1992-05-19

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table five petitions today. These petitioners ask Parliament to convince or put pressure on the government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program. As we know, the government abolished this program in the last budget.
These petitioners maintain that this Court Challenges Program was and must continue to be an essential tool in developing constitutional rights and must continue to give all Canadians equal access to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They ask Parliament to reconsider the possibility of restoring the Court Challenges Program, which gives all Canadians equal access.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today.
In the first, petitioners ask Parliament to ensure the CRTC regulate the use of foul language on radio and television. They believe the current usage of the amount of foul language that is used counteracts parental efforts in the home and it undermines what it is they are trying to do. They indicate that foul language is unacceptable
on radio, television, or in other media whether it is used in English or in French.


Ron J. Duhamel: My second petition is from petitioners who point out that Canada's greatest challenges are in the area of the social sciences. They refer to violence, abuse, environment, aboriginal issues, poverty especially among children, illiteracy, et cetera.
They point out as well the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's providing of the kind of leadership that permitted individuals to address those issues.
They point out as well that it has now been merged with the Canada Council. They indicate there was no consultation. They ask that this decision be deferred, that there be consultation, and subsequent to that a decision be made.


Ron J. Duhamel: In my final petition, the petitioners point out there needs to be substantial investments in education if we are to compete internationally, that we respond to globalization if we are to increase productivity. They indicate there is still the 3 per cent tax on student loans.
They point out there has been an additional six months of interest added to student loans. They indicate as well the goods and services tax still exists on books, tuition fees are increasing, student debt is increasing at an alarming rate and they indicate there have been major cuts to transfer payments to the provinces.
They ask the government to review its policies with respect to education and retraining.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting quite an impressive petition signed by some 300 constituents, collected by Mrs. Edith Iwama of my riding of York West, pertaining to the issue of illegal drug abuse which is unfortunately afflicting many of our youth right across the country, including metropolitan Toronto.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners are calling upon the government, the minister, in particular the Solicitor General, to amend our Narcotics Control Act so the proceeds from drug seizures, rather than going completely and solely into the Government of Canada general revenue fund be shared with both police forces and local organizations which are responsible on the leading edge, on the streets, and in the back alleyways of trying to put back this drug epidemic.
I might add that many of the people who signed this petition are police officers.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House signed by over 125 constituents from Victoria and the surrounding area. They are concerned with the provisions of section 462.2 of the Criminal Code dealing with literature for "illicit drug use", and in particular the application by the administration of justice of that section respecting the uses of hemp and literature in respect of the uses of hemp, which the petitioners say has many beneficial uses.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend or remove from the Criminal Code section 462.2 so that the freedom of Canadians is there to discuss and consider the possible beneficial uses of hemp or other substances.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the questions which are before this House in Bill C-55.
The petitioners state that many women in Canada are living in poverty after years of home making which allowed their husbands to pursue careers without the burden of child bearing, child rearing and housework. Many of these women are disentitled by divorce to an equal share of their husband's federal pension credits accumulated during their marriage.
The government has stated in the past that it is in favour of mandatory automatic pension credit splitting. The pensioners request that Parliament amend Bill C-55 which is before this House so that all federal superannuation acts in which inequities exist
allow for the retroactive pension credit splitting for all divorced spouses so that they may receive half of the federal pension credits accumulated by both spouses during the period of their marriage.


Sheila Finestone: I have a second petition which addresses the fate of refugee claimants in Canada, which is deplorable. They state that Canada, until recently, had an enviable record of compassion for the underprivileged, especially refugees, and that Canadian taxpayers have spent in the past three years an unjustifiably exorbitant amount of funds on a determination system that has proved to be inequitable and ineffective.
They call on Parliament for an administrative-review, which this party has also repeatedly called for, which grants a general amnesty to all refugee claimants presently in Canada subject to the exclusion only of those who have serious criminal records in Canada or abroad for offences that would be considered serious in Canada.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise under Standing Order 36 to table a petition signed by residents of northern British Columbia, and in particular the city of Prince George.
These people are still concerned about this government's bringing in of the goods and services tax and they call on Parliament to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of the Township of Front of Yonge in Leeds County petitioning the CRTC to prevent the erection of a radio-TV tower in their community because of the negative effects that they perceive the installation of this tower would have in that particular location.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, certified correct by the clerk as to form and content, signed by residents of my riding wherein the petitioners sheweth that Canada has put forward proposals for amending the Constitution of Canada. The government has established a citizens' forum to ascertain the views of Canadians on numerous matters and committees to consult with the people of Canada concerning the proposals. The Supreme Court upheld that the Constitution of Canada belongs to the people.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to submit two petitions today calling upon the government to reinstate the Court Challenges Program.
These are individuals primarily from the province of Ontario, as well as the province of Saskatchewan, and other Canadians who have signed this petition in the hope that the Government of Canada will not cancel the Court Challenges Program. They call upon the Government of Canada to rescind this action in order to reinstate this very worth-while project on behalf of the people of Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in favour of this bill today so that we get this important legislation moving.
It is important that Canadians be acquainted with the proposed legislation and are informed about how it relates to the constitutional issue. This legislation is a precautionary measure. It is no more and no less than that. This legislation would enable the federal government to hold a referendum on Canada's constitutional future should such a step be required.
Under current law, the federal government could not hold a referendum now even if it wanted to. There is no law to allow it. The bill would correct this obvious limitation.
In a democratic society, particularly one undergoing constitutional change, the idea of the federal government having this ability only makes common sense. It is simply a matter of management prudence.
If there were no legislation in place permitting a referendum, the people of Canada would rightly condemn Parliament for not having this instrument at hand to use in dealing with any eventuality.
In saying that this measure is a precautionary one, it is important to underline that there is nothing in the legislation saying that there will be a referendum at all. No decision to hold a federal referendum has been made. Likewise, the bill does not say anything about when a federal referendum might be held. Neither is there any provision in the legislation, nor has there been any decision about what a referendum question would ask.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
There is no provision in the legislation saying what a so-called victory would be. Speculation on anyone's part on any of these issues is meaningless because the bill before us only provides that a referendum could be held-could be held, nothing more.
Probably there are some people who do not want the federal government even to have the power to hold a referendum and who will oppose the bill for this reason alone. They are entitled to their views, but it is our view as a government that it would be irresponsible to leave Canada without all appropriate and democratic means necessary to advance the constitutional reform process.
This government believes that Canada has the right to hold a referendum if it wants to, just as the provinces have a perfect right to hold referenda on matters of their choice. There is simply no sensible argument in favour of the position that the provinces should be able to hold referenda but the federal government should not.
No one on the government side has claimed-I certainly do not-that this legislation is perfect in all respects. I look forward to any practical suggestions to improve it, but I do believe that under our Constitution this bill meets the test of fairness that reasonable Canadians demand.
In drafting the bill, the government kept the principle of fairness very much in mind. We wanted to ensure that any referendum held under the provisions of this bill would be fair and workable, and would be seen as such by the Canadian people.
In addressing the issue of fairness, a key feature of this bill is that the wording of any referendum would have to be approved by Parliament. Without Parliament's approval of the question, no referendum could be held at all.
Second, the Canada Elections Act legislation which enjoys the great respect and confidence of Canadians throughout this country would provide the basic framework under which any referendum would be held. The Chief Electoral Officer would have the same responsibility for the conduct of a referendum as he has for the conduct of a general election. He would be responsible for making the regulations under the Referendum Act to adapt the Canada Elections Act process to a referendum just as he has the responsibility for making the regulations to adapt the Canada Elections Act to a general election.
Third, the bill assures that the process is open and transparent. Anyone or any group intending to spend more than $5,000 in any federal referendum campaign must register. Any contribution over $250 and the name of the contributor must be identified.
Fourth, free broadcast time will be allocated equally to both sides by the broadcast arbitrator, which is a position under the Canada Elections Act, by using criteria set out in this legislation.
The bill requires networks to provide at least 90 minutes of free broadcast time to each side of the referendum question.
Fifth, any point of view on the referendum may be advanced via normal advertising, a matter to be decided between participants and broadcasters, subject to the governing CRTC regulations which require broadcasters to allocate all broadcast time during a referendum campaign on an equitable basis.
Some are of the opinion that there should be further restrictions in the legislation. For example, some might argue it should require that strict limits be put on spending. We examined this question very carefully. From the government's point of view, strict controls on spending would be helpful. As a practical matter, however, we believe that they would be ineffective and do little to ensure fairness.
In fact it could be counterproductive to have a referendum process which does not engender confidence and trust in the people.
The reason we hold this opinion is that while spending limits per se may not be contrary to the charter, there is the practical issue of making these limits meaningful.
The only way to ensure these limits would be honoured is to force everyone to campaign via yes or no committees. The courts would very possibly view this as an infringement upon people's freedom of association and freedom of speech. The practical effect of a successful court challenge would be to disrupt and discredit a referendum campaign, hardly a palatable result for Canadians.
Some may ask why is it then that the parties can be restricted in their spending during election campaigns. Hon. members should bear in mind that while the elections act may limit the spending of candidates and political parties in a federal election, it does not limit the
May 19, 1992

spending of others during election campaigns as a result of a successful court challenge in 1984.
These others are individuals and groups with various options about current issues and who advance these opinions during an election campaign. The courts have ruled that they have a perfect right to express their views.
Some may suggest that even if restricting participation to yes or no committees is impossible, the bill should set spending limits on any individual or group. This could be done. But it would not be meaningful because people would simply set up one committee after another in order to accommodate any amount of spending they wished to undertake. When one committee has exhausted its limit, another group made up of essentially the same people or groups could be set up and spend up to the limit and so on. The net result would be that the limit would not be enforceable in any practical way.
In addition, people would develop a disrespect for the referendum process as a result of the loophole preventing any limitation on the number of committees.


Ms. Copps:: So having no limitation gives them respect.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Hamilton East is again heckling from her seat. I would like to acquaint the hon. member for Hamilton East with the document Canada Referendum Bill, An Explanation by the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations 1978. The minister of state at that time was the Hon. Marc Lalonde. This following statement was made in that document:
"No country has ever conducted a referendum in which total expenditures by parties or groups were controlled. The government is convinced that any attempt in this direction must involve unacceptable infringements of freedom of association and speech. Limits on the size of contributions or expenditures may be made by individual persons who preserve all democratic rights while ensuring that no contributor will have an unfair advantage because of its withdrawal".
This document is available in the Library. It also examines how different countries handle referenda. For
Government Orders
example, Australia has no ceilings on expenditures by parties in referendum campaigns, in contrast with strict limits on candidates during election campaigns.
California has referenda with no limits on spending campaigns.
France has referenda. There are no limits on spending by parties or other groups during referendum campaigns.
Ireland has no limits on expenses during referenda.
Italy does not impose a ceiling on campaign expenditures and the state bears the administration costs.
In Massachusetts, there are no limits on spending.
Norway has set no limitations on expenditures by umbrella movements or political parties.
In Switzerland there are no limitations on expenditures by political parties, individuals or associations during referendum or election campaigns.
In the United Kingdom, there were no limits on the expenditures of the organizations that campaigned for the Common Market referendum even though it has very strict limitations on candidates during elections.
The previous Liberal government reached the conclusion that the only way to impose limits was by having people forced to campaign within fixed groups and it was an infringement on their freedom of association, their freedom of speech. Even in common law countries like the United Kingdom, this was felt unsustainable and that is why they have no limitations.
That is where the government came to it. I do not quite understand the heckling from the other side because we are talking here about a practical detail. This is not a philosophical question. I wish the hon. member for Hamilton East would appreciate that what is at stake here is not partisan advantage. What is at stake here is the future of the country.
Lest there be any question as to whether it would be challenged, I have a letter from the National Citizens Coalition which-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What happened to your legal opinion?

May 19, 1992
Government Orders


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Hamilton East laughs again. Attached to it is a legal opinion by the law firm Code, Hunter. Bill Code, the senior member of that law firm was the Liberal candidate in Calgary West in the last federal election.


An hon. member:: A loser.


Harvie Andre: I am simply responding to the heckling. The hon. member for Victoria asks why I mentioned this. I am responding to the member for Hamilton East who from her seat continues to heckle and barrack, showing she is truly respectful of opinions different from hers and that opinions different from hers ought not to be heard.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're cruising for a bruising.


Harvie Andre: I am sure Bill Code would accept a call from the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. He could argue whether Bill Code's opinion of the kind of limitations of the charter he has talked about are appropriate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's already at risk. Who wrote this speech?


Harvie Andre: There are other legal opinions which will be available. I am sure the hon. member is not as interested in that as she is in anything else having to do with the future of this countiy.
Enacting laws which are simply impossible to enforce and as a result promote public disrespect for the law is poor law-making indeed. Canadians have the right to expect more from their federal Parliament.
Others might take the position that Quebec's referendum law should be used as a basis for any federal referendum. Quebec's referendum law deals with its own political culture in a way that its own National Assembly believes appropriate. Laws to fit all of Canada must reflect the reality of the entire country and not just part of it.
I would like to turn to the issue of government spending for a moment. I have heard that many who think they are promoting fairness believe that the bill should be changed to prevent or limit in some way the federal government from participating in any referendum campaign.
First, let me underline that no decision to hold a referendum has been made so any thought about the federal government's role is highly speculative.
If there is a campaign, no law should limit federal activity without a concurrent limitation on provincial government activity. Otherwise it would be unfair to the federal government if the provinces could spend anything they want and the federal government could not. A federal law limiting provincial spending in this way would be anathema to the whole concept of responsible government. One could just imagine Bob Rae or Don Getty or Clyde Wells or any other premier meekly submitting to a federal law telling them what they could and could not do with provincial moneys approved by their own legislatures. The very thought of such an intervention into the provincial spending power is abhorrent.
Furthermore any limitation on the federal government's role in any referendum campaign would have to include all federal spending. That would include spending by members of Parliament.
I can imagine the howls of protest and questions of privilege if the travel, householders, telephone use and other expenses of MPs were restricted if they were directed in support of one side or another of a referendum question.
Under this scenario, Parliament would be hamstrung to the point at which responsible government itself would be put at risk; a fine message indeed to Canadians in the midst of a referendum on the future of their country.
Canadians recognize that the pursuit of perfection must not become the enemy of progress. We have all seen the difficult process of constitutional reform over the past two years. The government has ensured that Canadians have had the opportunity to express their views and comment, debate and otherwise express their thoughts on how to make a better Canada.
From the citizens' forum to the constitutional conferences to the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, Canadians know a great deal about what is necessary to keep Canada constitutionally fit for the next century. However, one thing that will not serve Canada well is blind insistence on perfection at the expense of getting this job done well and fairly. This bill is no different.
A perfect bill is beyond the power of anyone in this Parliament to craft, much less implement. We must, however, ensure workability and fairness. To the extent
May 19, 1992

that it is possible, I believe this bill accomplishes this purpose.
I recognize that in an adversarial system as we have, it is common practice for ridicule, harassment, barracking and so on to occur. Perhaps that plays somewhat of a role in ensuring that issues are examined and that it helps the public get some sense if both sides were argued vigorously-
The laughter from the member for Kingston and the Islands is a disappointment because I would have thought that he would recognize that what we are talking about here is enabling legislation and technical details to allow for the possible use of a tool which might help to keep this country together. If that is a subject of mirth, then I say again how disappointed I am in the hon. member that he should find this a subject of mirth.
This is an attempt to come up with enabling legislation for referenda. I have given the arguments as honestly, openly and fairly as I can. I have indicated in my remarks and I have indicated previously and privately that the question of spending limits would be helpful to the government.
The practicality is that it would be an infringement on the freedom of association and freedom of speech. As I have indicated, every country in the world that has referenda has reached the same conclusion. We have legal opinions to that regard and I would ask the hon. members opposite to seriously consider the consequences of putting something into the bill that would be challenged. We know it would be challenged and possibly it could be successfully challenged. I ask them to think about the circumstances in which it became advisable and desirable to keep this country united, to have a referendum. In the midst of it, a court has declared the process null and void because of the infringement. If they were on this side of the House, would they be taking the same risk?
I do not think, if they look at it carefully and think about what is at stake, they would be doing that. As I say, some of the antics in the House are part of our adversarial system and I understand that but please, please, please recognize what is at stake here. Recognize that this is a sincere effort to bring forward as fair a piece of legislation as possible. Act in that responsible manner
Government Orders
and we will be doing the citizens who support us and the country a service for what we have been doing.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition support the concept of this bill but we do not believe that it is anywhere near perfect.
We believe that there are many important improvements which are needed and we believe that it is a step in the right direction. It is not a step as big as we would like.
It is not as bold a step as we would like, but it is a step in the direction of giving the Canadian people the ultimate voice in determining the structure of their government.
We were pleased a year ago when the Speech from the Throne opening the present session of Parliament indicated that legislation regarding constitutional referenda would be forthcoming. It is disappointing, however, that this legislation took more than a year to emerge from the government's legislative mill. It is disappointing because any bill of this nature demands thorough consideration. It requires public airing. It requires the advice of experts. It requires careful thought by members of Parliament, who must pass judgment on it.
The delay of a year gives Parliament less time to do this job. This delay means that we must undertake a task demanding great precision within a time frame that is unnecessarily short. We have used every possible forum in the last few years, especially since April 1991, to express our support for a national referendum as a device for legitimizing constitutional change.
It is our belief that a revised Constitution should require popular approval, not only with a national majority, but also with a majority within each of the regions of this country.
We put this position forward successfully to the Beau-doin-Edwards committee on the constitutional amendments and we did the same with the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. It is difficult for us to understand why a government that included this proposal in its Speech from the Throne and whose own supporters twice endorsed the suggestion in important special joint committees has only brought forward its legislation at the

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
last minute, forcing Parliament to work, as it were, under the gun.
Some of the issues that we wish to address and some of the suggestions that we have for change to the bill are matters that would be more adequately considered in the fullness of time. Some of our differences with the government on the form of this bill depend upon the interpretations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has attained legal opinions on some of these issues, but we believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider legal opinions from a variety of sources before being called upon to decide.
I hope that the government House leader will undertake to live up to his commitment of some days ago to provide this House and all members of Parliament with copies of those legal opinions which he has now sought.
We have a number of strongly held views on the form of the legislation to which the government replies there are constitutional barriers. We believe that Parliament, given the time it needs, can reconcile these views with the charter.
I cannot help but observe that, given the time that has been lost by the government's internal agonizing, the public might have better been served had the government many months ago asked a parliamentary committee to prepare this legislation. Two such committees had no difficulty in agreeing on the principle of a constitutional referendum. Surely another would have been able to tap into the considerable expertise, both in Canada and abroad, in order to produce a more acceptable bill in a more timely fashion.
We were given some advance briefing by the government. We take note of the government's profession of openness in entertaining our suggestions for conducting and improving the bill. I do not intend to show any meanness of spirit when I say, as I am compelled to say, that we hope the government's proclaimed intention to proceed in a consultative manner will be more reflective of the generally understood meaning of the word "consult" than demonstrated last week by the government House leader.
Consultations consist of more than informing and more than rejection out of hand. The government House leader should be careful about attributing perfection to the same advisers to whom, when he was on this side of the House, he attributed the precise opposite. He may
have made some compromises with his colleagues in order to squeeze this bill out of the government's legislative bottomless pit, but if we really want an acceptable law to emerge out of the legislative process, he is going to have to accept broader based judgments than those he has had up to the present time.
On April 21 the Leader of the Official Opposition issued a nine-point constitutional plan and one of these points was that the final word on the constitutional framework of the Canadian government should belong to the people of Canada.
His view and the view of the Liberal Party of Canada is that a national referendum on constitutional change should require the approval of the majority of the voters nationally as well as of the majority of the voters in each of the regions of this country.
Thus, a new constitutional arrangement would enjoy the support of the majority of Canadians while no one region of this nation would ever be made to feel that the other regions had forced it to accept an arrangement with which it was not comfortable.
The Liberal Party of Canada believes that the day is long gone when the Canadian people will accept a constitution that is brokered behind closed doors. We do not accept the self-serving separatist argument that Quebec was left out of the 1980-1982 constitutional agreement.
Not only did the majority of elected representatives in Parliament from that province support that arrangement, but successive provincial governments in the province of Quebec have quite happily made use of the new constitutional provisions that resulted from the 1982 agreement.
Nonetheless, the absence of the clearly expressed opinion of the people on the 1982 agreement serves to perpetrate that vicious myth. Had the 1982 arrangement been put to the people, had the voters responded with a national majority and a majority in each of the regions, I am certain had they done so the entire nation would have been spared a decade of bitter, bitter misrepresentations.
In the event that arrangement had been rejected either nationally or by one of more of the regions, while we would have had to go back to the drawing boards, the nation would at least have been spared these misunderstandings and these intolerable misrepresentations.

I do not understand why there is resistance to giving the people the final authority in determining the structure of their government. Constitutional amendment by referendum has been a normal feature of innumerable democratic nations for centuries. The Swiss have used this device for centuries and France enjoys its most stable structure of government since Napoleon under a constitution that is subject to comparatively frequent amending referenda. Even Britain, the citadel, if you will, of parliamentary democracy, resorted to a referendum concerning its major constitutional change in joining the European Community.
Canadians are well known for their generosity and tolerance. They are an intelligent and educated people and they usually demonstrate a remarkable sophistication in their political behaviour. The Canadian population of 1992 is as well prepared as a whole as any group of officials, elected or not, to make the decisions on the basic structure of its government. It is unreasonable and unconscionable to suggest otherwise.
If democracy itself lends support to the concept of constitutional amendment through a referendum, human nature provides a clinching argument. A national referendum is the only device whereby all Canadians in all regions are able to give an answer to the same question or questions. This provides them with the chance to say yes to Canada and, more important, it gives Canadians a chance to say to yes to each other.
It is for these reasons that we are unhappy with the fact that this bill would leave the matter of a referendum as merely an option. The bill does not even require that any referendum be held in all of the provinces. It provides that the vote need only be held in one or more provinces.
In our view this is an unfortunate provision. It leaves the purpose of the bill open to misinterpretation. Given the particular timing of the introduction of the bill and the strange provision about one or more provinces, there may be cynics who suspect that the government's intention is to use a referendum, not as an instrument of
Government Orders
legitimizing a constitution, but as a tool to be used against a provincial premier or premiers.
This would be unacceptable and unfortunate. It represents a denial of the ultimate sovereignty of the people and it demonstrates a contempt for the political integrity of the duly elected governments of the provinces.
If a referendum is to be held, it must be held only for positive and constructive constitutional purposes. It should not be regarded as the course of a last resort. It must be viewed as the natural and legitimate democratic path. Canadians will not tolerate an exercise of whipping up passions, costing upward of $100 million, for the sole purposes of partisan, political one-upmanship.
We do not believe that a referendum should be optional. In order to be credible it ought to be mandatory. We disagree with the three-year sunset provision of the bill. We believe that the referendum should be a permanent part of the process for revising the Canadian Constitution. Nor can it be restricted to one or just a few provinces. The referendum ought to be national so that all Canadians in all regions of this country have the opportunity to speak on the same issue.
The referendum must also provide for majorities in each of the regions. Never again can we afford to let partisans in any one region create a malicious myth that they have been ganged up on by all of the others.
We are also concerned about the method provided in the bill for the framing of the question or questions to be asked in the referendum itself.
The bill provides that the government will frame that question or questions and place it before Parliament for three days of debate in each House where presumably amendments may be offered by the other parties.
There are two difficulties here. First, the rules of Parliament severely restrict the scope for offering and considering amendments. Second, the period allocated for debate is so short that under the rules at most one-quarter of the members of this House could participate on so important a question affecting our country.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
Under these rules a government could draw up a loaded question and ram it through the House under conditions similar to the most abusive use of closure. Let it be said that the gang across the way has demonstrated time and time again its receptiveness in order to utilize closure at every opportunity.
In our opinion the bill should establish a formal process of inter-party consultations, and I underline inter-party consultations, real consultations with give and take for the formulation of the question. Only under this kind of arrangement can so abbreviated a period of debate be tolerated by members on this side of the House.
There is no reason that a system of inter-party consultations should not be included in the bill. The history of amending the Canadian Constitution is one of remarkable consensus between parties in the House of Commons. There has rarely in our history been partisan division remaining at the point of ultimate decision by the House of Commons. This was true in 1981-82 and 1987-88 and on the most previous occasions. This legislation should recognize explicitly our traditional consensus approach to such important matters.
We in the Liberal Party are also concerned about the absence of acceptable financial controls on the referendum campaign itself. The provisions in the bill for any person or group spending more than $5,000 to register and to account for donations and expenditure constitute in our view no control at all. It remains open for either side of the question to spend huge amounts without limitation.
If the results of the referendum are to be considered credible-and this is key-it is essential that the process be transparently fair. We must never allow the losing side to be in a position to claim that victory was bought. There must never be permitted a system that is loaded on the side of the rich and the powerful. This means that over-all expenditure on each side of the campaign must have some form of limitation.
The government House leader asserts that such a system would require so-called umbrella committees which, according to the legal opinions which he has received but which we have not, would conflict with the
freedom of political expression guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As a lawyer I should like to see legal opinions on this issue obtained from several sources, and as a legislator I should like to have the opportunity to see how the law could be formulated to effect spending restrictions within the ambit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Any referendum must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair in all regions of this country. Even a shadow of suspicion will destroy the value of that referendum. In our attempt to build a strong national fabric we cannot risk giving ammunition to those who would destroy that.
We have in Canada a long and unsavoury history of untoward financial dealings during election campaigns. We cannot take pride in 125 years of overspending, going even further back than the Pacific scandal of 1873 and coming up as recently as the massive third party interventions in the federal election of 1988. This has been well documented by researchers, by experts, and by those of us who follow the political scheme in this country.
The Lortie commission made a number of recommendations that are now before a special committee of this House which will, one hopes, recommend corrective and needed actions. It would be completely unsuitable for us to ignore the potential for overspending that borders or even constitutes corruption while we are setting out on a new and hopeful course.
We should take care to examine this bill with regard to how it interfaces with the Canada Elections Act. It is only sensible that a referendum should be conducted mutatis mutandis by Elections Canada under the established system of the Elections Canada Act.
However the bill before us-and this should be noted by those who are viewing our proceedings today-merely establishes the bare bones of that interface. The rest, as I say to the government House leader and his parliamentary secretary, is to be fleshed out by regulation. I ask the Chair: Where are those regulations?
This is a rather massive gap in the information put before us. We really ought to insist on seeing the draft regulations before passing this bill, and there should be a device whereby the House or a committee can approve them before they are given royal assent.
May 19, 1992

