1992-09-10

Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the first parliamentary assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held between July 2 and July 5, 1992 in Budapest.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Clearwater, British Columbia. They point out their strong opposition to a company's intention to divert water from the North Thompson River and eventually sell that water in San Diego, California.
They simply ask the government to introduce legislation that would prohibit Canadian waters from being sold to the United States as a commodity like coal or copper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another matter, petitioners from throughout western Canada are simply asking Parliament to ensure that we maintain the current level of services provided to veterans through the Veterans Independence Program and to ensure there are no increases in charges to veterans for
board and lodging in those long-term care institutions in which veterans are resident.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, it is my honour to present thousands of signatures on petitions today. These signatures are from every part of Canada. We have over 500,000 that have been presented on the same topic.
The petitioners believe there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. Women, children, and disabled persons are particularly vulnerable.
They also believe that crimes of violence against persons are intolerable and constitute the most abhorrent crimes society faces.
They ask Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society and to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present several petitions totalling more than 100 names and asking Parliament to urge the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada, including persons in the backlog and persons accepted under the new legislation, and to allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have two other petitions. One is a petition of 36 names mainly from the community 680 Queen's Quay West, a government assisted housing project.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize housing as a shared provincial-federal responsibility, to support the federal non-profit co-operative housing program, and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

September 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings THE CONSTITUTION


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from 508 persons from various parts of Toronto, including some within Trinity-Spadina who have asked me to present it. They are concerned about the preamble to our Constitution which affirms that our country is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God and on respect for moral an, spiritual values.
They point out that about four million Canadians do not believe in God or are unsure and the ones who do, disagree on the nature and desires expressed by God and that for many Canadians freedom is founded on secular values rather than spiritual values.
Therefore they request that Parliament remove references to God and spiritual values from the Constitution, ensure that the Constitution is a secular document that defines religious belief or unbelief as the right of the individual, and that the Constitution forbids the state any religious endorsement.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, the petition I have the pleasure of placing before you today is from Canadians from across the country.
They are urging the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 which was passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and so the provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by over 125 residents of northwestern Ontario, rural Thunder Bay and Thunder Bay.
These petitioners are concerned about what they see as a direct attack on the rural way of life: cuts to VIA, abandoning the rail lines, neglect of fishery, forestry and agriculture, and erosion of rural postal service, particularly the closure of small rural post offices.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life, to support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services and to reject the Conservative government's agenda of cutbacks and closures.


Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I
rise to present a petition signed by several hundred Canadians from the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
They point out that the price of both new and existing drugs has increased substantially to individuals on provincial and private drug plans since the passage of Bill C-22 in 1987. They call upon this government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 in order that Canadians may benefit from generic competition.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition originates in Toronto and across the country.
Whereas the incidence of violence against women and children is unacceptable, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children. As in duty bound your petitioners humbly pray.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, I also have a number of petitions signed by over 2,600 Canadian seniors from all across Canada indicating that hundreds of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line, that it is desirable for all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible, and that the federal government has the primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that Canadian Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I too have a petition to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by hundreds of constituents in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood who have
September 10,1992

indicated that the incidence of violence against women and children is unacceptable.
They are calling upon this Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children.
They are asking for special effort in the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, in cooperation with my colleague from the great riding of Cardigan, under Standing Order 36 I would like to present petitions on behalf of seniors from the province of Prince Edward Island and across Canada who have been offered a 37-cent increase in their old age pensions.
This is basically a reaction from the seniors about the niggardly amount of money that the government seemed fit to give people who are in need, most of whom are single women.
They humbly pray that Parliament take into consideration seriously this petition from the seniors of Canada.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received an application pursuant to Standing Order 52. I will hear the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
Government Orders


