1991-03-12

[Stage Direction]
40 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canada Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday March 12, 1991
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice of a question of privilege, and I would like to take a few minutes, not very long, to explain my point.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations is not meeting because there is no chairperson. The former chairperson resigned September 9, 1990. The committee has not met since. The committee-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt for a minute. What was the date of the resignation?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: September 9, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The committee does exist because it was struck some months ago by this House, but it has not met because there is no chairperson to preside over the deliberations. In fact, it is a hoax to pretend that the committee exists when it cannot study the material which is referred to it by this House.
When the House referred vote lc of the Supplementary Estimates for the Privy Council on February 28, some 11 days ago, to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, the estimate in question represented $17.9 million and touched on the Spicer Commission's work. The House
technically ordered the committee to scrutinize the expenditure of public money and asked members of that committee to report to it by March 21 this month, in a few days.
Anything, Mr. Speaker, in my view, that would impede the examination of those estimates is unparliamentary and would put members of the House in an untenable situation.

Mr. Speaker, the privileges of all members will be breached, because they will be unable to perform their duties as elected representatives, and one of those important duties is the traditional one of examining the Estimates, to subject government spending to careful scrutiny, on behalf of our constituents, the Canadian people.

Further, this committee is not sitting because of a flaw-and that is my point of privilege- in our Standing Orders.
Standing Order 106(1) obliges the Clerk of the House to convene an organizational meeting of each standing committee mentioned in the report of the Striking Committee, per se, within 10 sitting days after that committee has reported and the report has been adopted. However, there is no provision in our Standing Orders at this time for electing a new chairperson when a vacancy exists.
As a result, the House must fall back on an old tradition which put the responsibility of convening a committee organization meeting in the hands of the government Whip. This is a tradition that we had prior to the McGrath reform.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne- [Translation]
Fifth Edition, at citation 579:
(2) Organization meetings have always been called upon the instruction of the Chief Government Whip when the House refers-
I repeat, "when the House refers":

March 12, 1991
Privilege
-or is about to refer matters to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, the decision to convene that meeting must be taken by the Whip when the House has made the decision to defer the estimates to a committee or the appropriate committees. That has not been done.
The decision now is not in the hands of the clerk, an impartial person, but in the hands of the Whip, a partisan who has, in my view, responsibilities to his caucus and who acts in an intelligent manner. I am not saying he has done this in trying to hold up the work of the House, I am just saying it is far from being an impartial decision when the government Whip is responsible for convening a committee because our standing orders, which were reformed, which were revamped some years ago, were not able to cope with the situation where a chairperson has resigned.
The Whip, of course, is carrying out the orders of the House leader or the Prime Minister by refusing to convene the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations to permit the election of a chairperson.
I know the arguments he is going to give me about the 49th report of the striking committee not having been tabled. I know all those arguments. All I am saying is that we have a serious flaw in our Standing Orders. This will create an unparliamentary situation, a question of privilege for all members because we are impeded in our work here as members of Parliament in our obligations to the people of Canada, our electors, to look and to scrutinize the expenditures of the government.
It is my contention that the Spicer Commission, whose spending of public money has been much maligned recently, should be given a chance to present its case in public, before a committee, to re-establish possibly its credibility. If this House does not proceed now with having that person or the chairman of that commission before the committee of the House before the time has expired on March 21, we would be playing a hoax on Canadians. We would be playing a hoax on ourselves.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations is the appropriate forum for this to go on. Unless action is taken in the next nine days-well, 10 days maybe-before March 21 when the parliamentary estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House, no public scrutiny by Parliament will have been made of the commission's budget.
The future of the country in my view, is much too important to allow some people to score fast political points at its expense. I am not aiming this at anybody in this House. I am just saying it is untenable at this time to have a royal commission which is looking at the future of our country, not being able to defend itself in front of the public in Canada, in front of this House, as to how it spends public money.
There is a serious flaw in the rules which allow the government to frustrate and deny appropriate and democratic parliamentary processes such as scrutiny of expenditures of public funds. You, Sir, cannot remain indifferent. You cannot remain neutral. There are two avenues you could use. You could say that in view of the flaw in our Standing Orders this whole matter could be deferred to the committee. It has been charged with looking at our Standing Orders. It could look at the Standing Orders and possibly come in with a quick recommendation. That would take time, Mr. Speaker.
The other alternative, which I prefer, is to use your good offices to tell the clerk of the committee that in view of the fact that we do not have a procedure at hand that is acceptable to modem parliamentary procedures, that he, the clerk, will convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations today, for a meeting to be held tomorrow, to give the commission a chance to defend itself before the House of Commons.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want an opportunity to present a couple of arguments in this particular discussion. In fact, I want to make three points, but I want to begin by saying this.
I am shocked that the hon. member rises in his place in this House today to make this point because, either one of two things have happened; the Liberal Party has chosen to circumvent the legitimate negotiation process that has been going on between House leaders of this House or, there is a complete lack of discussion among
March 12, 1991

members in their party as to what the process has been, continues to be and will be later today and tomorrow.
I would like to begin by making three points. First, as the hon. member has indicated in his remarks, we do in fact have a striking committee report before this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, you know that the government could have, under the rules of this House, moved concurrence in that report, and had that report adopted. The implications of that would have meant a dramatic change to our committee's system and its process. We chose, as a government, not to use our majority to do that, but rather to let the House and the House leadership have discussions so that we could come to an agreement whereby all members of this House would feel that the committee process was a baby of their own creation rather than one forced upon them by the government. That is why we have not used our legitimate powers, our majority, to force the striking committee report through this House.
The second point I want to make is this. As you know, and all members of this House know, the House leadership and the members of this House are presently discussing a wide variety of rule changes. Included in those rule changes are a fairly extensive list of changes to the committee process. These changes have been shared with the House leader of the Official Opposition, with the House leader of the New Democratic Party and with other members who are involved in the negotiation process. It has not been a secret. It has been widely discussed. There have even been press articles on some of the details.
These negotiations have been going because we, on this side of the House, fundamentally believe that committees are a creature of the whole House. They are not creatures solely of the government and that is why we have worked so hard to make sure that that rule change process, as it relates to committees and other issues, has a fair hearing, a fair discussion and an opportunity for consensus building.
The third point I want to speak to is this, and it relates specifically to the point that my hon. friend raises in the House, relating to the committee on consumer and corporate affairs. I have had discussions with members of the opposition on this issue on probably three occasions.
Privilege
I will not go into detail about the discussions because I do not want to betray any confidences about what was discussed in those meetings.
However, I do want to indicate to the Chair, and I think it is very important that the Speaker realize that in fact these discussions have gone on, that we have been working together to try and come up with a process that would allow this committee to meet, would allow the committee to study the estimates and still would maintain the integrity both of the rule changes that we are looking at in terms of future opportunities and, second, to make sure that the work of that committee would be balanced and consistent with structures that exist in the present system for committees of this House.
That is happening at the moment. In fact, I can indicate to the Speaker that I had thought, from conversations I had this morning, that we, on all sides of the House, were very likely to come to an agreement which would have meant an Order in this House later this afternoon. I had those kinds of indications, and that is why I am very shocked that the hon. member has chosen this opportunity, in spite of all those discussions and all those negotiations, to try and score a partisan point on something we, as a government, have been going out of our way not to treat as a partisan issue. Because, as I said earlier, we do believe that committees are a vehicle of this whole House.
My friend offered to you two options. He asked the Speaker to intervene and to enforce or force a decision.
I offer a third option, an option in keeping with the traditions of the Chair and of this House, and that is to let the process that is going on at this moment continue.


An hon. member:: It is not going on.


Albert Glen Cooper: The hon. member says that it is not going on. Why does he not check with his House leader? Why does he not check and find out what conversations have been going on even this morning? Those discussions are going on; I can say that publicly in this House. There is no need for the Speaker to impose on the House a particular action when in fact I think we are very close to a consensus among the House leadership which will result in a decision of the House, of the membership and will protect the integrity of the committees, which is certainly the most legitimate and consistent goal that we

March 12, 1991
Privilege
as a government are trying to reach through the negotiations, the discussions and the rule changes.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: On the same point of order, the government deputy Whip claims that he does not understand why we are raising this issue today. The reason we are raising the issue today is that we sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week in his capacity as the Leader of the Conservative Party and asked him to specifically direct the Whip of the government side of the House to give a vehicle for the estimates of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be heard. In fact, we were very explicit in our letter to the Prime Minister that if we did not receive a response by today, this matter would be raised in the House.
We want to raise it in the House because the clock is ticking.

We have about ten days left to consider the Estimates concerning the Spicer Commission. Since the government and the Prime Minister refuse to act responsibly, it is up to members of Parliament to do so and to consider in detail all expenditures already made and delegated to the Spicer Commission. We advised the Prime Minister last week that if he could not act responsibly as Leader of the Conservative Party, we were prepared to raise the question in the House. We gave the government and the Prime Minister enough time to respond. However, no response was forthcoming. And that is why today, we are trying to get the Chair to rule on a matter that affects the rights and privileges of all members.
If a process is in place according to which we have the right to examine the expenditures of all departments, including commissions, and that process is denied us as a result of the government's refusal to convene a meeting, that is a breach of our privileges, Mr. Speaker. That is why we submitted that the Prime Minister could have dealt with the situation last week. Since he refused to do so, we are taking our responsibility as parliamentarians seriously and we ask the Chair to ensure that this meeting is convened as soon as possible.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege raised by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. The matter of negotiation referred to by the government member is a pretext. There was no real negotiation. It is nothing but a pretext. I too
wrote letters and asked the Prime Minister to intervene. I asked the whip and the other members on the government side to intervene. They did not.
I want to make it clear that I can understand the Liberals and the others wanting to have a good look at the books of the Spicer Commission. I agree with that. But there are other problems, including some that directly affect consumers throughout Canada, others related to gas prices and car warranties, in short all sorts of considerations that members opposite may not deem unduly urgent. We have to respond to letters from constituents and tell them that for six months now the government has refused to convene the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations. The average Joe on the street has precious little use for such legal shenanigans and the various points raised by my government colleague. He wants answers to his questions, recalling full well that the government did brag about enhancing the role of members by giving them more latitude with respect to committee work.
Mr. Speaker, pretending the committee system works has to be the most misleading statement I ever heard. The system simply does not work, and the reference to negotiations is a red herring. Our party whip confirmed that right here and, from what I heard, the Liberals did not get to first base either.
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House will have to get involved in this debate, for I have strong reservations about the good will of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.
I would like to know why a resignation back in September has not been filled yet. All members of this House believed once that in the reform committee this kind of thing would be a matter of the past. I want to know exactly why there has not been a replacement of the chairman.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, we are on very dangerous ground.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. We may be on very dangerous ground and there may be very good reasons why the government does not want to go ahead and do anything because the opposition has not approved, or is
March 12, 1991

not prepared to approve, an order of the House or a proposition that has been put before the House.
I ask the hon. member for Calgary West to tell me how, if we believe in a committee system, we can continue to go without a committee chairman all these months.
The other thing I want to say is this. I probably cannot intervene, but I am being asked to intervene, and this is not the first time. The fault may be on both sides of the House, but for goodness sake, I ask hon. members to get it settled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Speaker is always on dangerous ground when he gets applause from one side of the House.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. Let me make it very clear. I am not defending either side of the House in this. I say to the other side of the House be careful about applauding a Speaker, whether it comes from one side of the House or the other.
I spent a lot of years in opposition, I do not have to tell you how many. I thought we had made some very, very positive reforms and changes. All I am saying is that this House and this country, because I do not know that I can do anything about it, are in trouble if we let a committee go from September until now without a chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have to step back to the year 1985, when this government and this party brought parliamentary reform to this Chamber.


An hon. member:: Apply it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I hear one of the new members who came into this House in 1988 saying: "Apply it". I look her right in the eye and I say: "We have tried". It is the opposition that does not respect the principles of this place when it comes to committees.


An hon. member:: Yap, yap, yap.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yap, yap, yap. The less you know, the more likely you are to yap in this place from time to time.
A very important element of parliamentary reform was the existence of a striking committee that would name
Privilege
the membership, the House would approve the membership and members on standing committees would be entitled to the retention of that seat within 10 sitting days of the commencement of the fall session until one year later. Nothing anybody in this Chamber could do, except that individual, would change the membership of that committee. People were entitled to resign but Whips could not take the seat away. Year by year by year, it was a conscious decision of this Chamber. The violation arose last September when the opposition refused to acknowledge the striking committee report naming the membership for the year we are now in.
There would be no problem if precedents had been followed by the opposition in accepting the striking committee report.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Angus:: Tell the whole story.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I will tell the whole story. We have had a whole lot of informal meetings, and I will tell the whole story.
You talk about partisan, petty politics and maybe the member for Vanier did not know what he was stepping into, but we have a situation today where the government, when it comes to committees, and the standing committees of this House cannot meet their responsibility to govern. There are two roles in this Chamber: there is an Official Opposition and an opposition, and there is a government. The government has the responsibility to govern.
We will take this one specific committee example. We call a meeting this afternoon. We elect a chairman with the current membership, and the voting power is in the hands of the opposition and not the government. That is true of seven of the 21 committees in this Chamber right now, and it has been true since last September and they know it.


An hon. member:: They are playing games.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They are playing partisan political games with the future of this country, national unity, Spicer committee and everything because they want to control the committees.


Iain Francis Angus: That's a lie.

Privilege


Mr. Simmons:: You are making a fool of yourself, Jim.
March 12, 1991


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They have been offered all kinds of possible adjustment and they refuse because they like the situation. They like to stand up in this House and complain. They do not like to run the nation. It is not their job to run the nation, but it is ours. We have the responsibility as the governing party in this Chamber to run it.
You stand up and ask me that question and I will repeat my answer. If I call that meeting this afternoon, when one of our members steps into that chair the voting control of the committee is in the hands of the opposition. That is true for seven of the 21 committees.
That is what lies behind their obstinacy. They refuse to acknowledge the principle that the government has the responsibility of governing. The opposition has the responsibility to oppose and it is an abomination of democracy for it to attempt to use one rule in the Standing Orders to control the governing part of this Chamber in one-third of the standing committees of this House.
You have not even read the rules. You shake your head, you yack, you talk, but you have to read the rules.


Mr. Barrett:: That's nonsense.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You do not read the rules either. Okay? They are operating on a false premise.
Now you stand up and tell me that you should intervene, Mr. Speaker, and hand the responsibility for governing over to the opposition and see how long-


An hon. member:: Shame.


David Barrett: You lost control.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I would say with great respect to the hon. member for Calgary West, I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the public of this country is entitled to know, and the fault may lie on both sides of the Chamber, why a committee has not got a chairman since September. One can blame one side or the other, but do not blame the Speaker for being annoyed that it has been brought to my attention, not for the first time.
The country is in no mood to put up with this kind of debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Tell them that.


Mr. Speaker:: I'm telling the House that.


Mr. Malone:: Don't look at us.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not hearing any further debate on it. It is not something I can do anything about. I can say, as somebody who has been here for a long time, for goodness sakes, get it resolved.
The fault is probably on both sides. I do not want to overdo this.


Arnold John Malone: Don't look at us.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look at everybody in the House. Let us resolve it. I cannot keep resolving these things. It should be resolved in the Chamber.
I can tell you when the country is in peril, to have a debate like this does not do one bit of good in getting us through the difficulties that we face.
That is the end of the debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West rises on a point of order. I have said that the issue is ended. I cannot intervene and I am not going to hear further debate on it. If it is another matter, of course I will hear the hon. member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might seek from the Chamber unanimous consent to adopt the 49th report of the striking committee?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West has put what, of course, might be a solution to the whole thing. He is asking for consent.
I put it to the House.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we cannot give consent to adopt the 49th report because it does not fill all of the seats that have been approved by this Chamber in terms of the size of committees. That is the nub of the issue, so we cannot.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to use this morning to have a full debate on this. There is not consent. If there were consent, of course, it would resolve the whole issue.
All I am saying, and I should not have to repeat it, is for goodness sake, go and resolve this.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
March 12, 1991



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton - Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to present petitions containing almost 500 names of persons who call on the government to bring in ethanol blended gasolines that are environmentally friendly and do not contain MMT.
The average cost of ethanol production in the U.S. is 47 cents per U.S. gallon, and one U.S. plant produces it for 38 cents per U.S. gallon. A new Canadian plant has forecast costs at 27 cents a litre. This is in direct contradiction to the 47 cents per litre cost of production in the Canadian government response to a similar petition tabled in November 1990.
I call on this government to update the research on this issue and get on with the implementation of this as an alternative friendly fuel.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to make some brief submissions in respect of the point of order raised on Friday, March 8, 1991, by the hon. member for Ontario concerning the provision in the estimates, particularly vote 5 in the votes under Parliament on the Senate which authorizes the implementation of the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy Budgets and Administration in the other place.
Routine Proceedings
I have reviewed very carefully the comments made by the hon. member for Ontario. At first glance his point of order looks as though it is well taken, but there are a few points that I would like to draw to the attention of the Chair for the Chair's consideration in reviewing the point of order.
First of all, I would suggest that in considering whether the estimate in question is in fact out of order, Your Honour should have regard to the fact that estimates are recommended to this House by the Governor General.
In the case of both Supplementary Estimates C and in the case of the Main Estimates, Your Honour will recall just the other day that a message was received from His Excellency transmitting the estimates to this place and recommending them to the House.
Estimates recommended by the Governor General are not just recommended because His Excellency receives these documents and says: "Boy, these are great". He gets advice from his responsible ministers who advise His Excellency to recommend these estimates to the House. That little constitutional convention is a very important one, in that these estimates have obviously been approved by cabinet, by the Privy Councillors who advise His Excellency.
I submit that in making a recommendation to this House the ministers of the Crown have put their stamp of approval on this set of estimates and have recommended them to the House of Commons through the Government General, because the Governor General, as I have stated, does not recommend these on his own volition. He does so only on advice from his responsible ministers. Indeed it would be contrary to all constitutional convention for the Governor General to make a recommendation on these estimates without the advice of his responsible ministers who sit on the Treasury benches in the House. Those estimates have been recommended in this way.
I note that in the precedents cited by the hon. member for Ontario he has referred to rulings of the Chair made over a period of 20 years which suggest that estimates cannot legislate a new government program. The question whether this particular estimate falls within the

March 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
impugned type of estimates is a matter I think the Chair will have to decide.
I want to point out first that in most cases the arguments for having estimates excluded on the basis that they created new programs were advanced by the person who is now the leader of the government in the House and who must accept very direct responsibility for having recommended these estimates to the House through his boss, the Governor General of Canada.
He, presumably as a member of cabinet, advised His Excellency to recommend these estimates to the House. He, having done so, I presume has satisfied himself as to the form and content of these estimates based on the fact that he is something of an expert on the matter, having raised issues for years and years before the House as to the propriety of the form of various estimates.
I trust we will hear from him in respect of this matter in due course and whether or not he feels this particular estimate is in accordance with the precedents, many of which he established by his arguments.
Second, I would refer Your Honour to two precedents, one I must say the validity of which may be at issue because it was adopted prior to the rulings in 1971 and 1981 which the hon. member for Ontario has cited in support of his proposal. However, I refer Your Honour to Appropriation Act No. 2 for 1965 in which a particular item in the schedule to the act that contained the words of the votes reads as follows:
To authorize, during the current and subsequent fiscal years, payment of a gratuity in respect of the death of any member of the Senate or House of Commons subsequent to August 2, 1963, to the surviving spouse or the estate of the deceased member, in an amount equal to two months' sessional indemnity and to ratify any such payments made during the 1963-64 fiscal year; estimated amount required for the 1964-65 fiscal year, $12,000.
That was an estimate adopted by this House that did change a program and I think is worth consideration by Your Honour.
In addition there was one other, which I have easily obtained here, in the 1989-90 Appropriation Act No. 3 for that particular financial year. Vote 1 for the Privy Council Office provided in part, and I will only quote the relevant part:
- the payment to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a Minister without Portfolio or a Minister of State who does not preside over a Ministry of State of a salary equal to the salary paid to Ministers of State who preside over Ministries of State under the Salaries Act, as adjusted pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act and pro rata for any period less than a year-
Then there is a sum mentioned.
I submit that once again the estimate as passed in the Appropriation Act did something similar to what is proposed to be done in this particular estimate.
In looking at whether Your Honour should rule this estimate out of order, I invite you, Sir, to have regard to these two precedents. I hope that they are of assistance to the Chair and its ruling on this important issue.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I this is a very important matter. I intend to be very short in presenting my arguments because later on this morning, our leader, the member for Yukon, will be presenting a motion to this House with regard to the Constitution of Canada and the process that we should be using to bring about changes to our Constitution and the substance related to that. That is also very important and we must get to it as soon as possible.
However, since the day has been chosen to continue arguments on the point of order raised by the member for Ontario, I do want to add to the remarks I made on Friday.
First, I believe that the government has improperly brought these estimates before us. While it is true that the Senate passes its estimates and it is the obligation of the government to present those estimates to both Houses, I believe that the government had the option to look to find out whether or not the Senate estimates were in the proper form. I would submit that that is not the case in this particular case. Vote 2c, under the Supplementary Estimates, for the Senate says:
To authorize the implementation of the Forty-first Report of the Standing Committee of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 2nd session, 34th Parliament, adopted by the Senate on June 5, 1990, and to authorize, in the current and subsequent fiscal year, payment of the allowance referred to in the report.
The Financial Administration Act is very clear. In section 27 it says:
All estimates of expenditures submitted to Parliament shall be for the services coming in course of payment during the fiscal year.
March 12, 1991

Supply
It is not subsequent years, but during the fiscal year. The Financial Administration Act goes on further in section 37 to say:
- the balance of an appropriation granted for a fiscal year that remains unexpended at the end of that fiscal year shall lapse.
Clearly what the Senate has done through its estimates is that it has violated the Financial Administration Act, which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
In addition, this vote, which is the vote that gives the senators $153 a day for showing up for work, violates the Parliament of Canada Act. Those types of increases which do not require any receipts whatsoever require a change in the Parliament of Canada Act. The Senate, perhaps for the reason that it does not want the public to respond to this vast increase to its salaries, did not introduce any legislation whatsoever and is trying to do through the appropriation that which it did not have the nerve to do through legislation.
The references that were made earlier on Friday and earlier today were to past rulings which are quite clear: one does not use the estimates, whether the Main Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates, to pass legislation. The Speakers in the past have indicated that one must introduce the legislation in order for any appropriations to go forward.
I will sum up because of the important nature of the debate that is about to commence. Clearly, the Senate of Canada has violated two acts of Parliament: the Financial Administration Act and the Parliament of Canada Act. In addition, it has violated the rules upheld by Speakers in the past with regard to trying to do through appropriations that which should be done through legislation.
This is a case where the senators have individual profit from the measure that is before this House. For it to be done in the improper way suggested under the Supplementary Estimates for this fiscal year is completely unacceptable.
I believe that the Speaker has an obligation to protect not only the House and the legislation of this country, but an obligation to protect the taxpayers of this nation as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As all the hon. members know, the substantive matter raised by the hon. member for Ontario is presently under advisement. I am sure that the Chair is highly appreciative of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Churchill and that these will help in making a decision on this important procedural matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon) moved:: That this House call upon the government to make the next round of constitutional discussions a round for all Canadians by adopting guidelines for the process of constitutional change which ensure:
(1)	representation by all sides of Parliament and provincial and territorial legislatures, not just governments;
(2)	the inclusion of others with a stake in the outcome, such as aboriginal nations, the north, official language minorities, business and labour, women and multicultural communities;
(3)	the process is genuinely balanced, without real or perceived dominance or manipulation by any participant;
(4)	discussion is based on the views of ordinary people and expert opinion;
(5)	there is a timetable and a commitment from the start of all appropriate participants to make a decision on the final package of proposed amendments;
(6)	the process is open and transparent, conducting official business in public;
(7)	that discussions begin with only one precondition, a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation; and
That this not be considered a question of confidence in the government.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the motion that the New Democratic Party brings before the House today comes at a very critical time in the current round of constitutional discussions. Indeed it comes at a critical time for the country and for the country's history.