There is a number of important issues here. The appointment of deputy returning officers, the appointment of poll clerks, and the appointment of enumerators, revising officers, scrutineers or their equivalent. This is all part of assuring the integrity of the system.
Why would I raise such a point on second reading? Why would I do that? I think it important that we note what is contained in clause 38 of the bill, and I say this in no mean spirit to members opposite. It reads:
Where the polling day at an election is within one year after the
polling day of a referendum, no enumeration of electors shall be
made for the purposes of the election -
With the passage of this bill the enumeration takes place and then it will be used for the purposes of a general election. Hon. members opposite may shake their heads and say: "We would not do that. Trust us". We have heard enough of sacred trusts.
As I mentioned, the Canada Elections Act is itself presently being reviewed by a special committee. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands is actively involved in the pursuit of corrective measures under that particular piece of legislation. We are all, I am sure, hopeful that this committee will shortly be making recommendations revising this act. In the short term there is a host of largely administrative amendments mostly based on the recommendations of the former Chief Electoral Officer. I suggest these amendments to an act that is over 20 years old are long overdue.
We are also expecting more substantive recommendations from the committee on issues raised by the Lortie commission. Some of these will have profound effects on the Canadian electoral process.
Should we not have some indication of progress from the chair of the special committee? Can the government House leader give us assurances as to the priority that the resulting legislation will be given? Is it acceptable that a referendum should be conducted under the provisions of an antiquated and not quite adequate law?
These are some of the questions we want answered in the second reading debate and in subsequent deliberations with regard to this subject matter.
Government Orders
This bill is overdue and it is incomplete. We welcome its arrival, even if it is tardy. We will work with the other parties to make it a better bill.
In our opinion, a referendum to approve a new constitutional arrangement should not be optional; it should be mandatory. The question should not be dictated by one party; it should be worked out through all party consultations.
I want to stop there because I want the record to show that notwithstanding the assurances and undertakings of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, we in the Official Opposition were not consulted about the provisions of this bill, Bill C-81. We were summoned late in the day. We were told what was contained in the bill and it was a fait accompli. There were no consultations. I wish to draw that to the attention of the House so that there are no illusions, no misunderstandings, no misinterpretation of fact.
A national majority is not sufficient. A majority in each of the regions should be required. The electoral machinery administering the referendum must be efficient, modem, and it must be fair.
Most important of all, the entire system must be fair. There must be strict limitations on expenditures on the campaign accompanied by strict enforcement of those restrictions.
We must give real meaning to the fundamentals of democracy in letting the people decide. I hope that other members in this Chamber, regardless of their political faith, will take the opportunity to participate at second reading stage to present their views.
I hope that in our attempts to improve upon the bill for a referendum on behalf of all Canadians that the government will entertain meaningful consultations and arrive at suitable solutions to the problems that we have focused on here today.
I know many of my colleagues will want to participate later this day and perhaps on other days during the week, but I hope that the government is finally getting the message that it must consult, it must concede to some major amendments on this particular bill.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the bill before us today, a bill to enable the government to have a national referendum on a constitutional matter.
To begin with, our party is not not against the principle of a national referendum at this particular time on this very complex package of constitutional changes. Unlike the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party, we would oppose a mandatory referendum on every constitutional change. I do not think that is necessary in our parliamentary system and certainly that is not the position presented by the three parties on the two parliamentary committees, including the Liberal Party during the hearings of both the Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie committees.
This is an exceptional case. We have a broadly based Canada round of many amendments. We have had two parliamentary commissions that have commented on the possibility of national referenda. I want to refer briefly to what both of them recommended.
Last year, the committee on the amending formula which tabled a report in June 1991 said the following when it came to the possibility of a referendum in this country. I quote: "We recommend that a federal law be enacted to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal whether to confirm the existence of a national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolution. The referendum should require a national majority and a majority each in the four regions-Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west".
That is a position supported by the three national political parties, that we should consider a referendum to facilitate the amendments or to confirm a national consensus.
On March 1 of this year, we tabled a report on the comprehensive changes to the Canadian Constitution known as the Beaudoin-Dobbie report. We also had the following recommendation:
"Recommend that the federal law be enacted if deemed appropriate by the government of the day to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal whether to confirm the existence of a national consensus
or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions."
We have had two extensive parliamentary studies in this country endorsed by the three national political parties suggesting the possibility of a national referendum to confirm a consensus worked out through negotiations, or to facilitate in this country the passage of amendments to the Canadian Constitution.
It will be noted that all parties said "a consultative referendum". At this stage, it is impossible to make the referendum binding. Tb make the referendum a binding one, we would have to amend the amending formula itself. That requires the unanimous consent of Parliament and every single Canadian province. It is not possible to do that at this particular time, so it could only be consultative.
I suggest that if there is a national referendum, it will become politically binding upon the Parliament of this country. If the federal government decides to go ahead, it should at the same time say that even though it is not legally binding, as we know, it would be politically and morally binding upon the federal government of the day. Why consult the population of this country if at the end of the day it is not going to listen to what the people of this country say? It seems to me that is a very important point.
A year ago, our party did an internal report on Parliament reform in this country entitled "Making Parliament Work". At that time, we took a very similar approach to the two parliamentary committees when it came to national referenda. We said that as a rule, we should not use referenda in this country, but there might be an exception and I quote, "on matters of national importance such as the Constitution where a referendum might be used".
In this country, historically, we have had two referenda. In 1898 it was on the question of prohibition of liquor, wine and spirits in Canada. At that time the referendum passed by a slim majority of 51 per cent in favour and 49 per cent against. But it also pointed out one of the perils of a referendum. There was a regional division on linguistic lines, where over 80 per cent of Quebecers voted no to prohibition and the overwhelming majority of English speaking Canadians voted yes to prohibition.
May 19,1992	COMMONS
The result was inconclusive. It was consultative. The government of the day did not try to bind itself to anything because of the closeness of the result. Indeed, it left the whole question of prohibition to the nine provincial governments, or the provincial governments that existed at that particular time.
The second referendum was in 1942. Again, it was a divisive result, with Quebec voting against the question put at that time, which was to release Prime Minister Mackenzie King from a campaign promise against bringing in conscription. The Quebecers voted no to releasing the Prime Minister from his commitment, while the rest of the countiy voted overwhelmingly yes. Again, this is one of the perils of a national referendum.
At the provincial level we have had more than 50 or 60 different kinds of referenda; at the municipal level we have had thousands over the history of this countiy.
One of the points to be made is that in reality the bill we are talking about here today is not really a referenda bill because it is not binding. It is really a bill about plebiscites, which is consultative and really nothing more than a glorified public opinion poll.
I now want to mention about five or six concerns that I have about the bill before us today.
There should be at least three major amendments made to the bill. I hope that the government across the way will be open in considering these amendments. It is very important that it does. If we have a referendum in this country, it is very important that it be fair, perceived to be fair, and be a non-partisan event where it is worked out by all members of this House regardless of what party or what part of the country we represent.
First of all, we believe there should be spending limits imposed on the participants on both sides of the referendum. We have an example of that in this country today. I have a copy of a bill from the Quebec National Assembly. There was a referendum in 1980 on the question of independence of the province of Quebec. In this particular bill, the limitations were 25 cents per elector. That provided a sense of fairness between the yes and no camps.
It is fundamental in a democracy that if we are to have real freedom of speech in this country in a meaningful way, there has to be some spending limitations. Then the
Government Orders
people with money cannot go out and buy the media, buy the best organizers, the best PR people to get their point of view across.
If we allow that to happen without limitation, then is it really freedom of speech or is it freedom of the almighty dollar? It is certainly freedom of the almighty dollar if somebody can go out and spend several millions of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars compared to the ordinary citizen or poor people's organizations that do not have access to the funds.
I recall last week when the government House leader said that there are legal opinions saying it would be a violation of the charter. Today, if I heard him correctly, he said it may not be a violation of the charter, but what would happen when this is challenged in the courts in the midst of a referendum campaign? Already there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether or not this is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I suggest to the government that if we want to clarify this, let us have a quick reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to make sure that this bill is charter proof with spending limitations in it. If we have spending limitations in the bill, we would have a much better chance of a fair referendum that would be perceived to be fair by the people of this country.
The other concern I have is if we do not have limitations in this bill, what kind of legislation do we expect in the next few months or weeks from the government across the way when it comes to amending the Canada Elections Act? This is going to happen because we have had the Lortie commission on electoral reform.
Are the limitations to spending that we have now as political parties or candidates going to be removed? Is the government going to succumb to that kind of pressure in this country? Are the courts going to look back at the referendum bill and say: "Look, there are no spending limitations in the referendum bill. Therefore there should not be spending limitations on people running for Parliament or on political parties or indeed on third party advertising".
That happened ad nauseam back in the 1988 election campaign on the issue of free trade. In terms of free trade, 1988 saw the expenditure of hundreds of thousand of dollars by the big business community as it bought

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
television, radio and newspaper ads, printed brochures and printed leaflets across this country to persuade the people of this country that the free trade deal was a good deal. Those did not come within the limitations of the Conservative Party of Canada. Yet the opposition parties, the two opposing the free trade deal had spending limitations where even if we could have raised the money to fight the big business agenda, we had spending limitations and ceilings where we could not have spent the money anyway.
Was that freedom of speech? Was that freedom of association? We could make a pretty strong case in the Supreme Court that just having access to big dollars and big bucks in this country does not give one the unfettered right to spend those dollars in pushing an idea on the population of this country.
Let us put in spending limitations. Let us have a free referendum in this country, if there is to be a referendum in this country, a referendum that would be free of being bought by people who have access to large funds.
Second, we should have a very substantive amendment in this bill concerning the wording of the question and the issuance of writs of referenda. If we look at the bill before us today we find that the government, through an Order in Council, will word the referendum question. The government will decide on the timing of the referendum writ. On a constitutional issue, if this is suppose to be non-partisan and involving members from all sides of this House, why should we not have a non-partisan committee that drafts that question?
Maybe we should look at the possibility of subjecting the question to a special majority in the House because, after all, this is a constitutional matter. We now have an amending formula that requires five things to have unanimous consent of the provinces and the federal government and, for other issues, the support of the federal Parliament plus seven provinces representing at least half of the population of the country. Those are special majorities; more than a straight 50 per cent of governments or 50 per cent of the members of the House.
Why not look at the idea in this bill of an amendment that would require the approval of 60 per cent or two-thirds of the House of Commons for the approval of the question? That would ensure for the population of
this country that the government, acting alone, unless it had an extraordinary majority like it had in 1984, could not impose a question on the people of this country because it imposed the will of the majority on the House of Commons. Why not have two-thirds majority of this House in approving the question? Why not a two-thirds majority of this House before we drop the writ of referendum on this question to have a national consultation of the Canadian people?
It seems to me that if we want to democratize the process, if we want to make this a more non-partisan effort, if we want to involve the judgment of people who are elected here and representing Canadians from all comers of this country, then a two-thirds majority or a special majority would be appropriate in a referendum bill on a constitutional matter.
It is very rare in our parliamentary system that a government, elected in a country such as ours with a majority, will receive a majority of the votes. In the last election our government had around 43 per cent of the votes and it got a majority because of our electoral system.
On a constitutional matter, when the Constitution belongs to the people of the country, not to the government and not to politicians, is it asking too much that we have a regulation saying that if we are to have a referendum, then two-thirds of the members of the House should approve the question and approve the issuance of a writ for that referendum? I do not think that is asking too much.
The government says it consulted the opposition and involved the opposition. We have heard this from the minister in charge. We have heard this from the Prime Minister time and time again. Sometimes the opposition is consulted very well. Sometimes the opposition is involved very well in this process. Sometimes the opposition is ignored in the process. This is one time when the opposition was not consulted and not involved until the referendum bill was actually drafted by the government across the way.
Again, if we want to have a meaningful, non-partisan look at changing the Constitution and the process of doing so, it seems to me that we should involve the opposition parties in the only meaningful way; namely, to have a non-partisan process for the writing of the question and the dropping of the referenda writs.
May 19, 1992

Finally, we need a third amendment or change to the referendum bill that is before us today.

Thke the report of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee last year-Mr. Edwards is in the House today. On that committee, we were unanimous about the need for a double majority in this country to change the Canadian Constitution. The three political parties all supported giving each of the four regions of Canada a veto.
According to the Beaudoin-Edwards committee report, it is first of all necessary to have a majority of members of the House of Commons and senators of Canada, but also a majority in each of the four major regions of Canada: the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Quebec and western Canada. This double majority is necessary because without it, it would be easy to isolate not only Quebecers but also western Canada, the Atlantic provinces or Ontario.
I think that it should not be possible to change the Constitution of Canada without the massive support of Canadians. If there were a national referendum on the federal government's major proposals, like those in the report that the parliamentary committee published two months ago, and western Canada were opposed, I think it should be out of the question to change our Constitution without western Canada's support.
The same goes for Quebec. If Quebecers are against, it is hard to believe that we could make a major change to our Canadian Constitution. We are for an amendment requiring a double majority in the bill presented by the Government of Canada.

In the two minutes remaining I want to say that we have a number of other concerns as well. My colleague from Churchill, who has spent a lot of time on electoral matters in this House, has a number of concerns about the electoral details in this bill and a number of amendments that should be moved to make sure this bill is fair in terms of how the referendum will be conducted if we have a referendum in Canada.
The other point I want to mention is that any referendum at this time would involve the division of powers. It
Government Orders
would involve the competence of provincial governments. If we are to have a referendum at this time, it seems to me that it is very, very important that the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal people be consulted and involved in a meaningful way in terms of the wording of the question and the rules and regulations, including spending limitations.
We are a federal state and we do not have the right to make decisions unilaterally that affect the powers of the provinces. It is important that we look at an amendment in that area, and if not an amendment in that area, then certainly meaningful involvement and consultation with the provinces, territories and aboriginal people.
I conclude by saying that we do not oppose the principle of a referendum but we have major concerns about spending limitations, about what constitutes a majority, about the wording of the question and the approval of the wording of the question, and the dropping of the referendum writs.
We are looking forward to moving those amendments and discussing with our colleagues in government the acceptance of those referenda amendments which will make this a much more acceptable piece of legislation. If it is used, it will be used as a tool that is fair and just for all the people of this country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville mentioned three possible areas for amendment and I want to ask him the following question: If the government does not accept the principle of spending limits, will the member for Yorkton-Melville and his New Democratic colleagues still support the bill on second reading?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on second reading, we discuss the principle of this bill. As I said, we are not at all against the principle of a national referendum on an important question like a significant amendment to the Canadian Constitution.
But it is very important to have a bill that is fair for Canadians. Our caucus will make that decision after the government opposite responds. I suppose that the Liberal Party will give the same answer after two or three days of speeches by government members.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of comments and questions with regard to the bill. This is the question or comment period, therefore I will keep my comments fairly brief at this point and speak later on the bill in total.
I would like the member for Yorkton-Melville to address my concern. Not only are there no effective spending limits in this legislation, but the definition of a referendum expense is exactly what the government wants to achieve as it changes the electoral law of this country. In other words, the definition of expenses will be very limited, the ones that you register, the ones that you have to account to the public for. What will happen is that the various business interests in this country, as they did in the free trade debate, will be able to spend millions of dollars that they will not have to account for.
The definition in this legislation says that only direct expenses, a very exclusive list of direct expenses, would have to be included. Those same firms could spend millions of dollars doing polling and millions of dollars in preparation which would not count as referendum expenses.
In addition, those same corporations could volunteer their expert staff, their advertising staff, their PR staff. Under the Elections Act of this country, those people who are acting in their full-time capacity such as organizers, ad agencies and PR people must count as an expense and be included under some spending limit. In this legislation they are not included as an expense and they do not come under any limit.
This legislation, in so many aspects, has nothing to do with a referendum. It has to do with a government agenda to distort the whole electoral process of this country.
I would like the member to speak on that issue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my remarks that this is one of the fears I have. If we do not have a number of amendments in terms of how the referendum is conducted, spending limitations, a direct expense or an indirect expense and the section 38 mentioned by my friend from the Liberal Party which concerns enumeration, these could all be used as precedents by the government across the way in terms of changing the electoral law.
We have just come through a very lengthy process in this country. We had a royal commission on electoral expenses headed by Mr. Lortie. I believe we spent some $16 million holding public hearings across this country. We had a tremendous amount of public input. We issued a very comprehensive and detailed report about having an electoral system in this country that is fair and just for every single Canadian.
If we are to spend that money, it is very important that we accept most of the recommendations made by that particular committee. One recommendation it talked about that was so important was having a limitation on spending in federal election campaigns. If we can do it in a federal campaign, surely to goodness we can do it in a national or a federal referendum campaign. The only democratic thing to do is have a limitation on what a candidate, a political party or somebody outside of the political parties can spend. It makes a farce of our electoral system if somebody can spend $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 as a candidate and yet you are fighting an organization on a single issue that is unlimited, that can spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars in fighting you. It is very important that we take our guidance in terms of amendments to this bill from the Lortie Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing Expenses. It has done the research, consulted with legal advice, spent hundreds of days drafting a very good report. The people on the commission came from all political parties, different walks of life, distant parts of this country. It seems to me their advice should be taken into account.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the theme of limits on election expenditures.
It is important for the House to bear in mind that the case that has been referred to so often on the issue of election spending dealt with the question of an absolute prohibition against certain kinds of advertising, not on the question of limitation or regulation of spending either by political parties or by third parties.
For the government to take refuge behind that case and the legal opinions based on that case is doing a disservice to the House and to the country. It seems to me, and I would ask the hon. member to comment, that this particular flaw in the bill arises out of the govern-
May 19, 1992

merit's peculiar failure in such a sensitive issue as this to consult with all sides of the House.
If the government would be prepared to open up and listen to the wisdom on all sides of the House this bill could be substantially improved, particularly in the area of spending limits. It is entirely possible within our Constitution, within the charter, for regulation to be imposed on spending so that the referendum be seen to be fair.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very important point. The whole question in terms of the Constitution is consulting people, involving people, making the process very inclusive.
I refer to a couple of members on the other side who have done a very good job in terms of their concerns about this bill.

The hon. member for Jonquiere, who was on the special joint committee, has spoken publicly about this problem several times. For him, the lack of spending limits is a big problem in this bill. Other government members share this opinion.

If the government would listen to members of this House, it could have drafted a referendum bill that would reflect what the Canadian people want. The important thing is to involve people, to make this a non-partisan issue in terms of involving all members of the House of Commons.
We must always remember one thing when it comes to the Constitution in this country. The Constitution does not belong to the government of the day, it does not belong to members of this House, but the Constitution belongs to the people of this country.
We have involved the people of this country better this time than we did during the Meech Lake round, than we did during patriation back in 1981-82. We have had parliamentary committees, we have had them at the federal level, the provincial level. We have had five national conferences. We have had the aboriginal round. We now have a package that is more reflective of the Canadian people than we have had before. Let us not
Government Orders
screw up this time by the government going back to its old ways of doing things through Orders in Council, consulting no one but a few key people and mandarins from the government side.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-81, an act that will enable the Government of Canada to consult Canadians by means of a referendum.
Basically, the purpose of this bill is to provide Canadians with a fair and democratic instrument to settle the constitutional debate, once and for all.
I think it is important to point out that there has been no decision by the government to hold a referendum on the constitutional question. It is by no means certain that this type of consultation will take place. In fact, we on this side of the House would prefer not to have to hold a referendum.
The government has said repeatedly that its primary objective is to reach a firm constitutional agreement through the discussions currently taking place with our provincial, territorial and aboriginal partners. Considering what has been accomplished in the past few months, we can be reasonably optimistic about the outcome of the current process.
In any event, we intend to focus all our efforts on reaching a political and negotiated solution to our constitutional problems. However, we must be ready for any eventuality. The bill before the House today should be seen as a precautionary measure and as an insurance policy for all Canadians.
Basically, this bill is a democratic extension of the current consultation process. From the outset, Canadians have made it clear that they did not want to be left out of the constitutional process. That is why our initiatives in this area have included a high degree of consultation, and we can be justly proud of the results.
First of all, the Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada went to communities throughout the country and listened to thousands of Canadians. Cabinet ministers met many Canadians to find out what they had to say

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
about the future of their country. Subsequently, the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee examined various aspects of the amending formula. Finally, between last fall and the end of February, the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada went to all the provinces and territories, received more than 3,000 briefs and held 78 sittings for a total of 227 hours, during which it heard 700 witnesses.
The government's purpose in tabling this bill is also to ensure that the rules of the game for any consultation that takes place will be fair, open and transparent, in accordance with our democratic traditions and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What are those rules, Mr. Speaker? Basically, they would be the same as for a general election. The referendum would be supervised by the Chief Electoral Officer and be subject to the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, already a guarantee of a fair process. Furthermore, the "yes" and "no" sides would have equal access to free air time, as determined by the arbitrator. The CRTC would also supervise the purchase of air time on radio and television networks for advertising purposes.
However, there are some differences because of the very nature of this kind of consultation and the implications of the charter. First of all, the bill does not make so-called umbrella committees mandatory. Any obligation to take part in the referendum campaign under the aegis of such committees would be contrary to the Charter of Rights, according to the legal opinions we have received so far. In fact, such an obligation would not only be likely to violate freedom of expression, it would also force groups that may be for or against the question for entirely different reasons to operate under the same umbrella.
What should be understood is that the situation is entirely different from the referendum held in Quebec in 1980. At the time, both options were represented by a political party which headed an umbrella committee. That would not be the case in a Canadian referendum on constitutional reform. In this connection I would like to quote the senior editor of La Presse, Mr. Alain Dubuc, who wrote the following on May 14:
If we apply the Quebec model to the Canadian referendum, the result is frankly grotesque. This is especially true when we consider the umbrella-committee concept. Any attempt to put those who say
yes to constitutional reform in one group and those who say no in
another group makes a mockery of democracy.
However we believe Canadians have the right to know all the details of the process. That is why the bill contains some very clear provisions to ensure the referendum campaign's funding process is absolutely transparent.


Mr. Lapierre:: Except where the government is concerned!


Marcel Danis: Any group or person spending more than $5,000 will have to register, disclose contribution amounts and publish the names of anyone contributing in excess of $250 to either side.
We realize that fairness is of the essence. The obligation to register is a response to this concern for fairness.
Some members complained the bill did not provide for a double majority when calculating the results of an eventual referendum. Generally speaking, an amendment to the Canadian Constitution requires the consent of the legislatures of seven provinces representing 70 per cent of the Canadian population. This rule would not change in the case of a referendum.
However, these critics forget that although the referendum certainly would have moral and political weight, it would have no legal implications. It would have no force of law, so that the double majority concept is irrelevant. Furthermore, a federal referendum would not in any way prevent Quebec from holding its own referendum and determining its own future, as provided under Bill 150.
The purpose of the Canadian referendum would certainly not be to prevent the provinces from exercising their prerogatives under the Canadian Constitution.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it should be understood that most of the people opposed to this bill today already decided our constitutional proposals were unacceptable before knowing what they were. Being consistent they decided that a referendum held by the federal government would be unacceptable as well.
We hope the constitutional question will be settled through normal channels. In fact, we are confident this is what will happen. The bill before us today can certainly be improved, and we will try to do so in the days to come, with the help of all members of this House. However, I am convinced it is a welcome response to the expectations of Canadians and that is why it deserves to be
May 19, 1992

supported by all members of this House, except perhaps by a few diehards in the back.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I see there are several members who have questions and comments. I maintain, failing evidence to the contrary, that my good friend the minister, with whom a number of us worked on the Parliament of Canada Act, did not convince me, first of all, on the double majority issue. I am sure we will need far more conclusive arguments than those we have used so far to explain this double majority right to Canadians who are listening.
Just imagine two planets, side by side: the majority on the first planet, which would represent all of Canada, and the majority in another planet, divided into four or five regions. I think this has to be made very clear, so that we can explain the concept to the public and avoid undue divisions between Canadians and Quebecers. That is my first comment. Of course, I will be taking part in debate later on.
My second comment, more importantly what I call the plumbing, the mechanics of holding a referendum, and some people do not like what they see. The minister and a number of other colleagues and I have been actively involved in revising the Standing Orders of the House. I wonder whether he could answer the following question: Why can we not immediately adopt a concept we developed after hours and hours of work? The critic for the Liberal Party and I are working on another bill, to amend the Canada Elections Act. We worked on this- this is not debate-and the amendments are ready. We would like to table more in the House, but we already have some that are ready, for instance, on the appointment of scrutineers and clerks, which would get rid of all the controversy about appointing enumerators, something that was very annoying in the past. This is all very specific stuff. It is about the mechanics of process. It is not as interesting as talking about lofty principles, but when you hold a referendum, it is important to demonstrate the government means what it says about this not being a matter of setting up a big election machine across Canada. As for the rights of the opposition, at least the Official Opposition or the party that came second in the last election, that party could at least have the right to select one of the two officers for the referendum as well as for the enumeration process.
As for the two witnesses, I am looking forward to going to committee so we can elucidate the implications of this
Government Orders
new idea of appointing two witnesses representing the two sides, whether we have umbrellas here or not.
I do not think we were given a very clear explanation. Of course, this is only a preliminary debate.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague raised three points.
First, on the double majority issue, I can inform the hon. member that personally, I would be in favour of a double majority in a referendum if the results were legally binding. In this particular case, under this legislation, the referendum will certainly have moral weight but is not binding and does not amend the Constitution.
Some people say the present formula is a good one, while others are less enthusiastic, but as far as I know, it will be 7/50 or unanimity, for the time being.
Since this referendum is not binding, I personally see no need for a double majority, but I do understand what the hon. member is trying to say.
As far as the Canada Elections Act is concerned, I know a committee of this House is considering the legislation, and I am sure that with the hon. member for Saint-Denis as a member of the team, the committee will do an excellent job.
The hon. member realizes of course, that this type of amendment which mainly concerns the Canada Elections Act should be the result of a consensus among commitee members. I am certainly looking forward to his suggestions. In that, I hope the hon. member, and members of the other parties as well, will make a number of suggestions that we will be able to adopt by the end of June, so these improvements will be in place for the next election campaign.
As for the issue of the witnesses, or representatives at the polling stations on election day, the purpose of the bill is to have the yes and no sides each have one representative at the ballot box. I assume this is what will happen: The returning officer for the electoral district of Vercheres -I am taking my own riding as an example -will probably ask the "federalist" forces to appoint or suggest representatives who will be appointed by the returning officer. I assume the returning officer will also

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
ask my friends in the Bloc quebecois or other opposing factions for a list of witnesses or representatives at the 241 polling stations in my riding, to ensure there are no doubts about the ballot counts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Any more questions or comments?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, there is a major contradiction in what the minister said, which I found very surprising. He tells us the referendum results will have no legal value, will not be legally binding on anyone, but he said at the beginning of his speech that he wants a referendum and I quote: "to settle the constitutional debate once and for all".
Either the referendum settles something or it does not. I wish the minister would tell us why, as a Quebecer, he thinks a referendum that ignores the entire amending formula could possibly settle the constitutional debate once and for all.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this referendum legislation, and especially the current process headed by Mr. Clark, is that the federal government will try and settle the constitutional question once and for all.
The hon. member knows perfectly well that all the energy being spent on the constitutional question would be better spent on economic issues and on finding jobs for Quebecers and Canadians.
I think the time has come to terminate the process. If we think a referendum should be held, we will do it, but it is not a binding referendum. However, we see it as a device that could bring the whole constitutional process to a conclusion.
This is only one phase. We have gone through several phases, as I mentioned in my speech. However, it is one phase we would prefer to avoid. If this week in Montreal or next week in Toronto, Mr. Clark's group were to reach an agreement, it would be a relief. Quebec would be able to hold its referendum, and everything would be fine.
However, if there is no agreement, I think it only makes sense for the government to consider all the options. I think it stands to reason that a democratic country like Canada should go to the people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the bill contains no provisions for spending limits. Many of us feel spending limits should be set. The Liberal Party and others suggested a reference to the Supreme Court to find out whether the bill violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Is the government, through its minister, prepared to tell the House today that it is willing to refer this bill immediately to the Supreme Court for an opinion on the implications of the bill for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, personally, I would prefer to see spending limits in this kind of bill. However, officials of the federal Department of Justice were unanimous in their opinion that if people were forced to associate under the aegis of two umbrella-committees-which would be the only way to limit spending, because one could then limit the spending of these committeess-and if this were challenged before the courts, the group or person initiating the challenge would have an excellent chance of winning their case. If this were to happen during a referendum period, we have no way of knowing what the courts would do. The court might decide that the clause in question was ultra vires or it might decide that the bill itself was ultra vires, which could have disastrous consequences.
To answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Saint-Denis, at the committee stage we intend to call as witnesses the people who gave us these legal opinions. At that stage, either my colleagues will be convinced, or if members of the two opposition parties have a better idea that would make it possible to get around this legal point, then, as the government House leader said, we are prepared to improve the bill in order to obtain the broadest possible consensus among members of this House.
May 19, 1992


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party support the principle of this bill, that is, we support the principle that the new constitutional proposals should be submitted to a national referendum or a plebiscite for the approval or disapproval of the Canadian people.
But we have serious reservations about several parts or clauses in the bill. In particular, we are opposed to the bill in so far as it does not place serious financial controls on the different groups that will participate in the referendum campaign. Because it does not do that, we do not think that the process can or will be fair. Second, we oppose the bill in so far as it does not provide for a majority in all the regions of the country. The bill simply sets that aside and provides for a simple majority right across the country.
We believe if you are going to have a national referendum or a plebiscite on constitutional proposals, it must be perceived as being absolutely fair. Otherwise, once you have the results in, it will not have the validity or will not solve the problems that you wish to solve. You submit these proposals to a referendum because you want to gain the consensus or the approval of the Canadian people on a new constitutional proposal. But if, for one minute, regions of the country perceive the referendum process as not being fair, or if they perceive it as having been bought off by big financial interests, then you will not have the results you want, and no matter who wins or who loses the other side is going to claim that the result is tainted because it has been manoeuvred or manipulated by financial interests or because one region of the country with a greater population will simply overwhelm another region of the country and impose its views on that region.
We in the Liberal Party approve of a referendum in principle because as far back as April of 1991, the Leader of the Opposition, proposed, with eight other points, that there be a referendum to approve of the new constitutional proposals. His reason, supported by our party, is that the Constitution, different from other laws, is the basic law of the land, and the basic law of the land is the law by which we give authority to the Parliament of Canada, by which we give authority to the provincial governments and the federal government.
The people are saying that they agree with this process, this law, by which certain powers are given to
Government Orders
members of Parliament, by which certain powers are given to the Government of Canada, by which certain powers are given to provincial governments and legislative assemblies.
If we are going to change that basic law, it is appropriate that the people of Canada be involved in approving or disapproving that basic law that we call our Constitution.
I mentioned our two serious reservations with respect to the bill before us; first, that it does not provide adequately for the financial control of the parties taking part in the referendum and second, it does not provide for a double majority.
Let me explain the double majority. In any referendum on constitutional proposals there should not only be a majority for those proposals from all the voters, right across the country, but there must also be a majority in the four or five regions of the country. There should be a majority in Atlantic Canada, a majority in Quebec, a majority in Ontario and a majority in the west and the north. In this way, we get around the difficulty of what happened in the only other two referendums or plebiscites that we have had in Canadian history; where in Quebec they voted one way and in the rest of the country they voted another way. It only led to more disunity or division.
Let me refer to a bit of history. As I pointed out, we have had only two so-called referendums in Canada. I think I should clarify that as well. Usually the word "referendum" is understood to mean a binding consultation with people, such as proposition 13 in California. The people are consulted, they vote on a law or on a proposition. Once they have voted, the assembly or the Parliament has no say whatsoever, the results are binding. That is the strict definition of a referendum.
What we have had in Canada on many occasions, both federally and provincially, are plebiscites, which have a serious political impact but are not binding. We have had two at the national level. The first one in 1878 was a referendum on whether or not we should allow liquor to be sold. It was a referendum on whether we should have prohibition as they had in the United States or whether it should be left to local option. The proposal carried in all other provinces of Canada but was defeated in Quebec. Even then Quebec was distinct and believed in a more flexible approach to the sale of liquor than they did in the other provinces.

