve the Canadian public in three ways. First of all, there would be subcommittees of the parliamentary committee proposed by the government, whose members would represent groups with an interest in constitutional amendments; second, public hearings where individuals and associations will be invited to testify and suggest amendments to the government's original proposal. We feel this approach is absolutely essential.
Finally, the really democratic way to involve Canadians would be to hold a referendum on the parliamentary committee's final proposal. The important thing is to avoid making the same mistake we made in the last phase of the Meech Lake Accord. The Canadian people must be involved in a positive way-from the very beginning, during the process and at the end of the process.
That is why the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the referendum be held after this parliamentary committee finishes its work and that the committee's proposal be submitted for approval to the Canadian people. We feel it is important that Canadians also be given a chance to get involved in the preparations for this new Constitution we want to give our country.
There is nothing as rewarding and patriotic as voting for one's Constitution. I think Canadians are ready and want to express their approval of the work that will be done by the government, in consultation with the provinces and with those who want to improve on the government's proposal.
We in the Liberal Party of Canada believe it is not up to a chosen few, an elite of 50, as suggested by the Democratic Party, to make decisions about our Constitution. It is up to the Canadian people who, in a referendum, will be able to express the views of the majority, across the country and in each of Canada's major regions, on constitutional reform.
These are the tools we have to help us make major strides towards resolving the present constitutional crisis. We think it is essential that, above and beyond political parties and partisanship, the men and women who sit in Parliament-in the House of Commons and
Government Orders
the Senate-were together to offer all Canadians a constitutional proposal that is fair and equitable to all Canadians, in Quebec and elsewhere. The needs and aspirations of every one of us must be reflected in this new constitutional proposal, and no one in this country should feel left out of the process. Above all, we must not give the impression we only want to deal with the problems of one particular group or province.
We must deal fairly and equitably-which is the Canadian way- with a constitutional problem that is a concern to us all, wherever we happen to live in this country.
Madam Speaker, in concluding, we may remind hon. members it is essential that the parliamentary committee be as representative as possible. The motion before the House proposes to appoint 15 members of the House of Commons. We think this is not sufficient to adequately reflect the Canadian mosaic.
In this Parliament, we have the good fortune to have members, both men and women, who are more than adequate to the last of representing the interests of those groups that make up our countiy.
We also have the good fortune to have members in this House who represent the many ethnic groups that came after the first settlers and who are now an integral and in fact a major part of Canada. We think that expanding the membership of this committee to a certain extent would be a way for the parties to reflect this new Canadian reality.
We also have the good fortune to have as members representatives of our native people, and we think that this time, in this constitutional round, those who sit in Parliament for our native people should be entitled to sit on this parliamentary committee.
That is why we suggest that the government increase the number of members to allow for more equitable representation. It is essential that members representing Canada's official language minorities also have a seat on the parliamentary committee. There are more Francophones outside Quebec in Canada today than there were at the beginning of Confederation. This French fact outside Quebec is very important, and I must say I regret that some Quebecers think the French language is the

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
exclusive purview of the Government of Quebec. The French fact goes well beyond Quebec's borders. The French fact in Canada is the best protection we could have against the influence of American culture. Frenchspeaking minorities in the other provinces around Quebec are living proof of the success and survival of the French fact in North America. We must never forget that.
There is another important minority whose existence we must not forget, and that is the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec. Quebec has known periods of prosperity that were closely linked to its generous and equitable treatment of its English-speaking minority. I say without hesitation that quite often, Quebec's economic misadventures have been directly related to the existence of a separatist, sovereigntist movement in Quebec. When the sovereigntist movement gains strength in Quebec, the economy suffers. When the sovereigntist movement weakens, Quebec prospers. I would ask Quebecers to remember this: Quebec's survival and economic prosperity depend on the fair and equitable treatment of this English-speaking population in Quebec.
For all of these reasons, I wish to remind the government that it is important to treat opposition parties fairly. I assume the New Democratic Party will make its case to the government for improving this parliamentary committee. There are three comments I would like to make in the form of three small amendments which, we feel, are vital, considering the job to be done by this future parliamentary committee. We earnestly hope the committee will be appointed and will be able to report as soon as possible because, as I said earlier, this is a very urgent matter, and we are running out of time.
Madam Speaker, needless to say, the uncertainty created by this constitutional crisis is having a negative impact on our economy. Flow many investors have changed their minds because of the following consideration: Will Quebec which represents a quarter of Canada's population still be in Canada in two or three years? How much investment is not taking place in Quebec and other parts of Canada because of this constitutional uncertainty? We have no figures, but the impact is there. It exists because of this uncertainty which we must clear up as soon as possible.
That is why we suggest that the government table its proposal and that the parliamentary committee submit its conclusions as soon as possible, and above all, that Canadians be asked to vote on this new Canadian Constitution that will satisfy Quebecers and correspond to the aspirations of other Canadians.
In concluding, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word "fifteen" in paragraph 2 thereof and by substituting therefor the word "twenty" and by deleting paragraph 12 thereof and by substituting therefor the following: "That the parties represented on the Committee be granted allocations for expert assistance with the Committee work in proportion to the representation of the said parties in the House of Commons;" and by deleting the words "February 28, 1992" in paragraph 14 thereof and by substituting therefor the words "December 31, 1991".


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will take this under consideration for a few moments. I will come back and put it to the House a little later.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and to the Official Opposition, and I certainly welcome this opportunity to participate in this important debate. It is a debate that really establishes the foundation for how we are going to build our constitutional future. Therefore it is an essential debate, it seems to me, for the future of our country.
What we are talking about today is simply trying to find the best way to ensure the future of our nation, finding that road that will enable us to be a stronger nation, to have a renewed federalism-not just for today-that will lead us into the 21st century.
My party and I start with the premise that we want to see a renewed Canada, a just Canada and a united Canada. However, in this party we believe that it will take more than a commitment to a constitution. It will also take a commitment to building a fair and prosperous economy, to having those kinds of national social and health programs that mean that each Canadian has equality of access to those programs and to restoring health to our shared natural environment.
Today we are debating the constitutional resolution and how we, as a Parliament, will respond to Canadians and how we, as a Parliament, will seek that consensus that will truly bring us to the 21st century.
June 18, 1991

I believe that we as parliamentarians share a commitment to the future of this nation, and we share as Canadians a commitment to our children's future. We want Canada and all that it represents to the world to succeed.
I believe and my party believes that the success of Canada is dependent upon the full participation of Canadians in the process of national renewal.
I regret to say that the motion put before us by the government does not allow for that full participation. Once again the government is proposing a parliamentary committee. I would like to propose an amendment to this particular motion of the government. The amendment 1 would propose is, of course, to fundamentally create a structure which would include all Canadians right at the outset, but I know that it will be ruled out of order. In the 20 minutes that I have, I do not want to take up time debating that, but rather to put forth the point of view that there is another way, there is a different way to do this, and there is a way that will lead to success.
Once again, the government is proposing a parliamentary committee in which-remember-the government has the majority control. The purpose of the committee is to discuss the government's proposal. Once again we have a committee made up of senators and members of Parliament in which Canadians are invited to visit, but a committee that belongs to politicians and politicians alone.
Once again, Canadians find themselves on the outside looking in.
My party cannot support the government's motion. We are saying it is time for a new way. It is time to bring Canadians fully into the process. This is an extraordinary time and it requires extraordinary measures. We have to meet the challenges facing our nation with innovation, imagination and openness. Canadians must be involved and must feel involved in this process.
While both the government and the Liberal Party are supporting the joint parliamentary committee, my party has proposed, both in the House and elsewhere, that we should be seeking to establish instead a constituent assembly. We arc proposing this form of assembly because a nation can onlv create a Constitution through
Government Orders
creating a social consensus. We believe that the best way to do that is through the kind of assembly we are proposing, an assembly which would represent a broad cross-section of Canadians in the most promising way to reach that consensus.
There is no perfect way. We are not pretending to suggest that we have the perfect way to do it, but we feel profoundly that we must look at new ways and we must take the time to do that.
The member for Papineau, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Parly, says that those new ways would be playing around with the future of Canada. I reject that. What we want to see is the future of Canada with Canadians involved in defining that future and speaking for Canada.
The member from Papineau, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, says that a constituent assembly that would respond and listen to the voices of Canada is a flight of fancy. It seems to me that it is time to really listen to Canadians because if the attitude of parliamentarians in this House is that the voices of Canadians are simply stating a flight of fancy, where can we go to find the consensus we must reach in order to save this country?
I want to contrast some of the differences that I see between a joint parliamentary committee and a constituent assembly. In doing so, I think this House will find some of those arguments extremely compelling in favour of a constituent assembly.
The government argues that the public will have a role in the parliamentary committee. The committee will travel so that Canadians will have the opportunity to appear before it, and in that way Canadians will be able to have their views heard.
In the government's opinion this is a full public role, but surely there is a difference between being a witness at a committee and being a member of a committee. A witness may have his or her opinion ignored or lost in the further discussion when a consensus is negotiated, but a committee member's view cannot be ignored. A committee member can ensure that his or her view is truly heard.

That is why, Madam Speaker, we must set up an entity such as a constituent assembly, made up of Canadian men and women from various groups and communities which are somewhat left out of the electoral process and under representend in it. I am referring to women,

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
native peoples, ethnocultural groups and Canadians from all walks of life.
This way, we will make sure that the views of every Canadian are reflected in the final product of a genuine consultation process.
I spoke with the leaders of a number of organizations representing millions of Canadian men and women. They told me that they have had it with preparing briefs to submit to various committees only to realize that their views and opinions are always ignored.
Just yesterday, I met with members of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women who told me in no uncertain terms that they will no longer take part in this obsolescent consultation process. Why should they. Madam Speaker? Why would the thousands of Canadian men and women who testified before the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee want to come before this committe? Why would they indeed when they see the government go ahead with its plans, pursuing its own agenda, and this even before these committees table their reports and conclusions?
It is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people who have submitted well-thought-out and constructive briefs to the Spicer Commission and the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, Madam Speaker! This government did not even have the decency to wait for the commission and the committee to table their reports and listen to what they had to propose.
This is not consultation, Madam Speaker. It is a waste of time, effort and energy for Canadian men and women.

Madam Speaker, one cannot also avoid, when discussing the proposed committee, the fact that its membership is government dominated and the content of its discussions will be documents referred to it by the government. In other words, the government will have control over the committee, over the scope of the debate, over the writing of the final report. When the governing political party has such control, I find it difficult to attach credibility to the government's frequent proclamations committing itself to non-partisanship because to my party, the Constitution of Canada does not belong to the Conservative government, it belongs to the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This House and Canadians have had experience with such government controlled committees before. There were committees after all on the trade deal with the U.S. There were committees on the GST. They all had public hearings and we know what Canadians thought about that.
To the surprise of no one, those committees supported the government. The government went ahead with its policies and ignored the views of Canadians. That must not be allowed to happen on this fundamental issue.
We cannot leave a committee on the future of Canada open to such dictates. It must not serve the interests and agenda of one political party. It must serve the interests and the agenda of the Canadian people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, one final word on the composition of this proposed committee.
The Liberal Party has proposed that we have more members on the committee, but I have to confess that I cannot believe that when Canadians are calling for a larger role in this debate, the government's response is to appoint 10 unelected, non-representative senators to the committee.
Why have they been given such a major role on the committee and why have the views of those Canadians who are not represented in this House not accorded any voice? This is the question that Canadians will be asking of this government. This is the question that this government must answer.
I suspect that the government has decided to strike a joint parliamentary committee and the Liberal party has agreed with that because that is what they have always done. There have always been joint parliamentary committees, but this is the 1990s and this is an extraordinary situation.
We are not opposed to committees, of course We are not opposed to even joint parliamentary committees, but we are saying that in this extraordinary situation it is time to find new solutions and new ways. It is time to be creative and stop turning to the old ways.
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
My party and I believe that a body like a constituent assembly could be that new way that Canadians are looking for. It would bring Canadians into the process of Canadian renewal and it would ensure that their participation is meaningful, that their voices are heard, and that their views count.
The majority of Canadians, I might add, agree with my party on the issue of having a body such as a constituent assembly which would listen to Canadians. I am told that in the Edwards-Beaudoin committee 158 groups supported the principle of a constituent assembly, which only 23 groups opposed.

Both this government and the Liberal Party are against the principle of the constituent assembly. The government gave two reasons to explain its position. It claims that Quebec would be excluded from the process and that the assembly would by-pass elected representatives.
I would like to rebut these two arguments. First, I would like to ask the government who will represent Quebec on this committee. Members of Parliament or non-elected senators?
A constituent assembly would also include Quebec members of Parliament, Madam Speaker. It could also include representatives from the labour movement, women organizations and other Quebec society groups.
In short, a constituent assembly would allow for a greater participation of the Quebec men and women and a more detailed expression of their aspirations.
I would like to remind this House that the people of Quebec are not against the idea of a constituent assembly. The Quebec government simply said that it would not take part in it. It does not object to the creation of that kind of a forum.
In fact, sooner or later, there will be a constitutional proposal. The question is how will we come up with one? Will it be formulated by a governmental committee or by the people? I think that the people of Quebec, like other Canadians, would rather like it to be representative of the largest possible section of the population.

The Conservative government and the Liberals also argue that a constituent assembly would mean that we were in some way not respecting parliamentary tradition and the parliamentary process. This simply is not the case. A constituent assembly would include elected officials and it would report back to Parliament.
I reject the argument that the parliamentary system would be by-passed because in fact under our current Constitution it is the Parliament which must make the final decision along with the provinces. I reject that argument. We know that the buck stops here. We know that parliamentarians will have the decision on the proposals. The question is how do we reach a consensus so that together in this House we can work toward the kind of future for our nation that we all so badly want to see.
The other parties in this House argue that it is up to elected politicians alone to come up with the answers. As much as I agree that an elected politician has an important role to play, a principal role to play, I must say that we as elected politicians certainly do not have a monopoly on creativity, intelligence or concern for the fate of our nation.
To suggest that we are the only proper representatives of the people's will is not only inaccurate in latter 20th century democracies, but also arrogant.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The reality is that we have been told by the government that this House represents a form of constituent assembly. It is true that we have all been elected to represent the citizens of our particular riding. The majority of people in this House do that well, but there are other eyes and other voices that are not as well represented in this House. The House fails to accurately reflect the Canadian population. When you look around the House of Commons, you do not necessarily see a microcosm of Canada. You do not necessarily see the reflection of the face of Canada in 1991.
For example, women who make up over 50 per cent of the population make up only 14 per cent of the House of Commons. Visible minorities and other ethnocultural communities are seriously under-represented. Aboriginal people are seriously under-represented. Disabled people are under-represented. Labour is under-repres-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
ented. Middle income Canadians and working families are under-represented in this House.
These people have ideas to bring to the debate on the future of our nation. They have something to say. We must create a forum where they can be heard, and will be listened to. We must create a forum that will ensure that this constitutional round is a constitutional round for all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, as we undertake this task- and a very serious one it is-we are really talking about painting a grand new canvas, a portrait of our nation as we want it to be. We cannot leave the painting of the portrait to a small group of artists who interpret Canada from one perspective. There must be a great gathering of painters and artists, a diverse group, each offering something unique and all joining together to achieve a shared vision, a common landscape, a portrait in which all Canadians see themselves.
We can create a new, a more prosperous, more generous and more understanding Canada if we bring Canadians into this task. A constituent assembly is the way to do that, and it is a far better way than that proposed by the government.
I want to close simply by saying that I take no pleasure in standing here in this House to say that the New Democratic Party cannot support a government initiative on the Constitution. I say with honesty that I would like to agree with the government on this. I would like to agree with the Liberal Party, but I do not agree and it is the responsibility of my party, a responsibility which we proudly assume, to provide a voice for those Canadians who seek a new way to build our nation.
I will persist in opposing the repetition of constitutional processes that have so clearly failed in the past. I will persist in repeating my party's message that the process must be open to all Canadians. I have no certainty that there is only one right way, but I do know that millions of Canadians believe that it is time to have the voices of Canadians throughout this country from different origins and different walks of life as an essential part of the process with a voice and a vote.
To us, an open participatory process shows the greatest promise for national renewal. It provides the greatest
hope for a Canada that is more just, more caring and more united. I assure you, Madam Speaker, that I will not let go of that vision. I will continue to speak out my party will continue to speak out until that Canada becomes a reality.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding with the period of questions and comments, I would like to indicate to the House that the amendment as proposed earlier by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel has been found correct as to form.
We will now proceed with questions and comments following the speech of the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Yukon. She seems to be strongly against the government's motion ant she mentioned, in support of her argumentation, certain solutions like the constituent assembly which might be used.

In her speech the member, and I wanted to quote her correctly so I noted it here, talked about the constituent assembly and how she thought this was a solution and that any other means would not be a reflection of the numerous groups that are not represented here in the House.
The affirmation she made was: "How do we reach the consensus?"
The NDP feels strongly against restricting this committee to elected representatives, given the historical fact that constituent assemblies in this country were not used, not even to write our 1867 Constitution. It was a group of elected people in 1867 who wrote our first Constitution.
Given the fact that around the world a constituent assembly is only used after a revolution or a civil war or when a new constitution is to be drafted-and I am thinking of Germany, Australia and France in particular-the main question to be addressed is: How do you choose the members of this constituent assembly to keep it within reason and, indeed, how do you get a consensus out of this group of people?
June 18, 1991

I want to ask her sincerely the following question: How do you select the people who would be on this constituent assembly? Does she have any proposals to put to the House? I did not hear any in her speech.
Finally, would she tell us how she would go about selecting those people who would be non-elected-1 understand she named people from various groups such as women, aboriginals, labourers, and working families- asking for adequate representation and giving these people a mandate which in my view would be very difficult to fill.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend cites history. Had that history worked so well we would not be in the problem we are in now. What I am suggesting is that we have to look to some new ways.
The member asked a very good question: How would we appoint people or how would we have people on this constituent assembly?
I would like to make one point. First of all, we have the ability in Canada to define the kind of assembly that we want, not an assembly that is based on what another country has had. We can certainly learn from other countries, but we have the ability to create our own. I would say that there is a perfectly simple way of doing this.
Of course there would be parliamentarians on a constituent assembly. I have always maintained that for the past year. I have talked about this issue, but there is a number of national organizations which represent a broad spectrum of groups that have a particular stake in the Constitution and have been left out in the past. It would be my view that we would ask those organizations to nominate one or two members. It would in fact be possible, and quite possible it seems to me, that with many of those national organizations they may choose to nominate a person from Quebec and a person from somewhere else in Canada outside Quebec. This would give a greater Quebec voice to a constituent assembly than might be held in other fora.
I would say to the member that it is not outside our ability to develop an assembly which, while not perfect, would at least represent the major stakeholders in the process that wc use. It seems to me that those national organizations which have legitimacy among their members and among the members of this House, because we often meet with these national organizations, would be
Government Orders
quite capable of nominating the members they would choose to sit on such an assembly. It is not that complicated.
Whenever politicians want to shoot an idea down, they say it is too tough to deal with. It is not too tough, and we are saying it can be done if there is the political will to do it.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, we were extremely surprised to hear the position of the NDP to the effect that we could very well do without the presence of the province of Quebec or of members of the National Assembly within the constituent assembly. What an insult that is, Madam Speaker, to the population of Quebec, and it goes to show you why the NDP has an image problem in Quebec. And now they probably want to repeat the dirty trick Chretien, Ouellet and others played on Quebec in 1982 when they repatriated the Constitution without Quebec's consent. Here is what one can do. At that point in time, Prime minister Trudeau said: We do not need the members of Quebec's National Assembly, we have members over here representing that province. This is what we are opposed to. It did not make any sense at that time. Conservatives denounced it. New Democrats denounced it. Now, here is what these hypocrites propose today. The president of the Privy Council is no better because he just said that there will be no member of the Bloc quebecois on his committee, and that therefore he will do without half the population of Quebec.
So, if the NDP and all those funny people in the House want a constituent assembly to define what they want English Canada to be, their Canada, and not the country Quebecers want, well they should say so clearly. They should not try to make Quebecers believe that they want to build a Canada for all Canadians, including Quebecers. Perhaps they are entitled to their own country. Perhaps they are entitled to their own culture and traditions, but they should say so clearly, otherwise it is just a big joke.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this question to the member for Yukon: Does she agree with the ignominious proposition made by the president of the Privy Council that all members of the Bloc quebecois should be excluded from the committee because they have a

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
different point of view than Joe Clark and his Tory colleagues?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: First of all, 1 would like to say that the member clearly misunderstood what I said about the participation of Quebec. What I said is of course Quebec should be a part of the constituent assembly. We would want to see Quebec a part of the constituent assembly; not just the Government of Quebec but all those constituencies in Quebec that we feel make up a constituent assembly in Quebec and have a lot to say about it. We want to listen to what all Quebecers have to say.


An hon. member:: Including the Bloc Quebecois.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Second, I would remind the member that in Quebec the Belanger-Campeau commission struck in Quebec certainly did include a large group. Is this member and are the Liberals trying to tell this House that that kind of commission which included labour, business, and elected and non-elected officials did not do its job? Well it did do its job for the people of Quebec, and I am just saying that a constituent assembly-


Some hon. members:: Bravo, bravo.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions and comments period is over. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in one year from now, the Canadian Confederation or the Canadian nation will celebrate an anniversary on a great land running from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, from the Canadian tundra to the American border. We were invited to that celebration almost one century and a quarter ago.
Yet, this event, Madam Speaker, grips me with anguish because sometimes I fear that when the day comes, no one in this country will want to celebrate, no one will be there to blow the 125 candles.
Madam Speaker, I don't think it is exaggerated to say that Canadians are out of breath. From 1867 to this day,
they have been running till they were out of breath after their destiny. In 1982, they almost choked and last year, they had to hold their breath, Madam Speaker, in the troubled waters of Meech Lake. Sitting around the kitchen table, standing in huge wheatfields, their feet rooted in their boat, deep in the bottom of mines or behind their desks, Canadians are discussing in a hushed voice. From secret to confidence, they learn a new vocabulary: distinct society, separation, national identity. It's enough to lose one's language! I am not talking here about English or French.
I am talking, Madam Speaker, of the language of disappointment, of messages sometimes negative, sometimes contradictory, misunderstood or incomprehensible language that bursts out from here and there, a dialogue of the deaf, the Babel Tower, lost words and attitudes of defeat.
Madam Speaker, is it not the time for Canadians of all provinces and territories, citizens of old stock, First Nations, newcomers and all others to stop looking only after their own interests?
I think time has come for the whole family to sit around the same table, to wash their dirty linen in public and to resolve their quarrels before the sound of the tocsin.
You may judge my words rash, but I do not want to oversimplify the problem, far from there. I know very well that it is not easy to have a real and lasting dialogue from one end to the other of this immense territory, but I also know that the mission is not impossible. We only have to look at what is happening elsewhere.
On the other side of the Atlantic ocean, 12 countries of different cultures and languages, forgetting their differences, are preparing to put together their economic resources. They are going to combine their visions of the future in order to face the year 2000 in a climate of unity and mutual respect. This is in 1992, the veiy year which will mark for us 125 years of national survival.
I think the time has come, Madam Speaker, for all Canadian men and women, whether they live in Valley-field, Lethbridge, Iqualuit, Goose Bay, Verdun, Kanesa-take or elsewhere, to see what is happening in their neighbour's backyard, to get switched on to the world's major trends, to settle internal disputes in order not to
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
miss the boat of the new millennium. One has never Madam Speaker, this new parliamentary joint commit-made any major discoveries by sitting on a pier.	tee on unity is different in the sense that its speaks in ten
languages for the ten provinces and the two territories. . .	The committee will listen to the aboriginal people, to the
Last year, the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future man Qn the street; to iong time Canadians and new ones, showed that Canadians were very keen on making their jn sjj0r^ the committee wants to communicate. As we view points known, that they showed creativity and |<now>
qs mandate is to obtain the opinions of Canadians ingenuity about the way their common future would concerning the government proposals. Some might say unfold.	that it is not a very original mandate.


François Gérin: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


François Gérin: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, which is very clear. The fact is that a member must not read his speech. It is obvious the member is now reading a speech which has been prepared in the backroom of some department and is not using his own words.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think that the way our Standing Orders read now it is quite possible for a member to base his or her speech on notes he or she has in front of him or her. For the time being, this is how I interpret what the hon. member for Beauharnois-Sa-laberry is doing. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Sa-laberiy.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, after having been so eloquently interrupted, allow me to talk about this new parliamentary joint committee that was just proposed this morning. The appointment of this committee is timely, considering there is, as we say, some bickering going on.
Madam Speaker, over the years this instability has brought on a certain cooling off in the federal-provincial relations, as well as real disillusion within the population. In short, the constitutional fabric does not seem to be thick enough anymore to keep the country warm. The data provided confirm those fears. Our future is certainly in jeopardy when 70 per cent of Quebecers expect to leave the rest of the country; when 61 per cent of Western Canadians say: "If they want to leave, let them leave!" We need much more than wishful thinking to settle the conflicts between the different regions of the country. However, we are not yet at the stage where we have to rely on miracles. Let's just say that the time has come for some acts of faith and confidence.
Yet, there is something new. For the first time in our history, a government is committing itself to appointing a committee which, thanks to a new and more aggressive approach, will enlist the participation of all of the provinces and territories into a new highly democratic adventure.
More concretely, the committee will have the power to hold joint sittings with the committees of legislature or individual members of provincial and territorial legislatures. It will also have the power to appoint sub-committees from among its members and to delegate numerous powers to those.
At a time where partnership is what it's all about, the Government of Canada is getting into high gear. It advocates a versatile approach and a philosophy based on widespread consultation, which will enable every group in the country to become equal partners and to choose together their common future.
Madam Speaker, this committee will also give a chance to Canadians to participate fully in the development of an action plan for the renewal of the country. However, the constitutional structure will only hold if there is a solid base and if we use the most adequate techniques.
The parliamentary joint committee on unity is a democratic model comprising two parts: first, a committee made up of federal parliamentarians representing all Canadians; secondly, elected provincial and territorial representatives who, by dealing with their federal counterparts on the same level, will express the needs and expectations of very distinct regions.
Madam Speaker, I purposely use the expression distinct regions. It is an expression that the Quebec nation, of which I am proud to be part of, has taught Canadians from coast to coast last year. However, the differences

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
must not make us forget our links and those links, must not, in turn, become chains.
I therefore invite very sincerely Quebec to fully participate, with the enthusiasm, the perseverance and the energy that it has displaid so often in the past, to the setting up of this new special joint committee on Canadian unity. I also urge all the other provinces and territories to do the same. I invite them to clearly express their own views, while recognizing, at the same time, that there are, within our borders, other visions, other distinctions that also deserve to be appreciated and preserved.
In that regard, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the committee will give particular attention to the presence and the participation of the First Nations. There presently exists some 604 aboriginal tribes in the country. This translates into as many lifestyles, perceptions and experiences that will contribute to the work of the committee. Those are legitimate concerns that the country as a whole will have to deal with.
At the table, the First Nations will sit in the front row next to the provinces and territories. At provincial meetings, parallel talks with native groups might even be considered. Because of all these initiatives proper attention will be paid to every view point and every need.
In spite of the problems tugging at the country right and left Canadian men and women are still quite fortunate-some may even call it a privilege-to be living on a free and prosperous land. We have acess to the best medical care possible, our children receive the finest education, our universities, industries and institutions train specialists whose knowledge and skills are prized world-wide.
The new joint committee on national unity intends to make good use of this unique natural resource. It will give top billing to scientists, thinkers, entrepreneurs, academics and other Canadian experts.
It will give them a unique opportunity to put their knowledge and ideas to the service of the entire nation, to help the people achieve a consensus. To this end, various activities are contemplated, such as round tables or even conferences to find, through the exchange of ideas, answers to sensitive or complex questions.
Madam Speaker, the measure I am outlining to you today is not meant to heal Canada's constitutional wounds. It should not be seen as a trade-off to make people forget about past failures. Lessons from the past have to be learned for the future.
We learned a great deal from the disappointments of the past decade. They revealed that Canada is not a homogeneous entity, but a nation made up of a number of small regional nationalisms just waiting to bloom under a flexible central government that would respect their rights.
They made us take a good hard look at our multifaceted national identity. They made us aware that, in Canada, a Canadian is a Canadian, whether his or her ancestors settled the virgin land of Abitibi, slaved away in the rice fields of Asia or survived in the desert.
That being said, we must not let ourselves get discouraged by the challenge in our search for national identity. If Canadian men and women are more divided than ever on this issue, is it not ground enough to make this difference our rallying cry?
The joint committee on unity will echo this cry. Following in the footsteps of the Spicer Commission, the public opinion will never have been so sought after and prized, whether through open lines or other means aimed at providing every opportunity for an exchange of ideas and meetings.
Travel broadens the mind, as we say. In the months to come, they will also shape this nation. The committee and its various sub-committees will travel across this country.
Not only will they meet their provincial and territorial counterparts on several occasions, but they will also hold public hearings and listen to the views and suggestions of all the groups and individuals concerned.
All of my colleagues in this House and myself must not take a back seat in this process. In your ridings, in your regions, it will be up to you to encourage your fellow citizens to get involved. You should start an informal dialogue with members of communities that you represent and that have put their confidence in you. They should be able to take every opportunity to stand for the future of this country.
June 18, 1991

In the months ahead, Canadians will not only be called to play a role in the constitutional renewal, they will also be kept informed of the latest progress on this essential matter, since the government will issue a number of information documents written in a clear and precise language. But it will do much more.
The television coverage of the committee proceedings will allow the public to follow on a regular basis the progress made, either on cable or community television that will show highlights of the most recent hearings of the committee, or by way of short factual reports on the most recent provincial meetings. One thing is sure, the Government of Canada will take the necessary steps to convey efficiently his message of unity.
Madam Speaker, I know that we have had a difficult period. As a Canadian, I was able to note the increasing weaknesses of the present constitutional system. As a member from Quebec I have heard all kinds of comments.
Our childhood was carved in the immensity of the land. The vastness of our land has always fascinated newcomers. Isn't it time to draw some kind of inspiration from our vast and generous country? One thing is sure, we will not build our future by setting up one committee after another. We have to show goodwill.
Yet, because we need the tools to bring about changes, because we need processes, structures, committees, let's get to work, each on our side. Let's talk about it. Let's watch each other acting. Let's work together for a better future.


M. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask two questions to my hon. colleague. First, I don't know if he had the time to read our amendment, but its purpose is really to enlarge, if you want, the membership in order to make sure that there is as many members as possible representing the different "Canadian realities", the essence of Canada. My second question relates to certain comments that were made by the New Democratic Party: do you believe that the proposition made by the government this morning may nevertheless involve in a very important way a number of groups and, I would hope even those groups mentioned by that party?
Government Orders


Jean-Guy Hudon: Yes, I am familiar with the proposals and amendments put forward by the Liberal Party, and in many regards they are interesting. I think that the government-and I am not speaking on its behalf since I am not a member of the executive committee or the Cabinet-has nothing to gain from arguing about the number of members. I am drawing a parallel with his second question on the constituent assembly. As long as- Yes, we might not want to argue about numbers, but there is a limit. When I look at the proposal from the New Democratic Party, where it is assumed that a single constituent assembly might reflect the future of Canadians, I think there is a limit. The New Democratic Party did not give any clear indication as to the making of this assembly. Also, with such an assembly, you know where you start, but not where you stop. Their problem is that they travelled across the country, listening to just about everybody who had anything to say, because they told them that they should be heard. If you say to everybody "you should be heard, you should have a seat in a constituent assembly" you are making empty promises. So who would be there? I would like- However they did not submit any list of people who should be on such a constituent assembly lest they forget someone. There is also the fear of continuous amendments, because with a constituent assembly nobody knows when to stop.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member explain why he was against the concept of a constituent assembly. I am not sure I understand, because in Quebec, we had our own constituent assembly. We had our constituent committee. It was called Belanger-Campeau. And when I hear the Liberals and the Tories say that they agree on something, I must say I have my doubts. There is something conspiratorial about this, because they both use the same arguments. Well, I want to deal with these arguments once and for all. How can you represent everyone in a constituent assembly? You can't. You can't represent everyone.
The Leader of the NDP said no system is perfect. We do not expect perfection, otherwise most of us wouldn't be here. But we are looking for democracy. We want non-political people to be involved as well, and not as participants on the panel, as suggested by the government and apparently endorsed by the Liberals, a panel on which people would be consulted.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I have often been consulted as a consumer advocate, and I think consultation doesn't mean a thing if you don't have the right to vote and the right to act on a committee like Belanger-Campeau.


Jean-Guy Hudon: There is something contradictory in what he just said, Madam Speaker. Does that mean members of a constituent assembly will have the right to vote? I don't think I ever heard that mentioned.
What I would like to say is that the members of Belanger-Campeau are mostly members of the Legislature. This was not a constituent assembly, it was a committee formed by the Legislative Assembly, consisting mostly of members of that Assembly.
Furthermore, as a member from Quebec, you know perfectly well that you can ask your leader to table proposals. You know perfectly well-and you in the NDP have abandoned Quebec -you know perfectly well that Quebec has rejected the concept of a constituent assembly. This is another example of the NDP's totally ignoring 20 to 25 per cent of the Canadian population, in a process that should include as many people as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the hon. member-and I listened carefully-referred to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, and more specifically to the first part that requests an increase in the number of members. I think his response was that the government was flexible, and I assume this was a positive response on behalf of the government. In other words, the proposal was received with interest.
The second part of the amendment asks that funds be made available to the other parties in this House, in proportion to the number of members on the committee.
I think this was done with other committees in the past, and I think it is a worthwhile proposal. Perhaps the hon. member would care to comment.
Third, the change in date. It has always been our position that Canada urgently needed to resolve this issue, and we suggest changing the date on the motion from February 28 to December 31, 1991, in other words,
we are moving the date up. We want to compress the committee's proceedings and cut about two months off the time. Could the hon. member discuss his position on the amendment in question, with respect to funding and the time factor?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier made it clear that the amendment was favourably received by me. It is not up to me to decide, but I think the three proposals are quite interesting.
First of all, regarding the number of members, I think we should be generous with our resources. Of course, cabinet will have to consider the matter and report back to the House tomorrow. The matter of funding is very important. I think that the matter of funds that could be made available to the committee for research services is in fact even more important than the other element of the Liberal proposal.
Although, having December as a starting date may- The study may take a little more time. There is certainly room for using the talents of Canadians as a resource for the people who will be on this committee.
As for the date, I agree the matter is urgent. This committee's work should have already begun. I call people and I ask them, since they have a lot more experience than I do in this area, to be realistic about dates. If you honestly think we can get something done by December-in fact with what we found out through the Spicer Commission and Beaudoin-Edwards on the amending formula, a lot of preparatory work has already been done. We have to collate all this. So I think it is a possibility.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a very short preamble.

In the spirit of co-operation it has already been indicated that my party wants to participate. It wants to contribute to the building of a new Canada, a stronger Constitution for all Canadians.
I would hope that in the same spirit the government will consider our amendments, the three points that have just been made, that is the possible enlargement of the committee, more members to ensure greater representation, the funding question, as well as the date that has been proposed for completion of the report.
June 18, 1991

I would like the New Democratic Party to make some constructive criticisms as well. The leader has said that there are no perfect solutions, no perfect approaches. I would hope that she would in fact admit that this one proposed by the government is neither more perfect nor less perfect necessarily than her own.
Hopefully, for the sake of Canada and all Canadians, there will be some constructive points made so that we can get on with the job. Canada and Canadians need us now. They need us to come to grips with this problem, so let us not cop out when there is a tough job to do. Let us not give it to others.
Canadians are calling upon us as parliamentarians, so let us get on with the job. Let us not give it to others when we think there might be significant heat in the kitchen and when we know it is not going to be an easy mandate. At the same time, let us not exclude others who want to be heard and who need to be heard.
I want to address four points.

First, the objective, that is the intentions or the raison d'etre of the committee. Secondly, I will talk about its make-up, thirdly, the process and, finally, the fourth major aspect, namely the substance or the content of what will be proposed.

Let us remember as we undertake this monumental, historical task that the Constitution belongs to all Canadians: to you, to me, to all of us. We must keep that as a prime objective. Let us remember as well that we are now trying to correct what is not working and to respond to our many current problems. Let us remember that we want to make lasting changes to create a Canada that is united, with greater economic, social and political stability.
Let us remember that we should address what Canada is all about. What is this great country all about? How will it work? We must indeed have increased fairness, a more just society, and a more competitive society in the true spirit of the time so that wc can in fact be much more sensitive to the needs of all Canadians. Let us make sure in the final analysis that we have a better Constitution for all regions, all provinces and, indeed, all Canadians wherever they happen to come from.
Government Orders
Those are the purposes that I see at the present time. Let us remember that as we undertake the composition of this committee we need to be sensitive to provinces, to the various regions of Canada, and I would include most definitely the territories. We need to be sensitive to the peoples of Canada: aboriginal Canadians, those of French origin, those who are of English speaking origin and those of origins other than aboriginal, French or English.
Let us remember as well as we make up the composition that we need to have gender parity. We need to represent men and women as equally as possible.
Let us remember as well-this is a fundamental point-that we are attempting to correct, to change and to build a Constitution for Canadians and for those who were here before us. We must reflect upon the past but at the same time, we must not forget that we are creating a Constitution and a country for the youth of our nation.
We often forget the youth of the nation when we undertake projects such as this one.

Madam Speaker, let us not forget our vision of Canada in terms of social, cultural, economic, and other policies. The prejudices that I have and the ones that those who were here before me are not the same as those of today's youth.
Canada is not the same today as it was before. It must compete at the international level and when we deal with this fundamental issue, we have to make sure that we take into account our youth, those young men and women, your children, my children, your grandchildren. We want to build a country that will fulfill their needs, that will make their lives better and that will bring greater justice at every level.

When we attempt to rebuild a country, let us not forget that it is for all Canadians, but especially let us not forget that it is for the young people. It is so easy to build something for yourself and forget the others.
I want to speak briefly about the process. We have already said that this must be a round for all Canadians. We want to make sure that we can reach out to each and every Canadian who has something to say about the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land. Let us

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
ensure that it is an open process, that there are no hidden agendas, that there are no seamless webs. Let us ensure that we listen intently, sincerely and profoundly to what Canadians have to say. Let us make a commitment today to involve all Canadians who want to speak about the fundamental law of our land.
I have spoken about our aboriginal peoples. I have spoken about Canadians from French, English and other origins. Let us not forget the poor. They do not always have the voice that they need. Let us not forget our Canadians with disabilities who cannot always speak as loudly, as often and as forcefully as they would like. Let us not forget organized, non-organized labour and business people.
Canadians, generally, must be given the opportunity to be heard and we must make a commitment to listen to them no matter what region of this country or province they come from and no matter what their background happens to be.
Let us respond as well, once we have listened and listened carefully to all Canadians, in an open kind of way. Let us really attempt to hear and to bring forth solutions that will in fact correct and solve a lot of those problems.
I was a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards constitutional committee whose report should be coming soon. As I travelled across Canada and talked to my constituents, they told me that they want a solution to the constitutional crisis and they want it now. They want national unity because they believe that national unity brings economic stability. It will bring social progress and political stability as well. They arc tired of this continual haranguing about where we are going, who is in, who is out and under what circumstances.
Let us come to grips with it, perhaps not for all times but for a significant period of time.
I want to address the question of substance. There is a number of principles that I think we must abide by and I shall share a few that my party has developed. In fact they come from a statement of the leader of the party.

There they are. I believe that we really need a statement on the nature of Canada and I would like this statement to include a number of issues that I have alluded to, namely that we recognize the regions, the provinces, and the people of different origins. I would also like us to show a profound attachment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we want to be a first class country, it is fundamental to attach the greatest importance to this Charter.
I would also like to see a strengthening of the Canadian economic union. I find it hard to understand why we talk about free trade with other countries when there are still, in our own country, all kinds of barriers that keep us from working together in a much easier and simpler way.
I would like to see, like everybody else I believe, an institutional reform, so that our great institutions, whether it is the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House of Commons and many other ones, meet the needs of Canadians. The distribution of powers is also another issue that must be dealt with. I tried to bring this issue up when I was sitting on the Beaudoin-Edwards Commission. We discussed it a bit, but it was not an integral part of our mandate. It was thus put aside, and I think it is unfortunate. However, this time, we cannot put it aside.
Spending power is a matter of the great importance, not only to Quebec but to any province or region in Canada. It is a matter this committe will have to settle.
The immigration issue is a very sensitive one. Certain agreements were signed that Canadians are not quite familiar with. Moreover, I am not convinced, and this is not meant as a nasty remark, that we know just where we are going on this issue of immigration. Nevertheless, we must tackle it and try and find a solution. The Supreme Court of Canada is most important. Are changes needed here? The native peoples were also mentioned over and over, and I am so proud that we, as parliamentarians, as well as the Canadian people have given further recognition to the importance of and the key role played by natives, the native peoples of Canada.
Finally, it seems likely that we will be able to meet in a very concrete and significant way to their needs, or so I hope. In my view, the amending formula should be flexible, responsible and responsive to the needs of a
June 18, 1991

modern nation, a nation changing very rapidly to compete with the rest of the world.
If need be, there should be a national referendum to settle this business, maybe not once and for all, but for a long time I hope.
{English]
At the end of this process I think that Canadians need to be able to say something like the following: Canadians need to say at the end of the process of this new commission that it was indeed a Canada Round, that we were concerned about Quebec, the north, the Atlantic provinces, the western provinces, and of course Ontario as well. It must be a Canada Round, and at the end of the process people must say: "Yes, it was indeed a Canada Round". Canadians must be able to say that parliamentarians reached out to Canadians, that they really went out of their way to find them, to listen to them and to respond to them.
Canadians have to be able to say as well at the end of this whole exercise that the process was indeed open, that partisanship virtually did not exist, that the most important goal was Canada and the future of Canadians, and that that is reflected in all the travels, the debates and the discussions.
They must be able to say that parliamentarians listened with open minds. They must be able to say that they as Canadians have had fair representation, that our aboriginal peoples were represented, that there were representatives from the French language communities, from the English language communities and from the ethnocultural and multicultural communities as well. They must be able to say that there was a good balance of gender, and that wc were sensitive to the whole question of youth, the poor, the handicapped and other Canadians who feel that they must be heard, that they must be reflected in this fundamental law of the land.
Canadians at the end of the process must be able to say that there was a significant, substantive, sensible, sensitive response to that which was communicated and shared with the members of the committee. They must be able to say: "We do have a good solution; no solution is perfect, but this is a good solution".
I think that Canadians need to be able to say at the end of the process that the important nations of the world which are watching us today and will continue to do so
with respect to our constitutional and other crises will acknowledge our success, that they will say: "We now see a Canada that is stronger, that is more united, that has a better sense of direction, not only on constitutional matters, but on other matters as well". If we are able to do that, I am certain that we will have a better country.
With respect to the amendments I just want to say a few words. I mentioned them briefly at the beginning.

I pointed out that we got involved in this as a party in a spirit of co-operation. I hope that the government will consider the amendments we proposed with the same open-mindedness to see if there would not be a way to accomodate what we proposed. We believe, as I said earlier, that this would help us, as parliamentarians, to meet the needs of the Canadian people regarding their Constitution.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will have a couple of minutes to conclude his comments when we resume debate on this motion.
For the time being, as it is one o'clock p.m., I will now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, several times during the past month, a number of my constituents suggested that all taxpayers should be treated the same by governments, whether they are married, single or living common law, and whether a family's income is earned by one or several people, all other things being equal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the exceptional work being done by the Conservative member for Calgary North, A1 Johnson, who with the Conservative committee on family tax measures is trying to find solutions to these problems.

June 18, 1991


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, this week is Occupational Health and Safety Week in Canada, a time when we should express our gratitude to those thousands of working Canadians, both volunteer and full-time who work hard every day to make Canada's work places safe and healthy.
We must also, as parliamentarians, rededicate ourselves to ending the all too familiar litany of death, injury and industrial disease which continues to victimize Canadian workers and their families at the alarming rate of one death in every three working hours.
I am sure we are all sincere in our expressed aims, but two questions come to mind. First, why did both the Ministry of Labour and the Liberal Party fail to respond to an invitation from the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety to join deliberations in Sudbury last week to rescue the financial viability and independence of the centre?
Second, why has the government still not proclaimed the health and safely parts of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act passed five years ago, which would accord Parliament Hill workers the same health and safety protection as other Canadians?
Let us put our actions and dollars where our mouths are.


USE OF TOBACCO
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled the government's response today to the campaign against tax rates launched by tobacco companies. Although taxes are never popular, I know Canadians agree we should use all reasonable means to discourage our young people from smoking, a habit that often becomes addictive. In response to the efforts of tobacco companies that focus on taxes, while the real problem is public health, our government has used taxes as part of its national strategy for reducing the use of tobacco. Canada ranks first in the world on cutting the smoking habit, and the minister made it clear that despite the
objections of tobacco companies, he intends to maintain the government's current policy. The minister also stressed the need to promote the government's program, to make Canadians aware of the dangers of smoking.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, due to this government's policies, small businesses are failing in record numbers. The recession which this government's policies helped induce has placed many small businesses in a very tenuous position.
The GST which came into effect last January has had a significant negative impact on small businesses across the country.
On July 1, this government's payroll tax increase of 24 per cent in unemployment insurance payments will come into effect.
Last week the proposed bankruptcy legislation was introduced and small business persons across this country were shocked to find out that this government will be hitting them again with another payroll tax to finance a wage insurance fund. This will mean added costs and more paper work for the already over-burdened small business sector.
At a time when jobs and economic growth are badly needed, this government seems determined to implement policies which will discourage small business from hiring more employees, discourage small businesses from expanding and propel many small businesses right out of business altogether.


THE PIG
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, after centuries of disrespect the common pig is now gaining new stature. Even as I speak, futuristic pigs are producing human haemoglobin in their blood.
In the best studied pig at the New Jersey Research Station, 10 to 20 per cent of haemoglobin is human. The amazing pig will soon be saving human lives. These unselfish animals are potentially virus free blood donors
June 18, 1991

and after receiving their 100th donation certificate, they can still wind up on your barbecue.
The next time you pass a pig or a pig farmer on your way to work, do not look at them with disdain. Take them to the football game or buy them a beer.
The pig now commands a new respect. The life he saves could be your own.


