1992-09-08

["Mr. Speaker, the economic plight of metro Toronto has truly reached chronic proportions. While the government continues to take a hands-off approach, Canadians in Toronto are paying a particularly high price for this cavalier attitude.\nThe unemployment rate in Toronto has reached its highest level since the Great Depression: 11.7 per cent. Two hundred and forty-four thousand people are without jobs, more than double the number of only two years ago.\nWhen you also add the number of people who have given up looking for work and the replacement of full-time jobs by part-time work, you regrettably have a Toronto which has been brought to its economic knees.\nMetro Toronto's leadership role in the country's economy has been grossly mismanaged and allowed to deteriorate to an all-time low.\nI urge this government to immediately put the brakes to this stagnation by exercising the levers to effectively stimulate the Toronto economy and thereby create the jobs and consumer confidence that is badly needed.\nFor this Conservative government to watch this unravel and do absolutely nothing is the height of political\nirresponsibility.\nSeptember 8, 1992", 'Oral Questions']
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 28(3), I gave notice that the House should meet today. On Friday, September 4, 1992, I sent electronic mail to each member explaining the reasons for the recall of the House.

I also wish to inform the House that in accordance with the representation made by the government under the provisions of Standing Order 55(1) I have caused to be published a special Order Paper giving notice of a government motion. I now lay upon the table the relevant documents.
I am also tabling today documentation relating to the request by the government to recall the House for July 15, 1992 as well as documentation which resulted in my decision to rescind the recall of the House scheduled for that day.
On June 26, 1992, after consultation with the government under the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) and being satisfied that the public interest required that the House be recalled in order to consider the constitutional situation, I gave notice that the House meet on July 15, 1992.

On July 10 I received a request, signed by representatives of the three recognized parties in the House, to rescind the recall because they felt it was no longer necessary, in the public interest, to recall the House for July 15, 1992.

This request to rescind the recall was unprecedented and the Standing Orders do not offer the Speaker any direction as to the action to be taken in such a case. As the recall of the House is ultimately the prerogative of the Speaker, on July 11, 1992, after careful consideration, I directed that the recall of July 15, 1992 be rescinded. I came to this decision as the request to rescind the recall was made by all three recognized parties that agreed it was no longer necessary in the public interest for the House to meet at that time.

I wish to thank the House for allowing the Speaker to explain the reasons for his decision.



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Jean C. Lapierre, P.C., member for the electoral district of Shefford, by resignation, on Sunday, August 23, 1992.
In accordance with paragraph 25(1)(Z>) of the Parliament of Canada Act, on Monday, August 24, 1992, I addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral district.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Literacy Day. This occasion gives Canadians an opportunity to look at the seriousness of illiteracy in our country.
A number of studies indicated that there are 25 per cent to 40 per cent of Canadians who have different

September 8, 1992
degrees of difficulty with literacy and numeracy. It is estimated that it costs Canada $10 billion a year to respond to this particular problem.
What we need is a change of policies. We need to stop cutting funds to the provinces for education. We need to remove the goods and services tax on books, and we need to provide jobs for young Canadians so that they can go back to college and university.
I urge all Canadians who want to improve their literacy and numeracy skills to enrol in literacy and numeracy programs today in organizations that promote those programs: schools, colleges, and universities.

These programs exist in French, English and other languages.
I wish all Canadians who are now back in their class-rooms a very successful school year.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 Canadians will have the opportunity to reaffirm their belief in this country in the first national referendum in 50 years.
The wording will neither be complex nor lengthy and could read as follows: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached August 28, 1992?
The question is simple but the constitutional package is complex. It is my belief Canadians will speak in support of a renewed Canada provided they understand the proposals.
I urge all members of Parliament to work together to heighten the debate and take it to a level never before seen in Canadian politics. If this is achieved Canadians will unmistakably reaffirm their belief in this country on October 26.


DR. CHANDER GROVER
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago a human rights tribunal issued a devastating indictment of the National Research Council for its
discriminatory treatment of world-renowned optics scientist, Dr. Chander Grover.
In the words of the tribunal, calling the treatment of Dr. Grover harsh and unfair falls far short of the humiliating, demeaning, and destructive treatment he suffered at the hands of the National Research Council.
This treatment continued even while his case was being heard and decided upon by the tribunal. Even worse, Dr. Perron, president of NRC, and the minister of state for science and technology were repeatedly made aware of ongoing retaliation against Dr. Grover.
I ask both the minister of state for science and technology and the Minister of Justice to investigate and ensure those responsible for this blot on our national reputation are properly disciplined. Until we blot out discrimination we will waste the talent of fine scientists like Dr. Grover.


MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for several months I have been speaking in Ottawa on behalf of parties involved in mining exploration and development, the economic development of our resource region Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
For several months the federal government has been conducting negotiations with Quebec concerning the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Mineral Development. As the federal Minister, of Energy, Mines and Resources said in his letter dated August 14, 1992, negotiations were progressing and an agreement might be concluded by the end of this summer.
The mining industry needs a boost, and the people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue are getting impatient. They would like to see this agreement signed as soon as possible.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we celebrated Labour Day, a time when women and men pause to join with their families to celebrate their contribution to nation building.
September 8, 1992

As we speak this week in the Chamber about how the constitutional deal will save Canada, let us not forget what we have to lose as Canadians.
While opinion leaders and politicians have spent their time worrying over a constitutional agreement, the second phase of the Tory agenda, the economic Constitution, was slipped on the public agenda.
The North American free trade agreement will mean even more job loss and dislocation for thousands of Canadian workers. The Tory response to the disaster of the free trade agreement with the U.S. was to extend the misery to those their first agreement missed.
I ask this House to join me in saying thank you to the women and men who through their labour have made this a wonderful country worth saving and in saying no thank you to NAFTA.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the days and weeks ahead elected representatives at all levels of government will be called upon to help lead in the historic debate and referendum now coming before us, a process which I believe will result in a renewed and lasting spirit of Canadian unity.
There is no level of government that will play a more important role in this campaign than will the cities, towns and villages of Canada, the virtual multitude of Canadian municipalities where government and politics are closer to the people than most federal or provincial representatives ever really get.
It is therefore a critical part of the current referendum challenge to ensure that local leaders are fully involved in it. The mayors and councillors of Canada's municipalities have tremendous responsibilities and opportunities to influence the direction which Canadians will choose for the future destiny of our country.
I must say I am very pleased and proud that last Friday the leaders of the four municipalities in my riding, the city of Fredericton, the town of Oromocto and the villages of New Maryland and Stanley, publicly proclaimed their unanimous alliance in support of Canadian unity and their commitment to say yes to the constitutional question that will be placed before the nation on October 26.


ILLEGAL DRUGS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on August 23 two young men were found dead in a rooming house in Parkdale-High Park from heroin overdose. Within a three-day time frame six heroin deaths occurred in metro Toronto, possible victims of a drug marketing war.
A TV special on drug abuse and trafficking problems in Vancouver showed police and politicians losing control of communities to criminals. Related to this is the visible prostitution trade. Parents worry that their children playing in parks and school yards are exposed to syringes and condoms.
I congratulate the Parkdale residents who are regaining control of their community. Now Parkdale community legal services are threatening to take action to force residents off the streets in protection of prostitutes.
Enough is enough. Under the present justice system taxpayers' money will be used to protect non-taxpaying hookers. The drug prostitution harassment has reached a national crisis. I call on this government to strengthen legislation to bring back safety and security to our streets and communities.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend all those who contributed to the attainment of the Charlottetown accord which I believe is a fair deal for Canadians and for Canada.
Like most Canadians I look forward to voting yes in the referendum and putting the constitutional dialogue behind us. Nova Scotian participation in the first ministers' process did not receive a great deal of publicity, but as a Nova Scotian I am proud of the leadership role played by Premier Cameron and his two opposition colleagues in bringing about a commendable resolution of these difficult challenges.
But the constitutional challenges are not foremost in the minds of Nova Scotians, nor I suspect of any other Canadians. We are concerned about the still sluggish economy with its lagging consumer confidence. While

clearly we are on the road to recovery, there is still much uncertainty and consumers are still reluctant to resume their normal spending patterns.
As we work to put the great constitutional uncertainty behind us, I urge all political leaders to address as well the economic issues that are foremost in the minds of Atlantic Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government must take immediate steps to alleviate the problems facing the prairie agricultural economy. In addition to continuing low prices and a tax on the market place, the prairies have been hit by drought, cool weather, frost, and in some areas snow.
The federal government has the responsibility to initiate support programs for disaster areas. Many rural municipalities throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta have asked to be designated disaster areas.
I remember clearly an old campaign promise: Farmers have to fight the weather; they should not have to fight the government. This year truer words were never spoken.
I call on the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance and the government to announce immediately the extension of the interest-free cash advance program and a new disaster relief program to accommodate the desperate needs outlined so well by the rural municipalities and the farmers of western Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, most of us return to this House today with mixed feelings. Although we had important events and people to see in our ridings, we are pleased that the constitutional discussions have progressed to the point of agreement.
In spite of the weather, it has been a good summer for Canadians. The Canada 125 celebration and the Voya-geurs program for youth have helped to fan the flames of patriotism.
Canadians have had enough of the constitutional discussions and are now prepared to respond to the agreement reached by the first ministers. There are those who oppose the agreement because they want no agreement. Others will stand firm because it is not exactly the way they would write it.
It is not exactly what I want either. There are changes I would prefer, but we cannot have individual constitutions. This agreement is the result of extensive consultation. All Canadians have had the opportunity to express themselves. It is time to accept that this is the best compromise we are going to reach. It is time to put the question to Canadians and to turn the page.


METRO TORONTO
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the economic plight of metro Toronto has truly reached chronic proportions. While the government continues to take a hands-off approach, Canadians in Toronto are paying a particularly high price for this cavalier attitude.
The unemployment rate in Toronto has reached its highest level since the Great Depression: 11.7 per cent. Two hundred and forty-four thousand people are without jobs, more than double the number of only two years ago.
When you also add the number of people who have given up looking for work and the replacement of full-time jobs by part-time work, you regrettably have a Toronto which has been brought to its economic knees.
Metro Toronto's leadership role in the country's economy has been grossly mismanaged and allowed to deteriorate to an all-time low.
I urge this government to immediately put the brakes to this stagnation by exercising the levers to effectively stimulate the Toronto economy and thereby create the jobs and consumer confidence that is badly needed.
For this Conservative government to watch this unravel and do absolutely nothing is the height of political
irresponsibility.
September 8, 1992

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that we are all back in the House of Commons today. I want to welcome members back from a summer that gave us the chance to travel throughout the country. I have had the pleasure of going from Victoria, B.C. to St. John's, Newfoundland.
I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will he agree that this House of Commons will resume, as scheduled, normal sitting on September 21, so that we can deal with the economic problems of this nation? Or is the government planning to postpone the economic affairs of this nation for another two months?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are back to deal with the Constitution. When that matter is resolved, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is rather important, the attention of the House will no doubt turn to other matters.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, during my travels this past summer, I met with workers, businessmen and fishermen and everyone spoke about economic problems. Only when I was through talking with those people would the reporters ask me questions about the Canadian Constitution.
What I want to ask the Prime Minister is this: Why could we not sit as usual on September 21 and debate the economic problems during the referendum campaign? We were able to do both in 1980.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it will depend on the will of the House. I know that a large number of members from all political parties have expressed the wish to take part in the referendum debate in their own ridings.
I believe that the hon. member for Papineau said the other day that he would prefer the House to adjourn to October 27. I could be wrong as I do not have the text before me; I shall have to look at it more closely.
In any case, we are entring a major referendum debate which will involve all members of Parliament. They will probably want to take part in the debate in their own ridings. However, it is up to the Leader of the Opposition to suggest other alternatives.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people want us to deal with the other problems of the nation while we are debating the Constitution.
In fact, if we create the impression that the government or the Prime Minister want to avoid taking responsibility for the economy for another two months, Canadians might be very disappointed and refuse to be as nice as they should be on the constitutional matter.
The unemployed of this country want this government to change its economic policies right now so that they can have jobs and respect. When will the government do something about the economy? That is what they want to know.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canadians generally recognize that variables cannot be isolated. You cannot put the Constitution over here and the economy over here. They are very closely co-mingled. Economic recovery in Canada depends in very substantial measure on a successful resolution of our constitutional problems.
There are people who will be opposing this deal; not because it has imperfections, because it does and that is fair ball, but others will be opposing the deal because they want to dismantle Canada. It is important that we all be out there, not only defending the deal to the extent humanly possible, but defending Canada as well.
I do not think that Canadians will hold it against us if we deal first and foremost for the next four weeks with resolving the constitutional issue once and for all and then turning our full attention as a united nation toward the question of the economy.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Constitution and the economy are co-mingled.
If that is correct, I ask the Prime Minister this. Why does he treat them as mutually exclusive, as an either/or question? Why does he not agree that while we are

September 8, 1992
Oral Questions
working on the referendum, we can also be meeting in this House to hear the new economic plans of the government to get the economy going. Is this government saying that it cannot even walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to the economy of this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be the first to agree that resolving the constitutional problems and bringing about a mood of consensus and national unity will have a very direct bearing upon the economic fortunes of this country. There is no question about that and I think the hon. member would agree with me.
He knows that the constitutional issue which has been in the forefront of the political agenda for the last number of months affects investment plans. Foreign investors will be watching this debate very closely and very keenly.
I am sure that he, other members of this House and all Canadians will welcome the fact that we have an opportunity now to resolve the constitutional crisis in a very positive vein and that he would be the first one out there joining us in ensuring that it happens.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Philip Cross, Statistics Canada's director of current analysis said about the economy, after eight years of this government: "There have never been four straight quarters where the economy has done as little as this. It's moving sideways, which is quite extraordinary for a recovery".
In the face of these facts, why does the government want to wait and do nothing for two months while the economy is drifting and 1.6 million Canadians are out of work? This is no way to build confidence in the economy of this country or its future.
If the government is serious about the country's future, why will it not present new plans to this House to get the economy going while we are working on the referendum?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just this morning the Royal Bank of Canada predicted that the recovery will continue to gather steam for this year and move on to firmer ground in 1993.
We have had employment growth in the economy in three of the last four months. Forty-three thousand jobs have been created over that period of time and there has been consecutive real growth in the GDP in the last five quarters. The GDP is up. Consumer confidence is improving. Business confidence is improving.
I remind the hon. member that recovery is slow because the world economy is slow. The G-7 countries are projecting growth in the area of 2 per cent or less. Canada, as part of the world economy and an important trading nation within those economies, is directly affected. The signals are there. It is a slow but durable and sustainable recovery. I remind the hon. member that mortgage rates have dropped to a 35-year low in this country.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Labour Day, Canada celebrated the work of the millions of workers in Canada who built this country, who work for this country. Sadly a large number of those are now out of work. In the two months that this House was in recess, July and August, 137,000 more full-time jobs were lost in Canada.
The Minister of Finance says that the fundamentals are in place. For those 137,000 people who have just lost a full-time job, added to the 1.6 million, I say this to the Prime Minister. The government talks about the prosperity agenda. Unemployed workers are asking: "Is this it, unemployment?".
When is the government going to bring in a plan to get Canadians back to work and to address the serious unemployment in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that unemployment is higher than we would like to see it. However, the hon. member's assertion is absolutely incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that 43,000 new jobs have been created over the last four months. There have been increases in three of the last four months.
I remind the hon. member that while there have been increases in employment there have also been corresponding increases in the labour force. The labour force grew by 12,000 in the month of August and employment
September 8, 1992

Oral Questions
grew by 11,000. It is certainly not dramatic but at least it is pointing in the right direction.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that people across this country are hurting and are in pain because they do not know if they are going to have a job tomorrow if they have one today and if they do not have a job they do not know how they are going to get one because this government's policies have created unemployment in this country.
The government has choices about what it does. Whether or not the House is sitting, it is the government's responsibility to get a job creation program under way in this country.
Today the government sent millions of pamphlets to Canadians that were paid for by the taxpayer, on the trade deal. It is also spending another $1.8 million in radio ads alone to promote the trade deal, NAFTA. Despite the loss of over 360,000 manufacturing jobs since the Canada-U.S. trade deal came into effect, the government in this publication has the gall to say: "Free trade is helping to create the kinds of jobs Canadians need to compete in today's global marketplace." That is disgusting.
Canadians do not need to see ads for a bad trade deal. They need to see ads for jobs. When are Canadians going to see those ads?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is wrong again. She suggests that something in the order of 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector since the free trade agreement has been signed. That is false.
Statistics Canada, as the hon. member will note, has reported that some 186,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector were lost between September 1984 and September 1992. To offset that, there have been 1.3 million new jobs created for a net gain well in excess of one million new jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister of Finance talk to Statistics Canada and ask why the unemployment rate remains at 1.6 million. It is unchanged.