March 12, 1991
Supply
We as Canadians have reached a point in our comparatively short history where we are once again taking an honest and sincere look at ourselves, at our successes, at our failures, at our strengths and at our weaknesses. We are looking ahead to where it is that we wish to go as a country, what this country can offer Canadians, and what Canadians can offer to the world.
I have introduced the motion before us today because I believe in Canada and because I want more than anything else for this country to emerge as a united, strong, and compassionate country from this current period of uncertainty. To do this will require significant changes in the way the government and others approach the questions of national unity and constitutional reform.
That is what we are addressing today in this motion.
First on the question of national unity, it is important to realize that it will take much more than constitutional amendments to secure the future of the nation and to ensure that the Canada we want to build for our children is a more caring, compassionate and co-operative nation. It takes more than a constitutional amendment to ensure that we build a Canada in which all Canadians feel at home and that all the world respects and admires.
It will take major economic initiatives, because economic initiatives are not solely designed to make Canada a better country for multinational corporations and corporate profit, but rather to make Canada a better place for Canadian families and a better country for the families of this nation.
It will take a major commitment to building and strengthening the nation's social programs such as medicare, old age pensions and social security. It will take a commitment to national institutions, those institutions that represent the common bonds that we share: the CBC, VIA Rail and the RCMP.
It will take courage to bring in a real environmental program that protects the Canadian environment rather than simply shields corporate polluters.
It will take constitutional change, but not constitutional change that is designed only to meet the needs of governments or the needs of corporations. For Canadians, the debate on national unity is not about which level of government should be more powerful. It is not
about who has the larger deficit or about where and how corporations can best operate and profit.
Canada is not simply a Gross Domestic Product, a deficit or a trade zone. Canada is a nation with a heart, with a soul, and a new Constitution must be for all Canadians, all the people of Canada.

It is because the Constitution must belong to the Canadian people that the redefinition of federalism must be an open and democratic process. Constitutional changes must be brought upon so as to be construed as legitimate by the people concerned. Our recent failures should have taught us that much. The processes which produced the constitutional accords of 1981, 1987 and 1990 caused discontent.
Whatever their respective merits, these accords were seen as a breach of confidence by those who were excluded. From this discontent sprung today's distrust. The fault does not lie with the country itself or with the people of Canada. It lies with the leaders and the governments. Successive governments waited before vesting powers in the Canadian people and giving them the tools to make a better life for themselves. They undermined the confidence the people had in them and in their country.
For decades, governments in Ottawa made many people believe that the federal government was either unable or unwilling to meet the needs of the population. People were also convinced that Ottawa was unable to respect diversity, contribute to equity, empower the population or simply unite the country.

This government has been telling Canadians that the biggest obstacle to justice, equality and prosperity is the federal government itself: deregulation, privatization, the U.S.-Canada trade deal. This government has destroyed national institutions like the CBC and VIA Rail. It is in the process of killing medicare and has virtually given up its regional development as a key tool for developing unity, and that must change.
Now we are told that the Prime Minister, Conservative, Fiberal and Social Credit premiers, and large corporations have united in a constitutional alliance that talks about decentralized federalism but promises to
March 12, 1991

deliver something much different, a kind of Dow Jones corporation federalism.
A few weeks ago in Toronto the Prime Minister said that the new Constitution must be built on the same principles that brought us deregulation, privatization, the Canada-U.S. trade deal and the GST.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that he could not be more wrong.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that unless he abandons his vision of a corporate Canada and a corporate federalism, he is doomed to fail because it is a vision Canadians do not share and will not accept. If he is not willing to listen to Canadians on this critical issue, then he must step aside and let Canadians articulate their vision of the country through a general election.
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of every member of this Chamber to do what we can to restore the trust of Canadians. We in the New Democratic Party take that responsibility very seriously and that is why we have introduced this motion today.
The Canadian people are not asking their elected representatives for anything to which they do not have a right. They are asking us to be open, to be honest and to be consistent.
The Prime Minister has said that the government has learned from the Meech Lake process. He has set up a number of public committees and working groups to listen to Canadians and to openly discuss the options available. Yet, while the Spicer Commission is in the headlines and the Commons and Senate committee meet publicly to look at the amending formula, there are clearly a whole series of initiatives under way that are not in the public eye and that are being done behind closed doors.
We have, for example, Mr. Speaker, a group of deputy ministers. I asked the Acting Prime Minister yesterday, and he refused to even table the terms of reference for those deputy ministers. Surely the public has a right to know. Surely the public has a right to know what report they put forward. And I say again, that the Prime Minister should table that report in this House of Commons so that all Canadians can know what kind of thinking has gone into the government's position.
Supply
At the same time, we have a finance minister who announces he is beginning to negotiate new fiscal arrangements that determine such programs as medicare and other social programs. He is going to negotiate equalization and that, in fact, could result in a kind of decentralization of programs or different kinds of arrangements among the provinces and territories in Canada in a kind of back door constitution making. Well, that is not good enough. We do not want a back door constitution making. We do not want a closed door constitution making. We want an open door process where all Canadians can see the positions of all political parties and of all of the key players in these discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Prime Minister today that coming up with a way of muzzling critics in order to make the people of Canada feel good and a new way of doing the preliminary work for another last minute marathon will not be enough. It will not work and I can tell the Prime Minister that this caucus will not take part in that process.
I also hope that the Liberal Party will join us to pass this motion and support the amendments we proposed as well as our suggestions regarding the wider scope to be given to the proceedings of the Committee on the constitutional amendment formula.

I said in my opening comments that this motion comes before the House at a very critical time, and the Speaker reminded us of that earlier this morning. It comes at a time when as members of Parliament we have the opportunity to ensure that this round of constitutional discussions is an open round and a round for all Canadians.
We have to learn from the past, and I think we have learned from the Meech Lake process about what it takes to include and involve as many people that can and want to be involved in that process, and not to exclude any one group. The process we are suggesting must be open and conciliatory and, in my view, must meet the seven specific criteria that we have set out in this motion.
I will briefly reiterate those, Mr. Speaker. The first principle of the process should be that all sides of Parliament and all legislatures must be represented, not just one party or one part of the parliamentary process and not just government. Parliament and legislatures

March 12, 1991
Supply
have a role to play but every member must have the real opportunity to participate in defining the future of our country.
Second, the process must include others with a stake in the outcome such as aboriginal nations, the north, official language minorities, multicultural communities, business, trade unions. Because building a constitution is not the private domain of governments or first ministers.
The Constitution is a constitution for whatever party happens to be in power: New Democratic, Liberal or Conservative. It is a constitution for all of the people, therefore, all of the people have to be a part of forming that constitution. There are many interests at stake. All of them are important and all of them represent that diversity of our country which we want to see enshrined in our constitution.
The third principle is that the process must be genuinely balanced, without the perception of dominance or manipulation by any one group, or by any one participant. It is not enough, simply, to have others attend meetings or to be involved to create the perception of legitimacy. There must be a real and legitimate role for all of those who have a stake.
The fourth principle is that we must draw upon the views of ordinary people and of expert opinion. We must take seriously the various commissions that are under way in the provinces and in the Yukon territory. The Spicer Commission, which is going to report, must function as a legitimate vehicle for Canadians and its recommendations, having heard tens of thousands of Canadians, must be taken seriously by this government.

Fifth, there must be a precise timetable and a commitment from the start of all participants to make a decision on the a final package of proposed amendments.
The sixth principle calls for the process to be open and have no hidden agenda. We cannot have an honest-looking process going on in one room while the real changes are negotiated in another room, behind closed doors.
Finally, the desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation must be the only precondition to the discussion process. We must embark on this process with an open mind, ready to listen, and with the courage to act.

There are many mechanisms by which we can proceed with constitutional change that will meet these basic criteria. Some, such is a constituent assembly which I proposed some eight months ago in this House and which, I might add, the Prime Minister agreed to look at very seriously. It has been discussed in this House and has been used with some success in other parts of the world. We can learn from others. We are not the first country that has had to grapple with the issues that we in Canada are grappling with today. There are other models that can be adopted to meet the needs of Canada and reflect the reality of our nation.
We can be developing a new model that will be a model for the world. Constitutional conventions, constituent assembly, constitutional conferences are examples of a process which seek to bring in not only elected politicians but also those others who have a stake in the future of our country. Regardless of what process we choose, it must be a process that involves all Canadians.
I call on this House today to pass this motion and to adopt these seven criteria for an open and honest process. I call upon all members to make it clear that, at this time, we are not prepared to leave the fate of this country and its Constitution in the hands of just a few people.
Canada's future security, the cultural well-being of our communities and the inheritance we leave for the future of our children depends on the outcome of this process. We must clearly define together our vision of where we want the country to go. To do that, we need a process based on the principles we are suggesting today.
We have deliberately said in our motion that this is not a non-confidence motion in the government, but rather it is an attempt to bring together the parties of this House to accept some common principles on the process.
March 12, 1991

I believe all of us in this House want to build a better Canada. We all have the same objective. Some of us may have different ways we would take to do it. But at least today, let us give hope to Canadians by saying that we can come together, agree on basic principles, that we have learned from the errors of the past. Let us show Canadians that we really are committed to building a true Constitution that belongs to Canadians, that does not belong to one political party or one point of view.
This would be a start today and I urge all members of this House to support this motion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I want to say that I am very disappointed she would use a subject as sensitive and as difficult as this one is for Canadians in a manner that encourages partisanship and, I think, encourages division within this House and within political parties.
Her comments, particularly, about the Prime Minister were very unfair. I think they were in fact quite wrong. The implication the leader of the New Democratic Party came back to again and again was that somehow the government is stifling public involvement or is not interested in public involvement, is both unfair and incorrect. The leader of the New Democratic Party knows or should know that the Prime Minister has launched initiatives in several areas.
I wish to come back to one other point that has been made again and again in this House. I see nothing wrong with the government, within itself, in terms of deputy ministers and others examining options. I think that is only logical. It would be irresponsible for any government department and individuals who work for the Government of Canada not to be thinking about this very difficult question.
What the leader of the New Democratic Party fails to mention is the fact that the government has a number of initiatives to involve the public. Of course, the Spicer Commission is one of those three different ways that the government is encouraging Canadians to come forward and give their opinion. She touched on that only very briefly. In fact, she and the members of her party should
Supply
be getting behind that organization to ensure that it is a success. It is one of the ways in which this government is encouraging Canadians from coast to coast to get involved with this.
On the technical side, as well, the Edwards-Beaudoin joint parliamentary committee is one that will visit all ten provincial capitals, both territorial capitals and several other cities in Canada, and address some of the questions she mentioned; the constituent assembly referenda, and that sort of thing. We are encouraging Canadians to give us their opinions. That is something that all members, and members of her own party are involved with as well. This is another initiative.
I am proud, as well, that the Prime Minister has asked his own political party, the Progressive Conservative Party from coast to coast, every riding, every region of Canada, to get involved with the question of Canada's future.
In the next week or two, I will be participating in a forum for Ontario Progressive Conservatives, as well as a national forum. Again, the Prime Minister of Canada is asking Canadians to get involved and help with the future of this country.
I would invite the leader of the New Democratic Party to reassess the partisan view she has taken and get behind people like the Prime Minister who are doing their best to unite this country and keep it strong.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the Constitution is a series of principles for our country and how we are going to enact those principles. We are talking about something beyond that. We are talking about national unity.
While many Canadians find it difficult to react to the amending formula of the Constitution or particular technicalities, as important as they are, they do know one thing. They know there are 1.3 million people unemployed in this country. They know that poverty is increasing, that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing, that the middle class is finding it increasingly difficult to even maintain the standard of living. Taxes, like the goods and services tax, have made it even more difficult for individuals and small business to survive in this country.

March 12, 1991
Supply
Canadians know that bankruptcies have increased phenomenally in the last year, that the results of the Canada-U.S. trade deal have not proven to increase jobs for Canadians, but to decrease them. You cannot separate that, Mr. Speaker. You cannot separate the policies of this government in the monetary fiscal area, in the economic policies for the feelings of anger about what their country is now able to offer them and what kind of future there will be for their children.
When they see post-secondary education significantly cut back, not just by this government, but by former governments as well, what future is there for young people? What future is there for this country as we cut back research and development to make us less competitive? In fact, this government's policies are doing the very things which make us less competitive and less prosperous.
Those unemployed Canadians, those young children who are living in poverty in increasing numbers in this country, who are standing in the lines of food banks, the increasing number of homeless, has as much to do with national unity as does any constitutional amendment. It is absolutely essential that all of us on all sides of the House recognize that without security in the economy, without policies that will lead to full employment, without real policies to protect the environment, without real commitment to social programs in this country, constitutional amendments will mean nothing.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the leader of the New Democratic Party. I listened with great interest to what she said. I would ask her though looking at her motion if really she is not calling for a constitutional convention or constituent assembly. I know she spoke about it in her comments, but why not call for that specifically rather than call for so many of the ingredients of one without saying explicitly she thinks that is the way to involve Canadians.
I certainly agree with her it is the only way that we can involve Canadians in redoing the Constitution of Canada. She did point out, I think I am quoting her correctly, that it has worked with some success, I think was her phrase. My understanding is that it has worked very well in many countries and it has been a success virtually everywhere it has been tried.
Why does she not make the call for a constituent assembly the substance of her motion rather than saying everything in it but that?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague's comments about that, because in fact I did address that in my speech today, as I have done previously in the House, and called on the government and others to examine that issue.
The member from Edmonton is quite correct, that the constitutional assembly has worked well in a number of countries. I cite Australia particularly. It is a country that has some similarity of issues to Canada. It was a process that I think worked quite well there.
Why we have chosen today to set out the principles and the process is that we do not want to pre-judge what the best would be. We would like to hear everyone else's ideas but I think the one important principle on which we can all agree, and the member from Edmonton obviously agrees with as well, is that the old process does not work. The old ways do not work. We cannot have 11 men just sitting at a different table this time in a different place. We need to open it up to people from the west, the north, the Atlantic region, from central Canada, to those groups that have particular interests, such as aboriginal people, the multicultural community and women.
We have to make sure that those groups are involved. If we do not do that, we as politicians in this House have dramatically failed the Canadian people. I, for one-and I am sure the member from Edmonton was making the same kind of comment-do not want to be a part of that kind of failure again. Therefore, I would very strongly urge that all parties consider the specific process, whether it is a convention or a constituent assembly. I myself, because I have presented that in the House before, favour that model. There may be better models that I have not thought of. I do not pretend to have all the best ideas, but I think I have some good ones, and the one that is most important is that all Canadians have to be served by this process. All Canadians have to be reflected in this process, and I think we should just get on with it and start doing that. Then we would see some real movement and, hopefully, a sense of hope about the future of this country, because that, of all things, is what Canadians need today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism).


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to share with you my reflections on the current constitutional debate and to outline the initiatives taken by the federal government to find, within Canada, solutions which will lead to a strong and united Canada, ready to meet the challenges of the next century.
Mr. Speaker, whenever I return to Canada from a trip abroad or upon visiting one of our regions, I am impressed and proud of the accomplishments of our parents. With a population of only 26 million spread out over the second largest country in the world, our parents overcame a forbidding climate and geography to build the eighth largest economy in the world. The quality of things our parents built, and which we continue to build, can be seen all around us: first rate schools, clean subways, excellent health care, safe streets, marvellous recreational facilities and wide-spread economic opportunities. Millions of people all over the world admire our quality and standard of living and line up to come to Canada because successive generations of Canadians have succeeded in building an open, democratic, peaceful and very prosperous country.
This is the Canada we have. This is the Canada I am proud of and it is the Canada I wish to leave to my children. However, if we want to continue to develop our economy and meet the intense competition of the twenty-first century, while safeguarding our linguistic and cultural diversity, we must commit ourselves to the challenge of re-Confederation. We should not be afraid to take a fresh and new look at what is best done by the federal government and what by the provinces-what we want to do together, and what we prefer to do separately.

In fact I heartily concur and support the views expressed by our Prime Minister on December 16, 1990, in Buckingham, Quebec.
In his speech, the right hon. Prime Minister indicated the distribution of powers devised by the Fathers of Confederation. I quote:
Supply
This distribution of powers admirably suited Canada's needs for many years, and it is entirely appropriate to review this to determine how best Canada can accommodate new realities internally while preparing to confront ferocious international competition for investment, technology, trade and prosperity. I believe it is now timely to review and modernize the Federation, to render it reflective of Canada's true diversity.
The government believes this. Whatever new arrangements we may develop over the course of the coming months, renewal of the federation must respect, above all, certain basic principles of change as outlined by the Prime Minister in his recent February speeches in Toronto and Quebec City.
Change should first lead to a more prosperous Canada. Change should secondly lead to a more efficient federalism and a more competitive nation. Change should respect equality, as well as diversity of citizens. Change, too, should be practical and it should be doable. It should maintain national standards and it should move decision-making closer to the people. We should safeguard rights of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister declared in this House on November 1, 1990: "I believe that if it takes major changes to hold this country together, Canadians want those changes made; and I believe that if it takes a new process to achieve these changes, Canadians want a new process designed".
These are the words of our Prime Minister. It was stated so well by him: "I am also confident that Canadians throughout the land have the will to change and to modernize the federation".
We hear so often that Canadians do not necessarily have the will to do this. I do not believe that is so; I think there is a will to change and to modernize.

Discussion and dialogue on change and on the modernization of the federation implies a two-way street. We must never forget that this is a vast and diverse country and we do not want everything run from Ottawa. On many questions and issues, the voices of the regions will be encouraged and not ignored-promoted and not stifled. I believe in a modern and flexible federalism, a federalism that reflects the diversity of Canada.
The federal government cannot modernize Canada alone; the federal government has therefore chosen to listen to all Canadians. In this spirit of listening, the

March 12, 1991
Supply
government has undertaken a variety of initiatives and has welcomed the initiatives taken by certain provincial governments.

We have an opportunity at this moment in history to create a modern, efficient and dynamic Canada for a new century.
The federal government has, therefore, started a process to revitalize the federation and to lead toward a new and modern Canada. As part of this dynamic process the citizens' forum is a specific federal initiative taken to ensure that we do work with Canadians, to listen and to understand.
There are a number of interesting comments on this forum every day in the media; some of them critical, some of them positive, some of them disparaging, some of them hopeful. I read this morning in the Toronto Star on page 2 a very interesting column by Slinger, I do not know his first name. It is entitled "Beleaguered citizens' forum at least offers hope".
I have to commend this column; it is eloquent and it points to the importance of our continuing with this, putting our faith in it and using it constructively. The citizens' forum, therefore, is a specific initiative taken to ensure that we do work with Canadians, to listen to and understand their concerns, their goals, their dreams, and also their frustrations. The Special Joint Committee on the Amending Formula, as the member from Niagara Falls reminded us a few minutes ago, will also provide an opportunity to hear their views and best advise on how to amend the Constitution.
People say that this is a technical subject. Of course it is, but if we come up with new values and new approaches, we need to have a mechanical, technical way to bring them about. That is why that committee is established.
It is true that the federal government, with the citizens' forum, shows a very non-traditional approach in listening to Canadians. The terms of reference indicate that the citizens' forum is not to wait for people to come to them but to seek out the views of Canadians; and once they come in, not to treat them in a stonily way but to encourage them to talk about Canada-this is very unique-and to stimulate suggestions about the country's future. This is a forum put in place to animate and bring alive what people feel. The federal government wanted this process to go to the people, not just to the heads of the big corporations, big unions, or big school boards, but to individuals in their villages, in their work places. This is happening. It is unique; it is non-traditional.
I am confident that The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future will go a long way to help us understand what this great country is about. I believe that the more Canadians talk to each other, the more they will realize how much they have in common and how much can be lost if we allow our differences to destroy our future together.
My daughter told me the other day that she sometimes thinks Canadians define themselves by what they do not like or who they do not like, rather than defining what they do like and what they do share. Other countries often can do this. I would like to see Canadians do this more. The citizens' forum is meant to encourage that, not to just restrict it to that. Of course frustrations must be vented, but also let us build common values together. It is an important and necessary step in the revitalizing process of this country.
Another initiative of the federal government in the listening process is the establishment of the Special Joint Committee on the Amending Formula.

As the Prime Minister said in his June 23 address to the nation, "we need to find an amendment process which reconciles the need for public participation and open democratic process with the legal requirements now in the Constitution."
The purpose of the committee is therefore to provide us with recommendations, based on broad consultations with Canadians, on a better way to go about changing our Constitution and, in particular, of involving the public in the process.