HARBOURS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 14, two fishermen in my riding came close to losing their lives due to a serious silting problem at the mouth of Dingwall Harbour. The cost of this dredging has been estimated at $350,000 and although this is not a long-term solution, this government has not seen its way clear to providing even this amount of money.
Silting is a major problem in the harbours in my constituency. Bay St. Lawrence, Sugar Loaf and Ingon-ish are other places where silting has caused difficulties for individuals employed in the fishing industry.
Except for the fact that these two fishermen had a very powerful engine in their boat, they could easily have capsized and drowned.
A request for funding is now sitting in the Minister of Fisheries' office and I hope the minister will examine this request and approve it immediately. He comes from an area where fishing is the mainstay of small communities and must realize the daily dangers that fishermen face.
What is more important to this government, the lives of fishermen or $350,000? I urge the minister to act immediately on this very important matter.


SENATOR STAN WATERS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, we note with regret that Senator Stan Waters is suffering from fatigue. According to his own admission, his fatigue is a result of his trying to promote the Reform Parly, no doubt an exhausting undertaking.
He is also reported as saying that this task requires about 80 per cent of his time with only 20 per cent left over for senatorial duties.
The question Canadians are asking is will Preston Manning's conscience require Senator Waters to return 80 per cent of his wages to the federal bank account, or does the leader of the Reform Party condone the spending of public funds to support his populist movement?


CANADA POST
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post announced that it will be closing the post office in Brandon, Manitoba next month. This post office services over 38,000 people. The decision sent a clear warning to all Canadians. No post office is safe.
I and thousands of Canadians are angry that Canada Post took this step and in doing so, gave the residents of Brandon only six weeks notice before this arbitrary decision would become fact. Many other communities, including Guelph and Charlottetown, are receiving drastically reduced postal services at the post office. Many rural communities are losing all postal outlets.
Canadians deserve first class postal service. Instead they are forced to find insurance outlets or pharmacies which are often not equipped to provide efficient and secure services.
Canada Post spent nearly $200,000 on a luxury box at SkyDome to entertain its corporate friends. This kind of expense is obscene when average Canadians are being denied basic services.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, the government has admitted that it has collected a windfall in profits from the Goods and Services Tax, a windfall collected at the expense of co-operatives across Canada.
The GST applies to share capital investments made to a co-operative.
Their competitor food companies do not pay GST on any risk capital invested in their companies.

June 18, 1991
5. o 31
For example, this unequal application of GST costs a retail co-op in Moncton approximately $20,000 a year.
The GST is also applied to the co-operative weekly fees. The co-ops have broken down their sales and determined that 40 per cent are GST taxable and 60 per cent are zero-rated. This unfair GST tax on food costs the same retail co-operative about $40,000 per year. This creates an unlevel playing field for co-operatives.
Months ago co-operative representatives suggested amendments to the legislation similar to that for credit unions. They are still waiting to hear back. These amendments would appear to be easy to accommodate and would help to correct some of the inequities of the GST as it applies to co-operatives.


GEORGETOWN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a way of measuring a community's compassion, it is perhaps through gauging the way it cares for its sick and elderly. By that standard the community of Georgetown, Ontario, in my riding is truly both compassionate and caring.
For the past 30 years local civic leaders and volunteers have been instrumental in seeing to it that the Georgetown Community Hospital protects and heals the citizens who have come to depend upon it.
I am proud to rise in my place in the House of Commons to both thank and praise these people.
In a few days the hospital will officially mark three decades of operation. During that time the facility has expanded and now includes an excellent centre for the care of the aged.
In Georgetown we arc proud of this achievement and while I know this House is often filled with rancour and complaint, I want to remind all members that our communities arc enriched by local institutions such as these to which we must all offer our deep thanks.


WELFARE
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore - Malton):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario is calling for a massive overhaul of the province's general welfare assistance system and the
Region of Peel is outraged. Why? With the changes, a self-declaration system is advocated.
People will be able to apply for welfare by mail. Home visits will be abolished unless requested, and the welfare system will be opened to 16 and 17 year olds.
Welfare will become a hand-out rather than a hand up. Costs will skyrocket.
The region cannot bear this extra burden, nor can we.
Our federal government contributes 50 per cent of the funding for this program and has a 50 per cent interest in the well-being of the people in the province of Ontario.
We should be outraged too.
We should have the right to call for negotiations between funding partners.
We should ensure that the welfare system does not break the back of an already strained region.
We should, but will we?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke at the environmental gathering which was organized by the Aboriginal Cultural Society in Winnipeg yesterday. This gathering was to enhance the solidarity among aboriginal peoples by examining environmental issues facing our planet and sharing traditional values about Mother Earth.
I commend the organizers and the participants of this important event. David Suzuki participated and, as members know, his ability to reconcile the interests of science with those of humanity has made him one of the most well known and perhaps greatest scientist of our time.
Jeannette Armstrong from the Penticton Reserve stated "the native people of this land developed a lifestyle through a unique world view, based on the health of the whole individual".
There were many people in attendance, including elders. It is our elders and people who still live on the land who reinforce my conviction that native people can protect the planet through a combination of traditional
June 18, 1991

and spiritual environmental values and new scientific knowledge.
I believe the environment is the foundation of our well-being. This is what the elders have taught us. This is what I call traditional knowledge. I believe that all Canadians want to protect the environment from destruction. In the end, this is the vision which will unite our country.


THE FAMILY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the family unit is central to the quality of life in Canada.
It is the family unit where values are shaped, where faith is nurtured and strengthened and where tolerance, good will and generosity are developed.
Therefore, I become very upset when any government introduces any legislation that directly, or indirectly, erodes or discriminates against the family.
Our current tax system penalizes many married Canadians by charging them billions of dollars more than if they were unmarried, according to yesterday's report by Statistics Canada.
The report said that due to differing deductions and credits, 58 per cent of married-couple families had less disposable income under the tax and transfer payment system in 1989 than if they had formed a family but remained unmarried.
I want to congratulate the Conservative member of Parliament from Calgary North for his leadership in researching and investigating this issue over the last two years. Let us act quickly to correct these unfair tax measures.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, ever since this government signed the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding with the United States, thousands of jobs have been lost in the forest industry.
Canada's ability to manage our forests has been turned over to the Americans.
Grandfathered into the free trade deal, this tariff is another example of why this government's trade agenda is seriously flawed.
To date, the government has failed to get Canada out of the MOU.
The minister should tell American officials when he meets them later this month that we want this tariff scrapped. The government should act before more jobs are lost.
Since this government traded away our sovereignty, let us get it back.


SENATOR STAN WATERS
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Regina-Wascana, I am very sorry that Senator Waters has had to spend time in the hospital because of fatigue.
I wish him a speedy and complete recovery.
What concerns me is the fact that Senator Waters attributes only 20 per cent of the problem to his senatorial duties, and the rest because he has been so busy working for his party.
For one who has made such a public issue of donating a small part of his salary to charity, perhaps he should show real charity and collect only the 20 per cent of his income that he says he is working for, and apply the balance to reducing the cost of government which he is so fond of criticizing.
It is a good time for the senator to put his rhetoric into action.


UKRAINIAN IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of 100 years of Ukrainian immigration to Canada.
Drawn by the promise of a better future for themselves and their families, the first Ukrainian immigrants arrived in Montreal on September 7, 1891. They were followed by nearly 200,000 who were a founding people of Canada's west.

June 18, 1991
Oral Questions
Today, there are over 600,000 citizens of Ukrainian descent living in Canada. We share their deep love and loyalty to Canada and we respect their unique heritage and contribution to our country.
In the words of a former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canadians of Ukrainian descent have added something of value, of strength and of colour to the Canadian character.
As this House will be in recess on the anniversary of this historic beginning, let us thank our Ukrainian neighbours today and together let us work toward many more years of the prosperity they helped to bring to our country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, which is the earliest opportunity that I have had, to bring to the House a correction in Hansard at page 1757, where I have referred to a legal addiction from which I suffer. I have\nchecked the electronic media and indeed I did say "legal addiction" not "lethal".']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my first question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canada is again facing a major trade dispute: U.S. Customs is investigating Asian manufacturers who produce cars in Canada. We are told that the government intends to charge customs duty retroactively on cars manufactured here in Canada, because they say these cars do not meet the standards of the Auto Pact.
I therefore want to ask the government whether it is true that Asian manufacturers who produce cars in Ontario and Quebec, do not meet the standards of the Auto Pact.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, this is a report in the media. It is not a report based on something that we have received, nor has the company received it.
There is a leak here that we are not in a position to comment on. If it appears that there is something that does not meet the requirements of the free trade agreement, in the eyes of the Americans, then certainly that is something we will look into.
However, I should point out to my friend that we saw last week, with the very successful result of the pork countervail case, the result of the application of the extraordinary challenge, where Canada was successful in the position that it took; a three to nothing decision. I think that shows very clearly that the dispute settlement mechanism works.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, either these companies respect the auto pact content requirements or they do not. I am very surprised that the government does not know anything about it. It should monitor these things.
If the government does not know about it, why not? If it does know about it, what does it intend to do to ensure that the government trade action is not detrimental to Canadian workers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a very silly comment by the Leader of the Opposition.
At this point, the matter is the subject of a regular, normal and confidential audit by the United States authorities, comparable to audits that we do in Canada in respect of the rule of origin rules that are the subject of the free trade agreement.
For him to suggest that there is something wrong and that we do not know what is going on inside the Government of the United States is silly. When we find out what the results of this audit are, we will be able to take action if it is appropriate to take action.
I think the hon. member would be well advised to wait for the facts to come out before he starts making these allegations.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly surprised that the minister does not know what is going on. He should know if these manufacturers meet or do not meet the requirements of the auto pact. It is his job, not my job.
Mr. Denis Desrosier, a very respected automobile analyst said: "With the trade negotiations with the Americans and Mexicans coming up, the potential exists to fundamentally blow the auto pact apart." Can the minister assure Canadians and this House that the auto pact is not on the table in the negotiations between Canada, the United States and Mexico?
June 18, 1991


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, I can assure the hon. member of that, but I also would like to advise him that between Canada and Mexico the largest single element of our trade is in automotive parts and assembled vehicles. There are some serious trade barriers that the Mexicans have that inhibit our trade, particularly trade in automobiles into Mexico, and I would expect that the Leader of the Opposition would be encouraging us to make part of these negotiations to help the export of our cars into the Mexican market.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. The United States trade representative has stated that the United States and Mexico are negotiating separate agreements on immigration, oil mineral rights, and on the environment without Canada's participation.
Did Canada choose to absent itself from those talks or was it excluded? Has Canada in fact secured full and equal participation in trilateral negotiations, or can Canada be excluded from some aspects of the talks if the United States and Mexico decide to do so?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we arc full and equal partners in the trade negotiations. There are some elements that are outside the trade negotiations that are a subject of discussions between the United States and Mexico, as there are between the United States and Canada. We have a bilateral arrangement with Mexico in matters of environment that the Prime Minister signed when he was in Mexico about a year or so ago.
Those discussions arc ongoing, but we agreed at our meeting last week that these bilateral discussions could turn into trilateral discussions. There will be full openness among all of us as to what is going on in these discussions, and if it appears appropriate to make certain bilateral discussions into trilateral discussions, that is something we can easily do.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific. The United States trade representative has announced that the United States has now agreed that ownership of all Mexican oil mineral
Oral Questions
rights is not on the table in the North American free trade negotiations.
Will the minister explain to the Canadian people why the ownership of all oil mineral rights is excluded in the case of Mexico, but not in the case of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed the last part of the question.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to repeat it. I wonder whether the minister would explain how it is that the ownership of all oil mineral rights is excluded in the case of Mexico, but included in the case of Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the ownership of the mineral rights in Canada is a provincial matter. They are the governments responsible for the ownership. In fact they own the mineral rights themselves and it is up to them to decide how they should deal with them.
Our position in the free trade agreement with the United States was that we wanted to use the free trade agreement to ensure that we had access to the United States market to sell the products that come form those mineral rights, oil and natural gas in particular.
That was our choice. That was our decision as the government at that time and I believe it was the right one.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the minister of health about the secretive, closed-door federal-provincial conference of ministers of health which will meet in Toronto on Wednesday. I now understand that this meeting has no agenda and will be restricted to ministers only. Clearly any minister can propose changes to our health care system such as provincial autonomy, disentanglement, user fees, or extra billing.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House if the proposals of his government that it will make at this meeting will include the federal government continuing to play a

June 18, 1991
Oral Questions
major role in medicare, including direct cash funding and the maintenance of national standards.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the secretiveness of the meeting, it cannot be that secret if my hon. colleague knows all about it.
My colleague, the Minister of Health and National Welfare, will be there at the conference and I am sure he will be pleased to report back to the hon. member when he returns.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Canadians are clearly worried about their health care system and they certainly do not get assurance from the questions and answers we are receiving from the other side.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. yesterday, the minister of Health said the Canadian health system was admired as the best in the world. Can the Prime Minister tell this House how much longer the Canadian system will remain the best when its own government will cut S62.4 billion from medicare financing by the year 2000. What specific financial guarantees will he take to the provincial ministers of health tomorrow so that Canadians will continue to have the best medicare system?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Canadians would be much more reassured if we put the questions ourselves. But of course, that is the privilege of the hon. member of the opposition.
With respect to the conference, as I said, my colleague the minister of health is going to be there tomorrow, and I am sure after the conference he will be in a good position to indicate what transpired at that conference.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responding for the minister of health. In a recent letter to the editor of Saturday Night the Deputy Minister of Health wrote that: "the government has developed an approach to regulation of prosthetic devices based on risk management, voluntary compliance and international co-operation."
There have been serious questions about the safety of the Meme breast implant. There are persistent rumours that the Meme will be back on the market by fall. Will the minister assure women that the Meme will not return to the market until it is proven safe.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, many questions have been asked about that matter of the minister of health in the past. He has given indications of what measures National Health and Welfare have taken with respect to that particular matter, and I am sure the minister will continue to assure my hon. colleague that everything with respect to health and welfare and the protection of the user will be maintained.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Last Friday, the US trade secretary said that her country and Mexico will negotiate, in the context of the free trade talks, a distinct environmental agreement, without Canada's participation. This is a real blow! According to Carla Hills, this is the only agreement contemplated in the context of free trade.
On June 15th, the Minister of the Environment promised, in committee, that our interests would be protected through negotiations at the North American level. Mr. Speaker, the trade arguments justifying Canada's presence at the negotiating table also apply to the environment issue.
My question is this: what measures does the government intend to take in order to ensure that Canada is not left out of those negotiations, and to ensure that there is a trilateral agreement on the environment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a slap in the face that we do not have a common border with Mexico. That is the purpose for the large number of the discussions that the United States and Mexico are having on a bilateral basis,
, s'v V '
[DOT] '
June 18, 1991

because there are considerable environmental problems along the United States-Mexican border.
I did say, in response to his colleague, that we have ourselves a parallel set of discussions going on between Mexico and Canada on environmental matters that are more of interest to the two of us as countries. We did discuss on Wednesday last week at the initial meeting of the North American free trade negotiations that we would be quite open among ourselves as three countries as to what was taking place in the two sets of bilateral discussions. If it were appropriate for us to become involved in their discussions or them to become involved in our discussions, the United States and the Canada-Mexico discussions, then that can be done.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Appropriate. If this government does not begin to understand the absolute integration of the environment with trade, we arc going to get skinned in every trade negotiation that lies ahead of us.
On April 8 Canadian environmental groups which understand the issue wrote the Prime Minister requesting a meeting to help develop the Canadian position for the Mexican negotiations. They were not even given the courtesy of a reply or an acknowledgement. The failure to include environmental NGOs has already compromised the Canadian agenda and has put us far behind the preparations of the United States in these negotiations.
My question is: will the minister agree to meet with the concerned organizations this week? Furthermore, will the minister undertake to this House to set up a formal consultation structure by the end of the month lest we fall further behind the environmental eight ball?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me be quite clear, Mr. Speaker, there are environmental matters that arc clearly in the realm of trade negotiations, and those arc going to be part of the NAFTA negotiations. There are other environmental matters that do not have any trade significance but are the subject of two sets of bilateral parallel discussions, one between the United States and Mexico and the other between Canada and Mexico.
Oral Questions
As far as the letter that my hon. friend refers to, I would be happy to look into that matter and I will get back to him.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: In the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade talks Canadian industries, like our banks, want access to American markets, but the Americans want something in return. The Americans have made it clear for a long, long time that Canadian culture is up for grabs as far as they are concerned. So my question is to the Minister of International Trade.
Isn't he horse-trading Canadian culture for his Bay Street friends? If he isn't, why did the minister only tell Carla Hills that culture is-and I quote-"a sensitive issue"? Why is he not telling her at the trade table that culture is not a bargaining chip and that it is just not on the table? Why is he not saying that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have told that to Mrs. Hills; I have told it to Mr. Serra, I have told it to Mr. Katz and I have told it to Mr. Blanco, and I am quite happy to tell it for the seventeenth time to my friend from Mount Royal.
If she is concerned about this matter of trade and what is on the table or off the table, one of the things that she might consider is the fact that Mrs. Hills has said that some things are not on the table for the United States as well.
So that is part of the negotiations that we are going to be having, but my hon. friend can be quite sure that the position I have taken, both publicly and also in discussions with Mrs. Hills, makes it very, very clear that our position on the cultural industries in this country is not a subject for negotiation.


Sheila Finestone: We in this House know what the minister has been saying. But the news media seems to indicate that Carla Hills doesn't know what the minister has been saying.
The Mexicans were able to get their oil minerals off the table; the Americans have been able to get their immigration off the table; why have this minister and this government not been able to get the cultural industries off the table? That is my question.

June 18, 1991
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, immigration is not a trade matter. It is never the subject of trade negotiations.
The reason why the Mexicans have been able to get the ownership of energy resources off the table is that right now in their constitution they are constitutionally not able to comply with what the Americans or we might want to have. If she would only close her mouth and open her ears, she might hear something of what I am saying. I will say it for the eighteenth time:
The negotiations will not include any negotiation of trade in the products of our cultural industry.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister for International Trade.
United States Customs have attacked Honda and probably other Asian transplants in Canada for failing to meet North American content requirements. They have also accused Honda of dumping in the U.S. market.
My question to the minister is: will the government release the results of its own Revenue Canada audit and let us know how those results do or do not confirm the American findings? In any case, will the government indicate what action it intends to take to protect Canadian jobs which, after all, are North American jobs too.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Americans audit our exports and we audit their exports. Unless there is something that is contrary to trade rules, then the results of those audits arc confidential.
The particular audit my friend is referring to at this point is still in the process of being carried out by the United States authorities. For him to start drawing conclusions on the basis of an audit that is not complete and ask for us to get the results of an incomplete audit out into the public domain I think is inappropriate and probably irresponsible.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The
Americans are already talking about actions to be taken on the basis of this secret audit.
One administration official says that if Canadian companies are having trouble now, just wait. Denis Desrosier, who is a well-known auto expert, says that the controversy could blow the auto pact apart.
Now we are engaged in trilateral free trade agreements. My question to the government is: what will this government do to prevent the gutting of the auto pact that this government already started in the bilateral trade negotiations as it enters into the trilateral negotiations with Mexico. How are we going to save Canadian jobs? How are we going to save the Canadian automobile industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite premature in the comments he is making. We have demonstrated in the two and a half years since the free trade agreement has been in force a very strong capacity to protect the Canadian industry against the attacks from the other side where they have proven to be inappropriate. The most recent of those came last week when we had a very strong win, which I have yet to hear my colleague opposite talk about at all, where we demonstrated very clearly the position we took against the position taken by the Americans. It was supported by the panel three to nothing. This is the type of result we can expect from the free trade agreement, from the dispute settlement mechanism, which my friend's comments from the other side, right from the start-



Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment.
Since January 1989, Canada has lost over 280,000 manufacturing jobs, the bulk, and I stress, the bulk of which were as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. In fact, 180,000 of those jobs have been lost forever.
My question, based on this harsh reality, is simply this. Since the U.S. Congress has already made a commitment to implement labour force adjustment programs prior to any agreement with Canada and Mexico, will the minister give the House an undertaking today that Canada will
June 18, 1991

follow suit to protect the displaced workers under the upcoming free trade negotiations?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member understands the differences that exist between adjustment programs for American workers and Canadian workers. Just maybe what has happened in the United States is that they have looked at Canadian adjustment programs and thought this was quite suitable also for workers in the United States.
We have in this country 400 adjustment programs. How many more are needed?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
If the government does in fact have a national retraining strategy and programs as he states, can the minister give us specific program details for the 10,800 displaced workers in the auto industry and, indeed, the 9,200 displaced workers in the steel industry.
Also, how will these displaced workers be retrained? What sectors can they be found in?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me the next 20 minutes to go through the list of all the programs that are available.
Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, these workers and all workers across Canada can benefit from the skill shortages program which helps train Canadians in skills that are in short supply and provides mobility assistance.
Employers needing workers with skills in short supply take advantage of this program. For the last fiscal year this was $265 million. Another one is the skill investment program which is another program which-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, this is the list that the hon. member requested. Come see me after Question Period, and I will give you a copy of the list of great things we are doing for Canadian workers.
Oral Questions SOUTH AFRICA


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
I would like to begin by commending the statement that was made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, while welcoming the change in apartheid legislation in South Africa, went on to say that the government would continue to urge changes dealing with prisoners and political exiles. I think that is an important statement on behalf of Canadians.
At the same time, the minister said that the government is now considering a change in its policy in relation to sanctions.
Considering the continuing violence in South Africa, considering the fact that political prisoners have not been released and that there are stalled negotiations, why is the government now considering changes in its sanctions program? Is it planning to bring those changes forward at the Commonwealth meeting of foreign ministers being held in July?
What is the government's real position on sanctions?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government's real position is the position that was articulated in this House some six years ago.
We have consistently followed that and defended that position throughout the Commonwealth, the United Nations and elsewhere, including the G-7 summits. The position is that sanctions are indispensable in bringing about the removal of the pillars of apartheid. We think that has turned out to be quite accurate.
In response to the calls from the new Secretary General of the Commonwealth and others, Canada is part and parcel of a re-examination of the thrust of the Commonwealth principles in respect of apartheid to see if changes at this point might be appropriate and helpful, given the significant nature of changes brought about by President de Klerk.
That decision has not been taken yet because the key word in Canada's position has always been that these changes must be irreversible with regard to the elimination of apartheid.

June 18, 1991
Oral Questions
The Commonwealth foreign ministers will meet in June and the leaders of the Commonwealth will meet in Harare in October. At that point in time, Canada's position will be set forward with clarity, as it has been in the past.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it may have been set forth with clarity in the past. I am not sure the Prime Minister's answer today has much clarity to it.
Specifically, when Canada attends the foreign ministers' meeting, considering the.number of calls that are now being made for changes on sanctions programs, on lifting restrictions on travel, visas and party participation, is the Government of Canada now considering making changes in the programs?
Is it responding to those calls for change or, taking into account the continuing serious problems of real discrimination in South Africa, will we hold to the sanctions program that has been announced by various and successive governments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What various and successive governments? Mr. Speaker, it was only this government that brought about that program in the first place.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think my hon. friend ought to refresh his memory. With regard to the changes that are made, the changes, if indeed they come, will be made in co-operation with our Commonwealth allies. My hon. friend says: "What is our position?" Our position is the position that the Commonwealth adopted in Nassau in October 1985 and then supplemented by a series of initiatives under the chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, as congratulated by Nelson Mandela when he congratulated Canada and this government when he stood on the floor of the House of Commons.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steve Rutland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I think that everyone knows that the Canadian steel industry is at risk in this country and at this present time Algoma Steel in particular. Successful restructuring of this company
will require creative initiatives such as an employee buy-out.
On May 27 the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology endorsed such an initiative. I wonder if the Minister of Finance shares his colleague's opinion and will also endorse such an initiative.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there have indeed been meetings with the union workers as well as with the Government of Ontario, and there have been a number of telephone calls with respect to this issue.
It is our hope that the existing mechanisms will be sufficiently flexible to allow a program, such as the hon. member refers to, to proceed. However, I have to tell him that there is a fair amount of work that still has to be done and we hope that ultimately the objective that the hon. member and the workers have in mind can be utilized. We will use our best efforts in using the existing mechanisms to achieve that purpose.


Steve Butland: I do appreciate the minister's comments and I think he is also looking favourably upon such an initiative, but it is obvious that what is existing will not be sufficient. To facilitate such an initiative, obviously changes in federal tax policy will be necessary to complement hopefully pending provincial policy.
Will the minister indicate what specific initiatives he would consider and when because time is of the essence?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, our position is that we remain hopeful that existing mechanisms can be utilized satisfactorily.
The hon. member shakes his head in the negative. I am not sure whether he has attended the meetings, but there have been meetings, there have been telephone conversations and there will be more, and we will attempt to co-operate and work in a co-operative fashion to see what we can do to facilitate the kind of objective that the hon. member has in mind.


TAXATION
Mr. AI Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in Social Trends, a publication of Statistics Canada, we learned that almost 60 per cent of married families paid
June 18, 1991

more tax than they would have paid if they were not married, a total of some $5.6 billion.
In the throne speech, our government promised to review all federal policies that relate to the family.
I would ask the minister if reviewing family taxation is one of his priorities and if he would commit to the House that he and his staff will thoroughly investigate this issue over the summer and that he will bring forward proposals in the fall that will establish fairness as the keystone of our tax policy for families.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the hon. member's concern and the concern of other members of caucus who have addressed this issue. Obviously, Canada's tax system must address the different family situations and we endeavour to do just that.
I appreciate the very7 constructive role that the hon. member has provided in bringing forth suggestions to me, and obviously these will be looked at in the interests of establishing a tax system that will be fair, that will be equitable and particularly fair and equitable as it relates to families in Canada.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, while it was yesterday that Statistics Canada reported that most married couple families pay more in income tax than unmarried couples, the tax situation since this government came into office is not something that just sprang out yesterday. Especially hurt are married couples with family incomes between $10,000 and $20,000. On the average, their disposable income each year is reduced by some $2,500.
Why will the Minister of Finance not make a commitment "today to change the tax policies that discriminate against married couples, especially lower income ones? Why will he not make that commitment today to create a fairer tax system for all Canadians?
Hon. Don Ma/.ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the huge burden of debt that we are asked to carry was not created by this
Oral Questions
government and it did not happen yesterday either. That is the harsh reality that we have to live with.
As I indicated to my hon. colleague, there are some very constructive proposals that are being considered. If the hon. member has any, I would be pleased to receive them because we will look at them all in the name and all in the interest of achieving a more fair and equitable tax system as it relates to families in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is so concerned about that huge burden of debt of which he spoke, why will he not admit that burden was created since his government came into office? It doubled since 1984. This is no excuse for 69 per cent of married couples with children and 75 per cent of elderly married couples to pay more in income tax than similar unmarried ones.

Therefore, my question to the Minister of Finance is: Why does he stick with fiscal policies that create this discrimination against married couples with children, and against older married couples? Why does he persist in maintaining this lack of fiscal fairness?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Canadians would want to know that 90 per cent of the accumulation in the national debt over the last six years was the interest and the compound interest on the debt that was inherited by this government in 1984.
The Liberals in 1981 and 1982, in their attempt to get out of the recession, tripled the deficit in that period of time, between 1981 and 1984. Obviously it makes it more difficult for us in terms of restricting our flexibility to deal with a number of the issues that the hon. member raises today.
As I indicated, there are some very constructive proposals that are emanating from this side of the House. We are looking at them seriously and I will certainly welcome any proposals from the hon. member as well.

June 18, 1991
Oral Questions PARENTAL LEAVE


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Ralph and Irena Lawrenson of Markham adopted a young Romanian girl, Deirdre. Under current UIC rules, maternity benefits of 15 weeks are only available to natural parents.
In getting to my question, I want to say I believe this discrimination is unfair. As an adoptive parent myself, I know that most adoptive parents go through a unique, emotional and psychological period during the application and negotiation process.
I therefore ask the minister: will he reconsider the current discriminatory practices?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. member on the question he raises.
I would like to tell my colleague and all members in the House that the Unemployment Insurance Act is not discriminatory between adoptive parents and natural parents. Both, under the act, are entitled to parental leave of up to 10 weeks.
In the case of a biological mother-and this is for the reasons outlined by the Federal Court of Canada in the decision on the issue-she is entitled to 15 weeks benefit for recuperative reasons which are not applicable in the case of an adoptive mother or an adoptive father. So there is no discrimination.
This is important. For children with special needs, the act further provides for five additional weeks for which a parent, adoptive or natural, can apply.
This is the situation and there is no discrimination.
sje *	$


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government has decided to appoint a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House to examine the
political reality of this country. This committee will seek the opinions of Canadians and Quebecers in the months to come.
It so happens that the government has decided not to have any representative of the Bloc quebecois on that committee. Yet, the Bloc quebecois is the only group in this House that represents an unavoidable movement in Quebec, the sovereignty movement.
My question is this: does the government not find it unrealistic to not want to see the reality just before embarking on such an exercise?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we intend to follow the well established Standing Orders of the House of Commons.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that after the disaster of the Spicer tavern and the failure of the mock Beaudoin-Edwards Commission, we are now going to set up the committee of ostriches!
I have another question for the Minister, since he is the one who answers. Does the Minister intend to imitate Mr. Robert Bourassa, the Prime Minister's friend, who has examined through his parliamentary committee in Quebec City, the two options, namely sovereignty and federalism? Does the government anticipate to broaden the mandate of the committee so that it will also study the behaviour of Canada once Quebec becomes a sovereign state?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


FARM DEBT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State for Agriculture. Last week the minister introduced amendments to the Bankruptcy Act to assist businesses facing insolvency to renegotiate their debts. The minister knows that farm debt rose to $23 billion this past year. A recent study by
June 18, 1991

ihe agriculture committee reports that some 48,000 farmers are facing insolvency and the loss of their land.
Can the minister tell the House if there are any special provisions in this legislation to assist farmers who are facing a very heavy load of debt?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I should say first of all that the hon. member should remember that in 1986-87 we put in place the Farm Debt Review Board which was very successful with farmers across the country.
This legislation allowed a lot of farmers to sit down with their creditors to look at their business and stay in business. The new legislation on bankruptcy tabled last week will help farmers who, along with all Canadians, will have access to new tools. I will be more than happy to see my hon. friend as well as all my hon. friends in the two opposition parties support this government initiative because it will be very good for Canadians.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. The minister knows that under the U.S. bankruptcy law, chapter 12, it assists farmers specifically in resolving and renegotiating farm debt. In fact during the past several years U.S. farm debt has gone down by 40 per cent, whereas Canadian farm debt has continued to rise to above $23 billion.
Why does the government not provide the same assistance to our farmers to renegotiate their debt and stay in business as has been provided to the United States farmers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it must be understood that when the government intervenes with an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, it must make sure that a balance is maintained between all the different stakeholders in that sector, particularly the people who loan the money.
I can reassure you and my honourable colleague, since I was in Regina yesterday and I got to meet the representatives of that sector. Yes, I was also in Vancouver yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the
Government Orders
people involved were very positive about these amendments to the legislation and I am convinced that with the cooperation of the other members of the House we will be able to implement this. That initiative will help the farmers as well as all Canadians.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure the Minister of the Environment is aware that recently declassified U.S. military documents confirm that a radioactive cloud 325 times as deadly as Three Mile Island was released from the Hanford atomic bomb production facilities in an intentional experiment known as Green Run on the evening of December 2, 1949.
Will the minister release funds from the green plan to study the long-term effects of this atomic radiation experiment on residents of British Columbia and Alberta because that has already been denied despite requests by the B.C. and Canadian Medical Associations for the study of the long-term effects on Canadian residents in B.C. and Alberta?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as representation, look into the matter and get back to him.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Catherine Lalumiere, Secretary General to the Council of Europe.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am also pleased to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of the hon. Gilles Morin, Deputy Speaker of the Ontario Legislature.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders


HON. STANLEY KNOWLES
[Stage Direction]
83rd BIRTHDAY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House would like to join me in paying tribute today to the Hon. Stanley Knowles on the occasion of his 83rd birthday.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North Centre, I also would like to bring greetings to Mr. Knowles. He is a man very much remembered and honoured in his constituency, and it is a pleasure to be here today on his birthday.


PRIVILEGE
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wanted to ask the minister a supplementary question. I know he answered it according to the law, but adoptive parents have some great difficulties. This particular couple had to travel to Romania, appear in court, they were asked if-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raised a question earlier in Question Period and an answer was given. The hon. member cannot seek a further answer by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member may wish to ask the question again, or the hon. member may want to put it on the adjournment debate, but it is not a question of privilege and I am afraid I cannot hear him put it.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, which is the earliest opportunity that I have had, to bring to the House a correction in Hansard at page 1757, where I have referred to a legal addiction from which I suffer. I have
checked the electronic media and indeed I did say "legal addiction" not "lethal".



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F; and the motion of Mr. Sobeski (p. 1804).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the previous question at second reading stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Corbett	MacAulay
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried. The next question is on the main motion.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to apply the result of that last vote to the next question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Opposition Whip. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Corbett	MacAulay
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.
The motion is carried, the bill is read for the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There have been discussions between the parties. I think you will find that there will be agreement to the following motion being put to the House without discussion:
I move:
That this House orders, having regard to paragraph 8.(2)(c) of the Privacy Act, that the Solicitor General cause to be laid before an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, unexpurgated copies of the report by Mr. John Weir, concerning the escape of Daniel Gingras and the report by the Correctional Service Canada Board of Investigations concerning Allen Legere, and
That the in camera meeting of the committee take place with all the procedural protections normally accorded to in camera meetings, including a ban on the publication of the proceedings of the committee and on the disclosure of any information contained in the said reports which may be protected from disclosure under either the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act; and
That this House takes note of the First Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled in the House on May 29, 1991, and refers the said report and all the evidence and proceedings upon which the report is based, to the House Management Committee for further study.
June 18, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, the government has been insensitive and failed to consult. I ask the Solicitor General not to propose motions out of the blue like that, because unanimous consent is required and it will not be given without consultation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In the absence of unanimous consent, the House cannot consider the motion of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Lope/. (Chateauguay): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we had the first vote, this afternoon, I heard the name of the hon. member for Lon-gucuil, as if he were present in the House. I want to advise the House that the member for Longueuil was not present at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You are perfectly right, and the correction has already been made by the Clerks-at-the-Table.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table a Notice of a Ways and Means motion with respect to Special Assessments of Insurance Companies and Fraternal Benefit Societies. I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for the consideration of said motion.


NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumes consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) to appoint a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to inquire into proposals for a renewed Canada, and the amendment of M. Ouellet (p. 1912).
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the adjournment of debate, the member for Saint-Boniface had the floor for a maximum of three minutes.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, just as we recessed I had asked the government to note the spirit with which we had made a commitment to work openly and co-operatively with them in terms of trying to resolve, in a very creative, significant, comprehensive way the needs of all Canadians from all regions and all provinces.
I had also addressed why this committee had been created, and the main point was really to attempt to bring some long-lasting solutions to the needs of Canadians.
I had also addressed the question of the composition of the committee. I had indicated that in our amendment there was an opportunity to broaden that representation so we could, in fact, ensure that a number of groups would be represented and that there might be greater satisfaction for all Canadians.
I had addressed the question of process and indicated that we must reach out, we must be open, we must listen and we must respond in terms of the information we have received.
Finally, I had indicated that we must have a substantive proposal that really in fact reflects what we have heard.

As a Canadian, as a Manitoban and as the hon. member for the federal riding of St. Boniface, I want to remind you all that Canada and the Canadians need us now. They need us to make an effort. They want us to solve their problems.

We are in fact pressed for time. We know that we have a job to do. This is not the time to cop out when the going gets rough. It is not the time to give it to another group to resolve. Surely together we can work and come up with a solution.

Together, in cooperation with one another and I hope constructively, let's work with all the Canadians for the

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
well-being of all of Canada, and let's build a modern Canada not only for us now, but for our children and for the future generations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the member for St. Boniface, and I must commend him for his speech which was balanced, well presented, and gave roughly the orientation to follow.
Like him, I do have hesitations with certain components of the solution to the problem, as, for example, the methods we should use to consult Canadians. We know that the New Democrats do not want us to give up the concept of a constituent assembly. They were unable to clarify this morning how they would designate people to this assembly. But they nevertheless tried to make us believe that it was the one and only solution.
We know that the constitution does not presently provide for a constituent assembly. Very few constitutions-in fact, as far as I know, there are none-provide that constitutional changes are made by a constituent assembly. This formula was used in certain countries- there are a few, but I will not list them-hit by a revolution or a civil war, and it was to write a new Constitution.
But I want to ask him a very specific question. It is about the referendum, which can be very useful, but also very dangerous for some of us who are afraid. It is true that a referendum, if it is used to confirm a project of society, to confirm an agreement, that is fine. But my question-and I ask him now, Mr. Speaker-is: does he agree with me when I say that a referendum which would be held to confirm a constitutional arrangement should not reduce in any way the rights guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the question. First of all, there is a flagrant contradiction in the New Democratic Party position. As you have mentioned, they proposed a constituent assembly. That is one kind of constituent assembly, but there are many others. They said that they did not have the perfect solution. This one is not perfect either. So, I don't know why theirs would be better than this one. I have the feeling that they are all a little inadequate. Some how I still find contradictory that they would want a constituent assembly to involve more people, when they don't want a referendum. For me, this
is the ultimate constituent assembly. So, they have to explain the rationale behind all this.
As far as your specific question is concerned, indeed, we cannot create a country and I have said so many times, but I appreciate so much the question. By depriving people of their rights-we heard that many times during the hearings across the country-we create a country, we build a stronger, more united, more stable country by trying to maintain, by ensuring that we maintain the rights that Canadians have acquired.
So, when I talk about a referendum, I talk about a referendum about a bill, about a constitutional reform if you prefer, that maintains all the rights that we have today and hopefully adds others perhaps for the aboriginal peoples and other groups that have not been treated well enough up until now.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface on his very well researched, creative and comprehensive presentation on an issue of great national importance, an issue that concerns the very survival of our country and our nation. I would like to congratulate the member on that presentation.
These are difficult times for the country. It is a very large country and we need a very big heart if we are to understand each other. I am reminded of the Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex est, the welfare of the people is the supreme law of the land.
It seems to me that as the welfare of the people is the primary mission of the whole country, testing our proposal via a referendum would be the ideal way. I would like him to comment since he indicated that the NDP wants a constituent assembly so that more people will be involved.
I find that almost paradoxical because the Charter of Rights is part of the referendum package and will ensure that minority rights will be protected and at the same time all people will be consulted.
I would like the member to kindly comment on this issue.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the questions.
First, I have said it and I want to repeat it, we from all parties need to ensure that we are primarily concerned
June 18, 1991

about this great nation of ours. It is the second largest geographically, 31st in population size, and the eighth largest economy in the world, the one country where most people would want to move to, if they could. We must never forget that is the prime objective.
The second point I want to make is that there is a flagrant contradiction in saying that their model of a constituent assembly is going to involve more people without being prepared to implement the ultimate model, which is the referendum.
I want to stress again and again and again that a referendum must respect the rights of all Canadians and, hopefully, will add to the rights of many Canadians who have insufficient protection today, such as aboriginal peoples and others. These include the rights of women, the handicapped, working people and what have you. We will let the committee decide that. Surely, we must be sensitive to the rights of all Canadians. That is a contradiction.
The final point is an important one. We have to be careful about semantics, because many members will know that the 1864 constituent assembly was composed completely of parliamentarians. That is one model of constituent assembly.
I would hope that we could draw other people into the process and actually listen and respond to their concerns. The NDP has proposed one type. I have not seen its particular model presented to the House of Commons, I suspect because it would feel awkward pointing out the groups left out. There is good politics in what the NDP is doing, but is it best for Canada? That is the fundamental question.


François Gérin: I will be brief. I think I was very surprised when I heard the speech of the member for St. Boniface who seems to have a solution to every problem today. Yet, during the debate on the Meech Lake Accord, he refused to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. He was against the Meech Lake Accord, but today he is about to propose a referendum where Quebec's population, all of Quebecers would be diluted in the Canadian population as a whole. So I tell the member for St. Boniface that he has the right to serve the interests of English Canada, his country; he is entitled to his own culture and traditions.
Government Orders
You are entitled to that, but don't try once more to play tricks or to stuff Quebec the way you and your party did in 1982.


Ron J. Duhamel: Even if I find his comments exaggerated and disgraceful, I will say that that is why my colleague and his party won't go far. I did not say I was against the Meech Lake Accord, I said I would support if the propositions of the Liberal Party were adopted, because otherwise the rest of Canada would have been left aside.


An hon. member:: You are hypocrits!


Ron J. Duhamel: And I find regrettable that those people elected by the people try to make me say otherwise or to make people believe that I said something else. Now they are smiling-


An hon. member:: Another Chretien!


Ron J. Duhamel: Arrogance, insensitive, trying to interpret my own thoughts, my own words. You won't go far, my friends, with comments like that. You are falling apart. You are going to get drowned with your arrogance, with your lies and your exaggerations. I know the country as well as you do. I would even say I know the whole country even better than they do. I find interesting that they ask me a question, but then when they get treated roughly, they want me to stop. Well, I regret, I could say a lot more, Mr. Speaker, but they will pay the price for their arrogance and lies!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we must first agree that the wish expressed by the government to appoint a Special Committee of the House and the Senate to examine what is going on in this country and to see how the government and the institutions as a whole must deal with the situation, is a legitimate one.
As for myself, I can only support the wish of the central Parliament, of the federal Parliament, of the supreme institutions of Canada to deal with a crisis that is dividing the country and to try to see first the reality, and then what can be done about it.
In this sense, we must also commend all the parties in the House for seeking to rise above partisan lines, to form a sort of very large group, the largest possible, in order to look at the reality. Why do the parties have such an unusual instinct? We know well that parties generally fight at much lower levels and clash over the issues that divide them. Why, this time, do the parties feel the need to unite themselves in this endeavour? Why? Because

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
they know well that the crisis is such that we must include, all aspects of the problem. We cannot afford, in the face a such a situation, to be divided, to hide the reality. So, we want all the parties to be there, because all the parties, by their very existence, show that political reality takes various forms, that it is not monolithic, that there are several aspects and that we must represent them all, which is what the parties do through the election that brought them here in this House. However where the approach of the parties in this House is misleading, where it distorts reality, is that it fails to reflect, in the composition of the committee, one of the aspects of the political reality in this country, that is the move of Quebec towards sovereignty.
In other words, the kind of unanimity we see in this Chamber, this search for the truth, for honesty, does not go beyond these walls. There is some kind of framework which this Chamber does not want to get out of. We choose to ignore the most critical aspect of this crisis, the fact that it generated a sovereignty movement in Quebec, the fact that according to the latest polls 57 to 59 per cent of Quebecers want sovereignty.
I understand that it is a problem for a federal Parliament, for a country like Canada, an enormous problem for which a solution has to be found. If I were a federalist, I, too, would try to find a solution to such a problem. However the majority of the people in Quebec are moving toward sovereignty. Therefore, the normal reflex in this House is to create something which would be above the parties, in order to see what the reality is.
By doing that, Mr. Speaker, the government and the opposition parties are burying their heads in the sand while saying: "Yes, we are going to review all aspects of the problem, but not sovereignty." But the problem is sovereignty, and the committee is not going to look at it, is not going to look at the fundamental problems of Quebec.
The process being launched today is therefore heading for immediate failure. This attempt is doomed to failure. It is obvious that what you embark upon today, without us-not because you exclude us, as individuals, but because you exclude what we represent-is a process doomed to failure in the same way as the two previous
attempts. In other words, you will look at everything, except the problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the attitude demonstrated by the the creation of the committee and the exclusion of the representatives of the Bloc quebecois that shows that we live in a surrealist world, there is in particular, the speech of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, this morning, who, following the example of all those who speak here about the sovereignty of Quebec, condemned this movement. He tried, once again, to talk in a derogatory way, of something perfectly legitimate that reflects a deep reality, that is in keeping with an historic continuity of a people reaching towards the ultimate fulfilment.
When we talk about sovereignty the way we do, Mr. Speaker, we are once again burying our heads in the sand. When we are told that the fundamental values of the country are embodied only in federalism, we forget that the sovereignty of Quebec is as legitimate as that of Canada and that even Canada, in its present arrangement, does not reflect the values that it embodied in the beginning.
The Canadian dream, Mr. Speaker, does not work anymore, even with the values that were there originally. It is not Quebec's fault, Mr. Speaker, it is not the fault of sovereignty if, for the last twenty years, Canada has lost its place in the world, its competitiveness, its productivity and is not recognized anymore as a major international partner. It is not Quebec's fault, it is a crisis in self-confidence, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, Quebec cannot be blamed for that coup de force that was imposed on it in 1981-1982, as you well know.
Well, the House turns away from the facts and forgets what caused the situation we are now experiencing. But one must not forget, Mr. Speaker, because we, Quebecers, do remember! We are well aware that you also remember even if you do not talk about it, even if you ignore it when you take your decisions. Quebecers do remember that, in 1981-1982, nine provinces plus the federal government, with the support of the Parliament of Westminster and the Supreme Court, imposed on Quebec the shredding of the Confederation Pact. They acted to amend the constitution of a democratic country in order to reduce the powers of one of its two signing peoples, one of its two founding peoples, so that, in spite of its repudiation, in spite of its protestations, Quebec
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
had to accept a constitution which still governs it today, eight years later, even though it did not sign it.
This democratic Parliament-for it is substantially and essentially democratic, I do recognize that-this Parliament nevertheless voted for a constitution against the opposition of Quebec, despite a nearly unanimous vote in the Quebec legislature by more than just the Pequists and Separatists, as they are often called here. The Parliament in Quebec, the rightfully-elected Quebec institution, all that exists in Quebec, had to accept a Constitution from which we, Quebecers, are excluded, although it governs us legally, although it is not politically legitimate, because we all know that a constitution is more than a piece of paper, Mr. Speaker, it is more than a legislation. A constitution embodies the values that bind us together. You could give your life for it, if necessary, and defend it with your own blood. A constitution is the soul of a people, because we are one country. But, this constitution, Mr. Speaker, does not speak for us, it is not our soul. This constitution was, in a very unacceptable way, pushed down our throat.
Mr. Speaker, we did try for many years, in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, to sign it. We, who come from the Province of Quebec, had decided to make one more show of confidence in Canada by signing the Constitution, even if it was a sign of disgrace for us. We were ready to accept the strict minimum, that is the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. It did not even change anything concerning powers. Everyone knew that it would not alter the balance of power.
But, they said no to us. That means that not only did they push an injustice upon us, an unspeakable injustice, which will stay forever in the Canadian history, as long as they will not come back and admit it, which they do not want to do, even today, at the risk of losing Quebec. Furthermore, they even refuse to make amends for that injustice, Mr. Speaker.
So, no one can tell us that sovereignty is a negative move to destroy this beautiful country. This country is on a self-destruct course, Mr. Speaker, if it has not already destroyed itself through its intolerance, its refusal to accept reality. We have a political problem, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the Meech refusal was inspired by malicious intent.