Government Orders
The other instance at the national level was in April of 1942 on the subject of conscription, of forcibly requiring Canadians of a certain age to serve in the armed forces in the Second World War. It came about because in the national election of 1940, which Mackenzie King and the Liberals won, Mr. King had promised there would be no conscription for overseas service. However, when we got more into the war and things were not going good for us-good for us or good for the allies-Mr. King sought a way to be released from his election promise of 1940 and passed the Dominion Plebiscite Act of 1942. The plebiscite took place and the yes side won a vote in favour of conscription. But once again in Quebec, 72 per cent of the population voted against conscription. If we want unity after any referendum then we should learn the lessons of that referendum.
The no forces in Quebec and across the country were not even allowed access to the public broadcasting system to explain their point of view. In other words, in 1942 those in Quebec on that referendum were not even allowed to appear on Radio Canada or CBC Radio to explain their point of view and why they were opposed to conscription. The whole process was viewed as being unfair.
At this point I am not taking sides on the question. What I am trying to do is to demonstrate to the House, to the government and to the Canadian population that if we have another referendum it has to be perceived by the Canadian people as being absolutely fair.
It will not be absolutely fair if both sides to the question have not had ample opportunity to present their points of view and their arguments, or if it is also perceived that by massive advertising, which costs millions and millions of dollars, one side is able to out-spend the other side and therefore win the question.
We know that in the election of 1988, the last election, many of us in the opposition parties, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and other elements in Canada, believed that election was won by third party groups who supported the free trade question and were not subject to spending limits.
The Lortie commission studied election spending and how to control spending by large corporations on elections. It said that there must be more control so that third party interests will not be able to influence elections simply by the size of their financial expenditures on advertising, whether on television or in newspapers and magazines, and so on.
If we are going to have a referendum and it is going to be perceived by all parties to be fair, then there must be controls on the amounts of money spent on either side. There must be adequate opportunity for both sides of the question to properly express their views and to give their arguments.
Also, in order to come out of the referendum with people accepting the result and having national unity no matter what the result, and if not unity at least an understanding between peoples, then there must be majorities in the different regions of Canada and not simply a national majority as we had in 1942 and in 1878. If we do not do that then we are going to end up with a split country.
I have listened to the ministers argue that we do not really have to do that this time because in fact this is a plebiscite and it is not binding. If it is not binding, then we do not have to provide for regional majorities. The minister and the government are speaking from a very legalistic point of view.
I took part in the plebiscite in Quebec in 1980 and it was not legally binding either. It was an advisory sort of opinion, but once you are into it, it is a very serious matter. People do spend money. They spend a lot of time and dedicate their lives to winning one side or the other of the referendum.
To not clearly set out in advance how the results are going to be treated will lead to a lot of confusion and a lot of ill feelings. We do not want that. It is much better to say in advance, right in the law, that in order for the proposals to win, what is needed will be not only a national majority but also majorities in the different regions of the country. People will then know what the rules of the game are. Of course, they know that the results are not binding, but they know that the political influence of the results are overwhelming.
May 19, 1992

It would be very difficult for a premier of a province or for the Prime Minister of Canada to deny the results of the referendum or to try to do something differently when the people of his province or the people of the country have spoken clearly in the referendum.
The political impact will be very significant even though the results are not binding. Consequently, if the political impact is going to be significant, then the rules of the game have to be spelled out.
The rules of the game, if we are going to come out better after the referendum than when we went into it, should make it clear that it will have to be a double majority with a majority nationally and a majority in the regions of the country.
The government House leader has said that one reason for not putting financial spending limits in the bill is that these would be subject to challenge based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He refers to freedom of opinion. Our charter guarantees freedom of opinion and he feels that if we try and put restrictions on the expression of opinion through spending limits, on what can be spent on advertising, that that would be against the charter of rights.
But it also says in the charter that these rights are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrated and justified in a free and democratic society.
I think that putting such financial limits in the bill can be justified in a free and democratic society because they guarantee the democratic society. To have no spending limits, no financial controls, then those with the most money control the results. That is not democracy.
When the minister says that, we would be interested in seeing the legal opinions, more than one legal opinion. We would like to see the legal opinions he has from the Department of Justice as well as some independent legal opinions on this point.
As a lawyer, I am convinced that there could be and we could formulate much better financial controls and spending limits in this bill that would be acceptable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I referred to our experience at the national level with plebiscites in Canada. I pointed out that we only had two other examples in our history: the prohibition of liquor situation in 1878, and conscription in 1942.
Government Orders
Canadians should know that referenda and plebiscites have been used much more often at the provincial level. It is interesting that they have been used more often in the west than in the east. As a matter of fact, the more you go toward the east the less they are used.
For example, in British Columbia we have had nine referenda, with the last one in 1972. Alberta has had seven, with the last one in 1971. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba they have had six referenda, with the last one in Saskatchewan in 1956 and the last one in Manitoba in 1952. Ontario has had only three, with the last one in 1921. Quebec has had two with the last one in 1980, but it has passed Bill 150 which provides for another one this year. New Brunswick has never had a referendum or plebiscite. Nova Scotia has had two, with the last one in 1929. There has been one in Prince Edward Island, in 1948. Newfoundland had three, all having to do with whether or not it should join Confederation.
Most of these provincial referenda or plebiscites had to do with subjects such as the prohibition of liquor, the introduction of daylight saving time, the application of the Lord's Day Act, or whether women should have the vote or not.
I bring up that history to point out that referenda and plebiscites while being rare in Canada are not unknown. We have had them on important issues, but never an issue as important as the unity of the country at this time.
I should also point out that in some countries they are used quite often. In Switzerland they have had over 300 referenda. Australia has had 40; France, 20; Denmark, 14. They are used quite often in the states of the United States. In the United Kingdom there has only been one referendum. That was an important one in 1975 on whether or not the United Kingdom should join the European Economic Community.
I refer to that history because a lot of people when they hear the word referendum get very up tight and feel it will be wrought with difficulties and risks. There are difficulties. It is very difficult to put some complex constitutional proposals to the Canadian people in a referendum.
It is not a simple matter. There are risks and it is difficult but it has been done before. It was done on a very complicated matter in the United Kingdom with respect to the European Economic Community in 1975.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
I believe that the positive elements outweigh the risks and the difficulties in these matters. By the way, so did the two parliamentary committees which recommended the possibility of a referendum, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, in recommending that the Canadian people be consulted on constitutional proposals.
There are reasons that I believe the positive elements outweigh the risks. First of all, the Canadian population felt cynical after the collapse of the Meech Lake proposals. The process by which the governments of Canada examined the Meech Lake proposals, behind closed doors, sometimes as the Prime Minister said, rolling the dice on the future of the country and all that sort of rhetoric, extremely upset the Canadian people. They felt that this is our Constitution, this is how we give authority to governments and we should have something to say about it.
Even though it is complex and even though it is difficult, the final say on these matters should be with the Canadian people. Beyond that, why it is important is that it can settle the matter once and for all. If a government approves or disapproves of certain constitutional proposals, that government is always open to question as to whether or not it really represented the people of its province.
If the country goes down the drain as a result of the way one provincial government votes or does not vote especially behind closed doors at a federal-provincial conference, there will always be doubt in our minds as to whether the country broke up over some whim of a government or partisanship that should not have been present.
On the other hand, with a referendum, the people will decide, not the governments. I should say, they will at least give their advice. It will be up to the governments to legislate on that advice, but at least they will have the formal very clear-cut advice of the population. That having been said, it will settle the matter in a much more definitive way, not perfectly, but in a more definitive way than has been done in the past.
To conclude, as I said, we in the Liberal Party support the principle of this bill, that there be a referendum on
constitutional proposals, that the Canadian people be involved in approving of such constitutional proposals.
However, we want to see changes in the bill. We believe that there should be stricter limits on the spending of money by parties involved in the referendum, so that it is a fair process.
We also want to see provisions in the bill that provide for not only a national result but also regional results and that no question be carried without the support of the regions.
We will be looking at the process very closely, what happens in committee, whether the government is flexible, whether it is willing to accept amendments.
We will also want to see the legal opinions I referred to as to why financial controls would be against the charter. We doubt that and we want to see the legal opinions.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to my hon. friend who has served this country with distinction in many capacities, most recently in this context on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. I have a couple of comments and two or three questions for him.
First, he referred to the question of financial controls. He suggested it was lamentable that there are no financial controls on plebiscite spending within this bill. He was a member of the government which drew up Bill C-9 in 1978. Would he not agree that that bill also provided for no particular spending limits. In fact, I think under clause 8 of old Bill C-9 if a group was registered under that bill, in a referendum or plebiscite campaign then the sky was the limit.
There may have been some good reason for that in 1978 and some good reason today. I know he follows very closely the distinguished columnist William Johnson in the Montreal Gazette.
Mr. Johnson writing last Friday said: "Elections lead to corruption if ambitious people have unlimited money to buy their way to office. Personal ambition requires spending constraints but plebiscites are not fuelled by personal ambition. They do not put people in power for years able to wield that power for personal advantage, wealth and prestige. A plebiscite merely leads to an expression of opinion. It puts no one in power. Corrup-
May 19, 1992

tion is less likely because the plebiscite does not serve personal ambition as do elections".
The electorate is not stupid. As long as all views are sufficiently expressed, there is no reason to think the people will vote for one side because they hear that side's message more often. Trust the people, let everyone participate, that is the best course in a plebiscite.
My hon. friend also advocated there should be a majority in all regions of the country. I listened with care to him in that. He was perhaps looking at the recommendations of the committee which I had the honour to co-chair where a referendum would require a national majority and a majority in each of the four regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, and the west.
Discounting the wrath of British Columbia of not being regarded as a region unto itself, and I think his former leader might take issue with him on that particular omission, there is the other difficulty that immediately this report was tabled in June 1991, there was of course a response from at least two provinces saying that kind of approach to constitutional amendment is not acceptable. As my hon. friend knows, being a constitutional scholar, given our current amending formula under 41(e) no change can be made without the unanimous consent of the provinces. With great respect, I think the position of his party is an absolute non-starter.
The Beaudoin-Dobbie committee I think reflected that when it said simply: "We recommend that a federal law be enacted if deemed appropriate by the Government of Canada to enable the federal government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal either to confirm the existence of the national consensus or to facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions". There is no reference there to a regional majority.
Of course the people of Canada will inform themselves on the issues. They will interpret the results according to however they choose to interpret them. In the final analysis, given our present Constitution, the implementation of whatever decision is made, whatever advice is given by the people of Canada, must take place under the Constitution Act of 1982 which would require
Government Orders
the House of Commons, the Senate, and the legislatures of seven of the provinces constituting 50 per cent of the population to approve.
What I suggest to my hon. friend is that he is advocating overriding the present amending formula with his party's position or he is advocating entrenchment of this plebiscite in the Constitution; one or the other and I am not clear just what he is referring to.
Very quickly, my final comment refers to his House leader's comment about this bill being required to apply to all provinces. I would remind him in the old Bill C-9, clause 3(1) of the 1978 bill had identical wording. There was wisdom in 1978 as well as in 1992.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises some good points that should be dealt with. First of all, Bill C-9 which was a Liberal bill in 1978 as he said, did not provide for limits but that bill was not passed. It was objected to from many sources. It was before the referendum of 1980 in Quebec. I think because of the various objections to it the government did not proceed with it, did not push it through Parliament, and did not pass it.
Personally, I believe having gone through the experience of the referendum of 1980 and seeing what has happened in other elections, the spending limits are necessary. They are necessary not only to ensure a fair referendum and plebiscite but to make sure the plebiscite is perceived by all Canadians as being fair.
While the provision may not have been in Bill C-9 in 1978, that bill was not passed. I think looking at the situation now, we do require spending limits. I would be very adamant on that. I think they are as important with a referendum bill as they are with the Elections Act for the House of Commons where we do have spending limits and we are going to improve the spending limits.
My hon. friend referred to comments by William Johnson in which he, in his column, differentiated between financial controls for elections to Parliament as opposed to financial controls for a referendum. He said that personal power was at stake in the one, but not in the other. That is true.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
Again, the reason I propose and our party proposes spending limits is not because there is an element of personal power involved. It is because it must be perceived by all participating, especially by the side that will lose eventually-one side will lose-that the process has been fair.
I point out to my hon. friend that in 1942, the losing side, and I am not discussing the merits of the question, was overwhelmingly in Quebec. The "no" side was not even allowed access to Radio-Canada and the CBC, the public broadcasting network that they paid for with their taxes.
When the result came in, they perceived the result as being unfair. They may have lost anyway, but the fact is if you do not have the spending limits and the spending controls and you lose, there is always the accusation such as we in this party firmly believe that in the 1988 election the pro-free trade elements in Canada bought that election.
We firmly believe that, and nothing you say over there will change our mind. If there had been better financial controls-let me put this argument to you-on third party advertising and we had lost, we could not have used that as an excuse in accepting the result. I am telling you that it is very important when our country is at risk, that once the referendum is over those who have lost as well as those who have won will be able to say: "Nobody bought the result". It is not a question of personal power buying the result.
On the regional majorities, again by looking at our history and the two national plebiscites that we had in 1878 and in 1942, there were vastly different results in Quebec from the rest of the country. After it was all over, it was perceived as unfair, even though they were not binding in those cases. The referendum on conscription was not binding. It was the plebiscite.
Parliament was still supreme. It still had to legislate, but there was heat generated. The political heat and the passions of individuals in all parts of the country were very significant and they will be again. To say simply that the results are not binding legally does not really get to the core of the matter. The core of the matter is that politically, those results will have a lot of significance. Consequently I think it is much better to say in advance that there must be a majority not only in the country but in the regions.
I agree with my friend that there is a question as to where the regions should be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.
I am particularly pleased because I served as did many other members of this House and of the other place on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee on the renewal of Canada. That was a rare opportunity and a rare experience which we all learned a great deal from. I refer to that because I think it is important that we think about what the real goal is here.
The goal here is to renew this country, to renew Canada in a way that is meaningful, in a way that stands the test of time. As a result, I think that issues such as the referendum legislation which we have before the House today are an extremely important element of a whole series of initiatives, the end result of which is the renewal of our country.
I am also pleased to speak today because I have returned from the riding over the weekend. I can tell you that in my riding of Macleod and in the town of High River on Saturday, there was a tremendous show of support, interest and love for Canada. The right hon. Joe Clark was the guest of honour for the Little Britches Parade. There were 6,000 or more Canadians out there, all waving their little Canadian flags, showing their great support and love for this country. I can say that in the riding of Macleod, there is a great deal of interest in renewing this country, showing support for Canada. It was truly heartening to see that last Saturday.
This historic legislation has many facets and potentially far-reaching implications. While the government has yet to determine whether the actual holding of a referendum would be beneficial in assisting us in achieving national consensus, we must be prepared for such an eventuality.
What are the objectives of this legislation? Clearly, it is important to have in place a law that will allow this consultation to occur with the greatest possible efficiency and effectiveness. The law must allow the vote of the people to occur in a process that ensures the integrity of the process and the integrity of the result, while minimiz-
May 19, 1992

ing the hurdles to the exercise of that franchise by the people of Canada.
This bill meets that objective through its reliance on our tried and true experience with the Canada Elections Act and by giving the role of superintending the referendum process to the independent Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
The other main objective of the legislation, an objective to which I will direct my remarks today, is that of fairness in the referendum campaign. I believe it is trite to say that a referendum campaign which is conducted without a sense of fairness of the process that leads to the answer of the referendum question deprives the result of legitimacy and negates the whole exercise. Fairness is critical to the campaign and must be reflected in the enabling legislation which governs any such campaign.
Fairness is a concept that is sometimes difficult to define in words but always easily recognizable in practice. When we think of fairness we think of something that is unbiased. We think of equitable opportunity. Of course, key to the fairness concept is the notion of playing by the rules. Bill C-81 exemplifies these elements.
The registration requirements of the bill are a case in point. As hon. members know, no person or group other than a registered referendum committee can incur referendum expenses during the referendum period in excess of $5,000. Therefore, while participation is welcomed from all Canadians, there is a requirement that one must register with the Chief Electoral Officer where one intends to spend over $5,000.
The registration procedure is set out in clause 13 of the bill and is quite straightforward. There are provisions that ensure fairness in the registration process itself. For example, the Chief Electoral Officer is required to examine applications for registration in the order he has received them and, second, provisions to guard against confusion in the name of a referendum committee are there in order to avoid confusion between committees or as between a committee and a federal or provincial party.
What the registration regime brings with it are two essential ingredients. Those essential ingredients are accountability and transparency. Accountability for larg-
Govemment Orders
er sums of money expended by these committees is ensured through the requirements for the use of auditors, a chief agent and for the keeping of books and records. Returns must be made detailing expenses incurred, contributions received, et cetera, much as is the case during an election campaign.
In addition, the law will require that those contributions received in excess of expenses must either be returned to contributors or, if that is not possible, to the Receiver General of Canada. This will protect against the misuse of funds by unscrupulous individuals.
Transparency is also present in that the bill requires that any contribution received from individuals, corporations, trade unions, political parties and other groups that exceed $250 must be reported. In this way contributions to registered referendum committees and the committees themselves will know that contributions and expenses over certain amounts will be matters of public record. This is as it should be. This does not limit participation of Canadians or the expression of their views.
It does, however, allow Canadians to see who the financial participants were. This is of tremendous importance for the public's confidence in the outcome of a referendum.
I would like to turn to another thrust of the bill that I believe is laudable and that has fairness as its hallmark. This bill makes available to both sides of any referendum question free time for broadcasts on networks in order to get the message of both sides out without the barrier of cost and in prime time. This is a very significant initiative, a very significant part of this legislation.
Three hours of broadcasting time in prime time will be split equally between those registered referendum committees that support the referendum question and those committee that oppose the referendum question. This provides the essential fairness. The broadcasting arbitrator and an impartial official appointed pursuant to the Canada Elections Act will allocate the time available to registered referendum committees that have applied for registration before the 27th day before polling day; all committees that have indicated their wish to be considered for an allocation of free time.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
To guide the broadcasting arbitrator, certain criteria are set out in the bill which will rely upon, among other things, the consideration of whether the allocation would be equitable with regard to the different views expressed on the referendum question, ensuring that there is a fair distribution of time and second, the consideration of the public interest in fairness to the referendum committees.
Again, fairness is explicitly recognized when the bill lists the factors the broadcasting arbitrator must take into account in deciding the broadcasting time that is to be made available to the various committees. Clause 24(4)(b) of the bill requires the broadcast arbitrator to take into account that any broadcasting time should be made available fairly throughout prime time.
This means that one committee cannot end up with broadcasting time in the middle of the night and somebody else in prime time. Everybody has to have fair time. That is a very important part of this process.
On the the same subject, it is also important to note that the bill requires the sponsor of referendum advertising to be identified when that advertising is aired. Similarly, printed advertisements will have to show the name of the sponsor. Again, this is a fair provision to help Canadians avoid confusion as to who is transmitting the message involved and to ensure transparency of the financial side of things. Those are important aspects of this initiative.
I would like to turn to other evidence of fairness in the process established by this bill. All hon. members of this House know the importance of the men and women who work on compiling and revising the electoral lists in an election campaign and the importance of the other men and women who make the campaign work as scrutineers and volunteers. The bill provides that the returning officer shall appoint the enumerators, revising officers and revising agents.
Given the fact that during a referendum campaign there are no candidates, the apparatus in the Canada Elections Act that allows candidates to have their agents present at the polling stations cannot be directly imported into a referendum campaign. Instead, in the interest of fairness, the law will provide for the appointment of two persons to act as witnesses for each polling stations. These witnesses will be appointed by the returning officer who must, as far as possible, select a person who supports the questions and a person who opposes the questions. These individuals will take an oath of office and will have all the rights and obligations of a candidate's agent under the Canada Elections Act.
The presence of these witnesses at the polling stations in electoral districts will reassure us that the fairness and the integrity of the referendum process will not only be integral to the taking of the consultative vote, but will also be seen and very visible to all Canadians.
A similar practice will be utilized for revising agents who are appointed by the returning officer.
Here again, the bill stipulates that revising agent pairs should, as far as possible, be comprised of a person who supports the question and a person who opposes it.
The bill provides as well that electoral lists will be made available on request to the designated agents of a leader of a federal or provincial party, or a registered referendum committee in the electoral districts. This provision, too, helps evoke confidence in the process, as both sides of any referendum question will have this crucial information available to them for the conduct of the referendum.
Another example of the element of fairness incorporated into the proposed law is the recount part of the bill, which allows electors to attend a recount, representing those who support and those who oppose the question.
Finally, I would like to refer to the statute which is the basis of the scheme that will be used to conduct the referendum campaign. The bill takes relevant provisions of the Canada Elections Act into the referendum process. Clearly, the Canada Elections Act is the foundation upon which this bill would operate. When one speaks of fairness in the conduct of an election campaign, one immediately thinks of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and his very able and excellent officials who work tirelessly to ensure that campaigns unfold in a way that is the epitome of fairness in an unbiased approach.
Canada is the envy of the world, and the counsel of the Chief Electoral Officer is often sought internationally by other countries whose electoral systems are not up to the same standards and which are seeking the highest standards possible. We are fortunate to have a Chief
May 19, 1992

Electoral Officer, with all the accumulated expertise in his office, to oversee any potential referendum.
Let us not forget all the provisions in the Canada Elections Act that will be drawn upon and that work when we assess the fairness mechanisms in this enabling legislation. For example, let us remember such sections of the Canada Elections Act that deal with the qualification of electors and residency requirements, ballot papers and ballot boxes and safekeeping, polling stations and fairness procedures of polling day, the initialling of ballot papers, and no impeding of electors. There are a lot of things that we take for granted in the course of running a fair and open election. Other aspects are secrecy of voting, maintenance of peace and good order, the counting of the ballots in a fair and open process and the prohibition of broadcasting from outside Canada.
The fairness mechanisms of this bill are also backed up by offence provisions so that they can be enforced effectively.
Today is an important day as we debate the provisions of Bill C-81. We are setting the stage for a possible public consultation of historic proportions. We have a law that respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing maximum participation and freedom of expression, while being fair and encouraging an open, transparent and accountable process.
With this newly-created opportunity to vote in a possible future referendum comes the responsibility to ensure that the vote is done according to rules that are clear and fair. I believe this is such a law. I believe this bill strikes the right balance. I hope that if a referendum occurs Canadians will participate in this great opportunity to be even more involved in national renewal. Canadians have to date received unparalleled opportunities to participate and have joined in this renewal process with vigour.
I am also mindful of the words of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada, a committee on which I served and spoke of earlier. It recommended that a law be enacted if deemed appropriate by the Government of Canada to enable the government at its discretion to hold a consultative referendum on a constitutional proposal, to either confirm a national
Government Orders
consensus or facilitate the adoption of the required amending resolutions.
This bill will ensure that should it be decided that a referendum is required, we will have the tools available to hold such a vote in a fair and appropriate way.
As I mentioned earlier, this is but one step along the road to renewing this country, to giving Canadians the opportunity to feel better about their country, to feel fully a part of this country. When we get into some of the substance of the issues it is an opportunity for western Canadians like myself to feel that our part of the country is fully responded to and is fully reflected in the national character of this country. The same is true for the people of Quebec, the same is true for aboriginal Canadians and the same is true for all other Canadians.
I hope that if this is necessary, Canadians will participate in this referendum in a full and meaningful manner because this could be a historic opportunity if it is deemed appropriate.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the more I hear about this bill, the less impressed I am with it and the more distressed I am that the government has not taken the trouble, in advance of this bill, to consult with all sides in this House effectively.
Let me ask the member about two particular provisions. He made much of the fairness of the bill and yet in the area of spending limitations, let me draw the member's attention to the provisions of the bill that you could drive a truck through.
The alleged limit on expenditure in clause 14 says that no person or group, other than a registered referendum committee, shall incur and set expenses exceeding $5,000. A registered referendum committee is defined by the most circular of all definitions: a person or group that intends to incur referendum expenses over $5,000. In effect, you can have any number of referenda committees, each of which is then authorized to spend as much as they like. How is that fair?
The government suggests there are legal limits. I defy the government to put forward a single, judicial decision which prevents the government or Parliament from regulating or limiting expenditures of third parties or referenda committees in an effective way. Parliament is

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
clearly entitled to do that. You will not be able to find a single legal opinion to the contrary.
Second, and I would ask the member to comment on this as well, section 3 of the act gives to the Governor in Council, i.e. the cabinet, the authority to consider proceeding with the referendum if, in its opinion, it is in the public interest to do so. The question comes back to Parliament for approval but not the decision to proceed with the referendum. On a constitutional issue of this kind, surely it should be up to the Parliament of Canada to decide on whether to proceed with the referendum because governments, being who they are, will proceed in part on their definition of public interest and their political interests as well.
As the member said, it is critical that this process be seen to be fair and that there be genuine consultation on whether to proceed with the referendum and, second, that the procedures on finance limitations be fair.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from the hon. gentleman from Victoria.
On the question of spending, it is the judgment of the government that the value of the freedom of speech, which is recognized in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this nation, is an important value which overrides other considerations. There is legal advice, I understand, which would suggest that we would have to be very careful about limiting the ability of Canadians to form their own committees to work on one side or the other of a referendum question. That value of freedom of speech is something which clearly this government and the House of Commons respect. It is a value which we would all want to hold high in this country.
On the question of whether to proceed, clearly my colleagues suggest that perhaps there would be partisan considerations which would come into effect.
I fully believe that the only factor that would be taken into consideration at the time of a judgment about this by the cabinet, by the Privy Council, would be the future of this country. I reject this outright because I have been through this process, through the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in which I saw some interests and some members of the House trying at times to slip a little bit
away from the non-partisan attitude which was so central to the work of that committee.
I hope that no members of this House slip into partisanship at this critical time in our history because what we need to do is ensure that this country is united. We need to ensure that this country comes through this process in which Canadians respect one another, Canadians all are united in their support of a united country. Canadians must respect the process through which we arrived at this point.
I encourage all members not to be partisan. I encourage all members to take into account the importance of the country and I fully expect that the cabinet will be doing that at the point at which it has to make a decision on whether to make use of this enabling legislation.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, on page 7 of the bill it says:
Where the polling day at a referendum is within one year after the
polling day at an election or a previous referendum, no enumeration
of electors shall be made for the purpose of the subsequent
referendum unless-
More or less it says that if we have an election a year after this referendum is being held, no enumeration will be done.
That might be fine in rural ridings but not in suburban ridings, in metropolitan ridings such as mine and the riding of my colleague from York West. Something like one-third of our constituents are apartment dwellers. Apartment dwellers tend to change within a year, a 25 per cent vacancy and turnover rate.
I am wondering if the hon. member sees the need for an enumeration during the election because we have heard great debates in the House about the unfairness of enumeration. My colleague from York North went back and forth a couple of times between ourselves and the Conservative members.
I am wondering if he shares with me the the idea that although there could be enumeration done during this referendum, there should be an enumeration in an election because all the parties involved, the other parties during the election, will not have a chance to make sure that the enumerations are done correctly, fairly. It could be to the advantage of a member and/or the government.

My question is does he not agree with me that because of great metropolitan cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver we need to do an enumeration at the next election and this should be struck completely out?