Iain Francis Angus: Madam
Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 52(1), of which I gave you notice, to seek leave to adjourn the House in order to debate a matter of national importance.
The decision by PWA Corporation to agree to merge Canadian Airlines with Air Canada will create an unregulated monopoly and this House must impress upon the government the need to bring in regulations to protect the consumer from price gouging and the communities from arbitrary loss of service.
This House also must impress upon the government the need to work with the new single airline to fairly treat any employees who may lose their jobs as a result of the merger.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: After receiving the hon. member's notice that he would be requesting an emergency debate today, the Speaker and I talked about it for quite a while and we have come to the conclusion that today would not be the appropriate moment to have such a debate.
The hon. member or any member of the House should not see this negative response today as a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation and of the need for the situation to be discussed. We feel that it would not be appropriate today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (pp. 12785-12786).
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, this is really a wonderful moment for our country and our people. It represents with the prospect of a Canada-wide direct vote on the constitutional amendments a new partnership between Parliament and those who send us here.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
We have seen a long history in this country of efforts to make major changes that have not involved the people directly. A century and a quarter ago Sir John A. Macdonald refused the appeal in 1866 of some 20 members of Parliament from Canada East, Quebec, who petitioned for a mandate from the people prior to implementing the confederation plan. What we saw was the development of a feeling against the plan, particularly in Nova Scotia, that led to successionist movements. There has been a long period throughout our history of trying to have the people involved in major changes.
Robert Borden wanted a plebiscite in 1914 on the question of Senate reform. There was no legislation in place for that and he lost his moment of opportunity and no such vote was possible. Prime Minister Trudeau, a decade ago, sought a national referendum in relation to constitutional amendments, but he was neither able to get his legislation through Parliament in spite of two efforts bringing it before the House, nor was he able to get the agreement of the premiers to such a process.
Today for the third time in our history there will be a national plebiscite, but for the first time in our history it involves the Constitution.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the success that has been possible in negotiating this current comprehensive package of amendments to our Constitution was possible because in June of this year Parliament passed the enabling legislation, the Canada Referendum Act. This act made it very clear to all who gathered in Charlottetown that if they were unable to come to an agreement there was another avenue open, namely that the government could proceed with the support of Parliament in going directly to the people.
We have crossed an important threshold in our country. We are now in a period of transition in which the people are becoming much more directly involved in the process of fundamental change. I note that the promise in the May 13, 1991 throne speech by the government has been fulfilled. At that time, it was said that the men and women of Canada would be asked to participate directly in the process of constitutional change.
I am personally very happy to rise to speak in this debate. I have read all the Hansard accounts of the 1898 debate on the Dominion Prohibition Plebiscite Act of that year and also the debates that took place in Parliament in 1942 on the plebiscite relating to conscription for overseas military service.
In 1942 the Prime Minister of the day realized, having made a clear promise in the 1940 general election and having received a mandate from the people based on that promise, that he could not within two years reverse the position that had come from the people in a clear mandate without going back to them.
That certainly, when we are on the subject of mandate, is fundamental in a democracy. The far-reaching constitutional changes that are now proposed have never been discussed in a general election either nationally or provincially. There is no conceivable way that this whole package, as it is now put together in a new 1992 statement, could be said to have been contemplated by the Canadian people or discussed by them as the comprehensive package that it is.
It is absolutely important and vital in a democracy that the people be part of the process and that they give after deliberation a mandate with respect to this package.

The Prime Minister told this House in his speech that the Canadian model was used for the Australian constitution. In 1900, way back at the beginning of this century, the Australians decided that any amendment to their constitution would have to be ratified by the people. Therefore they added to their fundamental law specific provisions to that effect and, on 32 occasions since the beginning of the century, when changes to the constitution of Australia were contemplated, the people of that country were called to the polls to vote on them. In eight cases the proposals were ruled satisfactory by the majority and ratified, but they were voted down in every other instance.
I suggest that is how democracy should work. If the majority of the people cannot be convinced of the relevancy of a proposed change to the supreme law of the land, there is no legal or moral way it should be adopted. The rationale behind this is that democracy operates basically through consensus among citizens, not through coercion. If a majority of citizens cannot be induced to support a given position, the country will be in deep trouble, and in time the schemes the political leaders devise to put new deals together without getting the public on board will get the country in trouble. As a matter of fact, the present feeling of disillusionment created by governments and politics in Canada is largely due to the fact that for 20 years or so major innovative policies have been put in place without first gaining the
September 10, 1992

support of the people and reaching a consensus, which is a necessity in a democracy.
A direct vote from the people preserves the commitment principle in that the responsibility involved in the decision-making process rests with the people of Canada themselves.