On the other hand, the NAFTA, the agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada, a text of 900 pages, will be made public today. The American Congress will be holding public hearings on the agreement, but there will be nothing in Canada.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he undertake to have a parliamentary committee hold public hearings in all regions of Canada so that all Canadians can express their views on this agreement?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was told before the summer break exactly what the government will be doing on this. It will be consulting Parliament similar to the way it consulted Parliament during the free trade agreement.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in the United States, President Bush has recently announced a multibillion dollar program to help workers in industrial sectors adversely affected by the North American free trade agreement while the Clinton Democrats are calling for even more extensive adjustment assistance.
Why has the Canadian government not introduced additional adjustment assistance to help Canadian business and Canadian workers adapt to freer trade?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: It is, indeed, a good question. The hon. member is referring to an announcement by President Bush whereby he outlined spending $2 billion, $1.8 billion in real money for a work force of about 175 million people. In Canada, we spend $3.55 billion for 14 million workers. It does not compare.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister will know full well in his review of adjustment assistance in Canada that the deGrandpre report stated: "The removal of interprovincial barriers to

Oral Questions
economic activity is the most important step government should take".
Canadians cannot understand how the government can negotiate free trade with the United States and Mexico but cannot negotiate free trade within Canada. As the de Grandpre report emphasized, a true economic union in Canada is essential if Canadians are to be competitive in the 21st century.
What concrete measures is the government taking to create a true common market within our own country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there was some considerable progress made on that issue during the constitutional discussions. There was not as much progress as we would have liked and I think not as much progress as the opposition would have liked, although a little more than was made in an earlier round of constitutional discussions.
What is most important is that there is a firm commitment now by all of the first ministers to the principles of free trade within the country. There is a process set forth that will allow first finance ministers and then first ministers to gradually move us toward a situation in which in addition to the guarantee of free trade in goods under section 121 we will make significant progress on free trade also in services, in capital and in persons.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
When the Prime Minister signed the first disastrous trade deal he said that we would have an economic boom in Canada and he said that we would have the best adjustment programs in the world. Instead, what we have is a devastating recession. The situation in metro Toronto alone is worse than it has ever been in the entire lifetime of Brian Mulroney.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to refer to ministers or other members appropriately.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How can the Prime Minister agree to a second deal when the first deal is sending thousands of Canadians to the unemployment lines?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the adjustment issue. If she would care to look at what
Statistics Canada has just published recently, she will see the number of jobs that have been created on account of free trade with the United States and that the recovery in this country is led by exports to the United States. Maybe she cannot see that, but Canadian workers do.
When she talks about the adjustment program, the Americans are looking at what we do in Canada in terms of income support, in terms of training, in terms of counselling workers and helping them adjust to this new economy. We are doing what the Americans hope to have under their program but do not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that maybe the hon. minister should talk to some Canadian workers. While this deal might be good for Dallas and good for Acapulco, it certainly is not good for the workers in Hamilton, Toronto or Sydney.
Using the steel industiy as a simple example, under the current deal the steel industiy has been hammered and hammered and hammered by unfair trade practices from the United States.
How can the government agree to a second deal that has no binding dispute settlement mechanism, no antidumping code and no serious definition of subsidies and leaves us in the same mess as the current free trade agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite wrong. The deal, indeed, has a binding dispute settlement mechanism. This statement is fundamentally and completely inaccurate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Wrong.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that they are wrong. When the deal is tabled on the floor of the House of Commons, she will see that she is wrong. I know she will then want to stand up and acknowledge that fact to the Canadian people.
For the benefit of my hon. friend when she is reviewing her facts with regard to trade arrangements, the free trade agreement has already attracted $15.1 billion in new foreign direct investment in Canada. Last year, Canada exported $5.7 billion more in goods and services to the United States than in 1988, the year before the free trade agreement came into effect.
September 8, 1992

I know that there is a fundamental difference of opinion with regard to trading arrangements between some opposition parties and the government. We favour broad, liberalized trading arrangements because we believe that Canada can compete with any other nation in the world.
The only way to build new prosperity is to trade one's way to new prosperity. That is precisely what we have done and it is what we are going to continue to do irrespective of the opposition that would like to take us back 40 or 50 years. Canadians will not do that.



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Throughout this summer people in this country have seen continued unemployment, unemployment that is both frightening and unacceptable. The only thing worse in fact has been the inaction of this government in the face of that problem.
We see three months of unemployment stuck at 11.6 per cent. We see growth rates only a quarter of what the government has predicted. We see that business investment has declined.
I ask the government this question. The Minister of Finance says that he admits things are slower. Surely that is a reason for this government to come back with a different answer, a new response, some new energy and urgency to deal with unemployment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that employment has increased by 43,000 in three of the last four months. The labour force is growing.
We have had five consecutive quarters of positive GDP, very modest. We are seeing some turnaround in consumer demand. As my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration pointed out, the demand for exports is improving. In the first quarter, exports improved by 14.4 per cent. In the second quarter, there has been a further improvement of 4.6 per cent. Housing starts are improving. There has been steady improvement in the composite index, the index of fifteen components in the Canadian economy.
Oral Questions
While the hon. member takes some pleasure in signalling some of the negative indicators, there are a number of positive indicators on the horizon. I think a close analysis will reveal that there are probably more positive indicators right at this particular time than there are negative ones.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, faced with the same situations which we face here, 10 days ago the Japanese government changed its policies.
It launched a $102 billion package of tax cuts, of spending and of government guarantees. Why is it fine for Japan to change its position to deal with an unemployment problem that is not as bad as ours and it is not right for us to make such changes? Why does getting people back to work make sense in Japan but not in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, we do not have the luxury that the Government of Japan has.
We cannot stimulate in a fiscal manner because of our difficult debt and deficit situation. That is an issue we have to deal with. I know the hon. member would suggest that the government should print more money and spend it. That comes from his party's employment and immigration critic.
We do not share that view. We believe it is important to get the fundamentals right. In getting the fundamentals right, you get a situation where mortgage rates decline to a 35-year low, you get price stability and that is important for investment. If we can resolve the constitutional issue that will create further confidence.
He talks about taxes. This government in the last budget reduced taxes. What happened? The NDP socialist governments in Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia took up that slack and increased taxes beyond that which we provided in relief.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last month the figures showed that Canada lost a further 27,000 manufacturing jobs.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: Did he foresee his government's economic policies were going to be so devastating to our manufacturing sector? If so, could he tell us specifically where the latest victims of Tory

Oral Questions
economic mismanagement are supposed to apply for a new job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the restructuring going on here in Canada is also going on in other countries, particularly the G-7 countries. That is what all the G-7 countries are faced with. There has been a three million increase in the number of unemployed in the G-7 countries in the last two years.
I think the hon. member would also share the view that as productivity increases the number of jobs declines, relatively speaking. There has been a pick up in the telecommunications and service sectors and that is how there has been 1.3 million new jobs created over the last four to five years.
Indeed, the new economy, the economy of the future will be perhaps less reliant upon manufacturing, albeit it will be a very important component. Relatively speaking, the service sector, the high-technology sector, the electronics sector, the information technology as we refer to it from time to time, is part and parcel of the replacement for some of those manufacturing jobs.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told this House that according to him the decline in our manufacturing employment, which has been 17 per cent since free trade, is just the result of global trends. Why then has Canada lost manufacturing jobs at twice the rate of the Americans?
I want to ask this minister, does he really believe we can have a strong Canadian economy if we do not have a strong manufacturing sector? Manufacturing sectors are the backbone of every one of our leading competitors in the world.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course we need a strong manufacturing sector and that is why we disbanded the manufacturers' sales tax which was a hidden silent killer of jobs. That is why we brought in the GST which has improved the competitive position of the manufacturing sector by $3.5 billion. That is why we negotiated liberalized trading arrangements with Mexico and the United States to ensure we would have access to those markets.
I am pleased the hon. member has recognized that we have provided in the budget incentives for the manufacturing sector in terms of a reduction in taxes and improvements in the capital cost allowance which further improves the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. It clearly demonstrates we do take the manufacturing-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must move on.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are facing a national crisis. As the Prime Minister celebrates his eighth year in office, over
450.000	young people are unemployed. Every year
100.000	young people drop out of high school and thousands more are denied access to post-secondary education and training.
Why does the Prime Minister not realize his programs have been those of anguish and despair? Why does he refuse to address the concerns of young Canadians?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to help for young Canadians, he should look at-

-the panoply of programs that have been put in place to help these young Canadians stay in school.

One is the stay-in-school initiative. I think there are over 450 START programs all across Canada led by youth trying to keep them in school. The training effort has more than tripled in the last three years by this government.
The Liberals stand in this House asking for more for youth. They opposed for a year and a half spending hundreds more millions of dollars on training Canadians. That is what we have done. They resisted that. Today the hon. member stands up and complains, but I think that Canadians can see their game.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I travel throughout Canada listening to young people. I can tell you that this generation is extremely disappointed in the actions of this government. Eight years after the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, young people in
September 8, 1992

Canada are still waiting for job opportunities, educational opportunities and training opportunities.
My question to the minister is the following: When will this government become a vehicle of opportunity for young Canadians? When will this government stop turning its back on young Canadians?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague and I am sure a number of other colleagues who have travelled the country, we do meet young Canadians who have confidence in the future, particularly when they are looking at a unified Canada.
What the young people of this country want to make sure of is to have the fundamentals in place so that they have a chance to face the future, and that is exactly what we are doing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over the summer the government, with the support of the Liberals, went on an outrageous spending spree on military equipment, including spending $4.5 billion on cold war helicopters. Last Friday it spent an additional over $20 million on new armouries of all things. Yet the government is cutting back on job training programs.
How does the government explain this unconscionable spending binge to young Canadians like Mike McBride in my riding and other young Canadians all across Canada who are rejected for job training opportunities because the government says it does not have any money?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should listen. The government is not saying that it does not have any money. The government has increased spending on training Canadians, again a measure which that party opposed in this House and helped the Liberals for a year and a half to prevent Canadians from being trained. We have done it notwithstanding that. We have done it. We
Oral Questions
are spending $3.5 billion in adjustment and training programs for Canadians. The 800,000 Canadians who benefit from these programs know what we are talking about.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, unemployed Canadians know who is telling the truth on this issue.
My supplementary is for the Minister of National Defence. Recent history shows that these defence contracts which the government announced this summer are a lucrative source of jobs for at least some Canadians. Former officials of DND get snapped up by the private defence industry on projects which they have pushed within DND.
Will the minister take steps now to break up this cosy relationship that completely compromises the integrity of the advice which DND gives to the government on the helicopter and other issues?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all tell the hon. member that the $4 billion for the helicopters is spread out over the 13 years of the contract.
Second, the department has had very strict conflict of interest regulations since 1987 and they are being applied most rigorously.


MINING INDUSTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week, Canada signed a multimillion-dollar mineral development agreement with Nova Scotia. To date, eight Canadian provinces have renewed mineral development agreements, but Quebec has not.
After many months, have the negotiations with the Government of Quebec been concluded? If so, when will this agreement be signed in order to help the mining industry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and in Quebec?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in citing the fact that we have now signed MDAs with

Oral Questions
virtually every province. We are also very interested in completing the MDA with the province of Quebec.
The federal and provincial governments are fairly close in terms of the dollar figures. As to the other outstanding issues, those negotiations continue. The federal government and my Quebec colleagues would like to see the MDA concluded rapidly. Therefore, the work that has been successful in the mining areas of Quebec, and in particular the member's area, could go forward as quickly as possible as well.


NATURAL RESOURCES
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
For a long time now, and I have raised this before, Atomic Energy Canada has been negotiating with at least two provinces in Canada for the Candu III prototype nuclear power plant development. This project would renew Canada's leadership in nuclear design and management throughout the world. I think it is essential to the supply of power and electricity for the world's emerging energy demands in the next century.
Is it not true that if we are to have the Candu III operational as a prototype by the year 2000, decisions and commitments must begin now? If so, what is the state of the Candu III negotiations in Canada at this time?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as you would know and many members in the House would agree with, the Candu program is one of Canada's technological success stories. At the present time we are negotiating with Korea, for example, on further technology. If it is not first-class technology, you do not sell it in the world today and that has been the Candu stoiy.
In terms of Candu III, we have spent a lot of money for the new generation, especially passive technology. There is no question that we are negotiating. There were two provinces that we were looking at in terms of putting a Candu III reactor into a Canadian setting. Those negotiations are obviously not complete.
I take the hon. member's words as words of support, but I cannot report anything further today as to when any conclusions might be reached. However, from this minister's point of view, I would like to see a Candu III placed in Canada at an early date.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in February the Minister of Transport stated in the House: "It is in the best interest of consumers and the travelling public in this country to have two airline companies".
My question is simply this: Has the government's two-airline policy changed? If so, how does the government propose to ensure that competition continues in the industry? If not, is the government prepared to say that it will not accept a common ownership of the two airline companies in Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have the time to answer the three questions that have been put.
I will repeat what we have always said: We want a safe, effective and competitive airline industry in Canada and we are taking every measure to make sure that it happens.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if I ask the minister a very specific question he will give me a clear answer.
What is the government prepared to do to preserve genuine and healthy competition in the airline industry in Canada? Is the government willing to introduce measures to prevent the dumping of excess airline capacity on the market at non-compensatory prices?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the competition bureau will look into the issue of competition when the government is presented with an official transaction. In the meantime, any attempt to solve a non-existent problem is pure speculation.
September 8, 1992


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, President Bush announced a $1 billion increase in wheat subsidies that will drive down world wheat prices and further hurt western farmers. By the way, it is also a violation of the free trade agreement.
Now the minister for grains says the Bush move is, and I quote: "tantamount to a declaration of war on Canadian farmers". The minister has failed to say how he is going to fight back.
Maybe that is because he does not want to upset the Prime Minister's good friend, George Bush, thereby distracting Bush in the current presidential campaign.
What has the minister done, if anything, in the face of this latest trade provocation?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the minister of grains and oilseeds, will be disappointed that he cannot reply as requested.
The hon. member states the obvious. The declaration of an enhancement of the export policy by the United States is harmful not just to Canadian grain producers but to the Australians, the Argentinians and to all of those countries which live by export.
The hon. member asks what Canada has done. I draw to his attention that in the letter that my colleague and I sent to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Edward Madigan, we have requested consultations given U.S. obligations under section 701.4 of the free trade agreement. We intend as we have in the past to draw to the attention of the Americans that they are not gaining markets. They are spending their taxpayers' dollars in areas where it is not beneficial and they are harming the friends and allies.
If they wish to attack the Europeans and their tradedistorting subsidies that started this silliness, they can join with Canada. My colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, is in the process of arranging at a
Oral Questions
meeting with the Argentinians and the Australians so that we can tackle this problem together.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister of grains, the Americans declare a war and what does this government do? It consults.
Perhaps one way of defending Canadian farmers is to take this issue to GATT. Australia has already said it is going to take this issue before GATT and has invited this government to join it.
It is apparent that the Australians will not take this issue lying down, but it is all too clear that this government will not under any circumstances upset or take on George Bush.
Is the minister going to do anything at all or is he just going to let down the Canadian farmers once again?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the response of that member and his party when it comes to war and so has the Canadian public.
The hon. member asks what the Government of Canada has done. In 1991-92, the Government of Canada and the provinces, all governments, put together a package that cost the taxpayers $1.2 billion, federally and provincially, to support safety nets. In 1991-92, almost $1 billion was put forward to support producers and revenue shortfall. In NISA in 1991-92, over $316 million was put together to support producers.
We are taking the steps that we can to support producers. If the hon. member had heard my answer to his first question, he would find that Canada, Australia and Argentina are meeting to consider taking action under GATT which we are allowed under GATT law. We are also considering the option of taking steps under the free trade agreement, a free trade agreement that only Canada has the opportunity to take action under, not Australia and not Argentina.
I also draw to his attention that when the Americans announced the countries that were eligible, Mexico had been not included this year although Mexico had been included in the past. The reason that Mexico is not included is the North American free trade agreement.