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting detail which my colleague raises and I suspect that the purpose here is to help ensure that the enumeration costs are kept to a minimum.
I believe in the legislation. There is an aspect which gives the Chief Electoral Officer some flexibility in the way in which he deals with the enumeration. If there is a problem in ridings such as that of my colleague in which there is a lot more mobility than there is in ridings such as mine, then I am sure the flexibility is there to afford the Chief Electoral Officer the opportunity to make those adjustments in between the time of the proposed possible referendum and any election in the subsequent year.
It is potentially a useful cost-saving exercise. There obviously will have to be flexibility in the implementation and I am sure the Chief Electoral Officer can do that.
Third, enumeration is clearly an important aspect of both the referendum and the election and I do not think the Chief Electoral Officer would be in a position that would limit his ability to ensure that those lists are appropriate, up to date, and ready for any potential federal election at which point I look forward to returning to the government side of the House.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been discussions with members on all sides to permit the completion of at least the 20 minute portion past one o'clock. I believe if you ask the question you will find unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. members have heard the terms of the motion proposed by the member for York West. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for York West for a maximum of 20 minutes.
Government Orders


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the government members as well as the New Democratic Party and members of the Bloc Quebecois for their kind and generous co-operation.
Bill C-81 is no ordinary piece of legislation, particularly as we consider the time of the national unity dossier that is involving governments at all levels and Canadians from one coast to the other.
We on this side of the House accept the principle of a national referendum as a tool and a mechanism by which Canada and Canadians can legitimize constitutional reform. As has been expressed already by our House leader, on April 21 of last year, the Leader of the Opposition made public a nine-point constitutional agenda for national debate in this House and across the nation.
One of those points, and a very important point, was that any constitutional arrangement that was arrived at by the first ministers ought to be placed before all Canadians, regardless of whether that deal was a good one, a bad one or an indifferent one. At the end of the process, when governments crossed their ts and dotted their is, it was the belief of the Leader of the Opposition that because the Constitution of Canada, as the premier piece of legislation of this place, belongs to all Canadians, all Canadians are deserving of a voice and a stake.
It is no longer acceptable that only the chairman of the board or the chief executive officer or the board of directors be given the ability to dictate the future, but essentially that there are 27 million shareholders of this public company Canada who deserve a vote, a voice and a franchise.
We are pleased on that basis that the government has put before the House this piece of legislation, particularly as we concern ourselves with what went wrong on the Meech Lake round. It was not only a question of substance that caused consternation among Canadians, but the process of back room, secret, roll the dice dealings that undermined any integrity and confidence in the system.
My only point along this line was the hope that the government would have accepted at least one of the Leader of the Opposition's points on the referendum early enough so that a committee could have been stuck months ago with respect to preparing the legislation rather than the seemingly mad rush to try to

Government Orders
complete this in the next number of weeks and months before the House rises. It would have served the public interest much better had we taken that initiative some months ago.
In principle, this piece of legislation is acceptable in the sense of giving Canadians the ability to also dictate the future of their country. The bill at the same time is in need of serious amendments, serious modifications, to make this bill as fair and as up front as possible.
I would suggest seven changes. The first one is this national referendum should not be optional. The government House leader has said maybe, perhaps, it would be his intention or his preference not to have one at all. I am saying it should not be an option that Canadians perhaps or maybe will be a given franchise.
I believe a national referendum should be mandatory. Let us for certain give the opportunity to all Canadians to express themselves on the constitutional arrangement that first ministers will arrive at in a number of weeks and months. In order for constitutional reform to be truly legitimate, I believe this tool of a national referendum should be mandatory and guaranteed as the final part of this constitutional process.
In terms of the possibility or options, this piece of legislation should be enacted. A national referendum should take place regardless of the size or shape of the constitutional arrangement.
Point two is that currently in the bill there is a sunset clause of three years which means that at the end of the three-year process this bill will die. That should be changed. The national referendum in terms of major constitutional arrangements should be a permanent mechanism. What is wrong with offering Canadians a say on the future of their country after all?
I believe Canadians are tolerant, educated, interested, mature enough and deserving of an ability to be actively involved and engaged in deciding and shaping the future of Canada's constitutional make-up. Therefore, it should not be grandfathered after three years. It should be a permanent mechanism so that the process that soured the Meech Lake round could never happen again.
It has been tried in other countries with a fair amount of success. Some people suggest constitutional arrangements are something too complex for the average Canadian. Based on the experience of other countries such as Australia, in which the citizens disposed of many options that they saw as unfit or unpopular and really came down with a bottom line, I believe Canadians are able to to do that. In many cases, they can probably do it much better than the elected representatives in terms of being viewers at a distance in trying to ascertain what is truly important as opposed to what is not important, or what is good or what is bad for the country. Put our faith in the hands of those 27 million Canadians and I do not think we will go wrong.
Point three is that the national referendum must be truly national. Currently the bill is written that if the referendum is held, it need only be held in one or more provinces. From my viewpoint, that is a very dangerous exercise.
If we have a national referendum, it must be held in each of the 10 provinces and 2 territories. If there is anything less than that, we cannot call it a national referendum because if we have a referendum by the federal government in one or two provinces and then provincial referendums in three or four and then no referendums in the remaining territories or provinces, what kind of a verdict will that yield?
You will have a situation potentially that the provincial referendum in the province of British Columbia, for instance, will be a very different question than the provincial referendum held in Alberta or even than the federal referendum held in three other provinces. What we will see is a chequerboard of referendums that will yield different conclusions based on different questions. I would submit that it would not offer clarity, it would not offer solid direction but would only cloud the issue and lead to a multiplicity of interpretations which would undermine any sense of national purpose that a national referendum can mobilize.
I would suggest that the government House leader and his parliamentary secretary and the members of the government think of the consequences of having a referendum in only some parts of the country. We cannot have a part-time referendum in various spots along the way. We need one question asked of all shareholders of this country and only then can we ascertain what direction the electorate has imposed

on its elected leadership. Anything short of that will drain the integrity or clarity from a referendum.
Point number four concerns what has already been well mentioned, the lack of any spending limits or regulations. Currently the bill only has the stipulation that if any individual or organization gives more than $5,000 with respect to the referendum, he or she or the group must register. There are no ceilings attached to expenditures in the national referendum. That is a very dangerous situation because many Canadians will see the referendum as being fair only in direct relationship to what one group or individual can spend.
We saw in the general election of 1988 the concern, the consternation and the damage that was done by third party advertising. On the one hand, the election act controlled what individual candidates and parties could spend, yet third parties had no limits on what they could spend on television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising, general flyers going around to homes or at general meetings that were organized. They had carte blanche.
If it was wrong, and many dispassionate observers would say it was very wrong, a national referendum that would have serious consequences for the future of this country should not be put at the whim of any group or clique of individuals who would have an ability to spend whatever they wished in order to influence and dictate the outcome of the national referendum.
The message coming from Canadians is that this issue should not be dictated by the depths of one's financial pockets, it should be up front. It should be clear and the same for all Canadians. There should be a ceiling by which all Canadians' actions vis-a-vis the referendum is governed.
This issue is crucial enough, given the history of this constitutional dossier, to be up for grabs depending on the power that individuals have with respect to expenditures. That goes to the very heart of how Canadians view this referendum. All matters should be fair, up front and equal for all.
Point number five is along the same lines as the whole question of expenditure limits. I would suggest there be a component of public financing through the
Government Orders
tax credit. I believe there are a number of Canadians across the country who might not have the ability or the time to get involved with any of the referendum campaigns, writing letters, presenting papers, presenting a brief or participating in a rally but they would be prepared to spend $25, $30, $50 for Canada. I believe that those individual Canadians in my riding, in the ridings of hon. members from all sides, should be encouraged to participate and put their $25 down for a united country and be supported through the tax credit as they are when they contribute to any of the political parties across the country. I do not think we should exclude average Canadians, despite the tough economic malaise that is gripping the country, from saying: "I believe in Canada and my way of showing it is to give $25 to the committee supporting a strong united Canada".
I urge the government to take a look at, not spending by governments in the campaign, but allowing Canadians to use the tax credit so that they can participate and also get a tax break based on their involvement come tax time next year. I think that is fair and it would show an openness to involve all Canadians.
Point number six is that we should have the prerequisite not only of a national majority with respect to the question but a double majority in this bill. It should be a majority across the board, across Canada, plus a majority in each of the four defined regions, namely the west, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
If the answer coming back from the majority of Canadians is for a strong united Canada with a strong national government, it would be beneficial and very reassuring if we had a double majority. In that way, no region of the country would feel that it had been coerced or pressured or ignored by other Canadians in other regions of the country wanting something that that particular region was uncomfortable with.
Therefore, it would be a win-win situation; it would be a national majority complemented by majorities in each of the four regions of the country. It would give rise to the feeling that the referendum had played the politics of inclusion rather than the politics of exclusion. The feelings of alienation that come from that type of arrangement would be gone.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a double majority would be an investment in good will and in feeling that everyone is a part of this Constitution which, after all, belongs to all Canadians.
My last point, point number seven, is that we should have a change in how the opposition parties are consulted. It was mentioned today by our House leader that there was no consultation, despite the promises of the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, in the legislation before us today. I believe that there ought to be consultations from here on in, particularly if we have a national referendum-and I hope we do-and particularly in the writing of the question.
We saw in the Quebec referendum in 1980 what a nebulous question can do to a population and, indeed, to a country. I believe the question is important enough to merit the close scrutiny of this Parliament and to involve the three federal political parties in a joint venture, if you will. We must ensure that the question which inevitably will be asked is a clear one, an honest one and a relevant one so that the result will will be of a positive, clear, concise nature. We should not play with the wording of the question to get a particular result. It should be clear and up front and its result should be equally clear.
I am pleased that I was given the opportunity of sharing with the House a few of the important issues that this member for York West sees in this legislation. I welcome the bill in principle. It is long overdue. I do have some reservations, essentially defined by those seven issues. I hope in the committee studies following second reading we can iron them out so that at third reading we can debate a bill that is significantly stronger and fairer for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: According to the motion passed earlier, the question or comments period is transferred to after the Question Period.

It being 1.11 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 1.11 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
350TH ANNIVERSARY OF MONTREAL
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, Montreal celebrated its 350th anniversary. The valiant men and women who faced the adversity of impossible situations had the faith and courage needed to make that adventure an outstanding success.
The 350th anniversary of Montreal is also a celebration for Quebec and all of Canada. Montreal, the world's second-largest French-speaking city, takes pride today in its uniqueness in Canada. It is a place where many ethnic communities live together in mutual respect.
As our Prime Minister, among other dignitaries, said, much of Canada's history can be traced back to Montreal. Congratulations to all who contributed to these celebrations and to the development of this beautiful metropolis.


INTERNATIONAL MUSEUMS DAY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Museums Day and I take this opportunity to salute Canada's museums, which are dedicated to the preservation and presentation of our culture, our heritage and our valued treasures.
According to StatsCanada there are over 2,200 museums and related institutions which welcome over 57 million visitors each year. Our museums are nonprofit institutions. They are a vital link, reflecting the world's varied cultures through many different mediums. They add and give pride and a sense of identity to our citizens while contributing to our economy and tourist industry.
However, the Minister of Communications has not given any assurances that grants and services to non- federal museums will be retained by the federal government in the constitutional negotiations.
May 19, 1992

The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture unanimously recommended that the Museums Assistance Program, the Cultural Initiatives Program and other heritage programs be retained by the federal government while acting in close consultation with the provinces.
What better time for the Minister of Communications to give the museum and heritage community the message that the federal government will stay in business and support them through grants and services to these non-federal museums.


CANADA FIT WEEK
Mr. Marcel R. Themblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out the national launching of Canada Fit Week, which will take place tomorrow at noon in Confederation Park in Ottawa. It is the greatest celebration of active living in the world.
On the theme of celebrating the active life, the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, will officially launch this event that runs from May 22 to 31. This unique activity was made possible with the co-operation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments and the participation of 18 national organizations and private-sector sponsors, and for a good reason: the success of active living has been clearly demonstrated.
Last year, more than eight million Canadians took part in over 16,000 activities. I call on all hon. members to participate in the launching of Canada Fit Week and related activities in their communities so that it will again be an outright success.


REFERENDUM ACT
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the government tabled its bill on referen-dums in Canada. Just as in 1978, the federal government's fear of letting Quebec decide its own future is behind this bill.
Just like the Liberals then, today's Conservatives, including those from Quebec, refuse to let Quebec make its own decisions. Although the Conservatives voted at
their convention last year in favour of a motion by a Quebec member, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, recognizing Quebec's right to self-determination and have boasted about it so much, the government has decided to ignore it.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the purpose behind all this is to avoid holding a general election, since the Prime Minister thinks it is too soon. Too soon for whom? For the Conservatives, not for us in the Bloc Quebecois. We are ready and we have been demanding an election again and again. Call an election now and you will see how Quebec will answer.


MORGENTALER CLINIC
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, according to friends and foes, the explosion that destroyed the Morgentaler clinic yesterday on Harbord Street in Trinity-Spadina was caused by a bomb. If so, that act of violence will not stop abortions.
Abortions arise in the pattern of violence toward women: not only rape and gender directed murders but systemic pressures on women as child bearers. Our North American society not only peddles sex as a commodity but too often it abandons the woman who bears a child.
Low wages and unemployment, husband desertion and non-support, shortages of good child care for children of working mothers and shortages of decent affordable housing condemn many single mothers and their children to poverty and humiliation.
The bombing of abortion clinics in the United States has not stopped abortions, nor has the threat of jail for women or doctors stopped them in Ireland.
We need good sex education, good and available contraception, and respectful economic and social support for every woman bearing or raising a child.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Garth  Timer@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to Montreal this past weekend to remind people what it means to be a Canadian.

May 19, 1992
To a cheering crowd, The Prime Minister quoted Sir John A. Macdonald: "Let us be English or let us be French, but above all let us be Canadians".
The Prime Minister also reminded people about the realities of politics in Canada. There are three national political parties in Canada which will field candidates in every province. There are two regional parties which will not even try to represent all of Canada.
In the next election you will not be able to vote against a Bloc Quebecois candidate in Toronto and you will not be able to vote against a Reform Party candidate in Trois-Rivieres and that is simply wrong.
The parties of the western separatists and the Quebec separatists will surely attract those people who are blind to Canada's history and intolerant of its realities. But as the Prime Minister said in Montreal, Conservatives and Liberals and New Democrats will work for Canada together.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the problems created by the changes in the UI act by Bill C-21 continue to grow in number and severity, and as is usually the case in situations of this kind, the innocent and well-intentioned get hurt the worst.
Of particular concern right now is the Revenue Canada appeal system. A large number of people in my riding filed in good faith for UI benefits. UI referred these people to Revenue Canada for an eligibility ruling. They were refused because of interpretations of the terms "arm's length" and "contract of service". They then had to appeal through the Revenue Canada system.
For many this began last November. Six months later they have had no decision. The final stage of the appeal process is the Tax Court and it will not hear most of the appeals until the fall. That will be a full year of waiting for an answer from Revenue Canada.
Bureaucratic delays have forced innocent people into debt, in some cases debt which puts their homes in jeopardy.
People who had been told by the UI Commission, by Revenue Canada, and by various lawyers and accountants that their employment arrangements and business
structures were legal now find themselves in limbo with no answers coming from Revenue Canada.
People are into another earning period still not knowing what their legal UI status is.
Justice is not being served when a bureaucratic structure can play havoc with peoples' lives.
I ask the minister to intervene immediately, to speed up all stages of the appeal system, and to hold special hearings of the Tax Court in order to clean up the backlog.


CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that May is Cystic Fibrosis Month. Cystic fibrosis, or CF, is a genetic disease which affects the lungs and digestive system.
For the past 30 years, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and its many dedicated volunteers like Tim Hunter of the Calgary Flames, the honorary chairman, Mila Mulroney, and thousands of financial donors have been helping to support research and to provide much needed programs and services to CF sufferers and their families.
The theme for cystic fibrosis month is "We've never been so close to a cure. They've never needed your help more".
Tremendous advancements have been made since the 1989 discovery of the gene that causes cystic fibrosis. With our help, the next decade promises improved treatment for this terrible disease and even possibly a cure.
On behalf of the federal government, I invite all Canadians to support the work of this organization so that they may achieve success in finding a cure.


HOUSING
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, co-operative housing provides shelter while offering a supportive environment and the opportunity to develop skills learned through co-operative management.
May 19, 1992

These are the words of the housing minister this past December and yet in the federal budget two months later the co-op housing program was axed.
I am sure all Canadians want to know why the government had such a sudden change of heart in those two months. Did it think that all the 165,000 people on waiting lists for co-op housing won the Lotto 6/49?
In justifying this decision, the government told us that it would be spending more on social housing but the budget reduced this commitment as well, from $97 million down to $70 million.
The objective of co-op housing is not to create public housing ghettos for the poor, it is to give them hope and a way out of this route. In this regard the program is a Canadian success story. It provides housing to moderate and low-income people, seniors and the disabled. It fosters a sense of pride and community and does this in a very cost-effective way.
By cutting the co-operative housing program, the government has destroyed the pathway from poverty to self-sufficiency. I call upon the government to reinstate this vital and important program and to recognize the damage that its policies are doing.


RECREATIONAL FISHERY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans visited New Brunswick to announce a major initiative designed to promote the conservation and enhancement of recreational fish resources in Atlantic Canada.
The goal of the $5.7 million Educational and Public Awareness Program is to raise the level of appreciation, particularly among our young people, to the important role the fishery plays in the Canadian economy.
Co-ordinated through a number of organizations, including the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews and Memorial University in Newfoundland, EPAP is aimed at restoring the freshwater and coastal habitats for salmon, trout, mackerel, and smallmouth bass.
The initiative is based on the grassroots participation of local people and native groups who will play an active role in identifying and taking action on habitat problems.


NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, during the past weekend more than 500 parliamentarians from North America and Europe, including the republics of the former Soviet Union, met in Banff for the influential North Atlantic Assembly.
The beauty of Banff, the warm hospitality of Alberta, and the efficiency of the organization lead by the indefatigable member for Scarborough East, put the delegates in a receptive mood to hear a creative message from Canada on the issues before the conference. But no senior minister of the government took the opportunity to speak to the plenary session.
Where was the Minister of National Defence? It was his duty to represent Canada at that conference. A great opportunity was missed to set out Canada's views on the future security arrangements for Europe and North America, on the vital need for even sharper cuts in arms, for conflict prevention measures.
Canada has a stake and an interest in these issues. It was a disgrace that the minister was not there.


REFERENDUM ACT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians must reject calls for spending limits and umbrella committees to be put into the referendum legislation. We must be mindful of the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who said on June 24, 1957:
Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure
butter.
On June 18, 1986 U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist said:
In a modern democracy, to resist political spending is much like
allowing a speaker in a public hall to express his view while denying
him the use of an amplifying system.
Let us not muzzle the free voices of our nation. Canadians are mature enough to make their own judgments on this or any other issue.

Tributes


CANADIANS AGAINST RACISM
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this evening the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations is organizing an assembly of Canadians against racism here on Parliament Hill. Local religious and community leaders, business, labour, politicians and citizens will gather to express support in working to eliminate racism in our national capital community and in Canada.
In light of the recent demonstrations and violence in Toronto and other Canadian cities following the riots in Los Angeles, it is critical to ensure that racism is not tolerated in our society and for all to speak out.
While it was one particular incident that sparked the deplorable violence and destruction, there are other causes of unrest; high unemployment, high drug use, large numbers of high school dropouts, illiteracy, hopelessness. Racial tension is but a part of a greater social malaise and we must all work at fixing the root causes.
The government must also commit to invest available resources for the elimination of racism, including an immediate lifting of the funding freeze imposed in this year's budget on the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
I applaud the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations for its work and encourage Canadians to organize similar events.


350TH ANNIVERSARY OF MONTREAL


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, who could not feel proud about the great events that took place over the weekend in Montreal? More than a million people celebrated the 350th anniversary of the founding of Montreal. French-speaking and English-speaking people joined those of other language backgrounds to celebrate a really distinct society together.
To mark the event, I would have three suggestions to make. First, settle the constitutional issue, with the leadership of the first ministers and the native people; second, make Bill 178 more flexible so as to allow bilingual signs in Montreal; third, have the federal government work with the unions, Montreal City Hall
and the Government of Quebec to revive Montreal's economy. If we work together, Mr. Speaker, we will all celebrate Montreal in grand style 365 days a year.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and other local ridings have been hit over the head with yet another government two-by-four.
In the depth of this economic recession, the government has cut training grants under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Originally, our area was to get $1 million from this program. The amount has recently been reduced to $78,000.
Some people in school with literally days left before graduation were struck off the list of qualifying for training. Luckily a demonstration by local unemployed people in Cornwall restored part of the funding to end the present school year, but countless other individuals in Hawkesbury, Alexandria, Cornwall and elsewhere are still going to be denied the usual benefits.
I take this opportunity to call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to restore section 26 funding for the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. What the people want is training so that they can get jobs if and when this recession ever ends.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions and I believe there is an understanding at this point in time that we will have testimonials with respect to the situation in Nova Scotia and the coal mine.


WESTRAY MINE DISASTER
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Government of Canada, I am sure all members of this House and of the people of Canada to express our most heartfelt sympathy to the families and friends of the 26 miners who died in the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia as a result of the explosion of May 9.

Our thoughts and prayers have been with the community ever since, and are so especially today. A memorial service organized by the Pictou Council of Churches and attended by His Excellency the Governor-General and the right hon. the Prime Minister is under way in Pictou county at this moment. The service pays tribute to those who died and to the indomitable courage and spirit of all miners. Their loved ones have learned to face tragedy and somehow rise above it.
The families and friends of those who died as well as the whole community of Plymouth now face the painful task of carrying on without those whom they have lost so tragically. They do so in the knowledge that their community and in fact the country wishes to offer every assistance possible. We also pay tribute to the heroic efforts of the rescue teams who risked their lives in the hope of finding the miners trapped in the explosion.
Mining has played a significant role in the history of Nova Scotia and of Canada. These men will not be forgotten. As the late Helen Keller once said: "Although the world is very full of suffering, it is also full of the overcoming of it".


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I join with other members of this House to remember the 26 men who met sudden death at the Westray coal mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.
Death and disaster are all too familiar to the coal mining communities throughout this country. These men bring the total number of deaths in Pictou county, Nova Scotia to 272, yet for many in eastern and central Nova Scotia, the mines provide the only opportunity for meaningful work.
It is not pleasant work. It is hard and unsteady work. It can be dangerous and unhealthy but for many, it is their only way to enhance their economic opportunity. Miners are an indomitable breed. They do not shrink from the arduous nature of their labours nor from the dangers posed to health and safety. Their object is to earn an honest living for themselves and their families and they take these awful risks to do so.
Disasters like those at Westray mine are brutal blows, not just to families of the victims, not just to the communities in which they live but indeed to an entire nation. All Canadians feel the pain and join in the grief. We marvel at the spirit of the people, not only
Tributes
from the communities directly affected which united in support of the stricken families, but also those from all over Atlantic Canada who came voluntarily to Plymouth to risk their own lives in the valiant but futile attempt to rescue.
We know that as long as there is a demand for coal and as long as there is coal to be mined, there will be brave and honest men in Nova Scotia to do the work. There is a special spirit in the mining communities of Nova Scotia that marks that of mining communities everywhere, a spirit that was well summed up by a poet of Wales when he said:
Though they go mad, they shall be sane;
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.
In the last few days, we have seen that spirit at work. The extended communities, of not just Plymouth or even just Pictou County but of all Nova Scotia and all Atlantic Canada have gathered around the stricken families. Especially impressive have been the courageous draggermen who so valiantly attempted the rescue. Many of these men came from my own constituency but they also came from various parts of Pictou County and parts of New Brunswick. To each and everyone I express the appreciation of the House for their heroic efforts.
This is the way of Nova Scotia's mining communities, resolution and strength in the face of adversity. The pain of the past is eased by the determination to build a better future.
Words alone cannot express the depths of our sympathy for the families, friends and communities who have suffered such tragic losses. So let us today offer our own personal prayers and sincere condolences to the families of these special men. And let us reassure these miners that their struggle was not in vain. We as a people shall never forget.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and our leader, the member for Yukon, who is also at the memorial service today, I wish to offer our condolences to the families and the friends and the people of the community who are affected by the mining disaster.

May 19, 1992
Oral Questions
It is no news to you, Mr. Speaker, that this House was very quiet over the last week as we waited for the rescue efforts to finish. We are concerned in this House about what happened in that community. We are concerned with the trials, the tribulations and the sorrow that those families went through.
As we say in war, people should not die in vain. I would hope that after this memorial service is finished hard questions will be asked as to why the mine was allowed opened when in 14 years 246 people died. There are many serious questions. They must be answered.
We again offer our condolences but we do not want these men to die in vain.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, like many thousand Canadians, every day we have been watching the news and hoping for good news.

But after several days, we lost hope, as all those families did. We all know that fathers, friends and husbands died in that terrible tragedy. We want to join their families and friends in saying that suffering knows no boundaries, no partisan allegiance and in the hope that such tragedies will not recur. We hope that we will all learn lessons from their terrible death. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, like all of you, we want to join those who are at the memorial service to share our sympathy.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to stand for a moment's silence. One minute, please.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member pays attention to the budget which my friend, the', 'Government Orders\nMinister of Finance, laid before this House, he will find measures in that budget to help small business and the manufacturing sector do better in this economy.\nAs for other measures, we have increased spending in a very substantial way in Ontario on training with the provincial government in order to yield the kind of work force that is required in order for this economy to do better and keep on progressing.']
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
In next week's issue of U.S. News and World Report there is an appalling interview with the Prime Minister of Canada. Along with telling Americans it would be unfortunate for the United States if he were not reelected, the Prime Minister had this to say about U.S. trade harassment of Canada, and I quote:
President Bush has spoken to his cabinet about this and I have had a number of calls from him recently. He is clearly indicating his intention to restore this relationship.
As this interview went to print, the United States slapped another unfair $200 million American duty on softwood lumber from Canada. How does the Prime Minister explain ongoing American trade harassment when he claims that he has directly spoken to the President of the United States and that it will not continue?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the Government of Canada takes a very dim view of the recent indication by the United States that it intends to continue on the softwood lumber issue.
We will win this case. We will take it, as we have, to the GATT, we will take it to the FTA panel, and we will prove the United States to be wrong. That is exactly what the Prime Minister will be telling the President.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was right about one thing in the interview; he is the best Prime Minister the United States could hope for.
Unfortunately, Canadians want someone who is going to speak up for us, not only here but also in Washington. While our Prime Minister sounds more like President Bush's press secretary, we are being hit from all sides- Honda, unfair softwood lumber claims, durum wheat, magnesium. When is the Prime Minister going to get off his knees in Washington and start speaking up for Canada?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done and what he intends to do again this week when he meets with Mr. Bush.
It is easy to criticize the trade arrangements between Canada and the United States. It is the largest trading agreement that there is anywhere in the world between two countries, and there is bound to be friction. We do not like it, we intend to try and put a stop to it. [Translation]


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he has a very good relationship with the President of the United States. However, as you know, this weekend the President of the United States again decided to ignore the clean air agreement between Canada and the United States.
Why does the Prime Minister go along with a situation in which the clean air agreement between the Americans and the Canadians will no longer be observed as a result of the actions of the U.S. President on the weekend? [English]


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the clean air agree-
May 19, 1992

ment between Canada and the United States is a significant step forward. There may well be difficulties in it, but my colleague the Minister of the Environment will be able to look at those and clear them up.
Every time you have a significant dispute, it seems that the opposition then wants to stop all trade with the United States or stop the free trade agreement, cancel it, change it. We would be far worse off if we did not have these agreements with the United States.



Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the U.S. Department of Commerce ruled against our softwood lumber industry once more. This biased ruling is both politically motivated and hypocritical. Furthermore, the industry will lose $200 million this year.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform this House whether the Prime Minister will obtain a guarantee from President Bush that this politically motivated duty which has caused extensive damage and injury to our softwood lumber industry will be terminated once and for all?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I assume my friend knows that there is not a new imposition of a new tax. The experience last Friday was another step in a process that will culminate some time in June.
We now have a final determination of a countervail assessment that was made sometime ago. The determination in fact is somewhat less than what the original findings were. It is half that.
What my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and I did on Friday was to immediately call for the establishment of the binational panel that will
Oral Questions
adjudicate this issue and, of course, will find in our favour.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister.
The decision handed down last Friday is just as harmful and irrational as all the other decisions that were made since 1986. The industry is dying while the government watches the parade. Even with this reduction, the industry will lose $200 million this year.
Does the minister intend to accelerate the dispute settlement process so that Canada's softwood lumber industry will get a fair deal and stop submitting to this despicable show of U.S. dictatorship?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of submitting to this action or any action like it which has no basis in law and which we have protested from the very beginning.
To this point, I should tell my hon. friend that the industry has not been required to pay the duty, but rather to issue bonds in the event that the American action can be sustained. The same situation prevails for another 45 days until the final decision on injury can be made.
As I have told my friend, we have already asked for the establishment of the binational, quasi-judicial panel that will deal with this issue as soon as possible. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that any objective observer of this situation would have to agree Canada has a very strong, if not unassailable case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the earth summit begins a mere two weeks from tomorrow. It is time for this government to act, not just talk. Canada must take concrete actions nationally and a leadership role internationally on the environment and development.