I do not believe Canadians were motivated by malevolence against Quebec when Meech was refused. I think English Canadians think they have a country, Canada. They love their country. It is the country of their heart and they have a right to behave like this. I understand them very well. Their sons, their fathers, their grandfathers shed blood for it and they stand ready to do it any time.
That is why when you ask them to change their country on something which is perceived as being substantial they will say no because this is their country. I do understand that.
But you must admit the reciprocal reality because Quebec is not recognized in this country. This is your country, the federal institutions, the whole way of governing the country. It might be legitimate for you but it is not for us. There are two visions of the country, two loyalties, as respectable in one case as in the other. It means we have to put forward a political solution.
There is a requirement for political maturity now and a need to admit that Quebec has a right to have its own country. English Canadians have a right to have their country, and we also have the same right.
Some things are really very mature but are difficult to do now because we must start from reality. But what are you doing now? You are attempting to ultimately solve the problem but like ostriches you refuse to see reality, which is the main aspect of the problem.
What I hear is the Canada round. This will be the Canada round. When was the last Quebec round? When was it? The last Quebec round was in 1867 when Macdonald and Cartier sat down and struck a compromise and decided to build a country. More than 100 years after that one of the parties tore up the pact.
I think that this is a failure. This committee will be a failure like the Spicer committee, like the Beaudoin-Ed-wards committee. Why? Because some people do not have the courage to admit the fact that we have to examine two realities. That is why I believe that some change should be made. I am making an honest proposal because we sovereignists know perfectly well that the decision will be made in Quebec next year. In the meantime if something rational, responsible and realistic is to be done here, it should be first to accept our

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
proposal to serve on the committee. We do not like to be on the committee. We are not here for that. It would be, as we stated in the letter, a way to allow English Canada to do more about the motivations of Quebec and to know what is going on in Quebec and why. So it would be a service to reality and to democracy.
Second, I really think it would be a question of responsibility and realism to look into what will happen when Quebec makes its decision. It would be wishful thinking to hope that Quebec will not make the decision.
Right now the National Assembly is debating a bill to oblige the government to set up a referendum on sovereignty by next October, 1992 at the latest. Then the government of Quebec will be obliged to put the question to Quebecers. We think their answer will be yes, we stand for sovereignty.
What happens to Canada if the answer is yes? It will not be a nice cosmetic report from a committee where sovereignty will have been hidden, taken away, that will make English Canada ready for this. English Canada must prepare itself for what will happen next year when Quebecers will take responsibility because they will have to take responsibility. That is why the second modification to the proposal should be to enlarge the mandate of the committee and allow the members of the committee to look into what should be the behaviour of Canada when Quebec becomes sovereign.
There will be huge decisions to make then. What kind of economic arrangements can be struck? What kinds of arrangements will have to be made relating to, for example, the monetary system, the debt, the partition of the assets, everything? Tliose are monumental questions to address. Even in Quebec we are doing that. Not only because we are trying to know what will happen when we become sovereign, but we have also set up a committee in the National Assembly to look into the next offers that will come from the federal government. Do not forget that those offers will not be studied by the committee if they do not immediately bind, as now, the federal government and the provinces.
Let us be frank, let us be courageous, let us be realistic. This country was not built on wishful thinking; it was built by people who looked at hard reality. We are
not doing that. We are hearing speeches from cosmetic orators, people who, like the minister, cannot even answer a question on the substance of the motion and on the heart of the crisis; people who stand up and only throw insults at us and play games. It is time for the truth and we are calling for the truth now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Chambly.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I refrained from saying anything while he was speaking, because I felt he deserved some respect. I must add, Mr. Speaker, that the independant members of the Bloc quebecois have never shown me any of the respect that I have always shown them in the House. Most members here, even those of the government, have often been harassed by the members of the Bloc. I have even heard the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer call one of the ministers a "whore" this afternoon.


Mr. Rocheleau:: On a point of order!


Philip Edmonston: I find that uncceptable. The hon. member knows that he said it. I heard him. I did not rise on a point of order right away, but that is often what happens-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Chambly to withdraw what he said because I never said that, as I live and breathe, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Chambly heard anything like that, it was probably in his own mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sure the hon. member for Chambly will withdraw, if that is the case.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for the Chair to refuse to withdraw what I said. But, Mr. Speaker, I know what I heard.
To continue my comments-


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


June 18, 1991


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Chambly who claims to be an honourable man will withdraw what he said. I was in the House throughout Question Period, and I swear on my honour that the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer did not say those words, and I am prepared to swear by that, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I did not come to the House to argue with the people sitting behind me. My point was that I heard and that I know what I heard. But if the other people involved heard nothing, I will take their word for it.
In concluding, I would like to say-


Mr. Germ:: No, that isn't right. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, they are trying to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, a member in this House made an accusation. The hon. member for Chambly just made an accusation he cannot maintain. We can't let the hon. member off the hook just like that. The hon. member accused the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer of saying something that was not said. We can't let matters go like that. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has certain duties and obligations. Tell the hon. member for Chambly to withdraw or leave. He has no business being here if he can't act like a gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I believe the hon. member for Chambly withdrew what he said to the hon. member for Hull -Aylmer. If the hon. member for Chambly has anything to add, I wish he would proceed so that we can get back to questions and comments.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, it seems my point was well taken, which was that we have a certain amount of decorum here in the House, and that we should treat people with a certain amount of respect. That was my point. To continue my comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that every time someone wants to criticize-


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will recognize the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer once more on a point of order, but I would like to get this over with as soon as possible so we can get back to the subject of this debate.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will deal with the matter, but I do not appreciate what the hon. member for Chambly said about me. As I said earlier, as I live and breathe, I never said those words, and I want the hon. member for Chambly to apologize to the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer or else leave the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We can always check Hansard, but to my knowledge, the hon. member for Chambly withdrew the words that might have been attributed to the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer. Subject to checking the blues, I think this aspect was dealt with satisfactorily. Now I do not believe the hon. member for Chambly referred to any members by name.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, to continue my comments, I was very intrigued when the hon. member for Lac Saint-Jean said: we are all sovereigntists in the Bloc quebecois. I would like to ask him whether that includes the hon. member for Shefford, who still has his Liberal Party membership card? In fact, I wonder whether it is a card for the provincial Liberal Party, issued Saturday night when the provincial Liberal Party was all indepen-dantistes and sovereigntists, or a card for the federal Liberal Party.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Chambly on a point of order, I would remind him that questions and comments must always be directed to the previous speaker who was the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean in this case.
For that matter, I could not give the floor to the hon. member for Shefford in response to the hon. member for Chambly's question. I would like him to conclude since other members have asked to be recognized.
The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chambly would certainly agree that it is not the time now to throw a boomerang to tiy to know what are beliefs of and what party we belong to. Mr. Speaker, I, personally, am a member of the Quebec Liberal Party and I am proud of it. I am not like the hon. member for Chambly who claims to be "sovereignist" in his riding

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
and federalist within the NDP. That is the difference between-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! The time allocated to the hon. member is now terminated and I would like to recognize another member who has already asked the floor for a comment unless the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean wants to answer if the hon. member for Chambly did actually ask him a question.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer to his question since he did put a question to me.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Or to his comment. Go ahead then!


Philip Edmonston: Point of order, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! I would be much grateful to the hon. for Chambly if he would co-operate. The time provided for comments and questions periods is ten minutes. Now, seven and half minutes have been used already and some other hon. members would like to speak. I would like very much to recognize the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Lucien Bouchard: But you did recognize me so that I could answer!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but very briefly.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Chambly did not understand what the Bloc Quebecois is all about.
The Bloc Quebecois, Mr. Speaker, reunite every sovereignist of every political stripe in the province of Quebec. I can tell you that in Sorel, during the last week end, there were many New Democrates who have had enough of your party, of its hypocrisy and its double talk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis for a question or comment.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I note with much regret and sadness that we have brought this debate down to very low standards. Person-nally, I consider that debate to be an important debate since the future of my country is at stake. I, for one, do believe passionately that I can remain Marcel Prud'homme for ever within this country called Canada where I can evolve, breathe and be myself.
The only thing I would like to say to this House and in the presence of the responsibile minister, is that I regret that that member would not remain silent! The reason for that is quite simple because on some other occasions or during other debates, Heaven knows we can always indulge in that sort of exchange, but not when we are talking of the future or the possible desintegration of this country.
As I said, I am very concerned by the tone of this debate and I must say that the hon. member, who is a friend, did not help much to raise the level of the discussion. I listened carefully to the comments of the member of the new party-I do not mean the New Democratic Party because they just do not know where they are going-but the member from the Bloc Quebecois and he got me thinking. I would have hoped that we all had the decency to listen to what he had to say.
I was in agreement with him when he said that we must return to the spirit of the Cartier-Macdonald era. That is why I am a Canadian, that I am not a member of the Bloc Quebecois and that I seem so passionate now and I will conclude by saying that I shall be so in the presence of the responsible minister during the months to come.
But I must recognize that there were some food for thought in the hon. member's speech.

I would hope that people in English Canada will read his speech calmly, attentively and see if it is not worth saving this country by returning to what we call the spirit of Cartier and Macdonald.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I recognize the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean for a very short answer.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I most sorry also that I could not get an answer from the NPD representive to the comments I made. I had hoped I
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
might get a reflection from him. But I firmly believe that dent Quebec, it did not sign the constitutional agree-he will go through such a reflection outside the House, ment of 1982. As a result, Quebec politically was left out.
I would particulary like the government to conduct itself with realism, with a sense of responsibility and with openmindness since it is responsible for Canada and Quebec, which is still part of Canada.
As for us, within the Bloc Quebecois, we want to talk to English Canada. We think that discussions are paramount to our mission. We insist that we must have political solutions to political problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-Agriculture;	the hon. member
for	Markham-Whitechurch-Stouffville-Pornography; the hon. member for Nepean-Employment; the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence-Immigration; the hon. member for Moncton-Highways.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate to establish a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to consult with Canadians and to develop proposals with respect to our Constitution, proposals which might be discussed with the provinces and, in particular, with the province of Quebec.
The question might be asked: why is this necessary and how did we get here? I will summarize very quickly. As many Canadians know, in 1981-82 we repatriated the Canadian Constitution with a new amending formula. Before that time, we did not have a proper amending formula in our Constitution. We also, in patriating the Constitution, established a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and introduced other measures in our Constitution which were not there before, measures such as a recognition of aboriginal rights, an entrenchment of the right to equalization and so on.
At that time there was a Parti Quebecois government in power in Quebec. For one reason or another, and I guess in particular, because that government's option was not for Canada but rather for a separate, indepen-
When Mr. Bourassa came to power a few years later he made a five point proposal to the federal government and to other provinces as a basis for Quebec signing the Constitution of 1867 plus 1982, the composite Constitution as it developed, and those five points were put under discussion.
As a result of that discussion, the federal government with the provinces developed the Meech Lake Accord which was a series of amendments to the Constitution of Canada which would have addressed the concerns of Quebec and in particular the five point program put forward by Premier Bourassa. It also addressed some other matters that Mr. Bourassa had not raised at all, but which came out of the discussions with the other provinces.
We all know what happened. About a year ago the composite set of proposals to amend the Constitution known as the Meech Lake Accord did not get the necessary support. Parts of it required seven out of 10 provinces agreeing. There was easily that acceptance of it, but I think three major parts required the unanimous consent of all the provinces. It ended up that two provinces did not agree, and so the Meech Lake Accord failed.
In the aftermath of that failure there was a great reaction in Quebec. Many Quebecers, in part due to false information and in part due to a lot of demagoguery on the part of certain journalists, certain politicians and so on, felt rejected by the rest of Canada. This was a false situation because it was forgotten, and I think unfortunately forgotten, that eight provinces supported the Meech Lake Accord and the federal Parliament supported the Meech Lake Accord. The majority in all parties in this House supported the Meech Lake Accord and the Senate supported the Meech Lake Accord. I say that despite its flaws.
Our own party had, on two occasions, proposed nine amendments to the Meech Lake Accord, but the government, which I think was wrong in doing so, was totally inflexible. It did not accept any amendments. However, despite the fact that the Meech Lake Accord was flawed, on balance it was supported by this House, it was supported by the Senate and supported by eight prov-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
inces of Canada. There was no rejection of Quebec by the other provinces, what is called in Quebec sometimes "English Canada". I refuse to accept that description of Canada outside of Quebec as English Canada because it is made up of many elements, including one million francophones but also people from all over the world including our aboriginal peoples.
The rest of Canada did not reject Quebec. That was the perception and there was a great reaction which led to the re-emergence or reinvigoration of the indepcndan-tiste movement, the separation movement, or the sovereignty movement-whatever you want to call it-in Quebec. As a result, the Government of Quebec under Premier Bourassa set up the Belanger-Campeau commission in conjunction with Mr. Parizeau, the leader of the Parti Quebecois. This commission carried on its work for the greater part of the last year. The Quebec Liberal Party, the provincial party, also conducted its own study with the Allaire commission. As well, the federal government set up the Keith Spicer commission and the Beaudoin-Edwards committee of this House and the Senate. All were dealing with different aspects of the Constitution and how we might resolve the constitutional crisis that arose from the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and, going back still further, the fact that Quebec had not signed the Constitution of 1982.
The government has put forward this motion to further the work at the federal level and has suggested this committee. Our party agrees to it. We have suggested some changes to the mechanics and the membership of the committee, but in principle we agree with what the government is trying to do, that is to develop in consultation with Canadians all over the country, openly and in depth, constitutional proposals that will be satisfactory not only to Quebec but to all Canadians.
I am an optimist. I was bom in Montreal. I have lived in Montreal for the greater part of my life. I have also lived in Ontario and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but I am a fifth generation Quebecer. I talk to my friends and acquaintances, the people I have worked with in law firms in Quebec-at one time I was the only anglophone in a law firm of 45 Montrealers. I have played hockey in Quebec on teams where the great majority were French Canadians, who were francophones. I still am in touch with these people. It is my deep-rooted feeling that we
in all parts of this country have much more in common than what divides us, much more in common.
We share great values together. We share the land. We share the beauty and resources of this country. Consequently, what we are searching for is a constitutional formula which will represent the commonality of views and values and so on.
I think it is possible. If there was great division among the individuals and peoples of this country that outweighed the things that we have in common then I would say it is a hopeless task. However, deep down I know that I as an anglophone Quebecer have much more in common with my francophone colleagues in Quebec than I have with any American, than I have with people even within this country, from British Columbia and from Alberta. If we cannot find a legal constitutional formula which will represent this commonality of views, the spirit that Canadians share together, then what hope is there for the world?
That is why statesmen around the world are speaking out in amazement that we would even think for a minute of splitting up this great and wonderful country. They see Yves Fortier at the United Nations. They see Claude Jodoin, one of the greatest labour leaders that this country has ever produced. We have had three prime ministers from Quebec, we have produced outstanding people at the national level.
I am not talking about at the Quebec level. Of course, at the Quebec level it is evident that francophone Quebecers would rise to the top. However at the national level francophones have risen to the top in all facets of life: in the theatre, in dance, in music, in politics, in labour, in the academic world and so on.
I am an optimist. There is much more in common between us than that which divides us. What we have to do and what we hope to do in this committee is determine how to translate the commonality of interest into a constitutional formula.
My interest in these matters goes back a long way. I was a member of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in 1970-71. That was the committee chaired by Senator Molgat and Mark Mac-Guigan of this House. By the way, that joint committee
June 18, 1991

sat for more than a year, and many of the recommendations in the report are still very worthwhile.
We travelled all over the country and heard people in much the same way as the government is recommending that this new committee do. Times were different then, but this was in the beginning years of the separatist movement in Quebec. There were other constitutional pressures from the west and the east at the time.
Again, I sat with the joint committee in 1980-81, the Joyal-Hayes committee, which studied the proposals to repatriate the Constitution and set up a charter of rights and freedoms.
I also had the good fortune to be a full member of the special committee on Indian self-government in 1981-82 which travelled this country for more than a year, meeting with aboriginal peoples. It finally recommended that we come out in favour of aboriginal self-government in this country.
The message that I want to give to the minister and to the members of the House of Commons is that in discussing these proposals, we cannot forget the minorities in this country. Some have said that this country is made up of minorities, that there really is not any majority.
That may be so. However, sometimes when the leaders of provinces get together, they represent the majority view of those provinces and too often have forgotten the minorities.
When I first came to this Parliament, we spoke of the two founding nations. At the time that might have made some sense. As we began to discuss these things with the Indian people in Canada, the Inuit and the Metis, we soon learned how ridiculous it was to consider the English and the French as the two founding nations when thousands of years before them were the first nations, the Assembly of First Nations as they call themselves now.
Government Orders
put pressure on others because they do not have the political structures to do so. Approximately 1 million aboriginal people are spread throughout this country.
We have to find a way. I was pleased that the minister and our leader are committed to finding a way of involving those people in the constitutional discussion. If we do not do that, we will never have a Constitution which will serve all Canadian people in a just and lasting way.
I can recall very well last summer when I was in Geneva for a disarmament conference at the time the Oka crisis broke out. Canada was on the front pages of the European newspapers, but not in a very positive way. The headlines said that Canada was oppressing its aboriginal peoples, its native people.
In too many cases the news was oversimplified. It did not totally explain the situation. However, the message, which deep down is correct, was that we have forgotten, we have ignored and we have not treated our aboriginal people properly. This is an opportunity to do that.
With respect to our two official languages, it is recognized that Canada is made up of many peoples. Our leader has proposed that in a new Constitution the preamble should recognize the peoples who have come together to build this country, including the English, the French and the aboriginal people-I am not listing them in any priority-and the millions of people who have come from all over the world and now make up more than one-third of our population. They have come from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and form a great and positive force in this country. We have to recognize them all.
We have a policy of multiculturalism in this country so that we can take the best of all those cultures. We are not a melting pot. We do not want to forget the greatness that comes out of those nations when these people come to this country. We want to keep the best of their cultures and make it part of our own.
These people, the Cree, the Micmac, the Ojibway, the We have two official languages and I cannot under-Montagnais and so on were here for thousands of years, stand those people who try to diminish the use of the two They have been forgotten in the constitutional discus- official languages, who attack them, who look on them as sions. Of course, except for the Northwest Territories a burden. For me to have two official languages is an and to a certain extent in the Yukon, they do not form outstanding asset for a country and in particular to have the majority in any political unit in this country. Conse- as our two official languages English and French, which quently, they cannot bring their political views to light or are among the two greatest languages in the world.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Not only are they widespread throughout the world, but they have great literature and culture associated with them, great theatre, great writings, great philosophers, and great political theorists. To have these two great languages as our official languages should be an asset. Canada, different from many other countries, can do business in French and English. We can do diplomacy in French and English. We write books in French and English. We produce theatre and television in French and English. We have great universities in French and English. We have great libraries in French and English.
The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy only have one language. They can only do all those things to which I referred in one language. We have this great asset and advantage of two official languages and we should make the most of it. We should use the fact that we have two official languages to attract tourists, business, international associations of the United Nations or whatever. I can recall right after the Second World War that ICAO and IATA were attracted to Montreal because Montreal was a city with two official languages and many other cultures such as Italians, Greeks and so on. That was an attraction for international organizations to move there. Great international conventions would come to Canada because we can work in two languages. We can make it an asset. We can look at something positive.
There have been rumours that in order to get a constitutional agreement there could be suggestions that we cut back on our commitment to linguistic duality or to the two official languages. By the way the policy of bilingualism is not and has never been that all Canadians must speak the two official languages. The policy is that the government must be able to serve Canadians in their language, either English or French, where they are in sufficient numbers and that makes good sense. That does not hurt anybody. There has been some talk that we should move to the Swiss model. In Switzerland, where I lived and worked for a while, there are 22 cantons, the great majority of which are either German, Italian, or French-speaking, but there are only two cantons that I know of with two languages.
In Canada there are one million francophone Canadians living outside Quebec. As was already stated in the debate today, those million francophones are greater than the entire number of francophones living in Quebec
at the time of Confederation in 1867. There are also- fewer today than there were a while ago, unfortunately- about 700,000 to 800,000 anglophones living in Quebec who have very deep roots in Quebec. They developed many parts of the Eastern Townships and, with the Inuit and the Indians, developed the north through the Eludson's Bay Company and the fur trade in the very far north of Quebec. They have very deep roots in Quebec.
To move to a situation where we would say that Quebec would be a French-speaking province-I will refine that in a minute-and all the other provinces would be English-speaking, I think is wrong. I have always recognized that the principal language of Quebec should be French and I have always recognized that Quebec should be a distinct society. It has been a distinct society since it was on this continent.
In the Constitution of 1867, Quebec was the only province that was to have civil law. All the others were to have common law. Quebec was the only province at that time that had the responsibility of two official languages under Article 133. Quebec was the only province with protected counties.
Since that time, other things have developed. Quebec has its own pension plan la Regie des rentes. The other provinces have the Canada Pension Plan. Quebec collects its own income taxes and the other provinces do not. Quebec and Ontario are the only two provinces that do not have the RCMP as their provincial police force.
My point is this: Quebec has had very distinct traits for over 100 years. We should recognize that and where it is essential, provide the powers that go with that distinctiveness. This does not mean that we would go as far as the Allaire commission report, but we could achieve a balance which would provide justice to Quebec and to the rest of Canada. That is what this committee strives to do.
[ Translation |


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speak about Quebec in his speech and I get the distinct impression that he loves Quebec. Besides, a family as long-established in Quebec as his is truly a Quebec family.
June 18, 1991

We, Quebecers, know that French-speaking and English-speaking communities can easily live side by side. However, I find the hon. member a tad too optimistic. A man with his political experience should know that attempts have been made over the past 30 years to renew the Canadian Constitution which is a complete anachronism.
Since 1960, in Quebec, prime minister Duplessis, then Mr. Lesage, Johnson, Bourassa, Levesque and Bourassa again have tried hard to renew it to no avail. I would like to ask him why have 30 years of constitutional discussions produced no agreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada?
I would also like him to tell me if he thinks that the government is truly committed to this final stage, before October 1992, when the people of Quebec will most likely decide upon sovereignty. What does the hon. member think of this then: a government who, the day before presenting this motion it claims to be important, encroaches upon the education system which has traditionally been the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec-and I think that, in Quebec, francophones and anglophones alike agree that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction? The government comes here and tells us that he wants to invade this jurisdiction as well as that of manpower training and regional development.
Would the hon. member not say that the actual actions of this government are designed to dismantle this country and confirm Quebec and the people of Quebec in their resolve to gain sovereignty status?


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions of the hon. member, I must say that I am pleased that we have people representing the points of view of the hon. member in this House, because it gives us a chance to debate all possible views. If we did not have members of the Bloc Quebecois here, I do not think the debate would be as complete. I do not agree with them, but I think it is important that in a discussion such as this, we should have views from all sides. Therefore, I respect his question.
I admit that it is frustrating. He says it has been over 30 years and they have not been able to achieve the constitutional amendments they have sought. That is not entirely correct.
Government Orders
I have been in this House for 25 years. I was here when arrangements were made for Quebec to opt out and formulate its own pension plan la Regie des rentes, which I mentioned already. It is more or less the same, but is totally controlled by Quebec and not part of the Canada Pension Plan.
I was also here when the arrangements were made with Quebec with respect to immigration so that they could control to a much greater extent their immigration policy, who entered the province as immigrants, how they were treated when they arrived, the promotion of immigration and so on.
There have been some other major accomplishments with respect to negotiations, not all constitutional, but within the present Constitution to allow Quebec to develop its own policies and to do things its own way.
Nevertheless, it is frustrating to propose and get constitutional amendments. Let me remind the hon. member in the House that it took almost 50 years for us to get our own amending formula in 1981-82. It took over 100 years to get a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. Some Canadians had been pressing for that for a long time.
I will refer to the United States. I say it took us a long time to get a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada entrenched in our Constitution, but the women of the United States have been trying to get an amendment to the American Constitution on equal rights for women for, I think, over 25 years. That amendment has been put forward time and time again and has never received the necessary support among the American states and in the American Congress. So yes, it is difficult to get constitutional amendments because constitutional amendments must go through procedures which are more difficult to get.
I think it is wrong to suggest that just because Quebec does not have all the constitutional amendments it has sought, it has not achieved much greater control of its own destiny. It has in fact become one of the outstanding francophone communities of the world, one of the great cultural centres of French-speaking life in the world.
With respect to education, I totally respect Quebec's jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all provinces with respect to education. I am not sure what happened. I know that in the Speech from the Throne, the government proposed certain measures with respect to post-se-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
condaiy education, and that is an area the federal government has been involved in for some time.
If they made those proposals without consulting Quebec, then they are to blame. But in the past, under the Lesage government, I believe under the Johnston government and other governments, there were agreements with Quebec with respect to post-secondary education. Quebec always maintained its total jurisdiction, but they accepted in certain ways assistance from the federal government to deal with inequalities, minority language education, minority language training and so on. Yes, we must respect the present jurisdiction of the province of Quebec and all the provinces.
Yes, to get an amendment to the Constitution is a frustrating thing, but if you persist and you have the proper political will, you will get it.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to have this opportunity today to speak on this motion to appoint a special joint committee to inquire into constitutional proposals for a renewed Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the special joint committee being proposed combines the more attractive features of a constituent assembly, with the accountability of our parliamentary system. Ultimately the Parliament of Canada will set the direction for our country and mould its future. Parliament represents the highest authority, the level within our political system where issues and problems are transformed into ideas and solutions. It is therefore highly appropriate that a parliamentary committee should be given the responsibility of taking the government's proposals for a renewed Canada to the people, and then returning with those proposals, reshaped, altered, modified and augmented for eventual disposition by this House.
This Parliament, this House of Commons, is the ultimate constituent assembly of Canada.
The committee will have the good wishes of all members for success, and I am sure the support of all sides of the House.
The task before the committee is a daunting one, but the reward is nothing less than a reunited, recreated and rejuvenated nation.
Canadians are eager to participate in this process and this committee will provide the mechanisms through which the hopes and aspirations of the people of Canada can be transformed into legislative reality and into the building blocks of Canada's future.
I am sure that all of us in this House believe we are the most fortunate people on the face of the earth. None of us would choose to live elsewhere. Unlike the crises that have gripped most other countries of the world, the current national debate in Canada is not over economics, not over religion, not over basic human rights. Rather, it is a debate over whether or not we choose to continue to live together, whether we have the capacity and the will to better understand one another's needs and concerns, whether we have the strength as a society to embrace and welcome those cultural, linguistic and other features that make us different as individuals and groups and yet, collectively, make us a far stronger, richer and more mature society.
As we all know, our country, Canada, is today going through one of the most critical development periods in its history. We have a vision of a rich and generous nation, one of great material wealth but more important, a country of very high human values based on the diversity of two official languages and many cultural origins, not the least of which are the aboriginal peoples which originally inhabited this land. It is a vision unparalleled throughout today's world, both in the richness of its potential and in the complexity of its application.
Unfortunately, however, for reasons which are obscure to most of us who live here and really beyond comprehension to people in the rest of the world who look upon Canada virtually as the promised land, our rich vision is clouded by preoccupation with the problems of attaining that vision. We have experienced confrontations about language, aboriginal rights, bigotry and racism, regional alienation, financial stability and, political responsibility.
Almost as we speak, in these veiy days there are forces gaining momentum that seek to destroy the vision of Canada that most of us hold so dear. Those forces must be confronted and turned aside, not with violence or
June 18, 1991

hostility, but rather with knowledge, understanding, tolerance, the strength of reason and the will to see our vision survive.
Each one of us has the responsibility to think through our own vision of Canada and to help identify with the cause of the nation as a whole.
For me, one expression which I can leave with you to describe my feelings as a Canadian is the sense of real freedom which is to be found in this country: freedom to exist and live in a land so vast, with lots of room for everyone; freedom to grow and develop in a society that is open and generous and tolerant; freedom to participate in a democracy that is just and accessible; and freedom to dream in a potential which is overflowing with opportunity.
Those are the feelings I get when I think about the unique privilege of being a Canadian. They represent a state of mind not easily attainable in most other parts of the world today where landscapes are becoming more limited, population densities more burdensome, societies more volatile, democracy more fragile and dreams more distant.
It is critical in my view that in any vision of Canada we must always be mindful of that special reality of individual freedom which it offers for each one of us. That is a value above all others and should be the foundation for any vision of nationhood.
Economic arguments may be important, but they will not carry the day. Understanding, sensitivity and an abiding desire to build our nation together are the forces that will shape our future.
Perhaps first and foremost we have to learn to listen better. We want to encourage an outburst of public interest, even fervour. Canadians are not given to flag-waving and public displays of patriotism, unfortunately. But most of us feel a deep love and affection for our country.
This special parliamentary committee will provide the focus for these feelings. This parliamentary committee will talk about Canadian citizenship, and I would like to repeat some words I said to this House a few weeks ago. There are few words used throughout the world which convey the vision of freedom and democracy more clearly than these words, "Canadian citizenship". It is often said, for example, that a Canadian passport is the
Government Orders
most prized document in the international community. Yet among Canadians here at home there frequently seems an apathy about the values of our own citizenship, almost as though we have lost the meaning of our country, our sense of pride in it and our spirit of patriotism for it.
Surely this is a state of mind that we must revitalize for ourselves and for future generations of Canadians. Surely the common denominator of Canadian citizenship must be reinforced as the mantle under which the rich potential of our bilingual and multicultural heritage can be attained and fulfilled. That is a current challenge for each of us, more important now than ever before.
There will be no winners if we cannot resolve the serious differences that exist in Canada today. Our very independence would be placed in doubt and certainly, at best, our capacity for independent action would be greatly diminished. Nobody, except perhaps for a few impractical dreamers, wants a fractured Canada. But other nations have drifted in just that sort of a situation through indifference and lack of will to act courageously and intelligently when the time was right.
The situation is serious right now, but we have much in our favour. Most importantly, we are a civil people, used to coming to decisions after agonizing debate, soul searching, praying, cajoling and yes, even compromising. We have done this for nearly 125 years and I am convinced we have the capacity to do it, if necessary, for another 125 years. Our children and grandchildren have the right to expect us to make our very best effort, to put aside selfish, partisan interests and to work toward solutions that are acceptable to all parts of the country.
There will be only losers. All Canadians will be losers if we do not succeed in bringing forward a workable solution to the current impasse. We must redouble our efforts because our reputation as a stable and reliable nation is already suffering. This is costing all of us, every single one of us.
Some sincere, concerned Canadians have argued strongly for the convening of a constituent assembly. The government has not ruled out such a course, but adding another layer of legislative, consultative activity to our already complex system is hardly a sure cure for our ills. It would be no quick fix. Ultimately it will still be in Parliament where we will have to make the final decisions, no matter what course is chosen. We will achieve

June 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
nothing by abdicating our responsibilities to another body, especially when the groundwork has not been prepared. We would only delay the process, and this is a case where delay will not solve the problems. Delay will only make matters worse because those who would destroy our country are not marking time, they have momentum and their goals are to achieve separation before the rest of us can even catch up.
Whatever means are chosen to get us to our objective of a united, strong Canada, those means must have the full support and participation of all players. We do not go into a game like this with only part of a team; we must go in to win. I am convinced that this parliamentary committee that is proposed will have the resources, the substance and the power to bring about a consensus within Canada that will eventually lead to the unity of this country.
In the absence of time, I am going to cut my remarks short. I would like to propose a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry:
That the amendment of the member of Papineau - Saint-Michel be amended by deleting all of the words after the words "House of Commons".


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So, the Chair finds, on the face of it, the amendment to an amendment put forward by the hon. member for Fredericton-York- Sunbury to be in order.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence) moved: that Bill C-201, an act respecting referendums and plebiscites in Canada on questions of public importance, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the Canada referendums and plebiscites bill by first saying a few words about its purpose. Second, I will make some comments about the sources of this bill and third, I will touch on the legislative process which lies ahead of us. I will conclude by making some general observations about the whole process of referendums and plebiscites in our country.
As to the purpose of Bill C-201, the Canada Referendums and Plebiscites Act, it is quite simply, to provide Canada, at our national level, with the enabling legislation under which direct voting could take place at such time as Parliament would see fit to submit questions to the people.
It is a fact that seven of our provinces have such enabling legislation on their books. In the case of Prince Edward Island, it is a very simple statute of five or six sections. In the case of Quebec, it is an extraordinarily comprehensive statute. It is time for us, in the national Parliament of our country, to likewise have available at such times as it may suit the nation's purposes and the wishes of the Parliament and the people of our country to have direct consultation on an issue and have the legislation in place for that.
There has been, of course, a lot of discussion in the country lately by many people as to whether we should have referendums or not. It goes back and forth. Sometimes it strikes me like the debate that might be going on among a number of teenagers about who should get a driver's licence. Nobody has ever checked to see if in fact there was a vehicle to take for a ride in the event that there was a licence to drive the car.
This legislation is the vehicle under which direct votes could take place and it would be a very fine thing for our country to have it ready and available when the need arises.
It is parallel to the situation with the Canada Elections Act which is the enabling legislation under which votes take place when there are elections to Parliament.
The purpose of this legislation is to set out all of the rules and procedures: who votes; how the voters' lists are prepared; how the questions are decided upon and the vote by both Houses of Parliament to approve them; the formation of two umbrella committees, one for the "yes" side and one for the "no" side; rules governing the raising and spending of money; rules dealing with broadcasting, advertising and campaigning. These are all of the procedures that, in the late 20th century, Canadians have
June 18. 1991

to come to expect in order to have fair and free electoral processes.
The bill is, as I say, comprehensive. It was first tabled back in July 1988 and I have resubmitted it on four occasions since. The Clerk, at that time, said that it was the largest private member's bill ever tabled in the House of Commons. Today is the first opportunity for the Canadian House of Commons to actually consider this legislation. I do not take particular pride in the fact that it is so big, but it is comprehensive in the same way that the Canada Elections Act is comprehensive. It deals in detail with all of the procedures that are the thicket of laws that guarantee freedom of the process, fairness of the process and finality of the outcome, because the results are achieved through prescribed and knowable procedures in advance.
With that in mind, I would like to say a few words about the sources from which this bill has been drawn. In the past, other members of Parliament have proposed that there should be plebiscites or referendums. Mostly it was in the form of a resolution or a motion to let the wording of the Canada Elections Act apply mutatis mutandis, great lawyer's words meaning, as far as and as possible and to the extent applicable.
It would be a very unfair thing for the Parliament of Canada to place the responsibility on the Chief Electoral Officer and all of his staff to decide in the heat of a national referendum or plebiscite campaign just how some of those rules from the Canada Elections Act ought to apply in the case of a direct vote. That is why, again, I think this step is very important for Parliament to proceed with.

As far as the sources on which this bill has been drawn, Mr. Speaker, one would be the bill the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Lalonde, under the Trudeau administration, tabled before the House of Commons when they decided to introduce such a bill allowing referendums and plebiscites to be held in Canada. The Lalonde bill was the result of a commendable effort on the part of the government of the day and all the lawyers in the Department of Justice to produce an excellent legislation. So, that is the first source.
Private Members' Business
The second one is the Quebec Referendum Act. This excellent piece of legislation contains provisions concerning both committees: the "yes" side and the "no" side. It also states that, at the time of passing the motion on referendums in the House, the Quebec National Assembly can decide what the exact wording of the question will be, vote a specific amount of money to both sides, the same for both the "yes" side and the "no" side. The same ideas are incorporated in this bill. By the way, it is interesting to note that the Quebec Referendum Act is in fact based on the British act respecting plebiscites on the issue of joining the European Common Market. So, this is the second source: the Quebec Referendum Act, an excellent act indeed.
The third source is the bill introduced by this government during the last Parliament, Bill C-79, including all the necessary amendments to the electoral process pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other amendments based on the annual recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. That is the third source. These provisions are included in the proposed bill.
I have also drawn on other information. For instance, the Direct Legislation Act of Saskatchewan, earlier in this century, contained provisions regarding advertising brochures. That is covered in this bill, but updated, with another provision regarding videos to allow both sides, the "yes" side and the "no" side, to put forward their arguments, ideas, philosophies, policies on both sides of the issue. I have also added a few ideas based on discussions I had with members of Parliament. As far as the legislative process is concerned, I have no doubt that a legislative process does exist. That is why I would like to see this bill referred to a legislative committee of this House, where it could be reviewed carefully and amended as it might seem fit. For instance, based on the recommendations of the Beaudoin-Edwards Joint Committee, it is entirely possible that ideas regarding referendums come out of the Constitution's amending process. If that is possible, it will also be possible for a legislative committee to make amendments and I see absolutely no objection to that.

June 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
With regard to referendums on a constitutional amendment, changes must be made to this bill. Although at the present time the constitutional formula requires the support of seven provinces with over 50 percent of the total population, amendments will be necessary but that can be done after the joint committee tables its recommendations.
That concludes my comments on the legislative process. So, I hope I can count on the support of members on both sides of this House so that there can be an ex-change of ideas on the subject and recommendations can be made. All the better for Bill C-201.
f English]
I wish to make some general observations about the role of referendums and plebiscites in our country. I think it is important briefly to do this so that this bill is seen in some context apart from the context I have just described as the need to have enabling legislation.
The first point I would very much like to stress is that no one should see a referendum or a plebiscite as something which is threatening to our parliamentary institutions or rivalling the role of elected representatives.
I am an elected representative. I certainly am not trying to under cut the role that we as elected representatives have in the process, but it can be and it has in our history already been a process, the direct voting, which is complementary to the role of Parliament. It is supplementary to the role of Parliament. Particularly in this bill there is provision for continual close involvement of the Parliament of Canada.
I think there is a necessary safeguard there regarding concerns which have been expressed by many members of Parliament and by the right hon. Minister responsible lor Constitutional Affairs enabling us to see, for example, the role of Parliament in voting to approve the wording of any question that would be submitted to the Canadian people, and also the role of parliamentarians setting up the oui committee, the "yes" committee and the "no" committee, the umbrella organizations.
This is not separate from Parliament. This is not antithetical to Parliament, but it is complementary and can be seen in a positive way, especially in light of our history with our two previous national plebiscites, over
60 plebiscites or referendums at the provincial level, and some several thousand plebiscites on municipal questions at the local ballot boxes which are certainly part of our democratic infrastructure in Canada. Some 94 or 96 separate statutes across our country at the provincial level accord the right to vote to citizens on specific questions.
The second point of a general nature regarding plebiscites has to do with their educational role. After the last election there was a lot of debate as to whether that election had been a plebiscite or a referendum on the free trade issue. In 1911 there was a lot of discussion as to whether that election had been a referendum on reciprocity with the United States, or in Quebec a referendum on the naval bill.
The fact is that when you are into a general election, a lot of issues are mixed together, as are the personalities of all the candidates and the party leaders. It is not really possible in our election system to have the narrow, specific focus for an intense period of four or six or eight weeks of a plebiscite campaign on a specific question. This is a great opportunity for Canadians to become educated as they hear the pros and the cons of the question before the country, and they have the personal interest of becoming informed because they know that next Monday that man and that woman have to go and mark a ballot with an X beside "yes" or "no". That is something which leads all of us into a positive educational process which I think can be very important for this country.
A third point, and somewhat related to that, is that the campaign period can be a time of self definition for individuals and for all of us as Canadians. For example, three years ago in Prince Edward Island, Premier Ghiz submitted to the people of that Island a question about a fixed-link crossing. Although there had been debate and in five elections people had been promised some kind of tunnel or bridge, this was the first time in the history of PE.I. that the men and women, the citizens, had the opportunity to debate among themselves whether it was good, whether it would help the economy, but it would hinder the island psychology, and so on. They sorted it out, just as in Quebec 10 years ago when Quebecers had to sort out and self define auto-definition who they were and what it could mean to be a Quebecer or a Canadian or the two together. In the Northwest Territories the
June 18, 1991

people went through the same thing in deciding how to vote in their plebiscite to divide the territories.
This is very important. In our country too often people are permitted to stay passive spectators. I see this as a positive opportunity for Canadians to become active participants and in the process define more robustly who we really are as Canadians.
Another point has to do with the opportunity that a plebiscite campaign provides for ventilation of feelings within the Canadian public. Why wait three or four or five years between general elections to say to Canadians that is the only time that they are going to have to come out and really get involved in issues? I think anyone here in this House of Commons knows the current mood across our country. I think it is highly appropriate from time to time-not on every question, certainly not, but on those issues of transcending national importance-to put the question to people so that they can all become involved in this and get out of themselves and express publicly their feelings on the issue. Ventilation on some of these issues is a very important part of Canada's nature as a democracy.
A further point is that I think the participation of people is fundamental because Canada has a parliamentary system which is based ultimately on the consent of the governed and not the coercion of those people. For there to be consent on the way the grand lines of our public policy are proceeding, the greater the participation and the more robust our democracy, the more authentic that the participation and consent will be.
Finally, I want to say I do not think that holding referendums and plebiscites is a magic solution without risk. It certainly has to be exercised with wisdom and care and statecraft, but it is a part of what is possible for our country as a democracy. The history of our country shows that on balance, the uses of direct voting have been positive and constructive.
If members in the House can consider and support this bill we will serve our country well by providing the enabling legislation, so that when it is appropriate and when there are issues on which Canadians from coast to coast to coast must be consulted directly, we will not have an eleventh-hour flap about how it should be done.
Private Members' Business
The rules will be there and we can simply invoke them in a calm and deliberate fashion, involving all Canadians in the future of our country.


François Gérin: I rise on a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: I wish to call your attention to Standing Order 29(3), Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Indeed, we do not have a quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There being a quorum, the debate shall continue. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, I deplore this inane interruption.


François Gérin: Order, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said he deplored this inane interruption.


An hon. member:: That's right.


François Gérin: It is not inane to ask that 20 members out 295 be in the House, so that we can have a quorum. Not a single minister was here. There were only four Conservative members at the veiy most. If they are not interested in the proceedings of the House, well, that is not inane.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead has asked that a specific Standing Order be enforced and the Chair had no other choice but to comply. I would ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to describe the situation in more parliamentary terms.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, since I was not referring directly to the hon. member, I think what I said was correct.
Anyway, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-201, which was introduced by the hon. member for

June 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I would like to commend him for his efforts. I know he worked hard to prepare this bill over 200 pages long. The bill is very significant for all Canadians, and specially for those who look to referen-dums as a means of passing bills in this country.
The hon. members took a lot of clauses out of the elections act, and I see that he has made a lot of changes to bring them up to date, and that is a good thing.

I want to say, however, that I have grave reservations about the whole idea of referenda in general. I set these comments aside from his bill. I feel that in a parliamentary democracy a referendum must be a very rare occurrence indeed. I do not believe that it is something that should be resorted to lightly or on a frequent basis. I believe that the electoral system we have in this country, with the system of representation that we enjoy, generally ensures that Canadians are well represented through their elected representatives in Parliament and in provincial legislatures.
I recognize, as I know the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore does, that in the last few years there appears to have been some breakdown in Canadians' views about their elected representatives. I realize that there is a sense of unease, a sense perhaps of lack of representation of divergent views in this place. I regret that that is so. I think it is in part because there is a perception that the government is not responsive to the views of Canadians. I agree that in some cases that is so. In others, I think the government can be responsive and occasionally is.
I have plenty of occasions to criticize the government and I am trying to avoid any of that in this particular debate, but I think that is part of the lack of confidence that Canadians feel in their system because, as I have said, they feel the government is unresponsive.
Certainly as a member of the opposition I would prefer that the government pay closer heed to our comments on bills in this House. On minor matters I feel that as a member I get quite good co-operation, by and large, from the government on matters relating to my constituents. However, on major issues and bills I feel that perhaps the views of the opposition warrant further consideration.
Certainly the arguments about referenda fit into this because the argument of those who believe that Parliament is not representative is that that lack of representation can be cured by running to the people with bills or with questions that can then be decided there. While occasionally resort must be had to such an unusual remedy, I suggest that the usual practice must always be that the elected representatives in Parliament make the decisions respecting the introduction and dealing with bills, that the legislation of the country is passed and adopted here in this House and in the other place in the normal legislative process, and that opportunities for public involvement in the legislative process be expanded, be looked at, rather than use the referendum as a means of deciding issues.
The difficulty with referenda that we have seen in recent years-and I think we can look at the recent Quebec examples-is the emotion that can be developed in a campaign so that rational discussion, rational thought and rational behaviour become more difficult. When it is practised on a nation-wide basis, it becomes increasingly difficult to control the running of emotions, the involvement of mass enthusiasm and perhaps discord and disillusionment with the system when people's aspirations or hopes are built up in the course of a campaign.
I see that as a peril and one that if it were to be used frequently would cause grave disorder in our country. I do not think it is particularly helpful as a means of resolving disputes because people simply do not sit around in referenda, if they are being held constantly, and vote rationally and discuss everything on a rational, plain and simple level. It becomes more involved and convoluted than that in most cases.
Nevertheless, I think that the bill the hon. member has introduced represents a very good effort at providing for a means of conducting referenda quickly and efficiently in Canada. It is a start. I would be glad-and I know our party would be glad-to have this matter go to a committee where it could receive further study. We could review each of the provisions and the clauses, possibly improve it in places, look for ways that it could be fixed and possibly improved further. We might not find many. We might be well satisfied on clause by clause study in committee.
June 18, 1991

I am prepared to say that we support the principle of the bill, subject to the reservations I have about the referendum generally. Of course I hope to have an opportunity later this day to discuss the possibility of a constitutional referendum in connection with the motion that we will be discussing in Government Orders later dealing with the establishment of the special joint committee to study the Constitution. Our party's position, as hon. members will have heard, is that we support a referendum on the findings of that committee. That is the position that we support. I am delighted to support it myself, and I hope to have something to say about it later.
However, in terms of this bill we support the effort. We commend the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lake-shore for his efforts. We are quite prepared to support the bill at second reading and send it to committee.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in debate this afternoon on this private member's bill, Bill C-201, presented by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
I also want to add my congratulations to the member. I know the amount of work that it takes for a member, perhaps with some advice from other places, to put together a private member's bill. In any case, the member certainly gets some credit for putting together a pretty thick document. As you know, it is over 200 pages and has entailed a certain amount of work. I think it is clearly an indication to the House of just how much concern this member has about this bill, a bill dealing with referenda and plebiscites. I congratulate the member for his initiative in this regard.
To that effect, we would certainly be pleased to support referral of the bill to a committee for review. In the general context, if I could just make a few comments about plebiscites and referenda, I do not think members of Parliament or parliamentarians should necessarily be afraid of referenda and plebiscites, but I think there is room for caution. I think the member who is presenting the bill mentioned that when he opened debate this afternoon.
At times having a referendum or a plebiscite can be seen in one regard as a way of letting us off the hook. That means then that members of Parliament or other
Private Members' Business
parliamentarians in other legislative bodies really are not required then to make a decision, and it makes it easier for us. The position I would endorse, and which I think we should take a broader look at in committee with this bill, is to give people an opportunity through referenda or plebiscites to really have some citizens' democracy and make some decisions on major and significant issues in the country.
I think that is particularly important in regard to constitutional matters. Not to restrict it, but I think especially in constitutional matters there is room for us to consider that.
I would not be honest with myself or the House if I did not list what I think are a couple of cautions we have to watch for. While I am not an historian I can think of two recent examples where if the government of the day had the use of a referenda or a plebiscite. I refer to the events in the fall of 1970 in Quebec when, if the government of the day had used a referendum or a plebiscite to further its goals, the Government of Canada would have crushed Quebec. It is clear that the reaction of the government of the day was an over-reaction. As hideous as the events being dealt with were, clearly history has shown it was an over-reaction. I think we would regret in years to come that we would have all rushed to make a decision like that.
To some it is a cautionary note. However, for the people who were opponents of Meech Lake it would be fair to say that at the time when the Prime Minister and the premiers, while I am critical of the process, reached the decision on Meech Lake I suspect if a referendum had been put it likely would have passed. For some that would be turning their argument upside down. In some cases people who opposed Meech Lake endorse the idea of a referendum on the very idea that they were opposed to, and it would have likely, in my opinion, passed.
I will wrap up with the cautionary note. I think of the example in my province of British Columbia, and the member mentioned provincial legislatures having this power. We just had a flirting experience with this concept as the former premier was going to try to use referenda which would have been very divisive to settle land claims in British Columbia. I think he was flirting with a very dangerous situation there. He did back off because he realized what he was getting into.