Although the federal government has presented a discussion paper to this committee, the paper did not make recommendations. Its purpose is to stimulate public discussion by raising a number of questions and examining a variety of options, without seeking to be exhaustive or suggesting any preferred course. I am confident that the ideas set out in the federal discussion
March 12, 1991

paper will give rise to others and that Canadians will ultimately develop a consensus on the amending process.
In conclusion, the federal government also supports the initiatives of the provinces in their efforts to engage in dialogue; we have that dimension of dialogue occurring as well. All initiatives to revitalize federalism in this country and to prepare us for the 21st century are encouraged and supported by the federal government.
I was approached the other day by the mayor of the city of London who wanted to send a message to the people across Canada about his city's desire to hold Canada together. We should encourage that, just as we encourage other forums of discussion across the country. Once we have heard as broad a spectrum of views as possible, the federal government then will bring forward-and not before-a comprehensive proposal for a new and stronger Canada.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the question that all Canadians must answer is very simple: Do we still have the will to live together as a country? I am convinced that Canadians will answer with a resounding "yes" and will be ready to modernize our federation, to make it more sensitive to economic, linguistic and cultural realities. This is why the federal government has taken thoughtful actions to continue the effort of our forebears and develop a national response to a national problem.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question. He may not be able to answer it. He is not directly implicated in the constitutional issue, but I want to ask it anyway because it may be useful to the process in this country.
As the minister knows, we have a group of deputy ministers now working on the division of powers and other substantive constitutional issues. That work is being done, by the way it is defined, behind closed doors in the bureaucracy.
I wonder if the minister can explain to this House what the terms of reference are for those deputy ministers, what they are working on, what is their agenda, when will that report be made public or will it be made public? I wonder if he can tell us more about that committee.
Supply
It may be useful. One thing we have learned from the whole process is that people want the whole constitutional process open and up front. They want to be involved. They want to know who is doing what. They do not want secret meetings and they do not want closed doors.
Perhaps the minister can help the process by telling us what he knows, if anything, about the deputy ministers, what they are doing, what their timetable is and so on.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is with a note of sadness that I listen to the cast of the hon. member's question which was about secrecy rather than about the country.
The comment was made before this debate began that this country does not want mindless partisanship to dominate this issue. What we want is the love of country to dominate. If that is going to work, we should not talk about marginal issues of secrecy, especially when the process is as open as it is.
I will answer the hon. member's question. He asks about the deputy ministers, and I will answer it. By the way, I hope that when the NDP has its discussions on the Constitution it has its discussions in public. If it does not have them in public, if it can explain to the Canadian people why not, and there might be occasions when it wants to try out some ideas and do some research away from the public, I want the NDP to answer clearly for itself the same questions it asks the government and other parties.
Let me explain here the mandate of the committee of deputy ministers. After the failure of Meech Lake, the Prime Minister made the following observations: The country needed a new process for going about constitutional change; there were serious misunderstandings that Canadians needed to work out in a way so that they could feel they were contributing to solving these problems.
He also said that the federal government will be bringing forward its own proposals once all of these reports were received and once any provincial government if it so wishes had stated its position.
The government also has made it clear since then that it is monitoring not only the initiatives referred to above, but also the provincial commissions that have been established. The Prime Minister has also make it clear that the status quo is unacceptable and that we must all

March 12, 1991
Supply
work together to produce a more prosperous united federation.
The question naturally arises: How will the government then develop its proposal? This is where the so-called committee of deputies comes in. For this task, the government is marshalling the best resources available, and in this context the deputy ministers have been given priority assignments whose results will be integrated with the other work that is under way. There is no secret committee and there is no secret agenda.
This has been stated over and over again. It is very important that we use the resources in this country, including our public servants, to help us with the task. Any government that did not would be wholly irresponsible. Of course, we want to use that advice.
The Prime Minister has asked Gordon Smith, Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, to co-ordinate this activity. This policy advice which deputies will provide will in no way undercut or pre-empt any other review process. I can assure the hon. member and all members of this House that there will be ample opportunity for public discussion and debate once the federal proposals come forward.
That should lay to rest any concern that something secret is going to happen and going to be sprung on the country. This is a preparation for openness, for renewing this country. Let us keep things on that plane, a non-partisan plane.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I think this proposal could be very beneficial for the people of Canada. For Quebecers, it is not the same ball game, as indicated by the very wording of the motion, where paragraph 7 clearly states:
(7) that discussions begin with only one precondition, a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation;
That would exclude, from the start, participants in the Belanger-Campeau inquiry, including the three central labour bodies, a movement the NDP is usually closely associated with. These people do not meet the conditions set in the motion. I think it is a good thing for Canada to take some time to define itself. Quebec is doing the same. In Quebec, we have a commission and discussions have been going on for several years. I think it is healthy that these two nations define their identity
on their own so they can establish better links afterwards.
In that context, I would like to ask the minister if, as a member of the government of a country that recognizes the United Nations Charter, one of the main principles of the Charter being the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination-if the minister were so kind as to listen to me instead of looking to one of his colleagues for an answer-So, will the minister tell me whether he recognizes or not the right of Quebec to self-determination following a referendum? Since they are signatories of the United Nations Charter, I would imagine that this principle does not apply only to other countries such as the Baltic States, but first in our own house. Otherwise, it is pure hypocrisy. I would like to hear his comments on this.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that a referendum was held in Canada some 11 years ago. It was a referendum, was it not?


Mr. Plamondon:: Yes.


Thomas Hockin: It is a question of fact. It is not for us to declare ourselves with regard to any declaration of the United Nations. The facts speak for themselves.
I thank the member for his comment about the importance of us defining ourselves in all parts of Canada. This is what this process is helping us to do: to define all parts of Canada. He has his definition of what he would like to see happen in this part of North America. I know that. However, he commends us, who do not agree with him, to go through the process of rethinking where we are going and how we want to see this country renewed.
That is what all of these processes which have been put in place by the government are meant to do.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not have to answer because my comments will take about a minute. I trust you will give him a little extra time.
The Spicer Commission is discrediting itself. People such as myself who referred people to the Spicer Commission are finding that it is becoming a source of embarrassment: the expenses, of course the statement by Mr. Spicer on being appointed or words to this effect that "my job", I think he said, "is to prepare English
March 12, 1991

Canada for the recommendations of Belanger-Cam-peau, especially if they are radical".
There is another committee looking at the amendment to the constitution formula. The minister will know as a former political scientist, as you know, we need unanimity to amend the Constitution of Canada. It is hardly a burning issue. It is a marginal issue. That is why so few people are, I understand, asking to appear before that committee.
The real problem or the most important problem is the fact that the Prime Minister of this country during the Meech Lake process said in effect time and time again that if Meech Lake did not pass Quebecers should consider themselves rejected by the rest of Canada.
That is patently not the case, and to me that is probably the major problem we have right now in Canada. The chief elected official in this country has created that problem by his grossly irresponsible way of treating that Meech Lake issue.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have heard this criticism of the Spicer Commission. Let me just quote from a column this morning by Mr. Slinger in The Toronto Star. I do not read him every day, but I certainly read him today. He wrote:
The loudest critics of the Spicer Commission are in the mass media and the official opposition. What the critics have not suggested is a better idea. They haven't said what might meet their exacting standards.
He goes on to indicate:
The citizens' forum represents at least a hope for spinning our straw into nationhood. It is a wonderful thing to hear a roomful of ordinary folks, strangers until then, trying to put into words what they feel for this country, whatever else we have sat and listened to, people very like ourselves searching in plain language for a common purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member's time is over.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a New Democratic Party motion urging parliamentarians to consider what the coming twenty months may entail for the future of Canada.
Supply
In the course of those twenty months we will all be called upon to redefine the contract on which our country is based. Few generations of MPs have the opportunity to deal with such a momentous issue which goes straight to the heart of this country. I would not be exaggerating if I were to say that future historians will look upon the years 1991 and 1992 as their predecessors saw the 1864-1867 period, the time which led to Confederation.

Germany succeeded in a reunification plan within one year. The countries of eastern Europe overthrew a whole obsolete political order. The whole world, for a time, buried the cold war, and South Africa is finally burying apartheid at a time when Canada has been floundering in the midst of a paralysing constitutional crisis.
Many people thought that following the death of Meech the dust would settle and people would go about their business, that Canada would carry on as it had in the past. They were wrong. Like it or not, we are entering a period of intense soul searching, probably without precedent since 1867. The end product will be a different political and constitutional Canada.
The constitutional clock is ticking. It may be tempting; as some have said, it is impossible to come up with something that will satisfy Quebec, so why don't we let it go? I say we must take this opportunity to find a new deal that will satisfy Quebec, that will satisfy the west, and that will satisfy all parts of this great country. Otherwise we will all be the losers.
In 1864 the Fathers of Confederation-and they were only fathers then-faced an almost impossible task, and yet they succeeded in providing a framework that has given us a basis for Confederation which has lasted 124 years. Why can we, the men and women of Canada, now not be the mothers and fathers of a new Confederation?
To those who say let Quebec go, its price is too high, I say the price for separation is much higher for all of us.
To those who say the breakup of our country is just a matter of time, I say no. We can and we must reignite the political will to save our country.

March 12, 1991
Supply
To those who would sleep-walk us to separation by ignoring the constitutional crisis and focusing only on our economic problems, I say a strong economy and a strong Constitution go hand in hand. We cannot have a healthy Canada without a whole Canada, and that includes Quebec.
We cannot have a complete Canada unless we undergo a fundamental restructuring of the way we share power in this country.
Our system, designed in the 19th century, does not meet all the needs of the 21st century. Our present structures and institutions have not adapted to new realities.
Federalism is a complex system designed to deal with complex realities. When the situation changes, so must the specifics of our system. We need a new frame of thinking. We have to find a new constitutional deal for Canada. More than most countries, Canada is the creation of the strong will of our people. We were created in spite of geographic, linguistic and cultural differences in our proximity to a very powerful neighbour to the south.
The great majority of Canadians does not want to destroy Canada. It wants to rebuild it. The great majority of Quebecers wants to rejoin Canada in a new Confederation.
Quebecers are putting their ideas on the table in a very articulate and comprehensive manner. The rest of the country is slowly waking up to the scope of those possible changes. We may not like the specifics of some of the Allaire proposals. Then we must make counterproposals. Why not use this opportunity to take a look at other areas of dissatisfaction? To succeed, we must have a realistic focus on our objectives and design an effective and open process.
Unfortunately, the last constitutional round was handled by the Prime Minister like an amateur. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has already begun the secretive process that failed us in the last constitutional round.
A member on the government side of the Elouse accuses me of getting into the gutter. I have to tell him that I bled a lot and my party bled a lot over the last
number of years for the constitutional position I took because I believed it was right. I also believed then-and I continue to believe it-that had the Prime Minister listened to the Parliament of Canada and had the Prime Minister listened to the very process that allowed amendments to the constitutional process which did not derogate from any of the five conditions of Quebec, then we would have had a healthier, happier constitutional framework today and we would not have taken the country to the brink of separation.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nothing is perfection in life and nothing is a seamless web. One of the things I have learned in politics is that by listening to those who feel without power and by including those people in the process, we can end up with a product, a constitution and a framework that are happier and healthier for all of us. Surely that is what the new constitutional round must be about.
I believe that is the intent of the NDP resolution, but let me refer to the NDP resolution as it stands.

The resolution as worded is confusing and, particularly, incomplete. Indeed, paragraph 7 provides for only one so-called precondition, namely "a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation", the only condition for one Canada.
It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker, because Canada has to be more than a shell. Canada and the new federation will have to be anchored on more comprehensive and deeply-seated principles. We do not want an unconditional Canada if, as a country, it should fail to respond to the quest for equality, justice and the various forms of recognition that have been acknowledged for 124 years.
Mr. Speaker, this is why we intend to move a very significant amendment to the NDP motion. Jean Chretien, the only leader of a federal party who had the courage to present a brief to the Belanger-Campeau Commission, set forth the conditions for a real Canada-


Mr. Charest:: Do not throw the door wide open, Sheila!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -a renewed Canada, and I quote: "A new Canada must accommodate the expression of new balances within the federation. The key to constitutional reform is the sharing of powers between both government levels. The objective sought must be a functional
March 12, 1991

distribution of powers between governments, predicated on the freedom and well-being of citizens".
Surely, Mr. Speaker, even the members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot be against the freedom and well-being of citizens. I should hope not.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sacred about the way powers are now distributed. Over and above that fundamental and general principle, we must also keep in mind a number of objectives which are peculiar to Canada and which ought to guide us all on the road to constitutional renewal, particularly when re-examining the distribution of powers between the two levels of government. Specifically: (1) any change in the distribution of powers should guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens; (2) any change in the distribution of powers should ensure that the two main linguistic communities in this country are maintained and strengthened. The very existence of Canada rests on that basic principle, and it must be generously endorsed by all government levels in Canada.
In addition, Quebec must be recognized as the principal focal point of French life and culture in Canada. Any change in the distribution of power should guarantee the respect for and growth of Native people, promote the rights and growth of cultural communities, endeavour to maximize the quality of life and standard of living of all Canadians, ensure the proper working of the Canadian economic unions, ensure, on a national scale the pursuit of social justice through the sharing of resources between regions and citizens, ensure sovereignty for every government within its respective jurisdiction, take into account the diversity of various regions and their own dynamism, including the distinct character of Quebec society-


Louis Plamondon: Go and say that to Chretien and you will see!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry, but the hon. member certainly did not listen to the submission to the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission, because this is part of Mr. Chretien's statement. So why do you not shut up and listen for once!
Mr. Speaker, I continue: Leave to the provinces responsibility for what is not required by the national interest or the best interest of citizens.
Finally, the streamlining of Canadian federalism is not necessarily an affirmation of the principle of total symmetry in every aspect of our constitutional federation. Canadian federalism has always been and continues to be flexible enough to accommodate the asymmetry of some situations.
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we propose an extended amendment to the NDP's motion, because we think, as a party, that it will be important to strengthen such regions as the Atlantic, Western and Northern Canada, so that they may have a greater impact on the drafting of national legislation.
At any rate, this is only the beginning of the constitutional discussions.

To answer the constitutional challenges we need a real Canada round. This round should be aimed at rebuilding the whole country. The task is enormous but it is not impossible.
I see that I am a getting close to the hour of one o'clock. Rather than beginning what I feel to be a very important part of the process, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the Flouse, if I might, to continue my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the motion of the acting leader?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate and commend the competition bureau's recent decision to look into retail gasoline prices in the national capital region and various areas across Canada.

March 12, 1991
I trust that this study will be thorough and in depth, and will cover all regions of the country.
While we await anxiously the results of this study, I would like to call on the federal government, in conjunction with its provincial counterparts to get to the bottom of the situation.
We must ensure that a gasoline pricing system is in place which is fair to both consumers and retailers, no matter where they are situated in this country. Also, we must ensure that when price wars break out in select areas of the country, other areas such as the national capital region are not charged higher prices to cover the losses incurred by retailers elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I call on the minister to tell Canadians exactly how long this study will take and when the findings will be made public.


MATAPEDIA VALLEY
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, according to a new prophecy by Nostradamus, "Before the turn of the century, there shall be a marvelous occurrence: The site called Matapediague shall be designated capital of a great land, between two oceans".
On March 11 last the Matapedia valley was nationally acknowledged as "Canada's forestry capital" for the year 1993.
Such designation constitutes signal recognition of the dynamic and hospitable region of Matapedia.
Over the years, Matapedia has become one of Canada's foremost forest regions where people have very close links with forests.
Congratulations to the organizing committee members who, through sheer dynamism, determination and tenacity, were able to convince our fellow Canadians in the other provinces that Matapedia has always been renowned for its forests and home to people prepared to fight and work relentlessly to enhance end preserve our trees.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has the dubious honour of being among a select few nations which is actually decreasing funding for basic scientific research. In Canada research and development has dropped from 1.4 per cent to 1.28 per cent of our GNP; funds for NSERC and the National Research Council have been slashed.
The government has poured billions into offshore oil exploration and a U.S. space station that the Americans are even now questioning, while not recognizing the potential of the TRIUMF KAON project at the University of British Columbia.
The proposed project is a world class initiative which would launch Canada into the frontier of particle physics.
Without sacrificing the need for increased funding for basic scientific research, this government must recognize the need for available funding of special projects like TRIUMF KAON.
It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. If basic research and projects like KAON wither on the vine because of chronic under-funding, so too will our national hopes of becoming a world force in future scientific endeavours.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Tibetan community demonstrated in Ottawa to mark the 32nd anniversary of the Tibetan uprising in 1959. That uprising was to protest the Chinese occupation and domination of this small peaceful country, which intensified in that year.
Recently, the UN Security Council used economic sanctions and military action against Iraq for its enforced occupation of Kuwait. This has been described as a new world order for settling disputes and deterring aggression.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Will the same new world order be used to get China out of Tibet? Or has the United Nations and the United States a double
March 12, 1991

standard? Or, at the very least, will the new world order be used to have China respect human rights in Tibet- their language, their religion and their culture?
The Dalai Lama and the people of Tibet have always pursued a non-violent, peaceful approach in dealing with this problem. In 1989 the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize for this approach. I hope that Canada, the United Nations and the world community will not let the Tibetans down.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec finally signed the federal-provincial agreement aimed at cleaning up so-called orphan polluted sites.
I am particularly elated by the signing of this agreement which signals the early beginning of decontamination activities on Mascouche's PCB site in my riding where Montreal garbage collectors used to dump their loads.
Fifty-one million dollars will be spent to clean up various sites throughout Quebec, and $400,000 have already been earmarked for soil analyses on the Mas-couche dump site.
I thank Canada's Environment Minister De Cotret for his support in this case. I am convinced that all people in my riding are very pleased by this news, and I thank them all for their confidence and support in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords -Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's national police force and the security of rural Canadians are in jeopardy because of this government's economic folly.
At the end of March, contracts which provide for the delivery of RCMP services expire, and the federal government is negotiating to force more of its costs on to the backs of municipal taxpayers. Small communities are
especially vulnerable to cost increases because some of them already devote up to 75 per cent of their budget to simply maintaining existing RCMP contracts.
The federal cuts in RCMP funding amount to nothing less than another tax on rural Canadians. It is unfair to dump more of the responsibility for this government's economic mismanagement on to the backs of those who can least afford it.
The RCMP is important in Saskatchewan, as well as in the other western provinces and territories. If the government can find the funds to finance international security forces, we should be able to find the funds to maintain our internal security forces.
My colleagues and I in the NDP will continue to work for a fair deal for rural Canadians, and that means supporting federal funding levels for the RCMP.


NATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Under the program for Natives which Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announced in September 1990, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will allocate $250 million within the federal green plan to accelerate the installation and improvement of drinking water supply and wastewater disposal facilities on the reserves. Also within the green plan framework, Health and Social Welfare Canada will allocate $25 million to finance water quality control as well as training in water treatment technology on the reserves.
From now on, the federal government will be able to step up the provision of secure drinking water and wastewater disposal facilities in order to solve health and security problems, something the former Liberal administration had failed to do.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the government's Green Plan has thrown $10 million at studies for 11 Atlantic hotspots, a drop in the ocean; $25 million at a centre for more studies, consultation with industry, and what not for the Great Lakes; and

March 12, 1991
$250 million to meet old promises for water and sewage facilities on First Nation reserves.
Canadians and the environment are sick and tired of this charade. It is time to implement the monitoring and enforcement of regulations already available, to require industry to clean up its act, to spend Green Plan money on substantial green actions that will benefit all Canadians and not just prop up this morally bankrupt environmental agenda.
It is time to stop the stalling, this facade of green action, to stop wasting the taxpayers' money on study after study, to stop propping up old promises, to stop letting polluters break the laws of Canada. It is time to respect the wishes of Canadians.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, government departments are increasingly being called upon to develop useful science and technology to help Canadians protect the environment, at both local and global levels. EMR is one department which is actively making a difference in this regard.
EMR's research and technology branch, Canmet, co-operates with industry in the planning, performance, and funding of the development and transfer of technology in virtually all areas of mining, recovery, processing and the use of minerals, metals and energy.
In fact, for years Canmet's scientists and engineers have been conducting and co-ordinating research to preserve our environment. Canmet continues to promote environmentally safe technologies to help Canadian industry use our natural resources more effectively and to improve competitiveness of Canadian technologies. I am proud of the contribution Canmet is making, proud of the work these individuals are undertaking in co-operation with industry to find the answers to the world's most troubling environmental problems. I hope all members will join me in commending Canmet officials for a job well done.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, in the recent budget the people of Canada suffered yet another slap in the face. The finance minister ignored the cries of Canadians who are out of work or lined up at food banks. What the finance minister needs is a good dose of reality.
Reality is that over 1.3 million Canadians are unemployed. Over 180,000 children rely on food banks to eat. Inflation is on the rise because of the disastrous goods and services tax. Students will be hindered because of increased tuition caused by this government. That is reality.
During his budget speech the finance minister said: "We must deal with the world as it is and not as we might wish it to be". We in the Liberal Party ask the minister to deal with the world as it is and ask him to help the millions of Canadians suffering because of the recession this government has caused.

[Translation)


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the end of the war in the Persian Gulf is a victory for international law and the United Nations. We can be proud of this extraordinary coalition of 30 countries united to protect and promote international law and order.
The world community must now do everything to ensure first the reconstruction of Kuwait, but also to set up a fair and lasting peace under the eagis of the United Nations to prevent a repetition of such conflicts.
With that in mind, on February 12 our Prime Minister submitted proposals for the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East. Sharing in the efforts to safeguard and ensure peace is part of the great Canadian tradition.
We must try to put a stop to the uncontrolled arms race, as well as address the Israel Arab issue while acknowledging the legitimate interests of the Palestinians.
March 12, 1991

To conclude, I wish to send greetings to all the Canadian men and women, members of our Armed Forces, including nine from my own riding, who fought bravely and gallantly during the Persian Gulf war.


SUDBURY
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP government in Ontario recently struck a potentially devastating blow to the economic health of the Sudbury region.
Sudbury suffered badly from the effects of the recession which occurred in the early 1980s. At that time assistance from the Liberal federal government and provincial government helped the Sudbury region to diversify. The federal and provincial governments moved decision making powers and jobs to the Sudbury region to assist in the establishment of the city as the centre for government services in northeastern Ontario.
Over the last few years, the Conservative federal government has cut back its support to the diversification of Sudbury's economy through downsizing, reorganizations, and cuts of government departments and Crown corporations.
The recent decision by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to move its regional office, and possibly as many as 40 jobs, out of Sudbury, represents a stunning reversal in provincial support for regional diversification, and when combined with the similar policies of this Conservative government, will have potentially devastating effects if continued.
It is time the governments reaffirm their commitment to diversify Sudbury's economy. They should be investing in what has been and should continue to be a shining example-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. The hon. member's time has expired.
Oral Questions ISRAEL


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Israel needs Canada's help. Over 3,000 buildings, many of them residential, were destroyed by Scud missiles.
This could not have come at a worse time. Israel is trying to house 200,000 Soviet Jews. Twice this number more are expected this year.
Even as I speak they are making their way to Israel, their new homeland. But the tragedy is that the only homes awaiting them are apartments to be shared with two or three other families.
Israel is a war victim, struggling to rebuild and in need of foreign aid. United States and Europe have recognized this. But Canada, a sworn protector of Israel during the gulf war, has offered no assistance.
Why not? Israel's credit rating is impeccable and assistance from Canada would enhance our future trade relations.
I can find no ethical or economical reason why this government has remained silent and turned its back on Israel.
I urge this government to act now.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister and the President get together over dinner tomorrow night, Canadians want to hear a little bit more than When Irish Eyes are Smiling.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member would want to put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the bilateral front, the 15 per cent tax this government imposed on Canadian softwood lumber exports is killing Canadian jobs and Canadian businesses. The Prime Minister promised the tax would only be temporary, but it is still there, four years later. It is a ridiculous tax to appease big U.S. lumber companies at the expense of Canadians, and everybody knows it.