Oral Questions
My first question is for the Minister for External Relations. The Conservative government has failed to meet Canada's development aid targets for the last five years. World governments will be asked at the summit to substantially increase their aid targets and fundamentally re-think their criteria for aid projects.
Will the minister assure this House that the Canadian government's commitment to aid will be met, unlike the past performance of this government, and that human priority needs such as family planning, poverty and women's education will become the bottom line for aid funding?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our government's achievements in Third World development assistance, whether we are talking about programs operated by CIDA or our own very firm position in various international forums where the Canadian government is often seen as a leader in promoting major development issues.
As for our environmental concerns, since the hon. member alluded to these, CIDA, together with various other departments, intends to play an important role, as it did during the preliminary meetings, at the UN Conference on Environment and Development.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This year, tens of thousands of Canadians will develop skin cancer and cataracts because of exposure to cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation. Millions more will be exposed to dangerous levels that will result in deaths and illness in the future. Will the minister provide an example of leadership and act now to educate and regulate the safety of Canadians on sun awareness? Will he introduce legislation to rate and test the ultraviolet
protection of both sun-screens and sun-glasses? Will he make a commitment today to introduce legislation before Parliament recesses for the summer?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member will recall a couple of months ago I said to an audience here in Ottawa that I would like to consider action in terms of the problem of sun exposure and cancer. We are dealing with it now and later this week with the Minister of the Environment we should make some announcement in terms of the way the problem of sun exposure should be treated and the way Canadians should consider the problem.
In terms of cancer, she knows very well that the department and the Medical Research Council make money available to researchers.
Legislation has not been considered so far, but I do not say that it could not be considered in light of the discussions we had, particularly with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and organizations such as the cancer society and the lung association. I take note of the proposal and I consider that it is quite possible.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. The proposed text of the climate change convention is a definition of false security. It does not even meet the minimum standards set by Canada's national round table on the environment to protect world climate. It has no targets or timetables for specific greenhouse gas reductions and according to the Americans, it will not be legally binding.
Will the minister assure this House that Canada will not sign the agreement proposed for signature in Rio until there are serious binding targets and timetables?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member took the time to look at the proposed convention very carefully, he would find in article 4, section 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) reference to the reduction of C02 or greenhouse gases outside of those covered from the Montreal protocol that cause climate change and reference to certain dates that are
May 19, 1992

useful and meet the general objectives of certain countries, although they do not go as far we wanted to.
The member does make a statement that is very important. He says that Canada should walk away from this and not sign the climate change convention. I take note of his position. I can assure you we will have discussions. However, if that is the NDP way of approaching this issue, I do not think it is going to be useful.
Furthermore, I invite him to look at what happened on ozone depletion substances. A Vienna convention also preceded the Montreal protocol that lead to real action.
We feel that we may have exactly the same type of situation here with the climate change convention.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Despite above average unemployment statistics in Northumberland and area, government approved training criteria are more restrictive, inappropriate and counter-productive than ever before.
The fee payer program is an example. In Trenton, where over 20 per cent of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last several months, only four people will be able to benefit from this program this year.
Will the minister commit to a specific review of all government and UI funded training programs in Northumberland and area?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on the issue of funding for fee payers under section 26, this, by the way, is the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which she and the Liberal Party vehemently opposed. These are the same people complaining in this House today about a measure they fought for a year and a half. Let us get that straight.
On the issue of funding, last year there was $43 million under section 26 just for Ontario. We are increasing that amount to $125 million in 1992. That is almost three times as much as was spent in 1991. Because of the needs and demands on this program, yes we have to be more selective. We will be in order to ensure that in the end
Oral Questions
we get a better trained workforce which the Liberals opposed.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the people of Northumberland are fed up with this government. That program we opposed eliminated government funding to important programs, yet the government stipulates inappropriate use of employee-employer programs.
My next question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. With the permanent loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Ontario alone, and one in every six Canadians being illiterate, upgrading of our jobless is essential. However, without a job at the end, much of the skills training can be wasted.
Will the government commit to working immediately with the Government of Ontario and municipal representatives to determine appropriate niche markets in Ontario so that any skills training can be efficient and cost effective?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the call by the Liberals for partnerships is exactly what the Labour Force Development Strategy is all about.
If she cares to talk with Minister Allen in Ontario, she will find out that there is great co-operation among the federal government, provincial government and the business and labour sectors in Ontario to try to train people in order for them to fill these jobs and also get the fundamentals of our economy right.
These people were calling in this House for lower interest rates, for a lower dollar and we have all of that. Everything will not happen overnight, but we are on the right track.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In metro Toronto last month, there were some 220,000 unemployed. We are told that of these, some 5,300 are enrolled in training programs. That is only 2 per cent of them. There are still another 200,000 with UIC benefits expiring over the next few months.
Will the minister now admit that both his job training money and his government's economic policies are failing Toronto and the whole country. Will he tell us why this government is refusing to take the necessary

May 19, 1992
Oral Questions
corrective economic measures which are needed to salvage our very sick economy?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, to his first question, the answer is no. To his second question, the answer is yes, we are taking those steps.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question is obviously in order. I think we need more meat for the table.
This severe recession is exacerbated by the Bank of Canada's misguided battle to reach zero per cent inflation, fought on the backs of the unemployed and by adjustment to the free trade agreement with none of the Prime Minister's promised adjustment assistance. Zero inflation plus zero free trade adjustment equals zero opportunities.
Will the minister of employment admit that Canadians are now desperate for a new economic initiative and new jobs that will help keep their families and their futures together?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member plays with the phrase that there are no adjustment programs, I invite him to read a report commissioned by this government which was chaired by one Mr. de Grandpre.
There are over 400 adjustment programs all across Canada. Billions of dollars of taxpayers' money are being channelled to help Canadian workers adjust and to allow the business sector to restructure in order to meet the global challenge. This is happening.
As for his claim that the government is doing nothing, I remind him again that he will find in the last budget of my department we have some $300 million more to train unemployed Canadians. Surely this is a step in the right direction.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration just pointed to the extra $300 million that his government allocated for training. The reality is that it is not enough to deal with the problems out there today.
In the Thunder Bay area office, there are at least 687 laid-off workers who have been identified by CEC as eligible for section 26 funding. There are at least another 200 who are being laid off as we speak.
Is the minister prepared to open up the purse so that these men and women who have decided that they do need training can in fact get access to it, not just for one year but for all three years?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I often hear NDPers in this House calling on us to come clean. Maybe they should come clean with Canadians.
If they remember correctly, last December we increased the premium on UI to do exactly what the member is calling for us to do today and they blasted us; it was terrible to increase UI premiums.
Today he is asking me for more at a time when the UI premium rate is the highest we have known in this country and when workers and business people are trying to remain competitive.
The answer is that we cannot tax people more or increase the deficit or increase the UI premium rate because I think people are taxed enough.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about being selective and the fact that it will be possible to be selective with these new constraints on training.
Does the minister think it is being selective when in Windsor it is not going to be possible for a single extra person to take training under section 26?
Is it being selective when the people at the Canada Employment Centre say they need $2 million more to cover the desperate needs of people in Windsor?
I ask this minister to get serious and to start doing something for the people of this country.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know, especially on TV, that the member likes to be selective. Does he want to talk about the $293 million that we will spend on training in Ontario other than under section 26? No, we cannot talk about these other training funds because "this is just taxpayers' money"; of course not.
The reality of the matter is the demand by unemployed workers for further training is there. We have started this UI reform in order to provide that training, and at this point we have to live within our fiscal means. This is what we are able to do. Unless we further increase taxes or increase the deficit, I am afraid we cannot do more.
May 19, 1992

Oral Questions


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week President Bush declared that he was trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with Chile. Does Canada intend to participate?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, Canada has no intention of negotiating a free trade agreement with Chile.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The reason given for sitting at the table with Mexico was to protect Canada's interests. Why then is it not important to protect Canada's interests in this particular instance?
Why is the danger of the United States signing a series of bilateral trade agreements from which Canada would be excluded and which was the reason we sat down with the Mexicans not a factor now that that series of free trade agreements is in fact becoming a reality?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with Mexico were something that were on the burner. The negotiations if ever with Chile are something that are a long, long way down the road and we do not need to consider them at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: My
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We were horrified by the repression and violence in Thailand. Why did Canada, which claims to defend human rights, approve an increase in direct aid and arms and munitions exports to the military regime in Thailand during the past 14 months?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I know we all deplore and were saddened by the violence that took place over the weekend in Bangkok.
I would like to advise my hon. colleague that the Secretary of State for External Affairs issued a statement yesterday deploring that violence and asking for all involved to exercise restraint. Upon her instructions today, she called in the Ambassador of Thailand in Canada again expressing to him the need to exercise restraint and called upon all parties to find a way of dealing with this very tragic problem.
Our concerns at this point obviously are to see a cessation of the violence and ensure the safety of all Canadians in Thailand. I am pleased to say from our information at this point that all Canadians are safe.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the statement issued yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, she said: "Canada supports the movement toward increased democratization in Thailand".
Apparently this support for democratization included an increase in aid to a repressive regime and an approval for Canadian arms, tank parts and ammunition which could have been used to oppress those civilians last Sunday night.
Will the minister and the government stop this hypocrisy, stop the export of arms and cut off aid to Thailand until there is a restoration of democracy in that poor country?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time it is important to assess the over-all situation in Thailand. To take any precipitous or unilateral action I do not think would be helpful. We will be continuing to consult with our allies.
I might just remind my hon. colleague that we have a modest development program with Thailand. The major focus of that program is on development of democratic institutions, support for universities in Thailand, and support in the fight of the drug war.

May 19, 1992
Oral Questions
One has to look at this issue in its over-all context and find ways to encourage the democratization of Thailand and a peaceful situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could just advise the House that because of the condolences with respect to the Nova Scotia miners Question Period will extend to 3.10.


MULTICULTURALISM
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Yesterday many elder citizens of Chinese origin rallied on Parliament Hill to raise the question of redress now, and several of them are in the gallery.
Mr. Jackman, age 91, paid the racist Chinese head tax to come to Canada in 1918. Mrs. Lee, a widow, endured terrible hardships in China and with her sons was separated from her husband for 31 years because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. They and many supporters want redress now for this injustice, before they die.
When will the government on behalf of all Canadians acknowledge the injustices of the Chinese head tax and the exclusion act and negotiate appropriate redress?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not here to meet the group yesterday, but hopefully I can meet some of them after Question Period today.
I have indeed met on numerous occasions with the Chinese Canadian National Council Redress Committee, as well as the National Congress of Chinese Canadians and other individuals, and many others representing Canadians of Italian origin, Ukrainian Canadians, Jewish Canadians, NACOI and indeed the Canadian German Congress.
I attempted to put forward some ideas that I thought would be helpful for us to best symbolize the act of discrimination which is a very dark day upon all of us. I have had those meetings. I have now prepared a report which the government is considering.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the minister's effort and hope that there will be action on this as soon as possible.
Japanese Canadians who also support redress for the Chinese head tax are very saddened by the government's betrayal of its redress promise to them to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
In order to show good faith, will the minister persuade the government to proclaim Bill C-63, which has not even been proclaimed? Will he also facilitate the allocation of $2 million annually to begin establishing a Canadian race relations foundation even if the capital amount that was promised is not possible at this time? Let us show faith and get started with this race relations foundation.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, four years ago when I became the minister responsible for multiculturalism I indeed made this the highest priority, fighting racism, racial discrimination, and bringing forward a program on integration and equality.
I am as fully committed to the establishment of a race relations foundation as I was there in Ottawa when we announced the opening of the new information centre at the Canada Police College. It was decided not to proclaim it in this current fiscal year in the budget announced by the finance minister. Of course we all completely agreed that the budgetary constraints must be respected.
Whether more can be done within my established budget, I am always looking for ideas that could be helpful to make sure that we do all we can at this particular time in our history.


FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech must not be restricted or channelled in a free and democratic society.
The recent calls for spending limits and two umbrella committees in our referendum legislation are calls for controls and limits on our most fundamental freedom. These suggestions are elitist and patronizing.
Given that the referendum bill is being fast-tracked through the House-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.
May 19, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: I listened to the question and of course hesitated to interrupt the hon. member. The bill is before the House and I think that is anticipating an order of the day.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, who is passing through Ottawa on his constitutional tour. Will the minister be able to make good on his commitment to table formal offers for Quebec by May 31?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer this question when the hon. member's leader is back in the House.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be pleased to hear that my leader is in Montreal, at the request of the Crown, to help one of his colleagues. My question is quite straightforward. Will the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs be able to table formal offers for Quebec by May 31, as promised?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, May 31 remains the target date for the group I have the honour to chair.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. From 1885 to 1923, a head tax was imposed, followed by an exclusion act specifically targeted to the Chinese until 1947. Will the government act now to compensate the victims of this form of institutionalized racism?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have already been able to meet a number of people representing the Chinese-Ca-nadian community and probably other communities. As I said in the other official language, I have already
Oral Questions
submitted a report which the government is now examining.
We are all aware of these events which took place in the past. Such activities are abhorrent to all of us, and they are nothing to be proud of. Tbday, we are working all out to gain a better understanding of what happened in the past, and I intend to watch very closely whatever can be done in this respect.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect a specific answer. I am going to try again.
There are elderly head taxpayers in Ottawa today, very close to us right now as I speak. They are here to urge the government to redress a wrong committed against them because of their race.
Specifically, once again, will the minister formally apologize to Chinese Canadians for this blight on our history and announce a redress package today? Or, is his government interested in redress as a tool for partisan, political gain?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the manner in which the elders in particular have brought forward their feelings and the strength of the feelings they brought forward.
I myself have met such a head taxpayer from Montreal, Mr. James Wing. I am not sure if Mr. Wing is in the gallery, but it is a touching experience to have him show you the yellowed piece of head tax paper.
One could imagine with all the efforts we are putting in to fight discrimination that we will certainly try to do all we can to erase this dark day from our history.


GRAIN AND OILSEEDS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last week the prairie wheat pools made a proposal to the Prime Minister and to the government asking the government to negotiate an interim grain trade agreement pending the completion of a successful Uruguay round at the GATT. This proposal would provide a cease-fire with no escalation of the grain wars between

May 19, 1992
Oral Questions
the United States and the European Community which have been so destructive to Canadian farmers.
Does the government support this proposal by the wheat pools? Will the government be proposing it to the European Community and to the United States to make sure there is not an escalation in the grain trade wars?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, at the start of the Uruguay round at Punta del Este there was a proposal put forward and supported by Canada for a standstill and a cease-fire in the trade war while the MTN was negotiated.
We have consistently asked and supported other trading countries such as the Cairns Group in requesting a standstill while the negotiations take place. At this point we have not been successful, but that does not mean we will not continue our efforts.
This is not new to the government. We have been involved in it for the last six years.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the United States export enhancement program has cost Canadian grain producers $1.8 billion over the last five years. If there is no agreement reached in the Uruguay round of negotiations by June of this year, the United States plans to expand its export enhancement program by $1 billion to $2 billion in the next crop year.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what action the government is going to take, whether the Prime Minister is going to be raising this matter and taking action with the President of the United States in his meetings tomorrow and with the European Community so that we do not have a violent escalation of the export enhancement program and the destruction of thousands of Canadian grain and oilseeds producers and fanners.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in referring to the U.S. farm bill as putting another billion dollars forward in export enhancement. That is for the 1994 year.
We hope, as other countries involved in the MTN, to have successfully concluded an international agreement under the MTN that will bring about a cessation to the trade distorting subsidies by both the European Community and the United States, which are not only harming Canadian agriculture but agriculture around the world, particularly agriculture in developing nations.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry.
Last Friday's decision by the Bush administration to impose a tariff on Canadian softwood exports is in reality a grab for Canada's raw logs.
Can the minister assure Canadians that the Prime Minister will tell President Bush that Canadian raw logs are not going to be negotiated away as we all try to resolve this dispute?


Frank Oberle: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can give my hon. friend this assurance simply because of the fact that there are no materials either in British Columbia, which has been targeted for a special tax to make up for log exports, or in the rest of the country. We just simply do not have any surplus materials to export.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, our staff has just spoken with commerce department officials who say that the decision as to whether the dispute settlement mechanism applies to this dispute is still under review. They have indicated that the department may have a different position when the Prime Minister meets with President Bush.
I wonder if the minister could tell this House whether they actually have a decision from the United States yet as to whether it recognizes the dispute settlement mechanism to try and resolve this dispute. Yes or no.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party wants to do away with the free trade deal. If we did this there would not be a question, we would be stuck with the imposition of a countervail duty on our lumber.
I can tell my hon. friend that the MOU is a part of the free trade agreement and we have launched an appeal to the bi-national panel which will eventually resolve this problem for us under the free trade deal.


JOB TRAINING
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In Windsor, Ontario, and in many other communities across Canada the funds set aside this year under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act for training of people who pay fees for their courses has already been used up, although there are still some eight months to go this current year.
In spite of the answers the minister has given already to questions on this subject, I want to give him another chance and ask him if he is going to take a fresh look at this matter. Will he put aside his partisan responses and take a fresh look at this matter and see what he can do to provide the funds required for this type of training. If he is serious about training, why can he not give that constructive answer now?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about Windsor. In the Windsor area in
1990-91 the department spent on training under the regular program, under SARS, SEED, and fee-payer, section 25, section 26, a little over $8 million to train these people in Windsor. The next year this went up to over $11 million and I contemplate that we will spend even more in this fiscal year.
If the hon. member wants to test our resolve to train more unemployed Canadians by the amount of money we spend for training, the answer is yes, definitely. We have increased the training of UI recipients throughout the country by $300 million this year, and that means there will be more training, not less.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
In Windsor, Ontario, unemployment has gone up from 10.3 per cent in February to 12.8 per cent in April. This is an indication that whatever the government is doing, so far it has simply not been enough.
The fact of the matter is that for people paying fees for their courses, the amount of money he has provided this year under section 26, while it has in-
Oral Questions
creased, has already been used up. Second, under the section 26 portion for project-based training, his department has actually reduced the amount of money by 34 per cent.
You cannot say you are going to increase funds and reduce that aspect by 34 per cent. I ask the minister if he will take another look at the matter and, in spite of his rhetoric, put it aside and do something constructive for the unemployed people in Windsor and across Canada.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the member should talk to his caucus. I have already had a discussion with another member from his caucus, the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Instead of standing up and grandstanding in the House, he came to see me. He had problems with workers in Thunder Bay who had received a commitment from CEC and we have dealt with them.
I cannot on the floor of the House commit to the hon. member that I will increase the funding in the Windsor area by* dollars. What I can tell him is that with the funds that we have targeted to Ontario, in order to do more and not less we will try to be as helpful as we can.


CITY OF TORONTO
Sergio Marchi: My question is again for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This government has consistently ignored the economic plight and woes of metropolitan Toronto, which used to be a vibrant economic engine for the Canadian economy.
Given that a new metropolitan government study indicates that as of last month 640 Torontonians lost their jobs through reduced operations of businesses, 48 through partial closures and 3,200 through complete closures of Toronto firms, what plans does this government have to put Torontonians back to work and restart the Toronto economic engine?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member pays attention to the budget which my friend, the

Government Orders
Minister of Finance, laid before this House, he will find measures in that budget to help small business and the manufacturing sector do better in this economy.
As for other measures, we have increased spending in a very substantial way in Ontario on training with the provincial government in order to yield the kind of work force that is required in order for this economy to do better and keep on progressing.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-81, an act to provide for referenda on the Constitution of Canada, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the midday break, the hon. member for York West had finished his speech. We now proceed to the period for questions and comments.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member gave us a brilliant speech, but like us, he does not believe the government's arguments about the Charter of Rights not allowing spending controls and umbrella committees.
Would the hon. member be prepared to accept the use of the notwithstanding clause under the circumstances?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is prudent to keep all options possible. But I do not think that we should start from that premise necessarily because what I pointed out in my intervention in the House this morning was that Canadians are very concerned with the fact that there is no ceiling currently in the proposed referendum legislation and that people will measure the fairness variable of any national referendum by how well we try to control the
financial expenditures of individuals, corporations and other organizations in a national referendum.
That is why the Leader of the Official Opposition and our House leader this morning put on the table a very, very important principle, that while we favour the principle of a national referendum, while we support the concept of the legislation that was put before the Chamber last week, we also believe that it is absolutely vital in a number of areas to amend the legislation so that we have a national referendum which can be a powerful tool with which to bless any constitutional reform. That piece of legislation is in need of some radical restructuring.
One of those areas clearly is in the whole question of placing a ceiling on what Canadians can spend. It is our hope that the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary and indeed the Prime Minister, who have promised a spirit of non-partisanship and consultation, will see fit to come at the committee stage and put some water in their referendum wine as tabled on Friday so that we may have a referendum that truly will be acceptable to the vast majority of Canadians which currently, unfortunately, it is not.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. friend opposite. He touched on this subject but he did not elaborate on it in his speech although others speakers from his party have elaborated on it. It relates to the question of a referendum having majorities in four regions of the country, which I understand is perhaps the official position of his party.
I reminded the hon. member for Notre-Dame- de-Grace that the Beaudoin-Edwards committee had recommended such a venture but that it had been rejected outright by at least two provinces and perhaps others. With the unanimity formula of changing the Constitution, any aspect of the amending formula itself was thus rendered inoperative.
I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate a bit on the Liberal Party position with regard to regional majorities and give us his own personal observations as to whether that is still a realistic policy, given that the provinces hold to the view that provincial considerations, rather than regional, should prevail in the Canada of today.
May 19, 1992


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, when I advocated earlier today that another area needs modification, that was essentially in advocating a double majority.
We on this side of the Elouse, despite the good work by my hon. friend who was the co-chair of one of the two committees that he alluded to, and despite the complications of the amending formula, believe that a national majority, complemented by a majority in four regions of this country-the west, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada-would be a win-win situation and would preclude as far as possible any Canadians or provinces within one of those predescribed regions from feeling that a constitutional arrangement has been forced upon them by the rest of the country, despite that one region perhaps having reservations with the over-all package or with one particular element of that package.
Thus, in order to try to avoid any regional aspirations as being shut down by other Canadians or for some people to suggest in the patriation of the Constitution in 1982 that somehow Quebec was left out despite the fact that it was a sovereignist government that was negotiating with the national government, and despite the fact that the existing Prime Minister was a big cheerleader of the 1982 constitutional deal, this double majority would avoid those feelings of alienation or being left out of the constitutional arrangement.
What we are suggesting is that this mechanism would certainly improve from the procedural viewpoint the feeling that we have incorporated all Canadians and that we have not played the politics of exclusion and have pressured one region against the other, but that we are seeking a complementary double majority so that this country may be strengthened by this national referendum and that once and for all, in a successful and united way, we can put the Constitution behind us and address the economic challenges.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, we are very interested obviously in ensuring that all of the regions, western Canada, as well as other regions, have a voice when it comes to a referendum if that is the way we
go-
Is my hon. friend saying that it would be in his best interest, in terms of the country, to ensure that in the event of a referendum, western Canada, British Columbia, the Yukon, Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada
Government Orders
would all have to pass a majority in order to be interpreted as a success?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, what I put forward today with all sincerity was a formula that I believe would work better than simply having a national majority. Some members in the House advocate that British Columbia ought to be a region in itself. Some advocate that the two territories should be another region. I suppose we can have those debates without any final resolution.
I am trying also to inject a dose of practicality into it. We may be in a national referendum this summer or early fall.
What we are attempting to do is try to avoid the Meech Lake process that not only failed many Canadians in the substance but failed miserably in the process. Canadians felt that they were disenfranchised by a constitution they thought they owned, given that is the premier law of this land. We are saying that there happens to be 27 million shareholders of this public company called Canada and we should no long rely simply on the chairman of the board or the chief executive officer or the board of directors to have a strong voice. We are suggesting it is time for all Canadians to have that voice. Putting in a prerequisite for a double majority as defined by those four regions would further solidify the feeling of unity and belonging to this country. It is certainly far superior than having 50 plus one pass the post.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to intervene in this debate concerning the legislation which would put in place the regime for a referendum, should one be called for.
This flows from the recommendations of the joint committee, which I had the privilege of co-chairing last year, and the one co-chaired by my hon. colleague for Winnipeg South and Senator Beaudoin which reported at the end of February. It is a useful piece of machinery to have on the shelf, should the need arise, to establish a national consensus.
I am happy to observe that there appears to be a growing confidence among Canadians that the current process of constitutional renewal will reach a successful conclusion. After many months of debate, open discussion and private reflection there is good reason to

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
believe that Canada's future is brighter than that of yesterday. Tomorrow we will continue our steady advance toward achieving true and lasting constitutional reconciliation within the Canadian family.

We have many reasons to be optimistic. On several issues, positions have become more flexible. Important agreements have been negotiated. Increasingly, the meetings and discussions across the country in recent weeks have taken place in a true spirit of compromise. Our ultimate goal is a renewed federation in which all Canadians can feel at home. Every step that we take in that direction is another reason to stay together. Of course, we would all prefer the debate about the Canadian Constitution to be settled quickly and to stop taking so much energy.
Other priorities, like our economic growth and social development, also demand our attention. But we cannot really devote ourselves to these urgent matters until the issue of our national unity is resolved.
The constitutional process that we are now going through is starting to bear fruit; not dramatically, but gradually, some would say too slowly, but steadily, as Canadians make the effort to understand one another better and discover how much they have in common.
Nevertheless, we should not fall back into naive optimism. We must keep on working. We must maintain this feeling of urgency and the sense of commitment that made it possible for us to achieve these results.
The multilateral constitutional process in which we are engaged began only a few weeks ago. On March 12, in Ottawa, my hon. colleague, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, announced that the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as the other national native associations had agreed to begin a new series of discussions. The purpose of this process was to prepare a package of constitutional amendments that could be presented to Canada as the result of consensus among all parties.
The representatives of the parties involved in these negotiations agreed on an optimum timetable that provides for possible agreement by the end of May. Since then, in order to succeed, the participants in the multilateral process have met almost every week, both at the ministerial and at the senior official levels.
No effort has been spared to ensure the success of this process and the results of each meeting have helped forge the consensus that Canadians want and deserve.

During the month of April ministers and the four national aboriginal leaders met in Halifax, Ottawa and Edmonton. This month they have already met twice, in Saint John and Vancouver, and they will be meeting this week in Montreal.
Next week participants will be meeting virtually the entire week in Toronto to build on the considerable progress which they have already made. Throughout this multilateral process, all parties have understood quite clearly that nothing will be etched in stone until the whole package has been completed.
The constitutional affairs minister has repeatedly stated that some decisions can only be made by first ministers, and that in accordance with Canada's constitutional amending formula, nothing is final until it has been approved by Parliament and the requisite number of provincial legislatures. Nevertheless, the tone of these meetings has been positive.
Issues have been tackled slowly but surely and there has been remarkable consensus in some of the most contentious areas. Participants in the multilateral constitutional process have demonstrated a genuine willingness to compromise and to accommodate each other's differences and this spirit bodes well for the successful conclusion of the Canada round.
I will review some of the progress which has been made. While most decisions are comparable to agreements in principle, they still provide a measure of difficult issues which have been tackled and the areas of consensus which have been forged. For example, ministers agreed in Halifax to recommend to their respective governments the entrenchment of the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government within the context of the Canadian state.
At that same meeting there was also agreement that
the Senate should be elected, that it should not be a
confidence chamber and that Senate elections should be
May 19, 1992

for fixed terms. In Edmonton there was further discussion on the Senate and on aboriginal issues.
In addition, ministers and aboriginal leaders reached broad agreement on the principles of a social and economic union. There was a clear preference for returning to the earlier rules for giving provincial status to the existing territories. Those rules had allowed the decision to be made by a territory and the Parliament of Canada. The range of options on the Constitution's amending formula is being narrowed in order to meet the needs of all parties, including the concerns of Quebec.
Another important area of agreement in Edmonton concerned the Supreme Court. Ministers and aboriginal leaders agreed to recommend the entrenchment of the Supreme Court's composition, including three judges from the civil law tradition of Quebec, and on the principle of provincial participation in the appointment process.
Where provincial powers might be transferred to the federal government, there would be compensation. On spending power, there was agreement to adopt the language of Meech Lake with respect to reasonable compensation if they choose not to participate in national shared cost programs provided they undertake a program or initiative compatible with the national objective.
In May at the Saint John meeting there was further discussion on the Senate. Ministers and aboriginal leaders dealt with the Senate's power to ratify appointments. Ratification of senior appoints such as the heads of the CBC and CRTC would be spelled out through amendments to the laws under which they were established.
There was unanimous agreement that the Senate should reflect groups now under-represented in our political system. In Saint John there was agreement on 90 per cent of the legal language on the social and economic union. [DOT]
There was discussion of legislative interdelegation with an agreement in principle to allow the federal government to delegate some of its power to make laws in a particular field to a province and vice versa.
Government Orders
Most recently in Vancouver ministers agreed to recommend the creation of a new order of government to the first ministers. They agreed that the inherent right would be stated in a new proposed subsection of 35(1) and that this inherent right would exist within Canada.
The various agreements in principle and areas of consensus which I have just cited are significant steps forward. While I must re-emphasize that all participants in the multilateral constitutional process want to review these issues in the context of the complete package, nevertheless they show that real progress is being made.
As we move on to the final meetings in the multilateral process, Canadians have good reason to be confident about their future. For many issues a working consensus has developed on how to resolve questions that not too long ago seemed to defy solution.