June 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
Obviously if we collectively in our country or in a province make a decision, right or wrong, we then have to live with its consequences. Perhaps at a later date we would find out that we erred. Let us hope not, if that were the case. However, certainly the member has brought forward a concept that is absolutely worthy of study. That is why we can support it being referred to committee.
I would hope there is nobody who would not be prepared to debate the merits or demerits of referenda and plebiscites. That is clearly what the member is attempting to do with this bill. I for one would be pleased to participate in some of that debate and to use his bill as a way to discuss this matter in my riding.
I again congratulate the hon. member on the great deal of work that he has obviously done on this bill. I hope for all of us that it can be a learning experience so that we can all become better in governing our country and give all Canadians that opportunity.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in support of the bill that has been put forward by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Bill C-201 is a very excellent bill dealing with referendums and plebiscites in Canada on questions of public importance. I stress that fact: questions of public importance.
I do not think I really have to tell you that the concept behind this bill of referendums and plebiscites is one which I believe, and I trust you believe as well, that the public of Canada is wholeheartedly behind. That is demonstrated by the participation in the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. The interim report of the Spicer commission, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, quite clearly points out that the majority of the people who participated in that process feel that politicians lack awareness of their accountability to their constituents. As a result of that lack of awareness, the people of this country quite clearly put forward to the Spicer commission a number of ways in which that awareness of their accountability to their constituents could be put forward very forcibly to their representatives, you and I and the members of this Chamber.
One of those suggestions was, quite clearly again, the idea of a referendum. It was not just a referendum on
everything. It was a referendum specifically on constitutional issues and on other major issues or, as the hon. member has framed it, on issues of public importance.
Of course this bill is particularly important at the present time when we are dealing with the issue of unity and the constitutional crisis that we now face. We have seen throughout the previous Meech Lake debate that as time went on Canadians became quite disillusioned with the process of dealing with constitutional change behind closed doors. They wanted a process in which they could participate. It is interesting to note that as time went on it was not just the Canadian public that felt that way. The participants in the process itself, premiers and prime ministers, had comments about the fact that we could never go through that kind of a process again. We had to do it differently.
How do you do it differently? I have not heard any better way suggested which involves all of the public of Canada than the referendum process.
You know that I put forward a suggestion for dealing with the constitutional process that involves a constituent assembly. I am certainly not the only one who has put that forward. A number of others have, but the concept that I have suggested would involve a constituent assembly which makes recommendations that are then submitted to a federally sponsored referendum, tabulated on a province by province, territory by territory basis. The results of that referendum would then be submitted to the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to be dealt with in accordance with the 1982 amending provisions of the Constitution Act.
In that way it seems to me we would make sure that all Canadians were involved in the process. We would also make sure that provincial and federal representatives were clearly aware of what the people who elected them thought on this particular issue. Not that it would be a one majority vote that would govern the whole country but, if it were tabulated on a province by province basis, the provincial and federal representatives would clearly know how their electors felt on those issues.
The problem of course with the process that I have suggested is that we do not have any legislation in place for a referendum. That is where I have to congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for putting
June 18, 1991

forward this bill at what I think is an extremely significant time for legislation of this sort. It is not the first time, as the hon. member has pointed out, that we have had referendums in this country. It is not the first time that there has been legislation at one level or another. We do have it at provincial levels; we do have it at municipal levels. We had a referendum in Quebec in 1980 on the question of separation. We have debate going on right now in the National Assembly of Quebec on Bill 150 on the issues of sovereignty and having a referendum in October 1992. We have had referenda in this country on conscription in the First World War and the Second World War. There is nothing revolutionary about this concept. It is something we have done before. There is no reason why we should not have legislation in place to do it again and do it when we need to do it.
The fact is other countries have this in place. To the south of us in the United States some 30 separate states and the District of Columbia have this in place. They go beyond the scope of this bill. They do not go to referenda that are sponsored by governments, but to referenda that electors themselves can initiate by petition. The state of California which has a population of 26 million, exactly the same as Canada, has such legislation in place. It is called direct democracy where electors can petition to have a question put on the ballot. If 5 per cent of the people who voted in the last election for governor of the state of California had petitioned then that question would have had to have gone on the ballot. The most famous of those was Proposition 13 in the state of California dealing with the issue of property tax reform. In the 1990 state election in California there were actually 14 separate propositions or 14 separate referenda on the ballot. California is not alone in the United States. Many of the large states have that sort of thing as well.
What we need is something similar in Canada. We have heard the critics this evening. We know there are critics of this process who feel that this might be a way for the majority of people to run rough-shod over the minorities. It has been said that we elect members of Parliament to represent us because they can look into the details of all of the issues that require legislation. Of course there is the Edmund Burke theory of democracy
Private Members' Business
that says once we are elected we are here to do and exercise our own judgment and to heck with everybody else until the next election.
All of these arguments and all of these criticisms have a certain amount of validity. At the same time the concept of the referendum has an enormous amount of validity in it as well, particularly when you are dealing with important issues. Surely an issue like the Constitution, if nothing else, is the kind of issue we should be dealing with in a referendum, particularly if we have a federally sponsored referendum as would be provided by this bill tabulated on a province by province basis.
The only way we could do that is to have legislation for a referendum in place and that is why it is so very important for this House to pass this bill this evening.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who tabled this bill which, I am sure, comes at the right time in our history, a time when many Canadians ask themselves major questions about the process triggered by the constitutional reform proposals.
Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is about a constituent assembly, a referendum, a plebiscite- In any case, I just want to say a few words. I will be brief about the proposal before us, Bill C-201, an Act respecting referendums and plebiscites in Canada on questions of public importance.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is rather voluminous, contains provisions that would allow the consultation of Canadians on numerous issues, including constitutional changes. It is on this particular aspect that I would like to make a few comments, because Canada does not have a lot of experience in that field.
We have had two plebiscites. Plebiscites, as they are defined in the bill, are consultations that do not have binding force for the government, as opposed to referendums, which do have binding force. The definition of the word "referendum" on page 8 is as follows:
"referendum" means a direct vote by which the electors decide,
with binding force, a question submitted to them pursuant to a
proclamation issued on the paragraph 10a), c) ou d);

June 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
By contrast, Mr. Speaker, a plebiscite is defined- In any case, a plebiscite does not have binding force. I have the definition in English, I will read the English definition:
"Plebiscite means a direct vote by which the electors express without binding force their wishes or opinions on the questions given to them pursuant to proclamation under paragraph 10(b) or (d)".

Mr. Speaker, for those who have forgotten, the Canadian experience goes back to 1898, when Canadians were consulted on prohibition, alcohol. You will recall that the population was consulted and, if I remember correctly, 51 per cent voted in favour, and 49 per cent voted against, more or less. Therefore, the government did not do anything. They dropped the issue and it became history.
Canadians were consulted again in 1942. This time it was about the conscription. The results were rather decisive, since 65 per cent voted for it, while some 35 per cent voted against it. Because of those results, it took two years before the government decided to do something and, in 1944, Mackenzie King used the conscription as a means to force or incite Canadians to participate in the war effort.
Mr. Speaker, these two plebiscites in our history have left bitter memories in the minds of the Canadian population. For us, French Canadians, I should say Canadians speaking French, it was synonym with division among groups, among families, among people, among regions and among provinces. This caused numerous problems. Therefore, I would be somewhat hesitant to hold a referendum or a plebiscite regarding a Canadian issue. Anyhow, seven provinces already have legislation allowing for going to the people. It is probably not a bad thing that a country like Canada considers the need for such a legislation. I congratulate the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for putting this before the House.
Personally, as I said, I have serious concerns. I believe that a referendum binding on the government ought to be on a question worded with extreme caution, a short
and clear question, a question without ambiguity of any kind. Maybe we could go to the people to ratify an accord or a constitutional amendment which has been carefully explained. But this is a prerequisite.
Second, I think it would be useful that the question, when put to a referendum or plebiscite, be endorsed by the political parties and that, as I said a while ago in another intervention, the question be such that it does not diminish existing rights and fundamental rights of Canadians, and in particular minority rights.
I will end my remarks on this, I think that any question put to a referendum or plebiscite should require a double majority. By that I mean that the majority at the national level might prevail, but that where a regional element is involved the four regions-Ontario, Quebec, the East and the West-of the country would have a say. This kind of double majority, along with the other conditions, might convince me that we could use a plebiscite or a referendum to get the view of the people of Canada on a given issue.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it might be advisable to refer all of this matter to a committee. I will support the motion for second reading so that this bill can be read and referred to the committee.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-201 brought forwards by our colleague who, I am sure, has worked very hard on the concept of referenda and plebicites.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for the work he has done. But I suggest that the government choose a strange moment to table that proposal now before the House. We know that the government wants to pass, on this very day, a legislation to establish a constitutionnal committee without the participation of a large segment of Quebec population and we are most suspicious about the timing of such a move now that Quebec has planned its own referendum by the fall 1992.
We all remember that in the speech from the throne, the government of Canada led us to believe that it might introduce a legislation on referenda. Thus, the government should have had the courage to take that respons-ability on itself instead of trying to pass that legislation throught the back door by way of a private member's bill.
June 18, 1991

Personally, I am not opposed to the concept of referenda and plebicites, but what I am opposed to is the idea of using them as a mean to create a diversion. That exactly the position into which the govemement cornered itself. The govemement was concerned with the outcome of a Quebec referendum and it was looking for a means of diversion that would confuse everybody and allow it to ignore a will clearly expressed by all Quebecers.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, as far as Canada is concerned, one has just to refer to Canadian history to be reminded that each and every Quebecer is truly suspicious when it comes to a national referendum. We all have been through the upheaval of the conscription and if we were not personally, we know what it has been. So,
I think that all those who know what this country is all about realize that no concensus is possible on any issue whasoever.
Therefore, we find that there is reason to be suspicious, even more so now that we have heard the leader of the Liberal Party who said, when he went to Quebec City, that a national referendum could carry regardless of the will of the Quebecers! That, Mr. Speaker, makes it more suspicious with the sight of the three traditional federal partys coming together today on the opportunity of holding a national referendum in an attempt to "skin off" Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, the trustworthiness of the hon. member who accomplished such a giant work is not being questioned. What is being questioned here is the trustworthiness of the government and of the official opposition which are looking for every possible means, with the help of the New Democratic Party, to prevent men and women in Quebec to express themselves clearly and to get to their sovereignty according to their own schedule without being subjected to the threat of a national referendum as proposed by the hon. member for Beausejour.
It is obvious that such a measure is designed to be used as a blackmailing tool now. If the principle of a referendum is valid today, why was it not two, three or five years ago? Why that proposal today, at this very moment, when Quebec has decided on a course and timetable, do we want to pass this legislation on the sly.
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will not put up obviously with a national referendum. We will, of
Government Orders
course, fight that concept as of now. It being 6 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I think we could resume this debate on some other occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The period devoted to the study of private members' business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 91(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 1912); and the amendment of Mr. Ouellet (p. 1924).
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in this debate today.
Before us is a motion to establish another parliamentary committee to look at the next phase of constitutional change in this country. I want to say at the outset that the priority for all of us, not only members of Parliament but Canadians, is to ensure that we find a package and a mechanism to keep this country together.
The most important thing is Canada. The most important thing is national unity, and the most important thing is trying to find that accommodation, that package to keep this country together. That is the most important issue.
The only way we are going to do that is to build a national consensus in all parts of this country, in the provinces and the territories, and among all peoples of this country with a package that I would call the Canada round which would make all parts of this country at home in Canada, and want to stay together. That is the objective.
I hope every member of this House would put the country first before his or her political party. The way to do that and ensure that has caused some differences in this House. We suggest in our party that the most likely way of having a successful conclusion, a national consen-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
sus, is to establish a constituent assembly. It is not good enough to have only another parliamentary committee.
A parliamentary committee in itself does not well represent all the people of this country. There are many people who are under-represented in the parliamentary system. Look around the House. We do not have anywhere near gender equality in this House. There are very few visible minorities. The ethnocultural community in Canada is under-represented. There are not the number of aboriginal people there should be proportionate to their numbers in Canada. There are many other social groups, particularly poor people in this country, who are vastly under-represented by the parliamentary system.
We are saying as a party that we cannot support the motion before us because it is exclusively a parliamentary committee. Instead of that, we have talked often in our joint committee on amending the Constitution, in this House and across the country, in publications and so on, about the need for some sort of constituent assembly.
As a member of the amending formula committee, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of Canadians who appeared before our committee said that we need a constituent assembly. We have to broaden out the process and have more than just members of Parliament as part of that process.
We are saying as a party that parliamentarians have a very important role to play. As parliamentarians we should represent about half of that constituent assembly. We then fill out that constituent assembly by adding on the other half representing the important minority groups in this country, in particular the aboriginal people, the ethnocultural reality of Canada, the official language minorities and the visible minorities. They are very important players. Those four or five groups are people in this country who are minorities under-represented in this House. They should be part of that constituent assembly.
In addition, we must make sure we have a proper balance between farm groups, business groups, labour groups, fishing groups, poor people and other people of this country. Gender parity would be easy to strike if we had a constituent assembly.
The idea of a constituent assembly is not a radical one. There have been many constitutional assemblies around the world after a revolution, when new nations are formed or when a nation is in a crisis situation. Our country now is in a crisis situation. We need more than just the parliamentarians or politicians to try to pull together that national consensus.
There must be at the end of the day a national consensus involving the major political parties and the major players at both the federal and provincial level if we are to succeed.
The reason for that is we have an amending formula now which for most amendments requires agreement of the federal Parliament along with seven of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population of those provinces for that amendment to carry. For five more important things, including the amending formula itself, we need unanimous consent.
It is obvious that even for the legal and technical amending procedure of the Constitution of Canada what we need in this country is a national consensus on a package. We are much more likely to achieve that national consensus if we have a broader group participating and pulling together that national consensus.
If we have the aboriginal people represented as fully participating members of that committee, or that constitutional convention or whatever we call it, we are much more likely to have the support of the aboriginal people of Canada and not get into a situation like we did last year in Manitoba in which a member of that assembly felt he had to try to stop the Meech Lake Accord because it did not address the needs of the aboriginal people of Canada.
I appeal to my friends across the way, to the minister in particular, to consider the arguments of the constituent assembly: the overwhelming majority of people who appeared before the committee on the amending formula and process-


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


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton- Melville has made an excellent speech which deserves
June 18, 1991

the government's attention. I would like to call your attention on the fact that there is not one minister in the House and that the member made very interesting remarks which I think the government should have listened to a long time ago. His contribution is always remarkable, but there is not one minister who has the decency to be present now in the House. Where is the minister of Constitutional Affairs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I recognize again the member for Yorkton-Melville.


M. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Shefford for his speech.

The reasons for a constituent assembly are the following. First, as I said, the overwhelming majority of witnesses who came before our committee wanted a constituent assembly. Second, public opinion in this country wants a constituent assembly. If one looks at the most recent public opinion polls, we see that approximately 70 per cent of the people of Canada want a constituent assembly, they want to open up the process.
Third, a growing number of premiers are in favour of a constituent assembly or are very, very open to the idea of a constituent assembly. I think of Premier Rae in the province of Ontario, I think of Premier Devine in Saskatchewan who is open to the idea, Premier McKenna, Premier Cameron of Nova Scotia who is open to the idea of a constituent assembly, and I think of Premier Wells in Newfoundland who has been calling for a constituent assembly. These premiers are either in favour of a constituent assembly or they are open to the idea of opening up the process and working in that direction.


An hon. member:: What about Bourassa?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What about Bourassa? Mr. Bourassa said no to a constituent assembly.
What we in our party are saying is that you cannot isolate any province or any part of the country. What we are saying in our party is that this constituent assembly must be drawn from the four or five groups that I have mentioned. If we cannot get all of the provinces to send MLAs or MHAs or MPPs to an assembly, then we should not have any provincial representatives there, because we cannot afford to isolate any one of the provinces. We made that very, very clear from the outset.
Government Orders
Like Belanger-Campeau in Quebec, we had a committee there of 18 members who were elected in the Quebec National Assembly, and then through a consensus of the two parties there was the addition of another 18 members who represented a good cross-section of Quebec society. It can be done in the province of Quebec and it can be done in the rest of the country as well, including people from all regions, territories and provinces. If the provinces do not want to participate officially, there are a lot of people who have experience at the provincial level who could be on the constituent assembly.

For instance, I am thinking of Raymond Gameau who was a member and a minister at the provincial level, in Quebec, in the previous Bourassa government. He has a lot of experience and could represent Quebec and the Liberal Party of that province. There are many people in the province of Quebec who can very well represent that province, as there are many in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada.

These are the reasons we need a constituent assembly, to open up that process.
We have always said in our party that the constituent assembly would not be enshrined in the Constitution. We would not want a constituent assembly to deal with all constitutional issues from here on in: whether we should enshrine property rights or aboriginal rights or change some of the rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; dealing with the notwithstanding clause or with other issues of importance, or saying that it should be a one shot deal.
We are in a serious situation of national disunity in this country and because of that we need to have a constituent assembly at this time, but it should not be a permanent part of the amending process. We have made that very clear. It should not be enshrined in the Constitution as part of the amending process and we have made that very clear as well.
The constituent assembly would do no more than this parliamentary committee is supposed to do. A constituent assembly would try to draw together that national consensus, the accommodation that will keep this country one.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
That is exactly what the parliamentary committee is supposed to do as proposed by the government across the way. It is supposed to draw together a national consensus, to draw together a package to keep this country united.
All we are saying in our party is that the composition of that committee must be different than what the government envisions it to be. The composition of that committee must be a mixture of parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians. The ministers across the way say they do not want non-elected people on it and that it should be a parliamentary committee.
In the motion presented to us from the government it is proposing that there be 20 senators on that committee but senators are not elected. Senators have no mandate from their constituencies, from their provinces, from their regions. They are not elected. They arc appointed by the Prime Minister of the day.
As individuals, I know a lot of these senators can make useful contributions, like Senator Beaudoin or Senator Gigantes du Parti liberal. As individuals they are very good people, but they are not accountable to anyone. If the government can appoint 10 non-elected senators then why can't we, as the House of Commons, make sure we appoint the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, for example, as a member of the constituent assembly and have full voting rights in that assembly like the member of Parliament from our party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party of Canada.
I ask the members of this House to open up their minds to the possibility of flushing this out so that the people of Canada feel some ownership to this constituent assembly, so they feel some ownership to the process that we are to embark on come September of this year.
I believe that the chance of success will be a lot greater if we had as fully participating members the aboriginal people of Canada, people representing linguistic minorities, more women, visible and multi-racial minorities, ethnocultural minorities and the like. I think that is the way to go.
We cannot risk failure. The Meech Lake Accord failed and a lot of people in this House, including the overwhelming majority of members of all three national political parties, were in support of the Meech Lake Accord.
It failed because of a couple of reasons. It failed because there was a perception in the country that the people did not have ownership of that particular accord, that they did not have access to the process, that the accord was negotiated by 11 First Ministers and presented to the House of Commons and to the various provincial legislatures as a fait accompli.
We could not change anything. We could not amend anything. It was called a seamless web.
I would assume that everybody has learned some lessons from that experience and that the next package will come to us as a package that will be amendable by members of the House of Commons as well as by the legislative assemblies of this country, including the Quebec National Assembly.
It seems to me it would be a lot easier to build that consensus if not only members of Parliament, but nonparliamentarians are also part of the process. There is no law and there is no precedent in this country that says that the Constitution belongs to the parliamentarians. There is no law in this country that says only the parliamentarians should be involved. There is no law that says only elected parliamentarians should be involved. There is no law that says senators should be 40 per cent of that particular committee.
I remember last spring when Jean Charest was the chair of the committee looking at a companion resolution for the Meech Lake Accord. We had 15 members on that committee. There were no senators. They were all elected members of Parliament representing the three parties of the House. So why do we bring back senators into this particular operation?
In the past we have also had non-members of the House of Commons involved in parliamentary committees. I remember the former Liberal member from Cochrane, Keith Penner, chairing a committee on aboriginal rights a few years ago and the participating members of that committee were people representing the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
We do have a precedent for that happening in the past. I say to the government across the way: "If you really want to be non-partisan, then do not be afraid to lose your government control of that committee". I think that is the big problem.
June 18, 1991

If we had a committee that was made half of parliamentarians and half non-parliamentarians, there would be a government minority on that committee. At the end of the day, for the new agreement to pass through the amending process, it has to be reflective of a national consensus. Let us start off that way and try to have a committee that is reflective of the national reality of this country, one that mirrors Canada and the real world.
I conclude by saying that to us, in our party, the process itself is so important that we have to vote no to this particular resolution to establish a committee made up uniquely of parliamentarians. We feel that if we set up a committee made up of parliamentarians only, we jeopardize the very process itself and the exercise, which is to find a national consensus and a package that is acceptable to all political parties in this House and different political parties across the provinces and territories of Canada.
If we can enhance the possibility of a national consensus by bringing more people into the committee, then why not open up our committee and involve more than just parliamentarians? That is the simple crux of the argument because the important thing is to keep this country together.
Having travelled the country extensively in the last four months as a member of the committee on the amending formula, I can say to you that I am much more optimistic now than I was a few months ago.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are changes not only in the province of Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada. I believe that most Canadians want to reach a consensus and find a national accommodation, and I have a feeling that most Quebecers would accept a renewed federalism if Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, if we can do something about the division of powers and other important matters for Quebec and its people. I also have the impression that the nine other provinces and the two territories are now more open than five or six months ago. I believe that most Canadians outside Quebec want to find some accommodation, that they wish to find a compromise with Quebec in order to keep the country together and strong. I also have the feeling, Mr. Speaker, that most Canadians want to see the three national
Government Orders
parties and all other political entities of the country as well as all politicians work together in order to find a solution to this national problem.

I believe we can find that solution. The Canadian people want, above all, Parliament to lead the way, Parliament to put aside some of the partisan fights and clashes we have in this place every day as a natural, normal part of our endeavours, and put the country first and find that national consensus and national bargain.
I know it is there. Even last spring, with all the difficulty of Meech Lake, through the parliamentary committee chaired by Jean Charest we had a unanimous report that came up that we thought was a national consensus and a national compromise. It was scuttled because of certain events, including the defection of the now leader of the Bloc Quebecois from the government benches and also of the intransigence of some of the first ministers to consider some new options on how to solve the national crisis.
Let us not let it slip away again. We may not have another chance. This may be the last chance. I argue and we argue that we can increase and enhance the possibility of a solution to the problem that tears this country apart if we broaden the process and have, instead of just a parliamentary committee, a constituent assembly of parliamentarians and non-parliamentarians, working together to try to build a truly national consensus and find a solution to help this country get over its constitutional problems and get on to the real issues facing Canadians in the modern world.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On a point of order. As the hon. member for Shefford pointed out a moment ago, there is still no minister of the Crown in the House. We are discussing Government Orders and I would suggest that perhaps the House adjourn until a minister arrives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. I must recall all members of this House that the presence or a point of order should not be raised on absence of a member of this House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, when you say that we are not allowed in this House to refer to presence or absence of a member. But as the member for Kingston and the Islands said so well, we are dealing with a government business, something very important for Canada, and yet since 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, no Cabinet minister has been seen in the House. Mr. Speaker, I find this totally unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I think the rules are veiy clear, and I repeat, members are not allowed to refer to the presence or absence of a member in this House. Questions and comments.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs rises on a point of order.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and remind my hon. colleague that the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs was present in this House until 5 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is exactly why we should not raise the question, but if the member insists, I will tell him that since 5 p.m., and it is now 6.20 p. m., not one minister has been seen in this House, and we are dealing with government business-.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I think that you have conveyed your messages one to another, and I now call for your co-operation. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Laval West.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, -


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


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


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I am not in my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Laval West.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague from the New Democratic Party who agreed in favour of a constituent assembly. I think his main argument was that there are ten senators and fifteen members of Parliament on the committee that the government wants to create. He was right when he said that senators are appointed by the government in place, that is by the Liberals when they were in office or by the Conservatives since they came into office. I am convinced that if the New Democratic Party had been in office recently, they would also have appointed senators to the Senate.
On that commission that represents people from all over Canada, senators are still Canadians, people with Canadian citizenship. So, I wonder why the NDP member from Saskatchewan is against having some senators on that commission? I would ask him to explain to me why he is against that. Those are full-fledged Canadians just like us, and I am proud to participate in this debate and also in that committee which will set the outline of our political future, of the future of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker, because the Senate of Canada is not elected, and if there were non elected senators-


An hon. member:: They are Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, they are Canadians, but Mr. Ovide Mercredi, the president of the native groups, is also a Canadian and the mandate of the native group in our country- if a senator could be a member of that committee that is non elected, why not have Mr. Mercredi, who is the president of the Canadian native group? I simply say that we can have nine or ten non elected senators on our committee, even if I have a lot of respect for Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Gigantes. But if we can have somebody who is not elected at all, who comes from the Senate of Canada, why not have Mr. Mercredi? Why not have a business leader? Why not have a Canadian union leader? Why not have-

Why not have gender parity on that particular committee? Let us open up the process. That is all I am arguing for.
June 18, 1991

['Translation\


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who is known on this side of the House as a friend of Quebec.
He made several speeches in the same vein during the debate on Mecch Lake, and I must say I enjoy my exchanges with him.
However, one of the points he made was that we had to have a constituent assembly to represent all minority groups, all visible minorities in Canada. This is a very high-sounding principle, Mr. Speaker, but I have some trouble with it.
For instance, there are about 75 different nationalities in Canada, if I am not mistaken. Does the hon. member mean that a constituent assembly would have to have a representative of each of those nationalities, including the Vietnamese community, the Italian, the Chinese, the Mongolians, in fact, every country in the world? Is that what he wants? Is that how he sees this assembly?
Mr. Speaker, I think we are wasting a lot of time looking at the kind of forum we need to deal with Canada's constitutional problems. Perhaps we should go on to discuss the problem itself and not waste our time trying to decide what would be the best formula for this forum.
My second point is that a constitution is important to a country. Everybody says so. However, I don't think we should get carried away, Mr. Speaker.
I remember when I was at the University of Ottawa, my professor of Political Science told our class one day that the most impressive constitutional document on this planet was the Constitution of the Soviet Union. However, if ever a country made a complete mess of it, it certainly did, Mr. Speaker.
That being said, would the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville reconsider his demands for a constituent assembly and opt instead for the Parliament of Canada, a constituent assembly lawfully elected by Canadians every four or five years?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon member for Saint-Maurice is negative about the concept of a constituent assembly, but the Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec is a constituent assembly. It was a group of 18 elected representatives and 18 non-elected members, and this commission found a
Government Orders
consensus in the province of Quebec and made a number of proposals on behalf of Quebecers.
We suggested having a similar model at the federal level, to have a process that is more open or more democratic for Canadians. Like the Belanger-Campeau Commission, which had members representing labour, the business community and many other Quebecers. If I remember correctly, they also said they offered a seat to native groups in Quebec, but the offer was turned down. In any event, this group was a representative sample of the population of Quebec. We can do exactly the same thing here at the federal level, across Canada.
We have many organizations.

He mentioned the ethnocultural groups, the Chinese Canadians and the Vietnamese Canadians. There is the Ethnocultural Council of Canada. Let it decide which two or three or four members should be in a constituent assembly. Our party suggests 80 to 100 people on that constituent assembly.
One of the premiers has suggested between 70 and 80 people on a constituent assembly. There are national organizations representing aboriginal people and ethnocultural people. There are linguistic minorities-

I am thinking of Francophones outside Quebec, of Alliance Quebec which represents English-speaking Quebecers in the province of Quebec.

There is no reason why these groups cannot be invited to name one or two members to this particular assembly. This would open up the process. I do not think it is an idea that is all that radical. It is in tune with about 70 per cent of the Canadian people who want it, according to all the public opinion polls. It is certainly in tune with what the witnesses were calling for before the committee which this House struck last December to look at the amending formula and the process of constitutional change.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by some of the examples that the member for Yorkton-Melville has given us. He cites Belanger-Campeau as an example of a constituent assembly. However, it certainly did not represent gender parity and

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
was by no means concerned with hearing the voices of aboriginal peoples as members of that committee.
On the other hand he gave us the example of the Charest committee as being an example of when a committee system worked, when Parliament worked. However, it was not his type of constituent assembly since it did not contain any non-elected members.
This confuses me. I would like to put to him very quickly the concern that I have. I understand where he is coming from and I hear the same voices that he hears. However, the concern I have is that it would appear as though there is a movement away from a representative democracy as a system for brokering and giving voice to all of the interests in Canada. That concerns me.
The second thing that concerns me is how he thinks we could possibly respond to the time constraints that are upon us if the very mechanism for dealing with the issues before us requires invention and creation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We cannot risk failure. A constituent assembly of 80 to 100 people would not take much longer than the committee across the way. It is likely to have a better chance to succeed in creating a national consensus, of being inclusive and ensuring that aboriginal people and others are fully participating members of that assembly.
The other point he mentioned concerned Belanger-Campeau. It was a constitutional convention of a sort and there were parts of it that I too did not like. Of course we need gender parity. I made that very clear in my remarks. If we had gender parity maybe we would have an easier chance of finding a national consensus.
The member talks about representative democracy. I am not sure non-elected senators make a useful contribution to that because they are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected. I think we start by saying that if we want something more representative, perhaps we should just have, in addition to members of Parliament, people representing big organizations in this country and small minority groups from coast to coast.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to the motion put forward for our consideration of appointing a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to inquire into proposals for a renewed Canada.
First of all, I have to point out that the constituency that I come from is in the Northwest Territories. The national constituency that I deal with is aboriginal in my capacity as the critic for the Liberal Party of Canada.
It was veiy clearly put before the Beaudoin-Edwards committee that there are six principles which should be dealt with in dealing with the whole constitutional issue. That was put forward by the Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories. He indicated that the mandate is one that is very integral to the success of the whole inquiry. He said that governments must have a clear mandate to proceed with any fundamental changes to the Canadian Constitution.
He then went on to the role of the people. Any new amending formula, he stated in that specific case, must guarantee that Canadians will be involved at all stages of significant constitutional amendment.
He then went on to say that the role of legislatures, any new amending formula in that specific case-but we are dealing with many other things here-must ensure that a significant majority of members of each legislature are required to ratify amendments. He suggests that a free vote would be part of this approach.
Any new amending formula must clearly and carefully balance the role of the executive arm of the government with the role of Canadians and their elected representatives sitting in legislatures.
He said that aboriginal nations must have a guaranteed role in any constitutional amendment process affecting aboriginal interests.
Then he discusses the role of the territories, because the territories are an extension of the federal government. They are indeed not provinces. They have an act under which they operate. It is a very unique situation posing very specific challenges which constitutional experts and the legal community have to confront in dealing with the territories' aspirations to fit into their rightful place in nation building and within Confederation, such as it is.
June 18. 1991

He states that in this case any changes to the current amending formula or any new formulae must provide for the involvement of territorial residents and their elected representatives in matters that directly affect constitutional development in the territories, and the role of territorial residents in national affairs.
Any new amending formula that might involve regional representation must recognize the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as distinct regions within Canada and not as interest groups to be consulted in some other less formal way. I particularly feel that we have gone through a proliferation of committees and groups.
I sat on the Charest committee with our chairman Mr. Charest and a number of my other colleagues. We criss-crossed the countiy, consulting with people. I felt that in a time of great challenge we demonstrated some leadership and the spirit of compromise, but our advice was not heeded. The particular process we engaged in was pretty conciliatory. It is not that we agreed on everything.
I think there is a lot to be learned from engaging in this kind of work as parliamentarians and legislators. We get to know the people and their concerns, and there are some very diverging views across this country that are difficult to reconcile with the best of expertise or any legal body of opinion that exists out there.
I must say we demonstrated that we could agree because we have come to some consensus on a number of very difficult issues. We were charged with the responsibility of responding to the New Brunswick resolutions and I guess ours was to pick and choose. The picking and choosing, although there was a list of recommendations, were not the simplest things to do because of the diversity that exists and because when you are dealing with the heart and matter of a country it is generally the extreme that tends to prevail. There were some very differing opinions on that committee, but from my experience I would say that anything dealing with the future of this country is worth engaging in.
I have a number of concerns. With regard to representation on the committee, I would like to see greater gender equality, I would like to see a far greater role for women, I would like to sec a far greater role for
Government Orders
aboriginal people and I would like to see equitable participation. Participation has to be that they are equal partners in all of the negotiations and all of the consultations regarding what exactly goes into the body and the preamble of the Constitution in the end.
There are a number of issues which have to be dealt with in terms of the Northwest Territories and in terms of the aboriginal peoples. If we talk about equitable participation, we need to know that any of the other activities that prevail at this time will essentially not undermine or usurp the whole essence of the kind of role that, for instance, the two government leaders of the Northwest Territories play in forging ahead with a constitutional agenda that spells equality for all Canadians, including the northern people and the aboriginal people.
Our aboriginal leaders are elected leaders. They also have to be present at the table and they have to be equal partners in these negotiations. Gone are the times when we can ignore the voices of aboriginal people and the disaffected regions of this country. This is not a Constitution for one region of this country. This is a Constitution for the whole of this country and every Canadian must have a part of it.
We talk about the Americans many times. It amazes me because in my travels to Central America and to the Middle East last summer, I came in contact with Americans who talk about their constitution as if it were a part of their skin and a part of their flesh. It should not be the responsibility of a select group of individuals who would disaffect the rest of the nation to change the Constitution, to make fundamental amendments to the Constitution. My concern has to do with the participation of these two particular leadership regimes. We have elected a new leader for the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Mercredi. I am sure that Mr. Mercredi sees a role for himself, as well as his representation on behalf of 600 chiefs in any kind of constitutional amendments that are going to take place.
The other thing that I see specifically is that the north, because it is not yet a province, is looking for a basis of equality. It is looking for equality in terms of how it participates and equality in terms of how its substantive issues are dealt with.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
It has been agreed in principle that the north will be divided some day into two separate areas, one being Nunavut and the other being a separate territory which might go by another name.
In doing that, we may eventually opt for becoming a province. If the Northwest Territories does become a province, it is felt by all northerners and by our leaders that we should have the equality and the fairness that was afforded to all other provinces. All the other provinces, pre-1982, were created with bilateral negotiation directly between the particular applicant and the Government of Canada and we feel that is what should prevail.
We also feel strongly that if there are going to be any changes of the boundaries of the two territories, the territories have to be consulted and the pre-1982 conditions thereto also have to prevail.
We look in the aboriginal constitutional agenda and we see a complete forging of opinion last week when we elected a new leader that aboriginal people do want to see the inherent right to self government entrenched in the Constitution. This fundamental move is not one which would allow for a continuing succession of laws that either oppress or suppress the rights of these people. What this would do is replace an archaic way of dealing with the rights of aboriginal people.
I guess the most formidable aspect of the inherent right would be the inherency. What does it mean? Canadians want to know what it means. Essentially what it means is that you give the people a right to carve out their own future and to eke out their own destiny. You give the people the right to make their own mistakes or to make good for themselves, politically and otherwise. We are talking about political power and political representation.
We also want to talk about the provisions afforded to other Canadians within the Constitution. If there are going to be provisions on the basis of culture and linguistics, we want to have our languages. There are 53 aboriginal languages, only three of which are not threatened: Inuktitut, Ojibway and Cree. All these other languages are indigenous to this country. Once they disappear, there is no way of repatriating or rejuvenating
those languages elsewhere in other countries. We cannot go to another land and retrieve those languages.
There have been many suggestions in the area of the preservation of language and culture for which aboriginal people have been excluded. They are not part of negotiation for our cultural industries or cultural properties in the free trade agreement. This has to be considered and I think these are the kinds of things that aboriginal people have concerns about.
The other aspect is that aboriginal people want to be part of the First Ministers' Conferences. I believe that there is some movement and some receptivity to the whole idea of reinstating the original agreement of the Government of Canada, I think it is section 37(1), which affirms that their right to this round of negotiation would be reinstated.
There is some receptivity to that whole idea. That is yet to be brought out in forthcoming reports and whatnot. I have no idea whether that is the case, but I believe with the amount of negotiations, consultations and expert representation that we get from our elected leadership in the aboriginal community, that has been brought out very clearly by the aboriginal leadership.
The other thing that I think is quite interesting is that we have perpetuated the whole mythology of two founding nations. I was at the Assembly of First Nations leadership convention and there it was put to rest that this is not the way that Canada should be perceived historically. We are not co-founders, we are the first peoples of this country and this is the way that Canadian history has to be reflected. If there are going to be future constitutional negotiations, this has to be given paramount consideration.
I guess one of the more dangerous aspects of constitutional dealings are the kinds of words and the kinds of phraseologies that are employed. What happens here is when you use a certain phrase like "two founding nations" you are bound to exclude someone. I think these are the sensitivities that have to be employed when we are going to appoint a joint Senate and House of Parliament committee. The Northwest Territories is an area which best reflects the tolerance that we are known for as Canadians. In the Northwest Territories there are eight official languages. Along with French and English there are the aboriginal languages which are deemed official. If you get on an airline in the Northwest
June 18, 1991

Territories you will be provided the safety instructions in the various aboriginal languages.
You can go into a hotel and look at the bar of soap and all the toiletries offered and they are all done in syllabics in Inuktitut. I believe we set an example. There is tolerance there. There is acceptance of diversity. I think the people who come forward from our part of the world demonstrate that we are not tunnel visioned, we are not closed-minded, we do not exclude other Canadians. We keep the doors open and prove that we have the ingenious creativity to be able to allow room for everyone in Canada.
We do not predicate our constitutional dealings on the basis of being single-focused, on the basis of being intolerant. We are flexible. We understand that the whole political end of the constitutional reform process is one of the art of the possible. The art of the possible includes an element of compromise. We understand that.
The one fundamental exception which must prevail is that we cannot ignore the rights of northerners. We have to include northern leaders on an even and equitable basis with all of the other leaders across this country in dealing with the Constitution. We have to allow for the political aspirations of the north. There has to be dialogue. We cannot let things like the royal commission-it is a very good idea which I support and will be one of the tools to, perhaps, providing one building block for a new relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal people.
We must not allow that to supersede bilateral negotiations between our elected aboriginal leaders or any kind of negotiations with the north. There have to be provisions for both. I think there is room for both. There are a number of issues that can unite us, not just our linguistic aspirations or our linguistic goals and priorities. If that was the case, why do we not have an aboriginal language foundation?
There is a lot of symbolism in telling people that the language which is indigenous to your people and to your country is important, it is you, it is how you communicate. It is your psyche, it is your psychology. It is the heart of your people. That is very important. Why has that not been done. That can be done outside the realm of the Constitution.
These are things which would symbolically ease a lot of the tension and frustration that is there.
Government Orders
Having said that, I believe that there are a number of concerns. We have concerns about the inherent right to self-government. We also have concerns about the whole issue of extinguishment. Aboriginal people feel that they are people who keep their word.
They have agreements. They have engaged in treaties. They have engaged in a number of specific and unique arrangements with governments, with the Queen in previous years through the Royal Proclamation. There are specific arrangements that they have honoured and they feel they are people of their word.
They feel that major, comprehensive land claims, given a good deal and a fair shake concerning the compensation and land base they get, is good enough to guarantee certainty. Certainty can be had with the kind of treatment you give a people, with the kind of fairness within the process. You do not need to extinguish aboriginal title to ensure certainty. That is a mythology. It is the wrong way to go at it.
For years and years it was the aboriginal people of this country and the northerners who have been willing to share their land, who have not hoarded the resources of the land, who have given access. Now we come to a point where they have not benefited economically. They have been marginalized.
We look at the whole issue of political representation. We are now in a situation where we are putting forward an all-party proposal to have aboriginal electoral districts which would perhaps produce nine members of Parliament from the aboriginal community.
This proposal is not to make aboriginal MPs special or give them special status, but to remove the structural barriers that are there. The Indian Act was a suppres-sionist document which would not allow aboriginal people to vote until 1961. These are the things which have happened and which we have to change and make even.
One of the ways in which we can measure the equality of a people is by their socio-economic status. Let me give one figure that is rather glaring. In my community only 5 per cent of aboriginal students make it out of high school. That is a very, very abysmal figure. There are some places across Canada where non-aboriginal communities say: "Well you are tax exempt. You guys have a lot of money because you hoard money". However, when you live on a reserve with 90 per cent unemployment, what good is the tax exemption, especially when there is

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
another tax which you are not exempt from, namely the GST.
There are conflicting ideas out there that basically are misrepresentations of the facts. There are attempts by members of Parliament from all parties to provide an equitable basis, to give a fair shake to the people that need it most. I think the senior citizens of this country are ones to be reckoned with. They have had a share in the building of this country.
In a sense, we have been fighting the constitutional battle since 1982 and before that. This has produced this malaise and a psychology among our young people which provides for very little hope. We have to go out there and reinstil that confidence and hope in our young people so they can quit internalizing the anger and the frustration they feel because of the hopelessness they feel concerning this country.
We have a beautiful country. I, as a member of Parliament, am proud to be a citizen of this country, to come from the place that I come from and to come from the aboriginal people with 600 strong leaders, chiefs, across this country who have the ingenuity to work with different levels of government under a great deal of tension, challenge and frustration.
I just want to say that we need to put hope back into the minds and hearts of the people of this country. I guess the people I feel strongly about are the disabled, the aboriginal people, women-there has to be gender equality as women are 52 per cent of the population of this country-and senior citizens of this country. I pay tribute to them because they built this country. I think it is up to us to maintain all those priorities which were laid out when we walk in the footsteps of those great people.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest, as I always do when my colleague speaks because when she speaks there is usually a lesson to be learned.
I guess I come with almost a cloak of cynicism and I do not really want to have it. The role of Parliament is to consult, it is to be constructive and it is to try to put into legislation instruments which will continue to allow this country to grow and be great and to allow those, particularly those who are most disenfranchised from the
system, to find ways to participate to the fullness of their potential.
However, something struck me in the speech. This resolution talks a great deal about who has to be included. I guess the reason I say a bit of cynicism is that we are all guilty of creating that cynicism. The aboriginal communities in Canada total somewhere over one million individuals. That is more than the population of the province of Nova Scotia. It is more than the population certainly of P.E.I., New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and perhaps equal to some of the western provinces. Yet, here we are in 1991 discussing whether we have the wherewithal to keep this country together.
We are striking a committee of necessity to go, once again, and listen to Canadians. I want to ask my hon. colleague, in particular, about dealing with the aboriginal communities across Canada. Consultation is wonderful, it is a great thing, but consultation is no good unless we listen and unless what we glean from the consultation actually finds its way into the process, those structures that I talked about that make this country better and allow people to fully participate.
Can my colleague fill me in and perhaps take a little bit of the cynicism away from me that I feel, particularly tonight, in this House, on this motion? The aboriginal community has been dealt with very unfairly over many decades by Canadian citizens and by respective governments. They have been consulted before, but they have not been listened to. She mentions that it was 1961 before they were allowed to vote and participate. They are the first citizens of this country, yet we denied them that basic democratic right of which they have a great history and a great tradition.
What makes this committee different? Aboriginal communities have been promised consultation before. We have a royal commission. We have a House of Commons committee that has looked at the amending formula. We have the Spicer committee. We have had everybody out asking and I wonder if that particular community still has the faith that it will be listened to and that, finally, its voices and concerns will find their way into constructive changes to our society and particularly to our Constitution? Does she believe that those communities believe that this process will be any different than other ones that we have all participated in?
June 18, 1991