Oral Questions HOUSING


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
In the Charlottetown constitutional accord, exclusive jurisdiction for housing is given to the provincial and territorial governments. Is it the intention of the government that the present federal mortgage insurance fund, the fund which now provides 5 per cent down payments for first time home buyers, be privatized or disbanded? Alternatively, is it the intention that each one of the provinces and territories set up its own mortgage insurance fund, thereby duplicating 12 times over what the federal government does at the present time with one fund?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the intent is certainly not to duplicate. In fact, the intent and the result of this agreement will be to reduce duplication that already exists in a number of fields.
As the hon. member would know from reading the accord and following the debate as closely as he has, some areas in some of the six fields will be retained by the federal government. For example, our responsibility for housing for aboriginal peoples will be maintained. There will also be some other aspects with regard to CMHC that will be retained by the Government of Canada. Many of these matters are subject to some negotiation with the provinces involved.


AIRLINES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Thousands of airline workers and their families are wondering if they are going to have a job tomorrow, literally as we speak. The reason they are wondering about their own future is that four years ago this government turned over all economic decision-making to the marketplace by deregulating the airline industry.
Will the government accept its responsibility for the financial mess of Air Canada and Canadian and its responsibility for the workers, and act now to reimpose its will on the industry? Or is this government prepared to let the industry crash and take its workers with it?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the airline industry in Canada is going through the same globalization and revolution as other countries. It is well known that there is a 20 per cent surplus of employees in the airline industry. No matter what happens in the next few months there will be a readjustment in the number of workers employed by one or the other of the airlines.
This government has in place, as has been said many times by my colleague in the Department of Employment and Immigration, an adjustment program to take care of these people.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Michal Kovac, Chairman of the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, on June 24 I gave you notice of a question of privilege on questions and statements of members. In view of the agenda of the House today and being one of the last members to upset the Prime Minister and delay anything that he might want to do-we had discussions this morning trying to be very practical about this and using a little common sense-and so that I do not lose my privilege, I would ask that this matter be deferred. We could have some further discussion and hopefully pick an appropriate time to have it debated.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member. We have had a private discussion and I can assure the hon. member that he has not lost his position and that there will be further discussions.
September 8, 1992


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns the right to speak in this House.
According to British parliamentary tradition, there is particular emphasis on the right of opposition members to speak in a debate as important as the one we shall engage in this week. Since Friday, we have been contacting the leaders of the other parties in order to establish our right to speak, to take the floor as members of the Bloc Quebecois in this particular debate. After obtaining five agreements in principle, we are now told they no longer exist and that we will not be able to speak today.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to hear from the three Whips why we cannot be allowed 20 minutes speaking time in this debate today and tomorrow, so as to protect the democratic traditions of this House. I would like to know why they cannot give us the right to speak.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that on this most important issue, perhaps the most important issue this Parliament could consider, it is certainly the intent of the government to provide every opportunity for every member who desires an opportunity to speak.
In order to do that within a reasonable time frame we are going to have to work out some arrangements of the types that we have worked out frequently in the past.
I am more than ready to co-operate with any and all members in the House to accomplish that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richelieu has raised a question of privilege concerning the right of opposition members to participate in the debate today and tomorrow, and perhaps beyond that time.
Unfortunately, this is not a situation where the Chair can intervene. The hon. member mentioned-and this seems rather interesting-that there had been a number
Government Orders
of discussions about the possibility of having Bloc members take part in the debate, and the government House leader has clearly indicated he intends to co-operate. However, government members, opposition members and the hon. member for Richelieu will probably have to discuss the matter this afternoon, and I hope they will be able to find a solution.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Martin Brian Mulroney: That this House acknowledges receipt of the document entitled:
"Consensus Report on the Constitution, Charlottetown, August 28,
1992" and notes its appreciation to all those who worked so hard
toward its completion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to put before the House, in both official languages, the document entitled Consensus Report on the Constitution, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Charlottetown agreement, which I have just tabled, has been approved by the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial premiers, the leaders of our two territorial governments and the representatives of four aboriginal associations.
It reflects not only a collective expression of common will and purpose but a uniquely Canadian process of pragmatic compromise and compelling vision. These are in themselves powerful recommendations for its acceptance by the Canadian people and its subsequent ratification by the legislative assemblies of the provinces and this Parliament of Canada.
This agreement is the result of the most far-ranging and thorough process of consultation and discussion ever held by a Canadian government, and perhaps by any government, in a modem industrialized state.
Providing leadership in the area of constitutional reform is probably the toughest job in town. The results

Government Orders
are achieved painstakingly and only after enormous difficulties. Respite is infrequent and rewards are few.
Much of this challenging process has been admirably led to success by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, whose perseverance and dedication have earned the respect and the admiration of all Canadians everywhere.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On behalf of the Canadian people, I salute the impressive and durable contribution he has made to our country.

Allow me, also, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Roberval, who has throughout this lengthy process always shown his ability to reconcile his profound loyalty to his Quebec roots with his love for Canada. He has brilliantly demonstrated that there is a natural link that exists between Quebec nationalism and Canadian patriotism.

Tribute must be paid as well to the provincial premiers, the territorial leaders and the aboriginal leadership. It is my view that they, all of them, set aside regional and special interests to serve first and foremost the national interest, thereby making possible the Charlottetown agreement.

Nor would this achievement have been possible without the substantial and vigorous contributions to the national unity debate by the leaders of the two recognized opposition parties in the House of Commons. They and their supporters can take pride in the Charlottetown agreement because they contributed tangibly to its development.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the devotion and skill of all the public servants who participated in this process, from the provinces and territories as well as from the aboriginal peoples and the Canadian government. Normally, public servants work in the background, but I believe that the contributions of Paul Tellier, Jocelyne Bourgon, Suzanne Hurtubise, Scott Serson, John Tait, Mary Dawson and Jim Judd are particularly worthy of
special mention and exemplify the excellence and dedication of the Public Service of Canada.

This agreement, if endorsed by the Canadian people and enshrined in our Constitution, will mark an accomplishment that has eluded many generations of Canadians and their elected representatives. It marks the unanimous acceptance by all elected heads of government in Canada of a series of fundamental reforms designed to strengthen our nationhood and enhance our citizenship.
To achieve such unanimity is no small feat in itself. It is all the more so because of the infrequency with which it has come to pass in constitutional deliberations here and in democratic societies elsewhere in the world.

For example, attempts to reach agreement on constitutional change in Canada began in 1927 and were made on nine subsequent attempts from 1931 to 1990. Ultimately, agreement among Canadians on this matter proved elusive, and all these efforts at reform ended in some measure of failure or a lack of complete success. The act of 1982 was incomplete because of the absence of Quebec from the agreement. The Meech Lake accord, which sought to redress this unacceptable situation and which was, on two occasions, unanimously endorsed by all first ministers, was in the end, not ratified by two provinces.
I believe, that this agreement completes the unfinished business of 1982 and fulfils the promise of 1987. Above all, it builds upon the foundation of 1867.

When Sir John A. Macdonald shaped a compact that gave rise to this great country, it reflected who we were then, as four British colonies on the northern half of our continent.
He was right. He turned out to be very right when he predicted a brilliant future for Canada and ensuing generations were able to achieve the greatness that he foresaw for all of us and that he had worked so hard to achieve.
In 1865 Sir John described the agreement reached then in terms which I believe are equally applicable today. He said: "The whole scheme bears upon its face



September 8, 1992

Government Orders
the marks of compromise". Of necessity there was a great deal of mutual concession.
In the same year George Brown who had previously been a determined opponent of Sir John contrasted the Canadian resolution with the Civil War then going on in the United States of America. "We are endeavouring" said Brown "to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged others into all of the horrors of civil war". He said: "Have we not then cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles?"
Confederation itself was a creative innovation to cope with the major constitutional and economic problems of the day. For instance, the new system combined responsible parliamentary government and federalism in a completely original way unlike the already existing American or Swiss models which were not essentially parliamentary in nature. The Canadian model was subsequently used in Australia and several other federations.
Thus Confederation set an example for other countries in the reconciliation of internal differences just as the Charlottetown agreement seeks to do today. History provides Canadians with a shining example to follow.
From 1864 to 1867 when the Fathers of Confederation were faced with what appeared to to be an almost hopeless situation due to internal political deadlocks, radically changing external economic conditions with the end of American reciprocity in trade, and with security threats from outside exemplified by the Fenian raids, they rose to the challenge by devising a creative solution based on compromise and reconciliation. That creative solution was the establishment of a new federation and that solution brought the various components of Canada together to work on common objectives while safeguarding the diversity of those different units.
In some ways we face a similar challenge today, a challenge to respond to radically changing external and internal conditions. We too can respond by creating a renewed and revitalized federation that can unite all Canadians in the attainment of common goals while ensuring room for genuine diversity as has always been the case for 125 years. I believe that was precisely what was achieved at Charlottetown and which I recommend to the House of Commons today.

Even with his clear vision and exceptional talents, even with the support of his party and of his fellow citizens from Upper Canada, and even with the incredible resources and unlimited potential he had already envisioned, Sir John A. Macdonald could have been but a politician among many had he not been guided, above all, by the wonderful combination of realism and generosity. For Canada to exist in the first place and for Canada to have the opportunity to become all that it is today, Macdonald had to reach out his hand to francophones, the descendents of the explorers and founders of New France. George-Etienne Cartier, a true Quebec patriot, reached out his hand to Macdonald, a son of Scotland who, like him, would become one of the Fathers of Canada. Together, they worked to build a country that today is respected and admired around the world because it is founded upon diversity and an efficient economic and political union. It is a country that, with a modest population, has developed the seventh largest economy in the world and has created for all its citizens a standard of living that is the envy of millions of people on every continent.
As Cartier said of the Constitution of 1867: "We sealed our federal pact without bloodshed and without the exploitation of the weak by the strong. All it took was fairness, justice, and some compromises on both sides." He added: "I hope that if it must be amended it will not be to narrow the principles of fairness on which it is founded, but rather to expand them even more". I believe, that the agreement we are submitting for consideration today respects that wish expressed by Cartier on the eve of Confederation.

I stand here today in support of the agreement I have had the honour to table because preserving the historic spirit of partnership, the spirit of Macdonald and Cartier, renewed and redefined for the 21st century, strengthened in the Charlottetown agreement, endorsed by the Canadian people in a referendum and enshrined in our Constitution, will ensure the unity of Canada, I believe, in a future golden with the promise for all Canadians.

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
What were the fundamental objectives being pursued in this attempt at national reconciliation? Others may have different views and perhaps in the course of the debate we will hear them, but on February 12,1991, in an address to the Canadian and Empire Clubs of Toronto, I as Prime Minister of Canada set out my own views with regard to the objectives we ought to pursue.
We must deal with the sense of powerlessness in the west and disparity in the Atlantic. We must listen to the concerns of the north and the voices of our aboriginal peoples. We must seek to understand the growing feeling of frustration of many Ontarians whose contribution to Canada is rarely recognized. We must find a way to ensure that Quebecers whose special character so enriches the distinctiveness of our national life become willing and enthusiastic partners in Canada.

I believe those sentiments now find voice in the document I have tabled here today.
As Prime Minister of Canada, it was my responsibility to preside over the nine full days of deliberations of first ministers and territorial and aboriginal leaders in August 1992, which concluded in Charlottetown on August 28. The provincial, territorial and aboriginal leaders came together then in a spirit of shared responsibility for the future well-being of this country and of its people. There was a common determination to rise above political philosophies, regional interests, or partisan considerations. We all felt that the peoples who make up Canada are stronger together than any of them could possibly be apart. Each of the partners in Confederation strengthens the whole, and each of those partners is stronger and greater by being part of a stronger and greater union. This concept has stood the test of time. It has made possible the Canada we know and cherish today: a nation that enshrined duality and diversity in 1867 and that embraced multiculturalism many generations later, making it a way of life; a federation committed to regional development as well as to national development, to equalization of opportunity as well as to economic prosperity for all its citizens.

Let us consider briefly what is contained in the agreement that is now before us and that will be shortly submitted to the Canadian people. For the aboriginal peoples there is simple justice, long overdue, through the recognition in the Constitution of Canada of their inherent right to self-government. It proposes a new partnership in a federation that was created in 1867 without their participation.
This generation of Canadians and as a result their political leaders are now called upon in this Parliament of Canada to redeem the promises of equality first made to the aboriginal peoples several hundred years ago by the representatives of French and English kings and never fulfilled. We propose to fulfil those obligations to the aboriginal peoples in the year 1992.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: By reforming our Senate to make it equal, elected and effective we are I think responding to a strongly held and legitimate view in western Canada generally and Alberta in particular, as well as in smaller provinces, that our second Chamber must not be the rubber stamp of the majority in the House and must be able to express the sense of legislative independence and true partnership that gave rise to the Canadian federation itself.
This is a provision that deals with the nature of Parliament itself. It is an idea that was advanced for a good number of years in difficult times by the premier of Alberta, the Hon. Don Getty, and he was then supported by others as time went on: the premier of Manitoba, the premier of Newfoundland and others.
It has resulted in a fundamental change and I think a beneficial change to the Parliament of Canada. I think it is appropriate on an occasion like today that I ask all members to join with me in paying tribute to the individual whose devotion to this concept made it possible, the Hon. Don Getty.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Canada clause will enshrine the fundamental characteristics of our political and economic union, our attachment to a parliamentary and federal system, the rule of law, the rights of our native peoples, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, the vitality and development of minority language rights, racial and ethnic equality, respect of individual and
September 8, 1992

Government Orders
collective rights, and equality betwfeen persons of both sexes.
The agreement provides for a more efficient and more equitable division of powers between the federal and the provincial governments, a rebalancing of roles and responsibilities to focus the federal government on matters of Canada-wide and international importance and to clarify and protect provincial jurisdiction.
This would express itself, for example, by a better discipline on the use of the federal government's spending power and the protection of intergovernmental agreements. Exclusive provincial jurisdiction would be recognized in the areas of forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation, municipal and urban affairs, training, labour market development and cultural matters within the province.
The Constitution would contain a statement of key social and economic policy objectives shared by all of the governments of the federation. The social policy objectives would include comprehensive, universal health care, adequate social services and benefits, high quality primary and secondary education, collective bargaining rights, and a commitment to protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment.
The economic policy objectives to be entrenched would include strengthening the Canadian economic union, the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, ensuring a reasonable standard of living, full employment, and ensuring sustainable and equitable development.
On economic union, I regret that we did not agree to dismantle all internal trade barriers in Canada. This is particularly anomalous inasmuch as we have already achieved a much more comprehensive elimination of barriers between Canada and those foreign nations with which we already enjoy substantial trading arrangements.
By retaining section 121 and agreeing to a political accord that will at the first first ministers' conference on the economy to follow ratification form the basis for modernizing this clause I believe that we will achieve a beneficial result, one that has been actively sought by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of this House, a view to which I subscribe entirely.