March 12, 1991
Oral Questions
I ask the Prime Minister if he will tell President Bush over dinner tomorrow night that Canada is dropping the 15 per cent tax on lumber exports?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister for International Trade told the House last week, it is our intention to begin negotiations quite soon with the Americans in accordance with some of the new guidelines and criteria that have been changing since the lumber tax was imposed. Any unilateral action would be harmful to Canadian interests.
We think we now have the consent of the provinces to proceed with the negotiations that will be necessary to terminate the agreement.


AGRICULTURE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with all the due respect I have for the minister, the Prime Minister is going to be having dinner with President Bush.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister specifically whether he intends to raise another injurious program, the export enhancement program of the U.S., which is unfairly subsidizing American farmers and killing off the Canadian farm family.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister specifically if he intends to raise with the President of the United States Canada's intention to kill our export lumber tax and in particular, does he intend to force the President of the United States to end the export enhancement program immediately?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we have made many representations to the United States with respect to their export enhancement tax and their export assistance program. Of course that is tied directly to the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations because this American program is a response to subsidization by the European Community under their common agricultural policy.
This is not a simple problem. Representations have been made by the Minister of Agriculture to the U.S.
minister in charge of agriculture. We intend to continue with these representations, but the only sure solution is the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in a way that eliminates the right to impose export subsidies.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister for International Trade, such as it is, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, since he is the one who will be meeting with the President of the United States tomorrow evening.
I can understand that he may wish to remain silent on the subject of the Allaire Report, but I would like to hear from the Prime Minister of Canada himself if he agrees with his colleague the Minister for International Trade, who is now ready, at the request of the Americans, to put the Canadian culture on the table at the next round of negotiations on international trade with the United States and Mexico. Will the Prime Minister protect the 250,000 Canadian jobs that are dependent on the Canadian culture or is he ready, like his colleague, to give them up to satisfy the Americans?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with through questions in the House a week or so ago.
There is no request from the U.S. for cultural matters to be put on any negotiating table because, as yet, there is no negotiating table. That will depend upon whether or not the U.S. Congress gives President Bush and his administration fast track authority and continues fast track authority for the period of the next two years.
The trade representative of the United States has simply said that they would like to discuss cultural matters. We have no objection to discussing cultural matters with the United States. We are not afraid of discussing cultural matters with anyone, but we will continue to protect Canadian cultural industries as the present minister has done so ably in the last several years.
March 12, 1991


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The President of the United States has committed his government to negotiate a free trade agreement embracing the whole of the western hemisphere. The Canadian government has already decided to participate in the Mexico-U.S. free trade negotiations. Does the government now intend to explore, during the visit tomorrow of President Bush, the United States' intentions about free trade throughout the whole of the western hemisphere?
Last June, the minister stated that he needed more time to examine such a proposal. Will the minister now state what the government's intentions are regarding hemispheric free trade?


John Carnell Crosbie: The intentions of the government at the present time are to engage in a negotiation for a North American free trade agreement with the United States and with Mexico if the U.S. administration is authorized through the fast track process to proceed.
The President of the United States has indicated that the United States may possibly be interested in other free trade agreements with other countries of either South or Central America, but there is nothing like that on the negotiating table as yet.
The principle that guides us is that the freer trade can become between all nations of the world-this is the policy the Official Opposition as well, which supports the GATT negotiations-the better it will be for all of those involved, because it is the freer and freer trade that has caused the international prosperity since 1945.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that discussions have already begun about hemispheric free trade, including free trade between the United States and Chile, and between the United States and countries of Central America.
He knows full well, too, that one of the reasons which he advanced for Canada participating in the talks with Mexico is that Canadian interests must be protected in a trilateral deal. Now, is he telling us that Canada will also participate in western hemisphere discussions?
Oral Questions
Will the minister tell us what it is that the Canadian government is doing to help equip Canadians to compete effectively internationally? What programs are there? Were there any programs in the recent budget to assist Canadians to compete more effectively in a global economy? When will the government commit itself to doing such things as reducing interprovincial trade barriers or investing in research and development and training and retraining so that Canadians can be more competitive?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is these policies of the government with respect to competition and encouraging Canadians to look outward and to be in a position to compete globally that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have opposed so bitterly over the last several years.
The hon. gentleman is now indicating the conversion on the part of the Official Opposition that it is very welcome news, but no one in this House knows just what the policy is of the Official Opposition on anything.
I am glad to hear the minister apparently advocating freer trade.


THE CONSTITUTION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today our party has tabled a motion before the House to open up the process on constitutional talks. I want to say to the Prime Minister that there is growing concern that, while publicly the Prime Minister and his government is saying that they want to listen to Canadians, privately there is only one voice being listened to, and that is of the corporate elite.
I understand that last week the Prime Minister's top constitutional adviser met with academics at Meech Lake to discuss a paper commissioned by the Business Council on National Issues. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. It is clear that there are many initiatives going on that are not open to the Canadian public, at least even to know the mandate and the direction of this government.

March 12, 1991
Oral Questions
Is the Prime Minister really just trying to formulate a Canada on a corporate constitution, or what is his plan for a new and revitalized federation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seeks to ask the government to be inclusive in regard to parliamentary or para-parliamentary discussions involving people in the constitutional process and then proceeds to denigrate big business, when we have welcomed the participation of big labour in these discussions as well.
My hon. friend should not be hidebound by protectionist and other old tendencies of the NDP over the years. Open your arms, open your minds, open your hearts to business and you will find that they are as constructive and productive as big labour in this country as well. All people should be invited to participate.
My hon. friend says that he is opposed to larger business. We are clearly a minority party in this House, but we believe that the private sector and small, medium and big business, in a proper economic climate, can provide jobs and new wealth for the country. That is the position of this government. We would very much like to have small, medium and large business participate in the constitutional discussions, along with unionized members and the unions themselves.
Surely, if on the one hand my friend is asking for openness and inclusiveness, she should not be excluding anybody in the process.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary of the Prime Minister. That is exactly the point. We do not want to see anyone excluded from the process.
I would ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to have his offices convene meetings at Meech Lake to discuss with the Business Council on National Issues their constitutional papers? Would he also be prepared to hold similar meetings and serious discussions with aboriginal people, with women, with ethnocultural communities, to discuss those same issues and their views on the constitution and take them equally as seriously in equally as serious a forum?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes,


Mr.   Speaker.Hon. Audrey McLaughlin@Yukon: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister. I think that is an important message that all of these groups who have felt excluded from the constitution need to hear. I appreciate the Prime Minister's direct response to that question.
I have a supplementary.

Last week, in the Budget debate, the Minister of Finance mentioned new tax arrangements. The other day, the Minister of Communications suggested that culture could come under provincial jurisdiction. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he suspend all negotiations which could jeopardize the future of the Constitution until he has received all the committee and commission reports and until an agreement has been reached regarding the constitutional process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance already answered that some agreements need to be negotiated anyway to ensure the proper operation of the federal government and his relations with the provinces. This is part of our usual business and the Canadian government is fully committed to carry on with this work.
On the subject of the implications of these various issues, I would invite her to take a look at the speech I made in Quebec City on February 13, where, among others things, I said that:
"The Quebec government will soon receive the Belan-ger-Campeau Commission report and is now studying the Allaire report. Other provinces have also established mechanisms to review Canada's political framework. There is no doubt in my mind that from these and other task forces we will be able to find the elements of solutions to the problems now facing the country.
Once as many Canadians as possible have had a chance to speak their minds, once any provincial government that so wishes to has stated its position, once the federal government and Parliament have had time to analyse the comments and suggestions put forward, I intend to
March 12, 1991

present proposals for a renewed Canada, one that is proud of its diversity and stronger in its unity.
No idea or suggestion will be dismissed out of hand if it serves the public interest and improves our political system, but we will reject any formula that aims to dismantle Canada."


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, as a backbencher, the now Minister of State for Housing was a great advocate for the homeless and those seeking affordable housing, but he has become nothing more than an apologist for this government. Budget after budget, year after year, program after program he has delivered less and less for people who need housing more and more.
I want to ask the minister, where has he left his housing conscience, at the cabinet table or in the trunk of his limousine?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House I outlined the government's housing program for the coming year. At that time I indicated that, notwithstanding the fact that budgets were tight and money had been restrained, the housing department federally had been able to accommodate and, through efficiencies and cost-effective measures, would be able to produce at least as much assistance this year and help as many households this year as we were last year.
So this year, once again, we will be able to assist some 40,000 more households in Canada, which is over and above the 640,000 we already assist.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, cutting the housing budget by $411 million in five years will hurt not help people waiting for affordable housing in every province and territory in this country. Provinces must now fight each other year after year for the meagre morsels that this minister wants to give them.
I want to ask the Minister of State for Housing why he will not bring this country together, build this country by building good housing policy, by affording Canadians decent and affordable housing today and tomorrow.
Oral Questions


Alan Redway: In
fact, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this government is doing. We are not only spending and will be spending this year close to $2 billion with respect to assisted housing in this country, but in addition to that, we have initiatives under way for dealing with surplus federal lands in order to increase the amount of housing that is available to Canadians.
Shortly, I am going to be announcing the creation of a centre for public-private housing partnerships which will also be of great assistance to Canadians in their housing needs.


CANADA POST
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
The people of Lawrencetown, Nova Scotia, are the latest to bear the brunt of Canada Post's rural policy. They join the customers of over 700 post offices across Canada whose post offices have closed since the 1986 policy was first announced.
Lawrencetown is a crossroads in Annapolis County. It is the hub for farmers, students, and government offices. With that level of service demand, I wonder if the minister can say whether there are any circumstances in which a rural post office will now be allowed to remain open.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, without having prior notice from the hon. member, I cannot comment on the specific example she raised, but the question of the policy of modernizing, bringing up to date with today's living styles and so on the postal delivery systems has occurred across the country in many, many locations.
The post office has gone back with post-change surveys to find out how the people affected reacted to it. Over 85 per cent found the changes favourable, an improvement. When 85 per cent approve of a policy, we do not change it.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. In

March 12, 1991
Oral Questions
all small communities in Canada, the post office is the pillar or nerve centre for all kinds of activities.
Will the minister confirm whether Canada Post's policy is to keep post offices open only in a few urban centres? And will he table in the House the number of post offices that will still be open in Nova Scotia and Canada, once this policy has been implemented?


Harvie Andre: I would be glad to provide that detail for the hon. member, but I would say that part of this policy is to increase the service to the public.
It was anticipated when this policy was implemented, I think three years ago, that in the following 10 years the number of postal outlets would increase from 12,000 to about 18,000. So there would be 6,000 new postal outlets to serve the customers of the post office. I am sure an appropriate proportion of those will be located in Nova Scotia.


CANADA-U.S. WATER AGREEMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. An agreement that was signed between this government and the United States in October 1989 allows the state of North Dakota to call for 50 per cent of the natural flow into the Souris River any time that it is to the benefit of the State of North Dakota.
In other words, in the middle of a hot, dry summer, North Dakota can phone up and say it wants their 50 per cent of the water. This will of course necessitate diverting water from other river basins, like the Qu'Appelle system which is in the middle of my riding.
My question to the Minister of the Environment is this: why did this government allow the province of Saskatchewan to divert water in the licence it granted to it under the international treaty. Second, can the minister assure me that water from the Qu'Appelle River will not be diverted into the Souris and into the United States?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would be well advised to read the Canada-U.S. agreement. He would immediately find that it does not commit any additional water to the U.S.
The United States has a right to 50 per cent of the natural flow from the Souris River under a 1959 interim apportionment agreement which is being administered by the International Joint Commission.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, today we heard that the Government of Quebec intends to freeze the salaries of its employees.
Last week, the Government of Newfoundland cut 3,200 jobs in the public sector.
These vicious attacks on employees who pay income tax and GST and are faced with increases in the cost of living reflect the present lack of compassion of our leaders for Canadian families.
The federal government was the first to ignore the collective rights of its employees.
My question is directed to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Will the minister ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw the unfair restrictions he has put on the bargaining process?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, to the credit of the last Budget, the government has taken a certain number of measures that will launch economic recovery in the long run. These measures include a number of major constraints on the government's expenditures.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: It's illegal.


Gilles Loiselle: After wide-ranging consultations during the pre-budget period, we decided that we would ask our employees, who have been reasonable in the past, to be reasonable once again during the bargaining process and, together with all Canadians, to help us reduce the deficit, so that interest rates can go down and we will all benefit from the ensuing prosperity.
March 12, 1991

English]


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who has just come from a meeting with the tobacco board.
The minister must know that he has tobacco farmers between a rock and a hard place. The government has just levied a massive tax hike on tobacco farmers' produce, while at the same time it has not given one penny this year to the program that helps farmers get out of the tobacco business.
When is this government going to stop punishing tobacco farmers? When are we going to see some money for this year's REDUX program? When are we going to have some money to help these farmers adjust?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I met with the Ontario Tobacco Marketing Board, as well as with Quebec tobacco producers, and I was joined by my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to talk about foreign labour, off-season labour.
The hon. member knows that there are ongoing programs in existence: the transition and adjustment programs, the alternative enterprise program, and the REDUX program. We talked about a number of other options that we may explore, particularly in the area of enhancing their export capabilities. I think the hon. member is aware that some 45 per cent of the Canadian tobacco production is now exported to some 50 countries.
We agreed to sit down with them and work out an action plan that hopefully will provide some stability and some promise for the future.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that there is uncertainty and anguish in tobacco growing communities and that this government collects over $5.5 billion off tobacco products.
Oral Questions
Will the minister devote part of that money to help these communities cope with the disintegration of their economies and their livelihoods?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response, my colleagues and I sat down with the tobacco producers to explore alternatives and options.
Obviously it is with that in mind, I want to assure the hon. member, that we recognize the impact upon the producers. We will work with them in devising plans and programs that will help alleviate the pain.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday on CBC The Journal reported a change in the interpretations of the Excise Tax Act that resulted in what some former revenue officials called a "tax scam" and a "tax fraud".
The act provided for refunds to the consumer/taxpayer for any overcharges in the FST, through the manufacturer. But, by revising interpretations in fiscal 1985-86, the minister has since allowed manufacturers to keep some additional $770 million in refunds intended for consumers and taxpayers.
How can the minister justify allowing a scam that lets manufacturers pocket an additional 60 per cent in refunds of taxpayers' money since 1985-86?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been here last week, he would know that I answered exactly the same question by a member of the New Democratic Party, at which time I said that it was quite obvious and apparent that the decision of any refunds to a business or a corporation rests between the business and its clients or its customers.
I also went on to say that is one of the reasons the federal manufacturers' sales tax was riddled with loopholes. In fact there were 22,000 of those suckers in there, exemptions or loopholes. That is one of the reasons why we made the very strong and decisive decision to scrap all of them and replace it with a fair and equitable tax like the GST.

March 12, 1991
Oral Questions


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the answer was as unacceptable last Wednesday as it is unacceptable today.
In fact the changes in the interpretations go counter to the suggestions of the Minister of Finance and the justice department. Those changes resulted in windfalls to manufacturers that averaged some $154 million per year over the last five years. By proceeding with those changes through an internal memo distributed to a privileged few, the Minister of National Revenue has diverted some $770 million in taxpayers' dollars to manufacturers in 1985-86.
What guarantees can the minister give the House that taxpayers' refunds under GST will not end up in the same pockets as happened under the former system?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the hon. member has not done his homework, either on the federal manufacturers' sales tax which had to be scrapped and which is long overdue for scrapping or on the GST which it replaced.
I can stand here and assure the hon. member and this House that the provisions of the bill which brought in the goods and services tax in replacement of the antiquated, unfair federal manufacturers' sales tax will not allow for those provisions to which the member referred that were part of the federal manufacturers' sales tax.


AGRICULTURE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. A special binational panel to settle disputes, created under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, has just examined the case of countervailing duties levied by the United States on Canadian exports of fresh, refrigerated frozen pork and the subsidy aspect.
Could the minister inform the House whether the U.S. International Trade Commission could reverse its decision of February 12 and reconsider its conclusions that imports of Canadian pork constituted a threat to U.S. industry?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is a vital one for pork exporters. In recent years, Canada has consistently defended the Canadian position. When we managed to include in the free trade agreement a specific clause that gave both Americans and Canadians access to a binational panel to settle disputes between our two countries, it was a golden opportunity to help and do justice to our producers. I hope that the ruling favourable to Canada and Canadian producers who, it should be said, have an excellent product, will be upheld.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, one of the major trade irritants between Canada and the United States is the softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding.
Thousands of forestry jobs in British Columbia and Northern Ontario have been lost as a result of this deal. Canadian sovereignty has been seriously eroded because this government has turned over forest policy making to the United States.
My question is for the Prime Minister, and I hope he will answer it to show his concern for forestry workers across Canada. Has the Prime Minister responded to Premier Rae's letter to form a broad coalition to fight the MOU? Will he raise this matter with President Bush when he visits Canada tomorrow?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Tirade): Mr. Speaker, anyone who keeps up with current affairs or reads the papers will know that I saw Premier Rae within the last two weeks to discuss this very matter with him. Premier Rae and I are heart to heart. Even though he destroyed my budget, I am still heart to heart with him on the question of the memorandum of understanding.
We are in the process of discussing this with the provinces. I have yet to speak with some of the people from the Atlantic provinces who have a different view on this matter, but when that process is finished I will be consulting the government and taking appropriate action.
March 12, 1991


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can get heart to heart tomorrow with President Bush.
Given the information released under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the softwood lumber tariff, could the minister confirm that in fact the U.S. government must approve any changes in the export charge? I wonder if that is the minister's interpretation of the softwood lumber tariff MOU. And does he have agreement with the United States to do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not need the agreement of the United States to do whatever is in the national interest of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Carnell Crosbie: Despite the fact that the United States and Canada are allies, we do have differences from time to time. We will prosecute our side of any issue on which we differ with them very strongly, as we intend to do with reference to the memorandum of understanding with respect to softwood timber.
With respect to the question the hon. gentleman asked, with changes in the royalty systems and otherwise, we pass the information on to the United States so that there can be no misunderstanding as to what is happening. It has the right to be consulted and to be given information. We have the right to make the decisions and to bear the consequences of those decisions.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Just last week the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Department of Transport is not cutting air traffic control shifts at Pearson International Airport in Toronto. I
I have in my possession an internal government document-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: -which calls for the elimination of four controller positions at Pearson effective Thursday.
Oral Questions
Why is the Minister of Transport prepared to put the lives of the Canadian air travelling public at risk just to meet his financial bottom line?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, at no time is the government prepared to put any lives at risk, because safety is the number one criteria in the way Transport Canada operates.
My hon. friend knows that there has been a downturn in traffic and any reductions would be reductions in shifts, which is a temporary matter while there is a downturn in traffic.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the memo states: "Do not cancel any overtime currently assigned" to those "shifts until March 14" and that these shifts will no longer be in place.
It is on the memo. The shifts are gone. There is no temporary movement. These are shifts that will be terminated.
Given the memorandum signed by the manager of air traffic control operations in Toronto, and the fact that it spells disaster for the minister's own recruitment program, how can the minister on the one hand promise safe skies and on the other hand justify the elimination of critical air traffic control positions at Pearson International Airport?
Will the minister now rise in his place and say that he is going to reassess and review these cuts at Pearson.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend might do well to reassess the question and the answer to his previous question.
There is no cutting of any employment at Pearson. My hon. friend knows that we have difficulties in finding enough air traffic controllers, that we have been working to increase the number of air traffic controllers in the system, and in no way are we cutting employment.


OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations.
This year's budget cuts another $262 million in Official Development Assistance, adding to total foreign aid

March 12, 1991
Oral Questions
budget cuts of $4 billion in the last three years; this despite dramatically increasing need in the Third World.
Given the crisis in many of our traditional Third World partner countries caused by their international debt burden and the economic repercussions of the gulf war, will the minister assure us today that the focus of our aid expenditures will remain with human resource development in the world's poorest Third World countries?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the aid budget was not only maintained but increased by 5 per cent this year, in line with the government's commitment last year.
Mr. Speaker, with projected expenditures of $18 million over the next five years, the government will continue to provide assistance in priority areas, i.e. the development of human resources in the poorest countries of the world, as promised.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance.
The last budget, despite so many cutbacks, was able to commit $600 million to defence to cover additional gulf war expenses.
Now that the war is over, it appears that the $600 million will not be required to cover defence war costs. Would the minister commit those unused funds to assist war crippled Third World countries in order not to drain foreign aid funds from our traditional recipient countries?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister for External Relations, has stated very clearly what is the budget of the Official Development Assistance Program.
Her question is addressed, though, to the $600 million for defence as it relates to the Persian Gulf. At this point we do not know the full costs of the commitments we have made in the Persian Gulf. We will be making an accounting of that sometime toward mid-year. At that point we will know how much will be left over, but I should say to my hon. friend that our intention is to put that to reducing the deficit.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
In light of the fact that the Bank of Canada rate dropped to 9.98 per cent last week from a high of 14.05 per cent in 1990-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John R. Rodriguez: -but, in the same period, the average interest rate on the major banks' Visa and MasterCard have dropped by only 1.28 per cent, to 20.05 per cent.
Is the minister now prepared to accept the 1989 consumer and corporate affairs committee recommendation of a rate of 8 per cent above the Bank of Canada rate for Visa and MasterCard?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in the fact that the hon. member for Nickel Belt who knows this area has recognized that our interest rate policy is working and interest rates are coming down.
Of course, as he knows very well, interest rates are only one factor in determining the total cost of using credit cards. I think he knows that as well as any member in this House.
We believe that finally it is the element of choice which is the determining factor. It is an element of choice that will be essential.
I have, as he knows, introduced legislation that will expand the range of options available. The legislation is presently in front of this House and it will increase competition.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Unfortunately interest rate reductions are not working for millions of Canadian consumers who hold Visa and MasterCard cards.
In view of the fact that the marketplace obviously is not working when it comes to consumers holding these cards, that they are being gouged by white sharks in banks and trust companies, and that the minister has rejected the unanimous recommendation of the standing committee, can he tell this House now what he intends to do specifically to ensure that Canadian consumers are

yv1
**T

g|
March 12, 1991

not gouged by the banks and trust companies with these exorbitant and usurious interest rates?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, of course I think the essential element is for Canadians to have access to the best possible credit.
The hon. gentleman will realize-and I think he will agree-that this government by introducing the legislation it has introduced will create many more outlets and will give Canadians much more access to credit sources. In our view this is the best way, by competition in our market economy, to bring the rates down for customers.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After last weekend's Liberal convention, and given the Liberal Party's new sovereignist approach as well as the adoption of the Allaire report, is the Prime Minister now prepared to enter into bilateral constitutional negotiations with the Government of Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot accept my friend's interpretation with respect to the political approach of the Quebec Liberal Party because, as I recall, Premier Bourassa made it quite clear on Sunday afternoon that "the Liberal Party's first choice was an ever stronger Quebec, but within a strong and united Canada". In my opinion, this was a statement-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend may have found that rather depressing! But in a speech in Toronto February 12 last I stated that-


Gilles Rocheleau: Do you accept bilateral negotiations? That is what I asked.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, but-


Mr. Speaker:: The Righ Hon. the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what you asked, but first you made a comment to the effect that the Liberal Party has become a sovereignist political formation, and that is
Privilege
quite false. Mr. Bourassa said it was a federalist political formation, and that is the difference. In a spirit of friendship I simply wanted to correct one small mistake among many others. Referring to Canada's problem, I said before the Canadian Club in Toronto that divorces are expensive propositions. They are very harmful and create ill-feelings on both sides. But reconciliation does not come easy either. It calls for humility and understanding. It puts the married couple in a position where they must sit with the rest of the family to discuss their problems until they find a solution. I believe that once Canadians have considered the costs and consequences of a divorce they will choose reconciliation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow as an allotted day for the business of supply.