Of course, we all want Quebec to return to the negotiating table. Recently, we have all had encouraging signals from the Government of Quebec. Premier Bou-rassa visited several provinces where he had bilateral discussions with his counterparts. This evening, the Government of Quebec will host a reception for participants at the multilateral meeting to be held in Montreal on May 20, 21 and 22.
I believe that these are veiy positive signs. The Government of Canada will spare no effort so that all participants can consider the results of this Canada round with satisfaction and pride in the work done. If, despite all this progress, the process could not result in full agreement, the federal government will go on to the next step, which would be made possible with this bill that we are considering today.
We would consult all Canadians in a national referendum. This referendum would be fair and give everyone an opportunity to express their opinion. It would be the culmination of the most extensive consultation exercise ever undertaken by a Canadian government.
This bill is a prudent precaution. I urge all hon. members to give it their full support.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just stated his support for Bill C-81, a bill that will enable the federal government to prepare for and hold a Canadian or almost Canadian referendum, since we are not sure whether this referendum will be held in all provinces, or

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
in all provinces except Quebec. It remains to be determined by our government.
I have the following question for the hon. member: Is he aware of the following statement by Mr. Roch LaSalle, made on January 31, 1979, in referring to the referendum legislation tabled in the House in 1979: "This national referendum bill is in my opinion nothing more than a political gadget. The Prime Minister, in the wake of this fiasco and monumental failure on the political and economic fronts, has designed this tool to enhance his image as the great saviour of Confederation".
I wonder whether the Conservative government endorsed this criticism. That year's Hansard is full of similar statements by Ms. Flora McDonald and the right hon. Joe Clark. They all said it was a monumental mistake.
In what way, therefore, is this referendum bill different? How is it different this time? The Conservatives are in power. They presented the same bill, I think, after having consulted Bill C-9, the old Liberal bill. How do these two bills differ?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He was asking what the difference is between the situation in January 1979 and the present situation and why statements by a former minister and the then Leader of the Opposition should reflect a situation different from that in which we find ourselves today.
He was the Leader of the Opposition in January 1979.
The situation is that we have had 13 years of rather chequered history pass between us since that time. This bill before us today is largely a technicality. The genuine software of any referendum initiative that is to be taken will be contained in the question itself. The member's own party acknowledges that through its not entirely unreasonable demands in that quarter.
The situation between 1979 and today has changed rather drastically. The mechanics of the bill can remain the same but the situation is very different.
We have had a Quebec referendum in the interim and we have had the remarkable situation of all the Quebec members of Parliament, including the Hon. Roch LaSalle, voting for Quebec's involvement in the Canadian constitution and for the patriation of the constitution and, if I am not mistaken, all the members of the Quebec National Assembly voting against it.
It cannot truly be said that Quebec had subscribed to the 1982 constitution.
Criticisms made of an initiative in 1979 or with an initiative in 1992 often do not relate to the mechanics of the bill, which is what I believe we are examining, the principle and the mechanics of the bill today, but rather the use to which that would be put.
If I could go right back in conclusion to the preamble to the hon. member's question, I can only conclude that he does not believe that the people of Canada ought to be consulted on this question or that the government should avail itself, that this House should avail itself, of the opportunity to put the question should that later be desired.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest what he thinks of a statement made by Senator Gerald Beaudoin, with whom he co-chaired a certain committee; the statement, in a document on the constitutional aspects of the referendum is to the effect that electing a majority of pequiste members of Parliament in Ottawa for Quebec would have the same value as a referendum.
In view of this statement, I would like to know if the hon. member agrees with his co-chairman's statement which means that all we need is an election to find out what Canadians, and especially Quebecers, think?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the quotation that my hon. friend has cited. I have immense respect for Senator Beaudoin's capacity on questions of constitutional law, as I think do most if not all Canadians.
I would only respond by saying that the way to resolve our constitutional dilemma is not by having an election. It would be probably the last issue that might be addressed if an election were called today and we would be no closer to solving our constitutional problems.
May 19, 1992

There will be an election by November 21, 1993. It is then that those issues can be addressed. In the meantime, if there is a need to identify a national consensus on constitutional issues, then the bill before us, Bill C-81, will provide the means of establishing that consensus.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this bill. To begin with, I would like to say that in principle, I am not against consulting the Canadian people, I am not opposed to using a referendum to consult the residents of a city or town or province in Canada. As was already said, it is something like the GST. We are not against taxes as such, but the GST is not the right tax at the right time and the way it is collected is not fair. We can say the same thing about this referendum. We are not even sure that it will be held all across Canada, because the government House leader said that it might not be held in all provinces. This bill is not quite clear and we do not know exactly what we will vote on.
I think this bill is a fraud. It is expensive and it is also very provocative for the first ministers and even for native people. It is deceptive because it does not allow having yes and no camps as we had in the Quebec referendum in 1980. Furthermore, there is no spending ceiling. If I remember correctly, the federal government spent more than $17 million in 1980 to win majority support. This bill sets no spending limit. There is a symbolic limit, if you will, but no real limit in that millions of dollars can be spent.
As for what constitutes a majority, will it be a double majority or a single majority? No one knows. Lysiane Gagnon, who I think is an excellent columnist, wrote a report in La Presse of April 4, 1992 in which she said: "Besides the issue of interpreting the results, which is an insoluble problem" -she is talking about a Canadawide referendum -"with a single majority, Quebec's vote would be drowned out; with a double majority, the experience of the 1942 plebiscite is likely to be repeated; with a quadruple majority (meaning a regional majority in the West, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic), the risk
Government Orders
of fragmentation increases. If the native people are included, there could even be five majorities". Finally, Ms. Gagnon asks how the federal government could override the will of a whole region. If the native people voted against, would that mean the referendum would fail? I think that is an excellent question raised by Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse.
There is not only the issue of a double majority. There is also the question of free air time proposed by the federal government. They want to give the yes and no sides air time on television and radio and space in the newspapers as well, I suppose, I don't know, but they will give enough air time, probably on the CBC, for both sides to express themselves. But how will they choose the yes and no supporters, especially the no supporters? Will they choose them from the Reform Party? From the Bloc Quebecois? Will they choose other spokespersons? Who will choose whom?
If there is no real spending limit, one may ask how one can really have a fair, even-handed, open referendum. In fact, those who can give more money can buy more advertising. Even federal MPs can heavily influence a referendum because I think they have considerable resources just by virtue of being members of Parliament.
But something interests me more than that: Quebec has already said that is does not want to negotiate as one among eleven. But with a referendum, are we not starting to negotiate as one among 27 million? That is important, because I find that with a referendum-yes, the general public should be consulted. Most of the time, there is some polarization between those who are for and against the question. But, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that is not the case here. The answer to our constitutional problems cannot be summarized in a yes or a no vote.
Excuse me, but that is so, unless you want to trivialize the question so much that it becomes meaningless. Are you for Canada? Are you for Quebec? It makes me think of Yvon Deschamps who said that what Quebecers want is a strong Quebec in a united Canada. That is true, but it is trite. It does not solve the constitutional problem. And how much will it cost? One million? No. Ten million? No. We will spend $108 million for this kind of super opinion poll that will decide what? It will settle nothing. I think that it is a mistake to propose a referendum at this

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
time, because besides being costly and not fair to all, it is provocative. How can a referendum be provocative?
I will tell you that the way I see this bill and the way it was presented by the minister, it was provocative. How can I say such a thing? It is veiy easy. He says that there cannot be real spending limits or umbrella committees for the yes and no sides because there would surely be court cases -yes, lawsuits -under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But when a journalist -I think it was Mr. Fraser of The Globe and Mail -said, "Did you think of maybe using the notwithstanding clause?", the government House leader said, "Yeah, but you know that Canadians take a dim view of it." They may not like it, but the notwithstanding clause could have been used.
Look at the question. If the referendum is not held all across Canada, if it is held in the other provinces but not in Quebec, it will set a double standard. It means that Quebecers will be treated as second-class citizens. It would mean that Quebecers have no say in the matter. You cannot deal with Canada-wide issues, because the expression Canada-wide does not include Quebec.
If there was a suit based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this would be a good opportunity for people from Quebec or elsewhere to say: Wait a minute. We would like Quebec to give its opinion on this.
If the government decides to hold a Canada-wide referendum without a double majority, will this help the constitutional cause? Will it help solve the issue? I do not think so. I think it will be more provocative for the Prime Minister and the aboriginal groups, but especially for the Prime Minister, because instead of doing his job and trying to make offers to Quebec, he will simply say: Listen, you do not trust us; therefore, we will wait until the referendum is over.
In my opinion, that is the mistake. I want to compel the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers to make offers to Quebec and to the rest of the country to really do their job, not at a cost of $108 million, but just do the job for which they were elected. It seems to me that once elected, this government decided that it could throw money at the problem; spend, spend and spend even more.
I can tell you about the Spicer commission. I can tell you about Beaudoin-Edwards. I can tell you about the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. As a member of that committee, I was proud to work on a project in which we proposed what we saw as solutions. A referendum was not one of our first solutions. Mr. Speaker, if you read our recommendations, you will see that a referendum was one of the last recommendations made. There is a reason for this. It is because the present constitutional problem is not the fact that Quebec negotiates with 27 million Canadians, nor the fact that it negotiates with 11 people, but the fact that Quebec receives offers concerning which Bill 150 can be amended to enable us to vote on these offers, at which time the referendum on sovereignty would become null and void if we accept the federal offers.
But do not tell me that we will get federal offers in the context of a Canada-wide referendum. This is no place to make federal offers, and you know that. If we hold a Canada-wide referendum, we will ask questions on the division of powers. The division of powers is what Quebec is interested in. I am not talking of something like asymmetry; we have to define the division of powers.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that when we get to the division of powers, you will see that the rest of the country is not as generous as you may think and that this referendum is more than provocative. People will find a reason to vote against Quebec, not necessarily because they are against the idea of giving more powers; in fact, I found it rather amusing to watch the New Democrat leaders of Ontario, B.C., Saskatchewan, and even Yukon say that there will more powers to the provinces. This is a tendency that will pick up momentum, because it costs less, it is less centralizing and people are much more responsible with the monies and the programs that are theirs.
It is not on a technicality that I oppose this bill. My opposition is based on common sense.
We will have to take our responsibilities. As a Quebecer and a Montrealer, I know that the constitutional issue has been zigzagging a lot: the aboriginal groups have been clear, then not so clear, and then not clear at all. We cannot ask a question and call upon the ordinary Canadians to do our job. I support the idea of a referendum in principle. In the case of a municipality, before it undertakes a megaproject, yes. Why? Because
May 19, 1992

people can tell whether they are in favour or not of such expenses by simply answering yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember the last referendum held in Canada, more specifically in Quebec? I am talking about the latest referendum, not the one held in 1980? My friend from the Bloc Quebecois might remember the last referendum held in Quebec. I am referring to the referendum in the town of Rosemere. People had to answer yes or no to the question: Are you for or against bilingualism for our town? That was a clear question. People voted in favour of bilingualism. It is to their credit. But this will not happen with a Canada-wide referendum that is rigged, that offers no protection to people disagree, and that is provocative. Even so, are we stupid enough in this House to believe that a Clyde Wells or a Gary Filmon can be persuaded to vote in favour of this referendum because 49, 51 or 60 per cent of their population agrees? No, those premiers will do their job; they will vote for or against, depending on what they themselves believe. I think that the provincial ministers will find this very provocative. In fact, the premier of Saskatchewan did not appreciate the fact that the federal government wants to usurp his responsibilities through a referendum.
In 1979, the Liberals had a good cause. They wanted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be passed. The Canadian population was rather in favour of Mr. Trudeau's idea, the Prime Minister at the time, of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was some consensus in the country. I believe it is a mistake for the Liberals and Conservatives to support this referendum today as a consultation tool, as it may destroy our country rather than make it stronger.
In the course of this debate, I have tried to be non-partisan, to truly see the problem as a Quebecer. I have tried to see the issue of a referendum by looking at what happened when other national referenda were held.
In conclusion, I would like to mention what happened on those two other occasions when a Canada-wide referendum was held. There was one in 1898. It dealth with prohibition and the sale of alcoholic beverages. What was the outcome? Forty-four per cent of the Canadian population participated in the exercise. Fifty-one per cent, a sober majority, gave their support.
Government Orders
However, in Quebec, 83 per cent of those who voted were against the idea.
Let us now turn to the plebiscite of 1942 on the issue of conscription. Mackenzie King used to say that this was not a binding process. He said that the government would not send Canadians to war. It was just a survey. Well, we hear the same thing today. This is not a binding process. Thlk to those who were sent to the front and you will see that it was truly a binding process.
Mr. Speaker, 70 per cent of Canadians were in favour of conscription, while 72 per cent of Quebecers opposed such a measure. The mayor of Montreal-we talk a lot about the mayors of Montreal these days-even went to jail because he opposed the idea. He went to jail because he felt betrayed by Mackenzie King. It is unfortunate that we don't have mayors like him anymore.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments my colleague the hon. member for Chambly made about the Canadian referendum process. If I understood him correctly, he said he was against a Canada-wide referendum.
I would like to ask him if the same would apply to the Quebec referendum? If not, what is the difference between these two referenda?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be the same in Quebec as in Canada because I think that the choice is clear in Quebec, very clear indeed. I would like the Quebec referendum to be twofold and ask, first, do you approve the federal proposals, if any, yes or no? Then, if the answer to the first question is no: Are you for the independence of Quebec, yes or no?
If the public response to the first question were: "Yes, we approve them. We are not at all happy. This is a partial victory, a temporary benefit, but we agree." Then, I think that a referendum on sovereignty would become useless. We would not need one. However, the Prime Minister, the natives, the native groups and we, in this House, must take a non-partisan look at the work we are doing and try to get, if at all possible, the premiers to approve the Beaudoin-Dobbie recommendations instead of putting the decision-making process on the back of the public at large.

May 19, 1992
Government Orders
I am for consultation and, as former president of a consumer protection agency, I could not be against it. However, I disagree with this form of referendum, because I think that it is an extremely expensive sham.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear what my friend and colleague across the way had to say about the referendum. I was a little bit surprised at some of the things he mentioned. He said, for example, that people will find a pretext for voting against Quebec. It may be the translation that was inaccurate, because I know my friend has been very, very fair and non-partisan in this whole question of national unity.
If that is what he did mean, it is certainly not the impression that I got as we travelled across the country. I felt very much that Canadians wanted to reach out and accommodate Quebec in every possible way they can, and that the idea of tabling legislation for the possibility of a referendum is really a way of the federal government's responding to the "what ifs?", the possibility that there is no other way of bringing the whole country's opinion to bear in a positive manner on this very important issue.
I was also a little surprised to hear the member say that in the referendum there is no provision for people who have a dissident point of view. Again, it may be just a matter of the translation, but I was beginning to wonder if perhaps he was speaking on behalf of another party when he made that point. It tied in to something he had said earlier when he mentioned that he was very concerned about there not being any expenditure limit.
I cannot understand for the life of me why anybody would object to private citizens or the federal government doing everything within their power to try and convince the people of this country to stay together, to keep the country intact.
Why does the member object to private citizens or the Government of Canada's doing everything in their power to keep this country together?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Perhaps I got a bad translation because I really feel the government should do all it can to bring this country together.
I believe the way this referendum is presented, the way the bill reads, it will not do that. If we are to do our jobs as members of Parliament, as first ministers, as leaders of the aboriginal groups and First Nations properly, we can get over this difficult period without spending $108 million.
I do not believe this is a question of being against the people of Canada or for the people of Canada. In fact, I would hate to see a question on the ballot of this referendum asking if we are in favour of Canada or against Canada or if we are in favour of Quebec.
I do not know what the question will be but I disagree even more with this legislation in that fundamentally I do not think it is needed at this time. I think it is unduly provocative, $108 million is extremely expensive, and the message I am getting from across the country is that Canadians want us, NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois, and Reform to do our jobs.
Our job is not that whenever we get into some difficulty because we perhaps cannot convince quickly enough the first ministers or others to lay it out across the board, across Canada, to give the problem to the Canadian people.
In those provinces where we will have two referenda, what is the percentage that really applies? If we have a referendum with 40 per cent of the population supporting the same question in one province and the federal question has the support of 60 per cent, does that mean the federal question won? What does it mean exactly?
There are a lot of problems here and I am glad I am on side with my party when we say there are fundamental problems that we have to see changed before we can vote for this bill.


Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the hon. member for Chambly say that he and his party would oppose such legislation. I am a little confused here and I would like him to tell me this: When he talks against a Canada-wide referendum and
May 19, 1992

Government Orders
says he would not vote for such a law, is he speaking for himself or on behalf of his party? I am quite puzzled.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer my hon. colleague's question. Let me just quote an article from the April 29, 1992, edition of La Presse which says: "The NDP refuses to approve the plans for a referendum without first knowing what the wording of the question will be." In the same article, Ms. McLaughlin is also reported as saying, and I share her views on this: "Why put a bill forward if you do not know where you are going?" That is what I was saying. To those who would like to drive a wedge between Ms. McLaughlin and myself or to set us against each other, I will repeat what I said before: Cut the partisanship. This makes a lot of sense. Let us not forget it.
My point is that we would like to see this constitutional issue resolved. That is the basic issue. The way to resolve it is, especially at this time, for the native groups and the Prime Minister to come to an agreement. We in Quebec can hold our own referendum because they say the problem is with us. If that is the case, we will decide for ourselves.
Another thing, it is highly scornful for the people of Quebec and even the people of British Columbia and Alberta who are pretty well in the same boat.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this has to be pursued. The member says that to justify his position he and his party are in favour of a referendum for Quebec but against a referendum for the rest of the country because if we have a referendum across the rest of the country we will somehow be scorning Quebec.
He quotes his leader and maybe I misunderstood. He spoke about mepris pour le Quebec, les Quebecois. "Mepris" is "scorn". I would like to know whether he is speaking on behalf of his leader when he says that he supports the principle of a referendum for the province of Quebec, yet he does not support the principle of a pan-Canadian referendum. If he does take this position, how can he square that circle? Surely the notion of a referendum in giving the chance to the people to have their say is a notion that is not exclusive to one part of the country but indeed is critical for all parts of the country. I would like him to square that circle because he and his leader are saying two different things.


Philip Edmonston: I think I can say that pretty well, Mr. Speaker, in one minute. What we are saying essentially is that the provinces have decided that they would like to go the referendum route, certain provinces: British Columbia, I mentioned, which my colleague conveniently or perhaps inconveniently forgot. I mentioned Alberta and I also mentioned that perhaps even Manitoba would like to have hearings before a referendum comes out.
What I am saying is this. There is a timetable for Quebec to decide on federal offers and to decide on sovereignty. Let us get those federal offers up front and maybe a renewed Senate and maybe I hope self-government for aboriginal people. There may be a number of other things, including some administrative agreements between Quebec and Ottawa on power sharing.
Once that is done, let us vote on it. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker, we may as Quebecers not only save Canada but also save Canada $108 million. Maybe that is something that Liberals would not understand.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate this debate on Bill C-81 with some trepidation. When I was elected back in 1988, and prior to that, I formulated the opinion that as a member of Parliament I was elected first to represent my constituency; second, to make decisions that were in general good for Canada; and third, to make sure I understood those decisions and made on behalf of my constituents. Yet here I am in this House debating the idea of a referendum, something that in principle I have been not comfortable with in my view of Canada.
I look back in history at some of the referendums that have taken place. What I will do is go to a questionnaire that I did in my riding on the issue of the Constitution.
I mailed out some 55,000 questionnaires to my constituents. I asked them their views on the 28 different proposals that were put forth by the government on amending the Constitution. I received quite a number of responses. In those responses people were asked to indicate whether they were either strongly in favour, in favour, opposed, strongly opposed or had no opinion on the question.

Government Orders
On all 28 proposals I would say except for one, there was very strong support for 27 proposals and on the 28th it was 50/50. I put a 29th question in. That question was: Would you be prepared to compromise your position? If you got all those things you agreed with, would you accept all those things you did not agree with? I had a 75 per cent no vote, even though if I looked back at all the questions, I had an overwhelming yes vote.
I am talking about a referendum where I presume the question will be yes or no; do you agree with this, whatever that magic formula or equation is. I look at my constituents who all thought there were a bunch of good deals in there but they would vote no on the whole package. My concern is that I sense that as being very divisive.
We have heard reference in this House to other referendums that have taken place in this country. We can go back to the conscription referendum. There is the argument about was there concurrence in this country. It appears that the majority of those who voted clearly voted yes. However, there is a group saying in this House that there was a significant group who voted no and therefore that particular referendum should have been interpreted on a regional basis. There is an argument that there was a region upset because the balance of Canada overruled them.
What would be different if we had had it done in the reverse in the early forties? We would have had another chunk of Canada upset with the outcome even though they were in the majority because a minority supported it.
I stand here and say that I am not sure I am comfortable with referenda, but I also understand very clearly in my riding, as happened in the rest of Canada, that Canadians want to have an opportunity to input.
Although there have been quite a number of opportunities, I would like to quote a particular line from the Speech from the Throne: "You will be asked to approve enabling legislation to provide for greater participation of Canadian men and women in constitutional change".
I note that this particular bill is entitled "An act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada". This referendum bill is a very specific bill that deals with a very specific subject. We are not talking about general legislation as it might apply to a whole series of questions that could be put to a national referendum.
Since it relates to this particular subject and a debate that many Canadians have wanted to participate in, in spite of my thoughts about the general thrust of a referendum, I plan on supporting this legislation.
Why would I go along with this process? First off, it is clear to me that the Constitution of Canada and the problems that are being caused by this never ending debate must come to an end. One way or another, this debate must end. Hopefully, it ends because we have the federal government, the 10 provincial governments, the two territorial governments, other interested parties, the aboriginal community and whoever else may be covered in this constitutional amendment. Hopefully we have a deal. If we have a deal there may not be a need for a referendum. Would that not be absolutely great? That is what this legislation provides for.
If we have a deal that is accepted across this country, then the government really has a choice of whether to hold a referendum. Personally speaking, if we have this deal across the country I would then argue that there is really no need for a referendum. Members of Parliament are elected to make decisions, therefore let us make them because we have this concurrence across the country.
If we did not have that concurrence, and we have had some debate in this House today about the need for a referendum, could you image what will happen in this country? There is going to be a referendum question in Quebec. There is going to be one in British Columbia and I believe there may be one in Saskatchewan. We will have three provinces for sure and there may be others that will hold a referendum.
If the other seven provincial governments decide in their wisdom that they do not need to hold a referendum but that ratification of the Constitution is dependent upon at least seven provincial governments in this country approving it, it seems to me that the federal government should have the ability to go to those seven provinces and say the other three are holding referendums to approve this package or not to approve this package, as the case may be. It seems to

me the federal government should have the right to consult with the other seven governments.
It is also possible that because of provincial legislation, the three governments that require a referendum will have one, but it could be the same question we put in the other seven provinces so that all Canadians in all 10 provinces and the territories are being asked to answer the same question. That would be an ideal situation. I guess that is part of the option available to us in this particular piece of legislation.
This referendum is not binding on the government. Should the bill pass and ultimately should the question be put to Canadians, it is not binding. Why not? I go back to the question I asked my constituents in which the majority very clearly said they agreed with the individual 28 proposals but objected to the 29th question which asked if they accept the whole package. It seems to me that in parts of this country, whether it is my particular riding east of Toronto or some riding in western or eastern Canada, if they should really get into a debate point and they vote no, even though they like the individual proposals save one, the federal government should certainly have the ability to interpret throughout the land the substance of the debate and then determine whether it agrees with the substance and then take its decision, which is what we were elected to do.
Over and above that, what happens in this referendum? Clearly, the legislation says that the vote must be taken 45 days after the question is approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate. There is a very clear time line on that. The point is that all members in this House will have an opportunity to fully participate in the preparation of the question and deciding whether the question is the right question to put to Canadians.
Between these two houses, the House of Commons and the Senate, I am sure we will come up with a question that Canadians can easily understand, not like some of the questions that we have heard asked in the past. We need to look at some of those questions in the past which have left a lot of doubt as to their actual meaning.
Government Orders
I can even go back to the last major provincial referendum that has certainly had an impact in Canada. The one held in Quebec basically argued the concept of sovereignty association. With all due respect, what did all that mean? I would say that was not a very clear question, at least not in my mind as an observer to that particular debate.
Is there fairness in the system that is being proposed by this bill? I think so. I would probably support some amendments. I may not put them myself, but there is some fairness in this legislation. It requires that three hours of time be given by national broadcasting networks to the question. Those on the yes side and those on the no side would have the time equally split. I am not sure why we would even put that in here.
Why would we force private networks to accept equally, free of charge, participation on this subject? We should not require the CTV, the Global network, the Ontario network or the CBC to give anybody any free time. They can sell it. If they cannot afford to buy the advertising time on television, then they should not have access to television.
There are some spending limits which are very appropriate such as the spending limits of $5,000 or else you have to form a referendum committee. If you form a referendum committee, you have to declare your sources of revenue over $250. It seems to me that that is very appropriate. Some would argue that may not be fair.
I go back again to that last election that I participated in in 1988. There was a group called the Council of Canadians. It started a campaign against free trade. Never did you see or hear how much money it spent or where it got its money from.
Because it did that kind of stuff, there was another group formed called the BCNI, the Business Council on National Issues, which spent money on promoting the yes side of the free trade agreement. I guess my point is whether you are on the yes side or the no side, those groups were able somehow to fund themselves and participate in the debate.
Should the same kind of debate occur this time, it will be compulsory, unlike it was then, for these groups to publicly identify themselves and to identify their sources of money if they spend more than $5,000. That is a degree of fairness that did not exist in 1988 and whether you were on the yes side of the free trade debate in 1988 or the no side, very clearly, it was very difficult to distinguish because not in every ad, not in every article was there a very clear indication of who

Government Orders
these groups and people were and who was paying all these gobs of money for whatever the viewpoint was.
This legislation is going to be very clear. It sets out that if you spend money, you are going to have to identify yourself. The committee that is organized on their behalf will have to do so. That is a very positive step.
The other rules that apply are those that relate to elections. You do not very often, at least in areas I travel, hear complaints about the fact that the elections were not fair, that there was cheating at the ballot box or there was unfair registration of candidates and all of those kind of accusations that may go on in other countries around the world.
At least in Canada the election system by and large is deemed to be a very fair and open process. The majority of the rules that apply to federal elections will apply to this particular debate. That is another degree of fairness that I do not have any problem with.
I have already mentioned the idea of donations and expenses, that these will have to be registered if they are more than $250. They must be reported to the returning officer. The committee that spends this money must have its accounts audited, not unlike a federal election. It must verify all expenses.
All of the surplus revenue either must be returned to the people who have donated it so there is no chance for a personal profit on somebody's part or must be given over to Her Majesty in right, I believe is the term used, so that nobody can personally pocket funds from this particular process.
I see that whole process lending more fairness to it all.
Further, there are differences in all parts of Canada and I do not think anybody would debate that. We come to the whole issue of who asked the question, who answers the question and on what basis.
Imagine the federal government putting out the question and one province deciding that it is not going to support this, rather, it is going to put the resources of its provincial government on to the no side of the campaign. I do not know why that would happen but for argument's sake it could happen.
Whether the legislation was there or not we cannot control provincial governments and their participation in the democratic process, nor do I want us to control that. We have to recognize that Canada is a federation in which there are provinces with specific jurisdictions in certain areas that we cannot interfere with.
When we talk about federal government spending versus provincial government spending, it is wise that this bill does not really say a lot about those two subjects because we have the controls, we have the ability to react if necessary. We also have the ability to go into a particular province if that province or that region of a province decides it does not like the way the process is going and interferes. I support that whole - heartedly.
There are other provinces that require some public hearings to to deal with any amending legislation and it seems to me that this process will not interfere with their hearings. I guess in theory it will not interfere if the province decides to hold hearings at the same time that the federal government is holding its referendum. In the media at least one might be overshadowed by the other.
One has to understand that in order to amend the constitution referendum, this House, the Senate, and at least seven provinces if not 10, depending on the exact amendments, must vote in their respective jurisdictions yes to the particular amendment that is being proposed.
When we have that specific amendment, whether there are hearings or whether there is a referendum or a plebiscite, we cannot lose sight of the fact that governments ultimately must vote on the issue.
The final point I would like to make is the issue of different kinds of governments that we have in this country and the problems that we have faced. We experienced them the last time we had a deal on the Constitution. There were elections held in some of the provinces between the time the accord was ratified by the various premiers and the Prime Minister and the three-year time frame.
Governments changed and in the wisdom of those governments the deal was cancelled. I find it unfortunate that kind of situation occurred but we have to understand that with the multiplicity of government types, the multiplicity of viewpoints that come from those governments, whether they be the socialist views of the Liberal and NDP opposite us or the Conserva-

tive view, there has to be some open option for the government to deal with this very important question.
It is because of the openness required and the many options that we face that I plan on supporting this particular referendum legislation even though in principle I do not think I was elected to deal with referenda. I was elected to make decisions.
Finally, I have heard the point about should we have regional requirements. Should there be a requirement that if a certain portion of Canada votes no and the rest votes yes that it cancels out? If we were in a unitary state one might argue that is a legitimate point of view. This bill is in a sense silent on that because it does not get to the specific question being asked.
When I look at the 185,000 people I represent, I want to know full well that the voice of my constituents is equal in stature to the voice of anyone else in this country.
That is why I am pleased to see this bill is silent on the particular issue of regional voting. When that question is ultimately put forward and when the future of this country is voted on, if it is voted on in a referendum, my constituents want to know that their voice is worth exactly the same as every other voice in Canada.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I followed what the hon. member said with great interest because I understand of course he does see the need for changes. Although he may not propose amendments to this particular bill, he would perhaps support a certain number of changes to it. In all frankness, I appreciate the fact that he made us aware of that today.
I would like to ask him this question. It comes from a study of referenda that was made by Michel David from Le Soleil in Quebec City. He said that there is a basic problem with a government which is unpopular hoping to get a mandate from a population which may not be able to differentiate between the question and the government that poses the question. Let me be precise in what I am trying to get at.
With a government that is as unpopular as this Conservative government is right now-it is at about 20 per cent popularity right now, but has been at 11
Government Orders
per cent-there is a great risk that people will vote against the messenger or will vote against specific questions in this referendum mainly because they do not like Brian Mulroney. They do not trust Brian Mulroney; they do not want to see him in office for another term. They would vote against this because Brian Mulroney is unpopular.
Does the hon. member on the government side recognize this problem of shooting the messenger and perhaps killing Quebec and Canada as well? I ask for the same measure of frankness as I have just heard. If he does recognize that, what would he suggest could be done to avoid this possibility?
In a referendum question so that we could have a consensus, what would be a question in a referendum across Canada that could rally everybody in a yes or no response?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment about the possibility of people shooting the messenger.
All I would indicate in the first case is that in my constituency when people go to the ballot box they are prepared to make an educated vote. They did so in the last election and I believe they will do so in the future.
Having said that, using the logic of the hon. member, I do not know why Bob Rae's government continues to do all the things it does because it is certainly very unpopular. The New Democrats in Ontario believe the myth that what they are doing is in fact good for the people of Ontario. They are entitled to that view.
I come back to the situation we are in. We were elected to govern. Sometimes governing means making tough decisions. In this case, what we are proceeding to do is to ask a question and Canadians have indicated they want to participate.
If we fall back on the hon. member's logic that because we are unpopular we should not ask the question, in the last public opinion poll the New Democrats were not anymore popular so they should not participate in putting the question together. If you put our two parties together and compare us to the Liberals, we were as unpopular combined as they were so they should not participate either. The only people who should participate in this question are those who are undecided in this country. The only undecided

Government Orders
people around here are sitting on the other side of the floor.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments that has been proposed by a number of people on this side has been to modify the wording in the current proposed referendum legislation. We should truly make any referendum conducted by a national government national. As the member knows, the wording only provides for one or other provinces. It sets up a potential uncomfortable situation because I do not think it is going to provide clarity. It is not going to provide just one interpretation but a multiplicity of interpretations that can confuse rather than assist the situation. There is the possibility that there will be a number of provincial referenda in a number of provinces, a federal referendum in a few others, and perhaps none in other provinces or territories.
If in fact a referendum by the national government is conducted, and I hope it will be, does the hon. member not believe that it ought to be conducted in each of the 10 provinces and two territories? Then the 27 million Canadians who are shareholders of this public company called Canada will in fact be able to express themselves on the same question from one coast to the other and to the other. Does he not believe that would be an improvement over the chequer-board situation which may potentially make the situation worse?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I understand the direction from which it comes.
I would respond that hypothetically, if there is a deal sometime this month on the Constitution, two or three provinces in this country must hold a referendum. The possibility is that in this deal those three provinces will say: "This is the common question we are going to ask in our three provinces". The federal government could concur that that is the common question and say: "In fairness, we will hold the question in the other seven so that all 10 provinces and the territories have an option". But whether we hold a national campaign or not, in three provinces there must be a referendum. It seems to me this option allows us to work with the provinces in only that example.
I suppose there are many other examples that could come forward as to why the Government of Canada wants an option in the bill, but the one I have given is a clear example of why an option would be beneficial to all Canadians.