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing forward his concerns and the questions about why it is that aboriginal people would feel that such a process would bring any different results than the numerous attempts that there have been at constitutional reform and amendments.
My feeling and my belief is that after our experience at the failure of Meech, the government has had to re-examine, not only the process, but the substance of what has been debated in terms of the Constitution. Not only that, but there has been an emerging sense of urgency among the aboriginal population out there. We cannot have a country in which they are the first peoples where they, essentially, will be carved out of the Constitution.
The aboriginal population wants to feel, and does feel, that they have emerged over the last 20 years into the strongest kind of leadership which is a combination of education, experience and political moxie. We have out there 600 chiefs who are to be reckoned with. We have out there the various locals of the Metis who are to be dealt with.
We have a strong group in Manitoba. The Manitoba Metis Federation has people in it who will not allow another constitutional process to go by which would exclude them and which would not deal with their issues. The Metis, for instance, are adamant that they are going to get recognition in section 35. That will be part of their constitutional agenda.
There is a different wind blowing out there now. It is not the hot winds of Oka in 1990. It is a warm, gentle wind that is giving a velvet tap on the back of Canadian politicians saying: "Listen, there is another regime of leadership out here and it is the leadership of the first nations". We elected a new leader and that leader has something that was not there till recently, that is, a unified, complete group of people which believes that solidarity is going to be the quality or component that puts it over the edge in terms of what it can achieve. Also, there has been a real delineation of fundamental issues. These people are not talking about a proliferation of details. What they are speaking about is their political aspirations, their political representations and their inherent right to self-government being entrenched in the Constitution. Their culture and their languages have to be recognized.
Government Orders
They have every faith in themselves, more than they do in anyone else. It would be up to them to guarantee that there is a rightful place for their children and their grandchildren in this country. In fact, I give my complete trust to those people, to guarantee that there is a role for our children and for the future of our people in this country. We are going to find our rightful place within Confederation, not because we do not have a place, but because it has not been recognized, and that will not happen again.
The cynicism that my colleague feels is one that aboriginal people are very experienced with. Frustration, intolerance and, at times, embitterment have consumed a great many people who are trying to deal with some challenging issues. But you know, we are people of hope. We are a people, I think, of the future of this country. We believe that we have some of the best leadership in this country, and if we support them, they will come forward. They are very clear about their message and where we stand in this country and I give them my complete trust.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is a difficult challenge to follow my colleague and my good friend. She speaks with so much conviction, and she speaks from the heart.
I do believe, like she does, that we are dealing with a question of leadership. I think there is a lack of leadership on the part of some of our political leaders. Before I get into my remarks, I think it is appropriate to set it in context.
We are dealing with a subamendment presented by a member of the government, the member for the riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury. It is a subamendment to the amendment put by the member from Papineau. The amendment put by the member for Papineau would, in our view, improve the motion before the Flouse. I would just like to state and situate the comments I am going to be making, by referring to the subamendment and the amendment.
First, I will deal with the amendment, because I think it is appropriately situated. We wanted to do three things. We wanted to increase the numbers of members of Parliament on the committee from the motion's proposal of 15 members of the House and 10 Senators, to 20 members of the House.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Second, we wanted to make sure that there were funds available to the opposition parties so that they can hire research advisers and experts in the field who will give us the needed support in committee.
Third, we believe sincerely that there is an urgent situation here and that the emergency is such that the committee should come forward with a report by the end of this year, that is, December 31, instead of the proposed date of February 28, 1992.
The effect of the subamendment by the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury would be to eliminate from the amendment the date of December 31, 1991. I take it that since he is a government member, there is some sympathy on the government side of the Flouse for the two proposals of increasing the number of members of Parliament on the committee, and second, to allocate certain funds to the opposition parties to allow them to hire appropriate research and professional staff.
Having said that, I think this motion should be adopted. I do not share the view of the New Democratic Party that we should vote against this motion. I believe there is enough in this motion to allow for compromise and enough in the motion to give all Canadians a process which I think would be acceptable.
I just want to point out a few paragraphs on page 18 of today's Order Paper dealing with the motion.
That the Committee develop procedures to ensure aboriginal peoples participate fully in the development of the Government of Canada's plan for a renewed Canada and, in particular, on issues of special interest to them;
I think that is essential.
That the Committee be authorized to put in place mechanisms designed to encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals and groups of Canadians;
That, I think, is innovative and interesting.
That the Committee be empowered to retain the service of professional -
-and so on.
The addition of 10 senators, who are part of Parliament, is correct. Whether the NDP wants to recognize it or not, the Senate is still part of the Canadian parliamentary institution. What I have heard today from the member for Yorkton-Melville is a hard line by the NDP saying, in other words: "If we do not have our way it will be no way". They insist on having a constituent assembly.
I will address that point later in my remarks as I think it is an important tool, an important mechanism that could be used, but it is not in this motion. There are suggestions that similar structures could be put in place, mechanisms designed to encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals and groups of Canadians.
It could be a task force, it could be a panel, it could be a constituent assembly of some sort, but the motion gives the committee the authorization to do that and I do not understand why the NDP, if I heard it correctly this afternoon, is going to vote against the motion, because in this motion there is no provision for the words "constituent assembly".
I do not understand and I will, perhaps, want to hear further from them as to what their position is.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in our history, Canadians cannot afford to be lazy, passive or indifferent. They cannot afford to be neutral. We cannot be neutral when our country's future is at stake. We must take a position and make that position known, so we will not be left out of the current process. For obvious reasons, and I want to make this clear right away, my personal option is for a federal Canada, an improved, strengthened and possibly modified federal formula.
Mr. Speaker, the government referred to this special joint committee in the Speech from the Throne. The committee will be asked to analyse the findings of the Spicer Commission, which will report next week, and of the Beaudoin-Edwards Commission, which I believe is to report very shortly. The parliamentary committee we are discussing today, which will be appointed once the motion is passed, will meet the legislative committees of the provinces and territories, native groups and other individuals and other groups, as appropriate, to discuss with them the future of our country. It will a parliamentary task force with a government majority. I realize that.
Mr. Speaker, they were elected on November 21,1988; Mr. Speaker, they were elected on November 21, 1988. They legitimately form the majority. The people of Canada have spoken.
The question was debated in eight provinces, Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly. I will list them here. As
June 18, 1991

I said earlier, there was the Spicer Commission and the Beaudoin-Edwards. There was also the Silipo Commission in Ontario, whose report is forthcoming; the Belanger-Campeau Commission in Quebec, whose report we all know; the Horsman Commission in Alberta; the British Colombia Cabinet Committee on Confederation; the Manitoban Task Force on the Constitution; the New Brunswick Commission on Canadian Federalism; and as recently as last week, another report was talbed, entitled the Report of the Group of 22, which outlined some practical suggestions for Canada. This report was put together by a group of distinguished Canadians, including former politicians, administrators and businessmen. I have read this report, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting.
Now, the establishment of this parliamentary committee we are now considering will have to deal with all these people who have been examining the issue to get a good understanding of the problems involved and, hopefully, find solutions. After all, Mr. Speaker, this country deserves that we make every effort to find a solution, or solutions, to our problem-because we do have a problem, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I heard people say: "We remember Meech and we do not want to make the same mistake again." I know full well that there are members in this very House who think that the Meech Accord was defeated, abandoned or rejected, whatever, because of its content. Well, I am sorry to say they are wrong. In my riding, people had mixed feelings about Meech, feelings they wanted to share and they were not given the chance to express them, Mr. Speaker, to improve the proposal. That is why the people became somewhat cynical about politics and the process underway and finally rejected the proposal.
In the proposals the government will come up with or will put forward by September, I hope we will find suggestions that will be debated, amended, changed and worked on and finally come back to the House on February 28, when the report is tabled, so that all of us here and in the other place can peruse it and stay abreast of what is happening, because, whether we like it or not, for the time being, the Canadian Constitution cannot be amended without unanimous consent on such important issues as the Constitution.
Government Orders
So, once the Parliament of Canada has debated the issue and the provinces have had the chance to do the same, Mr. Speaker, if everyone agrees, the Constitution will then be amended.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering ways of consulting the Canadian people. I do not want to get into the substance of the bill and deal with the program per se. The position of the Liberal Party was clearly stated earlier today, around lunchtime, by the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, with our nine points proposal regarding possible amendments. I would simply want to take whatever little time I have left to touch on the two processes involved here. We heard a lot about a constituent assembly today.
We could also mention-and I have done so today- the binding and non binding consultations. I am one of those who are still hesitant but have finally come to accept that a referendum could be held to ratify the decision that will be made by Canadians next year.
I would like to get back to the process. I believe that a constituent assembly is normally used specifically to rebuild a society. According to the few books that I have read on the subject, a constituent assembly is usually made up so as to represent the whole society. The constituent assembly convenes to draft the integral text of a constitution, or an amendment to the existing constitution.
Mr. Speaker, in France they even have a building that is only used for a constituent assembly when there is talk of setting up one of those. As we know, there have been several republics, and each time there was a constitutional reform, they had a constituent assembly. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that they have not used referendums in France; they have done so. It is a tool which is used but, often to their disarray, the governments lose those referendums.
Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked a question about referendums, because everybody knows that in 1981-1982,1 was one of those opposed to a referendum on the patriation of the Constitution, the enshrinment of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on. Mr. Speaker, I was convinced that this was the wrong tool and I said it many times in this House.
However, today I am a little more inclined to think that referendums can be used under certain conditions. This afternoon, I have put those conditions to you. The question must be simple, clear and concise; it must not

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
limit any right; it must have the approval of all political parties; and, finally, it must be subjected to the double majority. These might be difficult and strict conditions, but I believe that referendums present very high risks.
When I said that you had to have a winning referendum, some media representatives laughed. They said: Isn't that funny! Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not hold a referendum if you know that you are going to lose it. Therefore, if we use a referendum for ratification purposes, for obtaining a national consensus, we must make sure that we stand a real chance of winning it.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk about the constituent assembly. Quebec has said that it will not participate in such an assembly. Indeed, the government of that province has clearly indicated that it would not participate. Others-I heard it in this House-others have expectations, great expectations which, in my opinion, far exceed the potential of these constituent assemblies.
To my knowledge, the constituent assembly is not part of the constitution of any democratic government. It has been used, as I said a moment ago, and I can give you the dates, in 1787 in the United States, in 1848 in Switzerland, in India, in Pakistan, and of course in France. But it has been used only for the purpose of drafting a new constitution following a civil war, a declaration of independence or some traumatic events.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are not there yet. We have before us a proposal aimed at setting up a parliamentary commission made up, I hope, of 20 members of Parliament and 10 senators. These 30 individuals will have to consult with provincial and territorial legislatures, interest groups, aboriginal peoples, French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, Mr. Speaker, who have changed their name last week-end and now call themselves the French and Acadian Communities of Canada. Their Federation held a big convention in Ottawa and they decided to change their name. I am glad, because I like to be identified first as a Canadian, not as a French-speaking citizen living outside Quebec. I was born in Ontario and I do not like to be identified in relation to Quebec. I am first a Canadian, but I happen to speak French. What can I say, that is my mother tongue, the language I learned when I was a kid, and I still use it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with these words, since I see you are telling me I have but a few minutes left. We will have to compromise. I invite the New Democratic Party to reconsider its position, because we need unanimous consent in this House to create a parliamentary committee to consult with all Canadians so that we can find a solution. Voting against the motion will do nothing to help push forward the constitutional issue, to renew our Constitution, and to protect our interests, which we all want to do, at least, I hope so. We hope the NDP will support the motion. If not, we will be at a dead lock because of partisanship. Mr. Speaker, I beg the New Democratic Party not to make a partisan issue out of this debate. Make it a Canadian issue, not a partisan issue. From the tone of the debate today, I am afraid there will be a lot of dissension in the House along political lines on grounds which I find totally unacceptable and that is unfortunate.


Philip Edmonston: I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier just said. He asked many questions to the New Democratic Party. As an NDPer for Quebec, perhaps I could answer his questions.
First, he referred to our proposition to create a constituent assembly and he asked if this was not just partisanship on our part. I would like to tell the member for Ottawa-Vanier that I attended an NDP caucus meeting and I can assure him that if we demand a constituent assembly or an enlarged parliamentary commission, it is not for partisan considerations, it is mainly because we want to give Canadians a hope that they too can be part of the process.
I would like to say that the way we see things is that people will participate to an enlarged commission, like the Commission Belanger-Campeau, which by the way was an excellent commission. Unfortunately, no New Democrat was able to sit on that commission. Nevertheless, I am not going to moan like the Bloc Quebecois. I have accepted the fact. I thought perhaps it was normal since the number of seats was limited. The Belanger Commission has done a very good job. When I hear members of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party say
June 18, 1991

that a constituent assembly cannot work, I say it's not true. We have had evidence of this a few months ago in Quebec, and I am very proud of that.
Also because my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier is a lawyer, I guess.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.


Philip Edmonston: You are not a lawyer? In that case, I am very happy.
When I was a member of the Barreau du Quebec, we used the expression audi alteram partem, which means: Listen to the other side, or let people be represented. This means you should not accuse people or take any decision in their absence.
The reason for a constituent assembly is not only to consult people, to ask them information, but to have them as partners in order to seek a solution together.

I would just like to add that as a Quebecer myself, I have seen how a constituent assembly can work with the Belanger-Campeau commission. I was very proud of that commission. I thought we did some good work. I think that we did not do as much good work when we started playing politics with the commission, and I do not want to see politics played with the Constitution and the federal scene.
That is why I, as much as my hon. colleague, would implore the NDP to compromise and not ask for a constituent assembly or constituent commission. I would remind my colleague that we are not looking for a confrontation. We would compromise if we could. There is a difference between compromise and capitulation. What he is calling for is capitulation.
With the amendment of the Liberal Party to the motion, essentially they are playing around with the fringe of this committee: "Increase it from 15 to 20, give some research funds and have a report two or three months earlier, and we the Liberals will be happy and everyone else will be happy". That is not the way it is.
Presently there is a leadership crisis. We need to have parliamentarians inside this committee. When you tell me 15 parliamentarians and 10 unelected senators are going to be calling the shots with a few panels for the aboriginals and the first nations, that is not the way to work toward a constitution. We know that.
Government Orders
I will just remind my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier once again, if we believe in democracy, that all the briefs that were presented before the Edwards-Beaudoin commission, more than 150, called for a constituent assembly and about 20 some did not. If we believe in democracy and listening to the people, then let the people decide. I think those who have passed before the commission have decided. To say otherwise, as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier says, that we do not go with a constituent assembly, is to me the sum of arrogance and elitism.
I am not surprised to find both the Conservatives and the Liberals in the same boat.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a way of showing a kind of Freudian slip. The member referred to the committee as having 15 parliamentarians and 10 senators, non-elected.
I would remind him that the senators happen to be parliamentarians. He must understand that. We have a structure here, a bicameral operation. It is called the House of Commons and the Senate. That is Parliament. The NDP always seems to want to get around that by making claims that the senators are not parliamentarians.
I regret that I have some friends and enemies there. I do not ever want to go there, but I would suspect that the NDP should learn that Parliament is both Houses of Parliament: the House and the Senate.

I think that the hon. member's comments show that he should read again the motion before us. It is rather clear. In both official languages it is quite straightforward. When he tells me that solutions have to be found, that we must take advantage of the expertise that we have and also call on every willing person, I ask him to read again the following section:
That the Committee be authorized to put in place mechanisms
designed to encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals
and groups of Canadians;
Mr. Speaker, we have there everything to create, put in place and add structures which could satisfy the NDP who want a larger consultation. We could have panels, task forces, study committees which could be an integral part of this group of parliamentarians and which could hear Canadians on this important issue.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Well, I remind them that the simple fact of opposing the motion-I think I heard the official spokesperson for that party say that they would vote against it, because it is not a constituent assembly-is not good enough. I tell them, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot understand that they refuse to make any compromise, that they cannot take a more reasonable position which would give Canadians a chance to make their opinions known.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening. In fact I am honoured to do so.
The Constitution of our country goes to the very essence of how we view our country. I am saddened, however, and even somewhat embittered that we have to oppose this government's proposal.
There are two reasons why we are going to be opposing this resolution of the government. First is timing and second is the composition of the committee. Let me first address the timing.
As a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, we were reassured on many occasions that the government would not pre-empt the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, nor would it pre-empt the Spicer commission report. These are committees established by this government, the time frames of which were established by this government.
I have some quotes. On May 15 of this year the Prime Minister, in response to a question in the House, said: "We want to be consistent. We should wait until the reports on these massive consultations have been tabled before proceeding with a government initiative".
On May 17 the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs said: "I have no intention of judging the Beaudoin-Edwards committee report before it is received, and I have no intention of rejecting the suggestions it may contain".
The timing is a bit curious. If the timing has suddenly become inconvenient at this time and if this government refuses to listen to what these reports have to say, then what confidence can we have that it will listen to the next committee?
The second point, and the main thrust of my argument tonight, is regarding the composition of this committee: 15 members of Parliament and 10 senators. I have two words for that. It is "an insult". As a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, I speak from personal experience. At the outset of our hearings I was not convinced that a constituent assembly was the way to go, although my party had advocated this as early as last summer. I too was concerned with many of the arguments being put forth from both the government and the Liberals that a constituent assembly would further denigrate our parliamentary system. As an elected member of Parliament who has a lot of respect for our parliamentary system, I did not want to contribute to that further denigration of our parliamentary system; it is too fragile.
On the Beaudoin-Edwards committee we heard a lot about what is wrong with our country and about the enormous challenges which we face constitutionally. I will give some examples: first, the whole division of powers, particularly with my interest in the environment, the jurisdictional disputes that we have been embroiled in on the environmental stage in our country. Second is the relationship with the aboriginal peoples. We just have to look back to last summer to know how fundamental that question is and how we must address it. Third is the relationship with Quebec.
These are just some of the agenda items which the next phase of the constitutional debate must address.
As I said, we heard much of what is wrong with our country. We saw much of what is right. As someone who was patriotic before becoming a member of Parliament, I can tell you my experience on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee has reinforced that patriotism. It has strengthened that patriotism. It has given a whole new definition of what patriotism is.
We saw a land of breath-taking beauty, of awesome diversity. We also saw so-called ordinary Canadians, I call them extraordinary Canadians, grappling with these very complex issues. They were an inspiration. The majority of the witnesses who came before us advocated a constituent assembly. They gave me the confidence that this new device, this dramatic departure, could
June 18, 1991

provide a way of giving us a credible process where we had none in the past.
On the antagonisms we heard so much about, which exist in our country against aboriginal people and against Quebec, I did not see those in many instances at all of those hearings and on those many long days. What I did see consistently was antagonism to politicians. People do not trust us, and with good reason.
The process which we have here has not addressed our constitutional malaise. Why do we not see it? Why do we not realize that we must have the courage to try a new way? I now believe that a constituent assembly must be made up not only of elected politicians. I respect elected politicians, some of them, most of them, but it should also include the public.
This blending of that much maligned public with the elected politicians in our country would not denigrate our parliamentary process, it would reinforce it. This is what this government and the Liberals do not seem to be able to grasp.
The government's proposal is unwilling to invite unelected Canadians to participate in the recreation of Canada unless they happen to be unelected Canadians appointed to the Senate from either the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party.
Do you not see the irony of saying that you are standing up for elected politicians when you are willing to have ten unelected political hacks included on that committee? I think that the people of Canada can certainly see the irony in that if it escapes the members opposite and the members from the Liberal Party.
It is not just the government that thinks this way. This morning the hon. member for Papineau in his remarks in this debate referred to the concept of a constituent assembly as a flight of fancy. Such arrogance is not new to Liberals and Conservatives but it is particularly offensive at a time when all politicians are being tarred with the same brush.
I wish to dissociate myself completely with such a condescending position. We must have a new way. We must have a process in which all people across the country can see themselves reflected. Obviously they now do not see themselves reflected in the government
Government Orders
or Parliament. We need a credible process. We must find a way to restore the confidence of the people in the institutions which govern them.
I have news for the old parties. Our institutions cannot be saved by ignoring the people who put us here. All we will do is further erode the public trust. Canadians want politicians to clean up the mess that politicians have created.
The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives want to criss-cross this country one more time and then return to the safety of Ottawa to close the doors on reality and issue a report which in no way reflects the public mood.
New Democrats say the time is long past for a new approach, one which includes Canadians, not excludes them.
It is a time for courage. The situation demands courage and this is why we oppose this motion. This is not a courageous motion. This is an entrenchment of old ways demonstrated by both the government and by the Liberals. It is a demonstration of intransigent thinking.
We must have a new approach. We must have the confidence in the people of Canada that they will do the same as I did, take the problems before them and find a solution. On the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, I had the courage to change my mind on a constituent assembly. I hoped the government would do the same.
In conclusion, I want to say that Canada is not as fragile as some would have us think. It is a strong and vibrant land with strong and vibrant people. It has survived many, many things in the past. It may even survive another parliamentary committee examining the Constitution.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the NDP talking the way they do today. Two years ago, they criticized the way Quebec had been treated in 1982 by Trudeau, Chretien and Ouellet, who signed and imposed a Constitution without the assent of Quebec. And today, these same people from the New Democratic Party who, obviously, have absolutely no knowledge of what is going on in Quebec, these same people propose a constituent

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
assembly without the Quebec National Assembly being part of it. They propose the same thing as the Liberals did in 1982 and which led to the constitutional crisis that we are in. These people say publicly and try to lead Canadians to believe that they want to help save Canada. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they are saving Canada, but it is going to be their own Canada, because Quebec will then be elsewhere, Quebec will then be a sovereign country.
I might even ask them to continue in that way. They help Quebecers understand that this country does not make any sense, which does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that English Canada does not also have a right to its own country. An English Canada looking like the NDP, that is fine with me, but they should never lead Quebecers to believe that they represent them, when they try to give them a repeat of the coup de force they did in 1982.
So, I ask them: how do they think they could sell that message to Quebecers today? Show the real face of the NDP to Quebec! I also ask the member for Chambly to go and explain to Quebecers this new vision of Canada that excludes Quebec.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would be only too happy to. I think that having had the experience of visiting Quebec City for the first time during this Beaudoin-Ed-wards trip and seeing the beauty of that place and listening to the very moving testimony of the witnesses from Quebec, one rings in my ears. That was the witness who said: "Bourassa does not own Quebec, nor does Parizeau own Quebec. We want a voice in the constituent assembly of Canada".
It is the old way, the old politicians which brought wrath on the heads of Quebec. We want to open up the process to get the elites out of control. The Bloc Quebecois, on its high horse and in its own parochial way, thinks it is the only one that can speak for Quebec. They do not speak for Quebec. I know that now because I heard the voice of Quebec in Quebec City.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I wanted to ask a question of the member to clarify her point of view on that very issue of Quebec. But I think
her answer is very clear and I am not going to ask a question.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the hon. member right now. I prefer to wait, maybe I will do so later.
But I want to ask a question of my colleague. I listened to her speech and I am pleased that she could see the real picture of Quebec while she was there. I realize also that there are a lot of people who are speaking up loud and clear for Quebec, and it is not only the Liberals who are doing it, nor the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, or the Conservatives. There are a lot of people who do not belong to any of these political parties but who still want a certain logic, a Parliament in which they can believe.
The question I want to ask my colleague is as follows: keeping into account the work done by the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, what are the main reasons that pushed her to change her mind on the constituant assembly, and why was she originally for or against it?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chambly for that question. It is a good one. I think that having seen and heard the voices of Canadians during that process, I trust Canadians. I wish that the government and the Liberals would trust them as I have learned to trust them. I think that we should have confidence in the people who send us to this wonderful place, and I wish that the government and the Liberals would trust them the way we have learned to do so.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I heard today the spokesperson for the NDP tell us that the NDP would vote against this motion. I understand that she is very upset with the process and I want to ask her if this motion is carried or passed by this House, will the NDP participate in the process?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, we will be holding caucus discussions on that very issue tomorrow morning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.
June 18, 1991


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken today but not on debate. I asked a few questions.
I would like to speak on the motion mainly because I think the question of a constituent assembly is a very important one and we have had a lot of things bandied about here today as to whether we should have a constituent assembly or not. I cannot vote for the motion without the provision for a constituent assembly.
As a parliamentarian, to exclude the public in the way that this motion does I find is arrogant and wrong.
I read a newspaper report about the Leader of the Opposition where he says: "A constituent assembly? Nobody knows what it is, how long it will take, who will be on that, will they be elected or not elected." He explained that they had one in Australia that was a great success. They debated for 13 years and reported nothing.
Well, you can have a constituent assembly that does more than nothing and, as I said before, I believe the Belanger-Campeau commission in Quebec did a great deal. I think it pretty well outlined what are the choices facing Quebecers. I was quite proud to be a Quebecer, as I am now of course, but to be in Quebec at the time that the Belanger-Campeau commission held its hearings.
I find that when you are looking at setting a commission up to study a problem as complicated and as important to a country as a Constitution is, you need to have members of that commission or that committee who are not just parliamentarians, but who are representative of the unelected.
When I am talking about the unelected, I am not talking about unclected senators. I look at the numbers we have here. We are looking at 15 plus 10. We are looking at 15 members of Parliament and 10 senators, for a total of 25. Now that is an insult to Canada because just Quebec by itself in the Belanger-Campeau commission had I believe 36 members.
Now I was impressed with the 36 members. We had members from the union side, members representing business and even representatives of the Equality Party if I am not mistaken. It was important to have all sides being heard. These are elected as well as unelected.
Government Orders
The thing here is that it worked well in Quebec, but this government does not seem to have confidence in Canadians sufficiently to the point where they would allow this to be done on a federal scale. Now that bothers me a great deal because I do not see what we would lose by having-hold on-a constituent committee or a constituent assembly in the sense of the Belanger-Campeau commission. What would we lose? The government could still try to find the best representatives of the diverse groups, unelected people but who are very good.
I was impressed by the Group of 22 which came out with a number of suggestions which were dealing primarily with decentralization, but they had their other suggestions as well which I felt, for unelected people, my god, these people were on to something. I really felt, as I feel right now, that if we can plug into Canadians and get this information, not only does the process get revitalized and democracy is well served, but we do get some good information and some things that we can deal with.
When you have people participating in this way, these are people who see the process working and then who believe in it. One of the problems with Meech Lake, and I think this is one time we should put one myth to bed, was that it was a process which appeared to be closed-door. I have heard often, these 11 men making the Constitution in a closed room one night, well that is not exactly the truth. This was really a lot of consultation over many years. This was not a closed door deal, but the perception-and we have said in politics that perception is reality-to the Canadian people was that it was. So that is what people believe it was.
If we were to have the perception as well as the reality of having an enlarged committee, as they did in Quebec, we would bring in these people. I know it will not be perfect. Who is a perfect representative for the native peoples, for women, for senior citizens and so forth, but we must make the effort, because to do otherwise we are selling ourselves short and we are certainly selling Canada short.
There are Canadians who want to participate.
I want to respond to what the Liberal member for Ottawa-Vanier said that the motion, as it stands right now, will do all of those things.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
The motion will bring in Canadians and the government will be able to talk to these representatives and get the information from them. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about members with power, powersharing, empowerment, people who are at the table and who are negotiating, who are talking about what they feel is important in a Constitution and have a direct say. They are not just to be patted on the head as someone who would be consulted and then told: "Okay, now go back to where you were because we are finished with you", but must have a direct say in the creation of a Constitution which is a Constitution for all the people of Canada. That is the perception and that is the reality that we want to create.
I believe that it would not be that difficult, as I said before. All we have to do is enlarge the parameters, all we have to do is add in the motion of the government a form of constituent assembly or a constituent committee. I am sure that we could seriously consider that. We just do not want people consulted in a very unserious manner, a manner where people would not really have any power whatsoever, where they would just be used and, I think to a certain degree, abused.
When examining the question of membership, the numbers of members on this committee, if we look at 15 elected parliamentarians, 10 unelected senators, we are really not dealing with that many people. When we are drafting rules for a Constitution, the Constitution that we are going to be living with for many, many years while at the same time trying to deal with the separatist threat from Quebec, we have to be more serious than just having 15 parliamentarians and 10 unelected senators.
I do not have a partisan objection to the Senate per se. I just feel that if we are going to have unelected people on it they should be people from the constituencies, people who have a certain amount of competence in their area of concern. I believe that, as we are talking more and more these days about decentralizing government services and decentralizing the way we deliver these services and the way we govern, it is a good way to show our good will to the people of Canada by asking them to be active participants on the committee.
I do not believe that choosing this pathway instead of what the government in its motion has chosen is going to cause the government a great deal of problems. I feel all the government side has to do, as I said before, is just amend its motion and just make some kind of an effort to
include a constituent committee. It must ensure that it is one with power and that it represents people from communities who have, as I said before, a particular competence in their area.
I want to respond to what my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier said about the NDP's failing to be on side or not being a team player. That affects me particularly because I can remember the same criticism when I was in the United States and I was against the war in Vietnam. I said I had reasons why I was against it. There is a kind of love it or leave it. You have to be a team player or you are off. I left it. I felt it was wrong.
I am not going to leave the debate here today. This debate is an essential one about democracy. It is about bringing the power to the people. On something that is as important as a Constitution-I cannot even believe I am here arguing in favour of a constituent assembly or a constituent committee, a kind of Belanger-Campeau enlarged, to a government composed of a large number of members from Quebec. I cannot believe that I have to tell them what they should know almost in a reflex manner. Yet, here I am saying: "We did it in Quebec". We do not have to be team players. All we have to do is expose the logic and the pragmatism of such a decision on the government's part. If it were to include a constituent assembly or a constituent committee, it would be very pragmatic.
I believe that through a constituent assembly we can bring in people from the Caisse Populaire, we can bring in people from the unions. In Quebec, particularly, we can bring in people from the grassroots who want to participate.
I do not believe for one minute that sovereignty is inevitable, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said earlier. I do not believe the separation of Quebec from Canada is inevitable.
I believe that, through including people from Quebec who are knowledgeable in their respective areas, we can deal with the question of the threat of separatism. That is the best way to deal with it. Not hollering insults here in the House or one party against the other or saying: "You have to play ball. You have to be on the team". This is not a team sport. We are talking about the future of our country. I am talking about a very pragmatic suggestion made by my party that we have a form of a constituent assembly or a constituent committee in order
June 18, 1991

to include Quebec, to include people who have never had a voice.
I am not talking about appealing to what I call the constitutional cottage industry of professionals who come before the committee and who oftentimes-I guess it is no longer publish or perish, I think it is testify before a committee or subcommittee or perish. I am not talking about these people, although there are many who are good and who are doing their job well. I am talking about the people who are not normally part of the power structure, who do not have a voice and who must have one.
In conclusion, do not mistake the position of the NDP for one of partisanship and do not mistake our motion as something which is going to be difficult to apply. It is not going to be difficult. It can be done. It is very pragmatic. It has been done in Quebec. We have seen the fruit of that. Just simply try. If you do not try and say: "Well, it is our way or no way", then you force us as a party to vote against your way because your way, in our humble opinion, is not the democratic way.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Chambly for having had the courage tonight to give his own personal opinion about the process that led to the negotiation and the signing of the Meech Lake Accord.
I know from first-hand experience that a lot of people have presented the signing of this accord and what happened subsequently as being something which happened between 11 men in a room. He has had the courage tonight to say that that is not true. I choose the word "courage" to describe his affirmation, because he is directly contradicting, as we all know in this House, the leader of his own party, the member for Yukon. She is one of the persons in this country who repeatedly propagates in her speeches and in different interventions the myth he has had the courage to confront and destroy tonight. I want to congratulate him for having had the courage to take on the leader of his own party in that respect. I think I agree with him. I know it is difficult for any member of Parliament to directly contradict on the
Government Orders
floor of the House of Commons most of the members of his or her own party and the leader of his own party.
I want to say that I disagree profoundly with him on what the concept of democracy should be in the case of a constituent assembly. I have heard members allude to the fact that there is some absence of legitimacy because a House of Commons committee is struck. I disagree with that. I fundamentally disagree with that. Members, by making that argument, diminish the importance of our basic institutions in our country, our democratic institutions.
The truth of the matter is that this Parliament and the members who sit in this Parliament, no matter what their leanings may be-and that includes the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party- have been democratically elected by the people of Canada to this institution. It is the basic democratic institution in our land out of which a parliamentary committee is formed, and members go on to do their work. That is the way the British parliamentary system has worked. It has worked successfully, and I think what we are undertaking to do through this committee is very much in line with that.
I have difficulty with the member's argument when he says that we can open up the process. I think he would recognize that at the end of the day, in the spirit of democracy and in recognition of the institutions that have served us so well and that are there now, it is the National Assembly of Quebec that speaks for the people of Quebec in the areas of jurisdiction which are now attributed to it.
If we are in some difficulty today, I would argue that it is because in 1982, when we patriated our Constitution, an argument was made that the government of the day in Quebec because it was a Parti Quebecois government was not a legitimate government and that for some reasoning the federal members of Parliament elected from Quebec spoke for the National Assembly in their areas of jurisdiction. I think that is the fundamental error that led to the constitutional difficulty we are in today.
Whatever the process may be, I think that at the end of the day members of this House have to recognize that it would be the National Assembly of Quebec that will

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
choose in which way it will proceed in the name of the people who elected its members.
Where I have some difficulty is that the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec have clearly said that they will not participate in a constituent assembly. The member may not like that, but to proceed otherwise would mean that they would eliminate from the process the province of Quebec. I cannot understand how he comes to that conclusion. He speaks of Belang-er-Campeau. Belanger-Campeau did not propose that the National Assembly or the province of Quebec participate in a national constituent assembly. Belanger-Campeau did not do that.
I ask the hon. member: How can he say that today when he knows very well that what he proposes would eliminate 25 per cent of Canada's population?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, in an editorial published in Le Devoir, Lise Bissonnette clearly states that Quebec is waiting for proposals from the rest of Canada. Now is the time for the rest of Canada, all of us, all the other provinces, to decide how we wish to change the Constitution and what proposals we can offer to Quebecers.
In her editorial, Lise Bissonnette says that Quebec is certainly waiting for us, the rest of Canada, to try to solve our problems together. After reading her editorial, I also agree that we must do just that. Let us see how we can improve the Constitution, how we can change the federal system so that Quebec could better fit in.
I see no problem with that. I also recall that, in 1981-1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, Quebec indeed suffered a coup de force, but do you remember who was among those who rejoiced most, who even congratulated Messrs. Chretien, Trudeau and company? Yes, Brian Mulroney. If one reads carefully the speech he delivered immediately after the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, one sees that Brian Mulroney was in the same boat as Chretien, Trudeau and company.
So, be careful when speaking of coup de force. I clearly remember that one. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I know it is always risky to offend or oppose one's leader. I will choose my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, I have said that perception is tantamount to reality.
According to a certain perception, eleven persons participated in the Meech Lake process and tried to satisfy the five basic demands of Quebec, and we were all under the impression that they were the only people involved. Reality was different. However that perception was shared by my leader, several members of my party, and most Canadians.
So, it did not require so much courage. I simply wanted to clarify the facts.


François Gérin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask my colleague if he recognizes that the real voices for Quebec, now, are the National Assembly, Premier Bou-rassa, and Mr. Parizeau, Leader of the Opposition.


Philip Edmonston: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I think that the real voice for Quebec, is now the National Assembly, of course. I have no quarrel with that, but it is not only Mr. Parizeau, it is all the political parties that make up the National Assembly. Finally, I have also in mind the people who have been elected to this Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois, the only NDP member in Quebec, the Liberals or the Conservatives. They too represent Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that this resolution has finally come before the House. I am glad to see that this government has finally brought forward a mechanism for resolving the constitutional impasse that has for the past year and more sapped our will as a nation. I am glad that finally the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs has launched, as he declared in his remarks this morning, the Canada round of constitutional renewal.
We can quibble about the details. We can argue about the number of members who should be on this committee. We can argue about when the committee should report. We on this side of the House have made suggestions about that. We have made recommendations as to the process that the committee should undertake. We have made suggestions in a spirit of being constructive for dealing with this very important and critical process of constitutional renewal.
June 18, 1991

However, it is essential-and our leader has been saying it for months now -that Canadians finally come to the point of resolving this constitutional impasse.
What I think has so dissipated our will as a nation over the last several months has not been so much the substance of constitutional change. If we look at the points of differences among the parts of Canada, between Quebecers and Canadians elsewhere in Canada, between Canadians in the west and Canadians in the east, between aboriginal Canadians and the rest of Canadians, what separates us as people are really not profound in a constitutional sense. With a certain will to resolve these differences, the points of constitutional differences are really minor when we look at them in the broad scheme of things.
One irony has constantly been referred to by observers of the Canadian scene as they watch Canadians and their governments torture themselves with constitutional wrangling, as we have over these last several months. They continue to remind us that Canada is rich in resources and really the envy of all the world. People everywhere, millions of people from all over the world, would happily give everything they own in order to have the privilege of living here. Refugees are lined up and are back-logging our refugee system in order to be allowed to come and live in Canada. The irony is that a country with this potential is spending so much energy wrestling with fine and rather insignificant constitutional points of difference. Much of our problems as a society has been amplified and magnified by being brought into a constitutional discussion.
I think that that is really what is at the bottom to a large degree of the difficulties that we have faced as a country in the last several months and perhaps the last several years, although I think in the period preceding Meech Lake that problem has been exemplified.
What I think happened was that in an attempt, and I think give the Prime Minister credit, as he saw it to bring Quebec into the constitutional family, he raised the stakes to such a level and raised the level of the consequences of a failure in producing agreement to such a high pitch that an agreement, first of all, was virtually, as it turned out, impossible and the consequences, the fall-out from that failure to produce
Government Orders
agreement, was so dramatic that it has really taken months for Canadians to recover from that process. Really, I think that that is one of the sad facts which has surrounded the whole Meech Lake process.
In the period following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord when, of course, Quebec retreated and took it very badly that the accord was not signed, the acrimony has been perpetuated, I believe, by the discussions which followed in the months after Meech Lake.
I think it is important that finally we are setting forth some mechanism. I agree, it is probably imperfect, but at least there is some mechanism in there that we can begin to deal with the substance of constitutional reform and to I think de-dramatize the issues, and as we have so often said, certainly as our leader has so often said, be able to put this affair behind us so that we can begin to deal with the other more pressing problems of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments as an Acadian. As you know, one of the very important aspects of these constitutional discussions is culture and especially the desire of the people of Quebec to have control over the protection of their language and culture.
Mr. Speaker, I can easily understand where that will to acquire the levers of power in linguistic and cultural matters and to protect their language and culture comes from. I am not a Quebecer. I am an Acadian, and for four centuries, since they came to Canada, Acadians have waged a constant battle to protect and preserve their language and their culture. We have managed to do that in spite of very difficult circumstances. Those who know the history of Canada know about the deportation of Acadians; they know that we were scattered all over the United States and that when we came back to Canada, we settled in various parts of the Maritimes, and they know the consequences that that fact had on the survival of our population.
I come from a part of Cape Breton where for three generations now, we have seen the gradual disappearance of the French language, which was currently spoken in some villages. We have always had to fight to preserve our language in our small villages.

June 18, 1991

Government Orders
For example, my maternal grandfather and grandmother did not speak English. My mother and father spoke French, but nowhere near as much as my grand parents. Those of my generation, myself, my sisters and brothers, my cousins, we were almost completely assimilated. We did not speak French at all. I had to learn it over again, since I did not speak French when I was younger.
So you know, Mr. Speaker, that we have lived with the problem of assimilation and that we must always cope with it outside Quebec and inside Canada. I can tell you that it is thanks to the programs and the will of the central government of the country named Canada that we were able to preserve our language and our culture in our region, and proudly keep our language alive at home.
I think we must not forget that, especially when we speak of preserving French, what we are all anxious to do in Canada. I think that all the Canadians are proud to be part of a society with two official languages, and we are proud of that because everyone knows, all over Canada, that this fact makes us different as a society and that it helps preserve the French language and culture in Quebec.
If the francophones outside Quebec think seriously about the aim which everybody agrees with, the preservation of their language and culture, they will see like others did the only way to maintain a French society in Quebec as well as outside Quebec is to be part of a strong Canada, a Canada with these two languages. This is one of the reasons, one of the elements at the origin of the constitutional debate.
However, we must avoid to over dramatize the constitutional issue. We must rather think about the essential objective, the one that we all share, myself as an Acadian, the people of Quebec, the francophones from Ontario and Western Canada, as well as the non-francophone Canadians, that is, the fact that we want to stay together, we want to keep what we have already gained, two official languages and a multiplicity of cultures which add to our society and make it richer.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that in this time of constitutional renewal all Canadians from all over the country and not only those who are in this House will find a way to use
the mecanisms in place to put that period of constitutional amendment behind us so that we can pass to something else and take up the challenges of the next century and of the next millennium in Canada and across the world.
We have problems, like the ones our aboriginal people are now confronted with in Canada, as well as poverty and isolation in our society. These difficulties are a lot more serious than constitutional problems. Whatever the nature of our institutions, because of these difficulties Canadians will again want to live together. Whatever happens to Quebec, we will have to live together. I think that if we look at our immediate future in that way, we will be able to solve our constitutional problems because, if you ask me, they are not that difficult after all. All we need is the will to solve them. If we have that will, as Canadians, I think that we can keep our society and our country united, then move on to the next challenges which, in my opinion, are much more interesting and up-to-date than putting the finishing touches to constitutional sentences or texts. I think the time has come now to solve this problem once for all and to move on to the real challenges facing our society.
It is for that reason that I am glad the minister responsible for constitutional affairs has finally provided at least a model of constitutional renewal. We know it is not perfect. I think we are going to try and improve it, but we are going to work with it and we are going to try and use it for the purpose of finding a way out of this deadlock.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment my friend and colleague on the very excellent address he just made to this House in both official languages.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: As the applause dictates, it shows how much we appreciate the comments that were just made.
In all items that come under discussion at different times, not only on this side of the House, but across the aisle, there are things that we agree with and things that we do not agree with. I am sure my colleague would agree that many of the institutions in this country that are presently under review should all be reviewed in
r>-;
June 18, 1991

order that we come up with the end result of a much better, much finer and a more workable Canada.
The things that we can agree on, as Canada approaches its 124th birthday, it is that we have developed, over the last 124 years, a country that respects our seniors, a country that has been able to develop a comprehensive health care plan, a country that fought in two world wars and Korea and still respects and honours the veterans who fought in that war, a country with 124 years of a magnificent history.
I wonder if my friend would comment when I ask: "Are we not embarrassed at this particular period of time in our history, when we spend so much of our time, and so much of the time within this Chamber, talking about constitutional issues until it is coming out our ears, that what we should really be discussing are those things of real value to Canadians today?"
These are items such as: how do we get this country out of the recession that we are in, how do we create jobs in this country and get Canadians working, how do we get Canada working again? These are the issues that I think confronts this country.
I wish my friend would comment on those, because once those are accomplished, I am sure, and as my colleague has stated, then this country will resolve those other areas once this country starts to move and shows a progression and the impetus that has made us great for 124 years and I am sure will keep us great for another 124 years.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words and for his comments. I agree very much with what he has to say. I think the constitutional issues have overly preoccupied us here in Canada. For ordinary Canadians it is matters such as jobs, such as the economy, such as finding jobs and making basic economic decisions that really preoccupy them much more than the Constitution.
I would like to take his points a little further because I believe that, in Canada, at this juncture in history, as we end the 20th century and begin the 21st century, we really are, in a sense, failing our role in history and our place in history by spending so much of our energies on
Government Orders
constitutional matters, in the face of world difficulties, which Canada is so well placed to deal with.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Francis G. LeBlanc: For
example, we have a reputation as a nation of peacemakers. We are considered by people all over the world as a country that is able to resolve its conflicts, to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, in Asia, in other parts of the world, and yet, at home, we are tormented by constitutional conflicts of a much lesser nature.
We are facing, in the world, a situation in which the planet is under environmental attack on a world scale. Canada is one of the largest countries in the world and one of the clearest and most environmentally promising and we have a duty to history to be the leaders in securing a sustainable future for all of mankind. If we dissipate that energy in constitutional wrangling, we are not only denying our responsibility to ourselves, we are denying our responsibility to mankind. I think that is the perspective in which our constitutional discussions should be cast.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the question asked by my colleague from the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, where he indicated that ordinary Canadians are most interested, most concerned about their economic plight and that much of the constitutional debate is motivated, both within Quebec and outside of it, by a great deal of concern about the effects of the actions of this government on their daily lives.
Yet they are going to have a constitutional committee, according to the government, consisting of 25, of which 10 will be senators and the rest will consist of a majority of members who have the support of no more than 15 per cent of the population. Even the Liberal proposal, which suggests adding five to that, would still leave a majority on that committee consisting of unelected senators and a majority of men and women who have been responsible for the crises in the everyday lives of the men and women of Canada.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member: Would it not be a more appropriate vehicle for constitutional change to have a constituent assembly that would get rid of the distrust that Canadians certainly do feel about politicians? I would ask his opinion about a constituent assembly and defend any alternative position in the face of those facts which are going to lead to the distrust and

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
the doubt of Canadians about the validity of the constitutional process that is to begin with the motion that we have before us today.


Francis G. LeBlanc: The
first point to make is that the first job of parliamentarians is to do their job, and this is the parliamentarian's job. I hope that as a member of Parliament, he will be willing to do his job.
An lion, member: That is what he got elected for.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso: Second, we all know that this is the Canada round and we want all parts of Canada to participate. We know that the constituent assembly would not have Quebec participate. Therefore, this mechanism will enable all parts of Canada, including Quebec, to participate, and for that reason we should give it a chance and allow it to work.