The coming campaign for the direct vote on October 26 will be like a national teach-in. Canadians have listened for several decades now to discussion about constitutional change but it was always in orbit, distant from them. The fact that now every citizen of our country knows that he or she will have to mark a ballot indicating yes or no to these proposed amendments will focus their attention and give real meaning to citizenship in our country.
In his speech on Tuesday the Prime Minister said that the question on the ballot is in fact a proxy for many other profound questions about who we are and where we are going. That indeed is the process of the campaign that will now unfold as we debate sincerely, and with differences, from different perspectives and backgrounds who we are as a Canadian people.
This exercise of self-definition will be a transforming element in our country. We have passed the stage, happily, in which those who govern believed that they could patch together fundamental changes. Perhaps fearing the fragility of something Scotch taped on here and held with a paper clip there they end up as if they are walking on eggs and not really wanting to let people see it or examine it too closely or breathe on it. Certainly they would never have put it out so that there could be intense public debate on it over a four, five or six week period, as in a national plebiscite campaign.
We are now past that stage. The people are partners with those of us in Parliament and the provincial legislatures in dealing with this question. Indeed, all we are really debating in Parliament at this stage is the wording of the question and the process. The real decision now, through the conclusion of the campaign, will be with the Canadian people themselves. That proves that we have
Government Orders
come to the point of recognizing that constitutions belong to the people and not to governments.
Indeed, when Her Majesty spoke in our capital on July 1 she mentioned that constitutions are not simply written documents on parchment but must, if they are to be effective and meaningful, live in the hearts and in the minds of the citizens. Therefore, we now come to examine what citizenship is really all about in 20th century Canadian parliamentary democracy.
There have been several criticisms that have been directed to this process which I would like to address. One is that it is an abdication of responsibility by Parliament and the legislatures.
Second, people do not know enough about the issue to cast an intelligent vote.
Third, the cost of this process is too great.
Last week when I was being interviewed on CFRB about this process several callers phoned in with that very comment. They said: "We elected you to be in Parliament and decide these issues. Why is the government bailing out? You are ducking responsibility".
We have not heard the other side of that coin so much this time, but certainly in 1942 and 1898 parliamentarians said: "I was sent here to decide issues. I was elected. We cannot just take these things back to the people all the time". All the time? This is the third time in our history that we are doing it.
Perhaps the best statement of all dealing with that concern was made by the finance minister, a Nova Scotian, in 1942 when speaking in that debate after many people had criticized the government of Mackenzie King for lacking the courage to deal with the issue in Parliament and taking it to the people. In fact, I quoted what the finance minister, J. L. Ilsley, said in the House of Commons in my new book, The People's Mandate, on this very subject. Here is what he said in February 1942 in justifying a national plebiscite: "Surely the cowardly government or Parliament is the one which fears to ascertain the views of the people". Ilsley said that it was far more an act of leadership to define the issue and then

September 10,1992
Government Orders
to go to the people and defend it and explain, in partnership with the people, what was intended.
On that same point a former Prime Minister of Canada, Arthur Meighen, wrote in 1937 about the fact that about 98 per cent of what goes through Parliament did so without ever having a mandate from the people. They came from the ordinary grind of government and public business, detailed amendments to statutes and changes in the tax act and so on. However Meighen went on to make, in terms of the popular mandate and support from the people, a very important exception. He said that any legislation that would "affect positive principle going to the root of our institutions" ought only to proceed when there is a clear mandate from the people.
No one could read the comprehensive package of amendments negotiated at Charlottetown and then suggest that they did not constitute legislation or change going to positive principle of our country. They most assuredly do. Therefore, there is very clearly an answer here to this criticism that Parliament is somehow ducking its responsibility by going to the people. I see it as Ilsley did, as a high act of national leadership and partnership.
Just to briefly mention those final two criticisms. First, that people do not know enough about it to answer the ballot question. That is precisely what the next four, five or six weeks are all about. We will have a national teach-in and all Canadians and certainly we parliamentarians have the duty and responsibility to share that information. We will go through an exercise of self-definition of who we are as Canadians that will be very valuable.
Finally, as for the cost. I would point out that the largest element of cost concerns the preparation of the voters' lists. It should be borne in mind that the voters' lists prepared for this national direct vote will be used in next year's general election campaign, simply being revised for that purpose. Therefore, the cost of that election will be significantly reduced. Those are the accounting principles.
On the broad question of value to a democracy we have now come to a moment that is historic for our country and I am glad to be able to rise and support this initiative.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: One hundred and
twenty-five years young, Canada is a new country, a country with promise, a country that is the envy of the world. Today we are called upon, as citizens of this great country to say yes to a chance for constitutional renewal, to a chance for rebirth and to a chance to get our country working again.
I am proud to live in a country built with the tolerance and generosity that is the envy of the world. Aboriginal people, French, British and yes, Irish and other settlers, immigrants from all over the world have built a country that we call home.
[Translation)
Aboriginals, people of French or English descent, immigrants of every country in the world, together we have created a nation envied by all.
Last Monday, 17 Romanians were found hidden in a container in the port of Antwerp, trying to sneak into Canada. Why? As they said themselves: "Because Canada is an ideal country".