This agreement has a very special historical significance to francophones in Quebec and elsewhere across Canada. It is part of a process unique in history: the entrenchment of French language and culture in American soil. This great human adventure, embarked upon over 400 years ago by a handful of French explorers on the Gaspe shores is still unfolding today in Quebec and in hundreds of communities across the country where nearly a million francophones continue to make the French language radiate across North America and throughout the francophone community world-wide. As a Quebecer, I feel great pride in knowing that the guarantees for the protection and development of Quebec society and francophone minorities contained in the Charlottetown agreement will help ensure that French is spoken in Canada until the end of time.
As a matter of fact, I have no difficulty in imagining that a Prime Minister of Canada will one day in this House commend the contribution made to our country by a Quebec society in which its overwhelming majority of francophones, 15 or 20 million people, live side by side an English-speaking majority that has retained all its strength and dynamism. On that day, it will be said that the Charlottetown agreement, approved in 1992 by the Canadian people in a referendum and ratified by all the provinces and the federal government, gave a powerful impetus to the cultural, political and economic development of today's Quebec.
It would be wrong to see the provisions of the agreement that apply to Quebecers and to francophones as disparate fragments of powers haphazardly stripped from Ottawa during constitutional negotiations. These provisions make up a whole and, taken in their entirety, constitute one of the most formidable instruments for cultural and economic protection and development that Quebecers have ever, in their history, had at their disposal.
First of all, the historical reality of the distinct character of Quebec society will forever be enshrined in our Constitution, as will Canada's linguistic duality. This recognition of the very nature of Quebec society will become, once the agreement has been ratified, the cornerstone of the expression of Quebecers' future aspirations. To preserve and enhance its French character, Quebec also wants to control immigration within its territory. The agreement that I am tabling in the House

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
today gives it the means. The agreement reached with Quebec in this respect will be protected by the Constitution.
Quebec already has exclusive power over education. The agreement grants it sole jurisdiction over job training and manpower development, which are natural extensions of that responsibility granted in 1867.
The agreement also calls for the establishment of an agreement on telecommunications, and stipulates that Quebec will have, within its territory, jurisdiction over culture.
With responsibility over education, training, immigration and culture, the Quebec government will have in its hands all the power it needs for its linguistic and cultural affirmation within Canada, one of the world's leading economic forces. Therefore, any objective analysis of the consequences of this agreement must conclude that it grants Quebec society what is clearly a greater degree of cultural security. It cannot be denied that it answers, and answers admirably, Quebec's historical demands.
In giving so many cultural guarantees and new powers to the Government of Quebec, as well as to the other provinces, can it be that we are unwittingly diminishing its attachment to the Canadian federation? Without the slightest hesitation, I say that it is quite the contrary. In all the constitutional negotiations we have gone through in Canada and there have been quite a few the representatives of Quebec have almost always wanted to maintain Quebec's participation in national institutions. Such was again the case in the round that ended on August 28 in Charlottetown. The agreement we now have in our hands will enable Quebecers to assume their full historical role in our federation.
The guarantee of three Quebec judges on the Supreme Court, a reality which arises from a legal system that is different from the other provinces, a minimum of 25 per cent of the seats in this House, a double majority in the Senate for matters affecting the French language and culture and the veto which it shares with other provinces, over any changes to our national institutions are examples of major advances for the protection of the interests of Quebec and of francophones within the Canadian federation. These gains correspond to and in some cases surpass the demands expressed by Premier Bourassa's government in 1986 and contained in the Meech Lake accord.
They also correspond in large part to the list of claims put forth by Premier Rene Levesque who in 1985 was prepared to take the risk of a united but substantially reformed Canada. In fact, this is how the last paragraph of the proposed constitutional agreement presented by Mr. Levesque as premier of Quebec read: "The will expressed by the Prime Minister of Canada to correct the errors of the past has inspired, there as well as here, hope for a better future. The people of Quebec and their government, in response to the openness that has been shown, reach out their hands to their neighbours. In a spirit of mutual respect and good faith, and following such honest negotiations, we firmly believe in the possibility of creating better conditions for out future."
I believe that the Charlottetown agreement fulfils this wish of Mr. Levesque, while at the same time meeting the expectations of the current Government of Quebec. Yet these provisions also ensure the ability of Quebec to participate, with full confidence, in Canadian political life because-we do not see it too often in the newspapers- we must never ever forget that the great majority of Quebecers have a deep love for Canada. This agreement finally allows all Quebecers to assert the pride they feel in the country that they created, that they built and that they have loved for so long.
As a distinct society within Canada, Quebecers have put their faith, their courage and their special genius into this country. They have put into it their very soul. In 1608, French was already being spoken in Quebec City. In 1642, 350 years ago, French was being spoken in Montreal, today the second largest French-speaking city in the world. In 1763, when Canada was ceded to England, the 90,000 French people living here openly feared for their future. However, today, more than five million French-speaking Quebecers, the inventors and the guardians of French culture in America, are affirming through their pride in a heroic past their sure belief in a brilliant future. Long, long before Confederation, the ancestors of this country called themselves Canadian, a name that generation after generation of pioneers bore with pride. Today, as the world's second largest francophone community, Canada stands alongside France as one of the chief pillars of the international Francophonie. It is by determining together the kind of country that we want that we will be able to achieve the great destiny our ancestors began preparing centuries ago. This agreement, enables a new generation of
September 8, 1992

Quebecers to say yes to Canada with pride and confidence.
Many times in the course of public consultations during the past two years Canadians have complained that our country is over-governed, that government is too far removed from people and that people are too far removed from the decision-making process.
I believe there is a good deal of truth in this assertion, along with ongoing questions about Quebec's role as Canada's only French-speaking majority province, problems in the Atlantic, and problems of western alienation. These are problems that speak to the future of a renewed federation and they have become, obviously all of them-the aboriginal question-fundamental to our national debate.
Prime Minister Pearson stated the approach and the philosophy that has motivated most Canadian Prime Ministers from Macdonald to the present occupant of the office. In his memoirs, Mr. Pearson described his view of co-operative federalism which he believed was the only nature of federalism that could apply. It was the only approach that in the longer haul could work. He reviewed, as well, how common sense should always prevail in a federation over sterile ideologies.
I quote Prime Minister Pearson: "My viewpoint was one of sympathy to the provinces in their desire for more control and for more resources. By co-operative action one could encourage the devolution of power, with the provision that a province could, if it wished, restore authority to Ottawa. Although the federal government had to retain intact certain essential powers, there were many other functions of government exercised by Ottawa which could properly and beneficially be left to the provinces. By forcing a centralism perhaps acceptable to some provinces but not to Quebec, and by insisting that Quebec must be like the others, we could destroy Canada".
Government Orders
Mr. Pearson said: "This became my doctrine of federalism. I wanted to decentralize up to a certain point as the way to strengthen, indeed to establish and maintain unity. I remember being severely rebuked for suggesting that some of the centralists were the greatest separatists". Mr. Pearson concluded: "In fact, I believe that our administration helped to unite the country by broadening the capacities of the provinces to discharge their constitutional powers in our federal system". I think the history of the last 25 years has already proved that Mr. Pearson was completely right.
I do not claim that the Charlottetown agreement is the last word in the needed effort to modernize the Canadian federation. I do say that this agreement will make possible the evolution of a more flexible federation in which there is a better distribution of responsibilities between the two levels of government.
In the wake of this agreement the question will arise as it does following any change at all in the status quo: Who will speak for Canada? The answer is clear. The federal authority is in power to discharge all of the responsibilities of a strong, national government. Pursuant to this negotiation, tomorrow as today, the Parliament and the Government of Canada will speak strongly and effectively for Canada and for all Canadians.
The federal government must be able to devote itself to the national interest unencumbered by a host of responsibilities that can perhaps be more effectively and properly discharged by the provinces. The provinces must be able to serve their citizens and establish priorities in their areas of responsibility without undue interference from Ottawa.
The proposed limitation on the use of the federal spending power for shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction is not an unreasonable proposal at all. It reflects this fundamental approach.
As noted earlier, in the Charlottetown agreement we have also acknowledged the exclusive provincial jurisdiction in a number of fields and agree that the federal government should withdraw from activity in those fields on terms to be established in intergovernmental agreements.

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
The reforms agreed upon at Charlottetown will help give Canada and all parts of Canada, particularly regions far removed from Ottawa, the flexibility they need to respond to changing opportunities in the world economy as it impacts on their own regions. They will also allow more sensitivity on the part of the governments to local needs and circumstances and to the different priorities and potentials to be found from one province to another in this large and extremely diverse country.
None of this is a break with the past. All of it represents a renewal of our federation and offers the real prospect of future progress and harmony. All of it represents the core values of decency and fairness that the world has long come to identify with the word "Canadian".
By any international standard the comprehensive constitutional renewal embodied in the Charlottetown agreement represents an especially significant achievement. Comprehensive constitutional change has often occurred in the aftermath of a dramatic break from the past, such as revolution or civil war or a similar major disruption. Its emergence as part of the orderly evolution of an existing federal constitutional system has in fact been relatively rare.
In the United States, for example, the new constitution devised after four months at Philadelphia in 1787 was indeed a major historic accomplishment, but it occurred during a post-revolutionary period only a decade after the War of Independence.
Much more recently in Spain, comprehensive constitutional change there resulted in a genuine democracy which was achieved in 1978, but this occurred as a result of the death of General Franco in 1975 and the end of a very long autocratic regime.
German reunification in 1990 represents an example of major constitutional amendment, but it occurred in the historic aftermath of disruptions that occurred throughout eastern Europe.
The Swiss constitution provides for two kinds of amendments: total revision and partial revision and both include ratification by referendum. While there have been over 90 partial revisions since 1848, only once in 1874 was a total revision brought to fruition.
The Australian constitution, largely inspired by Canada's initiatives in 1865 to 1867, contains a provision for constitutional amendments and these require referendums. However of 38 constitutional amendments submitted since 1901, only eight have received the necessary double majorities.
From this, two lessons can be drawn. First, achieving unanimous agreement on a comprehensive constitutional renewal reconciling the variety of interests within Canada represents indeed for the Parliament of Canada a signal achievement and an example to the world of what can be brought about through negotiations marked by genuine goodwill and a spirit of thoughtful compromise. Second, public support in the referendum process is crucial to bringing such an agreement to full fruition.
We are faced today with the imperative duty of closing the circle of this constitutional round and getting on with the important work of readying Canadians to meet the sweeping demands of global competition and profound societal change that we find everywhere, not only in Canada but also in every country around the world. Our history begs us to proceed and the world around us reminds us that we must.

While we were discussing constitutional change lately, for example, Germany put an end to 50 years of division. In a few weeks the Berlin wall, which split Europe into two hostile blocks, crumbled and was swept away by the irresistible tide of freedom. Communism, which had sought to enslave the world since 1917, came crashing down from its pedestal withn a year. All of Europe is now moving toward political and economic integration and is emerging as a giant among the trading groups of the world.
This year, we have marked historic and painful anniversaries that put our constitutional differences in a humbling perspective, with the 75th anniversary of the capture of Vimy Ridge and the 50th anniversary of the raid on Dieppe. The young Canadians who died to defend freedom there and on many other battlefields were among the finest sons Canada has ever had. Their heroism helped father the magnificent and independent Canada that future generations were to inherit. A generation apart, these young Canadians left their fields, their towns, their cities, their families to defend freedom that was under attack in Europe. The insignia that united them in the admiration of their compatriots and their companions-in-arms forever is the word "Canada", which they displayed proudly on their shoulders. Just
September 8, 1992

weeks ago, more than 800 courageous Canadian soldiers under the command of Major General Lewis MacKenzie wore the maple-leaf on their shoulders when, on behalf of the United Nations, they risked their lives to try to bring peace and hope, along with food and medical supplies, to the people of Sarajevo.
We are all the beneficiaries of the heroism and courage of generations and generations of Canadians who wanted only to leave a better, more humane and more prosperous country to their children.
The world has come to know that peace, understanding, conciliation, decency, are words that in many ways speak of Canada. We are not free from imperfections, but as citizens of Canada we have built an impressive heritage. That is what we must protect and nurture. If we are true to this heritage and faithful to our fundamental values, we too can build an even better Canada by ensuring its durability on a foundation that is true to the principles we share.

What Canada's leaders have produced is a series of constitutional reforms that strengthen the bonds which brought us together in 1867. These reforms renew the concepts that are at the core of Confederation. They provide a strong framework, a solid foundation to let us move confidently into the future together.
At one point in the 1960s, historian Frank Underhill reviewed the state of the nation and lamented that Canada seemed to have lost "that conviction of positive national purpose which inspired our forefathers in 1867. We are fumbling for that lost sense of impending greatness which once buoyed us up," he said.
Well, we now have as a generation a unique chance to capture and to recapture that sense of impending greatness in moving beyond the risk of division to the promise of cohesion and all of the opportunity that flows from such a vital decision.
On February 6, 1865, John A. Macdonald, then the young Attorney General of Canada West, urged members to put aside sectional and regional loyalties and vote in the best interests of the new nation about to be bom. "I would again implore the House not to let this opportunity pass. It may never recur. If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, we shall hereafter bitterly and unavailingly
Government Orders
regret having failed to embrace the opportunity of founding a great nation." In some important ways these words, too, find an echo in this Chamber today. They are as real and gripping as when they were first uttered.
Resolving our outstanding constitutional issues will send a message to the world about the determination of Canadians to work together to achieve this country's full economic and social potential.
Just a few days ago, a keen observer of Canada, Martin Woollacott, wrote in the Manchester Guardian: "In a world in which the boundaries between self-determination and self-indulgence seem to be disappearing, one country at least is swimming against the tide. If the agreement reached last month by the federal Government of Canada and all of the provinces is ratified, that ought to be cause for celebration inside and outside North America. This is not a parochial matter," he said. "Giving adequate representation to people in diverse and geographically widespread societies, reconciling minorities and dividing up powers between various levels and centres of government in a workable way has a fair claim to be the single, most important political problem of our time."
I think he is right and I think the work that the premiers, the territorial leaders, the aboriginal leaders and members of this House have done has responded to the great call for reform in 1992.
Therefore, in the great sweep of world affairs, what happens here matters. How we vote in the coming referendum will matter as well.
One of our greatest authors, Bruce Hutchison, once wrote prophetically: "Our time has come and if not grasped, it will be lost forever". Indeed our time has come. Canada's time has come. The question that will be tabled tomorrow will be a proxy for a series of profound questions about who we are, what we care about, and how we choose fully to live together.

The agreement goes a long way toward making possible a new kind of Canada. It is not perfect, but it resolves most of the pressing concerns that have dominated the national debate for many years. There may be improvements brought to it as the decades unfold, given the constant desire of Canadians to make this country a finer place in which to live. This agreement provides the direction necessary-I would say absolutely necessary,

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
-to create that new Canada, adapted to conditions in the years ahead.

This constitutional package provides a framework within which we are able to move ahead as a united nation, diverse and different it is true, yet one nation. Now the referendum ensures that every person of voting age in Canada will have an opportunity to express his or her preference.
The referendum is not intended as a contest between those who believe in dividing Canada and those who believe in a united Canada, although there are political parties whose ultimate success can only be achieved through the dismantling of this country. This we shall resist by all democratic means, and I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that the cause of a united Canada will prevail.