PRIVILEGE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to you at the beginning of Question Period, I wish to give notice of a possible question of privilege. The minister of Indian affairs is not here today but I believe the statements he made in the House on September 25, 1990 have been contradicted by a tape that has been released by the natives in Oka earlier today.
I do not wish to raise the matter in his absence at this time but I do wish to reserve my right to raise it upon his return to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member who gave me notice of the question. He rises on a question of privilege and it will be heard later.

March 12, 1991
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 18331).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate at 1 p.m. the Acting Leader of the Opposition had the floor. She has six minutes left. The hon. member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think that many members of this House welcome what the Prime Minister said about the importance of Canada, about a renewed federalism, a federalism in tune with the new needs of Canada. That being said, I fear that the process this Prime Minister is establishing will deny that possibility.

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to live in a parliamentary democracy. That means the will of the people should be expressed through the assembly of their elected representatives. This should be obvious.
Why do I care to remind the House of this simple fact? Because as we are entering this period of far-reaching reform, the Prime Minister is ignoring Parliament.
Quebec has understood very well how our system works. Immediately after the death of Meech Lake, the National Assembly established an extended parliamentary commission to look at all aspects of Quebec's political and constitutional future.
The legislatures of Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick also set up parliamentary commissions to look at this issue. All parties are represented in those groups. These provinces will be holding public hearings and will be coming up with specific parliamentary reports.
This is the real way to allow public input and public discussion. What has this Prime Minister done, Mr. Speaker? What has this federal government done? The
Prime Minister has denied the right of the truly elected representatives of Parliament to look at an issue of utmost importance, the very existence of this country and the division of powers that will flow therefrom.
Four months after the failure of Meech, the Prime Minister set up a group to travel across the country to let citizens vent their frustrations and their views. Such a forum is not a substitute for Parliament. Nearly six months after the failure of Meech, the government created a special joint committee of the House and Senate, but immediately after creating this committee, it tied the hands of parliamentarians.

The government explicitly limited the mandate of the committee, and I quote: "-investigate and report on the process for amending the Constitution, including proposals to revise one or more amending formulae."
Mr. Speaker, every time it was suggested in this House by the Liberal Party to broaden the mandate of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, the Prime Minister said no. Every time we propose setting up an extended parliamentary commission to study all aspects of the Constitution, the Prime Minister argues that this idea could be considered on an opposition day.
Mr. Speaker, I am no fool. The mandate of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee prevents it from even listening to the people who want to express their opinions on anything besides the amendment formula. The Prime Minister tied the hands of parliamentarians by denying us the chance to examine thoroughly the true issues, including the division of powers, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and any other question dealing with the basis of what makes this country we call ours, Canada.
A group of people coming from here and there, such as the members of the Citizens' Forum, can never be a substitute for Parliament. To claim the contrary, as the Prime Minister is doing, shows great contempt for our democratic institutions. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must realize that the failure of Meech is the result of an in camera process. I do not want and we do not want this to happen again. That is why we ask the Prime Minister again to broaden the present mandate of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee. If he refuses, we should at least, in
March 12, 1991

the 23 months we have left, take a broader look at the conditions that make Canada what it is.
The New Democratic Party believes there is only one condition. I think that the motion could be broadened and freshened by adding the following. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would want to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague the member for Saint-Boniface, which would read as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting everything after the word "federation" and by substituting the following therefor:
such renewal to be based on the following considerations:
(a)	the demands on nationhood produced by the globalization of the twenty-first century
(b)	the values of Canadian nationhood, including freedom and fairness and equality; a sense of order and justice; the distinct character of Quebec society and the diversity of the provinces; regional diversity; and respect for the collectivities of Canada and
(c)	the contemporary constitutional issues of today, including those being raised by Quebec; the issue of Senate reform being raised in the west; and aboriginal issues,
(d)	any change in the distribution of powers:
(i)	should guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens;
(ii)	should ensure that the two main linguistic communities in this country are maintained and strengthened, with this principle being generously endorsed by all levels of government and with Quebec being recognized as the principal focal point for French life and culture in Canada;
(iii)	must guarantee respect for and the growth of the aboriginal peoples;
(iv)	should promote both the rights and the growth of cultural communities;
(v)	should endeavour to maximize the living and standard of living of Canadians;
(vi)	should facilitate the working of the Canadian economic union;
(vii)	should ensure, on a national scale, the pursuit of social justice through the sharing of resources between regions and citizens;
(viii)	should ensure sovereignty for every government in its respective jurisdiction;
(ix)	should take into account the diversity of different regions of the country, including the distinct character of the Quebec society, and should leave to the provinces responsibility for what is not required by the national interest or the best interest of citizens;
Supply
Provided that the adoption of this motion not be considered a vote
of no confidence in the government.
I so move and I hope that the NDP will accept this as a friendly amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take under advisement the amendment moved by the Hon. Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Sherbrooke has the floor.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speech made by the acting leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
To be quite honest, I must say that I was somewhat optimistic at the beginning of her speech because I sensed that the hon. member was reaching for the high ground in this national debate that has had more than its share of partisanship. I sensed in the beginning of the member's remarks that she was trying to reach for a higher ground.
I think it is fair to say that some of the remarks made by the hon. member were very close to what the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of my party said in his speech in Buckingham concerning changes and the sense that these changes would have vis-a-vis a more competitive Canada in the division of powers.
I am sorry to say though that the tone of the member's speech changed somewhat, but before that happened, I did take note of one important remark that she made.

To make sure that everybody understands how important the speech made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East in the House today is, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a comment which she made and which represents, in my view, quite a significant change in the position of the Liberal Party of Canada in this national debate.
On behalf of her party, the hon. member stated that nothing was sacred anymore in the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. This represents a complete about face in the Liberal Party of

March 12, 1991
Supply
Canada's position of the past ten years. I think in all fairness, that this change must be mentioned in view of the fact that during a speech he made on January 16, 1990 at Ottawa University,-one of the very few substantial speeches he has made since assuming the leadership of his party,-the present Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada had clearly indicated that in his view Canada needed, as always in the past, a very strong central government to deal with all major problems for the benefit of all our regions. "A strong central government is more necessary than ever if we want to successfully meet the world challenges in the 1990s".
Mr. Speaker, if I bring this speech to your attention and that of all hon. members, it is because what the hon. member for Hamilton East has just told us represents a complete about face on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend could not resist a partisan remark, which I find regrettable, to the effect that Mr. Chretien is the only leader who had the courage to appear before the Belanger-Campeau Commission. We, on this side of the House, cannot overlook such a remark. We find this altogether unacceptable and we cannot let such a statement go without setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, such are the facts: I personally chaired a Parliamentary committee which produced a unanimous report from this House.
This report, although not the most popular, served as the basis for an agreement signed on June 9 of last year, between the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is known as the Charest Report. The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada had said that he supported the Charest Report. However, between June 9 and June 23, he kept silent, something the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is not only aware, but something she blamed him for and with reason during the campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Today, I should like to know how in all fairness she can blame somebody else for lacking fortitude when Mr. Chretien displayed such a total lack of courage when he failed to state his position on the June 9, 1990 agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is awfully hard for me to respond to the member's comments about the fact that I have been partisan in the light of the statement he has just made. It is incredible to me that a member on the government side of the House, who in fact undertook in the course of the last Parliament a process that would bring some of the other participants into the constitutional process, is now standing in his place trying to defend the actions of his government which caused the death of the constitutional accord.
I hope that the member does more than read the words of his leader at Buckingham. Perhaps the reason he thought they had been heard before is because the statement to which he refers in my speech was a statement made by the leader of the Liberal Party when he spoke before Belanger-Campeau. Although the member may believe that his leader is leading the charge on this issue, I would agree with him that we need an approach that brings all political parties together.
What I have said here today I will defend in any part of this country. We need a parliamentary process to complement the process of public participation and to complement the process of private discussion that is now going on behind closed doors. If we do not have that parliamentary process by an expansion of the mandate of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, we will find ourselves in the same mess that we did with Meech Lake.
The member should understand that the reason that Meech was doomed to failure was because Senator Lowell Murray called it a seamless web. Had the senator understood, bearing in mind the sanctity of the five conditions of Quebec, that there was room to involve other questions, we probably would not be discussing a constitutional crisis here in the House today.
I supported the government of the day. I supported in a non-partisan way the initiative to find a solution. I realized it was not perfect, but I also felt that the process put in place by the Prime Minister doomed it to failure.
If you want to sell constitutional reform, with all the respect that I have for Senator Lowell Murray, you do not send a no name across the country to try to sell the accord in English Canada. The Prime Minister did a great job selling it in the province of Quebec. Everybody
March 12, 1991

heard day after day, "If Meech is rejected, you are rejecting Quebec", but he sent a second stringer out to try to explain the importance of the deal in the rest of Canada. He did not have the courage of his convictions in English in the same way as he did in French.
I will tell you that I, as one who defended and supported in the House through trials and tribulations of my own party, am prepared to throw my lot in with whatever movement can save this country. But I will also tell you that we have to learn from the message of Meech.
The message of Meech is that if we take constitutional reform as a seamless web, if we prevent public input, if we prevent real parliamentary discussion, then we are dooming the results to failure. We do not want failure on this side of the House. We want success. We want to work with whatever political parties are capable of achieving that, but we want to do it with the full participation of the Canadian people so that we can truly have a Canada round of constitutional discussions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Richelieu has the floor. He has only 30 seconds.


Louis Plamondon: I just want to remind the leader of the Liberal Party that the only reason Mr. Chretien appeared at all before the Commission was because he had not been elected yet as a member of Parliament when he made his request. We all know that hon. members were not allowed to appear before that Commission. There is nothing heroic about that, specially with all the rubbish he said then. In any case, Mr. Chretien, as you know, personifies everything that can possibly be harmful and treacherous to the Quebec nation.
Therefore, would the hon. member be prepared to recognize, as Acting Leader of her party, that during the next referendum in Quebec, the federal government should respect the limit of 2,2 million dollars each for the "yes" committee and the "no" committee and not be allowed to spend 25 million dollars as it did during the last referendum to launch a crushing assault on democracy in Quebec?
Supply


Sheila Maureen Copps: First, I would like to reply to some falsehood expressed by the hon. member. I assumed, coming from a person who has based his whole career on Quebec separation from Canada, that he would admit the truth about the Belanger-Campeau Commission, because, in fact, hon. members appeared in front of the Commission, including the hon. member for Chambly who made a submission. There was also his seat mate, the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer. I don't see why he argues that members did not have the right to appear.
The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer made a submission, which proves the falsehood of what he was saying. If they want to speak about the Belanger-Campeau Commission, they should tell the facts as they are, because when they tell Canadians that the Prime Minister and other people were not permitted to appear, this is absolutely false. Anyone who wanted to could appear. Many things can be blamed on the Liberals, but not that, because we appeared and our leader made a submission which provided the basis for the amendment we are proposing today. If the Bloc Quebecois was even so slightly opened to constitutional reality, they would realize that other people-outside the Bloc Quebecois- have ideas about renewing the system for the good of Quebec and the rest of Canada. If you want to play chess with the situation, whether it is on the federal side or on the separatist side, I can tell you I am not here to let federalism be checkmated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to spend too much time on the case made by my colleague from Hamilton East. I just want to say that I am pretty satisfied with the answers she gave me a few minutes ago. Although very passionate, I think she is much closer to the kind of non-partisan approach we should be looking for in the future in a constitutional debate. And in concluding, as far as the hon. member is concerned and Mr. Chretien's testimony before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, I think it is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, and I might as well call a spade a spade, that if Mr. Chretien, the leader of his party, had taken the trouble to say what he thought about the June 9 accord, without pulling any punches, perhaps there

March 12, 1991
Supply
would have been no Belanger-Campeau Commission and he would not have had to testify. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker, and it should be said. These things should be said quite frankly. We must be open about these things and not let ourselves be fooled.
Mr. Speaker, of course you realize that I have something of a stake in this debate, whether I like it or not. As fate had it, I was again in the midst of the debate on Meech Lake last spring. I tried to make an honest contribution to unravelling the constitutional impasse we had reached at that time. Colleagues from all parties represented in this House at the time, and I, got together to try and find a solution to this problem. We produced a report which was subsequently named the Charest Committee report and was in fact ratified by the provincial Premiers on June 9.
If we take a good look at the report, at the agreement signed on June 9, we see that the Charest report was indeed ratified. I have a comparative study of the two documents, and for all practical purposes, everything the parliamentary committee suggested was approved by the provincial Premiers, with a few exceptions. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake was not ratified, despite the June 9 accord.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that at the time, our national leaders made it clear to the Canadian public and to those who had to make the decisions that, if Meech Lake was not approved, we would be facing a difficult situation. Well, today it comes as no surprise, especially after the Quebec Liberal Party's convention, that we are indeed facing very serious problems, not insurmountable but very serious nevertheless.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good time to stop and consider where we are and remember that Meech Lake contained some very clear provisions that provided that once the accord was ratified, subsequent constitutional debate would take place in a certain order. That was one of the advantages of Meech Lake. Not only would it let us catch up with history, because it was intended to obtain the Quebec government's approval of the constitutional document repatriated in 1981-82, it was also a way of providing an orderly sequence for subsequent events. For instance, in the June 9 document it was agreed that there would be subsequent discussions on Senate reform and discussions followed by initiation of the process to
deal with the claims of Canada's native people. That was the advantage of Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker.
As a result, non-ratification-since ratification was supposed to give us an orderly sequence-means that we are now faced with a certain lack of order in our constitutional debate, Mr. Speaker. It is the kind of disorder which prompts everyone to return to base, review his positions, re-assess positions taken in the past, consult Members of Parliament and the population. Mr. Speaker, that is where we stand right now. And it is in that context that we should consider the resolution advocated by the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, our socialist colleagues in the New Democratic Party are proposing a seven-prong resolution, if my count is right. I want to deal quickly with each in turn. The first goes like this:
(1)	representation by all sides of Parliament and provincial and territorial legislatures, not just governments;
Suggesting that governments do that in future does not create a major problem. I can even go further than that. There is no need for a day's debate to get the opposition parties and the government involved. If that is not precisely what we are doing today, I have no idea what involving opposition parties and government means. And what about parliamentary committees like we had about Meech, Mr. Speaker, what was that if not involving the governments and opposition parties of practically all legislatures?
Mr. Speaker, I am saying this because there is no need to pass a resolution to invent that. The mechanisms are already there. So for now I do not see any point-I have no idea how my colleagues feel about this-in voting on an issue like this one, considering that our entire political system is indeed based on these principles.
The second suggestion is to ensure
(2)	the inclusion of others with a stake in the outcome, such as Aboriginal nations, -official language minorities, business and labour, women and cultural communities;
Mr. Speaker, these groups are represented in our political system, they are structured and organized. No problem there either. I admit I feel no need to vote on this suggestion to endorse or confirm it, for this is something I take for granted.
The third point, Mr. Speaker, is this:
March 12, 1991

(3)	the process is genuinely balanced, without real or perceived dominance or manipulation by any participant;
This feeds on the paranoia of some who think that there is a lot of manipulation right and left going on behind the curtains. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to share with you a secret, provided it does not go any further. If only governments could indulge in as much manipulation as we are led to believe there are days when I would feel re-assured. It would mean that we might be able to do things in some areas where we sometimes feel totally powerless and unable to act. I wish there were as much manipulation as they seem to believe. I should like to re-assure them today by telling them that most of the time the manipulation is a figment of their imagination instead of a reality based in facts. However, this is their own problem, and there are professional people who can cure such disorder. This is the case of the Hon. Member for Gaspe who is here.
Finally, through number 4 which is one of the best, Mr. Speaker, the motion ask the House for change which ensure-
(4)	discussion is based on the views of ordinary people and expert opinion;


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is quite good!


Jean J. Charest: The honourable representative of the Liberal Party says that it is good and that she supports it. Frankly, I should like to tell her that if there are views in Canada which are neither those of ordinary people nor expert opinion, I wish she would tell me where they come from. They certainly do not grow on trees!


Some hon. members:: From extra-terrestrials!


Jean J. Charest: I do not think that they would fall from the ceiling either. Well, I do not know. I do not think I have been elected by my constituents to tell Canadians that from now on, we are going to accept only the views of ordinary people and expert opinion and nobody else. I do not see where else we could get these views.


An hon. member:: We are ordinary people.


Jean J. Charest: They may be able to tell us at some point, for this debate is far from over.
Fifth point: The process of constitutional change should ensure a timetable and a commitment. I suggest
Supply
that in politics, events always dictate. We shall see. Again, I do not feel pressed enough by events to try and set up from the start a timetable. They want an open and transparent process-we have nothing against that-and discussions begun with only one precondition, a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation.
Mr. Speaker, all this leads me to believe that we must understand the situation we are in today. Meech did not work. We were then confronted to a failure, a constitutional failure. So, each at our level, in our jurisdictions, our provinces, we must go back to the people we worked with, evaluate our situation and then come back to the negotiation table. This is where we are at, Mr. Speaker. Meech failed more than 200 days ago. We had to give ourselves time to turn ourselves around, as we say. Quebec did just that. It set up the Belanger-Campeau Commission. The Liberal Party in Quebec produced the Allaire Report. Other political parties also engaged in discussions and reflexions. The same thing was done within the Progressive Conservative Party. We will hold a general meeting in August 1991. The federal government set up the Spicer Commission precisely to talk with the Canadian people.
I do not know what could be more democratic than to go out and talk with tens of thousands of Canadians, after the people had requested just that. At the same time, we set up the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee- with the support of the opposition parties, by the way, except for our colleagues far back-to examine an extremely fundamental issue, that is the amendment formula.
Why focus specifically on the amendment formula? Because, Mr. Speaker, the Meech episode taught us that the amending formula that was really put to test for the first time in those negotiations served neither the interests of Canada or that of Quebec. It is important to mention this, and I will repeat it, this formula did not serve the interests of Canada.
Through this experience, we came to realize that the amendment formula had dimensions that the Canadian people as well as the legislators were unaware of and that appeared when we tried to have the accord ratified. I will give you an example, if I may. The Prime Minister and most premiers believed that the negotiations were

March 12, 1991
Supply
over in 1987 when they signed the accord. But what did Meech teach us? That they were wrong, that the negotiations continued until the ratification stage. Now, Mr. Speaker, how could one reproach the Prime Minister for not being aware of this dimension of the amendment formula issue when we know it came to light with Meech? That was not mentionned and is worth repeating, because it might prevent rude and simplistic arguments to be made on what Meech was or was not.
This is a tangible proof, Mr. Speaker, that that amending formula has not served the interests of Quebec nor-and that is the point of view of this government-those of Canada.
That is why we must now find a formula that will allow us to bring about changes without risking to fail because only one or two provinces representing populations that are not always proportional to the power they have in general may stall the process. That is why then, Mr. Speaker, the role of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee is so important-has become even more important-and why they must focus on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, the Spicer Commission will table its report on July 1st. Then, the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee will table its own; the Allaire Committee has already produced its report; the Belanger-Campeau Commission will have taken a stand; Ontario will have taken a position in an interior report; other provinces will have done so-and so on. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will hold its debate in august 1991. Then, Mr. Speaker, nothing is impossible.
Even so we must not put the cart before the horse. We must take things one step at a time and then the federal government will propose an alternative to Canadians.
What is important in the short term, Mr. Speaker, is to create, invent and develop a process that will allow us to start the debate over in a context where we will be able to find solutions.
What does it ask for, Mr. Speaker? It asks for, among other things-I am not embarrassed to say it-perhaps a less macho approach than the one we had this past year. You know, the macho approach, the "yield-or-break approach", has not often succeeded, as I see it. I do not
know of anybody who could settle all his businesses with this method. I do not know of many, Mr. Speaker.
Well, it is also true in politics. If you really want to make changes as profound as those suggested to us today, not only in Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada, let us think for a few moments about the aboriginal groups who also want profound changes. Let us think, among other things, about the people from the West who have been experiencing a feeling of alienation for several years. It does not go back ten years, but several decades.
If we sincerely want to try to solve those problems and sit with these people and start making the big changes that we long for, but which can be different for some and for others, well, we must do it in an atmosphere and a spirit of goodwill. That is our short term challenge.
That is the way things present themselves. In that context, Mr. Speaker, I frankly admit that I do not feel I have a mission today to tell Canadians that, from now on, we will only consider the discussions based on the points of view of ordinary people and on expert opinions.
I admit to you that we should not go to that extreme. We should not either lend ourselves to simplistic outlines of certain methods that could solve all our problems. There are talks about constituent assemblies. I do not have anything to say against that, Mr. Speaker, we are very open about that on this side of the House-the Prime Minister has said he was very open about that.
It has been mentioned today in the House that in Australia, the whole process did work very well. To be honest, I think it is the leader of the New Democratic Parti who said that. It did work very well, except that in Australia, when they set up a constituent assembly, it did sit for ten years. It seems to me that, considering the situation, ten years is a bit long. We should think about it before undertaking that.
Secondly, that constituent assembly in Australia was comprised of only the legislators-the members of state legislatures and of the federal parliament. I am under the impression that it is not what we ask for today. I don't say that to contradict her, on the contrary. What I am trying to say with these explanations, it is that these things are never simple. They are never all black or all white. We will have to find a formula that is more like us.
March 12, 1991