On October 26, we will be called to reaffirm our faith in this country of ours. Faith in a country that has given her children opportunities. Faith in a country that saw the children of the Great Depression, not educated, not having the same opportunities as my generation, raising families that can be the best they want to be. Faith in a country that over generations has struggled with linguistic differences but has bridged them. That is what makes us unique as a people. We are not pseudo-Americans. We do not believe that to be equal you have to be the same.
In this particular debate we will set aside political differences, partisan differences to stand up for Canada. We will have to work hard together, New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and believe me, for me that will be difficult. But we will have to work together to convince those who have doubts that it is worthwhile to live together in honourable compromise.
You may be tempted to ask on the ballot: "What is in it for me?" But I know that Canadians in the final analysis will set aside individual self-interest to ask: "What is in it for Canada?" This deal does not solve all our problems. It does not guarantee gender equality. It does not give the homeless a place to sleep. It does not solve forever
September 10, 1992

all linguistic tensions and it does not guarantee racial equality.
But the bottom line is this deal makes sure that we will have a country so that we can build to bridge those differences. We will have a Canada to work out those problems.

Our challenge in the next 50 days is to convince Quebecers to say yes to Canada and to convince Canadians outside Quebec to say yes to Quebec.
I am not afraid to tell Quebecers: "Yes, you are a distinct society and I am proud of it."
We must convince native people to say yes to Canada and other Canadians to say yes to native people.

To people in my great city of Hamilton you may ask: "What is the point?" There is a point. On October 26 every citizen in the city of Hamilton will have a chance to say: "Yes, I want self-government of the aboriginal people to be a fundamental part of my Constitution. I want the capacity of francophones to speak their language enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. I want to say yes to Quebec. I want you as part of my Canada and I want the west and the Atlantic provinces to feel that they too have a share and a stake in our society".
I fear in my own area the fight may not be between yes and no, but the fight may be between those who will vote and those who will stay home. When you are called to vote and fight for your country, it is not the time to stay home. Therefore, I urge you to circle October 26 and get out to vote.
When we recognize someone else's rights we do not lose, we all win. By empowering others we become stronger, not weaker. Ontario will be stronger in a stronger Canada. The west and Atlantic Canada will also become stronger, and a stronger Quebec makes a stronger Canada.

I am asking Quebecers to say yes to Canada, to a Canada they have built themselves throughout the centuries. Tomorrow's challenges will be met by those who speak more than one language. They will be met by
Government Orders
those who can live in peace and co-operate with their neighbours.
We hear a lot about Europe 92. I was there last summer and I now realize that Europe 92 is what we have known in Canada for centuries. What we have here are people who can get along in any language. We already have two official languages. We have in Canada people who speak all sorts of languages. This agreement is not perfect, but it is unanimous.

I too was one of those who thought it could not happen. I wondered whether Atlantic Canadians, Quebecers, westerners and Ontarians could sit at the table and reach a unanimous agreement.

This unanimous constitutional agreement is living proof that we can live side by side and make the compromises necessary to get along in this country in spite of all our differences.

This referendum gives us a chance as Canadians to explore our heritage of tolerance and generosity and to build upon it. We are a living example of what many countries in the world could not do: different people, different languages, different cultures living together peacefully and respecting our differences. We are sending a powerful signal to the world. On October 26 the world is going to be watching whether that signal will remain as clear and vibrant as it has been for the last 125 years.

I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that this is an opportunity to say yes to Canada and to be an example for the rest of the world. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that it is essential to give the Constitution back to the people through this referendum. I also agree with the Leader of the NDP who says that this vote is a vote for all of Canada.