Some hon. members:: Elear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The question is deeper, more profound and more important than that. Basically, the referendum relates to an appreciation of what it means to be a Canadian, to the magnificent privilege that attaches to our citizenship, and the responsibilities that flow from our common values. These marvellous attributes so admired around the world cannot and should not be force-fed to anyone. You are either proud to be a Canadian or you are not. You either love Canada or you do not.. No one can be obliged to do either.
Our country, Canada, has no apologies to make to anyone anywhere in the world for offering her citizens a quality of life that the United Nations has determined to be number one in the entire world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The quite remarkable record of success by a relatively small group of people called Canadians in bringing under control the riches and resources of half a continent, attaining one of the world's highest standards of living, with enviable social programs, a high degree of technical and academic proficiency, a pervasive dimension of tolerance throughout a vast pluralistic society,
and a full roster of individual freedoms, in itself makes it very clear that Canadians form one of the blessed nations on the face of this earth.
Politically, socially, and economically Canadians take a back seat to no one anywhere. Our democracy is as genuine and impressive as any anywhere. Our defence of liberty has been strong and consistent from our very beginnings. Our freedoms are as true and unfettered as men and women whose most noble traditions were predicated on a belief in God and an acceptance the rule of law can devise.
In recent years Canada fought the scourge of apartheid in South Africa and the blight of famine elsewhere on that continent. With the United Nations we fought against aggression in the gulf and for the cause of peace around the world. Most recently, Canada's peacekeeping troops at Sarajevo won the admiration of the entire world and our peacekeeping traditions have become deep-seated values in a very proud heritage.
Canadians have a reputation for being able to get the job done. That is the reputation we want to hold on to. It is that reputation which will be at stake on October 26 as we move to get the job done in our own country for the benefit of all Canadians and all of those who will come after us.
It is now time for all of us to find it in our hearts and in our souls to say without hesitation or doubt that a yes to Canada, a yes to this agreement, a yes to the common cause and the common values it represents is a yes, a strong, a compelling, and a powerful yes to liberating future generations of Canadians, young Canadians for decades and decades and decades to come, to liberate future generations of Canadians to achieve, to grow, to prosper, to share, and to care in a manner the world has come to know as the Canadian way.
On October 26 I invite all Canadians to answer history's call by saying yes to a renewed Canada whose benefits, God willing, will flow to our children and grandchildren and theirs for generations and generations to come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to respond to the Prime Minister.
Like the Prime Minister, I am delighted that in this country we were able to obtain an agreement which, though not perfect, reflects a broad consensus among the ten first ministers of the provinces, the Government of Canada, the three main parties in this House, the people and leaders of the territories and also our aboriginal leaders.
As a Liberal, I am also very happy and proud that today we rise in the House to speak on the eve of a national referendum, because ever since the beginning of this debate, our party has insisted that the time has come for Canadians to have their say on the Canadian Constitution.

It will be the first time in the history of Canada when all Canadians on the same day will have a chance to express their views about the future of this country.
Of course, some people predicted that this would perhaps create some problems, but I knew that there was to be a referendum in some parts of Canada. We wanted to give the same privilege to all Canadians. We never budged from that. We stood by that and today I am very proud that we are giving the Canadian Constitution back to the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As we said, any achievement is not who wins or who loses. It is not that. The federal government is not to win or to lose. Neither are the provincial governments to win or to lose. It is not the federal bureaucrats or provincial bureaucrats who will win or lose.
The objective was to make sure that the people of Canada were to win. They will tell us that on October 26.

It is a tremendous responsibility for all Canadians, because it will be the first time they will be able to say yes to Canada. It will be the first time that all Canadians will be able to express their views on the same day.
Government Orders
I am convinced that on that day Quebecers will say yes to Canada and that the rest of Canada will say yes to Quebecers.

We cannot fail and we will not fail. This country is too great to let it go down. I am confident that everybody in this nation will realize how important it is. On October 26 we will close that page. I would like today to thank some members of this House who have worked particularly hard on this file.

I would like to say a special word of thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel, who did an outstanding job. I remember when he was on the Belanger-Campeau commission and spent long hours in circumstances which, at times, were somewhat uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he defended the principles of federalism and Canadian values firmly and with honour. He was the one to sit down and draft a minority report, because the majority report contained things that were entirely unacceptable to people like us who believe in a strong and united Canada. He deserves our congratulations and respect.
On this side of the House, we also have the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

He has worked very hard in many committees. As one of our friends from Saskatchewan, he has always tried to ensure that he understood the people of Quebec and all the other people who speak French in this nation. He has applied his goodwill and good personality to make sure that we can find a solution. I would like to congratulate him too.
I would also like to congratulate the minister for constitutional affairs. He has worked very hard in the last 16 months. He has a lot of political scars. I also have a lot of them. Some we inflicted on each other. But I wish to congratulate him too. I will always remember the day in 1980 when he was with me in Shawinigan sharing the same platform. One week later, he came with me to share the platform in Rimouski where we were again talking about Canada. I would be pleased to share the platform with him again for the same cause. When it is over, we will fight again.

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
But there will be one thing that I am sure he will not want to talk about and I will not want to talk about, and that is the Constitution. It was in 1980 that we started debate on the Constitution and now it is 1992, going to 1993. On October 26, I will close the book. Those who wish to talk constitution after that better not vote for me because it will not be one of my priorities.
The Constitution is not everything. That is why I hope that by October 26 we will get back on the real problem of this nation. Canadians want us to deal with the problem of the made in Canada recession that is still with us and will not disappear the way things are going.
There is the problem of record unemployment, challenges like environmental protection and social justice, challenges like returning real prosperity to Canada and repairing the shattered hopes and dreams of those who stand in line for welfare and for UIC payments. It is very sad for those who have to stand in line for their daily bread.
I want us to get back to this problem right away. When I was travelling throughout the nation this summer going from Victoria to St. John's, people were talking about their problems. It was sad to see people 50 years of age, not sure they will have a job tomorrow. These people no longer have a dream for their children. Fishermen in Atlantic Canada are completely desperate because of the situation. They want us to talk about these problems. They want us to stop talking about the Constitution. I can tell them that after October 26 we will just talk about the economy and try to give them hope again.
The Liberal Party has worked very hard on this constitutional program. We tried to be very consistent as we spoke. When the party asked me to make a presentation to the Belanger-Campeau commission, we were the only federal party there to present an official position. After the discussions that led to this presentation in Montreal in April 1991, we had a nine point program where we gave the process to this government and the substance to solve the problem. I say to the government that we have appreciated that it has taken most of the process we have suggested and even more. In the process, the most important was the referendum that will once and for all Canadians give a voice in the Constitution. That was reflected in the Beaudoin-Dob-bie report and was approved by the party at the national
convention we held in Hull in February. All along we have pleaded for a strong, united Canada from sea to sea to sea.
We have said that any constitutional accord must not make Canada more difficult to govern. It must make it easier to adapt to new economic realities and challenges. It must not paralyse our national government and it must reflect our fundamental values. In my view, and in the view of my party, the new constitutional accord meets these four tests.
I will not talk about all the points but I will make some observations on the substance of the deal, such as the Canada clause for example. We were asking for a Canada clause because it was very important for us to have a clause where there was a commitment by all Canadians to the future of this nation, and the Canada clause is there. Of course, there will be some lawyers who will disagree with the meaning of one word or another but the spirit is there.
For example, the linguistic duality was extremely important to us.

Because to us, it is the very essence of Canada. It is what makes Canada a country that, as the Prime Minister said earlier, is an example to the world when we consider what is happening in the world today. In Europe, for instance, they are trying to build a federation and there will have to be a division of powers between the European Community, independent countries and even regions within those countries. However, the issue of linguistic diversity will always be a problem.
Here in Canada, we believe it is possible to be a francophone and feel at home anywhere in this country. Personally, I had the wonderful experience, thanks to a by-election, of being returned to Parliament as a member for the maritimes. Today I represent Acadians in this House. For two years I have been going to the riding of Beausejour, to live and talk with Acadians, and I see how proud they are to be French.
You go to mass in Cap-Pele, and it is as French as any village or town we have in Quebec. People there are very proud. They even talk baseball in French because of Real Cormier. This is something that happens in other places in Canada as well. It is something I have always experi-
September 8, 1992

enced, because my family on my mother's side comes from Alberta. It is part of reality.

However, the other side of the coin is also true. Every anglophone has to feel at home in Quebec. Many of them have been there for more than three, four and five generations. They are Quebecers as much as I am a Quebecer. They have to feel at home there, otherwise they will not feel part of Canada any more.

I hope this agreement will encourage specific action to help French-speaking minorities maintain and develop the vitality of their communities. Provincial governments will have to act on their commitments, and the Parliament of Canada will have to ensure that provincial governments act on the commitments they made in Charlottetown to the Francophone minority.

We also wanted to make sure the charter of rights is protected. It has been the goal of all Canadians. It started a long time ago when the member for Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker, wanted to enshrine it in the Constitution. Now that we have achieved this, it has to remain there, to be protected and not destroyed. I am satisfied that it is there and it is still protected.
We have always stood firm on aboriginal self-government. It was part of our program at the beginning and we have never moved from it. It is a logical conclusion to what we did in 1982, when we enshrined in the Constitution, for the first time, the concept of aboriginal rights. This flowed from the royal proclamation of 1763, and it was a logical move. It has to be rooted in reality and self-government is a consequence of that. In the next few years we will have to make it work to make sure that self-government is within the confines of Canada, that it respects the reality of the provinces in Canada, and that the aboriginal peoples can themselves make the decisions for their own future.
As I say so often in my speeches, we have made enough mistakes for the aboriginal peoples that we might let them make a few mistakes themselves. When they gain confidence and when they gain their rightful place in Canada, I know that their goal will be to be good
Government Orders
Canadian citizens. They want to be different and they will remain different. It is one of the qualities of Canada that we can be different and be equal at the same time. The aboriginal peoples care about their culture, their languages. They want to be vety comfortable with themselves and, after that, they will share with us both the advantages and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
Another preoccupation-

-for us was always to ensure, in the documents we- presented, that Quebec's demands would be satisfied in this agreement. However, some deficiencies had to be corrected. We now have a definition of the "distinct society" with which we are much more comfortable.
We know that immigration, which was managed acceptably for many years after the Cullen-Couture agreement under an intergovernmental agreement, will now be in the Constitution, thus giving Quebecers greater security.
The Constitution also had to recognize the reality of Quebec's Civil Code, the Napoleonic code, which is completely different from the English common law. It had to be recognized in the composition of the Supreme Court. It had already been recognized in the Supreme Court Act for generations, but it has been put in the Constitution, as well as a mechanism to solve problems in case of conflict between the provinces and the federal government which had concerned many Canadians. Now we have such a mechanism.
Of course, the question of veto over institutions was settled. Perhaps requiring the 10 provinces and the federal government to agree is somewhat rigid. I would have preferred a rather more flexible formula, but one cannot have everything and we are prepared to go along with that veto.

I would like to talk about some of the problems we have with this agreement. It is my duty to talk about them because I am not happy with everything. I know there are a lot of Canadians that are not happy with everything in this agreement, but perfection is not something that is easy to achieve. Liberals had to make a decision about what to do. There are two elements that we are not very comfortable with. On reflection, I think

September 8, 1992
Government Orders
that over time these problems can be fixed. They can be repaired and adjusted.
For us, economic union is crucial. We are very disappointed that we did not get more than we did. We cannot live in a modem age having protectionism like we see in Canada among the provinces where workers and manufacturers cannot move or sell to other jurisdictions. How can we compete in the world if we do not have flexibility? I have some examples. In my riding of Beausejour, an industrialist told me that he cannot sell to the Government of Nova Scotia because his factory is within two miles of New Brunswick's border.
If we cannot compete within Canada, how can we compete in the world? This has to be dealt with. This problem can be fixed with the amending formula. It can be fixed with seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. I think it can be fixed and I can guarantee Canadians that we will work to fix it. Otherwise we will be out of international competition.
We are not happy with the provision relating to the Senate. Liberals were the ones who, very clearly, were not afraid to talk about effectiveness. Liberals always said that equality will necessarily be at the expense of effectiveness. There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what happened. When I reflected on the problem, I realized that we, in the House of Commons, will be able to prepare legislation that will guide the operation of the future Senate.
Already within my caucus we have established a committee to look at ways and means of ensuring that the rules of Parliament will give an adequate set of powers to the Senate so that it will become effective. The regions will feel that they are more represented at the centre than before. This is something that can be achieved through rule changes.
It will be achieved because it will be a representation based on a different basis. In politics, justice is important, but the appearance of justice is very important too. If we have a Senate that is effective, it in turn will give the people a sense that they have been heard.
There will be a debate in the House of Commons. After that, there will be a debate in the Senate. If we give the Senate some real power, the people will feel
that they have been heard. One of the frustrations we are having in the House of Commons is that members can be very eloquent on some problems. However, when the vote comes, they know that they might cause an election if they vote a certain way. '
Very often views are expressed in caucuses. There is a sense by some constituents that the members of Parliament have not spoken loudly or clearly enough. The Senators will have a chance to express themselves a second time openly and without the danger of defeating the government. There is frustration because arbitrating disputes is always difficult in any federation.
Justice is needed and the appearance of justice has to be there too. The new Senate will help to achieve it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Another problem is the referendum question. I would have liked the question to be worded a little differently. In the referendum, I would have liked Canadians to be able to say yes very clearly and unequivocally to Quebecers, so that there is no ambiguity. At the same time, I would have liked Quebecers to be able to say yes in an unambiguous, clear and unequivocal way to Canada, to say that we Quebecers want to stay in Canada.
The question as worded deals only with the proposal for constitutional renewal. It therefore leaves dissatisfied all those who were anxious to vote on the complete separation of Quebec. I have no illusions about Mr. Parizeau's real intentions. It is a bit funny to hear him say now that they do not want to talk about separation any more. They do not speak of separation, because they are afraid of that word; they use the word "sovereignty". Why not call a spade a spade? A dictionary definition of sovereigntist would be someone who wants the separation of Quebec. Why not call things by their name? For them, a no vote will not be a vote for the status quo, nor will it be a vote for a new round of negotiations to renew the Canadian federation. I hope that my fellow citizens in Quebec will not be caught in their game and will see very well that their only goal is to make sure that Canada does not work.
September 8, 1992

I wish to say to my fellow citizens from Quebec that the option advocated by the Parti Quebecois and, I suppose, by most of the Bloc Quebecois is not the right one.
By turning down this challenge, they will abandon one million francophones outside Quebec, and that would be unthinkable, because as I see it, one million Francophones outside Quebec are as it were our insurance that the French language and culture will endure in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Although they might not be in the best of shape and not too sure of what the future holds, although they may feel left out of the mainstream, they are probably the most precious ally the French fact has in this country. Look at what they have produced in the literary field, our performers and writers Mrs. Roy who came from Winnipeg and Mrs. Maillet from Bouc-touche. There are also all the people we have seen so many times on television in Canada. I am thinking of Mr. Bergeron, who was one of the greatest promoters of French on Canadian television and who also comes from Manitoba.
All these people have made a tremendous contribution to the French fact in Canada, and I am sure Quebecers do not want to abandon them. People who talk about separation or sovereignty are in fact ignoring the greater challenge of feeling at home in a bigger country, and that country is Canada. It is a country where, as I said earlier, we can be both francophone and Canadian no matter where we live.