To conclude on that point, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you I think we must put things in perspective and recognize that Canada is overall a country which has been successful.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say this in confidence, because if we mention it in certain parts of the country, people are going to say that it does not make any sense. Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, when we consider all the human suffering in the world, when we think about it, I believe we can reasonably say that our country has worked well.
The problems we are presently experiencing are not caused by a constitutional arrangement; it is not the Constitution which determines and regulates peoples' lives and attitudes. The Constitution reflects what we are and what we want to be. And if we are presently experiencing problems in Canada, it is probably because certain governments have taken steps which have caused these problems. But they have not taken these steps, and at times spent too much money, because the Constitution forced them to do it. That is false.
We must recognize the facts for what they are, except that we are faced with an important basic problem. Do you know what it is, Mr. Speaker? The problem is that we have a constitution with which people do not identify, a constitution which is 123 years old. It is a constitution which does not reflect what we truly are. Since a constitution should be a mirror of the people, we should be able to identify with it. A constitution, Mr. Speaker, is made of mythology, of a certain amount of myths.
When people realize that their national institutions, whether the Senate, the Supreme Court or the Federal Parliament do not reflect what they are, they distanced themselves from them. Our Constitution does not sufficiently reflect what we are and want to be. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, do you know what was so great about Meech? It was that by recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, Quebecers could feel that they belonged both to Quebec and Canada. Perhaps for the first time in our history, we had managed to come to terms with our own ambivalence as Quebecers and Canadians. That is the reason Meech was so great.
Supply
Now, the real challenge ahead of us will be to find a way to change the Constitution. Yet, in closing I should like to make one point, Mr. Speaker. There are some in this debate who claimed that no change can be made without adherence to the major principles of a certain federalism or system of government. Some politicians with this argument, have managed to attract a great many Canadian men and women to their cause. I will not name them, but I am referring to Clyde Wells. As you will no doubt remember, he said then and repeated it again today and last weekend that we must abide by some basic principles.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this: A constitution which represents, respects and reflects the basic principles of federalism to a greater extent than the reality of its country is a constitution with serious problems. But that is a starting point, Mr. Speaker. It is not true to say that people create institutions to their image and that people should try to fit as best they can within federalism. The opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. When people build a constitution, they must make sure that it resembles and reflects what they are, and I conclude on this, they adjust the principles of federalism or republicanism to this great mirror.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that Canadians are not the servants of some constitutional principle, but that the Constitution should be the servant of the Canadian people.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, because the hon. member was chairman of the special committee appointed late in the day during the Meech process and that committee was appointed in an attempt to break the log-jam existing at that time.
I firmly believe that if that committee had been appointed at an earlier date, let us say in February or January, and if the same report had come out of the committee that was produced, the Meech accord might have been saved.
The hon. member knows because he sat day after day on that committee listening to many groups, including aboriginal groups, women's groups, language minority groups and multicultural groups, and they told him-and

March 12, 1991

Supply
although I was not an official member of the committee, I sat in on many of the hearings-of their dissatisfaction with the process that had led to the Meech accord as it stood.
I can recall very well that the chairman, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, was very sympathetic and understanding in listening to those people. As a matter of fact, the report that he helped to produce I felt was a good report. We all supported the report. We felt it was one that could have broken the logjam if it were not so late in the day.
My point is this: this motion and many of the paragraphs-paragraphs 1, 2 and 3-are meant to avoid the pitfalls that existed in the production of Meech. I thought that the hon. member who sat through those long hearings in the spring of last year recognized that. He listened to the intensity and the emotion with which those groups presented their positions. He knows that they had not been listened to and the changes that he himself had suggested to the committee had not been implemented. We know what happened in Manitoba, with an aboriginal member of the Manitoba legislature expressing the dissatisfaction of aboriginal peoples with the final result. We had both ethnic and language minorities in different parts of the country expressing their dissatisfaction.
I ask him again: What is so wrong with the attempt made in this motion to broaden the discussion, to bring in opposition members of Parliament, and to bring in special interest groups representing the aboriginal peoples, minorities, women and multicultural groups? Would that not enhance the process and help to avoid what happened during the Meech process? Would the transparency which is suggested here not avoid the harsh criticism that took place after the last futile attempt to get through the report when we had those long meetings in the Conference Centre?
with him on the fact that as we undertake further constitutional change in this country we are certainly going to have to devise methods by which we automatically take into account a wide public consultation process. At this point in time with the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee working now, my understanding is that part of its mandate is to deal with that. I am not ready to commit to any specific type. I would rather have the benefit of its wisdom and its work before we reach that point.
Certainly I recognize that Canadians today, more than ever before, want to be part of the process. Let me share one of the reasons why I think that is the case, from our own informal gathering of facts and what we witnessed as we travelled across the country.
From our experience on the committee, it was our sense that ever since the Constitution had been patriated in 1981-82, and ever since Canadians had given themselves a charter of rights, we sensed that there was out there in the country a stronger sense of ownership than ever before toward this Canadian Constitution. Because there was this stronger sense of ownership on the part of Canadians, there was also a willingness on their part and a sense of belonging to this Constitution that compelled them to want to be part of the process. That is what a lot of members-some of whom arc in this House today-	H
shared as a vision of what was happening across the	H
country.	H
What 1 am saying is that in the very specific context of	H
what wc arc witnessing today, it is important to let all	H
those provinces, those different political parties and the	H
government undertake the work they have undertaken	H
to bring us to the same place and point in time when we	H
will embark upon a process that I am convinced will	H
devise new methods by which the public will participate.	H
We are both Quebecers and we both believe strongly in Quebec and Canada. I want to see this new process work. I want to see us rally people behind this great country. The hon. member did a good job as chairman. I thought he understood that more people had to be involved and that is why he supported the report he did.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks and say to him that essentially I do agree
It would be premature, today, to come forward with this statement when in fact a lot of it I take for granted anyway. I take it for granted in the sense that it will happen. I am not saying that it will happen. I am among those parliamentarians in legislatures who will watch the process very closely and ensure that it happens.
It is important at this time and place to let those committees come forward and then deal with those issues. As we come to those bridges we will cross them.
*
March 12, 1991

That is exactly how I feel today. I anticipate that we will all do that together when we cross those bridges.


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to make reference to the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We certainly welcome the amendment as a useful contribution to the debate and to the issues before us. The amendment raises issues which we will all want to discuss at different times.
However, I would say that the motion does appear to be on a separate issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time is for questions and comments on the previous speaker. Does the hon. member have a question or comment?


Chris Axworthy: No.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague who obviously has an outstanding background in the current history of our constitutional affairs, particularly with respect to the committee he chaired.
I was interested particularly in his response to the last question in which he outlined his feelings that we should wait until the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee reports to see what it brings forward.
I would like to know my colleague's view. In my view people across the country seem to be asking for public involvement in charting the course for a new Constitution. Does he think that the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee will in effect bring forth the method and approach by which we will have this public involvement and participation in the creation of a new Constitution which all of us want to make sure ensures that we do have a unified and strong Canada?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Minister of State for Housing for his very important question.
In my opinion-and I think it is quite clearly the opinion of the government-the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee which has a mandate to study the amending formula and operates with representation from all sides of this House cannot escape dealing with the question of public participation.
Supply
It has quite clearly been an issue in the testimony that it received up until now. There really lies the crux of the debate for today. If it is dealing with that today, how could we logically entertain drawing conclusions within this House on that issue, if the House itself has mandated a joint Senate and House of Commons committee to study that very question?
In terms of the proposals put forward either by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party or in the Liberal Party of Canada, we are not saying that we disagree with what is in there. What we are saying is that if we have committed ourselves to a process by which colleagues are studying this very issue and will deal with it, why should we undertake to draw any conclusions at this point in time?
It is a matter of logic and a matter of reasonable function. In the meantime, it means we all have our own responsibilities at our own level. For example, within the government there are people within the bureaucracy who are doing what they should do, that is looking at and examining options.
Beaudoin-Edwards is studying the amending formula. The Spicer Commission is speaking to Canadians. Within the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada detailed, extensive efforts are put forward in consultations so that we may deal with this issue at our general meeting in August 1991. We are dealing with this issue at four different levels on this side of the House. I expect that that would be the case for members who represent the other side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Now that the question and comment period is over, I am ready to receive a brief comment on the opposition amendment.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I did not realize that we were still in comment period. I will be brief.
As I was saying, I think the contents of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party are useful contributions to this debate and to the issues before us.
However, I do think that the motion before the House deals with the process of discussion and debate on the Constitution. It does not deal with the substantive issues about what that outcome might be and the nature of the content of those discussions.

March 12, 1991
Supply
The motion concludes with a precondition for entry into the discussions about constitutional change, and that precondition says in the motion "a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian Federation".
I suggest that what the Liberal amendment seeks to do, if I read it correctly, is to define essentially the objectives of that discussion. In fact, it attempts to define what that renewal might be, and surely that is beyond the scope of the motion. I think it is a separate question.
If you wanted an analogy or a situation to compare it with, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps rather like attempting to amend a bill by amending an interpretation of a word in that bill, and we know that would be ruled out of order. Similarly, I would suggest that this amendment is out of order too.
I would though, just in closing, suggest that it would be interesting to debate these issues. Perhaps on one of its allotted days in the near future the Official Opposition might introduce this motion as a separate question.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague in the New Democratic Party for being so succinct and coming to the conclusion that the contents of the amendment were perhaps very substantive in that they would add a great deal to the debate and to the deliberations taking place here this afternoon.
It should be noted that although my colleague refers to process I think paragraph (7) of their particular motion goes on to say that discussions begin with only one precondition: "a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation".
In view of recent events and things that have been said across this country by a variety of interest groups, it would seem to me that is just not a matter of process but indeed is a matter of substance. As a result, we have made an amendment which addresses the issue of renewal in paragraph (7). We have indicated a number of considerations. They are not exhaustive in every conceivable sense, but they are considerations which we believe to be important to the entire process that is taking place.
On those grounds I would think that the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it may be lengthy in its content, adds greatly to paragraph (7). I think it is important that we have an opportunity to debate those kinds of considerations in an important element before
the House. I would think the Chair would find it both appropriate and fitting for members to have this latitude in terms of discussing the motion of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, as well as the amendment being offered by my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond East for their wise considerations. The Chair will surely take them into account in its decision on the acceptability of the amendment of the opposition.
Resuming debate. On a point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, it is strictly a short point of order.
We are bound to vote today unless I have missed something. It would be good if you could give us an indication, Your Honour.

Could you tell us, approximately, when we will know whether the amendment is in order or not, because this will change the whole reasoning in the debate. We would say certain things that we would rather not if it is in order and we would say other things if it is not.
Consequently, could you kindly tell us when we can expect a ruling in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair has listened to the request and will take it into consideration when thinking of a way to have a speedy ruling. However, I can safely say that hon. members can now speak to both the main motion and the amendment. A ruling will be made as soon as possible.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I think you shed some light on the matter, but we-the Bloc Quebecois-would like to table an amendment to the amendment to the motion.
If we can speak to both the main motion and the amendment, I would like to know whether we can table an amendment to the amendment, or an amendment should the amendment from the Liberal Party be ruled out of order. We are interested in this debate as long as
March 12, 1991

Quebec is excluded, because Quebec is in the process of deciding for itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As the old adage says, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. I understand the argument from the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, but it is still premature. I must allow the debate to develop, and eventually give the floor to the hon. member, but for that the debate has to get under way.
The hon. member for Richelieu on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: It is on the same point as my colleague, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to add a few precisions.
You know that the vote will be held at 6 o'clock, but the bell will start ringing at 5:45 p.m. There is exactly one hour forty-five minutes left. With 30 minutes per member, this means that a maximum of three members only will be able to speak. But, it is extremely urgent- If necessary, may be we could suspend the sitting while you make your ruling and we could wait a little bit longer to know if we will be able to come up with an amendment which, I am sure, would give rise to an extremely interesting and important debate if it is our amendment that is tabled and if, for example, the liberal amendment was ruled out of order.
On the other hand, if it is in order, then, we will work on an amendment to an amendment. But we must abolutely know where we stand, Mr. Speaker. The text seems to have been drafted in one of the two official languages and the Chair, after looking at it, should be able to judge quite easily whether it is in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think it is still premature to rule on the request of the member for Richelieu since the Bloc Quebecois would have first to be recognized by the Chair to be able to introduce an amendment. For now, I must, in the parliamentary tradition, recognize the parties according to the percentage of their representation in the House and in that respect, I must resume the debate and recognize a member of the opposition.


Chris Axworthy: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I think it is worth giving consider-
Supply
ation to the point that the member behind me suggested, that we should leave it open so that other amendments could be moved. Perhaps it would be best to provide some time later. I suggest it would make some sense to have a short gap and then add that time afterwards so that there is the possibility for another amendment or a subamendment, whichever appears the most appropriate. It might make it rather difficult otherwise for the member to plan his action unless he knows ahead of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not think the hon. member understood what I said earlier. Ten amendments could be moved, if you like, but members must first be recognized. Right now, according to parliamentary tradition, I must first recognize a member of the opposition, in this case the hon. member for St. Boniface, so the debate can continue. It is not new for the Chair to take an amendment under advisement for a while. So that no one will be penalized, members will be able to speak until a decision is announced on both the substantive motion and the amendment of the opposition. This way no one is penalized in the proceedings.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleagues Messrs. Nystrom and Nicholson for permitting me to make my address at this particular time. There is a commitment I have made that I still hope to be able to honour.
This constitutional crisis, or call it a difficulty or a challenge if you prefer, should really give us an opportunity for a new deal, a new initiative to try to bring the country together, to build upon the good that is there and to go beyond where we have been.
I think we can probably have this new deal if we recognize certain basic needs in society today, as they have been expressed by a number of people.
The time has come for us to respond to the needs of our aboriginal peoples. I am talking about land claims. I am talking about greater self-autonomy, self-government, if you prefer.
The time has come, as well, to put away our quarrels between the English speaking and the French speaking people of this nation, whether they be in a minority or a

March 12, 1991
Supply
majority position. Clearly, we need to set that aside and go beyond.
In all of this, we must not forget that there are eight million to nine million Canadians who are from origins other than aboriginal, English or French. They do not want to be left by the wayside; they want to be considered.
Some of you have, in fact, followed this debate for a long, long time. You have participated in the Meech Lake Accord process, in the Charest Commission. I was a member of that commission and played a small role. I felt that even there we had started to move forward, because we had started to recognize those groups I mentioned. All of these groups came forward with their representatives and each wanted to be heard and each would have concluded and accepted that they had legitimate concerns to make.
Women, as well, had serious reservations about how the changes might impact upon them. We must not forget that. The handicapped people of Canada too often feel as if they have been forgotten. Whatever it is that we do, we must give them some reassurance that they are valued and important Canadians.
It seems to me that we cannot do anything, until each region of this country, whether we speak of the north, the west, Quebec, Ontario or the Atlantic provinces, feels as if it is an important part of this great nation. Only when men and women from every region of the country, whether they be of aboriginal origin, English, French or other origins, feel as if they are needed and wanted and can build and contribute to this nation, only then will there be some sense of harmony and some sense of future potential growth.
Some will say: "Is the struggle worth it?" And I say, yes, unequivocally. It is worth it. It is definitely worth it. We need to find a creative solution to the problems we have, a new way of doing things. I am an optimist. I believe that we will.
It is a big challenge. Sometimes I like to think of it as if it were a large mountain to climb. But once we have climbed that tall mountain, its success will be that much sweeter. I believe we will climb it.
I want to address the motion of my colleagues from the NDP. I want to stress, unequivocally, at the very beginning, that I support it. In principle, I think the intent is
noble and it is worthy of real consideration and serious debate. I have to ask whether or not we have lost a golden opportunity to look at the sharing of powers. This is something that has been mentioned on our constitutional committee, of which I am a member, time and time again. A number of very credible witnesses have, in response to my question as to whether or not we ought to be looking at this as an essential question facing Canada, said yes. I would have liked to have seen it as part of this particular debate today and as an integral part of the proposal that went forward.
It does not include this and I guess the question that I have to raise is, why not? As I have indicated, it has been mentioned several times before.
I would hope that we could support this point. I think it is an important point. I think it is equally important to the other questions that have been raised; that is, the amending formula or formulae as well as the involvement of the public in this process.
I would hope that the party did not forget it, that the party understands the complexity of the problems that are facing us today. The fact that it was not part of the motion is not a manifestation of their lack of awareness of the seriousness of that issue; that is, the division of powers.
The motion contains several areas which I think are somewhat vague. I do not say that in an unkind way, but I think they need to be clarified and perhaps could be improved upon. The motion asks for guidelines which ensure representation by all sides of Parliament and provincial and territorial legislatures, not just governments. Some people could question, "by all sides", means what? Does it include Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, independent members and if yes, I think we should say so very clearly. Otherwise people will be confused.
I go to the second part, and I want to quote:
(2) the inclusion of others with a stake in the outcome, such as Aboriginal nations, the North, official language minorities, business and labour, women and multicultural communities;
I know it says "such as", and I know it was intended to include the west, the Atlantic provinces and no doubt, handicapped Canadians as well as visible minorities. I want to make that point and I want to stress it because I
March 12, 1991

think the intentions were noble, but somehow people reading it might forget that that was also included.
I go to the third paragraph. They want to ensure that the process is balanced "without real or perceived dominance or manipulation by any participant". I guess the question that I need to ask is: How does one ensure participation is not dominated by a participant? I think that needs to be, but how does one go about ensuring that that is so and how do you prevent manipulation? Again, I think it is a noble concept and one that is totally essential, but at the same time, very difficult to control.
I continue to the fourth paragraph, to ensure "discussion is based on the views of ordinary people and expert opinion". Potentially this one is a little awkward. I think we are all ordinary people. Perhaps it could have read "expert opinion on constitutional and other related matters while including other Canadians". I would have preferred that wording.
I go to the fifth paragraph, to ensure that "there is a timetable and a commitment from the start of all appropriate participants to make a decision on the final package of proposed amendments". I have some difficulty with this one, and I would appreciate some clarification. Is it to decide, yes; or is it to decide, no? What happens if some people decide yes on certain parts and no on others? The point that I want to make is that while I have a sense of the intent, I am not sure it is clear enough for people out there to understand what was meant.
I proceed to the sixth paragraph, to ensure "the process is open and transparent, conducting official business in public". Again, and without trying to be picky or naughty I assure you, the word "transparent" sometimes has negative connotations, see-through but flimsy and weak. I think what was meant was above board, on the table. I draw your attention to "conducting official business in public". If one wanted to be Machiavellian about this, I suppose someone could say: "We will call this unofficial business", and then what would happen? So there is some potential for misuse of the term.
Finally, the seventh paragraph, to ensure "that discussions begin with only one precondition, a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation". To many Quebecers, that is what Meech was all about and clearly I do not think they are arguing that Meech is the solution. What is appropriate to you, to me, or to others
Supply
about a renewed Canadian federation may be conflictu-al, may be problematic.
I think as much could have been achieved if we had simply said that we wanted an honest and open negotiation where everyone affected by the Constitution participates in the process committed to renewed federalism containing a new division of powers.
I think that that is the better way if you wish.
I would like to contrast what was in the particular series of statements with what my leader, the Hon. Jean Chretien, said at the Belanger-Campeau Commission, and I quote from the text to ensure that I do not misrepresent anyone's point of view and therefore upset people. When he was talking about constitutional change he indicated that the change, or the division of powers, was an essential element.

Here is what he had to say: "Any change in the distribution of powers should guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens. Any change in the distribution of powers should ensure that the two main linguistic communities in this country are maintained and strengthened. The very existence of Canada rests on that principle, and it must be generously endorsed by all government levels in Canada. In addition, Quebec must be recognized as the principal focal point of French life and culture in Canada."
No. 3: "Any change in the distribution of powers must guarantee respect for and the growth of aboriginal people". 4: "Any change in the distribution of powers should promote both the rights and the growth of cultural communities". 5: "Any change in the distribution of powers should endeavour to maximize the living and standard of living of Canadians". 6: "Any change in the distribution of powers should facilitate the working of the Canadian economic union". 7: "Any change in the distribution of powers should ensure, on a national scale, the pursuit of social justice through the sharing of resources between regions and citizens". No. 8: "Any change in the distribution of powers should ensure sovereignty for every government in its respective jurisdiction". And finally, No. 9: "Any change in the distribution of powers should take into account the diversity and dynamism of different regions of the country, including the distinct character of the Quebec society; and should leave to the provinces responsibility for what is not

March 12, 1991
Supply
required by the national interest or the best interest of citizens".

I am concerned about the somewhat ambiguous wording which may, unfortunately, communicate a message that was not intended. Perhaps more thought might have gone into the motion to try to capture some of the essential elements that have been mentioned.
Some people may interpret this, and I do not say it unkindly, as a lack of a clear position. I will give one other reason why that may be so. In response to a question on December 20, 1990, at the Belanger-Cam-peau Commission, the member from Quebec, from the NDP, said the following: "Yes, I understand your question. Can we have a kind of renewed federalism?" He said: "No".
My understanding was that the most essential part of this particular thrust, this particular initiative, of my colleagues in the NDP was obviously to define how the public might be involved, but also in the spirit of renewed federalism. So I bring this to your attention:

Mr. Speaker, our country is the envy of the rest of the world. Millions of people would just love to live here. I hope that together we will continue to build Canada. I firmly believe that is the intent of the motion of my NDP colleagues and of our own amendment.

I believe that we should start rebuilding right now, immediately.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I just listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member for St. Boniface and putting all partisanship aside, I would like to congratulate him. Except for some aspects which I do not agree with, his speech was a heartfelt cry, a cri de coeur showing that Quebeckers and the Canadian people that we are still capable of talking to each other. The hon. member for St. Boniface also took the opportunity to read the Liberal sub-amendment which I do not fully support. I would like to correct one of numerous inaccuracies the hon. member for Richelieu told us this afternoon.
He tried to raise a point of order on the misleading grounds that the Liberal subamendment was only available in one official language. That is entirely false, Mr. Speaker, because as soon as the subamendment was tabled by the hon. member for Hamilton East, I immediately went to the Table for a copy of the subamendment in French and was given one immediately.
So once again, the hon. member for Richelieu would have Quebecers who are watching us believe that the House of Commons provides documents in only one official language, which is entirely false. I wanted to set the record straight, because the hon. member for Richelieu tried to pull a fast one, but we are on to him now.
Mr. Speaker, I carefully read the nine points of the Liberal subamendment, and I am a little concerned about the way these points are presented. Let me explain. We have had a debate on Meech Lake. There were a number of items on the table. The country is in very serious shape, something everybody realizes. On the weekend, the Quebec Liberal Party defined its position. However, I see a disturbing element in the Liberal subamendment, and I would like to ask the hon. member for St. Boniface about this. Does he not think it would be unwise, at this stage of the debate, to introduce guidelines with restrictions in certain areas, as the Liberal subamendment seems to be doing? Why not leave the debate wide open? Why not give all the commissions a chance to submit their reports? Why not give the Beaudoin-Edwards Commission on the amending formula time to give us its report, and the Spicer Commission and the provincial commissions, before imposing the kind of conditions the Liberals are suggesting today? I do not question the Liberals' intentions, but perhaps we could prevent certain parts of Canada from feeling overlooked in these amendments.
I wish the Liberal Party would leave this question open and withdraw its subamendment, which might otherwise cause a return to the counterproductive state of affairs we have had occasion to deplore in recent months.
March 12, 1991

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for St. Boniface, who, I may recall, took a very correct position, and I hope I can say the same for the hon. member for Richelieu if he has a chance to speak in the House today.