This deal recognizes the rights of minorities to feel at home wherever they live in this country. Whether you are an anglophone in Quebec or a francophone anywhere in Canada you are home.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders

You are home, that is exactly right. This is what we have accomplished. We have gained something for Quebec. We have also gained something for Canada by recognizing aboriginal rights. We recognize the balance between the different regions which have developed since the foundation of this country. We recognize a basic fact, namely that French is not simply an insigni-cant historic detail in this country.

This Constitution guarantees forever that French is not a simple footnote in our history books, that those who came to this country 450 years ago and carved the land out, and indeed in the beginning of the historic agreement between the British and the French said that we will have two peoples, two languages, two cultures, two religions, it was a fundamental guarantee that led to a country where we did not tell everyone that to be a Canadian you have to be like me. You can choose this country.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]

They chose our country because they saw a country which said from the beginning of its historic roots that differences are welcomed here. That is what Canada is all about and that is why those who say "let the French go" are waving goodbye to a piece of Canada that makes us unique and different from all other countries in the world.

My French speaking friends, Canada is your country. You have built it. The fact that my daughter started school this week in a French Catholic public institution here in Ontario speaks volumes. The fact that my brother in Montreal is raising his daughter Beatrice in French-as an assimilated anglophone-would only be possible in a country where people have realized that speaking two languages and recognizing two official facts in their Constitution is not a loss but a gain on both sides. The fact that francophones can feel at home in every part of the country is quite something.

The deal is complicated. It is not perfect. I do not know of any constitution in any part of the world that has
achieved perfection. But is that a reason to throw away a great country? Some opponents may say: "I don't like section 3(l)(b)". That is fine. There are some details that I am not crazy about. But I say this unanimous deal is a chance to bring Canada back to the real issues.
Let us examine the alternative. The alternative is intolerance, exclusion, further constitutional conflict and indeed potential chaos. Canadians have a chance now with a unanimous deal to avoid the bloody histories of other parts of the world. There may be those who say: "Well, if Brian Mulroney is for it and Jean Chretien is for it and Audrey McLaughlin is for it then I am against it". And I heard that. I heard it on a local radio show in Hamilton.
I ask Canadians not to let their anger at politicians kill our country. This vote is not about settling grudges. This vote is not about teaching a lesson to an MP or an alderman. This vote is about our desire to keep Canada together. You will have a chance to express your disappointment, your disenchantment, at the ballot box in the next election. This is not what October 26 is about. Do not confuse the issue. Set aside our political differences, our partisan differences and work as a united front.
Canada is more than the individual interests of individual provinces or individual Canadians. This is one of those rare times in the history of a country where we can say yes.

We can say yes to Quebec and yes to Canada. [English]
It is one minute to midnight, the clock is running out, and the chance is here now for Canadians to say yes to Canada so that we can rebuild a great country into the 21st century.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in support of the motion which approves the following question for the referendum on October 26.
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,1992?
yes
no
September 10, 1992

I support yes. I am asking the voters of Trinity-Spadi-na in Toronto particularly to vote yes. I am also asking people across Canada, where I have many friends and acquaintances, to vote yes to this. I am not asking them to vote blindly. I am asking them to study this document and the information that will be distributed about the agreement that was unanimously reached by the Prime Minister, by the First Ministers of the provinces and the territories and for the first time in our history or perhaps in the history of the world, by the representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and then consider whether they can conscientiously vote yes.
If they decide they cannot and decide they should vote no, I honour their conscience in doing so. However, I hope they will have examined the document that was arrived at unanimously.
I would like to point out six reasons. There are more but I would like to point out six reasons why they might vote yes. The first and to me the most important is that it recognizes the inherent right of the peoples who have lived here for thousands of years, before any of my ancestors came to Canada, to the self-government they never gave up.
I have to confess that I thought I was an educated Canadian when I had two university degrees. In the last three or four years I have found that I grew up grossly ignorant of certain important parts of Canadian history. Like a lot of other people in Canada, I have learned a lot in these three years. I am very glad to have that history restored to me by the process that has taken place in the last three years and confirmed by what is in this document, recognizing that they have always had that inherent right.
There will be many questions we will have to work out with them. We have five years at least to negotiate. This document sets the foundation for that.
Second, there is the reconciliation that I believe is now possible between the people of Quebec and francophones in other parts of Canada and all the people of Canada, in Quebec and elsewhere.
The essence of the Meech Lake five points is present; the distinct society, the three members representing civil law in the Supreme Court, much more independence and responsibility for immigration, clearly defined limits and responsibilities in federal spending and the right of
Government Orders
veto on changes to federal institutions. Besides that there is an assured share of the membership of the House of Commons and a sharing of federal powers.