Philip Edmonston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I raised a question to my hon. colleague dealing with what he had just been speaking on with the referendum, I asked two specific questions and he had answered one of them. Perhaps he did not understand or hear me. I understand we do have under the Standing Orders that when something like that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must recognize as many members as possible. It is up to the previous speaker to answer or not, the choice is his.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I misunderstood the hon. member earlier when he said he agrees with a single majority, because all votes, from all voters, are equal, and a single majority must be binding.
Have I understood the Conservative member correctly? Is he asking for a repeat of the conscription crisis? Does he know so little about the reality in this country to want to use the tyrannical powers the majority gives him to force his will on the minority? I am shocked by his words, and I am sure he made a mistake.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening to my comments earlier, he would have heard me say that because of clear examples in the past of referendums that were very divisive, I generally did not support it. In fact, I could easily oppose the whole concept of referendums.
Having said that, since we have had a very clear indication in this country that people want input, through this bill, they will be given the opportunity to do that.
He may not like the tyranny of the majority. All I would say to him is that in this country, either you have tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority, or hopefully we have a deal that all Canadians will

cherish and we do not need to ask them the question in the first place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier-Court Challenges Program; the hon. member for York North-Youth employment; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kings-way-Immigration; the hon. member for Vancouver East-Canada 125 Corporation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill because Parliament has been expecting for a long time the introduction of a bill like Bill C-81.
It is appropriate to recall the story about someone who is asked whether he wants to hear the good news first or the bad news first. I think we had better start with the good news and that is the government has agreed, at long last, through this bill C-81, to give itself the means of consulting the people on amendments to the Constitution of Canada.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, as early as April 1991, the importance in the present round of constitutional negotiations of the possibility, as a last recourse, of consulting the people on proposed amendments to the Constitution.
In the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, our party stressed the importance of having within the Canadian constitutional arsenal the capacity of going to the people. That is why we, Liberal members, joined with other members of the House and the Senate in this joint parliamentary committee to pass unanimously a recommendation to the conservative government, urging it to pass a bill permitting it to go to the people.
It is clear, that if we allow that the people of a province, Quebec in particular, be given the opportunity to express their opinion on their constitutional future, it ensues that we are perfectly justified to give Canadians in other provinces an opportunity to express their views on their constitutional future.
Government Orders
Holding a referendum is a very democratic process. In our democratic system, this might be the most logical, natural and desirable course of action. We in the Official Opposition can only be pleased to see, at last, the government assume its responsibilities and introduce a bill to hold, if necessary, a referendum on constitutional proposals that could be accepted by all provinces and the Canadian government, or by some provinces and the Canadian government.
Now for the bad news, as the story goes. There are frightful shortcomings in this legislation that could totally void even the most democratic aspects of this consultation of the people.
How can the Conservative government do this amazing trick, provide on the one hand for a very democratic means of going to the people and, on the other hand, present such an anti-democratic bill? It is clear that we are going to try and convince the government of amending its bill, that we are going to do everything in our power to pressure the government into amending this bill.
First, we believe that there should be a spending limit. The bill does not limit spendings by either side of the referendum question. Finally, it does not even provide for an umbrella, as was the case with the referendum held in Quebec in 1980. Canadians support the idea of a referendum. I believe that the polls show clearly that a majority of Canadians would like to be consulted at this particular time on the constitutional issue. But, as much as they want to be consulted, they also want this to be done on an equitable basis. The bill, which does not provide for umbrella committees and which does not include any reasonable spending limits, is severely lacking in this regard. This could result in a process which might not be as democratic as it should be.
Canadians do not want the outcome of the exercise to be fixed. They want a well-deserved result.lt seems essential to us, if we want to convince Quebecers that they should remain part of Canada, that this exercise be credible, acceptable and not flawed from a procedural point of view. There is no point for the minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, to try to convince the provinces to accept a valid proposal to solve the constitutional deadlock and tell Quebecers "here is what we are willing to offer, which is much better than an independent Quebec", if this exercise is to be thwarted by a steamroller of a referendum which literally buys Quebecers and which deprives them of a logical, rational and fair debate. We, the Liberals, are

Government Orders
not afraid of holding an equitable referendum in Quebec, based on concrete and specific proposals that are favourable to Quebecers. Quebecers do not need to be bought by Mulroney's big dollars to give their support to Canada. What concerns us is the approach undertaken now with this bill, which is totally unacceptable in the circumstances.
We also think that in the present context, given our past experiences with referenda, it would be important to include a small clause clearly stipulating that the government will be guided by the results of the referendum, not only by a majority that it hopes to get for all of Canada, but also by a majority that it will want to obtain in each of the main regions of the country, so that Quebecers, when they participate in this referendum, will know that they are not buried by the majority vote of the Canadian population, but that they will also have what we call the "double majority", that they will also have in Quebec, we hope, a majority that will accept the constitutional proposal.
It seems to us that it is absolutely essential at this time to be very up front with the population of Quebec and say that the overwhelming majority of Canadians will not force a constitutional change upon them. With this referendum, we will recognize at the outset that it will not only be necessary to get a majority throughout the country, but also a majority in Quebec as well as in each of the other large regions of Canada, so that this consultation process take into account the legitimate ambitions of each of the large regions of our country.
A third change we are advocating deals with the wording of the question. A spokesperson said earlier, and justly so, that the Canadian Prime Minister no longer has the credibility to hold a Canada-wide referendum alone and win the support of all Canadians. It seems obvious that those who believe in Canada among the three major national parties- meaning the government, namely the Conservative Party, the Official Opposition, namely the Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party, three of the best known members of which are provincial premiers-should all get together to draft the question to be put to the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear. Hear.


André Ouellet: We can obviously not rely solely on the discretion of the Prime Minister. He has neither the credibility nor the support at this point in time to carry the constitutional issue through on his own.
Canada's interest transcends political parties. It is in that context that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking for over a year now about the need for co-operation between the three major national parties in order to resolve the constitutional crisis.
To my great regret, I must say that, unfortunately, opposition parties were not consulted at all on this bill. We have been called to the office of the government House leader only to be told: "Here is what it will be." There was no consultation, only a briefing.
Under the circumstances, we deeply deplore this move on the part of government. If this is any indication of what it has in store for the weeks to come, it tells you this is scary, very scary, because we feel that the interest of Canada should obviously take precedence over that of political parties. It seems to me that the Prime Minister of Canada is more concerned by his self-interest and his political survival than by the best interest of this country when he brings forward a bill such as this one.
I think that the points made about the Canadian Charter of Rights are totally preposterous and superfluous. I will refer to an article by Michel Auger published on May 16 in Le Journal de Montreal which state, regarding this argument: "Prime Minister Mul-roney said on Thursday that the government would have gladly used the Quebec model, with two umbrella committees, for its own referendum on the Constitution, but the Charter prevents it."
The Lortie commission looked into the matter. I must remind my hon. colleagues that this commission worked for two years and made very specific recommendations based on legal opinions paid for by the Conservative government which state clearly that it is possible to limit expenses incurred by a third party for an election or by umbrella committees for a referendum without contravening the charter.
May 19, 1992

I would suggest that the Prime Minister and the government House leader refer to the Lortie report to make sure that the legal opinions provided by the lawyer they have paid to assist the Lortie commission are not ignored. It seems obvious to me that the charter clearly says that the citizens have rights, but it also says in its first section that freedoms are not absolute and can be subject to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
During the weekend, Professor Mendes of the University of Western Ontario law school, faxed me his legal opinion in which he explained in great detail how the charter can limit certain expenses in the case of a referendum legislation. He referred particularly to the recent decision of Justice Sopinka in the Queen v. Butler. I will read this paragraph of his legal opinion:

I would suggest that the appropriate standard is that laid down by Justice Sopinka in the R v. Butler decision that Parliament is entitled to have "a reasonable apprehension of harm" resulting from the dangers which the legislation is attempting to avoid.
"It would be quite easy for the government to have proved in an appeal from Justice Medhurst's decision"- and this is the decision that was rendered in Alberta at the time of the 1984 election-that the Conservative government did not want to appeal. It should have appealed. The chief electoral officer asked the government to appeal and it never wanted to appeal.
This decision is quite clear, that "there is a reasonable apprehension of harm resulting from unlimited spending during elections or referendums".
Professor Mendes concludes by saying:
Perhaps the reasons why the government did not appeal Justice Medhurst's decision and why they do not wish to put spending limits in any referendum legislation have nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or with law at all.

In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, those are the comments that I wanted to make at this point. It seems obvious to me that this bill, while it is desirable in itself, will have to be seriously amended if it wants to get the attention and the credibility that it needs.
Private Members' Business
I note that the member for Edmonton-Southwest spoke earlier in this House. He reminded quite appropriately that the parliamentary committee he co-chaired with Senator Beaudoin specifically recommended to the government of Canada, should it want to get a consensus on constitutional amendments or should it fail to agree with the 10 provincial governments, to submit to the people a constitutional agreement which could be supported by at least a majority of the provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population.
It seems to me that this last resort approach of consulting the population to tell us whether or not our constitutional proposal is valid and acceptable and in the best interests of Canada is something that must be done, but it must be done properly, with very strict rules of election spending limits and also with umbrella committees for the yes side and the no side.
Observers will recognize that referendum legislations is historically common.
One was submitted to the Parliament of London to determine whether or not England should join the Common Market. On the yes side was a major group composed of all sorts of people and of all political allegiances. The same can be said for the no side. Now, the fact that the representatives from the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member's time is now expired.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable mothers with terminally ill children to take leave from their employment in order to care for such children.

Private Members' Business
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this motion finally .It is a private member's motion that I have had in the hopper, so to speak, for a long time, I believe going back as far as 1989. The way in which Private Members' Business works here, in order for something to be debated, and perhaps even voted on, one has first of all to win the lottery by which we select those bills and motions that will come before the House.
In the last draw I was selected and this is the motion which I have chosen to bring forward. I say that because I want the House to know that I have been working on this issue for some time. I raised it in the House before in the context of Standing Order 21 and was somewhat disappointed when I learned that this motion had not been selected as a votable item.
The committee makes its own judgments about this and I am not here to dispute that, but I am told that one of the reasons the committee employed for not selecting it as a votable item was that it might have been in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The reason for that is that in the motion I singled out mothers with terminally ill children as people who should be provided with some legislative protection vis-a-vis taking leave from their employment in order to care for such children.
There are some things which are obviously contrary to the charter and there are other things which are arguable. I do not think the committee or the House, for that matter, should prejudge in this case whether singling out mothers is something that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If that were the case then I suppose the family allowance ought to be brought into disrepute because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that it singles out mothers.
I do not think it should be beyond the legislative purview of the House of Commons to designate a benefit for mothers. On those grounds it is unfortunate that this is the reasoning that was employed.
Having said that, it probably would have been better if I had said in my motion legislation enabling parents or one parent or something like that. I acknowledge that. However, to have denied the House the opportunity to vote on this for that reason is at least debatable. The
House can vote on this. Those members who are in the House this afternoon can either vote on it or simply allow it go to committee and pass it.
What we have in this motion is an attempt to deal with the needs of a very small but significant group of people: those families stricken with what I think is the ultimate nightmare for any family or for any parent or parents, that is having to deal with a terminal illness, for instance cancer having inflicted itself upon one of their children.
The success rate in curing cancer is going up and up. We see that and everyone rejoices in it, so the group that I am talking about in the sense of children actually dying is getting smaller.
In the sense of families who are dealing with a process that has a successful outcome, we are still talking about a group the numbers of which are holding and perhaps expanding. Even with those families whose children are successfully cured of cancer or in beating cancer, there is an entire treatment and healing process they have to go through that can be very, very hard on families, particularly when we consider the number of double income families of necessity in the country today. It seems to me that we should not add misery upon tragedy by putting at least one parent in the situation of having to forgo the income which is necessary to their economic integrity at the same time as he or she is being attacked by fate or whatever you want to call it when one of their children is so seriously ill.
That is the object of this motion. I have written to ministers about this over the last few years. At first I would simply get answers which, to sum up, were basically that this would set a precedent that the government was not willing to live with because there might be others who wanted to take leave from work in order to care for an elderly parent or for a spouse or whatever.
Of course, my contention with the government was yes, I understand all those needs but what I am trying to make the case for then and now is that this is a special group of people who need a special form of attention by the government. I still think that is the case. If the government wants to look at other ways through our health care system or whatever mechanism we want to devise for enabling and/or helping out or even helping to recognize those many Canadians who do all of us a service by staying at home to look after sick or disabled
May 19, 1992

relatives, that is something the government should do. I am not arguing against that.
I have come across constituents when I have been canvassing either at election time or otherwise when people have complained to me that they are staying at home to look after a relative and get absolutely no recognition, economic or otherwise, for doing it. However, if they farmed out that person to the neighbour next door, they would be able to claim something for doing that.
This is a loophole, if you like, in our entire system; a loophole by which the kind of care motivated by family connection is not taken into account. That is a larger question and I do not think the fate of this particular motion should hinge on what people think of how we address that larger question because here we are talking about a very specific need.
Proposals have been made, and I refer in particular to a proposal for what is called a "caretaker allowance" for the families of children with cancer. The idea of a caretaker allowance has been put forward by the Candle-lighters Childhood Cancer Foundation Canada, the acronym of which is CCCFC. It is a national parent support group for families with children suffering from cancer and represents about 30 family support groups across Canada.
Although obviously that is a small number of people, nevertheless it is probably larger than any of us here care to think about. Unless we come up to them face to face in our own lives, we tend to be blithely unconscious of just what other people are experiencing or suffering.
This proposal has been made on a number of occasions. What I am trying to do through this motion is give Parliament an opportunity to cause the government to focus on this issue. I can chip away at the mountain, and other members might want to do so as well from time to time on issues like this, but if the House of Commons were today, because today is the only opportunity it is going to have for a long, long time to come to pass this motion-it's only a motion, it would not go into law or anything-the government would have to presumably take into account the fact that it has been instructed by the House of Commons to deal with this issue. It is
Private Members' Business
something that all of us could then hold the government to account for.
We could say there was a motion passed in the House of Commons instructing the government to deal with this problem. It would create a situation in which much more progress would be made on this issue and in a much swifter way.
That is my goal here today. I hope that other members might take the opportunity to speak to this, to support the motion and have it go through. Then the government would have to focus on this particular issue.
I would like to quote, if I might, from the proposal by the Candlelighters Foundation because I think they say it better than I could. They say:
The treatment of childhood cancer has improved dramatically over the last 20 years due to co-ordinated efforts internationally. Whereas in the 1960s the overall long term survival of any type and stage of childhood cancer was less than 20 per cent, today it is in the 65 -70 per cent range and hopefully will be in the 80 -85 per cent range in the next ten years.
The survival of children with cancer has improved because of the increasing use of intensive chemotherapy. This trend is likely to continue with the advent of new treatment modalities known as growth factors and oncogenes as well as the proliferation of new chemotherapeutic agents.
However this approach has several ramifications. More intensive therapy causes more serious side effects resulting in lengthier hospital admissions and home convalescence. Hospital admissions for childhood cancer can range from a few weeks to several months. Length of treatment of childhood cancer, depending on the type, range from six months to three years and longer if there are relapses.
Because of the increasing health costs and the focus in paediatrics to maintain the parents as primary care givers the families have assumed more and more responsibility to care for children at home, requiring complex treatment such as tube feedings, total parenteral nutrition, central line care, pain pumps, ostomy care and a myriad of other procedures.
With most families -
This is a point I made earlier, Mr. Speaker:
- being double income earners, of necessity, and with the intensive nature of treatment and outpatient management, parents must take lengthy absences from work, with usually one parent, the mother, taking an indefinite leave of absence or actually quitting her job. Very seldom do they qualify for unemployment sick benefits, as they must indicate they are under extreme emotional stress.
In other words, on top of having this, they have to jump through a whole bunch of bureaucratic and medical hoops themselves, which I think is totally uncalled for in the situation. Going back to the proposal:

Private Members' Business
Disability insurance also requires consultation to a psychiatrist to prove that the applicant is indeed suffering severe emotional stress due to his/her child's illness. This type of absence is incorporated into their employment record and may unduly influence employers' attitudes. Many times social workers have had to lobby Members of Parliament who have interceded on a family's behalf. It is only then, with publicity, that the unemployment benefits have been approved.
I am aware of a few situations like that and I am sure other members here are as well. We should not have to do that. People should not have to go through that kind of hassle at that particularly difficult time in their lives. There should be a mechanism, which is exactly what this motion calls for, to provide for people in that kind of situation.
Going back again to the Candlelighters Foundation proposal:
This issue is universal to all families who have children with cancer. We cannot expect families to assume the massive burden of care with little in the way of financial assistance, if a family is to survive the devastation of cancer.
The objective of the CCCFC is a caretaker allowance for the parent who must care for the child which has cancer whether in hospital or at home. It is not just a matter of being at home but sometimes it is the case of being at the hospital day after day and night after night.
They would like the allowance to be equivalent to the unemployment insurance illness benefit maximum payment. They feel this type of benefit should be by application and should begin within four weeks of diagnosis, continue until the child is off treatment, and resume if a relapse occurs.
Obviously they feel this would have to be supported by documentation from the child's physician. It is not the sort of thing that would be open to fraud in any way at all I am sure. Any worries people might have in that regard are unfounded.
We do have such a thing as special illness benefits under the current unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unable to work because of an illness, quarantine, pregnancy, or the adoption of a child. It is not as if we do not have these kinds of mechanisms within existing legislation.
Surely it is not beyond the wit, wisdom and wiles of the Canadian Parliament and the government with its resources to come up with a mechanism that would enable us to address the needs of this particular group.
As I say, in the instances of pregnancy and adoption a parent can claim special benefits to stay home to care for a child. Surely to goodness they should be able to do that in these circumstances.
If we had such a mechanism, the family would be able to continue to provide for regular living expenses as well as the additional costs that inevitably arise because of the illness of the child. These additional requirements, for instance, could include expensive medication, babysitting, perhaps for other children in the family, transportation to and from the hospital, hospital parking fees, meals, extra clothing because of weight loss or gain due to medication, special equipment for the care of the sick child, homemakers, home nursing. There are all kinds of expenses which are not necessarily covered by medicare.
All we are suggesting is that in this circumstance the people at least not be deprived of the income to which they are normally accustomed, although even the maximum payment under UIC might in many cases be less than what people would make if they stayed at their job. What is being suggested in this proposal is that people not be deprived entirely of one of the two incomes they are dependent on in this particularly difficult economic and emotional situation.
This is the proposal I am placing before the House. I would certainly be prepared to make copies of this proposal and some of the attached information and rationale available for members who may be interested in this. I hope that this afternoon we could actually do something here. Often we spend a lot of time here not feeling we are accomplishing a great deal. Surely we could agree among ourselves today, particularly given that it is a motion and not legislation.
It does not even go to a committee. All it has to do is pass this House in the next 40 minutes and it will be there on the record for the duration of this Parliament and for Parliaments to come, until such time as the government deals with this issue. It is an instruction by the House of Commons to the government, take heed, pay attention, look at the needs of this special group and do something about it.
May 19, 1992


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to take part in such a debate.

One of the most significant labour trends in our country has been the increase in the number of working mothers. It is estimated that by the year 2000 women will account for nearly one-half of all Canadian workers.
Recognition of the family responsibilities of workers has prompted family-leave policies in the private sector, in collective bargaining agreements and provincial and federal legislation.
A comment that I would like to make about the hon. member's motion in connection with the necessity for women to take leave to care for a terminally ill child would be to add the word "father" along with mother as men are now taking on additional family responsibilities.
I was particularly impressed with the member's arguments about the need for us to be more open to suggestions like this, and he is quite correct. This motion has come up in Parliament on a number of occasions and I did take part in other debates. However, I would like to put the motion, if I might, in the context of the entire labour force and see how this suggestion fits in with it.
Under the labour force development strategy of Bill C-21 which became law, the member was here, in November 1990, maternity benefits were improved at an annual cost of $450 million. These benefits, as he pointed out in a cursory way, included 15 weeks of maternity benefits available to natural and adoptive parents, either mother or father, or shared between them. Parents are eligible for an additional five weeks in parental benefits if the child is ill. An additional five weeks was included primarily at the insistence of adoptive parents who wished more bonding time with their new child.
To be eligible for the additional five weeks, the child must be six months or older at the time of placement or when the child comes home. The illness of the child would have to be certified by a doctor, but I would point out that it can be of a physical, psychological or emotion-
Private Members' Business
al nature. This leaves quite a broad spectrum for a doctor to make a pronouncement on. This would naturally require an extra period of parental care.
Departmental officials claim that 90 per cent of adoptive parents will qualify for the additional five weeks, 15 weeks sickness benefits. Any contributor to the UIC plan is eligible to claim sickness benefits. More than one type of benefit can be claimed; that is, maternity, parental and sickness. Within the claim period, one can claim up to 30 weeks.
If we look at these points in order, we can understand why the Employment Standards Act as a provincial statute is inconsistent with the UIC act. Labour standards vary from province to province. While the federal government can set examples, as in the case of reasonably progressive measures like maternity and parental benefits, it cannot force the provinces to pass similar legislation.
The fact that Ontario parents are eligible for a minimum, I repeat a minimum, of leave of six weeks is not the fault of the federal law. It is a failing, in my opinion, of Queen's Park; that is to say, it is a failing in the provincial legislation.
My party submitted amendments to Bill C-21 which would increase parental benefits for natural and adoptive parents from 10 to 15 weeks, regardless of child illness, and eliminate the maximum benefits of 30 weeks when maternity, parental and sickness benefits are combined.
It has always been our commitment to improve the maternity and parental leave provisions of the unemployment fund so that eligibility guidelines and benefits can better reflect the changing needs of Canadian society.
Some time ago a report on social trends reported that a poll taken from among a cross-section of women indicated, and I am quoting him directly, "a guilt so intense it has put many working mothers in a winding sheet of anxiety", the guilt being of course the fact that women are working outside the home.
One might well imagine how intensified that guilt is when a child is sick, or worse when a child is terminally ill. This is what the hon. member is talking about.

May 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
Working outside the home has became a financial necessity for many. Others often enjoy the satisfaction of a family and a career at the same time. This is their choice and I would surely not have any quarrel with it as I have two daughters who are doing that just at this moment.
Statistic Canada says that the picture of the household with dad at work and mom at home with the children is no longer a statistic. Fully 70 per cent of families with children under 16 in 1990 had mothers in the work force. Sixty-eight per cent of families with children under school age had a working mom. The Vanier Institute of the Family in Ottawa showed that the so-called family wage, a salary that could support a man, a wife and children, has largely disappeared in spite of the fact that many more women have entered the work force. In fact, if women stopped working, the number of low income families would rise by an estimated 62 per cent, according to the institute.
Canadians still crave the stability of a family rather than material goods. Goldfarb Consultants has also done some research tracking social trends nation-wide since 1980. About 30 per cent of parents polled declared categorically that they feel they do not spend enough time with their children. Social workers and counsellors often remark that during the counselling sessions with mothers of young children, the mothers comment about the torture they feel to do their best at a job and parenting at the same time. It is never easy for a young mother to go out and do a full day's work and come home and still be faced with all the chores she has to do at home, including of course spending time with her very precious children.
At the annual conference of First Ministers held in Ottawa in November 1989, the Government of Canada submissioned to the talks the necessity to support the family. Here is a text of the opening paragraph:
In its capacity as legislator, the Government of Canada has an important role in regulating work practices and providing labour market programs to support the efforts of individuals to balance work and family responsibilities.
Through his motion, the hon. member has raised a most valid concern which must be addressed at the federal level if we are to follow through with a plan to really support the efforts of individuals to "balance work and family responsibilities".
I do have a few nagging questions. I wonder, if this motion was passed, would this leave of a parent, mother or father, be paid leave? Would it be paid through the UIC? Would there be benefits from there? Would there be a cap on the amount of time that the parent could spend with the child that is terminally ill?
I am very open to this type of suggestion, as is my party. If we could have some suggestions or information on it, I believe this is the type of thing toward which we should be advancing as we deal with the social problems and the social opportunities of this day.
I would encourage the hon. member to continue in his quest to have this motion passed. With a little more information, it could be supported by members on our side.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member's concerns are met with the motion.
The motion simply instructs the government to come up with a proposal to do this. It would be up to the people in his own party to come forward with a proposal. It is not a question of having to deal with the details today. It is simply a question of having the House instruct the government to come back to the House at some future date with a proposal that would deal with the concerns that the member has raised.


Ms. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I was deeply touched by the motion from my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, to enable mothers with terminally-ill children to take leave from their employment in order to care for such children.
We know that there are more and more women in the labour force. Being a mother myself, as my colleagues know -not a young mother, but a recent mother -I realize to what extent the responsibilities of caring for the children fall on the mothers, for the most part. I do not mean to belittle in any way the responsibilities fathers might assume, but it is a fact that the role of mothers is extremely important.
When children are sick, the role of the parents-I will use the plural, because I know that both mother and father have a very important role to play-becomes parts of the treatment and the cure. On top of chemical, physiological or medical treatments, you also have the moral, psychological, emotional and physical support that parents can provide to a child who has to undergo treatment, who must experience extremely stressful and
May 19, 1992

painful circumstances that have normally no part in childhood.
I was touched by the motion. Obviously our government could explore the possibility of amending labour laws or regulations to deal with situations like the one described, situations with are extreme and exceptional.
Clearly, as another member was saying a while ago, there are details to iron out. For example, would the leave be covered by unemployment insurance? Should there be a time limit for the payments, if payments are made? For the time being, we are only debating the principle of the thing, and I think it has merit, especially since we keep repeating that families make the social fabric, and that a healthy society starts with healthy families.
I wish to support this motion but add that the role of the father could be substituted for the role of the mother when the circumstances require it, but it is true that statistically it is more often the mother than the father who is involved.

Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make a few remarks with respect to Motion M-72 which proposes that the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable mothers with terminally ill children to take leave from their employment in order to care for such children.
One can certainly sympathize with the intent of the motion. However, my hon. friend has not taken into account the fact that by limiting the leave to mothers of terminally ill children, this motion is discriminatory. I have heard his remarks that explain that this could be amended down the road. There are also those who say that it contravenes the Charter of Rights and they ask about the fathers, step-parents and guardians of terminally ill children.
The motion is also vague in its lack of definition of a child. For instance, at what stage does a person cease to be a child? Is the standard one of chronology or one of dependency?
Private Members' Business
As well, there is no indication of criteria for determining the point at which an illness becomes terminal and what length of time is envisaged with regard to leave granted.
Surely these critical elements might introduce an emotion that has far-reaching repercussions.
We have also not been advised as to what obligations will be imposed on employers and to what extent they will be required to continue an assortment of benefits including seniority, health care, pension coverage and while the employee is on leave.
While I appreciate the spirit in which the motion is being tabled, I believe the hon. member did not quite take into account all the complexities and ramifications that any legislation in this domain will have incorporated.
This government has an ongoing commitment to harmonize the work and the family life of Canadians. Over the past few decades we have seen a profound change in attitudes in this increasingly important area. These changes have taken place as the nature and the composition of the work force have evolved.
Only a few statistics have been cited to show how dramatic the changes have been. In 1965, 65 per cent of all Canadian families were what has customarily been thought of as traditional families; that is, there is only one wage earner.
Ten years later this proportion was cut in half and by 1981 only 16 per cent of all families in Canada had the husband as the sole bread-winner. The result of the 1991 census will probably underscore that trend.
There have been other equally significant changes. The percentage of persons in the population over 65 is going up sharply. More and more working men and women are carrying for elderly parents or persons with disabilities. Men are increasingly sharing the care of the children.
Given these labour markets and attitudinal shifts, we have also needed to alter the manner in which we conceive of the relationship between work and family and even with one another.
These are important developments and actions must be taken.

May 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
What we actually do to integrate these two spheres of life needs to be considered. As well, we must consider all circumstances.
I hope my hon. friend appreciates that no single method is suitable for all work places. Initiatives will vary by both individuals and by work sites. Canadian businesses are showing increasing willingness to experiment to try whatever they believe is reasonable and practical to accommodate the needs of their employees.
This kind of progress calls for flexibility.
I would also like to point out that a wide variety of measures has already been introduced by employers and unions across the country. In many instances they have exceeded legislative minimum standards because of their growing recognition that the evolving nature of the work place plus the changing demographics necessitate resourceful measures which will come out in harmony rather than in disruption.
I can attest to this happening right in this very House where several years ago when I was the Whip of our party we were in the opposition. We had a member in the government party who had a child who was terminally ill. Because the balance in the House was rather close, he was unable to get permission to leave the House to go and spend any amount of time with his terminally ill child.
I arranged for a pair for him on a permanent basis so that he was able to be with the child in the last few months of its life. These sorts of things go on with employers across the country.
Computerized information is now available in many areas on community based facilities for children and the elderly as well as on support services available in the work place. There are subsidies available to sustain these ventures and many employers have introduced supplementary benefit plans and family supportive relocation policies.
Work on family initiatives requires planning and financial commitments. Some initiatives cost less than others and more are acceptable to a greater number of organizations. These include, for example, modification to benefit plans to cover elderly dependents.
I do not believe that the member, in proposing his motion, has considered how many variables are involved in the reconciliation of work and family life. This government is facilitating the process by working closely with labour and management as well as with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
Many highly beneficial adjustments have already taken place and the response from employers and employees has been positive. For instance, working hours have been rearranged to accommodate the new realities of the two-income family. Flexible working hours and options to work out of the home have already made great strides to meet family related needs of workers.
Balancing work and family responsibilities is also increasingly regarded as critical to the Canadian economy and the achievement of economic equality for women. Employers and labour organizations in steadily increasing numbers are recognizing the need to adapt the workplace to meet the changing needs of the work force.
I trust my hon. friend will appreciate from these remarks that considerable work has already been done to assist families to look after pressing personal needs. There is also a need to reconcile all these enterprising measures with the resources that are available. While the proposal that mothers with terminally ill children should be able to take leave from their employment in order to care for those children is both commendable and compassionate, I believe it is clear that any step in that singular direction is a piecemeal approach and is only one small part of balancing working and family responsibilities.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Perhaps the House should be reminded that what we are debating here is a motion, not a bill. It is a motion calling for legislation that would embody all the flexibilities and variables and everything else the member just talked about.
We are simply talking about a motion here and I think the House should keep that in mind. A bill could be criticized for not doing all the things the member criticized this motion for. A motion is simply a motion that would instruct the government to come up with the legislation that would meet all the concerns the member has so ably itemized.
May 19, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before going on with the debate, I understand that the hon. member seems to be indirectly asking the Chair to be more strict as to the relevance of remarks. Since this is a private member's motion, I would rather take the risk of being tolerant in this debate even if it means being too generous. That is why I try to intervene the least possible and let members express themselves with much latitude on the motion under study.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to Motion M-72, which proposes that the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to enable mothers with terminally ill children to take leave from their employment in order to care for such children.
There is no question in my mind that this motion was bom out of compassionate motives, but unfortunately it does not take into account a number of very important considerations.
The hon. member should know that restricting this kind of leave to women is discriminatory or could be discriminatory toward male parents and therefore it could be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Provincial and territorial ministers of labour met recently with the federal Minister of Labour to discuss, among other things, the whole issue of balancing work and family responsibilities. Each jurisdiction is developing policies and practices that will apply to all workers who have responsibility for children, spouses and elderly parents.
Labour Canada has already taken a number of significant steps to address the challenges intrinsic to a changing work force and shifting family priorities.
For instance, over the last 18 months Labour Canada has hosted three regional seminars on balancing work and family responsibilities.
As well, through the Workplace Equality Fund, WEF, Labour Canada supports projects aimed at ensuring equality for women in the work place. This fund gives
Private Members' Business
priority to projects involving labour management partnerships and to those focusing on the integration of work and family responsibilities.
Increasing numbers of employers are getting together with unions and employers to consult and co-operate in reaching an accord on family and work related issues. There is a growing recognition of the need for family-responsive work places that will act decisively as the labour force participation rate for women continues to grow and as elder care needs become increasingly important. This is particularly pertinent in the context of the apparent trend among Canadian workers to favour flexibility and choice in their lives.
One initiative involves increased work and family integration through work place support for workers with dependants. For example, some companies offer subsidies for respite care. This arrangement enables employees to return to work while care-giving responsibilities are assigned to health care professionals.
Other organizations have established on-sight or near-sight child care centres and still other companies have extended their employees dependant care coverage to include health and dental expenses for the employee's parents. Recently, the Bank of Montreal, recognizing that already two out of every five Canadians over age 30 provide some form of care for elderly relatives, began an elder care program. It offers employees counselling and assistance in dealing with older dependants. It seems likely that with the Canadian population aging, more and more workers will want to have benefits of this kind.
I believe that this kind of enlightened action, which benefits employees and employers alike, demonstrates clearly that legislation is not the only approach to family related issues that are felt in the workplace. We frequently underestimate the degree to which management and labour can sit down and co-operate on matters that affect both productivity and workplace harmony. This kind of collaboration can have a favourable impact on a company's over-all ability to compete and prosper for the benefit of all concerned.
While the bargaining table may be one area where problems or misunderstandings can be resolved, more often than not common sense and good will can form the basis of co-operation and partnership that will remove the obstacles toward accord and mutual trust.

May 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
Even with the difficult economic circumstances we face today, I believe it is possible for the work place partners to give a high priority to matters concerned with the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities. The progressive initiatives that have been implemented and perpetuated by far-sighted companies in the collaboration with responsible unions mirrors a more flexible and considerate perspective.
Recent research confirms these observations. It has been demonstrated that employers who offer family-responsive benefits to their employees find these benefits to be effective ways of recruiting and keeping competent workers. These factors also have been found to weigh heavily against stress and absenteeism in the work place. Improved morale has resulted and the over-all efficiency of the worker has also been enhanced in the process.
I believe hon. members are aware that the federal government continues to act as a catalyst, moving employers and employees closer together in the pursuit of solutions to work place and family questions. We know that an unhappy work force is less productive, less motivated and less lucky to make adjustments to the rapid technological changes taking place in the new world economic order.
All governments must continue to play a significant part in promoting partnership between employer and employee. We must encourage the expression of good will and common sense as we establish a more altruistic and amicable atmosphere, one within which we can make substantial progress in improving the lot of the worker while also addressing the viability of our economy.
Under the circumstances, in addition to the fact that the motion excludes fathers, step-parents and guardians, I am not prepared to support it at this time because there are already substantial innovations being undertaken to deal with work and family responsibilities. These initiatives are proceeding in an ongoing and effective manner.
The thought is good but I believe, as I have said earlier, we are addressing those issues on an ongoing basis and for that reason, I do not feel that I can support the motion.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to respond to Motion M-72 proposed by my colleague across the way. I know he introduced this motion and put it in the hopper, as he said, a good long time ago because of his great interest in this very important area.
It proposes that the government, as he said earlier, should introduce legislation to enable mothers with terminally ill children to take leave from their employment to care for the children.
Previous speakers have indicated how responsive they are, and I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg knows that this government's response has been changing to the needs of the work force. As well, ample documentation was provided as to the manner in which companies and employees are collaborating to arrive at harmonious decisions affecting the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities. Certainly all are to be lauded for the amount of work that is going on in collective agreements and in co-operation between employer and employees.
I am sure all members realize that balancing work and family is increasingly recognized as being critical to the Canadian economy and to the achievement of equality for women especially. Employers and labour organizations acknowledge the need to adapt the work place to meet the changing needs of our work force. We also know that in the current economic circumstances, employers are looking for cost-effective ways in which to enhance the balance between work and family responsibilities and I know this is of great concern to my hon. friend.
A wide variety of practical strategies have been already implemented at little cost to reduce the stress associated with competing work and family priorities for workers, while at the same time meeting the employer's operational objectives.
The government is working toward ratification by Canada of the International Labour Organization Convention No. 156 on equal opportunities and equal treatment of workers with family responsibilities, hopefully to coincide with the celebration of the United Nations International Year of the Family in 1994.
The provinces are presently looking at the provisions of the convention. Taking this step would be an opportunity for Canada to communicate world-wide its commitment to meeting the needs of workers and family
May 19, 1992

responsibilities. I know my hon. friend who proposed this motion has been following this UN convention with interest.
The convention recognizes that change in the traditional role of men as well as women in society and in the family has to be recognized if there is to be full equality between men and women. It further states that the problems of workers with family responsibilities are aspects of wider issues regarding the family and society and are matters which should be taken into account in national policies.
Article 6 of the convention states that competent authorities in every country should take appropriate measures to promote information and education which engender broader public understanding of the principle of equality of opportunity and the treatment for men and women workers, including workers with family responsibilities.
I do not intend to go through the entire convention with hon. members, but there are provisions in this document which are important to the matter at hand. For instance, Article 9 recognizes that there are many important ways to achieve equal opportunities and treatment for workers with family responsibilities, be they men or women. These include, among others, collective agreements, work rules and appropriate practices.
We all should realize that the principal parties in any venture are best equipped to recognize their own requirements and then take the necessary steps to attain their goals. We know there is a growing sense of partnership between labour and management when it comes to the manner of work and family responsibilities.
We have heard about companies that have exercised initiative without recourse to legislation. This kind of action augers well for increasing collaboration between the stakeholders in this regard.
It is clear that Canada already has a progressive framework of legislation and practices in place with respect to the treatment and benefits accorded its workers. However, we in the government are determined to maintain our vigilance over matters related to labour standards and will amend and upgrade them as necessary in order to make them mirror the realities of the time.
Private Members' Business
As our employers and employees make adjustments to a restructured global economy and the increasingly competitive international marketplace, it is incumbent upon governments at all levels to respond if and when our existing regulations are inadequate.
The federal government will continue to monitor the whole world of work, but we will only step in with legal measures when it becomes absolutely necessary. In the meantime, it is prudent to allow market forces, coupled with a spirit of co-operation, to dictate the course of future arrangements in this very important area.
Under the circumstances I am sure hon. members will agree that the motion before us is certainly well-intended. As the hon. member from Winnipeg has indicated, he put this motion forward, I believe he said, back in 1989 for the first time. He indicated in committee that he might have approached it slightly differently and, as he mentioned in his speech, he would have included men as well as women in his redrafting. Certainly this bill is well-intended.
One of the members of the Conservative Party mentioned earlier that a new mother would have a lot of interest in the government taking heed, if not of passing the motion. Certainly it would be an indication to the government to take heed of this very important debate and this very important initiative that has been brought forward. Even though there are a number of non-legislative initiatives being implemented, they have to be implemented successfully and we have to see some results.
It is incumbent upon all of us to make these work and it is incumbent upon us to take special note of the motion put forward by our hon. friend from across the way and reflect upon it. As he has said, it is not legislation, it is proposed as a motion to have the government work toward legislation. If it does not reach that stage it certainly brings it to the attention of the House and all our constituents across the country who are listening that this is an important area of parental concern that we as a government and all members of the House should be concerned about, take heed of and watch as non-legislative approaches come forward. We hope that this will be successful and conclude in what the hon. member had in mind when he put forward this motion for the government to introduce legislation.

Routine Proceedings
I thank the hon. member for putting forward the motion and I thank the Speaker and the House for the opportunity to speak to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is now deemed to have been moved. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have some motions to put forward in connection with standing committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair is in a quandary because the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier was about to speak. I would prefer the House to indicate to me unanimously whether they are willing to give the floor to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton for the purpose of proposing a motion. I must admit that if I do not get that unanimous consent, I would prefer to recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to move his motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Kenneth Albert James: That five members of the Standing Committee on the Environment be permitted to travel to Rio de Janeiro from June 1 to June 12, 1992 to attend the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; and
That, notwithstanding any standing order of this House, the chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions for that conference from any envelopes by filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee and such substitutions shall be effective for the entire period of travel and shall be effective immediately when they are received by the clerk of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Kenneth Albert James: That, as part of a study on aboriginal housing, five members and three staff of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be authorized to travel to Saskatchewan and the western part of the Northwest Territories from June 1 to June 6, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Kenneth Albert James: That five members of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries be permitted to travel to Rio de Janeiro from June 1 to June 12, 1992 to attend the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development; and
That, notwithstanding any standing order of this House, the chief Whip of any recognized party may effect substitutions for that conference from any envelopes by filing notice thereof with the clerk of the committee and such substitutions shall be effective for the entire period of travel and should be effective immediately when they are received by the clerk of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 19, 1992

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1992,1 again raised in this House the issue of the Court Challenges Program, which as we know was abolished by the government in February. Many Canadians think this program is essential and I believe that it should be restored or reinstated. I asked the minister why, at a time when we are rethinking our constitutional future, the government abolished this program which is considered essential and as we know gave legal recourse to women, native people, racial minorities, linguistic and ethnic groups, who are very well aware that it is illusory to give them rights if these rights are not correctly interpreted by the courts. Why could the minister not give the cabinet convincing arguments so that all Canadians, whatever their means, rights and privileges, can defend themselves in court?
My party and I take this issue very seriously. April 1 was an opposition day and it was completely devoted to the Court Challenges Program. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I think that we proved beyond any doubt that the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and his colleagues who spoke in that debate did not have very strong or convincing arguments.
The body of precedents is far from complete, even though the minister said that there were 300 cases and that they now had a body of jurisprudence. He also told me that it was time for others-I will quote page 8362 of Hansard of March 17:
Whether a program must go on forever should be determined now either by other jurisdictions which have a responsibility, or by the private sector, if there is such an interest.
These causes were essential for Canadians to obtain a clear and precise interpretation of their rights regarding education and equality. I cannot imagine a more important issue, at a time of constitutional reform, than to give
Adjournment Debate
all Canadians, regardless of their revenue, the right to appear before a court.
The Conservative government has raised the issue of the cost of that program, which totals $2.7 million per year. This amount represents less than 10 cents per Canadian per year for a program that gave each and every one the possibility to go before the courts and defend their rights. This program was but a drop in the federal budget of some $160 billion.
I find it hard to see how the Conservative government was able to find $15 million to increase the budget of the legal services in the Department of Justice, that is $15 million for litigations, but could not find $2 million for the Court Challenges Program, which helped Canadians to protect their rights.
Numerous people wrote letters-I have received a great many and so has the government-including experts such as former judges from the Supreme Court, to say that this program was very useful. We also received many petitions. To this day, more than 5,500 petitioners have asked Parliament to restore this program.
This was not an expensive program but it was valuable. I will end with a quote from Mrs. Rolande Soucie, the vice-president of the Federation des communautes francophones et acadienne du Canada, and a former researcher here at the Library of Parliament. She said, regarding official languages: "The government sends a very ambiguous message. On the one hand, it is proud of the linguistic duality and it makes a big thing of it, especially at the international level, but it is not ready to support the individuals and groups that want to have their rights enshrined in the charter."
Once again I ask the government, on behalf of all the citizens that care about Canadian rights and liberties, to recognize its mistake and to restore as soon as possible the Court Challenges Program.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I have the dreadful task of answering to my hon. colleague who always puts his heart in what he does. As spokesperson for the government, I want to remind him that it is true that our nation is in the midst of constitutional debate-discussions that will indeed affect the future of Canada, but never the commitment to the basic rights and fundamental freedoms that our citizens share as Canadians.

May 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I am referring, of course, to a topic raised yet again; this government's decision to abolish federal funding of the Court Challenges Program. Our critics claim that, through this action, we are abandoning the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is clearly not so. Rather, the charter remains a living document that will continue to be strengthened in our daily lives. However, in this period of fiscal restraint the government has to limit its expenditures.
The issues surrounding the equality and rights of disadvantaged and minority groups are shared by all of us. Canadians must do their part to join us in supporting our charter. This government is asking the leaders of the provinces, and of the private sector, to share the responsibility of enforcing our rights and freedoms within their own sphere of influence. Surely this is not too much to request of the very people who speak so strongly for those rights.
I reiterate for hon. members that we shall continue to pursue the fundamental values of Canadian citizenship that bear a direct impact on our daily lives: equality and participation.
In conclusion, the court challenges decision was a difficult one. We now ask our provincial colleagues and the private sector to work together with us in furthering our national human rights goals.
[English)


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this House on April 28,1 asked the Prime Minister why his government has cut 40,000 jobs from the Summer Employment Experience Development program since 1985.
The minister of youth gave the expected response. He told the House the budget for the SEED program was increased last year and has been increased again this year. That is a very clever answer but it is misleading. Since 1985, this government has cut $72 million from SEED'S budgets. When one removes the $6 million that has been added over the past two years, there is a cumulative cut of $66 million. The government's increases are cosmetic and do not even begin to make up for the devastation caused by those earlier cuts.
The facts prove this. In 1990 when the total SEED budget was $77 million, the number of jobs created through SEED was 54,000. In 1991 with a budget increase of $3 million, the number of jobs created actually fell to 53,800. The reason for this drop is simple. While there are private companies and organizations in our communities that are willing to hire young people for the summer, they are unable to do so without the support of government. This government is robbing young people of the opportunity to work and is denying access to firms and organizations that are willing to tap into a dynamic and ambitious work force.
The statistics illustrate the cold hard truth. Without government help there will be no jobs for young people in this economy. While the general population struggles with an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, the rate for Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 is 16.8 per cent. This is because young people are usually the first to be laid off in a recession and they are the last to be hired when the economy begins to recover.
For example, of the 32,000 full-time jobs that the Canadian economy lost in February 1992, 22,000 were held by young people. However, the worst effect of a youth unemployment rate of 16.8 per cent is that many young Canadians are being robbed of their future. I am speaking of those post-secondary education students who must work in order to pay their tuition fees, their living expenses and other costs. Because tuition fees have skyrocketed since 1985, it is critical for an increasing number of students to find work during the summer.
Between 1985 and 1991, tuition fees increased 45.5 per cent in Ontario and 145 per cent in the province of Quebec. If these students do not find work this summer, tens of thousands of them will be squeezed out of the system, unable to pay for their tuition or to support themselves. This happens at a time when the government is speaking about a prosperity agenda and global competitiveness, but the fact is I do not think that this government understands what it means to be competitive in a global market. Given the urgency of the situation, I call on the government to take action immediately. I call on it to increase its commitment to

the SEED program and create badly needed employment for Canada's youth.
Today is an extreme situation and it requires immediate measures. As a nation we cannot afford to have a generation of citizens who have given up on their future. We must not discard young Canadians who are badly in need of employment simply because they do not fit into rigid economic policies.
Anyone who doubts the urgency of this problem need look no further than this Sunday's Toronto Star edition which paints a very depressing portrait of the dire straits in which so many young Canadians now find themselves. I hope the government will understand that the future of these young people is a worth-while investment.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked by the hon. member for York North, I am pleased to discuss, on behalf of the Minister of State for Youth, the government's summer programming as it concerns Canada's youth.
This government is committed to assisting Canadian youth find employment. In this regard, a number of summer programs have been developed over the years to prepare Canadian youth for the challenges of the future. These programs are mostly funded under the Challenge '92 program whose allocation this year was set at $110 million.
The member is obviously interested in the SEED component of the challenge program which subsidizes summer jobs for Canadian students. The SEED (summer employment experience development) component of challenge '92 was increased by $3 million this summer to ensure that our commitment to youth was maintained. This means that this summer some 55,000 jobs will be created fo youth.
For the past two years, Ontario has distributed the SEED funds based on two factors: student population and communities experiencing unemployment rates greater than the provincial average. This concentrated funds in Northern Ontario, Windsor and the Niagara peninsula. This was and still is an acceptable way of doing business because it recognizes that other
Adjournment Debate
areas are more able to create sufficient job opportunities without assistance.
This year, however, every area in the province is experiencing higher than average unemployment rates. It was therefore decided that a more even distribution of funds would be needed. This means that some areas in Ontario will actually receive less SEED funds this year than last. However funds under START and the Canadian Jobs Strategy allocated in these areas will offset the reductions in seed funding.
Finally, the member should remember that there are other summer programs like the Business Loans Program which will receive some $900,000 this summer. There is also the Business Drive for Jobs which will receive $800,000, the Native Internship Program and the Canada Employment Centres for Students which will receive $12 million in funding.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in late February of this year I raised a question in this House with the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the situation of two women living in the Yukon Territory, Andrea Underwood and Anna Carrott.
Andrea Underwood, a Canadian citizen, has been living with her partner Anna Carrott in a committed and loving relationship for some eight years together with Anna's children. This couple run a lodge in the Yukon, the Morley Lodge.
I asked the minister at that time to recognize the fundamental inhumanity of the policies of the immigration department which denied any status whatsoever to this and similar relationships. I urged the minister to extend Anna's visa while this case is being considered by the Federal Court.
I am very pleased that the minister did, in fact, agree to extend the visa in these circumstances. I want to take this opportunity to again draw to the attention of the House the fundamental cruelty and immorality of a policy which states that Canadians, men and women who are involved in committed loving relationships with non-Canadian citizens of the same sex, are denied any recognition whatsoever of those relationships in Canadian immigration law. In the eyes of the law that relationship does not exist. It is invisible.

May 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
In a number of other countries including Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands and Scandinavian countries, there are policies in place recognizing that same sex relationships should be recognized for purposes of immigration law.
Indeed, a task force of a number of individuals, a number of prominent citizens of British Columbia, chaired by Professor Douglas Sanders of the University of British Columbia, is looking into the whole question of the implications of the current discriminatory policies affecting the lesbian and gay community in Canada.
The government itself is studying these policies. It has been studying them for some three years. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in 1989 in which she stated that she had asked her officials to look into the policies and consider the possibility on compassionate humanitarian grounds.
I have another letter from the current Minister of Employment and Immigration stating that this is being studied. But surely the time for study has ended. If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to mean anything, then there must be full equality.
On March 4, 1986 the federal government, this Conservative government announced that there would be an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction. That must include immigration as well.
I want to pay tribute to the two women in the Yukon who have the courage to publicly challenge these policies, as well as to Christine Morrissey and her life companion of 14 years, Bridget Coll, who have challenged these policies similarly in the Federal Court.
As Ms. Morrissey said: "I feel as a Canadian I ought to have the same rights as any other Canadian to sponsor the person with whom I have chosen to share my life. We are not claiming any special rights for same sex couples but asking for the same consideration from the immigration department to be able to live in Canada with the life companion of our choice as any Canadian sponsoring a member of their family is given".
Christine Morrissey's 76-year old mother added: "I cannot understand why Christine is not allowed to sponsor Bridget for immigration".
I hope that the government will reconsider these policies. Unfortunately, the Court Challenges Program which was funding the challenge to this discriminatory area of the law has been eliminated. I hope that the funds will be there for Christine and Bridget and for the others who challenge these policies.
Again, I call upon the government to recognize there must be an end to discrimination in this area. It is time that this government recognized that lesbians and gay men are equal citizens in this country and entitled to be treated with equality, dignity and respect.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I welcome the opportunity to further discuss the matters raised by my hon. colleague, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway.
It is not possible to sponsor a same sex spouse under the Immigration Act. Such a relationship does not meet the current definition of spouse under the family class regulations. Given that this issue is now before the Federal Court, it would be inappropriate to use this House as a means to influence or interfere with this legal process.
I will take this opportunity, even if the member for Burnaby-Kingsway did not mention it earlier, to address another aspect of the question he submitted to the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration on February 25 concerning the case of Mr. Abo Shandi. The Solicitor General and the minister signed a security certificate because of the seriousness of this case. I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the Federal Court found that this certificate was reasonable. This action to exclude terrorists and subversives from Canada clearly states this government's view that Canada will not be a safe haven for persons with active terrorist or subversive backgrounds who constitute a menace for Canada.


CANADA 125 CORPORATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, on March 17 I asked the Secretary of State why in this year's budget the Canada 125 Corporation was allocated another $30 million, an outrageous 150 per cent funding increase, while many essential programs are being cut and cancelled.
Over the last two years, the Canada 125 Corporation has been allocated a total of $50 million of taxpayers' money. By contrast the Secretary of State has only $2 million for local community celebrations of Canada's 125th birthday.
Canadians will be astounded to know that this private non-profit corporation, whose three legal directors are Tories, is not subject to the same disclosure rules as government departments. Where is this government's accountability to the citizens of this country? Why would Canadians believe that the $50 million of public money is well managed when we hear of the waste and mismanagement by Canada 125 Corporation? A $1 million direct mail campaign brought only .001 per cent response. Also, $4.2 million was wasted on ambiguous TV ads which stirred up interest but gave no toll-free number for viewers to call. English pamphlets were distributed through direct mail when the French version could only be obtained by purchasing a newspaper. Over $71,000 went to two countries for the development of two different logos for the Canada 125 Corporation.
Is this efficient private sector management? Surely Secretary of State Department would have done it better and for a much lower cost.
The Canada 125 Corporation's mandate is to act as a catalyst for private sector initiatives, institutional projects and individual participation of Canadians from all walks of life. Yet none of the $50 million allocated to Canada 125 Corporation goes to direct funding for local community celebrations.
Local communities apply to the Department of Secretary of State which only has $2 million to fund about 1,700 projects for Canada. Remember this is half of the money wasted on TV ads. To celebrate this year, the demand has greatly increased while funds are the same through Secretary of State.
Adjournment Debate
In its last budget, this government abandoned Canadians who are most in need. The indefinite postponement of both the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, the abolishment of the Court Challenges Program, the elimination of co-op housing, a $100 million cut from job training programs, all these hurt the people who are most disadvantaged. Surely these programs are more important than pre-election pizzazz by corporate Canada.
We have a glorious country. Canada 125 celebrations are needed to lift our collective spirits and bring our country together. Canadians want our celebration to be fun and meaningful, involving people from all walks of life who come together to celebrate the joy of being Canadian and to celebrate our achievements and our common values.
Canadians want a government that is accountable and honest. Allocating $50 million of taxpayers' money for the Canada 125 Corporation with no public accountability, coupled with poor management, is a disgrace.
Instead of funding Canada 125 Corporation, this government should have increased funding through Secretary of State for community groups to hold genuine celebrations. Canadians deserve better.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to set the record straight about the partnership between the Government of Canada and the Canada 125 Corporation.
Last year, eminent and nationally recognized Canadians like Frank King, Iona Campagnolo -not Conservatives -Claude Dupras, Alex Colville, Mel Cooper, Paul Desmarais and Angus Reid came together in a spirit of public-mindedness to organize and coordinate a meaningful celebration of our great country's 125th anniversary.
The corporation has forged a strong and dynamic partnership across the breadth of Canada. Imperial Oil, Manu Life, Canadian Tire, Greyhound, Canada Dry and many others have joined with thousands of community volunteers to mount the celebration of our generation.

Adjournment Debate
For example, Participaction, with the kind sponsorship of Imperial Oil, has animated over 10,000 local events, making this anniversary a most special one.
The hon. member charges that this sum is a waste, but she should ask Montrealers how wonderful it was this weekend. I must say I was there. I would remind her that, in 1967, the Centennial Commission spent far more than this amount.
The philosophy of this government has been to build partnerships, not to impose solutions. Her party traditionally favours impositions and state intervention.
We on this side uphold what Canadians in 1989 resoundingly said-our celebration of Canada 125 must be a partnership and not a made-in-Ottawa event.
For far too long, Canadians have been somewhat reluctant to express their pride in Canada. Our approach to Canada 125 fosters the pride which is in each one of us.
For every four dollars spent by the Canadian gover-ment, the private and voluntary sectors are spending five.
On this side, we see this as a success. On their side, the hon. member's colleagues see any positive returns as a failure. What can we do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 20,1992