Ron J. Duhamel: I want to thank my hon. colleague for his flattering remarks, and I will attempt to answer his question.
First of all, the conditions. Personnally, I do not see them as conditions, but mostly as principles. I cannot understand how the principles I mentioned would of necessity preclude the addition of other principles should we want to do so later on. I really want to emphasize the key point. I do believe that the division of powers is a key issue. I feel this is an issue that has to be considered. And its importance has been recognized, because as was mentioned many times in this House during Question Period, a committee has been established by the Prime Minister and his government to look at and thoroughly discuss this issue.
So, those are not conditions but principles. Nothing prevents us from adding some or bringing on changes should we come to the conclusion after a lenghty debate and discussion that it would be useful. And I think we should not disregard the main question I asked, namely should we not, through the committee set up by the Prime Minister to look at the process for amending the Constitution, thorougly consider the matter concerning the division of powers? I firmly believe we should.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. Boniface for his presentation as well.
I would just like to make a couple of comments and ask the member his viewpoint, I suppose specifically about the issue of Senate reform since his party has been in power for most of the years since confederation. That is probably why we have not seen Senate reform to this point. It has certainly become a hot issue since the Meech Lake debate.
In terms of specifics, where we have seen the amendment and the NDP motion as well for this, that we would all get together and talk about what is going on in the country and perhaps what our constitutional future is going to be.
Supply
I think many people in Canada are just afraid that the politicians are all getting into this fray, I suppose, and they are wondering about what is happening economically with the fiscal situation in the country. We all seem to be paralyzed with our constitutional future.
I would like to ask the member for his opinion on setting up actual constitutional conventions whereby people would be elected to these conventions at the local levels-they would be elected and not appointed by politicians-and each of those people would contribute to drafting a new Canadian Constitution. There would be technical experts there as well so that these people could go through clause-by-clause what interests them in terms of real and actual change for the Canadian Constitution. Once they had come together for two to four months, they would come back and report and ask us what we thought of it. The only way that could ever happen is by a Canadian referendum.
We have heard time and time again that that is not the Canadian way. I would be interested to know how the member would put forward his party's proposal on actual constitutional conventions as well as true Senate reform.


Ron J. Duhamel: I thank my colleague for a number of questions.
First of all, I want members to know that it was the Liberal Party which said that Senate reform is necessary and would be an asset to areas such as western Canada. We have said it and we continue to say it, and I just want to make sure that we recognize that. I shall continue to work for a reformed Senate, and I shall continue to seek additional powers for western Canada, but in the context of Canada. I want to make sure that power is distributed fairly, and I am not sure that the Senate is a panacea either.
With respect to the fiscal situation, I have to agree with the hon. member. I have a signed document from the Minister of Finance which says that the debt was $168.8 billion at the end of 1984; the revenue has gone up from $70-plus billion to $130 billion; the deficit is as large as it was, shaved a few billion here and there; and the debt is more than twice as large. So we have a serious problem.
Let's not kid ourselves. If we cannot come to grips with the constitutional situation of this country, if we cannot bring some calm and stability-I think they are two sides to one coin-if people are not confident that we are going to stay together united and strong and pull in the

March 12, 1991
Supply
same direction in the same way with mutual self-help, then we are going to continue to have fiscal difficulties.
With regard to constituent assemblies, I recognize that they, like referenda and other mechanisms, can have very positive features. I would simply caution people coming forward with any one mechanism thinking that it will solve this problem. I do not believe that separation will resolve the problems that Quebecers feel. I do not believe that there is one single answer out there for complex problems.
There are some positives of constituent assemblies; there are some positives in referenda; there are no doubt some positives in independents. But there are some positives in working together to try and find the best tools to attack the problems and to help each other in a generous, sensible and sensitive kind of way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before I get to my main comments, I want to express a few words about the Liberal amendment. I see that my friend from St. Boniface is no longer in the House.
He was talking about our original motion and basically nit-picking over the seven or eight different clauses in it. However, they have a very long subamendment here, and one could do the same thing with their subamendment and express all kinds of misgivings.
For example, point No. 9 of their subamendment says that we should take into account the diversity of the different regions of the country, including the distinct society of Quebec, and should leave to the provinces the responsibility for what is not required by the national interest or in the best interests of citizens.
What does he mean by national interest? And who decides that? I do have a few misgivings about that.
They also talk about national economic union. What is the national economic union? Is it defined so narrowly that it infringes upon provincial rights in that case, such as, for example, non-renewable resources?
I do not think there is any need to be greatly concerned about the precise wording of some of the things you are seeing before the House. The main thing and
what we are saying today in this debate as a party is that we want to have the process well established.
That process should be a very open, accessible and democratic process that is available for all Canadian people, regardless of where those people may live in our country. That is one of the things that we have not seen in the past. Here I make no criticism in any precise way of the Meech Lake process. It was no different substantially from the process back in 1980-81 when the Constitution was patriated and when Pierre Trudeau was the Prime Minister of this country.
At that time, too, we did not have a great, open democratic process. At that time, too, there were a lot of meetings behind closed doors. I remember 1980-81 very well. The parliamentary committee of the House of Commons did not leave this city. It sat in the West Block for about three months and had public hearings.
There were a lot of provinces that never once had public hearings in 1980-81. In fact, the process under Meech was a bit more open and a bit more democratic. In 1987, the parliamentary committee, once again, did not leave this House. We sat in the Railway Committee Room for a month or so in August 1987. There were a few provinces that had public hearings, but not all of them.
We did have some public hearings that were chaired by the member for Sherbrooke. In the spring of last year, we travelled extensively in a very short period of time- too short and a little bit too late-but at least we were going in the right direction. Many provinces did not have public hearings.
One of the premiers who protested so loudly, long and clearly about the lack of democracy in the process last year was the premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells. Did Clyde Wells have public hearings in Newfoundland before he rescinded support for the accord? No.
We do not have to take lessons from that particular premier about democracy and the openness of the process. I think we have to put the past behind us and move on from here to tiy to construct a process that is more open, more democratic and more accessible to all the people of this country.
March 12, 1991

Supply

And developing a Canadian constitution will be far from easy, Mr. Speaker. We now live in such a complex country, with Quebec's distinct society and its realities, realities which existed even before the founding of our country, Canada.
There is also another reality, Mr. Speaker, the reality of aboriginal peoples living here, in our country. Moreover, there are the language rights, the cultural rights and the legal rights of Indians, the Indian people living here, in this country. We must solve theses problems and find where to enshrine aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution.
There are the rights of other persons living in our country: minorities; visible minorities; ethnic groups; West Canada; Newfoundland minorities, because Newfoundland is a province which is also very different from the others.
We must come to an arrangement, Mr. Speaker, for everyone who lives here, in Canada.

For those reasons, the process is extremely important. What we are saying today in a vote that is not a non-confidence vote is that we must come together as three political parties and have a very open and democratic process.
We are saying that the old ways of meetings of only first ministers is not enough. Sure, some place in the process we need the first minister, but the process must be a lot wider than that, a lot broader and must include members of the opposition from the Parliament of Canada, from the legislatures and the territories of this country in a real, open, equal and genuine way. That is what we have to do.
Second, we must include those who got elected in the process. Non-elected people must be part of the process, whether they be women's groups, trade unions, business groups, aboriginal people, ethnic or visible minorities, or what have you, they must all be involved in the process. That is extremely important. The process must be free of domination by one group, or one leader, or one party or one Parliament, because we are a very diverse and very much federated country. We must also drop on the views of, not just the experts, not just the Gordon Robertsons, the Peter Hoggs, the Meekisons and-

-Mr. Remillard, from Quebec and the others, Mr. Speaker.

We must have Canadians, regardless of their occupation and regardless of their background, involved in the process. No one knows better how this country should be run from the point of view of all the diverse regions and groups than the ordinary people themselves, and they must be involved in the process.
I am remaining a person with an open mind on this. I am member of the committee on the amending formula along with the member for St. John's East and others. I am coming around to the point of view that we must have in this country a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention of one sort or another.
All of us should open our minds to that possibility, open our minds to the possibility of broadening the process.
I think it was Peter Russell who said to our committee last week that we should have a constituent assembly that would bring people from the provinces and the territories and the federal Parliament together to determine what the Constitution should be.
Throughout history we have examples of constituent assemblies. In Australia, the United States and other countries around the world, in almost every single case that constituent assembly has been made up of only elected people. I would suggest that if we go the route of the constituent assembly that we should have more than just the elected people. Perhaps we could have the constituent assembly drawn up on the basis of each province, as was suggested to our committee, determining the size of their own delegation, with each delegation having one vote. Those delegations could be drawn up on the basis of proportional representation according to the most previous provincial election and the most previous federal election, so that we have a genuine reflection of the legislature and Parliament during the most recent vote. One quarter or a third or half of those delegations should be made up of non-elected people so that we have a greater balance and better reflection of Canadian society when that group comes together to talk about constitutional change.

March 12, 1991
Supply
This takes tremendous power away from the Prime Minister and from Premiers Vander Zalm, Wells, Bou-rassa and anyone else who is a first minister. And so it should. The Constitution belongs to the people of this country. The Constitution is a basic law of this land. It does not belong to 11 first ministers who happen to be there at that particular time.
That is why the process does not work. That is why, as somebody said, we got into some trouble the last time around. We have to expand the process, and if we do not do it, we are asking for trouble once again.
One reason I am optimistic this time around is that I think there is a movement in the House of Commons and a movement in the country to expand the process, to make it more open, to make it more accessible, to involve more people, to look at some of the recommendations we made last spring in the Special Committee on the Constitution, chaired by the member for Sherbrooke, which talked about public hearings and making sure there were public hearings in the federal House and the provincial legislatures and territorial assemblies before we had constitutional change. So, those are the things I think have to be done.
The time will come when we have to also proceed with a certain timetable. As happened in Australia, we cannot go on for eight or nine years or maybe even ten years in a constituent assembly without coming to some kind of a conclusion. We need to have a timetable. There has to be a period for discussing the process of constitutional change. Then we have to move to discussing content and substance of constitutional change, the principles of those changes and, finally, the period of ratification. I think that can be done in a very creative and national way.
In the last few minutes remaining to me I would like to say that the whole question of national unity is not just the Constitution itself. We should constantly say to the Canadian people that the Constitution is only one problem in unifying this country.
National unity is about the economy of this country. It is about greater equality. It is about national institutions like the CBC, VIA Rail and the post office. National unity is about a strong and sovereign and economically free and more equal country. National unity is about
creating jobs in this country so Newfoundlanders can work in their own province and not have to go to Toronto or elsewhere to find a job. That is also part of national unity, and that must be addressed by this Parliament at the same time.
Another thing we have to address, in addition to the amending formula, is the whole question of substance. I would like to know from the Prime Minister or from one of his spokespeople across the way whether or not they have a timetable as to when we talk about substance.
I suspect the Prime Minister is waiting until after Belanger-Campeau. I suspect the Prime Minister is waiting until he gets the report from his deputy ministers who are now working in the committee. I suspect the Prime Minister is waiting for the wise words of wisdom of Dr. Norman Spector and others in the government.
It might be very useful-


Thomas Hockin: Don't be partisan with us.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not at all. I used the wise words of Dr. Spector. If the minister thinks those words of Dr. Spector are going to be unwise, then he can stand in the House and be partisan, but I am not being partisan.
I want to know from the government across the way what the timetable is. When can we expect in this House to deal with substantive issues?
The House of Commons itself, sooner rather than later, must be involved in substantive arguments on the division of powers, on the rights of aboriginal people, and on what we do about the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the province of Quebec. These are things this House is going to have to deal with and deal with veiy shortly. We should know the timetable of what the Prime Minister is planning.
That is what I mean by what I said. Constitutional discussions must involve not only the first ministers, but all parliamentarians and people outside the House of Commons and outside the legislatures of this country. We are going to be dealing with very difficult issues that are not going to be very easy to tackle.
I conclude by saying that the process is important. I think we have to move toward a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly of one sort or the other. We have to involve the people of this country in a really
March 12, 1991

open and genuine way. It has to be as democratic as possible.
We must put everything on the table. The round must not be a round that is dictated by one province or one group or two provinces or two groups or by the federal government. It must be the Canadian round where people can come and say: "Look, these are the problems we have in Newfoundland" or "These are the problems that aboriginal people have", or the people of Quebec, of Saskatchewan or of Manitoba. It must be on the table. If everybody puts their agendas on the table and we debate those agendas, I am optimistic in the long run that we can find the accommodation and keep this country together.
The last point we mention in our motion today is that the only precondition that we lay down at this stage-and I hope members of the House all agree with this, a few may not-is the desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation.

Mr Speaker, we need a new federation in our country, because the old one did not work any better for the people of Quebec than for other Canadians. I have in mind the aboriginal, many people in western Canada, many minorities in our country. That is why we need a new federation. But there must be a federation. I know the people of Quebec have difficulties with our federation, but Canada has been a good country for Quebecers for a long time. The French language has been well protected, better than it would have been in a separate country. I mean Quebec. I know there are a lot of problems in the province of Manitoba, and our party supported the rights of minorities, the language rights of the French-speaking people outside Quebec.
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker. If Quebec decides to leave the country, the problems of francophones outside Quebec will be even more serious than they are now because those Francophones represent only a small minority in the country, about 5 or 6 per cent of the whole Canadian population.

We need a renewed federation. We have to look at the division of powers. We will have to modernize the division of powers. People should put their ideas on the
Supply
table. My friend from Chambly has gone to the Belang-er-Campeau Commission and put his ideas on the table. Many of those ideas are extremely valid in trying to modernize the division of powers in this country; some may be debatable. At least he has put those ideas on the table. He is talking about some more powers in certain circumstances, like the environment, going to the federal government, and some provincial powers perhaps going to the provinces.
There are other ways of looking at it as well. Perhaps in this country instead of a radical decentralization of power to the provinces, we can look at a decentralization in the delivery of certain programs, in the administration of certain programs, so that we maintain national objectives and national standards. This is so important, in particular for poorer provinces like the Atlantic provinces and Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
In the meantime, we can still have more localized administration of those programs and delivery in the hands of local people. I think that is important.
In day care, for example, there are a lot of differences in my riding, in towns like Kamsack, Canora and York-ton, and in the riding of the minister from Manitoba, in a town like Steinbach, in comparison to, say, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. If we had more localized delivery of programs, perhaps that may solve some of the problems we have today.
There are a lot of ideas out there that I think we should be looking at, but we have to put them all on the table. The best way of coming out of this thing with an accommodation that makes everybody feel at home is to have an open and fair and democratic process, and that is what our motion is trying to accomplish today. Without the process, the end result will fail.
With the process, I am sure that we as Canadians will find the consensus, will find the compromise, will find the accommodation that reflects our reality. That is that great mirror that reflects our reality, and that is how we will build our Constitution and build our country.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before we get into the question and comment period, I would like to inform the House that I am ready to give my ruling.

March 12, 1991
Supply
The Chair has now had the opportunity to take into consideration the arguments put forward by hon. members concerning the admissibility of the amendment moved by the acting leader of the opposition and is ready to give a ruling on this issue.
During an allotted day, the Chair would rather not get involved unless members specifically ask for help. I wish to thank the members for the very useful arguments they put forward. Citation no. 482 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states one of the most important prerequisites for this kind of amendments. It says, and I quote:

On an allotted day, during consideration of the Business of Supply,
an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different
debate than that proposed in the original motion.
[Translation\
According to this citation, and after due consideration, I must protect the nature of the debate, as moved by the hon. member for Yukon, and therefore, I must rule against the amendment on the basis of today's debate.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make basically a comment, although the member who has just spoken on behalf of the New Democratic Party might want to respond briefly.
It would be very unfortunate to let this day pass without acknowledging, since we are discussing the future of the country, one individual who spent more than a decade in this Chamber and who still serves this country in the other chamber, a man who has already set so many records that there is not time during questions and comments to acknowledge them. I am talking about Senator David Croll, who was born 91 years ago today in the Soviet Union. He immigrated here at the age of 5 and who beginning a political career in 1930 as the mayor of Windsor set a number of firsts; not because he was the first Jewish mayor of Windsor or the first Jewish cabinet minister of Ontario, or even the youngest cabinet minister in the British Commonwealth in 1934, but because he stood for a series of principles about this country which the hon. member from Yorkton-Melville has just referred to in his own speech. Certainly on behalf of another party in this Chamber, I would like to acknowledge the distinguished contribution that Senator David Croll has made and to remember that we have a history in this country that is very important, a history of acknowledging those fundamentals which transcend often the kind of partisan debates that take place in the House and that David Croll in many ways represents the finest of that tradition.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment in the context of this debate. I think what we have to do today is acknowledge in this Chamber that this is an opposition day and our party has put forth in good faith a motion whereby we can bring a resolution to the growing crisis that confronts our country.
As someone who has had the opportunity to travel outside of our country, both prior to being elected and since being elected, I think it is in that context we realize how blessed we are to live in Canada.
This debate is not just about our country. It is about the confidence in our institutions and the confidence in Parliament. I encourage members on all sides of the House to vote in favour of this motion.
It confounds me that if we are going to build a trust, a trust in politicians, a trust in the process, a trust in the work in this place, to vote against such a motion at this juncture would send a very negative signal.
The people of Canada elect us to come here and do the nation's business. We have to do it in good faith. We are trying to conduct this debate not in a spirit of partisanship, but in the sort of dread that confronts us in this constitutional dilemma.
I fear for my country. I urge that all members in the House vote for this motion to send a signal out to Canadians that that we have got our act together here, that we all care for our country and that we are going to support this motion and support our country; that we are willing to work as parliamentarians for all of Canada.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier in the debate, it seems to me that this motion is attractive to the people of Canada but has very little interest for the people of Quebec. I am referring to paragraph 7, which states:
March 12, 1991

(7) that discussions begin with only one precondition, a desire to remain within a renewed Canadian federation^ - ]
With this condition, the majority of the poeple who took part in the hearings of the Belanger-Campeau Commission are excluded from the start. It excludes central labour organizations who, by the way, had very good relations with the NDP among others in the past, but took a stand for the sovereignty of Quebec and will therefore be excluded from the debate. And that, for me-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Gilles Duceppe: If you wish to speak, my hon. friend, you will have a chance to do so later.
So, we would have wanted to make an amendment at this time, but it seems that, although we have been here since the beginning of the debate, the procedure will not allow us to make one. The right to speak is curtailed. I will, however, clarify a few things my hon. colleague mentioned about language, when he said it was very well protected. I would like to remind the members of this Elouse a couple of facts. First, Quebec had to legislate on the subject, that the Supreme Court of Canada restricted the application of Bill 101 and that the rest of Canada opposed it. Second, the assimilation rate of francophones outside Quebec is extremely high.
Nonetheless, it seems dangerous to say that, once Quebec will have separated, the French-speaking groups outside Quebec would be in danger. That is a kind of blackmail Quebec will not lend itself to, arguing in turn that the survival of the anglophone minority in Quebec would be jeopardized. Quite the contrary, in Quebec, we will recognize their rights. We are lead by higher principles than some second-rate political party.
I appreciate the fact that the NDP was the only other party to recognize the right of Quebec to self-determination. It was a very noble gesture on their part. That makes sense because that is what the UN Charter says. It seems that all parties here have signed and accept it, but when you ask Conservative or Liberal members to recognize the right to self-determination for Quebec, it is as if they could not speak because something is stuck in their mouth.
Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for my colleague on the Referendum Act. If a referendum is held in Quebec, and there should be one in 18 months at the most, there is a law in Quebec governing expenses on
Supply
both sides, those who oppose and those who support the question.
Would a NDP government respect that law or would it do like the Liberals did in 1980 when they poured $25 million in the campaign even though the maximum allowed was $2.1 million. Would it do like the Conservatives with their Spicer circus and their national unity group? Would a NDP government respect the Quebec Referendum Act? Obviously, as a federal government, it would sing the praises of federalism, which is quite normal I presume, but in the framework of democratic institutions in Quebec, or would it disregard it like Liberals did in 1980?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have three things to say to my friend. First of all, last weekend, our national council met in Montreal and we have published a four page document in which we say we respect the right of Quebec to self-determination. Quebecers themselves will have to decide freely of their future and fulfill their unique collective responsibility. They must do it through a democratic and fair process. This could be a fair and democratic referendum, but that is for Quebecers to decide.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I am not a Quebecer and I want my country to include Quebec. I am for a Canadian Federation; I want Quebec to remain a part of this country but in the context of a renewed federation. For me and my party, the reality is one of a country that includes Quebec, Saskatchewan and the other provinces and territories. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have included this proposal no. 7 in our motion today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the issue of francophones outside Quebec is a reality. It might not be always fair, and it might be sad, but a Canada without the province of Quebec would be a Canada where protecting francophones outside Quebec would be more difficult since they are a minority of 5 or 6 per cent. In fact, it will be more difficult for them, and that is a reality, to preserve the rights they enjoy now.
We have a country which is officially bilingual at the federal level and in Canadian, national institutions. Language rights have been enshrined with much difficulty in our Canadian Constitution, as well as education rights in the language of the minority. Anglophones in Quebec have exactly the same rights and I know these rights are well protected in that province, better than the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I agree with that. The rights of anglophones in Quebec are better pro-

March 12, 1991
Supply
tected that the language rights of francophones outside Quebec. That is a Canadian reality.
But I say, Mr. Speaker, that without Quebec, the process to ensure that protection will be more difficult for francophones outside Quebec.