I want to say that our two daughters who have been living in Montreal for a number of years, as well as their husbands and children who speak French, are all bilingual. They can go to Toronto, just like my wife and I can go to Montreal, without crossing a border between Quebec and Ontario.

Also very important for me is the social contract. I wish to read some of the points that have been made in the social contract that was incorporated in this agreement.
"The objectives of our country shall include providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered, and accessible. Providing adequate social service and benefits to ensure that all individuals resident in Canada have reasonable access to housing, food, and other basic necessities. Providing high-quality primary and secondary education to all. Protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively". I am particularly proud of that because that has also never been so fully recognized in the history of Canada and now it is in our Constitution as proposed for this vote.
"Protecting, preserving, and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations". Those are only promises but they are now promises that should be part of our Constitution.
There is a Canada clause which undertakes to state the general nature and commitments of our country. I regret it is not as strong as it might be in at least one way. There was a strong request that section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to say not just that the people of Canada are committed but the Government of Canada is committed to preservation and promotion of racial and ethnic equality and that clause should be exempt from the notwithstanding clause.
I believe that was a reasonable and fair request to make. I wish it had been included, but I believe we can make progress in that direction nevertheless. I will come back to that.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
There is the division of powers in which the provinces which have grown greatly in population and economy throughout Canada now have greater flexibility to exercise their powers as they see need locally in the provinces and yet with a strong federal government that can provide financial support and co-ordination.
There is the reform of the Senate. I have agreed most of my life with my party about the abolition of the Senate which has been undemocratic fundamentally and in practice. This abolishes the undemocratic Senate and replaces it with a Senate whose constitution aims at providing fair representation to all sections, not just geographic, but all parts of the population of Canada.
I regret there also we did not go as far as many many people asked us to go to including proportional representation of women in the Senate. I will come back to that.
I see three problems we should deal with. They are not problems that should cause us to vote no or to stay home on October 26. They are problems I believe we can deal with better after we have voted yes and after this agreement has been put into law by the legislatures of Canada.
There is one problem, and I am happy to see that the Secretary of State is here and I respect his continuing attention on these subjects. There is a problem of pressure on certain visible minority groups and ethnic groups to be manipulated. That is to say there are phone calls, so I am well advised, coming to certain leaders of ethnic and racial groups from the multiculturalism department and/or the Secretary of State's office, talking about their vote, talking about the grants that come to their organizations, and in fact strongly suggesting they should vote in accordance with the grant.
There is the appearance that grants are greater to organizations that undertake to vote in support of yes and smaller or to absent organizations that do not agree to vote yes.
This is not a practice to be dealt with directly in the Constitution, but it is a matter that could be dealt with by the minister between now and voting day on October 26.
I ask the minister to review the conduct of his office and
his department to see whether it is possible to remove any hint of manipulation of the vote through the use of public funds. I ask that because I want those people to vote yes. I do not want them to be alienated by a sense that they are being manipulated. As is often said, it is important not only that justice be done but that justice appear to be done, and that is one of the problems.
I believe the minister and his department can deal with that in the next few weeks. I also believe the wider problem of the absence of the amendment to Bill C-27 can be addressed by premiers of Canada. At least one of them, the Premier of Ontario, has already addressed it, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has addressed it and some of the native leaders have addressed it by urging that an amendment to clause 27 be incorporated. It is not possible to incorporate it now into the agreement on which we must vote on the 26th, but there could be a public pledge by the premiers and other leaders that they will see to it that it is considered a minor amendment that could be incorporated into the final drafting after the 26th when, as I hope, the vote will be resoundingly yes.
The final problem, and I have heard this from a number of my constituents, is that while this process proceeds in promoting acceptance of a political Constitution for Canada, there is another process afoot that would establish a very much changed economic Constitution for Canada, what President Reagan called the economic constitution of North America. When Canada signed the free trade agreement with the White House, that was President Reagan's triumphant declaration. Now we have an economic Constitution for North American and he obviously had in mind Mexico, which is now under way.