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


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important and interesting motion that is before the House.
The motion deals with the setting up of a committee to look into making recommendations to Parliament and the Government of Canada on proposals for a renewed Canada.
As you will recall, in the original document which was agreed to by all of the provinces, the original document I am referring to was the document which was signed by the former premier of Newfoundland, the Lion. Brian Peckford.
There was a clause in that constitutional agreement which said that every year there would be a review of the jurisdiction of the federal government in one of our primary resources, which was the fishery. However, consequently, after that signing took place, that particular clause was removed, it was no longer there. It was removed because it was thought by certain premiers, after what they said were consultations with the fishing industry, that the jurisdiction of the federal government should not be questioned on the business of the fishing industry.
I want to put on the record my concern that this particular item must be revisited. It must be examined, impartially, by the members of Parliament and the senators who are on this committee, from the point of
view that it is constitutionally unworkable to have provincial governments with total jurisdiction over fish plants and the federal government with total jurisdiction over the fish.
In other words, everything presently under our present Constitution that happens on land is in the total jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Everything that happens in the water or on top of the water, in the ocean, is under the total jurisdiction of the federal government.
The problem we have today in Canada, in this primary industry of the fishery, is we have fish plants that are closing under provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution because the federal government is cutting back on the quotas, that is the amount of fish that can be fed into those fish plants to keep them operating. Obviously, this is an unworkable situation.
The provincial governments, it is said, went too far in giving approvals to have numerous fish plants built around the coastline of eastern Canada in the past 10 years.
It is cited by many experts that that is why now there are so many fish plants in trouble and that is why they are closing: because the provincial governments have total control over the issuing of all licences for onshore facilities.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government today sits down. The people responsible sit down in the federal government. They make the decisions on fish quotas and how much fish will be caught by Canadian fishermen, by what boats, by what companies, and in what manner.
In other words, the federal government determines on an annual basis whether or not fish plants will be open in Quebec, in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in Prince Edward Island and in Newfoundland, and in British Columbia. The federal government is in total control over that.
I noticed just the other day some good news for the Canadian fishery. Here I must give some credit to the federal government. I have not ever given the federal government, this present government, any credit for anything it has done in the fishery because, as you know,
I have a great objection to this government issuing
June 18, 1991

fishing licences to foreign nations to fish inside Canada's 200-mile zone.
What happened the other day was this: just prior to the Prime Minister going to Germany, the Canadian government made a decision to cancel all fishing licences to German vessels inside the Canadian 200-mile zone. That may not sound like a big announcement. The announcement was never made, and of course even today if somebody were to ask the Minister of Fisheries in this Chamber the question of what happened, how come Germany now is no longer permitted to have fishing vessels inside the 200-mile zone, I believe the Minister of Fisheries would probably stand up and give some excuse, but try to smooth over the fact that the federal government has done this.
To their credit, they have done this. I will tell you how they did it a couple of weeks ago. Normally, Germany has seven factory-freezer trawler licences issued to their fleet to fish inside Canada's 200-mile zone. Those seven licences are held in St. John's, Newfoundland, to fish
9,000	tonnes of fish. Now, 9,000 tonnes of fish is about as much as it would take to keep a fish plant going in Eastern Canada.
Last year while there were problems in Germany with the unification issue, the German fleet did not come in to pick up its seven licences. There was terrible confusion. The actual quotas were held in the name of the German Democratic Republic. They did not come in to St. John's harbour and pick up those licences, and they just sat there. They did not even fish what is called the NAPPO quota of 485 tonnes of redfish in zone 3-LN, which is a zone outside the 200-mile zone and inside the 200-miJe zone off the east coast of Newfoundland.
This year, this summer, we have this big change that has been made. That is, the federal government has given the orders: no more licences to be issued to the German fleet.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I really am developing a headache straining to understand what fish quotas have to do with constitutional change and the structure of whatever process is to be used for the purpose of constitutional amendment. Is there not a requirement on the part of parliamentarians when they enter into debate to enter that debate with relevant debate?
Government Orders


Mr. Nicholson:: I have some of the same fears as the member for Windsor-St. Clair. I had considered interrupting the hon. member on the same point of order until he got to the part about giving credit to the federal government. I think he would probably find unanimous consent in the House to at least complete that thought before he gets back on the Canadian Constitution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have no problem with what the hon. member is saying and I know he is coming to the relevance as far as today's debate is concerned. I think the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls has the floor.


George Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might add for the benefit of those hon. members who are wondering what the subject has to do with constitutional reform that is is said that fish gives you brains.
I would suggest that members in the Chamber, at least some of them, eat more fish. If they did, they would realize that all provinces in Canada under the original proposal, the original constitutional agreement, before the Meech Lake problem, all the provinces of eastern Canada, all the provinces of western Canada, all signed the document that said explicitly that the question of fisheries jurisdiction will become a part of the new constitutional formula and at the end of every year there would be called a meeting of all the first ministers and they would specifically discuss fisheries jurisdiction. That was in the original proposal. I suggest that that certainly has relevance in any debate concerning agreement on the Constitution.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I was giving some credit to the federal government for what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did the other day, which he will not admit, because I presume he thinks it would be an embarrassment because here we are having these nice cosy talks with the new government of Germany and on the other hand cancelling all their fishing licences. That is why there was no announcement made. I am simply bringing it up publicly because it was never brought up publicly to show what can be done by the federal government to satisfy the very question that the provincial premiers had in the beginning.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Why was that clause put in the original constitutional agreement that was signed by every premier? It was because there is a serious problem in this nation between jurisdictions, between what is in the Constitution now and what is the law of Canada now, and what it should be. You cannot have-and the premiers recognize this- one level of government, namely the provinces, deciding on what type of industry there will be on the land if you have the other level of government, namely the federal government, deciding on what fish is going to be caught.
That took up a lot of time.
To get back to my point, I must admit that after looking at the charts for this year, the German licences are still held outside the 200 mile zone by NAFO, but the federal government has decided not to issue any inside.
The reason I bring this up is that is one nation with
9,000	tonnes of fish that can be used by the provincially approved fish plants in eastern Canada to keep them going. Our problem on land is that there are an additional seven foreign nations which, through the Department of External Affairs and the federal Department of Fisheries have today quotas inside the 200-mile zone that can be used by the provincially licensed fish plants to keep them going if they had the fish.
Regarding the original drafters of that new constitutional agreement, I do not want to give credit to any one premier here because I think there was a general understanding among the premiers that this was a serious question which could only be settled during constitutional talks.
Why would you have a constitutional discussion involving the areas of public expenditure and the areas of raising money if you could not as well have a discussion on perhaps one of the largest industries in eastern Canada and how it is run by two governments not knowing what the other is doing?
The industry itself as so defined, the companies, is not in agreement with having in the constitutional accord the
specific reference to a continual review of jurisdiction in this primary industry.
I would suggest that this committee call in for hearings and examination our fishermen and our fish plant workers regarding the question of jurisdiction over fish quotas.
The hon. member said hearings or herrings. Even the question of herring is very important because there are many foreign nations which have herring quotas inside our 200-mile zone.
I think that the entire question should be re-examined, perhaps even above the objections of some of the industry and above the objections of some of the premiers because I know that some of the premiers will not be comfortable with that examination.
I think it is so, so important. The question of whether thousands upon thousands of Canadians will be able to have jobs next year is veiy important. The question of thousands and thousands of fishermen being able to fish is very important.
Subjects that can be dealt with the by constitutional committee bring a human element into constitutional discussions because, quite frankly, the common person today says: "Well, if those politicians would only shut up, we would not have problems in the Constitution". That is the general feeling in this country.
They say we have had a commission of inquiry here, one in Quebec. There is one by this party, one by that party, one by this provincial government. Here is another committee about to meet and they say: "If the politicians would only shut up, we would not have such a problem in this country today."


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I was very much taken by a lot of the comments by the hon. member as he made a transition from fish to loud mouthed politicians. I gather that is a reference to the distrust shared by so many Canadians about the exclusive role of politicians in the constitutional process.
Since he did not say anything really about the government motion, his own party's motion or our proposal for a constituent assembly, I would like to address that issue.
June 18, 1991

I ask this question in the context of one who has in his travels around the world seen a great deal of respect and a great deal of puzzlement about what Canadians are going through.
Ours is a country that has made an awful lot of progress and has done well in accommodating two official languages, two cultures, for much of its history, and has done well in accommodating itself to a new Canada which is far more diverse and which has within it the prospect of a great deal of potential based on that diversity.
As the member for Western Arctic indicated that she had a constituency, I would claim a constituency as well, one which has been excluded from the constitutional debate. I speak from the context of a family that has been in this country even before confederation, considerably before confederation, and not yet have we been included in the constitutional process.
Someone has said that politicians speak for the people. The politicians speak for the majority of the people, and a Constitution, particularly a charter of rights, must address the rights of minorities. The plea of Quebec is the plea of a minority in the country', and there are other minorities that have to be addressed as well.
I would also say that coming from Windsor I come from a community whose majority consists of the new minorities, so-called, in this country.
In every constitutional process the focus has been on a debate between two founding peoples as if they were the only people involved in the debate. The consequence of this was that in 19821 listened with great disappointment as first the women were shut out and then had to fight to ensure that equality of the sexes was included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was veiy disappointed when the charter of rights came out of that round of negotiations with the notwithstanding clause which compromises the equality of certain members of the Canadian community. That would not have happened if there had been the sense among politicians to understand that something besides simply the majorities has to be recognized.
My question to the hon. member is this: by what means does he intend that the committee just proposed by the government or as amended by his party will ensure the
Government Orders
participation of those other minorities in a way that consistently presents the views of those communities and not of their parties? I would like to know how he is going to deal with that with this committee and I would like to hear his arguments against a constituent assembly which would address the participation and inclusion of those who have been excluded up until now.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised many subjects in his question. He has raised many subjects and I would need, as any member would, hours to address each one of them.
I might suggest to the hon. member in his suggestion on the constituent assembly idea that the first constituent assembly that we had in Canada was what was called the National Assembly in 1947. The hon. gentleman might be surprised that I remember this quite well. In 1947, '48 and '49 a constituency assembly met in the nation of Newfoundland to consider the options. It talked for three long years. There were campaigns and every evening around the radio-we had no television in those days-everybody would tune in and you would always go to the house of someone who had a radio, a battery radio. Not everybody had a radio, and the batteiy would only last for so long because there was no electricity. You would go to this person's house, tune in and listen to the recording of the day's proceedings on these very large long playing recordings at 78 rpm.
For three years those discussions went on in that constituent assembly. They went on and there was a final vote taken. It was a fascinating thing to listen to. After those three years-the point I am getting at is this-of discussion, the National Assembly, the constituent assembly of representatives from all over the province decided against even looking at Canada, after three years. It did not want to look at Canada.
Do you know how Newfoundland became part of Canada? Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened was that the advocates for joining Canada went around with a petition to all Newfoundlanders outside of the constituent assembly and got permission to place union with Canada as one of the options on the ballot for the national referendum which took place in the province of Newfoundland.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
My point to the hon. member is that in the only case of a constituent assembly we have on the books in this country met for three years and decided something that was not even on the ballot paper in the referendum that followed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to yield the floor to the member from Newfoundland.
We could hear another three hours. I would have asked him this question. I will not but I will mention it for him to ponder. While he was talking, I was looking at a public opinion poll which said that almost two-thirds of Canadians, 68 per cent outside Quebec and 57 per cent in Quebec, believe a constituent assembly could help chart a constitutional course for the nation.
A constituent assembly was described for polling purposes as a body made up of Canadians from all regions and all walks of life who would meet and put together a constitutional proposal which Canada would then offer to Quebec. Lo and behold, Premiers Clyde Wells of Newfoundland, Frank McKenna of New Brunswick, Bob Rae of Ontario and Grant Devine of Saskatchewan have called for such a process to ensure that Canadians do not feel left out of the next constitutional round as they did during the failed Meech Lake talks.
Had I wanted to be nasty, I would have said to the hon. member: "You are a Liberal. You are from Newfoundland. Premier Wells is a Liberal. He is from Newfoundland. He wants a constituent assembly. Why do you differ from Premier Wells?" Perhaps we will hear another three-hour speech on the topic of fish later on in the debate.


An hon. member:: His brother is a deputy premier.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He can ask his brother then.
I rise to speak on the constitutional debate. It is the first time I have spoken in the House on the Constitution since I spoke on the Meech debate. That was on Thursday, October 22, 1987. It is with some fear and trepidation that I rise, because the last time after my speech and after I voted against Meech I lost my critic area and was exiled from my party, just for a short
period. I am not complaining. In some countries they take dissenters out and shoot them. This was a relatively minor penalty.
I want to quote from my speech on that night when I
said:
Let me begin by saying that I too believe it is important to get the signature of the Quebec Government on the Canadian Constitution. However, it is not sufficient a priority that nothing else matters. The real priority is a good and sound Constitution for Canada.
Near the end of my speech I said:
I favour the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in order to protect the language and culture of Quebec. But the Meech Lake Accord goes beyond Quebec's distinctiveness. This is the essence of the Accord for me. The price paid was to give all the provinces rights in federal powers and institutions: the Senate, the courts, immigration, this broadly-based premiers' conference, the opting out and the spending power.
I concluded by saying that Canadians:
-share a greater loyalty to Canada than the sum of the loyalties toward the provinces. That is the flaw in the Meech Lake Accord and that is why it has to be rejected.
I would be less than human if I did not say that is exactly what happened. I think we have to face why Canadians rejected Meech, what it means for the country, what it means for Quebec, what it means for this debate, and what it means for setting up this committee.
I believe that Meech was rejected because of the process and because of the substance. The elites in English Canada, including members of the House of Commons and the parties, were not in touch with their people and the people overthrew the elites.
What was to have been Quebec's round became the provinces' round. To obtain the provinces' agreement to Quebec's five points the federal government agreed to enlarge the powers of all the provinces. That was not acceptable to English Canada. The defeat of Meech, it is said, has revived the dragon of Quebec nationalism.
I do not think that argument will really wash. We would have been in a worse condition if Meech had passed. By rejecting Meech we have preserved the Supreme Court as a national court. We made sure that Senate reform was not translated into nothing more than a Senate, nothing more than a repository for provincial instead of federal hacks and mediocrities. We thwarted a
June 18, 1991

transfer of powers to the provinces that would have undermined federal programs and institutions.
I ask you, and the member for Saint-Denis as well: Does anyone really believe that if Meech Lake had been adopted Quebec nationalists, who he has fought so strongly against, would have been satisfied, that the supporters of independence would have been satisfied?
Nationalists want fundamental restructuring of the Canadian Constitution and the position of Quebec in it. Independantistes in Quebec want a sovereign state and separatism.
I believe it is time that we look Quebec's movement for independence very seriously. I think we have to be honest with each other. We are facing a national crisis and we may indeed see Canada breaking up.
1 wish the member would listen to me. I listened to him. I am putting forward a position, I think with some past credibility, which reflects the views of my electorate.
We need to take stock of what kind of Canada we want. We have to advocate it very clearly and we have to be honest with our people. We need voices to speak for Canada. The Prime Minister has proven to be a failed deal maker and not a nation builder.
The right hon. member for Yellowhead, the present minister, is an honest and decent man. However, his community of communities view of Canada is a minority view of Canada and has consistently been rejected by the Canadian electorate.
When Sir John A. Macdonald ran on one Canada, when Pierre Trudeau ran on one Canada, when John Diefenbaker ran on one Canada, they were all swept into power with the support of Quebec, I might add.
I think he is taking a minority position. The premiers speak for the provinces and not for Canada.
Another process like the last one we saw at Meech Lake, which this government resolution sets in place tonight, will simply result in further concessions to the provinces and further undermining of Canadian federalism.
We can change this. The member for Yukon set forward a new process, another way of doing things. She
Government Orders
said this afternoon in the House of Commons: "We want Canada to succeed. That success is dependent on the full participation of Canadians from the outset of the process". She did not speak hypocritically.
The New Democratic Party itself had to face this issue internally. We had to put our own process in order before we could talk about other people's processes. The leader of our party took our constitutional committee, which had been the committee of the leaders, the federal leader and the provincial leader, and expanded it to include other people, other members of Parliament and provincial members, women, aboriginal people, minority people and so on. We expanded it and we got a better document.
We also set up a task force from our caucus and we looked at reform of Parliament. Members present have to be blind if they are not seeing the Reform Party speaking out about parliamentary reform and the Bloc Quebecois also talking about a fundamentally different sort of parliamentary reform but a fundamental change in the federal Parliament.
We put together a task force and we went out and spoke to people. We took our constitutional committee report, our task force report, and we went to our federal convention in Halifax and presented them to the people.
I said that we have to be honest. Now be honest. Our members, the militants in our party, do not want to discuss the Constitution. They see other problems.
In British Columbia, my province, we have problems with the forestry, with aboriginal claims, with the environment. In Saskatchewan there is a major farm crisis. Ontario is being deindustrialized with a loss of jobs. The maritimes want to diversify their economy. Of course, I do not have to talk about the problems of unemployment in Montreal and other parts of Quebec. There are other problems.
Ask any high school kids and they will tell you that the environment is the number one problem in Canada.
I am proud of the leader of our party has pushed our party in this direction. We have to deal with this matter, the matter of the Constitution. We have a national crisis.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Members think it is funny. I do not think it is very funny. I am trying to put forward an honest position on this particular issue.
In this debate tonight the New Democratic Party has set forward a constituent assembly of a broad section of Canadians. The government has taken a position-and it backed it up with argument and speakers-that we should have a parliamentary committee. That is, as it argues, in the parliamentary tradition.
The Liberals spoke. I heard the member for Papineau who spoke. I am not quite sure what the member said, but I am quite sure of his position. He talked about our position as a flight of fancy. Do we not need some fancy in this country? Do we not need some imagination? Do we not need some creative thinking? Do we not need a means to give Canadians some real participation and some real power in constitution making?
The member for Yukon has pointed out that a parliamentary committee will be controlled by the government. We will have a government majority. It will have before it the government program. She said: "Once again Canadians will be outside looking in". I say that we are in an extraordinary situation. We face the possible break-up of this country in 18 months and we partly brought it here in our own.
The Prime Minister insisted that Meech could not be changed. He insisted that if Meech were rejected it was a rejection of Quebec. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I understand how deeply hurt Quebecers feel, and I feel for them too. I think together we can restructure a new Constitution. What we are suggesting are some new ways of doing it.
The new ways would include a constituent assembly on which we would have MPs, MLAs from the provinces, people from the cities of this country, people from the rural chambers of commerce, native people, multicultural groups, women, business and labour taking part in this.
I have great faith in Canadians and I believe that Canadians can speak to each other, as the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands found out when she travelled with the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee. Canadians want a constituent assembly. They want to speak to each other, and I think Canadians can solve these major
problems. We share more than what leads us apart in this country.
What about Quebec? The Quebec National Assembly rejects a constituent assembly. I say so what? So what if Bourassa or Parizeau or Bouchard or the Quebec media or the editorial writers reject this? So what? I trust the Quebec people. I trust their good sense. I trust their judgment. I think they should overthrow their elites like we did at Meech Lake, the English Canadians, so that they can get a viewpoint, because I think they want to stay in Canada but with a restructured and better Canada.
We can have a constituent assembly that includes Quebec as well. I want to remind the government that it has a very tenuous hold on power. It has about 15 per cent of the electorate. Constitutionally, of course, it has a right to govern and we recognize that. It is a very, very slim hold on power, a very tenuous mandate. It is the most unpopular government in Canadian history. The Prime Minister who supposedly is going to lead the process has failed before at Meech Lake, has failure around his neck, and is the most unpopular Prime Minister we have had. He is a deal maker, not a nation maker.
We need a new process. The government needs a new process, and the process will be a constituent assembly.
The Minister for International Trade may think it is funny, but I would ask him to look at what happened to Meech Lake, why Canadians rejected it, and why we need a process that is going to work now.
I want to speak to my own party and people who are watching our broadcast tonight. I think we have a lot in the New Democratic Party to contribute to this debate. Tommy Douglas said that the whole basis of national unity is founded on the principle of equal treatment for all and special privileges for none. I think we should remember that.
We have to contribute three major points to this debate. The first major point is that we have to insist on social and economic equality in this country. We must point out that the federal spending power, the transfer payments, equalization payments and regional development policies have addressed the economic inequalities in this country and have produced a relatively equal country.
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
We have to insist on national standards for social programs. That is how we get medicare. That is how we will get national child care in the future, day care. That is how we will get national environmental programs. We have to lead the fight on that.
Second, at the same time we have to stand up for a distinct society in Quebec. It will not be easy to say that all across Canada. Quebec is distinct. It has been distinct since 1774. Quebec is where the French language is predominant. The civil code is a distinct legal system. Quebec has its own pension plan. Quebec collects its own income tax. Quebec has a special agreement on immigration with Canada. We should not be afraid to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
How far do we go? If we want to face the real question, how far do we go to accommodate Quebec? I think the answer to that is: We go some distance without sacrificing Canada and its institutions in the process. There is a line, but as an English Canadian politician who voted against Meech Lake I want to say clearly tonight that we want Quebec in Canada. We need Quebec in Canada. We are prepared to make the reasonable accommodations to have Quebec in Canada. It will take some courage to say that in western Canada and in other parts of Canada.
Third, I think a great contribution we can make in the debate is to keep insisting, as we did in 1981-82, that aboriginal peoples have a real place in this Constitution. It is their Constitution too. We should insist that they not only be part of the constituent assembly but that they be in fact a part of the Constitution in the sense of recognizing self-government.
I want to conclude by a quote from Tom Berger, a former judge who was speaking in Calgary at the Mart-land lectures. I quote: "I want to see Canada survive with Quebec. Staying together is important not only to ourselves. If people of different languages, cultures, races and religions can live together harmoniously within a great federal state, perhaps they may learn to live together harmoniously in a wider world. In Canada, we have democratic institutions. Et je dis cela au Bloc quebccois, we have democratic institutions, the rule of law, and an educated populace. If we cannot find a way to live, what peoples, what nations can?
Quebec, like English Canada, has a stake in the survival of these ideas in the world. I think he is right.
Let me conclude, if I might, by saying that we advocate a new process, a radical process, a different and creative process, as the member for Yukon said, to include Canadians, to have a constituent assembly, to get a framework of constitutional ideas, to take that perhaps to the people and then to Parliament, and we will have a new Constitution for Canada.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care and did not interrupt my friend for Port Moody-Coquitlam, but I should say that while I do not agree with his point of view I know that all of us bring with us our certain political philosophy into the debate. As much as we want to be non-partisan, we carry that with us.
What disappoints me about his remarks is that he camouflaged them so much in his speech. I think the true philosophy of my friend is the one which he expressed during his leadership race, about two years ago I think it was. I watched him on local cablevision here in Ottawa. I had the thrill of watching my friend as he was contending for the leadership of his party, and he said that the Meech Lake Accord had to be defeated because it was a threat to the future of the welfare state.
That is the bottom line for this member. I wish he would come clean with all of us and say that is his obsession with any kind of government structure, that he wants to preserve the welfare state and the future of the welfare state. Aside from a very pessimistic view of the future of Canada, to make that the ultimate goal, what bothers me is that he stands here tonight and says: "We want Quebec, we want Quebec". However he sacrificed it a year ago in order to preserve the structure of a welfare state.
I wonder if the member would tell us tonight if that is still his bottom line, that regardless of what structure we have, whether it is a constituent assembly that he proposes and very few other people want or whatever, the format is for coming to a decision as to the future structure of the political system in Canada, whether his bottom line still is the preservation of a welfare state.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: May I please respond. I might say that the member mentioned he had the thrill of watching me

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
on local cable television. I am sorry, I did not realize that suffered from insomnia and needed my help to put him to sleep.
My bottom line is not a welfare state. Of course I am partisan and biased and I have my positions, and I will set them out in a minute. I want to preserve a civilized Canada.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what I want to preserve. I think Canada is a civilized country and I think this government is destroying Canada, quite frankly. With the combination of Meech Lake, with the decentralizing forces to the provinces, taking the power away from the national government and letting the provinces into the federal institutions to control the Senate, to control the court, to have the premiers conference institutionalized, and so on, I think is going to incapacitate the federal government.
That is what his party wants to do. It believes in room for capital. It really believes in less government. That is his position, that is his bias and his government. People say: "The Prime Minister does not have any vision". I think he does have a vision. He wants to deregulate, to privatize-


An hon. member:: A corporate vision.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a corporate vision of Canada and it is wrecking this country. You decentralize the way Meech was doing, and then you add to it the free trade deal in which Canadians start looking north-south instead of east-west, and gradually all those national institutions and the rope that holds Canada together begins to slip. We can see it happening. We are losing this country.
I have my biases like he has his biases. I want to see a civilized Canada with good social services. That is what makes Canada different from the United States. That is what makes us a great country. That is why they said we are second only to Japan in being the greatest country in the world to live in, but his government is taking it apart. I pushed and I will continue to push for a strong government which can hold Canada together, one government which acts for Canada and is above the sum of its parts.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in all the years that I have been sitting in Parliament, I have tried to understand the philosophy of the New Democratic Party.


An hon. member:: It's impossible!


Marcel Prud'homme: I have made considerable efforts. I have a lot of respect for the New Democratic Party, I have a lot of respect for most of the hon. members sitting on that side; those people have a notion of what Canada could be.
Very briefly, since I know I have only a few minutes, I would like to ask the hon. member, as well as all those who are watching me from the other side-I have circled their names but perhaps I should not name them-but I ask them to try to understand, as I was saying this afternoon, what Canada is all about. What could make us build a country called Canada?
For 27 years-and I ask the hon. member to think about it-for 27 years, ever since I have been a member of Parliament, I have welcomed here hundreds of young people every year.

I hear from hundreds of young people each year for 27 years. Sometimes I do not know how to explain Canada, so I invite them for a walk around Parliament and show them what Canada is all about by showing them three monuments. "Go behind the Library of Parliament", I say that to English Canada.

I tell those who speak French not to get angry if, when speaking about Canada, I prefer to do it in English because those are the ones I have to convince that this country is worth saving. Go around. I almost apologize to my fellow French-speaking compatriots, but since Mr. Bouchard now does it with elegance, so do I.

Go and see the first monument behind the Library on the Senate side. Why are there monuments to two people there, Baldwin and Lafontaine? It goes back a long way.
By the way, I asked the Speaker to have their names reprinted because they have faded over the years, and it is shocking. I hope tonight that Public Works and others
June IS, 1991

will make sure to reprint the names of Baldwin and Lafontaine. That was the spirit of prior Canada.
Then go back, as I said this afternoon: Why is it that we have those two monuments? Parliament is only supposed to honour Prime Ministers. I say to English Canada to come here and go around Parliament. I say to the NDP member that he should go around Parliament tonight and ask why there are two monuments, Baldwin and Lafontaine, together. In 1867 there was Mr. Cartier and Mr. Macdonald. This is not supposed to be, but that was the spirit of what built Canada.
I say that to the millions of new Canadians whom I have always defended, whom I always will defend for their pride, like mine. They must understand the history of Canada, and the history of Canada is right here on the Hill.
We do not need to go to the library. We do not need to be a scholar to understand the spirit of Canada. Go around the building tonight and you will see Cartier and Macdonald. One was a Prime Minister; the other one was not. Yet they are there together.
Go behind the library, young colleagues and friends. I am not aggressive, but when you talk about Canada I cannot do otherwise but say; "Open your eyes. Go back to the spirit and the rest will follow, but go back first to the spirit of what built this country".
What built this country was an entente. Call it an agreement, call it a pact, call it a law, call it what you want. Constitutionalists will make a debate on each of the words I have used tonight. I am not interested, even though I have some experience in law but never practised in reality.
I am not interested. Canadians are not interested. They want to have a country that works, that functions, in which people are not the same. First we have to go back to the beginning, the history of Canada, the spirit of Canada. Dear colleagues, and I could name Mr. Friesen, Mr. Domm, Mr. Vankoughnet, Mr. Horner, Madam Feltham and others, please, all of you, just walk around Parliament before you go and get your inspiration there. Come back tomorrow morning. Get your inspiration and you will see that if we all make an effort to go back to the
Government Orders
spirit that built this country, we will show the rest of the world.
The rest of the world will know that together we can have a different kind of country in which Marcel Prud'h-omme will remain Marcel Prud'homme and Benno Friesen, with whom I fought vigorously on certain issues, will remain Benno Friesen. Horner, who I see there, will remain Horner. With all due kindness, as I always say, the Paproskis of Canada will remain the Paproskis of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that really requires a reply, but I will allow 30 seconds. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am delighted, and I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis who is respected in this House for his wisdom. He asked me to go and look at the statues of two great Canadians, and I accept his invitation. Perhaps we could go together after the debate.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, earlier, I heard an NDP member explain that as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, she had been to Quebec city for the first time in her life, and that all of a sudden she understood -Imagine what that says about this committee: A member from the West who goes to Quebec City for the first time and all of a sudden understands - A revelation from Heaven? A revelation, my eye! No wonder the New Democratic Party has lost touch with Quebec, a New Democratic Party that wants a constituent assembly without Quebec, without the Quebec National Assembly, and that claims to understand Quebedlt is just a repeat of the political manoeuvre by Chretien and Ouellet in 1982. You are making the same costly mistake that shocked so many Quebecers, but you don't seem to realize what you are doing. However, I have known you for the past seven years I have been here.
Basically, you are good people and good Canadians. I think you just don't understand what is happening in Quebec, because these people live in other provinces. Am I going to blame them because I don't want a country in their image? Of course not. Let them have a country in their own image. I hope they will have the kind of country they want, with the laws they want, with their own culture and their own traditions and their own

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
language. And we in Quebec will also have our own country with our own culture, our traditions, our language and our business.


An hon. member:: Never!


François Gérin: Not never, my friend from Western Canada, but soon. Soon we will have our own country, because this country is two countries. These are two totally different visions of the same country. Since the conference in Victoria 20 years ago, we have had 20 years of constitutional negotiations and we are no further than we were then. We were unable to come up with an amending formula except in 1982, but this was at the expense of Quebec. That was the last time. It was the second, the first and the last time because this will never happen again, whatever the NDP may think, whatever the Conservatives, the Anglo establishment party of this country may think, whatever Jean Chretien may think, who has just concocted an agreement today with the Conservatives, probably another plot to shaft Quebec.
This, Mr. Speaker, is entirely unacceptable to Quebecers. For 20 years -and the hon. member for Saint-Denis who has been here for 27 years has seen quite a few constitutional conferences. He saw Quebec's Premiers try to make some headway, starting with Duplessis, Lesage, Johnson, Bertrand, Bourassa, Levesque, and now again Bourassa, but they never got anywhere. And you really think we are going to go on like this? We are bankrupting this country and Quebec as a result of this situation.
In the 70s, to buy peace and camouflage the fact that Canada was coming apart at the seams, Trudeau started borrowing billions and billions and gave a few hundred million to Newfoundland and a few hundred million to the West to mollify the farmers and to the Maritimes, a little bit to Quebec, mostly peanuts. Today, in 1991, we have a country that is in debt to the tune of more than $400 billion. Mr. Speaker, do you have any idea how many zeros that is? Four hundred billion dollars worth of deficit? This year we are going to pay nearly $45 billion in interest alone. While Canadians are paying $110 billion in taxes, $45 billion of that amount is used to pay the interest on the debt. Why? Because we have not been able to deal with the fundamental problem in this country which is the Constitution. Because we keep
tiying to solve a problem that is impossible to solve. Everything has been tried: the strong arm method a la Trudeau and the conciliatory method d la Mulroney. All Quebec Premiers have tried. We have tried any number of things, but it was no use.
Today, we spent the whole day talking, not about what Quebecers would like to talk about the economy, jobs and the environment no, we still hear people of good will say that after 20 years, we have to persevere like the bull in front of a 20-foot thick wall who keeps saying: It doesn't matter, we will get through somehow. This has got to stop. We can no longer afford to go on like this. Quebecers can no longer afford to ignore the real problems.
The time will come when people will have to decide. In Quebec, we made our decision. In Quebec, we appointed the Belanger-Campeau Commission. Thirty-six people, eighteen elected and eighteen representatives of all groups of Quebec society. The unions were represented. Business was represented. We were generous. We even let Andre Ouellet in. Not bad. We even let Jean-Pierre Hogue go to the Commission. Of course, he didn't speak. When he did, it wasn't worth much, but in any case, we let him come as a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party. We even let Lucien Bouchard from the Bloc Quebecois in. At the Commission, he managed to establish a consensus. The consensus, Mr. Speaker, is on a referendum on sovereignty, by October 1992. If you want to know what is going on, it takes more than just a short visit to Quebec City like the hon. member for the NDP thinks she got a revelation from heaven, like Mr. Ryan.
Come and live in Quebec for a month, even just two weeks. Come and visit the countryside in my riding of Megantic-Compton- Stanstead. Come and see us. The people will tell you themselves that they are tired of governments like this one, of their beating about the bush, of measures that achieve nothing.
The people of Quebec cannot stand it anymore. I remember, during the 1983-84 campaign, Mr. Mulroney was travelling across the province-back in those days, we thought he was going to be so great -and referring to the Liberals as "those 74 morous".
June 18, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that he is using first names. The name is cither the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean or whoever he addresses, but not their first names.
He has been here a long time now, so he understands that.


François Gérin: Do you think that the people of Stanstead know who I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, when I mention the member Salaberry or whatever? No, they know him by his name. But, when they hear me say Jean-Guy Hudon, on the other hand, then they know I am talking about a very fine man.
But they do not understand- No, no, Mr. Speaker, I heard you and I will do as you said. I will not name-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not mention it again, but if the hon. member keeps doing it I will cut him off and we will go to the next speaker. That is the decorum in this House.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, they know very well that the member for Salaberry is a very fine man, but they wonder how he stays with the Conservative Party. That, Mr. Speaker, they cannot figure out, but they know he is a fine dedicated man. However, one can only wonder how the member for Salaberry and his colleagues from Quebec who replaced the Liberal "morous"- I used no name, Mr. Speaker, just a collective designation.
We are wondering how these members who are supporting today a plan of action designed to renew Canada can, at the same time, endorse the recent Speech from the Throne in which the government announced publicly that it is taking over the area of education, an area that Quebec considers off limits. So, on the one hand, they advocate a renewed federalism, along the same lines as Quebec somewhat, while on the other, they take over some areas of its jurisdiction. How much do you figure this double jurisdiction regarding just about every department and ministry has cost us, Quebecers? Try and explain to the agricultural producer in my riding why it is he has to go to the Quebec Farm Credit Bureau on one
Government Orders
side of street and to Farm Credit Corporation Canada on the other. There are civil servants on both sides of the street, but too many civil servants only make things worse. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars in the area of housing, Mr. Speaker.
The same is true in the area of income, Mr. Speaker, as well as in that of manpower training. It is like that in every sector. They not only go in the field of education and manpower training, for which there is a consensus, there is unanimity in Quebec that manpower training must strictly be a jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. And it is easy to understand why it must be a provincial jurisdiction.
In the field of education, our high schools, our technical schools and our universities are there to teach people a profession, to make them learn. It would be normal that Quebecers who need retraining later on in their lives and in their jobs, to be able to go back to the field of education.
But no! They will have to go through another system, a federal system. I imagine it should be better, because it is Canada. Education is another sacred sector for Quebec. The political minister for Quebec-I will not name him, Mr. Speaker, but you too would be able to name him-the political Minister for Quebec just said again that there should be a regional development department for Quebec, another sector which, the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission said, belongs to Quebec. When are you going to mind your own business? When are they going to mind their own business, Mr. Speaker?
Immediately-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We have a few minutes left. I would like to hear the hon. member's speech. If we do not let him finish we will not get on with the next speakers, please.


François Gérin: It is an old tactic to try to interrupt someone who is talking. Instead of listening and try to understand, they make jokes, they say anything, they talk among themselves. Now, it is too late; they are not able to read, but they should listen or else they should go to their ridings and pay attention to what their constituents have to say. This might be much better than the mediocre results of the government.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
You know, when you are only at 11 per cent or so in the polls, as is your case, you should not laugh. If I were you, I would ask myself some very serious questions. Go to your ridings, with your 11 per cent. I see some here who are only at 7 or 8 per cent and they keep going down. In fact, you are so unpopular that, in my opinion you will be below zero pretty soon.
Mr. Speaker, the good thing about all that is being done in this House and will be done later in English Canada is that the latter defines the kind of country it wants to have in the future. I am willing to give them that country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the hon. member is sort of getting his breath and getting a drink of water, I would not object to him not losing any time. There have been some interjections on things which I would like to hear him finish. I ask that he get his full time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: His full 30 seconds? The hon. member has the floor.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, we are now close to the end of the day. So it is normal to lose your voice when you have taken part in the debate in the most intelligent way possible. It's too bad because there is so much more to say.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friends in English Canada that they have the right to have their own country. Sovereignty is not a concept too difficult to understand. Sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, is the right to pass your own laws. It is normal to make your own laws, to collect your own taxes and to reach agreements.
In Quebec, we make our own laws in about half of the total jurisdictions. We have our own taxes. We already have international agreements. I think we would be able to take the same responsibilities, but in all jurisdictions. Once English Canada has the right to pass its own laws, to preserve its own traditions, its own culture, I see nothing wrong in the fact that Quebec and English Canada, Upper Canada and Lower Canada as we used to say in the past, join together and build an agreement
based not on our differences, as we have been trying to do for the last 25 or 30 years, but try to build an agreement, a superstructure as a Premier calls it, or other kinds of agreements based on our similarities, Mr. Speaker. But as a sine qua non condition, the agreement would have to be reached within preceded by the sovereignty of Quebec.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it really is a sad moment in this House to hear the member of the Bloc Quebecois. I do not believe his comments reflect at all the sentiment of the majority of Quebecers who, like the constituents of London East, are proud of this country's heritage, proud of what this country has done for each and every one of us.
I do not believe that this member speaks for anybody other than himself. It really is hypocritical, because last year not only he, but his leader, accepted the largesse of the Canadian people and the Government of Canada. In fact, his leader from Lac-Saint-Jean accepted $800 million for his riding to get into this House of Commons in a by-election. Really, the Canadian people have been more generous to the member than he has been to the Canadian people tonight. It is absolutely unbelievable that a member in this House can speak of this country in such a fashion.
I believe that this member is stuck in a time warp. This country has been built on generosity and tolerance from all people, from Quebec, the west, Atlantic Canada and Ontario. That is what has built this country. I am not at all sure that he reflects the sentiments of the majority of Canadians at all.
Let me ask him one simple little question. The Bloc Quebecois essentially wants a Quebec without Canada, very much like its counterpart, the Reform Party, which wants a Canada without Quebec. I want to ask him how he can reconcile the fact that he wants the good things of Canada, such as our dollar, our trade, and the economic links to this country and yet is prepared to disavow himself of all the good things that have built this country over the past 124 years.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.
June 18, 1991


François Gérin: Of course, we are ready to pay a portion of the huge federal debt which we inherited from that wonderful Canadian federalism.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a comment tonight about how the Quebec National Assembly speaks for francophones. It is true in Quebec. It is a provincial government and it speaks for the majority in Quebec. There has been a tradition in Canada, enunciated by Henri Bourassa and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that in the federal House, Quebecers and federal politicians have a responsibility for the French fact and francophone rights throughout Canada. That was the dream of Henri Bourassa and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is wrong to say that this House does not play a role in protecting the French language and the French fact. Someone has to say that. It is a revisionist view of history.
I believe the Bloc Quebecois is misleading the Quebec people by pretending that separation will be so easy. Does he not realize that if there is separation there will not be representation by Quebec in a federal bank because the bank will be controlled by English Canadians in the new country of English Canada and Quebecers would have no control over it? Is it not misleading the Quebec people by saying that separation will be easy? Quebec would not be in a federal bank. There would not be a common currency. There would be some question as to whether his farmers would get access to markets in the rest of Canada. So, why are you misleading the Quebec people on this?


François Gérin: You tell me that the Bank of Canada would be controlled by English Canada. That would not be very different from the present situation. The Bank of Canada serves the interests of Toronto. Look at all the decisions that the Bank of Canada took to help Toronto, to bring the inflation down in Toronto; it had an extremely negative impact on the economy of Quebec and of Montreal. Look what is done in research and development. It's always done in favour of Toronto. You, New Democrats, a party mainly based on regional interests out of Toronto, should be able to understand that Quebec has been a victim for many years. We have thought for a long time that by reforming the Constitu-
Govemment Orders
tion, by reforming the powers, by changing the whole constitutional picture, we could manage to benefit from Canadian federalism. However that seems impossible, it seems impossible to even start changing or amending. That is why we have, as we say in Megantic-Compton, pulled the plug.