Gilles Duceppe: And what about the legislation on the referendum?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate this afternoon with some very mixed feelings. I tell you frankly, and some will say this is not unusual, but I participate with some very mixed thoughts on the situation that we deal with in terms of the Constitution in this country.
I was a member of the Charest Committee. I am today a member of the Standing Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada. I guess as a politician from Newfoundland and Labrador, there are probably some other unique pressures that confront me and my colleagues.
As Canadians and as Newfoundlanders we try to deal with the Constitution. Perhaps a little bit unlike my colleagues, I have some very mixed thoughts and have not come to conclusions on some of the approaches that will be taken in the future, that we should take as Canadians in dealing with what I consider to be the most serious problem this country has faced in probably 60 or 70 years.
I would like to start at what I consider at this point to be first principles. I think all Canadians must recognize that this country has changed fundamentally. The process which was started in 1986, which was an attempt by the premiers of Canada's provinces with the help and co-operation of the federal government to bring Quebec back into the Constitution, was not successful in June of last year.
However, once that process started, this country changed because if what we called Meech Lake had been successful, we would have had Quebec back at the table. We would have been able as a country of individuals and of provinces, as governments and people coming together to address over a period of time some of the very real
constitutional issues that this country faces in the next period of years.
It was not successful, and because it was not successful, again this country is fundamentally changed because we face the reality that Quebec and Quebecers are very serious about the concerns they have had for many years. They are concerns that successive governments and politicians have tried to address but have been clearly unsuccessful.
I think, as a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian, Quebecers are saying to us: "You've heard our concerns. Our concerns are legitimate." I happen to agree with that, but as Canadians, we are either unwilling or unable to address those concerns.
As a result, what is the point in all of us making our lives miserable for each other and continuing on? The last rebuff was Meech Lake under which I think for whatever reason we were not able to reach the conclusion that would have seen some of the very fundamental and not particularly serious concerns of the province and the people of Quebec address.
When I say that the people of Quebec are serious, I am not just talking about the politicians or the opinion leaders. I am talking about Quebecers of all walks of life and of all parts of the province. I am talking about Quebecers who genuinely believe that they have an economic capability. There is a renewed political confidence in that province that is quite understandable. It gives them the confidence to move ahead outside of Canada.
Where do we go, Mr. Speaker? What do we do? We see the Allaire report and the discussions that the Liberal Party of Quebec has had around the Allaire report, as we await the results of the Belanger-Campeau Commission and as six or seven provinces-


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


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


Gilles Rocheleau: There are barely seven members in this House, Mr. Speaker. We are asking to rise since 11 o'clock this morning. We are being refused and the House talks about the Canadian Constitution. I think we
March 12, 1991

Supply
should be serious about the discussion today on that motion and I would call for a quorum count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would point out to the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer that I recognized representatives from the Bloc Quebecois on four occasions. Having said that, I find that we have a quorum.
The hon. member for Saint-Maurice on a point of order.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I just heard in this House, only a few seconds ago, some very insulting comments with regard to the Chair. The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie told you, and I quote: "I will settle your hash, you Mr. Speaker, in the next election"! These remarks are completely unacceptable. I ask immediately the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who is present in this House, to take back what he said.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I recognize again the member for Saint-Maurice on a point of order.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has really heard what I said. We did hear very clearly, on this side of the House, that he questioned your authority. He directly challenged you, saying: "I will settle your hash-


An hon. member:: In the next election!


Denis Pronovost: -in the next election"! We heard him. He has questioned the authority of the Speaker of this House. It is something absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to take back immediately what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie seeking the floor?


Gilles Duceppe: I made no public comment in this House. I was talking to you. I have nothing else to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for St. John's East.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, the question I ask is, where do we go from here? As I was saying, we have seen Allaire, we await Belanger-Campeau. Six or seven provinces have started the process of consultation on the future of the Constitution and the amending process in their own provinces.
In this House of Commons and the Senate, we have undertaken the process of considering the amending formula and the process of changing our Constitution and what that does.
It is my belief that the people of Quebec have a far greater sense of where they want to go and what they want to do than, perhaps, the rest of Canada does. I think it is absolutely incumbent upon us, as Canadians, to decide exactly what it is we want to do. The first step is to decide as Canadians if we want a country. My own view is that we do want a country and one of the most integral parts of that countiy is the province and the people of Quebec.
Second, I think we have to decide what it will look like. That involves a process to which we have been a little adverse. That is the process of each of us defining and deciding, individually and collectively, I guess, in the end, what it means to be Canadian. It is that perception of the country that must guide what this Constitution is going to be.
As my friend from Sherbrooke said earlier: "A constitution is a mirror of the country". It is absolutely essential that we build a Constitution through a consensus that reflects the needs of Canada in 1991 and into the next century and that Constitution not be based on a series of principles so, therefore, we define the countiy based on the Constitution.
As well, a part of that has to clearly be our history. How did we get here? What has happened to this country, not only in the last 125 years, but also in the last 400 or 500 years, as we moved towards 1997, which is a big anniversary in our history.
The third question is, how do we get there? First of all, as Canadians, what we must stop doing is looking at the future development of our Constitution and our country in terms of what Quebec wants or what we are going to give Quebec. That will lead us nowhere and it is not the approach that is going to find a solution to this problem.

March 12, 1991
Supply
As I say, all of us must look at what we see this country to be. The consensus that is going to be absolutely essential is the consensus that must come from all Canadians, from all parts of this country. Without that consensus, we are not going to be there.
We must talk about some of the fundamentals of this country. We must talk about the best way to reflect things that have historically been important and, to an extent, have given us some definition in terms of process and in terms of substance in this country, our parliamentary democracy, our representative and responsible government, our tendency to look upon the provincial governments as the best way to provide programs to our people and that, by the nature and the definition, they are closer to the people who depend upon government.
What is it that a national government in this country must have to be a national government? What is it that a federal government must have so that we can be properly represented internationally, so that we have the broad control of the economy that is so essential for a central government and, I think, at least from my point of view, the ability to redistribute wealth in this country so that those individuals and regions of the country that need the help from others that have the capacity to help them can be properly facilitated?
I think it is fair to say that the problem of Meech Lake, as we have come to call it, is a problem of process. I am not one who completely accepts the argument that some of the fundamental, substantive issues in the agreement and some of those issues such as distinct society really were the things that, in the end, cratered the process.
I do, however, accept the argument that the Canadian public was concerned that perhaps they were not part of the process. I think it is fair to say that no process of amending our Constitution has been as open. There were public hearings sponsored by a number of provincial governments, and certainly the Government of Canada, but there is no question that Canadians believed that they were being asked to discuss something that they did not feel they were a part of or that they did not feel they could have an affect on.
Be that as it may, that is past history, but there are lessons to learn. There are things that we can take from that and that we must take from that. But what kind of participation do Canadians want? What role do Canadians perceive that they can play or should play in the development, in the acceptance and in the changing of our Constitution?
I do not think we know that, and I think it is probably unsafe to make assumptions. I look forward, as the Edwards-Beaudoin committee travels across the country starting next week, that we talk to individuals about their perception. I get the sense that Canadians want to know that they have the ability to express an opinion on the Constitution, have their leaders listen to it and have the ability to have it changed.
What is it that Canadians expect of their leaders in this process? We have a democracy where elected politicians, as we are, are accountable for our decisions, for our actions and, ultimately, to provide some leadership and some focus on how we deal with issues, be it energy policy, fish policy or constitutional development and that accountability is ultimately the thing that ties this country together in a political sense.
How do we change our Constitution? One way or the other, all Canadians must feel that they are part of that process. We talk about amending our Constitution and I think that is an unfortunate choice of words. Technically, amending our Constitution is a legal process and, I think, a process that, quite clearly, is one that has to be addressed in a legal point of view. But the question of changing our Constitution talks more about public participation, talks more about how all Canadians can be part of the development of the initiatives, can perhaps be part of the development of the words around the Constitution and, perhaps, can be part of the ratification process around the Constitution, but all Canadians must feel they are part of it.
The Charter of Rights had an interesting impact. Somebody here in this House today talked about ownership. Canadians felt that they had an ownership of the charter. I believe that the charter gave a number of Canadians the feeling that there was a recognition in some very fundamental and important institutions in this country and the charter is one of them. Status has been conferred and as a result those that are not there feel that status is to be conferred to them.
March 12, 1991

I think it is unfortunate if we look at the charter in terms of status. It is critical that we look at the charter in terms of the protection of rights. I recognize that it raises some interesting problems concerning individual rights and collective rights, but that is part of this country and the history of this country, and one of the things that we are going to have to deal with as we address the substantive questions of the Constitution.
I am one that believes that a charter is absolutely essential. I also believe that there is room for amendments within our charter, but I think the impact of the charter on the constitutional process is important to recognize. We must clearly address the concerns of a number of Canadians.
The native people in this country have some very real historical and current grievances which I think, partly through the Constitution, but primarily through the will of the Canadian people we can and we absolutely must address. Any politician knows it is risky to go into a list. There are a number of other groups. I want to mention only one because of the importance that I place on it, but not exclusive to others.
In the few short minutes I have, with all the disturbances and the carryings on, I thought it important to talk briefly about some of the things that we have heard in the committee. Quite clearly, the government and the Prime Minister on January 24 last year said that in the coming months and years we must find a way to reconcile the need for public participation and open democratic process in the legal requirements now in the Constitution.
When the committee was set up, the Prime Minister again stated that the mandate was to consult broadly with Canadians in the process for amending the Constitution of Canada, in particular on the role of the Canadian public in the process. I do not think we are going to come to a consensus that will allow us to change the Constitution in substantive terms, nor in process terms, unless the Canadian public feels that it is genuinely involved in the process.
As I said before, it is unfortunate and premature for us to assume that we know how that is going to work. I think there are a number of approaches to take. We started our deliberations on February 19 and since then we have heard 26 witnesses. I think all of them have stressed, and I know my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands will
Supply
agree with me that there is no question that public participation is important and vital in the process. Unfortunately not every agrees on how to find that. They do not know where the answer is. The 17 of us on the committee have no consensus on what that is either.
A number say that what we should do is take the current process and make it work better. There are two or three arguments around that. One is the question, as we have talked a bit about it, the nature of our democracy. The other is the reality that one way or another the current amending formula, technically and legally, is the thing that we must address and we must deal with.
There are problems. We all know that there are potentially very serious problems. We have had the debate over legitimacy and legality in terms of our ability to talk to the Supreme Court about a broad Canadian consensus overtaking a legal question, and that is one we are going to have to grapple with again. But are there ways that we can do it?
I think my friend from Yorkton-Melville talked about the ability to come to agreement; the question of allowing powers to be delegated through a variety of different processes, that we as Canadians can find the accommodation that is so essential to make some of those jurisdictional questions become less of a problem.
There have been a number of discussions on the question of a referendum. Many believe that a referendum is particularly important to make democracy more democratic, somebody said that. Vincent Lemieux from Laval said that a referendum makes democracy more democratic, but he worried about the tensions of the time.
Gordon Robertson talked about a referendum that could perhaps be operated in two stages if people were not prepared to participate: Quebec to clarify its position, Canada to respond to Quebec.
There is the question of a constituent assembly, which has gained some great currency in this House and in a number of other places. However, there are some real problems with that. Some say not to get into a constituent assembly because too much time would be spent in discussing how to set it up. Some worry that a constituent assembly will in itself create a whole new class of politicians who get elected to it if they are broadly

March 12, 1991
Supply
elected based on the position that they take, and the whole thing becomes a foregone conclusion.
Some argue that a referendum does not protect the rights of the minorities, that it is in itself in a funny way anti-democratic.
Suffice it say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of these questions will be considered by this committee, will be considered by this Parliament, and I hope will be considered by Canadians over all. It is absolutely essential that as Canadians we start to think about the future of this country. It is not good enough to say: "Let one part of it leave and we will continue on without it." It quite simply does not work that way. It will not work that way in terms of economics; it will not work that way in terms of the political future of what is left. And it denies a history that we are all so terribly proud of, if we take the time to think about it. It denies the construction of this country that has been built over 500 years of history, and it denies the fundamental approach that was taken in 1864 and in 1867 to set this country up.
We must recognize that what we have seen in the last 125 years, the contributions we have made to the world, the way we take care of ourselves as Canadians, and how we present ourselves to the world is based on so many people coming together. This country does not exist without Quebec. It is an opportunity today to be looked on in a positive way, for all of us to see a future that we have come together, a conclusion that we have developed together, for a great country for the 21st century.


Philip Edmonston: I was struck by my colleague from Newfoundland when he talked about the elements of a possible agreement with Quebec, maybe in relation to the next Constitution that we might negotiate.
I have a comment to make on a subject that I think the hon. member touched upon. There is one thing that goes beyond all the provincial boundaries and it is the values that we have in common.
Because, you know Mr. Speaker, I do not have the cultural background that people born in Quebec or in Ontario would have, I come from the United States, but I have enjoyed taking the time to study at both cultures:
the Quebec culture, of course, and the English Canadian culture. But I can see there are obvious differences.
But there are similarities. And if we are not prepared to recognize those some similarities, whether we come from an English or French background, we really refuse to acknowledge this reality. One of the similarities that I think the two cultures have in common here in Canada is the spirit of compromise. I think we have had this similarity for a long time. We can now see some changes, of course. We notice a certain polarization which is the result I think, of provocative action on both sides.
There have been some actions that have been considered provocative by the English speaking Canadian. I am referring of course to Mr. Bourassa's Bill 178. As for me, I was perfectly satisfied with Bill 101, and I thought that Bill 178 was really a nonsense. But Mr. Bourassa is the one who made it into law. English-speaking Canadians considered that their freedom of speech had been violated. Mr. Speaker, as a former reporter, I can tell you that when French-speaking Quebeckers saw people in Brampton, I think it was, in Ontario, trample on the Quebec flag, the atmosphere in the province of Quebec was electric. I cannot begin to tell you how awful it was to see their reaction. It was really electric.
One thing is for sure, when those provocative acts took place, I could see the spirit of compromise beginning to vanish in Canada. Today, in the House of Commons, following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, we find for the first time in the history of our country a Federal political Party which preaches sovereignty, something unheard of in the past. Personally, I feel it is quite natural to have a Bloc Quebecois, because during the Meech Lake debate Quebecers found some arguments revolting. It should be emphasized that if there were no Bloc Quebecois, there might be some other group, because in Quebec people are polarized just like everywhere else.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the government should accept the blame for the polarization which resulted from the improper handling of Meech Lake. Finally, because of the unsound process we have inherited from Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chretien, I suggest that the failure of the Meech Lake Accord was inevitable.
March 12, 1991


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Chambly has raised a number of questions, some of which are even connected to each other.

When I consider the culture and history of Newfoundland and Quebec, I find some similarity in their history. I know it is not a good choice of words. But in spite of the all-perversive presence of the Church, the dependence on natural resources such as the fishing industry in Newfoundland and farming in Quebec, their cultures were also very different.

Newfoundlanders are as different from other Canadians as Quebecers are in many ways and I do not want to equate the distinct society thing.
If you end up at a party with Canadians from every province, you end up with the Newfoundlanders and the Quebecers fighting over the rum bottle in the kitchen.


Mr. Langlois:: Screech.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: We end up in construction camps in northern Canada together. We have large families, or we used to have large families together. I think, Mr. Speaker, we have viewed the world very much the same way. We got forgotten a little bit. Perhaps sometimes by nature we got forgotten, left out there, in my case on a cliff and in Quebec on a large field on which it is difficult to grow things.
But that is something that should draw us together, something that demands that we look at the world very much in the same sort of way. I use the example of Newfoundland.
The shared values that my friend from Chambly talks about are shared values that we can have between any of the provinces in Canada, if only we take the time to look, and stop throwing barriers up in front of ourselves, providing excuses for us not to go ahead and find some solutions. We are allowing ourselves to be angered by things that normally would really not anger us if we thought about it.
Sometimes in some parts of Canada it is kind of cool to walk on flags, where it is accepted to be against one group or another. Unfortunately, it is far too easy. It is
Supply
too easy to be anti- somebody, and it is too easy to insult a particular group, or exclude a particular group, because perhaps sometimes to accept that we may not be as tolerant as we like to think demands that we not only look at ourselves as we are today, but demands that we do things in the future a little bit differently.
I think if we are willing to take some of those steps, some of the things that my friend from Chambly talks about, perhaps that may see us through all of this.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speech by the hon. member for St. John's East. The remarks and the arguments that he made seem to me to be strongly supportive of the motion before us by the hon. member for Yukon. His remarks strongly supported a broadly based process. He supported consultation with many groups, including aboriginal peoples, minority groups and so on.
When I look at the motion, that is what the motion says. It says that the process must be broadened, that it must include not only governments but parliaments, including the various parties in parliaments. The motion also says it must include discussions with the aboriginal peoples, with women's groups, cultural communities, language minorities and that the process must be open and transparent.
Consequently, I want to ask my hon. friend what parts of this motion he is opposed to. I cannot seem to understand that he is opposed to any of the parts. I know he is with the joint standing committee and it is studying the amendment formula and consulting broadly, but it is not studying all the different aspects of the Constitution. Therefore, I put the question to him, listening to his remarks, how can he be opposed to this motion? If he is opposed to the motion, what parts of the motion is he opposed to?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Notre-Dame-De-Grace knows that I try to be positive and I try to be supportive. However, as I said before I started, I also try and be sure of where I am going. The essence of the individual points of this motion I obviously have very little concern with. Yes, I could enter into a debate on some of the specifics.
I think, though, the time is not right in that, as I said earlier, we have the process of Belanger-Campeau, we have the process that has been undertaken by Ontario, by Quebec, obviously, and by Manitoba. I think there is a

March 12, 1991
Supply
process under way in New Brunswick. We will see processes undertaken in other provinces.
As we wait for Mr. Spicer, as we wait for the Beau-doin-Edwards Committee, as we see and hear what those groups have had to say, it is the time for us to take our direction and to see in which direction we want to go. That would be my concern. It is simply one of being a little premature.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate this afternoon. There is no subject more critical to Canada at this time than constitutional development.


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


Gilles Rocheleau: It is about the quorum, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about Canada, about its future. Could we take a count of the members present, please?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Very briefly on the same point of order.
We are talking about an open constitutional process and I think the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party represent a certain point of view. I think they should be heard, even if only for a few minutes. What about the idea of dividing the remaining time between my friend from New Brunswick, who understands the necessity of all Canadians being heard, and one of our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. I think that would be fair.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have only had two Liberals participate in this debate. I have been waiting here all day on the list. It looks like I will not get on. I have great sympathy with members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party in wanting to speak in the debate. I think you have to follow the order of precedence in recognizing parties and we all have to take our chances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am ready to give my ruling. Since there is no unanimous consent, I will follow our Parliamentary tradition.
Up to now, we have had seven speakers, three on the government side and four on the opposition side. In all fairness, I have now to recognize an opposition member. I will therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I regret that there is not time for everybody to speak on this issue. I hope that there will be before the debate is over. We have a great many important days before us in Canada, and I am sure there will be ample opportunity for all of us to state our position.
I would like to quickly tell you this afternoon that as a New Brunswicker and as a Canadian, the kind of message I have thought seriously about giving to one of the many forums examining the constitutional future of Canada, the one that is now operating within my own province of New Brunswick. What I would say to them would not attempt to be a reasoned analysis of constitutional matters nor a political science treatise, but rather an effort to state one or two key values which I hold as much in my heart as in my head, about my province and about my country.
There are many ways, in my view, that New Brunswick seems a microcosm of Canada. That is particularly true in the composition of our citizenry, which uniquely portrays the balance among those of English-speaking and French-speaking heritage. Although our multicultural content is small in comparison to some areas, we have displayed a reasonable capability to accommodate and embrace a wide range of cultures with sensitivity and respect. Therefore, I feel that New Brunswick has a special opportunity, indeed an obligation to help set the tone for Canada and to be a model in several respects for what our country can become.
If there is any one expression to describe my feelings as a Canadian and a New Brunswicker, it is the sense of real freedom which is to be found here: Freedom to exist and to live in a vast country with lots of room for everyone. Freedom to grow, freedom to expand, freedom to develop in a society that is open, generous and tolerant; freedom to participate in a democracy that is just and accessible; freedom to dream and a potential which is overflowing with opportunity.

March 12, 1991

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, where landscapes are becoming ever more limited, population densities ever more burdensome, society ever more volatile, democracy ever more fragile and dreams ever more distant. Therefore, it is critical in my view that in any vision for New Brunswick or for Canada, we always be mindful of the special reality of individual freedom which exists for every one of us here. That is a value above all others and should be the foundation for any vision of nationhood.
There are other exemplary values which New Brunswick models for Canada. Among the most obvious of these, of course, is the manner in which we have advanced the accommodation of our two official linguistic societies, English and French. In so doing, we have become Canada's only officially bilingual province, not just in a formal sense, but very much also in a practical context. While there do remain a few who have resentment and intolerance about language issues in New Brunswick, I believe that the overwhelming momentum is toward a future that will be enriched by the abilities of an ever growing number of our citizens to speak and to work in both official languages. Yet, it will also be a future where a full life can be found in only one, and either one, of those languages.
I am frequently inspired and encouraged in these respects by the signs of the future to be found and seen in the youth of New Brunswick. The ability to speak both languages is ever-increasing, but what is even more important about our young people is that standards of goodwill and acceptance are growing and levels of intolerance are waning. Those are also fundamental characteristics on which to build any New Brunswick vision and ones on which to build a national vision as well.
Another value that is not unique to New Brunswick but always prevalent there is the entrepreneurial spirit. From our beginnings in the shipyards, the forests, the oceans and the farms, New Brunswickers have demonstrated the imaginative capabilities to create enterprises and the willingness to take risks in running them, which
Supply
have led to a disproportionately high record of entrepreneurial success in this country.
It is not necessary to mention the family names of our citizens who have founded fortunes both within our province and elsewhere in Canada, but they do exemplify the spirit of enterprise which permeates our population.
Perhaps it is because we exist as a geographic link between Atlantic Canada, central Canada and the United States or for whatever other reasons, but New Brunswick has always clearly taken aggressive and positive directions toward economic growth that convinced me of our ultimate economic viability in a united Canada. We have had our successes and our failures, but we have never lost our sense of enterprise. For example, the province's solid support for the free trade agreement was an expression of that spirit.
It is also a fundamental value of any vision of ourselves and of Canada that prosperity and economic growth are part and parcel of Canadian unity.
I could go on about New Brunswick values, but my time is brief so I will close with a reference about the land both here in our province and throughout Canada. If ever there was a promised land, with clean water and clean air and great beauty and broad horizons and green forests and running rivers and rolling oceans, Canada is it and certainly New Brunswick is part of it. Nature has blessed our nation almost beyond imagination and, for me, a large part of the meaning of life has been found in the enjoyment of our natural environment and its resources. Those are values which are increasingly endangered around the world and ones which we must commit to preserve in every aspect of our vision. It is a vision, an area of our vision, with which New Brunswick has commenced to deal and one where we all must lead.
However, given the historic nature of our task, I do feel the need at least to declare in this debate my deep pride and affection for my province and my country and to try to convey some of the particular values which support those emotions within me.
In the final analysis, it seems to me that it is the spirit of Canada that needs renewal. If the will to be a nation can be restored, all else will follow. It seems to me also that this exemplary spirit is to be found in New Brunswick, and in Canada today; perhaps more faintly now than in the past, but it is here. If we can start by

March 12, 1991
Supply
rekindling this spirit again for ourselves then I have no doubt that we can help to breathe new life into Canada.
The Prime Minister has articulated seven principles on which the future of our constitutional development will be found. The first is that any change should lead to a more prosperous Canada. The second is to promote constitutional change that makes us more efficient and competitive as a country. The third principle is fairness as a nation to show respect for the equality of our citizens and the diversity of our citizens. The fourth is to avoid stale dogma or tired ideology. Now is the time for innovation. The fifth is the need to maintain national standards in the interest of all Canadians. The sixth is to consider any and all arrangements that have an effect of moving decision making closer to the people. Lastly, the rights of all Canadians must be safeguarded.
Those are seven powerful principles for the future of our Constitution and we must not settle for less.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 13, 1991