Despite the problems I have mentioned, when I balanced the whole package I came to the conclusion that we have to vote yes. We have to tell Canadians that we are turning the page and preparing the country for the 21st century. We have to ask all Canadians to join in the mission of preparing this country for the fantastic challenges which it will face in the 21st century. We also have to stop talking about the Constitution to concentrate our efforts on the other real problems of international competitiveness and the position of trade within the world: how to survive in those situations if we keep talking about constitutions.
Government Orders
The people of Canada will have the opportunity to agree with the value of what it is to be a Canadian. This is a great country. There is greatness in this country but there is also a lot of fragility. What can unite us? It is very simple. It is all the virtues that we have developed over the years: tolerance, generosity, respect for others and sharing. When people from outside look at our country they see that it is a country that was, as the Prime Minister said earlier, a small colony of four colonies being united by the Parliament of England in 1867 and becoming one of the great powers of the world.
However, within the confines of this country we have come a long way in understanding, tolerance and acceptance. Some years ago we were having problems between Catholics and Protestants in this country. That does not exist any more because we are all Chretiens.
This reality is very important. What will happen on October 26? The people of Canada from coast to coast and the people of Quebec will say that they want to preserve Canada. This country has to survive. This country has to come back and again be the greatest country in the world. This country has a mission to show to the world that it is possible to be bigger than our parts, to be united in our diversity, and to be strong because of the generosity of spirit that has made this country the best in the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Malpeque-Small Business; the hon. member for Moncton-National Defence; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Job Training; the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-Aboriginal Healing Lodge.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to speak in this debate on the constitutional accord achieved by the first ministers, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the leaders of the territories and aboriginal leaders. I would also like to thank all members, especially the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and other members in my party who have been involved in the constitutional

Government Orders
debate for a long time. I also see here today the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who is a vigorous supporter of the unity of our country.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate because today, we are talking about the future and the unity of our country. Unity, a prosperous economy, strong social programs and a healthy environment are the foundations of the kind of Canada we want to leave our children and grandchildren.

In thinking about this debate today I thought if I look back in five years or in ten years on this constitutional debate, when I sit down with my grandchildren and we discuss what happened on October 26, 1992,1 want to be able to say that I was a positive participant in this debate, that my party showed wisdom in its deliberations, that all members of this House showed wisdom in our deliberations, and that we did what we considered was best for the nation, that we took the possibility of Canada's future and made that possibility a remarkable reality.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Canada deserves nothing less from those of us in this House. That we are here at all discussing agreements is a testament to those men and women around the constitutional table who persevered through very difficult times and a testament to the Canadian people who, with many other concerns, such as jobs and making ends meet, have never allowed the prevalent constitutional fatigue to represent a loss in the interest of our country, the future of our country, the possibility of our country and the dream of Canada. Today we are here to say that we are taking one further step in realizing that dream of Canada.
What has been achieved in this constitutional accord is a step toward the future. Constitutions are road maps. They are living documents. I know most Canadians would like to put the Constitution to sleep for a while, but constitutions are living documents. Constitutions will change as our society changes, as our culture changes as our country changes, and that is as it should be.
I am proud to say that the New Democratic Party and this caucus endorse the Charlottetown accord because we feel this is a step to move us toward the 21st century in a positive way, to unite our country in a way that is in
the interests of all regions and all peoples of this country.
Let me begin the discussion with two fundamental questions that my party and I asked: First, why do we have a Constitution and what should it accomplish?
In my view a Constitution must recognize historical truths. It must comprehend current realities and anticipate future possibilities. It should reflect both the diversity of a nation and the common values which unite it. Through this accord Canada would be taking a major step toward such a Constitution.
In this accord, as has been discussed by the other leaders, the distinctiveness of Quebec is recognized and embraced. The alienation of the less populous, less powerful regions is recognized.
The exclusion of the north, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and the restrictions on its self-determination are responded to. The inclusion of the leaders in Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be a very important part of future constitutional discussions.
The profound historical grievances of aboriginal peoples are met with the recognition of the inherent right of self-government and a real place in Constitution making and nation building.
In addition, we have put in place a social covenant which articulates the fundamental social rights of Canadian citizenship and the values that we share. This should not be overlooked as a minor achievement. It is a very important part of this constitutional accord.
Does the accord fall short of perfection? Of course it does. Each one of us in this House, I am sure, has reservations about one aspect or another. There are things we would like to see stronger in some cases or perhaps weaker in other cases, and I will address some of those issues in a moment.
When one looks at the package as a whole, respecting that this is a negotiation, not a negotiation of one person looking in a mirror and talking to himself or herself but a negotiation of many peoples and diverse peoples-and I believe it must be viewed as a whole-one sees that we have achieved a remarkable compromise. Different, often competing interests within our nation, indeed different visions of our nation, have been somehow brought together, acknowledged and balanced.
September 8, 1992

Nothing is as Canadian as compromise. It is truly what makes us that kinder, gentler nation. Let us not underestimate its value and let us not overlook some of the other means of conflict resolution in the world around us.
We are talking about the difference in international terms between co-operation and confrontation, handshakes and hand grenades, ballots and bullets. One hundred and twenty-five years of compromise and peace look pretty good to this Canadian.
There are many things that my party and I would have liked to have seen different in this constitutional process. We advocated a constituent assembly, but I would have to say that this process is a major improvement over former constitutional processes.
Aboriginal people were included. The territories were included. I believe it is fair to say that this new dynamic created by the inclusion of territorial leaders, by new premiers, by aboriginal people, was instrumental in the attainment of this agreement. It proves there is a place for every Canadian and every Canadian has a contribution to make to this very serious issue of the future of our country.
I would like to speak briefly about some of the achievements we see in this accord. Let me begin with Quebec and the progress realized in the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

In this accord, the distinct identity of Quebec society is at last given formal recognition. That in itself is a great victory, but in addition to this recognition, Quebec is also being given the instruments it needs to maintain and reinforce that distinct identity. This is crucial for the future of the people of Quebec.
A guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons demonstrates the role played by Quebec in Canada. It demonstrates Quebec's role as a founding nation and full-fledged partner.
I have no doubt there will still be some tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada, the other regions of this country. Any relationship, any friendship that is worth having experiences this kind of tension. There will always be people outside Quebec who will say that Quebec is treated differently. There will always be people in Quebec who say they will want no part of Canada.
Government Orders
Too often, there is a tendency to notice only this type of attitude. For instance, we tend to ignore the deep attachment that unites people from Quebec and from the rest of Canada. We witnessed it in the "My Canada includes Quebec", campaign launched by real people, and I mean ordinary citizens. This campaign spread throughout the country and saw thousands of volunteers make those who wanted to say yes to Quebec sign petitions.

In Quebec there was a recent poll in the magazine I'Actualite which received little attention in the rest of Canada but should perhaps be brought to the attention of those who did not see it. The poll revealed, in the words of the magazine, "a profound attachment of Quebecers to Canada". Seventy-one per cent of Quebecers affirmed that being Canadian was a part of their identity. A majority said that they would be willing to make a personal sacrifice that brought nothing to Quebec but which rendered an important service to Canada. There was a strong attachment to Canadian symbols and geography.
That poll confirms something I believe and that is that there is a growing feeling you can be a Quebecois and Canadian at the same time, you can be part of both Quebec and Canada, belong in both Quebec and Canada, care about both Quebec and Canada.
To those politicians who say that Quebecers have to choose between Quebec and Canada, I say as an English Canadian: You are wrong. I say as the leader of a federal party: You are wrong. You can be a welcome part of Canada, a valued part of Canada, a part of Canada that helps make Canada the country we love and respect.
The other major contribution of this accord is that there are other relationships in Canada which are recognized as fundamental to our national character and national unity. I have often said that the circle of Confederation will not be complete until the rights of aboriginal people have been addressed. The recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government in this agreement is an historical step forward in this country.
I have the great privilege of representing the Yukon Territory where First Nations people make up a large percentage of the population. In the over a decade I have worked with aboriginal people I have come to under-

Government Orders
stand something of the richness of their history and culture, of the despair and devastation caused by systematic attempts to rewrite that history and suppress that culture. I feel enormous pride that we are moving forward together in this country to address the injustices confronting aboriginal Canadians and at long last recognizing their historical rights.
This is something that all of us can take pride in. I remember about two years ago speaking to the World Indigenous Peoples Conference. I was then in Norway. I spoke about indigenous peoples issues. I was surprised by the number of people who came up to me from Peru, from Guatemala. In Guatemala 80 per cent of that population are Indian people. They approached me to say how extraordinary it was in their view, from their political culture, to see a political leader addressing the issues of indigenous people. They had never seen that before.
How proud we can be in Canada that we have set an international standard which says that the recognition of the rights of Canada's first peoples by this country are also valued and respected.
I must add that while we in Canada have facilitated that process, especially since 1982 and now in this accord, and that leaders of different political parties have supported this and have begun to listen to aboriginal people, let me say that it is directly due to aboriginal people themselves, to their strength, who persevered to be heard, to be listened to. I believe that Canadians at this place in our history cannot afford to say no to the First Nations of this country but rather, to say yes to an historic achievement.
There is no doubt we have made many mistakes in the first 500 years of contact between whites-immigrants to this country-and the First Nations of North America. Let us look at this agreement as the first step in the second 500 years to greater equality, greater justice and greater harmony.
As I said earlier, the regional realities of Canada have also been recognized in the constitutional agreement. The imbalance in Confederation in population, power and economic strength has been acknowledged and addressed in a number of forms and in the strengthening of the regional development clause. An attempt has been made to do that in the Senate as well.
The agreement on Senate reform represents another example of Canadian compromise. The result is not my first choice. It is not the first choice of this party, but it does demonstrate a willingness on the part of Canadians to try to find new solutions to old grievances and to take that risk to ensure all the concerns of the various regions of the country can be addressed.

The recognition of Quebec's distinct character, the aboriginal government, the reform of institutions, the social charter, a more comprehensive Canada clause, those are the reasons the New Democratic Party supports this agreement.
Our Constitution will allow a greater number of people to feel accepted and to feel concerned. It will enable them to know they have a place in our collective future. However, this does not mean that everybody will feel included. It does not mean that this agreement will solve everything. There will always be people who will feel that they are not included. There are people who have reservations and who are worried. We must listen to what they have to say. We must listen to those Canadians.
As a woman, I am concerned by the lack of progress made in certain fields. May I remind you that the United Nations puts Canada in first place among the countries of the world. We can be proud of this but do you know that based on the analysis on gender equality, Canada only comes in eighth place. This is unacceptable.

The issue of gender equality in the Senate is one which has caused a great deal of controversy in some quarters. The idea has been attacked as anti-democratic. While I do not believe that, I do believe we have the opportunity to make changes in our institutions which recognize not just regional equality but to expand that definition of equality to gender equality. I want to say I am pleased that four of the premiers have made a commitment to that principle.
I hope we will begin to look at this country in terms of wanting to make sure that our institutions reflect the reality of Canada, the reality of 52 per cent of this population, the women in this country. I will continue to push for gender equality in the Senate. As I have said, I
September 8, 1992

am pleased that some of the provinces have committed to that goal.
I would also like to repeat that our party's first proposal for greater equity and representation for women and minorities in a new Senate is a system of proportional representation. We will continue to consider that a viable and important alternative.
The New Democratic Party will also continue to support the concerns of the ethnocultural community. Many within that community feel their rights have not been adequately addressed in this agreement. They perceive a weakness in the Canada clause and they are concerned about the notwithstanding clause. Our party, as we expressed in the Dobbie-Beaudoin report, shares that concern. These are outstanding issues that cannot be put to rest but must be dealt with.
The same is true for the disabled who for some reason have been totally excluded from the Canada clause. They must receive the same protection, the same equal treatment as others in our society.
These issues must become a part of the debate that is to be held. The Constitution is a living document. Discussions will continue. There is certainly nothing in this agreement that prohibits us from continuing and updating the Constitution and that is something we must continue to do.
Finally, let me acknowledge there are some Canadians who are concerned that this constitutional accord restricts the ability of the national government to maintain and introduce social programs. In my view this is not the case. For example, if there is a government committed to a national child care program, as I understand this accord, that government could put one in place, but what is required is the political will.
This accord is not perfect. It is a real step forward for Canada. I look forward to the referendum campaign when we will have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility to explain the accord to Canadians.
It is time to put aside partisanship and rigid ideologies and consider how best to serve Canada's future. I want to emphasize that throughout this campaign we must listen
Government Orders
to Canadians who have concerns about this agreement. We must not minimize those concerns.
The atmosphere must be one of understanding. There is no room for bitterness, hostility or alienation. As politicians we should be encouraging and developing forums where Canadians can express their views, forums of real public debate which include those with divergent views.
Whatever the result is come October 26, we will have to work together as a nation to address the other issues confronting Canadians in their daily lives: jobs, their families and their economic future.
Let us remember in all of this that despite its flaws, Canada is a great success and a very fortunate nation. About a year and a half ago, I met the President of Mozambique who spoke of the economic devastation in his country, the famine, the war. Then he said to me with great kindness: "I understand you are having your problems here too". I have to admit I was a bit embarrassed and it certainly helped to put our problems in context.
At the same time as we deal with our difficulties, and they are real and we must deal with them, let us celebrate what we have been given and what we have achieved.
Canada is truly a remarkable nation. We have the opportunity to be a true model to others, a model of diverse peoples and cultures coming together, living together and building something worth while together.
The author, Roch Carrier, recently expressed a view that I believe a vast majority of Canadians in all parts of Canada share. He wrote: "I am more comfortable in a grand dream like Canada than in a narrow park where everybody speaks like me, has a pale face like mine and feels threatened by anybody not like me". Let us embrace that grand dream. Let us embrace Canada. Let us say yes to a renewed Canada on October 26.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