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take much time on this debate because I know there are still a few members that would like to participate.
Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of consideration of government motion
No. 3.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 1912); the amendment of Mr. Ouellet (p. 1924); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bird (p. 1970).
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I give some credit to the House tonight. One of the members asked why we were bothering to extend the hours of debate. I asked what was wrong with trying to debate the Constitution of Canada. That is why we are prepared to spend some extra time in the House of Commons tonight to talk about and debate a very important issue before not only this House, but all Canadians in the country.
Just before starting with some of my comments, I would like to pay credit to a couple of members in our party who I think have done really an outstanding job in terms of representing our party's views on the Constitution, in particular our two members who have served on what has come to be known as the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands and

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
the member for Yorkton-Melville. I would also like to give special credit to an earlier speaker tonight, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like a little decorum in the Elouse, please, so that we can get our speeches over with.
If the Whips need to have a conversation would they please go behind the curtain? You are right in the line of the speaker and I cannot see him. I know who the better looking one is too. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Brian L. Gardiner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you would like to have a direct line of sight to me.
As I was saying, I would like to really congratulate the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam who has done a great deal in our party in advancing the constitutional debate, and as well our leader, who in the time that she has been the leader of our party has dragged many of us kicking and screaming into the constitutional debate.
If anyone, certainly in our party and in this House, has done a great deal by arguing that we must, in building a new Canada, open up a process on the Constitution it has certainly been the member for Yukon and the leader of the New Democratic Party. At our recent convention in Halifax she was involved in what could have been a very fractious debate. It was an intense debate but it could have been a fractious debate. If a party is to develop any kind of constitutional position it must be united and pull all its disparate parts together, as we and many other parties have had to do. That is one significant challenge and one that she was successful at. We certainly credit her for that.
We are debating tonight a motion to create a committee of this House and members of the Senate, with some provisions to include other people, to discuss further proposals for a Canadian Constitution. This committee will finally receive in September the proposal from the Government of Canada in terms of what we see as their proposal for the future of this country.
I appreciated the comments made earlier by the member for Saint-Denis who very passionately told the
House about his vision and what he saw as some of the sense and origin of this country and from where he gets his vision. I would like to share with him an equal vision of this country. As I travel through the part of the country that I represent, I see a vision of my country through the mountains, the forests, the rivers, the people who live and work in that world, and I understand what he said about Parliament and what it should be in this country.
I suggest to any member who has wanted to try and shape this country through a career in politics to go past the Peace Tower when it is lit up at night and feel like one very lucky person to have had a chance to share in the debate about the future of Canada. I would hope that all Canadians who from time to time watch the debates on television, or those Canadians who have an opportunity to come to Ottawa to see their capital, that when they see the Peace Tower it means more than just the top part of a building where a bunch of politicians are trying to figure out how to run the country. The Peace Tower should stand for something in this country, for peace, for unity in Canada, and for their own vision of what our country is trying to establish.
I think it is important that there is intense debate in the country and in this House between our members, members of the Bloc Quebecois, and others. I would hope that we would want to fight over Canada. I would hope it would be important enough-that we would be passionate enough-to have the sense to really fight for what we believe. Thank goodness that people do have some emotion about the country. It would be terrible if this Chamber passed in one sitting all of the stages necessary to pass a Constitution in this country. What a boring thing that would be if we treated our Constitution in that way.
I do not think we should have to apologize if members in this House and people across the country get emotional about what they believe in and what our country should stand for. I am glad about that because clearly those people believe in something, as we should as well.
What are we doing with this committee? I would say that it is with some regret that we speak on this motion presented by the government. Since the failure last June of the Meech Lake Accord, we have had very intense
June 18, 1991

discussions led by the Prime Minister. I remember leaving Ottawa and going to speak to grad ceremonies in my riding and talking about the importance of national unity and how we needed those young people to make their contribution to Canada. That was just a year ago, but that has been a long time in terms of the debate we had in the country on the Constitution.
I say with respect for all of the comments made by learned members and with the effort made by my leader and my party in terms of outlining a broader process to involve more Canadians in the constitutional process, I would hope that after a year we might have done a little more, that maybe tonight rather than debating what may end up to be-we hope it becomes more than that-yet another parliamentary committee. It is unfortunate that tonight we could not have been debating and fine-tuning perhaps the components and aspects of a constituent assembly that I think would go some distance toward showing Canadians that not only do we respect the advice and opinions of Canadians from all walks of life, members of Parliament, members of legislative assemblies, representatives of local governments-a group quite often missed in this debate-but that we want them to be part of a process. A little goes a long way when it comes to showing Canadians that we are prepared to consider their views when we are writing and dealing with the Constitution of Canada.
If there is one constant that we will be faced with from now on, that constant is the change in our Constitution. This is not something that will be resolved by September or the fall of next year, or into 1993 with a spring election. We have the ability to change and to amend our Constitution at home on our own, now.
Others were here before in that historic debate when we brought home, as it was said, our Constitution. So, change is with us constantly now and we have to be prepared to deal with that.
I have mentioned some of the groups that I think can and should be involved in this debate. I have talked about members of legislative assemblies, and I have talked about local governments. Their voice has not been heard a lot lately. I also want to mention because it is so important that aboriginal people in this country have their role as well in the makeup and the writing of our Constitution. We cannot allow another failure in that
Government Orders
area. I hope we have a commitment from this House and others that that will in fact be the case.
We have had an example, one small step perhaps, but an example of what a government can do. I am referring of course to the recent announcement by the Government of Ontario that has signed a statement of a political relationship with the First Nations of Ontario. The Ontario government has done what the President of the Privy Council and the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs ought to be doing as they continue their discussions with the legitimate leadership of the national aboriginal organizations. Our member who represents Port Albemi has spoken eloquently on this issue previously in the House.
I would hope that as we consider this motion and the debate that we are having that we do look beyond the confines of the rules as we have known them and have become comfortable with. Let us not be afraid to experiment, let us not be afraid to listen to some new ideas.
One new idea we debated this afternoon. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore presented his bill on referen-dums and plebiscites. Let us not be afraid to consider a couple of ideas from time to time. We are a young nation. Next year we will be celebrating our 125th birthday and we have many years to go. We have survived a great deal as a country. We will I hope survive our current fracas or discussions. I am hopeful that we will, and I am particularly hopeful of course that in writing this Constitution that we be inclusive, as is being said, that we include aboriginal people and the groups that we have mentioned before. We will not accomplish that- or, I would hope that we have to go some distance to ensure that we do-with the motion before us now.
I would ask that the House give serious consideration to our proposal for a constituent assembly. Our leader has said that it is not perfect. What is? But it is an attempt, a signal if you like, a call on the government to lay out in some detail a message that we are prepared to reach out to Canadians, to have their say, to have their view and to participate in the writing of our Constitution and to share some of that emotion and some of that vision for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, I would just

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
like to advise hon. members who are waiting for the adjournment proceedings that under Standing Order 38(7) they are today cancelled.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I believe all members in this House received a document in their offices yesterday or a few days ago called "Some Practical Suggestions for Canada: Report of the Group of 22". I compliment this group because rather than sit around and complain as many do, it got together and did something.
It put this report together with 28 recommendations of what should be incorporated in the Canadian Constitution. I do not agree with all of them, but as I say, I compliment it for doing something positive.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with recommendation 14 which reads: "We recommend that full and complete recognition of the four economic freedoms, the freedom of movement, labour, capital, goods and services be stipulated in the Constitution so that the Canadian economic union can be fully established and citizens can have recourse to the courts to ensure that these provisions are met. We suggest that consideration be given as well to the creation of an administrative tribunal which would oversee the practical realization of these essential economic principles and would assist in the resolution of the problems."
Coming from the constituency which he represents, does he see that this will be a positive thing into the Constitution or a negative thing, this building in the free movement of labour, capital, goods and services?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to that question first of all with just a brief comment on the member's preamble to his question.
That was on the proposal from this group as it is called, in which there are some learned people who are presenting their views of Canada and suggestions on how we can take a look at the country.
The member mentioned that in his preamble with a suggestion. These people are making their proposals and suggestions in a positive way, or adding to the debate.
Let me make one comment about what I hope is one small way that I am helping my constituents in this debate. During the discussions on Meech Lake, it was very interesting to ask how many people had actually read Meech Lake. In a room in which everybody in my
riding would have got up, howled and screamed about Meech Lake, not one may have read it.
As a practical solution or attempt at that, I have made an effort to my constituents to ensure that those people who are interested in the constitutional debate are sent a package once a month of pro and con debates. We will be including this Group of 22 submission in that package for my constituents. We have about 300 people in my riding now who have written to me. I invite anyone else in the country who is interested to write. I would be more than pleased to put them on that list so that they can make an informed decision about the Constitution.
A "more informed decision" means we will have a better vision of the country. Specifically, to his question in terms of some of the four components in the Constitution, I would certainly be prepared to look at them. On first hand, I do not see any reason necessary to reject them. I suppose some debate would be with the provinces which have their own challenge in terms of attempting to break down the barriers they have between their jurisdictions.
We have had some cases in which that has been almost ridiculous. On first glance, I would not have a problem with that. I suppose we would have a better Canadian economy if we had better coast to coast to coast trade than we do now.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late and I do want to thank all the members of this House for the latitude given in extending the hours of the debate so that remaining speakers, my colleague and I, have an opportunity to address this really important issue.
Canada is a country which faces troubled and difficult times. It is a nation which today is at a crossroads. It is a nation with an uncertain future. It is easy to point fingers at who or what is to blame for taking us to this critical point. It is easy to blame this government. It is easy to blame this Prime Minister. I think we have to recognize that in some measure we are all to blame. That is precisely why we all must be part of the solution.
Canadians are a people who are rather uninformed about their country. That is possibly due to the fact that we are constantly submerged and inundated in a wave of culture from our U.S. neighbour. We do not have a healthy sense of national identity. We are a vast land, a land with a very sparse and a very diverse population. We tend to view ourselves from two distinctly separate
June 18, 1991

realities. The problem, when you look at it, goes right back to the beginnings and the foundations of Canada.
Before Confederation there were essentially two Canadas, composed of two founding nations: the French of Lower Canada and the anglophones of Upper Canada. As this land grew and spread westward the perceptions of Canada evolved. The francophones of Quebec remained within the frame of reference of a Canada of two founding nations. The anglophones, the English-speaking Canadians, particularly western Canadians, began to perceive our land as an equal partnership of provinces and territories.
Canada today, as a result of that evolution of realities, has become a land, if you like, of two solitudes. It is a Canada of vastly different realities. That is why the Meech Lake Accord failed. It had essentially competing objectives and it was assisted by a Prime Minister who chose to roll the dice with the future of this nation. The demands of Quebec to be essentially a nation within a nation, with special privileges and powers, in the perception of western Canadians, of English Canadians, was unacceptable.
The application of the notwithstanding clause to impose French-only language rights within Quebec was the straw that broke the camel's back in western Canada. That is why western Canadians are now railing against the concept of bilingualism. The question they ask themselves is: why should English Canada be attempting to accommodate Quebec through a national bilingualism program when Quebec is trying to override equal rights within the province? That is the perception. It is the reality in terms of a western Canadian perspective. I want to try to bring that perspective here on behalf of western Canadians so that we can attempt to deal with this difficulty.
Quebecers, to present the other view, if they cannot follow their own perceived sovereign destiny within the national framework then they do not want to stay in Canada, they want to pursue their own future. To westerners, if they cannot have an equal partnership, then perhaps it is time that Quebec leaves. There are certain sentiments in the west which take that viewpoint. The reality is that we tread in very dangerous waters. It is a situation which threatens to rip our young nation apart.
Government Orders
The failure of Meech Lake last year has paralyzed this government and it paralyzed this nation. We do not have the kind of constitutional tools to deal with the kind of crisis which besets us today.
The current parliamentary structure is incapable of resolving this crisis. Canadians know that we as parliamentarians have in some measure failed them. There has been a clarion call for change in the way that this country runs itself.
There has been a request, a demand, for a mechanism to resolve this constitutional impasse.
One thing Meech Lake has taught us is that the Canadian people themselves are no longer willing to sit idly by on the sidelines while the process evolves behind closed doors. They want to be active. They want to take an active role, to be fundamentally involved with the process of solving this crisis, despite the anger and the frustration that is out there in Canada on both sides.
There is also, I feel, a growing desire to heal the wounds that have been left from the Meech Lake fiasco. There are genuine efforts coming about toward real national reconciliation.
I want to point to a small community in my riding, on the western edge of my riding in the Okanagan-Shu-swap, the community of Falkland which is now becoming known internationally as "the little town that could". This small community is trying to reach out to our francophone friends in Quebec with an "I care for Canada" campaign. The little town has been flying hundreds of flags. There are T-shirts. There are buttons. There are letter writing campaigns going on. Falkland has challenged other communities in my constituency and throughout the west to open up a dialogue with communities in French Canada and to tell our francophone friends, the brothers and sisters in Quebec, that we want them to stay. We want them to remain a part of Canada.
Other communities have taken up the challenge which Falkland has levelled. Falkland's sister city in Utah is even proudly flying our own Canadian flag and is taking up the challenge of the need for national unity in Canada. Falkland's message to Canada is that despite

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
our differences, and granted they are real, together we are stronger.
I believe there is a growing hope for a united and a stronger Canada which will include our friends in Quebec. That is why my colleagues and I support a renewed process of reconciliation. We very much want to see a renewed Canada, a just Canada, and in particular, a united Canada.
It will take more than simply a commitment to constitutional change. It means a commitment to building a fair and a prosperous economy. It means a commitment to maintaining our national health and social programs. It means a commitment to restoring health to our natural environment.
Today we are debating a constitutional resolution and how we as a Parliament will seek consensus which will hopefully lead us more united into the 21st century.
Both the Liberal opposition and the Conservative government have adopted the proposal for this committee of self-interest. My colleagues and I have to reject this proposal. There is a need for involving the Canadian people at a fundamentally different level, and that is ignored in this committee proposal.
My colleagues and I have proposed a constituent assembly, a process where Canadian people can become involved and can take part in the decisions that affect the future of this nation. A nation can only create a Constitution through a process of social consensus, and the best way to reach that social consensus is through such a constituent assembly.
Earlier this evening the Liberal member from Papi-neau called a constituent assembly a flight of fancy. If our Liberal and Conservative friends call listening to the voice of the people of Canada a flight of fancy, then I submit we are in deep trouble indeed.
The success of Canada is dependent upon the full participation of Canadians in the process of national renewal. Regrettably, this motion before the House does not allow that full participation. The people of Canada have spoken loud and clear. They want to be involved. They no longer trust this government. They no longer trust the politicians. They want to have a hand in the process in a very fundamental way. They do not want to leave their future and the future of their children in the hands of the political process because that political process has failed them before. They do not want it to fail again.
Enough of the back room deals and enough of the rolling of the dice, they are not willing to have their children's future simply gambled away.
The government response to this challenge levelled by Canadians, after all the commissions and studies, is to strike another parliamentary committee, a committee in which the government has control, a committee in which the government calls the shots, a committee in which the government shuffles the deck and deals the cards, and in which unelected senators, believe it or not, will have a say and perhaps the balance of power in the outcome of this process. It is a committee of politicians speaking to more politicians. Once again the Canadian people are on the outside looking in, and that is unacceptable. It is time to bring real people into the process.
The Constitution of Canada, the future of this nation, does not belong to this government. It belongs to the people of Canada and, by God, they must be able to have a say and be able to participate in that future.
As was mentioned earlier tonight by my colleague for Port Moody-Coquitlam, 68 per cent of the Canadian people want a constituent assembly. Canadians are calling for a larger role in this process of constitutional reform. The government's response has been to appoint another committee and to appoint 10 unelected, unrepresentative senators to that committee who may well hold the balance of power in the deliberations of that committee. That is unacceptable to the Canadian people. More politicians and more hidden agendas are unacceptable.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are not opposed to the concept of parliamentary committees, but this constitutional impasse, this crisis that we face, is an extraordinary situation. It is time that we explored new solutions and explored the utilization of new tools to resolve those problems.
We have to turn away from the old ways and from the old ideas. A constituent assembly, I submit, could w'ell be that new way Canadians are looking for. It would bring Canadians back into the process of national renewal. The voices of Canada would most assuredly be heard.
*

	
June 18, 1991

The Conservatives and the Liberals argue that a constituent assembly would mean that we are not respecting the parliamentary tradition and the parliamentary process, that we are usurping parliamentary power.
Parliament would not be by-passed by a constituent assembly. It is in fact Parliament that would make that final decision. My leader had said earlier tonight: "The buck stops here". Although the constituent assembly would involve Canadian people in the process, that final decision still rests with Parliament.
I might add that once that final decision had been made by Parliament, we could well go back to the people for a final ratification of that consensus through a national referendum. This would ensure that Canadian people were involved in the process from beginning to end, that they had a stake in the results of that process, and that they had a stake in the future of this country.
What we are talking about here is fundamental reform, constitutional reform and parliamentary reform. We are all participants in the painting of a grand design for this nation. It is a challenge which we must share and it is a challenge which all Canadians must share. It is a challenge at which we cannot afford to fail.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Okanagan-Shuswap alluded to the 101 legislation which is trampling on English language rights in Quebec in his opinion. Perhaps, my hon. colleague read too much from a certain press in English Canada and perhaps he has not tried hard enough to understand what really went on in Quebec under the 101 legislation. The only people's rights who were trampled on were the Francophones like myself who could not send their children to an English public school because both themselves and their wives were French unilingual, even though they were supporting English public schools in Quebec with their taxes.
My colleague seems to have forgotten the many anglophone universities, high schools, elementary schools, kindergardens and hospitals where every Anglophones can be served in English, even in Quebec City where they barely represent 4 per cent of the population. My colleague cannot say that in his region of Canada,
Government Orders
Francophone minorities receive the same treatment as the Quebec Anglophone minorities.
Moreover, the hon. member mentionned the Meech Lake Accord and the vision we had of our country. The Meech Lake Accord were proposed as a mean to undo a wrong that was done in 1982 when the province of Quebec was excluded from the Canadian Constitution. I think that the Meech Lake Accord was fair to every Canadian. And the hon. member's party should have supported it. That is all I had to say.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very compelling case about his own particular situation as a unilingual francophone. I sympathize with the arguments he has made.
It is not possible within the time structure of the debate to expand upon my comments more fully than I did except to say that what I was reflecting is not my personal bias about the situation in Quebec but rather the perception people throughout western Canada have of the whole situation with regard to the notwithstanding clause and the imposition of Bill 101.
That brings me back to the point I was making earlier. We have two realities in Canada and we have a problem with communication between our francophone friends in Quebec and the English-speaking western provinces. There are different perceptions. If Canadians could travel more across this country, if there was more opportunity for cultural exchanges, for educational exchanges between students from schools in western Canada, the prairies, the maritimes, Quebec, those communication barriers would begin to break down.
We have French immersion schools in my constituency. My two youngest daughters went to that school. Often that particular school does have exchanges with schools in Quebec. It is a great opportunity for those students to learn about other cultures and to learn the differences between francophone and anglophone Canada. That is precisely the issue. We have to learn to bridge that gap. I hope someday we can say that we have accomplished that.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the debate of the hon. member for Okanagan- Shuswap. We had the pleasure of representing our country at the United Nations at one time so I know he

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
speaks with sincerity and has the best interests of our country at heart.
He quoted my colleague from Papineau-Sain t-Mi-chel as running down the constituent assembly idea. What he fails to do is put it into full context.
The member for Papineau-Saint-Michel asked how the constituent assembly can work when one of the provinces has already publicly stated that it will not participate in the process of a constituent assembly. I would like him to tell the House how his party plans to resolve this? It is pushing a constituent assembly at almost every debate I have heard. That is the one idea they have, yet one province has already rejected it.
I would like to hear from the hon. member just how his party plans to resolve this.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I think the member has a very relevant point. I appreciate him bringing it up and trying to place some parameters around the comment that the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel had made earlier this evening.
Hie fact is that the argument the member makes refers to the political elite of that particular province. Although that political elite says they will not participate in a constituent assembly, when you ask the people of Quebec how they feel about a constituent assembly, 57 per cent of say "yes" to a constituent assembly, and 68 per cent of the people outside of Quebec say "yes" to a constituent assembly.
Clyde Wells of Newfoundland, Frank McKenna of New Brunswick, Bob Rae of Ontario, Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, all say "yes" to a constituent assembly. Just because Mr. Bourassa says "no" does not mean it is not possible. The people of Quebec also say "yes."


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the speech by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap. I heard him mention the two separate realities in this country. I feel that he is over-dramatizing the differences some people think exist between Canadians.
I am a Quebecer and I do not detect these two separate realities. We are all human beings. We are all Canadians. Canada means something to many Quebecers, to the great majority of Quebecers I would say. What has been missing in the past few years is someone who can adequately articulate what Canada is all about to all
Canadians so that all Canadians can see themselves within this great country.
Someone reminded me that it was Pierre Berton who defined a Canadian as someone who could make love in a canoe. I think we should reflect a little bit on-the Minister for International Trade suggests that I have the quote somewhat wrong, but that is almost it. I would suggest that we ought to think a little bit more about the things that we have in common, rather than the things that may set us apart.

Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne, the government indicated its intention to tackle on the constitutionnal issue. The government said that it would put forward new proposals designed to focus the debate on a more united and more prosperous Canada.
Some proposals were submitted to the Joint Committe of the House and the Senate on September and that committee will be required to consult Canadians. It will be asked to report to the govemement or to the Parliament within a five months timetable.
We are talking today about the terms of reference and membership of this joint committee. During the debate on the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister mentioned the need to think of the national interest. He underlined that it was up to the Parliament of Canada to think of the national interest.
For a long time, Mr. Speaker, members of my party, the Liberal Party, have recognized that only the Parliament of Canada speaks for all Canadians. The provincial legislatures only speak on behalf of the citizens of their respective provinces. Some national organizations represent the interest of women or native people, but the only assembly speaking for all Canadians is the Parliament of Canada, and this is why I said a moment ago that we need Canadian leaders who are capable of championing the national interest in this House.
We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that we have here 295 elected members who represent all Canadians. Who could know better the wishes, the needs and the interests of Canadian voters, of the Canadian people, than the hon. members sitting here, in the House of Commons? Our duties give us a good appreciation of the general interest, on top of the particular interests of our constituents. Who could better than us reconcile the interests
June 18, 1991

of our constituencies, our provinces with the national interest, than the people in this place, Mr. Speaker?
I am glad that the Prime Minister recognized that no constituent assembly could be better than the House of commons, but we are not talking about that today, we are talking about the membership of the joint committee. This committee has to represent all Canadians. To this end, it must have enough members to be a good sample of the population. Without giving undue importance to the differences, let me say that it is necessary for the committee to be representative of the various regions, languages, genders, ethnic origins, ages and interests of Canadians.
However, the government proposal will not allow that representativeness. Let us look at our party, Mr. Speaker. We will have four members on the committee. We will have to select one member from each of the four regions. We will have one member from the Maritime, one from Quebec, one from Ontario and one from the West. The member from Quebec will, most certainly, be French-speaking. With only four members, the Liberal Party will not be able to have an English-speaking member from Quebec and it is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, that 800,000 English-speaking Quebecers be without representation on the Liberal side.

Perhaps a Conservative anglophone would be picked, but I believe that many anglophones in Quebec would agree with me if I said that their point of view of the country has been better represented by Liberals in recent years than by Conservatives.


An hon. member:: That is for sure.


David Berger: Their interests would be better represented by Liberals on this committee. One would not think that the government needs to be told that anglophones in Quebec feel a certain anxiety about their future and would want to make sure that their views are expressed as we go about making important decisions about the future of this country.
In addition to the criteria I mentioned above, namely that attention be paid to the language of the members of the committee and to the regions that they will represent, I think it will be important to consider the interests and background of members of the committee. Of
Business of the House
particular concern to me is the need for this committee to adequately address Canada's position as we enter the 21st century. Our leader, Mr. Chretien, has talked about the need perhaps to address the division of powers-


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize to the hon. member. There have been discussions among the parties to move some motions and I want to indicate before I do this that I am not trying to cut anybody off. I know the member from Annapolis Valley-Hants wishes to speak.
I have several motions to put, which I believe the House will consent to. I move:
That this House orders, having regard to paragraph 8(2Xc) of the Privacy Act that the Solicitor General cause to be laid before an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General unexpurgated copies of the report by Mr. John Weir concerning the escape of Daniel Gingras and the report by the Correctional Service Canada Board of Investigations concerning Allan Leger; and
That the in camera meeting of the committee take place with all the procedural protections normally accorded to in camera meetings, including a ban on the publication of the proceedings of the committee and on the disclosure of any information contained in the said reports which may be protected from disclosure under either the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act; and
That this House takes note of the First Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled in the House on May 29, 1991, and refers the said report and all the evidence and proceedings upon which the report is based to the House Management Committee for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That when Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act, is called for debate, the Speaker shall recognize one member for the government party, two members from the Official Opposition and one member from the New Democratic Party to speak for a period of time not to exceed ten minutes each, following which the Speaker shall

June 18, 1991
Business of the House
forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of both report stage and third reading of said bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, when Bill C-9, an act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime, is called for debate, the Speaker shall recognize one speaker from each of the three recognized parties to speak for a period not to exceed ten minutes each following which the speaker shall forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading of said bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if I could seek clarification from the government House leader. Regarding Bill C-9, one of the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party has been accepted by the government, which of course would be dealt with at report stage.


Mr. Andre:: The parliamentary secretary is not here this evening, but barring any change from this afternoon, it is my understanding that that one amendment would be recognized.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to certainly give our consent, with the clear understanding that arrangements have been made on that particular critical motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps when the parliamentary secretary is on his feet with regard to the motions which he is going to present in the next number of minutes, as well as those that have passed, I presume he will indicate that these motions will be called for tomorrow, namely June 19.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that it is our intention to move these various bills and motions tomorrow, June 19.


BILL C-19
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to pre-study Bill C-19, an act respecting banks and banking;
That the committee or a subcommittee hear witnesses and take evidence as it sees fit on this reference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Wednesday, June 19, 1991, forthwith upon disposition of the Ways and Means proceeding concerning a bill respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies (notice of which was given on Tuesday, June 18, 1991) the bill based thereon (notice of which was given on Monday, June 17, 1991) shall be introduced and read a first time pursuant to Standing Orders 68 and 69.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to prestudy the government bill on notice dated June 17, 1991, an act respecting insurance companies and fraternal benefit societies; and
That the committee or a subcommittee hear witnesses and take evidence as it sees fit on this reference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs be authorized to pre-study the government bill, C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, upon the completion of a 10-minute speech from one member of each of the three recognized parties; and
That the committee or a subcommittee hear witnesses and take evidence as it sees fit on this reference.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
June 18, 1991

That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders and usual practices of the House, on Wednesday, June 19,1991 during Motions and Routine Proceedings the following motion be proposed by the Prime Minister:
That, in accordance with subsection 49(1) of an act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter 31, (4th supplement), this House approves the appointment of Dr. Victor Goldbloom as Commissioner of Official
Languages for Canada.
That in debate of the said motion, the Speaker shall recognize one member of the government, two members from the Official Opposition and one member from the third party recognized in the House, each to speak for up to 10 minutes each;
And that following such speeches, the question on the said motion be deemed put to the House and deemed adopted.


Marcel Prud'homme: I raise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which pertains to this nomination of Dr Gold-bloom, a personality which I have the honour to know, very well by the way. I do not wish to break this happy unanimity by saying that we will not give our consent to proceed so rapidly. I regret, and I wish to take part in future debates, which will take place this fall. Because I read again this nomination, on a very important subject, with all the constitutional problem, I simply regret, and I want to make it clear that I regret. But I will not refuse to give my consent, and this has nothing to do with Dr Goldbloom. I simply deplore the fact that we cannot discuss further this resolution of the right Honorable Prime minister. However, I will not deny this happy unanimity to proceed with the few speakers that you are proposing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member well. He and I spent a great deal of time together in committees so I am familiar with his phraseology.



ROYAL ASSENT

["We will have a look at it tomorrow.\nPursuant to order made earlier this day the subamendment is deemed adopted on division. The amendment as amended is deemed adopted on division, and the question on the main motion as amended is deemed put and the division deferred to later this day at three o'clock p.m.\nAccordingly this House stands adjourned until later this day, June 19, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, at any time during the adjournment of the House between June, 1991 and September 15, 1991, the Speaker may cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill or bills, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House forthwith according to the provisions of this order; and
Business of the House
That, the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), respecting recall of the House for urgent and pressing matters, not be superseded by the provisions of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba from August 11 to August 13, 1991, to attend the 13 th Annual Conference of the Canadian Council on Public Accounts committees and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources be authorized to travel to attend, with the necessary staff, the 39th Canadian Coal Conference in Banff from September 14, 1991 to September 17, 1991.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General be authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Yukon, for the period beginning Tbesday, September 3 to Sunday, September 8, 1991 in order to participate at the National Aboriginal Justice Conference and that the necessary staff, the Clerk and the Research Officer, do accompany the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons be authorized to travel to Montreal and Quebec City on September 26 and 27, 1991 to hold hearings in relation to disabled persons and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 18, 1991
Business of the House PRESENTATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when reports of all committees are completed, the committees may report their findings by depositing their reports with the Clerk of the House and the reports shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, when Bill C-6, an act respecting the exporting, importing, manufacturing, buying or selling of or other dealing with certain weapons, is called for debate, the Speaker shall allow 30 minutes of debate at report stage and 30 minutes of debate at third reading following which the Speaker shall forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of third reading of said bill;
And, immediately upon the taking of such divisions, the House shall stand adjourned until September 16, 1991 at 2 p.m. subject to the House order adopted by this House at an earlier time.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm my understanding that the government has agreed that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade will undertake to study and report on Canadian exports of military goods, defence production policy and policies, to convert Canadian defence production industry to civilian uses, and to make recommendations for amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act, related regulations and the Criminal Code.
It will submit its report by December 31, 1991 to the Minister for International Trade. Once Bill C-6 is given Royal Assent, and pending completion of the parliamentary report, the government will include on the automatic firearms country control list, only the 10 countries with which it has the required bilateral defence research, development and production agreements, plus Saudi Arabia, assuming that the agreements being considered for that country can be successfully completed by December 31, 1991.
All applications to export automatic weapons to countries included on the list will be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with established policy, guidelines and procedures. The only sale of automatic
weapons to Saudi Arabia between now and December 31, 1991 will be by GM Diesel of those mounted on the LAVs under the proposed sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by General Motors.
I further understand that the external affairs and international trade standing committee will establish a subcommittee before the House recesses, that the subcommittee will have the authority to meet this summer, and that it will hold public hearings, including some outside of Ottawa, that there will be a reasonable research budget and that the research program will be subject to all-party approval.
I would ask the government representatives to indicate that my understanding is correct.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our understanding.


Albert Glen Cooper: If the House were to adjourn tomorrow night, it may take until Thursday to get the external affairs committee to meet, to establish its subcommittee and to get up and running.


John F. Brewin: That would be within the spirit of the understanding and that would be fine.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just to seek one clarification on the 30 minutes set aside for report stage, presumably the understanding is that that would be sufficient time for the hon. member for Victoria to put the appropriate amendments forward at report stage.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the words "appropriate time" are obviously very difficult for me because I do not know what amendments the hon. members proposes or what other members may want to participate for a few moments in the debate. By allowing the 30 minutes, certainly it is our intention to co-operative with the hon. member to give him his opportunities and others as well.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have not been a party to a lot of these interesting discussions, but I certainly understand the purport of them and I certainly appreciate the work of the parliamentary secretary. However, since we had such a long-winded undertaking from the member for Victoria on certain precise understandings, I will not get into my whole thought about what a lack of opposition there is over here and no wonder the government is
June 18, 1991

riding pretty high even though it is low in the polls. I will not get into that.
In effect this would normally be the adjournment debate. I do not want to preclude that, but I am prepared to participate in it. Therefore, since the hon. member for Victoria came through with his long-winded obligation that someone over there said "okay", I would like to know, if I understand things correctly, does that mean if that motion goes through that the defence committee will not meet to consider the implications of what we all know are going to be interesting, disturbing and necessary announcements about defence capability and base situations in Canada.
Second, as an old chairman of the transport committee, could I ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. He is trying to do a good job and doing it well. He is not disturbed by his House leader or the Whip, thank God. Could the parliamentary secretary let this lowly member know, as an ex-chairman of the transport committee, does this motion mean that there is going to be a full summer until September when the transport committee is not going to meet to consider a multitude of things including the port of Halifax and our Atlantic ports, notwithstanding the position of At and East?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the defence committee, no, this does not preclude the defence committee meeting to discuss a possible new announcement on defence policy which might come up. That would be the intention.
The only reason for the indication of support from the member for Victoria was the external affairs committee could of course meet and do this anyway. He wanted the assurance that there would be a reference from the House in that regard. We simply give him that assurance.
As for the transport committee, I do not know if the chairman is here tonight, but there is certainly no prohibition against spending all the months of July, August and September if they choose to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The house has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. parliamentary secretary with the provisions by the hon. member for Victoria.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that motion.
Some lion, members: Agreed.
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Prud'homme: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saint Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: It is too late, it has already been adopted. I just wanted to put that on record. It is good for me to put that on the record for future debate. It seems to me that when Bob White speaks the NDP gets in line.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members would want to extend their appreciation to our colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount, who was so kind as to give the floor to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in order to introduce those motions. I want to thank him on behalf of all members for his co-operation and his courtesy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (p. 1912); the amendment of Mr. Ouellet (p. 1924); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bird (p. 1970).
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, that is the biggest hand I have ever received in this House. It shows that if you are patient, some good things come from it once in a while.
I lost my audience in the galleiy while this was going on. Perhaps there are still some people out there in television land.
Prior to the points of order, I was saying that I had a particular concern that the special joint committee on the Constitution adequately address Canada's position as we enter the 21st century.

A month ago, the leader of our party, Mr. Chretien, dealt with the division of powers in his constitutional propositions. He advocates a functional approach. Interests of the population, not those of governments or of civil servants, must come first. He also says that a reform of government powers should always have enough flexi-

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
bility to allow Canada to face the challenges of the Twenty-First Century.
Mr. Speaker, I was staggered by the speech of the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, a member of the Bloc Quebecois. His words were absolutely nonsense. He defended the new separatist theory according to which Canadian federalism is the cause of our social and economic problems.
Mr. Speaker, during all my years in Parliament, I have had the privilege to listen to several distinguished persons who were concerned by the position of Canada in a constantly changing world.
Mr. Speaker, not one of those persons concerned with the future of Canada in a world in evolution has lamed the Canadian federalism for our problems. Far from that, they all say that our problems are caused by our incapacity to adapt to economic and technological changes.
Mr. Speaker, the committee must listen to those people who have a vision of the future. I think of persons like Larkin Kerwin, the president of the Canadian Space Agency, the president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the president of the Science Council of Canada, or to the astronaut Marc Garneau.
Mr. Speaker, economic arguments support federalism. Mrs. Sylva Ostiy, former president of the Economic Council of Canada, who has spent many years at the OECD, said recently, in an article published in the Globe and Mail and in Le Devoir, that Europeans have joined in a common market for economic reasons, because they were concerned with their jobs. They understood that it was necessary to consult each other to compete with Japanese and Americans. Research and development has become too expensive to be undertaken by a country alone or by a company alone, and without joining with our countries, Mr. Speaker. Sovereignty has no place in the global village of today. If Canadians want to succeed, they must not be divided but they have to work together and find new mechanisms of cooperation and dialogue.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the joint committee will deal with those issues in order to secure the future of Canadians, of our children and granchildren.

For the reasons I have mentioned I believe that the government's proposal is deficient. I understand that an amendment has been proposed by a member of my party, the Liberal Party, which would increase the representation, the number of MPs who would serve on this committee and would therefore ensure that it could better represent all of Canada and all of the interests that are important to be heard in this debate. The government should not proceed with its proposal unless it accepts our amendment. This is not the right way to begin the important work of this committee. I hope that the government will listen to our proposal and ensure that this committee gets off on the right foot.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Point of order before we get to comments.
I do not want to interfere with comments. I understand the problem the former Minister of Finance has, the present minister of whatever-he-is, in trying to negotiate a playing field between Carla Hills and the Mexicans.
In view of the motions we just approved a moment ago we may adjourn for the summer recess. Otherwise I am going to be raising this every day. I want the Chair to make a ruling on what I thought was always a fundamental element of parliamentary proceedings-but I understand the government does not fully appreciate parliamentary proceedings-that there must be a minister of the Crown in the House while we deal with Crown business, the business of the taxpayer. Quite frankly the whole essence of this place, I thought-and I may be wrong-is that when you deal with the business of the people there must be at least one minister in the House. We go through this hypocrisy and charade of petitions at one stage of our proceedings but when the House is in session it is not supposed to be a charade.
I always thought there was supposed to be a minister of the Crown present. In fact two ministers, one who could listen and a second who could be called upon by the Chair to say moved by minister so-and-so and seconded by minister so-and-so and say: "What the
June 18, 1991

member for Antigonish said was correct and we can put this into the bowels of the bureaucracy and see what will happen".
I am not asking for a ruling tonight. I do not mind the government backbenchers in the lowly corner where I used to sit, before I came to sit here as a backbencher in opposition, but I must say as I sit here in opposition that 25 years ago-and I have come full circle because I am about three seats from whence I began-we always had two government ministers in the House. Never in my life, knowing what I thought about parliamentary democracy and what I thought the Conservative Party believed in terms of parliamentary democracy, did I think I would ever see the insult that has developed over the last few weeks into an affront, as far as I am concerned, to the public of Canada.
I understand the government backbenchers for statements, I understand them for questions, but I do not understand the Speaker recognizing three or four-just a minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has made his point, but I will listen to him further.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My point is this. I want the Chair to take this upon itself. My thoughts after 20 some years may be wrong but perhaps we should not have any members of Her Majesty's Privy Council sitting in Her Majesty's Privy Council seats to pick up their frigging pay, to pick up their frigging pensions and to pick up the problems of the people.
If that is the problem, I want the Chair to tell me, and it will not be bothered with me on this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has made his point. I will look at it and also will-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When are you going to rule, before we adjourn?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will see what we can do tomorrow for the hon. member.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the speech of my colleague opposite, the member for Saint-Henri-West-mount. I have appreciated part of what he said but I certainly could not appreciate as easily all of what he said, whether he said it in his nice French or in his elegant English. It seems to me that I would like to talk about- Do I have to end my remarks, Mr. Speaker?
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: So, because it seemed to me that the hon. member from the opposition would be kind enough to stand up and be recognized, he could also be decent enough to listen when someone else has the floor, Mr. Speaker.
So, I go back to our colleague from Saint-Henri- Westmount and I find it sad, even extremely sad that, perhaps without realizing it, he used an euphemism which, because of the very fact that it was an euphemism, made the situation very dangerous.
At the very beginning of his speech, he said that we should not overdramatize differences, that we are all human beings. I think that is an euphemism and a very dangerous statement. In fact, human reality is based on the difference between individuals. Human reality and social reality are based on the recognition of differences. The recognition of differences- we are not citizens of the world. I am a Canadian citizen, bom in Montreal, living in the province of Quebec and that is what makes me different from Americans and people from other countries. And I am sure that our opposition colleague will want to correct his words or express with less audacity that euphemism which is dangerous and which can only feed such unstructured statements as those that we heard tonight from one of the Bloc Quebecois members.


David Berger: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to retract. I recognize many differences. I might even say: Vive la difference. Moreover, I might even add that federalism is a system that allows for the difference. Having said that, I think I have already mentioned that overdramatization must be avoided. In spite of our differences, we all have certain things in common, certain things which hold us together. In my opinion, those who enjoy the privilege of being members of this House should talk more about these things which unite us and less about differences. Let others talk about differences.


M. Prud'homme:: My comment will be very brief, because it is a debate that will never end, probably, between some of my colleagues and me. After listening to my colleague, and it is not the first time, I think that

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
we will never agree on some aspects of federalism. We should be careful-and it was true long before my honourable colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hen-ri-Westmount, arrive in this House-with those who think that everything beautiful, noble, great and intelligent always comes from Ottawa.

I have travelled enough in your province and in every other province of Canada to know that a lot of good can come from provinces. That is why I am not an absolute, total centralisateur and I believe that this country will only survive if we understand that on various levels of government a lot of good could be created.
It reminds me of when I arrived. My father told me: "Beware of people whose policy is 'Father knows best and the rest of you all across Canada know nothing.' "
There is a tendency for those of us who are here in Ottawa to neglect and not recognize that in various parts of Canada there is a lot of good that can come from various provincial governments.
Earlier, to a colleague of mine from the Atlantic, I said: "I am afraid some morning we may get up and see Canada does not exist any more". Simply out of boredom people will be so fed up they will give up. Or others, and this is more dangerous, will say, like the hon. Minister of Transport, and I am astounded that my hon. colleague and the Minister of Transport may have something in common, that there is no problem. The Minister of Transport keeps saying there is no problem and so he is not going to address how bad the situation is in Montreal.
I can tell him that he has members of Parliament from the government, the member for Bourassa and the member for Outremont, who are better prepared. I am going to ask the Prime Minister of Canada to ask these people if they think that the situation is so great in Montreal. I would not like to embarrass them by saying that, but I know they realize the situation is bad. My colleague seems to say: "Oh, do not worry, there is no problem".
The situation is very serious. I am not preaching: "Do not go to bed tonight, you know bad things are coming tomorrow morning". The seriousness, however, of this
debate is real. We must not encourage people to go to sleep too easily and say: "Do not worry, everything will be all right; big daddy in Ottawa knows what to do."
I would hope my colleague will at least share that with me; that the situation is serious. He should recognize, point number one, that the situation is serious and point number two, that simply because we are in Ottawa does not mean that all the public servants know all the answers. A lot of good can come out from the provinces. That is why I am a decentralisateur-federaliste.


David Berger: I never said that Ottawa has all the answers, Mr. Speaker, far from it. But I think it is necessary to maintain a certain balance between the provinces and the federal government. That is the essence of federalism. I can give my colleague the example of medicare, which may have come from Saskatchewan, but which was developed nationally by the central government, which, ultimately, is the only government capable of acting at the national level, for all Canadians.
I will remind hon. members of the resistance that our province of Quebec opposed through the years to different social initiatives of the federal govemement. In the 1930s, Quebec governments were opposed to family allowances. They quoted approving by Clemenceau who said that the State had too many children to be a good father. In the 1950s, Duplessis opposed medicare. He said that good health was God's business and had nothing to do with the Reds in Ottawa.
So, it is important to recall our history-


Marcel Prud'homme: That is not what he said. He said the only insurance against illness was good health.


David Berger: That's right. He said: "The only insurance against illness is good health and that's God's business and has nothing to do with the Reds in Ottawa".
So, it is important to recall our history, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". We all know where that statement came from. It will live on, probably, as long as there is life on this earth.
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
The one thing lacking in the whole constitutional debate, in the whole process of setting up a committee of 15 members and 10 senators, is this very question: "What can I do for my country?"
I rise to put this on the floor of the House as an idea for the committee as it travels across this country, to sensitize Canadians to ask: "What are my duties to my country as a Canadian citizen? What are my obligations to my country"? People bom in Canada very seldom ask themselves that, because they are automatically Canadian citizens. People who come to Canada and apply for citizenship do at least take an oath. In that oath they stress their duties to this country.
My obligations, my duties to this country can be summarized very simply in one word.


An hon. member:: Let us hear it.


Jesse Philip Flis: The member says: "Let us hear it". Well, here it is and I hope you will remember it for as long as you live. The one word is "respect". Respect for others, respect for property and respect for authority. If we can build that into our Constitution, a simple rule that children in kindergarten can learn and will be better Canadians for the rest of their lives. Respect for others. Yes, respect for our aboriginal people. Respect for the anglophones, the francophones, whether they be in a majority or a minority situation. Respect for allophones and their languages and their cultures. Respect for the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped.
When the provincial government turfed out the mentally handicapped from Queen Street Mental Hospital without any support services there was not much respect shown by politicians for those mentally handicapped. I have many of them in my riding of Parkdale who are still suffering.
Respect for seniors, to ensure that for as long as they live they have respect and security and an adequate income in this country. Respect for children providing adequate day care.
If we can build respect for others into the Constitution, it is my duty to respect others and to ensure that others are provided for. Respect for property. If Canadians grow up from day one with this respect for property, they will respect the water to make sure it is clean for drinking.
They will respect the air that we breathe and not put pollutants into it. They will respect the land that grows our food to feed not only Canadians, but the starving, the dying in Ethiopia and in other countries. Respect for property means respecting our forests, our trees.
Just three weeks ago I was with the Canada-Europe delegation in British Columbia and the members from the European Parliament were horrified to see the clear cuts on our mountains. I hope they do not pass a resolution boycotting our forest products. We tried to show them the excellent reforestation programs we have; planting two trees for every one we cut out. Respect for authority has to be built into the Constitution.
As a Canadian citizen, one must go off with respect for authority, for this House and for all the parliamentary traditions that you, Mr. Speaker, try to preserve. You did that just this afternoon because one member was breaking the rules of this House and you drew it to his attention. I am sure he will respect this institution much more from now on. There must be respect for the legislatures, for the laws, for the courts, the police who enforce these laws and for the Constitution which we will finally hammer out for Canadians.
I do not want to take much more time, but I do want to put on the floor of the House that somehow in this process of coming up with a revised Constitution, we must put in: "What is my duty and my obligation to this country?" And not just: "What can I get out of this country?" Every group and everyone is trying to milk it for all they can. No, let us turn it around and say: "What can we do for our country?"
I think we can summarize it in the one word "respect", respect for others, respect for authority, respect for property.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for my friend. He delivered a very thoughtful speech. He talked about respect and one of the things he mentioned most prominently in his speech was respect for property rights. I wonder if he is prepared to support an amendment to the Constitution which guarantees property rights for Canadians.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister was not listening and this is why I am glad the hon. member before drew to the attention of the House how ministers do not attend on that side and do not even listen.
I did not say "respect for property rights", I said "respect for property". The desk that the hon. member is sitting in is property. He should not be defacing it. He should be respecting it. That is what I mean by respect for property. I did not mention rights. I said respect for property which a kindergarten or a grade one student can learn, and respecting this Constitution by doing so.


John Horton McDermid: I was trying to ask him a question which he did not answer, obviously. I asked him if he was in favour of placing property rights in the Constitution. I want the record to show that he did not answer that.
He did not respect the rules of the House when he drew to the attention of the House the absence or the presence of people in the House. He did not show respect for the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the member for Parkdale-High Park wish to respond to that very briefly?


Jesse Philip Flis: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I respect the fact that the hon. minister is in his seat listening to my debate. Again he did not listen. I drew to his attention, when the hon. member from Canso-Hants drew to this House's attention, that there was no minister previously in this House. That again is showing no respect for this institution because in this institution, through precedents, there always has to be a minister or two.
By ignoring that, they are again showing disrespect for this institution.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, in the context of questioning, might I enter this debate about property, pursuant to the remarks made by the hon. member from Parkdale-High Park about respect for property.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member set himself up to be asked what was obviously an attempt to put him on the spot with respect to property rights. I cannot be put on the spot about that. I do not want to have property rights in the Constitution.
I remember so well how this has been used against various people, attributing the lack of property rights in the Constitution to various parties and/or governments. The fact of the matter is that it did not go into the Constitution in 1981 because there were provincial governments that did not want it in, Conservative provincial governments that did not want it in, and federal political parties like the NDP that did not want it in. There was a combination of reasons why property rights did not go into the Constitution. Anybody who wants to be honest about why those rights are not there would admit that. The member who spoke was there at that time and knows that to be true.
The problem is that we have had too much respect in this country for private property, and not enough respect for the common property called the environment. We have not had enough respect for the property of us all as human beings: land, air, water, sea, and soil. These are the things that belong to all of us and to all generations. Those are the property rights for all generations that the member should spend more time thinking about, and less about how he can enshrine in the Constitution the property rights of people whose private property rights have already done enough damage to the environment.