Alan Redway: that Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (disqualifications of electors), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-340 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act dealing with the issue of prisoner voting.
The intention and the purpose of the bill would provide that any person who is convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a penitentiary is not qualified to vote at a federal election unless the person is granted full parole or a statutory release or is no longer in prison on account of a remission.
This is, quite frankly, the traditional position of the British common law. This is the position that has been enshrined in the British common law for years and years and years, in fact dating back centuries. It is a position which has been adopted into Canada as a result of the adoption here of the British common law. In fact, the first reference to prisoner voting, apart from the common law in this country, is one which goes back to the Constitution Act of 1791. That is an act in which the British Parliament dealing with Canada provided that all those who had been convicted of treason or felony would be deprived of a vote and disenfranchised. In addition to that, the common law position itself deprived anyone who was a prisoner in prison of their vote.
Subsequently, in 1898, the Canadian election legislation expressly provided that anyone who was a prisoner would be deprived of their vote. That was something that was understood at that time. It was not controversial. There was not a great debate about it. It was the common understanding of the people of this country at that time that that was the way things were as far as prisoner voting was concerned. So that particular piece
of legislation was put in place and has been in place up to the present time in this country.
It is not something that is unique to Canada. It is not something that is unique to Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It is widespread, right around the world, that prisoners are deprived of their vote. In fact, if we look at other countries we see that that is the case in such countries as Greece, India, Jamaica, Norway, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, all but eight of the United States and in Australia as well, except for some of the states.
Recently, however, the courts in this country have addressed the issue and a number of prisoners have taken cases to the courts on whether or not prisoners have the right to vote in the light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are a number of cases which have been decided by the courts and a number of cases have been appealed or are under appeal right now.
There are three leading cases on this issue. There is the Sauve case which is a decision in the Ontario courts of a prisoner who was imprisoned in Collins Bay penitentiary in Ontario. In that case the judge, Madam Justice Van Camp said:
It seems to me that Parliament was justified in limiting the right to vote with the objective that a liberal democratic regime requires a decent and responsible citizenry. Such a regime requires that the citizen obey voluntarily the practical efficacy of laws relied on and willing acquiescence of those subject to them.
The state has a role in preserving itself by the symbolic exclusion of criminals from the right to vote for the lawmakers. So also, the exclusion of the criminal from the right to vote reinforces the concept of a decent responsible citizenry essential for a liberal democracy.
Those were the words of Madam Justice Van Camp in the Sauve case in Ontario, a position which has been questioned by some other courts in other cases.
There is the Badger case in the province of Manitoba and the Belczowski case in the province of Alberta. The Belczowski case in effect found that as a result of section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the Canada Elections Act excluding prisoners from voting was too broad and that there was a right for prisoners to vote.
In both the Sauve case and the Belczowski case the decisions have been appealed through the various appeal courts and are now at a stage where leave to appeal to
September 8, 1992

the Supreme Court of Canada has been asked for to finally make a determination of whether or not there is a right of this Parliament to restrict the voting rights of prisoners notwithstanding the fact that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that all Canadian citizens have a right to vote.
The issue seems to be a very simple and clear one. Some people have interpreted the court's decision as saying that there is no way as a result of the Charter of Rights that we can place a restriction on prisoners voting. However, quite clearly, if we look at the decisions of the courts in those cases, they are saying, at least to me and I believe to all Canadians, that you can make the restriction on voting rights for prisoners, it is just a question of the kind of a restriction that you put in place. You cannot say for instance that somebody who is out on parole cannot vote. You cannot say that somebody who has been released on remission and is no longer in prison cannot vote. There are restrictions that you can put on voting as a Parliament and that we the courts in fact would like some guidance from you as to what kind of restriction that should be. We want to see what Parliament has to say on this subject.
It is with that in mind that I have brought this bill before the House to make it quite clear to the courts what Parliament has in mind as far as restricting the right to vote for prisoners.
This bill, as I have indicated, does not say that a prisoner who is on parole is going to be deprived of his right to vote or a prisoner on statutory release or who is no longer in prison because of a remission of their sentence. It does say however that any person convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a penitentiary is not qualified to vote at a federal election.
Traditionally in this country and traditionally in many other countries around the world, as I have indicated, people of the country have taken a position that one of the penalties that goes with a conviction for a criminal offence of a serious nature is to be deprived of your vote. Those who have been convicted of a crime of a serious nature certainly do not have the right to vote in a federal election to choose the members of this House until they are released again into society.
Private Members' Business
I had a chance to reflect on this a little more over this past week as I read some of the reports in the newspapers of people being convicted and sentenced in my own city of Toronto.
On September 1 I picked up one of the Toronto newspapers and read of two particular cases that I think we should bear in mind when dealing with this issue. The first has the headline "Man jailed 17 years in failed $3 million hold-up". This is a case of a man who made off with $3 million in a downtown Toronto bank robbery but was caught when he came back to the area to retrieve his keys. He was jailed for 17 years. In imposing sentence on this man, one of the longest serving and most astute judges of the Ontario bench in dealing with criminal matters, Mr. Justice Hugh Locke, said of this particular person: "He was motivated by greed. He employed electronic devices and threatened the lives of many human beings. He threatened to blow up a building with thousands of human beings inside". As a result of that, Mr. Justice Locke sentenced that man to 17 years in prison.
Now surely, Madam Speaker, neither you nor I nor the Canadian people nor the courts in this country believe that somebody who Mr. Justice Locke would have used those comments about, somebody whom he sentenced to 17 years in prison, should have a right to vote while in prison. Surely that should be one of the additional penalties along with the 17 years.
In the same paper I picked up there was another headline that came to my attention. This was of a man who was sentenced to 13 and a half years in prison for three Brampton sex attacks. In this particular instance, the man came before a judge who used to be a member of this House when you and I were first elected, Madam Speaker. He was then the hon. member for Cambridge, Mr. Chris Speyer. Mr. Justice Speyer, in handing down judgment on this particular person, called this person a predator "as dangerous an individual to women as one can imagine". The facts of the case on which he based that opinion were the facts that he was sentenced for three sex attacks on Brampton women in their homes, including a knife-point assault on a frail 71-year old widowed grandmother. Surely, Madam Speaker, neither you nor I, the Canadian people nor the courts in this

September 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
country believe that that particular person should have a Madam Deputy Speaker: Consequently the motion a right to vote while he is in prison.	remains as read earlier.
I would hope that the members of this House, the members of Parliament, would endorse the principle which has been longstanding in our system of justice, that depriving a prisoner of his or her right to vote is part of the criminal sentence, that this is a reasonable thing, that it is something that we need to carry on, that if we do not carry it on we have to beg the question then who is running the country? Is it those who have been convicted of serious criminal offences and are imprisoned as a result of that, or is it those who have been good law-abiding citizens, citizens of whom Madam Justice Van Camp spoke when she said: "The state has a role in preserving itself by the symbolic exclusion of criminals from the right to vote for the lawmakers. So also the exclusion of the criminal from the right to vote reinforces the concept of a decent responsible citizenry essential for a liberal democracy".
I applaud and I echo those comments of Madam Justice Van Camp.
I would like to move that, notwithstanding any Standing Orders or the usual practices of the House, Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (disqualifications of electors), be referred after second reading to the justice committee. I would hope to have a seconder for that motion. I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat will second that motion.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am curious whether or not it is in order for the member to move a motion on his own bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Churchill. I was about to rise and ask if there was unanimous consent for the change to this bill which the hon. member is suggesting, that it be referred to the justice committee instead of to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Would there be unanimous consent?


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this very interesting and I suggest controversial bill the hon. member has introduced in the House today.
I am a member of the committee to which the hon. member for Churchill just referred. I confirm his view that this whole issue is being studied by that committee at the present time.
The committee will in due course be submitting a report to the House on the issue, as I am sure the hon. member is aware. It certainly will consider the views expressed by the hon. member in his speech and in the bill he has tabled before the House.
However, I want to make a few observations about the bill. I am rather surprised he brought it forward because surely in the course of his work and preparation of the bill he must have studied the decisions of the courts in this country that have pronounced on the validity of the existing provisions on the Canada Elections Act which currently deny to inmates in federal prisons the right to vote. I refer him to section 51 of the Canada Elections Act which reads:
The following persons are not qualified to vote at an election and
shall not vote at an election:
(e) every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in a penal
institution for the commission of any offence.
In considering the validity of this particular provision the courts have made judgments on the issue. He has said that the Supreme Court of Canada has not yet pronounced on it. I understand that is the case, but the fact is that we have two judgments from very senior courts in Canada which have pronounced on the issue. One is the judgment of the Federal Court of Canada in the Queen v. Belczowski, which was heard in Edmonton in January of this year and the decision handed down in February. In that case the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously found that the section violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, there is not unanimous There was a similar decision in the Ontario Court of consent. A committee of the House is already looking at Appeal in the case of Sauve v. the Attorney General of this very matter. It is the Special Committee on Elector- Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the al Reform chaired by the chief government Whip. Solicitor General of Canada. Again in that case the
September 8, 1992

validity of section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act was impugned and indeed it was held to be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The charter has changed the position of the common law to which my hon. friend referred. He said the common law of England denied to prisoners the right to vote and that had been the position for many years. I understand it may still be the position in the United Kingdom
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in the later part of this century has changed the common law. It gave to all Canadian citizens the right to vote. It was established as a fundamental right of citizenship in Canada. That right to vote is a very important one.
The fact is that the charter changed the law. We have to interpret old laws in relation to the charter and recognize that the situation has changed. I suggest that Bill C-340 introduced by the hon. member does not reflect much of a change that the charter has brought about.
The bill says that every person convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a penitentiary will be denied the right to vote, in effect. Clearly, if the inmate is out of prison at the time, voting rights will return. However, if the prisoner is in penitentiary, which is exactly what is the case under section 51(e), then the right to vote is denied to that person.
I am sure that the hon. member is going to argue that only those convicted of indictable offences will face the loss of their voting rights. That may be true but of course there will be various indictable offences for which terms of imprisonment for less than a prison term may be granted where the person is not in a penitentiary but is in a provincial jail.
Under this new bill I assume that person will have voting rights because the term of the bill is that the person be in a penitentiary. Of course a penitentiary is a federal prison. Provincial prisons are not penitentiaries. Therefore, someone who has been convicted of the indictable offence of impaired driving, for example, will
Private Members' Business
find himself or herself able to vote as long as the sentence is one of more than two years.
Persons who are convicted of indictable offences quite serious in their nature but receive a sentence of less than two years will be entitled to vote. In other words, the degree of severity of the sentence will be the sole determinant in whether or not voting rights accrue.
I am not sure that is a fair basis on which to place the distinction between who should have the right to vote and who should not among the class of person referred to, persons sentenced to prison terms.
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing cost us $17 million or $18 million. It submitted an extensive report to the committee on which the hon. member for Churchill and I are privileged to sit that is spending its time studying the report. We have a four-volume report to work on. I have two of them here.
The commission has made certain recommendations with respect to the rights of persons in prison. One recommendation of the royal commission was that persons convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment and sentenced for 10 years or more be disqualified from voting during the time they are imprisoned.
The committee is looking at that recommendation. I am not sure that it finds full favour with the members of the committee because it also bases the ban on voting on the question of the severity of the sentence rather than on the crime for which the person was convicted.
There is some interest in the committee in looking at crimes as the basis for depriving persons of voting rights rather than the severity of the sentence. Indeed some of the arguments put forward in the royal commission's report indicate that perhaps that kind of disqualification would be fairer.
In the course of its report at page 44 of volume 1 the commission said: "The scope of the current disqualification is clearly too broad. It fails to distinguish between types of offences and thus disqualifies persons who have committed offences that cannot in any way be considered significant violations of the essential norms of responsible conduct in a liberal, democratic state. In terms of Canadian jurisprudence this blanket disqualification cannot meet the proportionality test laid down in the Queen

September 8, 1992
Private Members' Business
v. Oakes, 1986, because the disqualification is not proportional to any intended objective".
I could quote also in support of my opposition to this bill a page from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Queen v. Belczowski at page 15. I quote from the decision of Mr. Justice Hugessen who said:
Depriving prisoners of the vote is not a ringing and unambiguous public declaration of principle. On the contrary it is an almost invisible infringement of the rights of a group of persons who, as long as they remain inside the walls are, to our national disgrace, almost universally unseen and unthought of.
If, as I think, therefore, the alleged symbolic objective is one whose symbolism is lost on the great majority of citizens, it is impossible to characterize that objective as pressing or substantial.
He continued on page 17 of the judgment:
Alternatively, and far less commendably, it would appear to me that the true objective of paragraph 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act may be to satisfy a widely held stereotype of the prisoner as a no-good, almost sub-human form of life to which all rights should be indiscriminately denied. That, it need hardly be said, is not an objective which would satisfy section 1 of the charter.
He goes on:
The fact of being in prison is not, by any means, a sure or rational indication that the prisoner is not a decent and responsible citizen.
The prisoner may have made a mistake. The penalty that the law may have imposed or may impose on a person who has committed an offence may result in a prison term for one, a fine for another, probation for another.
The fact is that the proposal put forward in the hon. member's bill and the proposal in the current law violate our charter by these decisions because they propose that the test not be the offence, the degree of culpability, the character or anything about the accused person, but that it be whether or not that person is in prison at the time the election is held.


An hon. member:: An indictable offence.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says: "An indictable offence". The hon. member must know that no one will be in penitentiary unless that person has been convicted of an indictable offence. I say to the hon. member one cannot get to a penitentiary unless one commits an indictable offence. Summary conviction offences do not get sentences of longer than two years so one cannot get to a penitentiary on anything but an indictable offence.
The hon. member has drawn a distinction without a difference. I suggest this distinction is insufficient in law to justify a change from the decisions of the senior courts that we are faced with.
We have to try to get a law in Canada that will work in terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what the committee is struggling with and will continue to struggle with. This bill fails to meet that test, I suggest to the hon. member, that with regret I must decline to support it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I would also like to echo some of the thoughts and concerns of the last speaker.
It is certainly not our intent or my intent as a representative of the New Democratic Party to say that there is no occasion when someone should be denied the vote. In other words, there are probably occasions when people should be denied the vote but they should be explicitly explained in law.
One of the problems that we have had in the royal commission report and one of the problems that I have with the private member's Bill C-340 in front of us at the present time is that the depriving of the right to vote is only for those people who are imprisoned, while they are imprisoned. It is not related to the offence itself. In other words, if a judge lets somebody off or if the judge decides to levy a fine or if the judge decides to send someone to a provincial jail as opposed to a federal penitentiary, that person does not lose the right to vote.


Alan Redway: Do you think they should be deprived of that right?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I am being heckled by the member who presented the bill and whom I did not heckle during his speech.
In terms of fairness there is a problem with this bill. We have had a royal commission, as was pointed out earlier, which spent in excess of $16 million looking at the charter, looking at the whole electoral system in this country, and it made a recommendation.
We have had for almost the last six months a committee of this House looking at who should have the right to vote and the regulations pertaining to that. As part of that process members from all three parties have been grappling with when someone convicted of an offence
September 8, 1992

should lose the right to vote and when that should not occur.
I have heard members say that the Clifford Olsons of this world should not have the right to vote. That is a justifiable argument, but how is it going to be phrased in law in such a way that the courts will not throw it out in the future? That is a concern. They may also have to take a look at who is actually in prison at the present time.
One of the ironies we all know exists in our system is that the very fact you are convicted of an offence does not mean you are going to be treated equally by the courts. Some will go to jail. Some will go to jail for short terms and some will go to jail for long terms. Others, as I mentioned earlier, will get off with a fine. Often this relates more to the legal and financial powers of someone who is convicted rather than to the individual aspects and merits of the case.
We know that in our country there are many, many more native Canadians who end up in a penitentiary than others who commit similar offences. It is not one of the bright lights of our judicial system but it is a fact in this nation.
If the mover of this motion had taken the approach of listing certain offences, perhaps those offences which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or those offences which carry a maximum period of five or 10 years imprisonment, everyone who is convicted of those crimes would lose the right to vote. That would be a fairer system because if you are convicted of a crime, you lose the right to vote and it is not on the basis of what the judge determines should be your punishment. Therefore, if you commit murder you lose the right to vote. It is not whether you are put in jail for one or two years. That is the whole point.
If the member had taken that approach, I think he would have found that his bill would have been charter-proof. That is one approach. It is not the only approach, but it is one that has been considered by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform which, as I said earlier, has representation from the three political parties in the House of Commons. We recognize what has happened with the court cases. With respect, I do not believe that this member's bill will get around future court challenges.
Adjournment Debate
I understand the concerns many Canadians have and I am sure the member has with the fact that there are people who have committed horrendous crimes and still have the right to vote. However, I do not believe that the bill before us resolves it in a way that is fair to all Canadians and at the same time recognizes what has happened in the courts of this land.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since no more members wish to speak, 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.
Would there be unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would be prepared to wait for a few minutes to make sure that members are here and we can proceed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, last spring I expressed concern in Question Period about the difficulties small businesses are experiencing in obtaining financing.
It is estimated that in this country, eight out of every 10 new positions are created by small business. Certainly, Canadians need jobs. Unfortunately, due to this recession, many small businesses lack the confidence to invest any further and also consumers lack the confidence to spend. Both consumers and businesses have lost confidence that this government will bring in an economic plan to get us out of the recession and put Canadians back to work.

September 8, 1992
Adjournment Debate
Over the summer I talked to several business people in my district of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. Many of them expressed concerns to me about their fear of not being able to continue and how much longer they could really weather this recession.
In August I heard from a tourist operator who has been experiencing some tough times over the past two years. This is a tourist operator who has been in business for a decade. As I say, she has had two rough years, last year and this year.
She wanted to renegotiate her mortgage payments over a longer time to take off some of the pressure. She had hoped to do this under the small business financing program. After consulting with four financial institutions on Prince Edward Island, two of them never even bothered to look at her application and the other two simply said that her revenues were down.
You can imagine the frustration of this constituent. It is understandable that she is frustrated because of course revenues are down in nearly all businesses across this country. If her revenues were up, she would not have been in there trying to renegotiate her loan.
To demonstrate the anguish that small business people are feeling across this country, I want to quote from her letter. She said: "I thought these programs were to help small businesses in financial difficulties due to the recession. However, it seems your business has to be making money in a given year just to be eligible." She adds at the end of the letter: "Maybe the government would rather see me on welfare, getting paid to do nothing, rather than helping me stay on my feet".
Those two paragraphs are from a letter of a business person in my constituency who has been a successful tourist operator for the past decade. I am not saying that these small business loans are of no use. Certainly, they help some businesses. However what I am saying is that I believe they can be improved. They can be simplified and they can be better tailored to meet the needs of small businesses.
I challenge the government to look at these programs, to make the necessary changes so that the programs are better able to meet the needs of the small business people.
Finally, pressure must be placed upon lending authorities to ensure that they are sensitive to the problems of small businesses and that financing remains available for these small businesses through the tough times, like the example I referred to of the tourist operator in my district.
This recession has dragged on too long. The least the government can do is to ensure small businesses have access to the financing they need to grow, expand and create the much needed jobs which this government's policies have failed to do.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the comments of my hon. friend opposite who, as usual, has addressed this issue with careful preparation, thought and as a constructive debater.
As a reflection of the seriousness with which the government views the issue of the availability of financing for small business, the minister of state met with financial institutions on several occasions to express concern over the tightening of credit, real or perceived.
While there is still room for improvement, we have seen some progress with the freezing and in some cases, reduction of the level of service charges by several of the banks.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that the government has already taken action and is also in the process of expanding a number of measures that address this problem.
With inflation under control and interest rates down to levels we have not seen for 20 years, Canada now enjoys one of the most stable and favourable investment climates of any industrialized country. This by itself should remove much of the uncertainty that has unnerved financial decision-makers over the past several years.
Improvements to the Small Businesses Loans Act program, including a doubling of the amount that could be guaranteed, will be introduced later this year. It is interesting to note that loans registered under the SBLA program in the first quarter of this fiscal year were up by 9 per cent over the previous year. Activity since the end of June indicates that this trend is continuing. This would appear to be an indication that this government guaran-

tee program is achieving its goal of making credit accessible to firms which might otherwise be denied it.
You will recall, that we introduced the small business financing program in the last budget as a quick means of being able to lower the cost of refinancing businesses that were in financial difficulty.
The additional competition anticipated from the recent overhaul of our financial services regulatory environment should improve the access of small businesses to financing. Businesses unable to obtain conventional financing can approach the Federal Business Development Bank for term loans, equity financing and venture loans, as well as innovative approaches to assisting them in managing their affairs.
Labour-sponsored venture capital funds are also developing into an important source of equity financing in those provinces that have passed compatible legislation.
Finally, we will continue to monitor the issue of small business access to financing to ensure that this critical sector of the economy has the resources it needs to realize its full potential as we move on the road to recovery.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Recently, the government chose to close a supply depot and base in the city of Moncton. The result is that 250 civilian people will be put out of work. This base was promised to the community. It was promised to have a new facility. The hundred million dollar commitment was, in fact, made by three ministers of national defence.
This government has now reneged on that promise. What is interesting is that it reneged on this promise a month before a task force was to report on just exactly how the military's facilities should be rationalized and how we are going to deal with base closures. I asked myself why the minister would choose a month before this independent report was coming down to make this announcement to close the base.
There are a couple of reasons. The obvious one, if you read the report, is that there was no mention of the Moncton base closure in that report. Obviously, the independent study did not even know the government intended to close the base. I can only conclude from that that this was a purely political decision taken at the very
Adjournment Debate
last minute by a very politicized department and a very political minister.
Second, if you look at the recommendations in the task force report, one can only conclude one thing. This minister did not want to be held accountable to those recommendations and have to deal with those recommendations and do what is necessary under those recommendations.
The report recommends a couple of things that are of interest. Number one, it suggests an independent agency, and I quote from the report: "In order to translate ministerial proposals into government decisions we see a need for a process that will enable members of Parliament, affected communities and the public to ask questions and to assess DND's case; and also provide time for federal and provincial agencies in affected communities to work out mitigation measures; and thirdly, to limit partisan political considerations in closing the base". Obviously, it is that last item that this minister does not want to deal with.
As well, the recommendations create a responsibility for the federal government. Again I quote from the report: "We see federal responsibility for mitigating the effects of base closures as a natural extension of this responsibility, and Employment and Immigration Canada is the obvious department to take the lead in developing a federal policy". God help us in Moncton if that department should be responsible for initiating that process because the minister has already said that he would do nothing for Moncton because Moncton is doing fine. He has no concern for the 250 people who are going to lose their jobs, their families, their dignity, all of those things associated with being gainfully employed. The fundamental flaw in everything that is done is that this minister and this department have turned the Department of National Defence into a political pork-barrel. I asked the minister to explain why he would go back on his promise and the promise of the previous two ministers, close that base and put those people out of work and then spend the same amount of money in another community and as well go against what is obviously proper military advice from everything that we can determine in analysing the reports and information to the effect that the Moncton base should stay open as it is an integral supply base to the whole military system in Atlantic Canada. This minister has chosen to close that base, disregard military advice and to play pure partisan

Adjournment Debate
politics. What has been done is fundamentally wrong and this government should be called to account.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is certainly understandable why the member for Moncton would raise on behalf of his constituents and the 250 who lost their jobs this issue here in the House of Commons. However, it is quite indefensible that in doing so he would accuse the Department of National Defence and the minister of political pork-barrelling, that the department has been made a purely political department over something like this and that the military advice with respect to the closing of the depot in Moncton was ignored.
I have four brief points in rebuttal to what the member has said. First, the number of depots in the country has been on a decline over the long period of our Canadian history: from 34 to 21 to 15, down to five, now down to two. It is because methods of transportation have improved, communication has improved and the need for many depots structured throughout the land is not the same now as it was in many earlier periods of Canadian history.
Second, the size of the Canadian Armed Forces, as the member well knows, is being reduced. In concert with that it is part of the process to reduce the infrastructure necessary to support our Canadian Armed Forces.
Third, and a very important advance in terms of our military preparedness, is the forward staging of materiel in the Canadian Armed Forces bases themselves. A lot of what formerly had been kept back in depots is now found, for example in the case of the Moncton base, at bases in Halifax and so on. This is to say that there is actually more distribution of materiel throughout the country at the Canadian Armed Forces bases proper rather than held back in depots.
The fourth and final point is that just as we have seen in industry, which has modernized its whole practice of warehousing with something called "just in time delivery", the very modem Canadian Armed Forces of the 1990s is also understanding that it is no longer necessary to have great warehouses filled with many thousands of mattresses or countless paper forms or so on, that we too
can be part of the modem age and therefore reduce the overhead of supplies that are kept in the depots.
For all these reasons it is intelligent policy to concentrate now on the two depots in Montreal that can admirably serve central, eastern and Atlantic Canada and the Edmonton depot to serve western and northern Canada.
I think the hon. member for Moncton should applaud intelligent policy making and support it rather than denigrating it here in the House of Commons.


JOB TRAINING
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the most important issue for Canadians today is the economy. Canadians are concerned about their jobs, their businesses and the future of their children.
We have record levels of unemployment, record levels of bankruptcies and the government refuses to change its policies or its direction.
According to the statistics released last Friday by Statistics Canada, in August there were 1.6 million Canadians unemployed for a percentage of 11.6 per cent. That is 1.6 million Canadians who are looking for work.
Those figures do not include Canadians who are no longer looking for work, who have dropped out of the labour market. Worse still, the number of full time jobs fell by 8,000 in the month of August and part-time employment increased by 19,000. While the total employment was going down, the mix of full time versus part-time was increasing in favour of part-time jobs.
What does that mean? It means that those who are working part time for the most part are working on minimum wage, non-union jobs with no benefits, no unemployment insurance, no pensions, no health plan and no paid holidays. That is the direction we are going in.
Just to look at some of the statistics or some of the clippings on this from a recent poll that was made public by Angus Reid through the freedom of information: "The government conducted a poll with Canadians and the results were that Canadians viewed the GST and free trade as the major villains driving the recession into
September 8, 1992

its third year, federal polling results obtained under the access to information reveal".
Because of all these things, on June 4, approximately three months ago just before the House adjourned for the summer, I asked the Minister for Employment and Immigration why with that situation it was the same situation then as it is now. At that time there were 11.6 per cent of Canadians unemployed. I asked him why he was cutting back on training funds for the unemployed and why he was cutting back on job creation programs for the unemployed.
Of course, the minister replied as he always does that in fact he was increasing the moneys. Of course, he increased the moneys in 1991-92 from what they were in 1989-90. If you compare the moneys that were available back in 1984, 1986 and 1987, they are much less as a per capita expenditure for Canadians. He is picking a starting point which allows him to say he is increasing the funds, but in fact he is not increasing the funds.
The funds have been cut back as compared with a few years ago and all summer we all received as members complaints from Canadians that they had been enrolled in training programs. These are unemployed Canadians who were enrolled for retraining. All of a sudden, they were advised by the local Canada Employment Centre that their retraining or training program could not go ahead because the funds had been cut back.
I do not know what happened to the government members over the summer but I hope they were subject to the same barrage of complaints that we were. I hope that the parliamentary secretary who is here today to answer will give us a better answer. I ask the government to please have some compassion for the Canadian unemployed and increase-not fool around with numbers-the funding for training and job creation considering the horrible situation that is faced by Canadians.


Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I have the pleasure to inform the hon.
Adjournment Debate
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that our government has recognized the importance of training programs in this country and has allocated the funds required to help the unemployed.
For instance, let me mention the funds allocated to Quebec within the last two years under the independent trainees program. The hon. member is well aware that last year the government ensured that $27.6 million would be allocated to the independent trainees programs offered under the unemployment insurance program.
Because of this, in Quebec some 7,000 unemployed were able to receive training. This year, we are still having some economic difficulties and the government must provide even more assistance to the Quebec unemployed who want to obtain some type of retraining. The government therefore allocated $87.5 million to this program at the beginning of the year. In June, the government realized that this amount would not meet the demand and added another $32.9 million, increasing it by $6 million in August 1992. In a single year, the government has therefore increased by $100 million the funds allocated to the independent trainees program. This a significant example of the commitment made by this government to help the unemployed during these difficult times.
This government currently allocates $1.95 billion to training under the unemployment insurance program. It spends another $1.6 billion on training and employment assistance programs aimed at those who do not receive unemployment insurance benefits.
This year, 900,000 unemployed Canadians will take advantage of training programs established by this government. This year, we will spend a total of $3.55 billion on programs to give Canadians the training they need to re-enter the work force. This represents a net increase of $450 million from last year's budget of $3.1 billion.
This government is here to help Canadians go through a difficult period. It is also committed to manage public expenditures in a responsible manner so that Canadians do not find themselves more in debt at the end of the recession, as the previous government did during the last recession.

September 8, 1992
Adjournment Debate


ABORIGINAL HEALING LODGE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to raise again the question I raised on June 1 concerning the selection of Maple Creek as the site for the aboriginal women's healing lodge.
Since that time there has been a lot of good work done on this issue by people like the students from the Gabrial Dumont Institute in Prince Albert, Alice Carrol from the Prince Albert Tribal Council, and Elizabeth Bear from the Crisis Centre in the city.
If I might review what happened here, the original decision to close the Kingston prison for women was welcomed by many of us, especially aboriginal people from northern Saskatchewan, because there are three aboriginal women from my own constituency who died in that institution.
The fundamental finding was that in order to be effective these women had to be closer to their families and to their support networks. That was the fundamental flaw with the Kingston location.
My contention is the selection of Maple Creek fundamentally ignores those two basic criteria. One half of 1 per cent of the aboriginal people in Saskatchewan live within 200 kilometres of the Maple Creek location.
There is no vacant housing on that Indian reserve in the region. As well, there are only two low income houses in the town of Maple Creek and both of them are occupied. There are veiy few aboriginal people who live in that city so that is not a welcoming environment for those families to move to while the women of those families are incarcerated.
The same holds true with aboriginal support networks. There are not aboriginal institutions in the city of Maple Creek. It is a very small band and there are not the kind of institutions like there are, for example, in Prince Albert where you have the Gabrial Dumont Institute, the Prince Albert Tribal Council, and a number of other aboriginal institutions that could provide the expertise for this facility.
I call on the minister to review this case because I do not think there was an objective evaluation of the proposals that were made. I have a number of instances I would like to cite, one of which has not been made public but which I have become aware of. A member of the
selection committee phoned a national aboriginal leader who had supported the Prince Albert bid to ask him to withdraw his support of the Prince Albert proposal before the decision was even made, before the group ever met. A member of that committee phoned a leader and asked him to withdraw his support. That says to me there was a predisposition to choose a location other than Prince Albert.
Since that time I have used the access to information legislation and obtained further information on what happened here. I find things like some of the criteria that were included, things like the question of water. When it comes to water, the report from the selection committee makes a big deal of what great access to water there is at the Maple Creek site. However when you read the Maple Creek proposal, it makes only a vague reference to creeks and streams in the region. It does not say anything specific about water at all.
When it comes to Prince Albert, they say the North Saskatchewan River is polluted. They did not even read the proposal. Neither of the two Prince Albert locations are even on the North Saskatchewan River. They are on the Little Red River and on the Shell River, neither of which is polluted. An issue that seemed to be very important to the committee, but which it appears it did not even consider, is the Prince Albert proposal.
As well they said Prince Albert was an inappropriate place because there are already corrections there and it is a prison town. The fact those institutions exist means there are aboriginal women there and aboriginal people who have experience in dealing with corrections who could provide the professional expertise and support that is required here.
I would like to again ask the government to review this because I do not think an objective decision was made here. I would like to plead with the government to take another look at this so we do not make another mistake.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, I am pleased to speak today on the point raised in the House on June 1, 1992 and mentioned here previously by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River on the selection of
September 8, 1992

Maple Creek-Nekaneet in Saskatchewan as the site for the new healing lodge for aboriginal female offenders.
Correctional Services Canada established a planning committee for the healing lodge. It has nine members, five from the CSC and four aboriginal women representing native women's organizations. In addition, three elders advise this committee on aboriginal spirituality and traditions. The planning committee was responsible for cariying out the location assessment process for this facility and recommending a site to the Solicitor General.
Twenty-three communities in Saskatchewan that expressed interest in having a healing lodge were evaluated by the committee. The location selection criteria and the assessment process were specifically designed to reflect aboriginal culture. Correctional Services received many high-quality submissions, but the first-place proposal from the town of Maple Creek and the Nekaneet Band was exceptional in that it met or exceeded all the requirements, including the support of a council of elders, the provision of health services respectful of native culture, the need for appropriate land, the availability of spring water and the support of an aboriginal community that is proud of its traditions and open to other native groups.
Maple Creek is almost equidistant from Calgary, Regina and Saskatoon. At present, 47 aboriginal women are under federal sentence and 23 of them are from
Adjournment Debate
Saskatchewan and Alberta. The selection of the site for the healing lodge was well received by the aboriginal women at the prison for women.
As in the other new facilities for federally sentenced women, program delivery will be premised on individualized plans, a holistic approach, an interactive relationship with the community and a focus on preparation for release.
As the Solicitor General stated on June 1, 1992, politics did not play a part in the site selection process and all parties concerned sought only the welfare of the aboriginal women.
With regard to the request for a complete review of the selection process, I am satisfied that the decision made by the Solicitor General of Canada was made with integrity and in good faith. I emphasize that the decision to locate the healing lodge for aboriginal female offenders in the community of Maple Creek-Nekaneet is in conformity with the recommendations and advice of the planning committee. The Solicitor General took into consideration the best interests of aboriginal female offenders.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.02 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 9,1992