Jesse Philip Flis: It just goes to show who was listening to my debate and who was not.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the motion. I know that time is moving on and, in view of all those motions we made earlier, there is pressure to get out of here.
The hon. member for Portneuf, who participated in questions earlier, is starting to giggle back in the back row after he spoke about two solitudes. He is a friend of mine to a point, but I could get very emotional about the motion before the House. As some members across the way know, it was basically a motion of this type a year ago that was my moment of truth with the government party. Certain events which followed finally caused me, as I said in caucus, to no longer be able to put up with some things I heard, basically political intellectual dishonesty.
I stayed out of caucus and then the next fall I formally broke from the government and the party, I had been a member of for 20-some years, more than the years of any of the members that I see opposite.
June 18, 1991

Let us not kid around on this motion tonight. I debated whether I should even participate in this motion because I understand the desire of Canadians from all parties and all segments of the country to try to put this place back together again.
Humpty-Dumpty was on the wall a year ago. June 23 was the catch line and the demarcation line and the deadline. Humpty-Dumpty fell off, Meech Lake fell off, and the country was going to be forever ruined. Yes, the country has been forever changed.
Humpty-Dumpty fell off the wall because of rolling the dice and all those things we are not supposed to speak about now. We are not supposed to be negative. We are not supposed to talk about all the things that happened but look ahead and try to solve the future.
I agree with that but unless we realize what happened we are not going to solve the future.
That is why this motion tonight introduced understandably at the eve of our summer recess is not going to get the attention it deserves. However, I give full credit to the government this time, not last time, because at least this time it is allowing an open debate. Some of the members opposite, especially the then Whip and a friend of mine, now the Solicitor General-he was the government House leader. I sat in the House for three days to make sure there was at least a debate on Meech Lake.
Finally the government House leader acknowledged my presence and was honest with me and there was an abbreviated debate. My friends opposite, and my friends across this country I think we know now that the fundamental problem with Meech Lake, with all respect to the Prime Minister with whom I have great problems over Meech Lake, was not just the rolling of the dice. The problem was that there was not a full debate in the House of Commons on Meech Lake before June 23. You can say what you want about free trade, but there was a very vital debate concerning free trade in this House. There was an election campaign and then there was another debate in this House, as we all remember, as things were forced through before the gong came down before Christmas and it was put in place. There was a debate.
I am not going to castigate my colleagues who speak sincerely on something so fundamental to us but I have
Government Orders
never heard so much claptrap in my life on something so fundamental. At least there is an opportunity to ventilate what some may think is claptrap but what others may think are interesting ideas.
I think the fundamental thing from all the speeches on this motion-I give full credit to the government for bringing the motion in and it is an open-ended motion to which all members can speak. There is no cut-off. There is no little deal. There is no little back room agreement to cut it off when all parties had the conspiracy of silence. I say to the supine, sterile NDP and/or the Liberals and/or the government we did not have the debate in the House of Commons then but at least we are having the debate now on setting up the committee.
I think, without getting too involved emotionally- which I am-at least there is a feeling in this House and there is a feeling across the country that people should participate. Not just the frigging politicians, not just the frigging sterile premiers, not just the Prime Minister- who is a tremendous poker player with the premiers- but the people. The great problem is how do they participate. Is it with another address to an august joint committee which travels around the country?
If the member from Vancouver or wherever wants to speak to the Chair let him speak to the Chair in his time. Otherwise I will call him what he is, but I would not dare because I am very serious on this issue, and he was too and I give him full credit. He was one of the few members in this House who was against the conspiracy of silence on Meech Lake. Therefore, I am very disturbed that he is trying to interrupt the Chair when I am trying to speak on something so fundamental because the government has allowed us to speak and I guess, when the motion comes, I will vote for it.
Frankly, time has moved beyond the motion and this is what is sad to me. While we all talk about the public participating, the public has participated until it is coming out of their ears. Constitutionalitis has become a fog over Canada. All the experts are talking about this and that. We all know it is important. The fundamental thing is that this Parliament of Canada, this high court of Canada, this Constitution of Canada that is here in the House of Commons is dead. It is beyond the boards. Other things have happened, be it Quebec and the Belanger-Campeau commission-and I wish a member from Quebec would say, and I wish the member for

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
Portneuf would say, or the other member who was on the Belanger-Campeau commission would say, Dr. Hogue, the member for Outremont, and he is a good friend of mine-I wish someone would say, especially on the Liberal side, that the Allaire report was commissioned by the Liberal Party before Meech Lake fell.
As I understand it, the Allaire report was there to study the options with or without Meech Lake. Then we had the Belanger-Campeau commission and now we are going to have the Spicer report and now we are going to have the Beaudoin-Edwards report.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are totally confused as to what really is going on? Here we are, on the eve of summer recess. When we all met here in all our rhetorical flourishes-and it is important, it is fundamental-but the sadness is I think a lot of Canada has gone by us. This is why the Reform Party has arisen and that is very dangerous. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has arisen and that is very dangerous.
I am not a Reform person but I can tell you that when the Parliament of Canada is silent on fundamental issues no wonder-nature abhors a vacuum, it is a law of science- the Reform moves in with superficial messages that frankly have to be analyzed. It is a seductive message. I say this for all of Canada because there may be someone watching tonight regardless of who is in this House. One of the beguiling messages of the Reform, which is close to being anti-Lrench or anti-this or anti-that is that it says: "Hey, Quebec, we will deal with you if you decide to come into Canada. Then we will talk to you and/or run candidates in Quebec".
Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer, and there are some other lawyers around here, and we are all practical people, because we all got elected and we all understand people. Where did you ever hear of a situation where you are going to talk about the living arrangements after the divorce? That is part of the beguiling seductive message of Reform: "Hey, we won't talk to you until you come in". I am scared to death of Reform because of its seductive, beguiling capacity to woo English speaking Canadians in English speaking Canada and the Bloc Quebecois-which I won't waste much time on because I don't understand them-that is Quebec and that is French Canada. Yet, that is not the totality of Canada that we all love.
Yet, a lot of English speaking Canadians are supporting the Reform Party-and the Reform Party was not even mentioned in this motion which talks about Canada because we are all supposed to be too nice, we are not supposed to talk about the realities.
I am going to talk about a fundamental reality in my closing, which is not going to make any members across the way happy-and I shouldn't perhaps say what I am going to say. I am on-side in terms of trying to figure out what the answer is. I do not have the fundamental answers.
I agree with some of the comments made opposite, and here, that perhaps this parliamentary committee is a pseudo committee which has been committed to death, and a quasi-constitutional assembly.
Quite frankly, if I had my way I would have done it a little differently. We are trying to play catch-up ball. I must say that you have to accept the blame where the blame is, because if it wasn't blame you would take the credit. The Government of Canada has to take the blame for the fact that we are trying to play catch-up ball. We are trying to play catch-up ball because of the mess of last year. You can't blame it on Clyde Wells. Oh, yes, it is easy to blame it on Clyde Wells because he is an anglophone, he is a WASP but you do not want to blame it on Elijah Harper, who is an Indian with a feather on his head. He waved the feather all over the Manitoba legislature. Oh, no, it is easy to blame. Let us not talk too much about individual blame but collective blame has to be on the government of the day.
So now we are trying to pick up the pieces. We will have the Spicer commission coming through some time. We will have Beaudoin-Edwards coming through. These individuals are all nice Canadians.
What disturbs me is that here we sit during the summer. I am all for a summer recess. I am glad we are getting out of here. However, if this is the fundamental issue, if this is the issue that is going to break up Canada when we have had wars off-stream that were going to break up the world, why do we not have a Parliament that meets in a national coalition or a union Parliament or something like that? If this is what the stakes are, are we still going to play our partisan games?
June 18, 1991

I think my time is getting pretty close. I guess I will vote for the motion, because at least it is another move, another pause, another deflection in law that we call a traverse. You traverse the issue so that you never have to face it. That is kind of what we are doing here in this Parliament of Canada. We should be involved in it and should have been involved in it right from day one after we knew Meech went down the boards and we had the summer of discontent that we had last summer, but not the summer of zombie land that we are going to have this summer. Then this committee is supposed to be struck by independent means and there are to be conversations with House leaders to get the 15 or 20 members who meet in September. Then they are going to travel the country again, a country that is so travelled out with constitutional committees who is going to listen?
I agree with members of the NDP and perhaps the Liberals. I think, perhaps not tonight or perhaps not when we adjourn Wednesday or Thursday,but when we have the Spicer commission and we have the Beaudoin- Edwards report, that we should have the government response. Let us find out if there is someone to get together. If it is that fundamental, as we all know it is, we could call the Parliament of Canada back and get to work, all of us.
On that uplifting, positive note, I am going to say the following. Maybe I should not say it, because it is not positive or uplifting.
You are telling me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is just about over and I think it is. I feel sad about the Prime Minister. I do not think he feels as sad about me but, frankly, we are two Irishmen. We had a lot to give to each other. I had a lot of parliamentary experience and he had none, and that is part of his problem. I have a lot of knowledge about Canada and his was confined to Quebec and the board rooms of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Many members will not know that I worked for the Iron Ore Company of Canada before Brian Mulroney ever became the president of the company. I was a surveyor on the Iron Ore centre line, sent up the Moisie River from Seven Islands, before it was called Sept Isles, up to Knob Lake, to Schefferville. It was ironic that he became the president and I just became a member of Parliament; then he became my leader and here we are tonight.
Government Orders
I say this in the nicest way. I am glad the member for Brampton is giggling because he is one of the first to be affected. I say this without getting too political on a fundamental issue, and I really say it seriously. Let us have the Spicer report. Let us have the Beaudoin-Ed-wards report. Let us see where the government makes its decisions and the caucus is going to go. I will not get on the caucus because its members are nice friends of mine. Frankly, this caucus could have had different directions if it had made its decisions and was prepared to bite the bullet, but it did not.
We are now at this stage. We are going to have those reports. They are supposed to be the blueprint for Canada. We are behind the eight ball. Therefore, I should not say what I am about to say. Unless the reports come out and unless the government makes the right move, at a certain stage next year the Prime Minister, my Prime Minister, your Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada, has to decide what is best for Canada. I will accept him at his word, that the next election is not the issue. I agree with that. Canada is the issue.
If he honestly believes that, then I think this Prime Minister at a certain stage, not to be a lame duck totally, when and if we can get certain things done has to do the same as President Johnson of the United States and say to Canada: "Look, Canadians, I am not here for the next election. I am here for the sake of Canada. Let us hope that we can get some agreement to make this Canada we now know work in a fundamentally changed form"-and I am prepared to agree-"but I am not here to reap political benefits".
If we cannot get a union coalition type of situation, which I am afraid we cannot, I think that is naive, then I think my Prime Minister, your Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Canadians has to decide at the right time and it has to be within a year. He must be able to make the unity message and to get the polls to turn around to say to Canadians: "Look, Canada, I have put this together. I have tried. I have done all of these things. We have got these people working. This is what we have come up with, Quebec, if you want it or not."
Whatever the responses are, the Prime Minister by this time next year if things have not turned around totally, and I do not know who said what there but I am very serious and this is a very serious thing to say, has to

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
decide to do the honourable thing, not only for the country but, my friends, to save the Tory party.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I will be very, very brief. When my friend speaks he knows the affection I have always had for the Nowlan family because I sat with his father and his father was a good friend of mine when I was a student at university. He taught me so much about parliamentary process and procedure and many other things which were interesting to learn when you go around Parliament.
I cannot do otherwise but be highly interested in the suggestion he made. The beauty of the parliamentary process is that we listen to each other. Some people do not listen, but I like to listen to what people may have to say and you forget if there is nothing to remember.
He made two proposals tonight and if he would be kind enough, I would like him just to elaborate for a few minutes because I know other members would like to question him. He made a proposal that it would be advisable and possible, if if we are to adjourn tomorrow night, to be sad that we will not have a chance to debate the Spicer commission report and the Beaudoin-Ed-wards report. I would not mind if Parliament were recalled for a day's debate on each of these reports. Would he kindly elaborate on this new and fresh idea? He is the only one who made this suggestion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the comment from my good friend from Saint-Denis. That is the point. I agree, let us not open this place to have the opposition run riot with a multitude of problems. I do not see why the House leaders, who have made so many interesting agreements tonight to get us out of here tomorrow, could not make an agreement provisionally to come back here. I do not want to come back here, but this is a fundamental issue.
I think this would at least flag the fact that the Parliament of Canada, the Prime Minister, in a very good speech he made here in the House and one in Toronto and one in Quebec, said that parliamentarians were going to be fundamentally involved. I think it is unnatural. What is the alternative? We have these reports coming in and we sit here in the slumber of summer and then we stagger back here in September all fit and gung-ho with all our other individual problems which
affect members and/or aim criticism at government. We all understand this because you and I, and I hate to say it because you, Mr. Speaker, are supposed to have a halo in the Chair, used to sit in opposition. I am still there in this interesting hybrid situation.
I am glad for the question from my friend because I think it would be an impetus to get the Parliament of Canada involved in this issue, not in a multitude of issues and perhaps not even Question Period unless it were on the Constitution. You can devise certain ways to do it and at least we would be back in the ball game rather than trying to catch up. I can say this; come September we are not going to be catching up. We are going to be very partisan and we are going to be behind the eight ball. In some ways, Canada is behind the eight ball.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants said that I did not understand very well what happen with the Meech Lake Accord and that it might somewhat be unfortunate for me.
I would like to say something to my colleague, for whom I have a lot of respect-he is an old timer in the House of Commons-and I also have respect for the decision he made when he decided to sit as an independent because he was opposed to the Meech Lake Accord. I respected his decision. I must tell him that I, like the majority of Quebecers, have never perceived the failure of Meech as a denial, by English Canada. Quite the contrary.
All that Quebecers and the rest of Canadians saw on TV, was that ten provincial premiers and one federal prime minister signed the Meech Lake Accord. Everybody saw that. What was difficult to understand or to recognize for Canadians was the fact that two premiers reneged on the deal. The first one did not do anything and let the aboriginals representative take the blame rather than assume his responsibilities as premier. The other one simply did not keep his word.
That is what I perceived, as a Quebecer and as a Canadian, and I believe that the majority of Canadians had the same perception. I would like my colleague to
June 18, 1991

Government Orders
give us an explanation, because he added something else in his speech when he talked about the silence plot on Meech. I have never heard about such a plot. The hon. member and myself were members of the same caucus; we got the same informations and, as far as I know, everybody was aware of what the Meech Lake Accord meant.
So, I would ask him to clarify, for the members of this House, and for the Canadians that are listening, if there is still some at this time, what he meant by this silence plot on Meech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my friend, who is a very conscientious member, has asked me a very serious question. Actually, there are many parts to this. I used his name because I heard his earlier intervention when he commented about Meech Lake and said that this was a denial of English-speaking Canada against Meech Lake. That is really why I mentioned the name of my colleague earlier. It was not a denial of English-speaking Canada against Meech Lake. As he says, there were 97 per cent of Canadians, representing all the provinces except one, and then there was Manitoba in between that were sort of for Meech Lake. But the conspiracy of silence was very definite. And if the hon. member does not understand that by now, then that is part of the problem with the Conservative caucus. There was an agreement between the Prime Minister, the then leader of the Liberal Party and the then leader of the NDP Those two have changed. I can tell you I sat just about where the member was sitting, only about two seats up in the corner, and I sat there for two days to make sure that we at least had a debate on the motion to refer the Meech Lake matter to a joint committee that sat in the summer. That is what I mean about the conspiracy.
Don Johnson, the former member from Westmount, or wherever it was, by this time, was out of the Liberal Party. He was seated around here. Now he happens to be president of the Liberal Party, but that is immaterial. He and I, and I was here longer than he, I have to say, in terms of my attendance in the House, tried to force a restricted debate. We have had a better debate already on this motion and more participants than we had on the Meech Lake proposal, if you will check Hansard.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties and I believe that the House will give its unanimous consent to the following proposal.

I move:
That the debate be allowed to continue until no further member rises in debate, at which time the question will be deemed to have been put on the subamendment and the subamendment will be deemed to have carried on division, following which the question will be deemed to have been put on the amendment, as amended, and the amendment, as amended, will be deemed to be carried on division, following which the question will be put on the main motion and the question will be deemed to have been put and deferred for a formal division tomorrow at three o'clock p.m., following which Mr. Speaker will adjourn the House; during the time from the adoption of this motion until the adjournment, there will be no dilatory motions or quorum calls receivable by the Chair.
I am not suggesting that all of the motion is in order, but I would reserve any arguments on that point to another day. I suggest that we proceed as outlined, and I think that that would find agreement throughout the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You were about to recognize the hon. member from Winnipeg-Bird's Hill. I just wanted to point out to the House, as we are debating the Constitution, with the clock going past midnight, the hon. member who came to this House as a young man at the age of 27, just turned 40, and has just turned middle aged with the Constitution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I congratulate the hon. member from Bird's Hill who is now transferred to Winnipeg-Transcona. A very happy birthday.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me that time that I needed to rise to my feet. Thank you also, to the members of the House for their good wishes.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
I was reminiscing with the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville earlier this evening. When I celebrated my 30th birthday, we were in the middle of a constitutional crisis in this House in 1981. I hope that when I celebrate my 50th birthday in this House that we will be beyond this.
I had a comment for the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. If I could get people's attention, particularly the member for Brampton who was part of this debate. When the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants made his suggestion as to how the Prime Minister could help the situation by considering whether or not he ought to resign, by considering whether or not he is part of the problem, the hon. member for Brampton said that the Prime Minister was not a quitter.
I respect that view that the hon. member for Brampton has of the Prime Minister, but I think there does come a time when quitting is not necessarily a disgraceful thing to do, particularly when there is a widespread view that is held in a widespread way that the Prime Minister is part of the problem.
We can leave it to the historians to debate whether this is in fact the case, but it is also the case that the Prime Minister should consider this. I think that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has made a suggestion that should be taken seriously by the Prime Minister.
I am sorry there are not more members here, and I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here to hear what has been a very good debate about this. I think that we should do this more often, have a real debate, the kind of debate that we have threatened to have tonight.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with more or less everything the hon. member from Bird's Hill said. I have a great respect for him.
He has been a member of the constitutional committee of this House of Commons for years. He was one of the members who was in opposition at the same time as I was. That is the point about the member from Brampton. The fundamental problem of the Tory Party today in government is it forgets from when they came.
You can have the Prime Minister. I agree there are certain things that I will take exception with the Prime Minister on. But the fundamental thing is that the public
of Canada in 1984 and in 1988, but especially in 1984, went for the Tory Party for a change. We were good opposition people.
Long before the member from Brampton came out of the Chamber of Commerce down there in the southwestern horseshoe, and got into the House of Commons, there were some of us here carrying the torch. We were carrying the torch and we carried it pretty gosh-darned well.
Then we get into government and there are so many new members of government and a new Prime Minister, none of whom understand Parliament. They think that they can hoodwink the Canadian people by just abusing and contradicting in government what we used to say in opposition. You can shake it all down. There may be night sittings that we do not have so that we can get to know each other and some of us know each other too well. There may be a multitude of things, but the fundamental thing, I will be here long after the next election which the member from Brampton would be at the present time.
The fundamental thing is this, that unfortunately, the members of opposition who became government, and especially got inoculated with cabinet juices, and started to drive cabinet cars, and started to have cabinet perks and then told caucus what to do, they forgot that what we used to say here was so nasty. With television, good or bad, an educated public, they are not going to put up with that any more and that is one of the reasons for the malaise.
Coming back to the question from Birds Hill, I agree with the member obviously, but the member for Birds Hill and other members on both sides, and there are some members even on the government side today, and that is one of the reasons I broke with the government in a sense. The member from Brampton will never experience this. He never wanted to ever vote other than what he was told to so that he could get his-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder why we could not agree that the pages be permitted to go home.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement? It is agreed that the pages be able to go home.
June 18, 1991


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So agreed and ordered.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, might I say that, while we send the pages home, I am grateful as a member of Parliament to have an opportunity to speak in the House on what is, I think, a veiy important issue for our country. I am grateful not just to the pages and to yourself and to colleagues for permitting the debate to go on, but also the other staff who are here to keep us functioning so that many of us who would like to talk about this have an opportunity to do so. Although we have had a little bit of debate, often we do talk for the record. We also, as part of our functions as members of Parliament, I believe, have an important responsibility to express for the benefit of those who elected us our views on important issues.
I think that as we talk about the resolution that is before us to create a constitutional committee to again look at proposals for a renewed Canada, that there are some things that, as one member of Parliament, I would like to talk about.
I am conscious that many Canadians, and I am sure that many of my constituents, if any of them are still up, are growing very weary of constitutional discussions. I am sure that many of them believe that only lawyers and maybe political junkies care about such arcane matters as notwithstanding clauses and divisions of powers and section 91 and 92 and maybe they think that politicians should be occupying themselves with economic problems and solving some of the other important issues that confront us.
In a sense they are right. Our economic problems in Canada today are serious and they require a very great deal of thought and insight and determination, perhaps even more than the constitutional problems that we face. I think that this is not a matter of losing sight of what is important. I think very often people are not interested particularly in insurance until they realize that their house in on fire. To my constituents I say: "I believe that perhaps our house is on fire and it is time we started to look for our insurance policies".
Government Orders
The failure of the Meech Lake Accord and the subsequent developments that have occurred in the province of Quebec have made this a very important and perhaps a watershed time for Canada.
None of us knows what will come of these significant developments, but what is clear is that significant change is going to come. It will be certain if Quebec decides that it will not continue in Canada, and it will be necessary if Quebec decides to stay.
My concern and my hope is that Canadians are going to realize before it is too late that Canada really has to be preserved. Canadians do not make it a habit of flaunting their patriotism as some other nationalities do. We have a rather small country with a pretty short history. It has been said that we have too much geography and not enough history. We are a nation not because of a war, a revolution, but as a result of a series of conferences that resulted in a vision of compromise.
I suppose it is even true to say that we tend to define ourselves more by what we are not than by what we are. We are surely the most reluctant nation on the face of the earth. Do we not appreciate the value in what we have? Have we become as a nation so weary of our pitiful problems that we cannot celebrate the greatness that is Canada? Can we not see what we have to offer to our children and to the world that is so valuable, a view of the world that says "bigger and stronger is not always better", a view that says we need to look after our poor and weak and sick while rewarding talent, skill and enterprise, a view that says it is no shame to see compromise where others see only conflict?
Do we not understand that it is not by chance that we have played a role in the world and in its institutions far in excess of what our size, our population and our wealth would dictate.
I know that our problems are not going to be solved by blaming anybody and there is lots of blame to go around, but I think where we started down the wrong road on this was when the Prime Minister of Canada said that the Constitution of his country was not worth the paper it was written on.
Can we imagine the President of the United States making such a statement? As a result of that, I feel a great deal of anger and frustration that we can stand here and contemplate the dismantling of Canada.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
I think there are some fallacies that underlie the problem we are in. One of them is that opposition to the Meech Lake Accord represented a rejection of Quebec by English Canada. First of all, there is no such monolith as English Canada. In addition, many things that were criticized about the Meech Lake Accord had nothing to do with Quebec. They concerned aboriginals, the north, the rigidity of the amending formula and other things.
Another of the fallacies that I think we hear repeated on and on is that Canada is not working. I think we are at a period of change in our country and we should be prepared for reform, but to glibly say as some people do that Canada is not working is simply wrong. Maybe Yugoslavia is not working. Perhaps the Soviet Union is not working. Canada is working. Canada, despite whatever the flaws may be that people want to talk about, is one of the wealthiest, most prosperous, most successful nations on the face of the earth.
I believe that today's problems are in no small part a result of the fact that we have dwelt on some of these fallacies too much. We have become too negative on ourselves, too critical. It is time that maybe Canadians put on a face of patriotism and talked about some of the things that are good about Canada, some of the things that make this the nation of choice for so many people around the world who want to come here.
Throughout the protracted and distasteful death throes of the Meech Lake Accord, it became evident that the need to look to Canada's future could not be satisfied by a confrontational or incremental change without knowing where Canada was going to end up. The polarization over Meech Lake was surely based upon a disagreement over whether Meech was going to contribute to Canada's unity or whether it would lead to a weaker Canada and thus inevitably to further disunity.
I object to the crisis atmosphere we have ourselves in over this issue which tends to prevent rational and reasoned argument from being part of the process. I think it is clear that certain fundamental changes are going to have to be made. Some of these changes arise out of concerns of Quebecers. The Allaire report correctly points to some of these, but there are other concerns as well.
These changes are going to be difficult for us to address in the context of the uncertainty in which we now find ourselves. The continuing threat of separation from Quebec creates an atmosphere in which the result can only be bitterness and recrimination. In a protracted period of disintegration, if that in fact is what we embark upon, is going to result in nothing but economic hardship and political and constitutional chaos.
I believe that Quebec's linguistic and cultural goals are more likely to be achieved within Canada. I also believe that the Canada that would remain, if Quebec were to separate, would be significantly poorer in every way and much less influential in the world. In the arithmetic of separation ten minus one does not equal nine. Canada without Quebec would be smaller. Out of the G-7 group of the largest industrialized nations, Canadians would be known as a people who could not keep a country together that was one of the most fortunate on the face of the earth.
Anyone who thinks that the remainder of Canada would be easy to govern after Quebec left should think again. The ease with which Preston Manning and his like talk about the existence of a Canada without Quebec should be a warning to people about how false those assumptions are.
Seeking a solution to Quebec's concerns as a preliminary step to dealing with other constitutional issues was attempted in the Meech Lake round and failed. This was most definitively not a rejection of Quebec. Rather it was a failure of process and a clear statement that Canadians will not be bullied into accepting ad hoc changes to their Constitution when there is little prospect for other grievances to be addressed in a reasonable time and fashion.
Those as well on the other side, the new allies of Preston Manning and his group, the Bloc Quebecois that proposes an independent Quebec, have a heavy burden of responsibility to speak the truth to Quebecers. Independence will not come easily, and the fact that Jacques Parizeau goes around professing that he believes it will be so will not make it happen easily.
I think there are some issues that have emerged in the course of how far we have come in this debate that are clear. One is that there is an emerging consensus that there has to be a reduction in the over-all level of
June 18, 1991

government deficits and debt, and that this should be enabled by any constitutional reform.
There are other issues as well that are emerging. They emerged in the Allaire report and other places. Duplication and harmonization are clearly becoming issues on which we need to seek a constitutional understanding among us. It makes no sense whatsoever that in a variety of fields federal and provincial governments are occupying themselves with the same concerns, are hiring and employing bureaucrats to do the same things. Nor does it make any sense that we continue to operate our market in Canada as ten little countries with respect to many different goods and services.
The government was right in raising the issue of interprovincial trade barriers in the Speech from the Throne. I only hope that we can make very rapid and real progress in these matters. In terms of competing in the world, Canada already begins with the disadvantage of having a relatively small and veiy spread out domestic market.
Why on earth do we want to make it more difficult for ourselves by chopping that market up into ten little ones? It does not make any sense at all.
The Allaire report in Quebec, which put many people outside of Quebec on edge, makes very clear and valuable proposals on the economic union within Canada. We should seize on those and we should promote them and try to gain a consensus across Canada.
A popular conventional wisdom is developing on where we should go in this constitutional debate that concerns me and I want to talk a little bit about it. That is the idea that the solution is going to be the decentralization of power. The fact that Canada is a large and diverse country is not sufficient reason to divide powers so as to create ten little mini countries when it comes to government powers, at the same time as we are trying to break up the interprovincial barriers.
In fact, the world outside our borders is moving towards broader political understanding, broader consensus and co-operation and greater power sharing. Trade and investment is becoming more and more global. To fragment power in Canada, either through Quebec becoming independent or through massive decentralization, is to abandon our levers at a time when global pressures are growing. We are surely stronger united than we would be divided.
Government Orders
I believe that a vastly decentralized Canadian state would find it impossible to lean into the wind that would blow from Washington. In other words, you may be able to take power away from the federal government but that does not mean that it is going to end up with the provinces. Some of it is going to end up outside our borders.
In embarking on constitutional change I think there are a few principles upon which we can agree. The first is that all Canadians should share a common understanding of their fundamental rights and freedoms as expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Second, all Canadians should benefit from common social programs based upon national standards as a simple right of citizenship so that Canadians can be confident that opportunities are available to all, no matter where in the land they may be. For example, my provincial health care plan must have adequate coverage for me anywhere I travel within Canada.
Third, I believe that all Canadians should have a national government elected by the people, able to give voice to the needs of Canada as a whole and able to speak with authority for Canada on the world stage.
Canadians should be able to enjoy a commonality of purpose based upon national consensus, genuinely sought and formed at a national level. Elected political leaders need to ask what is in the best interest of Canada as a whole and have the power to act on that response. The sum must be bigger than the parts. The national government should be working to bring us all closer together.
I believe that the issues most crucial to our future as a nation on this planet in the coming century require national consensus, national will and international cooperation. These issues are global environmental imperatives, global economic restructuring, including Third World development, and world trade.
Can we really face these global issues as an even more decentralized state than we already are? How can our international representatives speak for us in world assemblies on such vital issues as climate change or ozone depletion or reforestation without having the authority to bind Canada? Would we really enter into another free

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
trade agreement, when we do not have free trade among our own provinces? I think these are the issues that need to be dealt with in a focused and clear fashion in this debate as it evolves.
My concern to this point has been that there did not seem to be any kind of organization or orchestration, perhaps choreography is the right word, about how this was going to unfold. The presentation of the resolution that we are debating now, forming a parliamentary committee to look at specific proposals and to consult with Canadians is a positive move. It gives some shape to what is happening, some hope that this is actually a process that has an end which will result in a product to which we can rally the support of Canadians.
Before I close, since it was the NDP who hoped that we would have real debate here, I would like to say in response to its suggestions today that I regret its position, that it cannot support the resolution because it does not contain a constituent assembly.
As I said to the member for Yorkton-Melville when he spoke earlier this evening, I understand where he is coming from on that issue. I hear some of the same voices, the same concerns of people that somehow the process has excluded them.
When I hear the proposals that the NDP make for a constituent assembly I am, first of all, concerned that it could not be completed in a timely fashion. Second, I am concerned about the notion that Canadians cannot be represented unless a member of their particular group speaks on their behalf. It concerns me to think that the implications of the suggestion of the NDP are that when I speak or vote in the House of Commons I do not do so on behalf of the women in my constituency, that I do not do so on behalf of the people of racial origins other than my own in my constituency. This does not make sense to me and I cannot understand why the NDP insists that elected representatives are inadequate to speak on behalf of the people who elected them, even though they may be different from themselves.
To take his case to an absurd conclusion I would say that, no matter what suggestion is made, children are under-represented. Are we to have children on the constituent assembly? Perhaps we should.
The other thing which concerns me is the implication that politicians are incapable of dealing with these important issues of the day. I accept much of the criticism that has been levelled against all of us, that we for some reason have lost the trust of Canadians. Frankly, I blame the government for a lot of that sentiment but that is not the point of addressing it tonight.
Canada is a country rich in democratic traditions. The cornerstone of those traditions is the fact that we elect our leaders from among our peers. Therefore, those elected to lead in Canada are of the best and the worst and the mediocre of our society. If we constantly harp on the worst then very soon the best will want no part of this process.
I plead with the people of Canada to give us all another chance. To give us the time to deal with these issues. We can find a solution. It will not be the solution that satisfies all 25 million Canadians. There will be dissent, there will be people who do not find their own solution in what comes out. However, for the sake of our country, for the sake of all that we have, let us not lose all those good things because we are unhappy with a few things.


John Horton McDermid: I want to congratulate the hon. member. That was probably one of the most thoughtful speeches today. I think he put his finger on a number of concerns that we all feel in the House. I just wanted to add my congratulations.
He did get one shot in and I want to correct the record because it was one of the better speeches that I have heard in this House in a long time. He quoted the Prime Minister as saying that the Constitution was not worth the paper it was written on and asked what would happen if George Bush said that about the constitution in the United States.
There is a slight difference, and let us put it in context. The Prime Minister of Canada was referring to our Constitution in saying that if seven million Canadians are outside our Constitution, then it is not really worth the paper it is written on. That was the context in which was delivered. The difference is George Bush doesn't have one of his states of the union outside the constitution of the United States.
If the hon. member, in the mood of the speech that was given by him, which was excellent, would understand and in all fairness place when the Prime Minister said
June 18, 1991

that in proper context to be fair to the Prime Minister, I think he would agree.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments. I do not have the context in which the remark was made, and so I cannot dispute him. My recollection is that it had to do with the notwithstanding clause, because I recall at the time being confused by that since Meech Lake did not remove the notwithstanding clause.
In any event I want to say two things. First, I share the concern I am sure the minister has that the province of Quebec, through its provincial government, did not accept the 1982 constitutional amendments. I am not sure that that leads me to the conclusion that seven million people were left out of the Constitution, given that the Government of the Province of Quebec in 1982 was one that was devoted to separation.
I believe I am also correct in saying that if we look at other veiy successful federations in the world, we find other examples of countries that work quite well without having every state accept the federal constitution. I suggest that Bavaria has not accepted the constitution of Germany and yet it has worked extremely well for the country. I believe that one or two states in Australia have voted to secede from that federation a number of decades ago. Their efforts were not successful, but it did indicate a lack of acceptance by those state governments of the federation. Sometimes you just have to soldier on.
I do not think we have that option any longer. I think we had that option prior to 1986 but we do not have that option now. The task is for us all to come up with a constitution that not only is worth the paper that it is written on but is worth the love and respect of the people who are bound together by its terms.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, after moving the resolution concerning the adoption of the amendments and finally the main motion a few minutes ago, I have now lost my audience and that of the hon. member for Ottawa South, and that is unfortunate. Anyway, I am happy the minister is still here to ask questions and correct any mistakes I may make during my speech.
Government Orders
Therefore, the first thing I want to do is to congratulate the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs who has introduced this resolution this afternoon. I believe that it is a very important resolution for our country. He made an excellent speech. I think that, if we can agree on the amendments proposed by my party, we will have a good resolution that we will be able to support. We disagree with the government on only two things.
The first is the time limit. The government has proposed that the committee should have until February 28, 1992, to submit its report. We have suggested December 31 of this year. And I think that this date is more reasonable. It gives the committee enough time, and I think the situation in Canada to-day demands that the committee does its work without delay.
Secondly, we think that the government did not produced any proposals to change or amend the Constitution today or in the past. Our party has made some proposals, but the government has not done anything. It has indicated that its proposals will be tabled before the House or the committee in September of this year. It is the view of the official Opposition that it is too late. The govemement had almost a year since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and it is time to put an end to this and to make these proposals to this House and to the committee.

In any event, with those criticisms I should also add that I believe the government itself has brought about the current constitutional crisis, as we have said repeatedly in this House. I regret that, but our job now is not to lay blame, it is to proceed to try to solve the problem.
We on this side are pleased to help and I suggest that we have done so. I will come to terms with that in a moment.
Before turning to the proposals put forward by the Liberal Party, I would like to look for a moment at the position put forward by the New Democratic Party, which basically is to oppose this motion on the basis that a constituent assembly is a better way to proceed.
When I first heard the idea of a constituent assembly, I must say it had some appeal. It sounded reasonable. It sounded as though it could be considered as a means of

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
involving the members of the public who seem so enthusiastic in getting into this process.
When I considered it, it was many months ago. Having considered it for a while, I dismissed it as a reasonable means of solving the problem at this time. I did so for many reasons set forth by the hon. member for Papi-neau-Saint Michel this morning in his very able speech, particularly the delay in deciding who is to be in the constituent assembly and how it is to be selected. That will take months, and it will not work.
There will never be agreement as to how the constituent assembly is to be constituted. The hon. member for Yukon, in presenting the views of her party in her speech, was exceedingly vague on this point. There was no indication on how members were to be selected. There was no indication of who would be on it, except members from groups. She stressed that various groups would be asked to send representatives.
Who will agree on which groups? How will the groups choose the delegates to be members of the constituent assembly? Will it be by election? Who will be members of the groups for the purpose of the election? These issues were not dealt with. It is so complicated and so convoluted that it would take months to settle that issue before such an assembly could be brought together.
The hon. member for Ottawa South, in his speech, referred to this particular problem which the NDP is plagued with on this issue. I regret that it has not really concentrated its mind for more than a short time on it because I think if it had, it would have realized that what it is proposing is unworkable.
I want to turn to the argument that it advances in saying that everyone must be represented by one of his or her own kind. It reminds me of Noah's ark. All the animals went in two by two. There had to be two of every variety. If every variety were not there, it would be a failure of representation on the earth afterward because there were none there to reproduce.
It just does not work that way in modem political thought. I think I am safe in saying this is not modern thought, this idea of representation in democracy has been around for a very, very long time; in the British parliamentary tradition for well over 900 years. I do not think I need go back beyond that, but it is not new. This
is something which is old in civilization. For generations, thousands of years, people chose to have representatives do their governing for them. That is exactly what we have had in Canada since our inception as a country under the British North America Act and under the various acts that preceded it. I suggest that it is a perfectly workable alternative for us today.
Members of Parliament can represent their ridings. They are capable of representing their ridings. Some of us may be better at it than others, and the people make judgments in respect of our abilities to represent our ridings. We do have that ability. Some may be better, some may be less, but the ability, the capability is there.
I am white. I am male. I happen to be Protestant. I happen to be a Liberal, not a Conservative or a New Democrat. I happen to have English as my native tongue. That does not mean that I am in any way inhibited from representing all the people of Kingston and the Islands who may be somewhat different. Some might not have English as their native tongue, some might be female, some might be Catholic or some other religious belief, some might not be white and some might not be Liberals. There is the odd Tory in Kingston and the Islands, and there is the odd New Democrat. I am still their representative in this House for the term for which I am elected. I do not say to any Conservative or New Democrat who comes to me for assistance: "Sorry, I cannot help you, you are not of my party". I do not know any member in this House who would ever say that to anyone else who came to him or her for help. There may be one, but if so, I do not know him or her.
We all work as representatives of all the people in our ridings when we work in this House. That is a vital and fundamental principle of Canadian parliamentary democracy. If we have the ability, or at least the capability of representing all the people in our riding, surely we do not need a constituent assembly which is to be made up of all these diverse groups in order to achieve representation.
Why would it be any more representative of the people than the elected House of Commons just because its make-up was made to reflect the various diversities of Canada? The people of Canada make a choice, and if we go to a constituent assembly the choice will be made by limited groups here and there which will be asked to
June 18, 1991

make selections and send people, it will not be done on popular election.
From a straight political point of view, I can understand why the New Democratic Party would prefer the constituent assembly.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Peter.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am surprised that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is obviously supporting the New Democratic Party in this view. It sounds as though he is from his grunts and groans at the back.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: This is phoney, there is no point of order.


@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I appreciated the break.
The fact is that the members of the New Democratic Party are obviously of the view that there is some political advantage to be gained in going for a constituent assembly. They take the view that if there were elections now for a constituent assembly there would be more New Democrats elected than there are in this House. There would be more Liberals elected, too, in my opinion. I suspect, and I think the minister would agree with me, that if there were an election tomorrow we would probably have most of the seats in a constituent assembly and the Conservatives would have very, very few.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Reform would have more-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am not out to try to argue this on partisan grounds, I do not think it needs to be. I do think that we need to look at the constituent assembly not from the point of view of partisan advantage, but from the point of view of whether it is the reasonable method to deal with the constitutional situation that we are faced with. I suggest that it is not. What we need to look at is taking advantage of the elected persons we have here, putting them on a committee and getting the job done. That is what the government has proposed. We support it, with the modifications that we have suggested in our amendments.
We on this side of the House say that we strive to represent all of our constituents at all times regardless of
Government Orders
their differences. We seek to speak on behalf of all of them. We obviously fail from time to time. On one issue or another we will have differences. The fact is that we make the effort. I think it is a genuine effort on the part of all members on this side, and indeed on every side, of this House.
The surprise for me is that the New Democratic Party, which calls itself the Democratic Party in Canada and stresses how democratic it is, is abandoning this fundamental precept or concept of Canadian democracy in opting for a constituent assembly, instead of taking advantage of the membership of this House.
I note that one of the principal reasons why it ought to abandon this whole concept is because the province of Quebec, through its government, has indicated its unwillingness to participate in this assembly.
It is not surprising that the New Democratic Party ignores the Government of Quebec. At its recent convention in Halifax, out of 521 delegates only 30 were from the province of Quebec. One-quarter of Canada's population was represented by well less than 10 per cent of the delegates present at that convention. That is a standard pattern in that party. It has not been able to change that position. I suggest that if we looked at the breakdown of delegates, which I do not have, we would find that it was quite unrepresentative of large chunks of the rest of the country as well.
What has the Liberal Party done in order to further this debate? It has proposed, through its leader, a framework for reform of the Constitution. The usual practice for an opposition is to wait until the government makes proposals and then criticize the proposals.
In this case, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Beausejour, has chosen to go public with a set of principles and proposals to amend the Constitution of Canada. I suggest that it is unusual, but it has been done in this case, and the Prime Minister of Canada has followed virtually every one of these proposals and adopted them as his own. He has agreed, on behalf of his government, that these proposals merit consideration and are sensible and that he is prepared to proceed on them, all but one. That one deals with the question of a referendum.
Let us see what the proposals are.

June 18, 1991
Government Orders

* The first proposal was a statement on the essence of Canada. The leader of the opposition spoke of our attachment to the two official languages, of our varied cultural background, of the distinct nature of the Quebec society and of the role of the native peoples. These are some of issues raised in the statement on the essence of Canada.
[English ]


John Horton McDermid: It sounds like Meech.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is right, it does sound like Meech, but the Meech Lake Accord did not contain everything.
The commitment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was also mentioned and, in particular, the primacy of the Charter, as well as the building up of the Canadian economic union. He said the barriers to interprovincial trade should come down.
He proposed a reform of our institutions mainly affecting the Senate, considering that this renewed elected, equal and effective Senate should be a key component of the constitutional reform.


An hon. member:: Equal?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, he did not say that. He did not say equal,
He also proposed the division of powers, pointing out we would be well advised to consult the provinces on this issue of great importance to every level of government, provincial and federal. All that was proposed.
On the subject of immigration, he proposed that the existing administrative arrangement governing immigration be entrenched in the constitution.
As for the Supreme Court of Canada, he proposed that the provinces be given the right to designate judges, what was proposed in the Meech Lake Accord.
For the First Nations, he proposed that constitutional reform enshrine their right to self determination, and this is the position of the Liberal Party.
Likewise, he proposed that the amending formula-
I am very sorry that the hon. member is not interested in my remarks, but he will be able to read all this in the document prepared by the Opposition Leader's office.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would have thought the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, a very responsible member of the House of Commons who is very involved in all these discussions, would have communicated all this to the committee when it gets into committee. However, to take the time of the House 12.55 a.m., with all the personnel working here, shows to me an absolute abusive interest in the affairs of the nation.
This speech is a speech not on the motion, but on the Liberal proposals, good ones and bad ones, that should be put before the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has four minutes left in his speech. Then we will have questions and comments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the time taken by these interruptions by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants will be added to my time.
I sat here and listened patiently to an extremely boring speech from him. For him to continue interrupting my speech when I am trying to explain these policies, I find unnecessary in the circumstances and I ask him to restrain himself.


An hon. member:: I have a question for when you are finished, thank God.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member can ask questions to his heart's content when I am finished. I will be pleased to answer them, but I also want to say that the amending formula proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, according to the Victoria charter is again, as he suggested, most effective for Canada. It is a reasonable one. He has put it forward as our position.
That represents a framework in which constitutional reform can proceed in this country. It is a sensible, logical approach to the issue. It is one that has found favour with the government. I have no doubt that it will be considered by the committee as the hon. member has suggested, and I hope it will be.

June 18, 1991

I think that as members of this House we have an obligation to do our best to see that this works. I hope that the motion, when it is amended, will find favour with all parties in the House and that all parties will work to ensure that the committee is successful in its work.
I was born in this country and I had that privilege. It is one that I know many of my countrymen enjoy, but many came to Canada by choice. I have travelled very extensively in this country from St. John's to Victoria, to the northern tip of Baffin Island. I have canoed thousands of miles in Canadian rivers and I have visited most of Canada's major cities at one time or another.
My roots in Canada are very deep, and my family has come from various parts of the country. I have lived across this country for various periods of time and in various places, mostly in Ontario but briefly elsewhere. I have a very deep affection for this country and I, like other hon. members, do not want to see Canada divided.
Our aim in the opposition in this case as in many others is to strive to make the system work. We believe that Parliament can work. We believe the House of Commons of Canada does work. Sure, we have problems once in a while with different aspects of government policy where we see the place is breaking down. By and large, the House of Commons works. Its committees work. We believe that this committee studying the Constitution can do a job for Canada that will make every member of this House proud of its achievement if we just give it the chance and if all members work together to make the committee a viable option.
I support the amendment that has been proposed. I hope that the matter will be dealt with tomorrow at the vote on a virtually unanimous basis and I hope that we can all strive, whether we are on the committee or not, to make it the success that it should be.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hour is late, but quite frankly the hour may be late for the country and therefore the hour being late in this Chamber is immaterial. I therefore take back what I sort of inferred when the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands was concluding his speech.
Government Orders
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is one of the more constructive, sincere and capable members of this House, so I have two questions for him.
He is sort of the assistant House leader. I do not know what his official title is, but after the Spicer report, after the Beaudoin-Edwards report, goodness knows that the government is going to respond to those reports because we do not know, but would the hon. member be the leader in his party, which is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to try and develop not just a consensus, but to explore with the government a coalition union situation on this matter of the country. That is my first question, a very, very specific question.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very hypothetical. I see no evidence that it will be necessary to form a coalition with the government on this issue. I am optimistic that there will be a unanimous report from the committee as I note there was from the committee that studied the Meech Lake Accord chaired by the present hon. Minister of the Environment.
Obviously, the parties in this House worked together with great success on that committee. Unfortunately, the committee report was not acted upon, and I will say no more in respect to that.
I think it is important that the hon. member realize that there is a difference between forming a coalition with the government on this issue and making a unanimous committee report, which I think is possible. I hope that it will happen and I think all hon. members should work to that aim.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Very good, Mr. Speaker, this is an educational night. I really appreciate that answer of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands which leads me very naturally to my supplementary. I do not know if he was a lawyer, but I used to be.
Therefore, I understand the problems in trying to get a coalition union situation in this very partisan atmosphere here. The hon. member talks about a unanimous committee report and we all saw what happened to that. Therefore, there is the cry outside of this hallowed Chamber of having the constituent assembly referendum process.
I really want to ask the hon. member this question. I heard him talk and denigrate in effect the NDP situation of constituent assembly, and it is not just the NDP situation of constituent assembly, but there are many people without party affiliation who feel-it may be

June 18, 1991
Government Orders
wrong, it may be difficult, it may be complicated-they want to get involved.
Could the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands answer this specific question. When he talks about the constituent assembly, would he agree with me after he signs that memo that there is a heck of a difference between a constituent assembly of people with all the difficulties of collecting them, all the difficulties of organizing them, all the difficulties of having them focus on a report and then perhaps the elected members, most likely properly the elected members developing their recommendations.
I was amazed at the hon. member who knows quite a bit, not more than I, but quite a bit more on constitutional law, on constitutional assemblies.
Does he not agree with me that the fundamental difference at the moment between what we are doing with the parliamentary committee with all its potential and a constituent assembly feeding into the parliamentary process is that with a constituent assembly you do not have any party discipline? In terms of the House of Commons and a parliamentary committee, and I have been through it for 25 years, you have something called party discipline. Does he not think the fact that there is no party discipline in something so fundamental as a constituent assembly is something that should at least be considered and explored and then rejected rather than rejected for the ideological negatives put forward by the negative situation of the Liberal Party?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: First of all I want to say I do not think the Liberal Party's position on this is negative. With respect, it is the most positive of any of the parties in this House. We are the only party that has laid on the table a proposal for amending the Constitution and dealing with the situation we are in at this time. No other party has so far come up with such a comprehensive proposal at this stage.
I think that has taken considerable courage from the Leader of the Opposition. It has shown some judgment. That is the first point I want to make.
Second, I do not agree with him that a constituent assembly would necessarily be non-partisan. I think there would be all kinds of partisan divisions in a
constituent assembly and if the hon. member does not agree with that he is dreaming in technicolour.
Constituent assemblies will divide on all kinds of bases. There will not be a party Whip, but at least with a party Whip you are able to whip together differing interests into one concrete group. With a constituent assembly you would have every division going in the country shown up and exposed and members would arguing with each other. It would be very divisive. There is no guarantee that everybody in it would suddenly say that this is exactly what they wanted, that they had hit on a consensus. There is no guarantee of that at all.
I want to point out that in the motion, if he would read it, it sets up this committee. I urge him to look at it very carefully. There are all kinds of provisions-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Subcommittees.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I listened patiently to his questions. The least he could do is listen to my answer.
It says the committee will provide Canadians with an opportunity to participate fully in the development of the Government of Canada's plan for a renewed Canada. The committee will have subcommittees with power to travel and hold public hearings within Canada. The committee will have the power to hold joint sittings with the committees of legislatures or individual members of provincial and territorial legislatures. The committee will develop procedures to ensure aboriginal peoples participate fully in the development of the Government of Canada's plan for a renewed Canada and in particular on issues of special interest to them.
There are all kinds of powers in here which are unusual in a parliamentary committee. They are designed to make this committee react and interact with Canadians across this country. I think it is a reasonable proposition. It is the best we have seen yet from this government. We are delighted to see it has taken this step. We support those aspects of this motion. I think the hon. member, if he looks at it and thinks about it, will realize that in terms of what could be accomplished in a reasonable time with minimum of division and discord the parliamentary committee is a sound, solid approach. There is a risk that the Conservative Whip will lay it on a bit thick but I am prepared to take that chance. I think that the country is prepared to take the chance, and we in the Liberal Party have committed ourselves to working with the government to achieve unanimity on this issue.
June 18, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate is ended. Thank you very much. I thank all hon. members for a great debate this evening.


Jesse Philip Flis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10.55 we did pass a number of motions put forward by the government parliamentary secretary. Motion No. 9 reads: "That at any time during the adjournment of the House between June 1991, and September 15, 1991, the Speaker may cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal assent, et cetera".
I think I heard the parliamentary secretary put a date in there, but when I asked for copies from the Clerk there was no date. I do not see how we could pass something like this without a date. I think I heard him
Government Orders
say June 19, but in the copy that I have and it is initialled-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will have a look at it tomorrow.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day the subamendment is deemed adopted on division. The amendment as amended is deemed adopted on division, and the question on the main motion as amended is deemed put and the division deferred to later this day at three o'clock p.m.
Accordingly this House stands adjourned until later this day, June 19, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.10 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 19,1991