I want to quote what my leader said about 12 days ago: "We have begun the journey into the 21st century. There are those who tell us that it is a journey that must be led by the strongest and survived by the fittest. There is no choice. On their journey there is no time to pause and help a child born into poverty or a family forced into need. They are wrong. They are so very wrong. We have not struggled to politically unite this country only to have it divided socially and economically. Canada's journey into the 21st century has to be a journey with room for all, a journey where the strong help the weak, where the
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
healthy care for the sick and where every child will rise up with confidence and hope. Then and only then will the hard work and struggle have been worth it".
I believe it is highly relevant to what we are doing today because these two processes go together. The government, with millions of dollars of the taxpayers, is funding its view in favour of the North American free trade agreement while we continue with this referendum process.
Therefore, I find it necessary to call on the people of Canada to present the other side since three-quarters of them, according to public polls, reject that agreement and with reason. They reject it through knowing that more than one and a half million out of work Canadian adults and their families are living on their savings or unemployment insurance cheques or welfare and that is a poor living.
The U.S.-Canada trade deal has cost half a million good jobs, mostly in manufacturing. We are now being drawn into a negotiation with Mexico in which the standards of wages and environmental protection are so low that they are bound to damage the standards in Canada.
We are asked to join a trading block which will shut out the people of Asia and the people of Europe and break the concept of unified world trade for which most nations of the world have struggled since the end of World War II.
Finally, it would be a deal that would turn the raw material producing areas of Canada into areas of low-wage workers, hewers of wood and drawers of water, as General McNaughton said almost half a century ago when he warned against giving away our water. The workers in the present manufacturing areas of Canada would be reduced to low paid service workers, the equivalent of hewers of wood and drawers of water.
I ask that we look at these things together. The North American free trade agreement must be debated further. We do not even know whether the United States will accept it. It must be debated and we must begin now. I ask people in Trinity-Spadina and in Canada to vote yes, to put an end to this constitutional crisis which has seized us and to get on with building a democratic economy in Canada.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that for the past three days harmony has reigned in this House. Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives have become a mutual admiration society, and all for the sake of making us accept a so-called constitutional agreement. Why so-called? Because in the preface we read the following:
The asterisks in the text that follows indicate the areas where the consensus is to proceed with a political accord.
That means no agreement was reached. In fact, I counted 28 asterisks in the text, which means 28 items on which there is no agreement as yet. At the end of the text
it says:
Other constitutional issues were discussed during the multilateral meetings. The consensus was not to pursue the following issues:
This is followed by a list of 14 items. If this is an agreement, I wonder what is being agreed to. Finally, it
says:
Other issues were discussed but were finally resolved, among which
were:
Another six items are mentioned. That is certainly not my idea of an agreement. It is full of gaps, and there are still many issues to be settled, as we just heard.
Like the majority of Quebecers, I refuse to accept this agreement. In addition to the considerations I just mentioned, I have other reasons for doing so and some very concrete examples.
Take the economy. That Canada's economy is deteriorating is no secret. In fact, there is a connection with the constitutional fatigue people are talking about. Governments have taken advantage of the constitutional debate to cover up their inertia, their lack of initiative, their lack of innovative ideas for restoring the prosperity of this country. As Jean Allaire put it, Canada is technically bankrupt. The economy is a disaster. For some time, Quebec's demands have ceased to be political.
They are more closely related to economic matters, because Quebec is willing to do anything to build its own prosperity. This need to regain control, to obtain all the tools required to rectify the situation, has been misunderstood in Canada. Quebec is stuck in a country which denies its need to obtain more powers to overcome its difficulties, while, on the other hand, the federal government increases its debt, mortgages the future of its citizens, imposes policies unrelated to regional realities,

September 10,1992
Government Orders
is unable to increase competitivity, and finally insists on controlling everything, even though there is increasing evidence that it has lost all ability to control anything.
In this context, it is surprising to hear comments about the terrible apocalyptic scenarios were Quebec to refuse to ratify the proposals. If it has to make a choice, why would Quebec opt for the worst, namely for a federal, centralizing, controlling system which overspends without taking into account the distinct realities of Quebec? Quebecers have long understood that it is useless to ask what Canada can do for them. They now ask themselves instead what they can do for Quebec. And what we can do now for Quebec is to say: no thanks.
But what about the draft agreement of August 22 on which Quebecers and Canadians will be asked to vote? It is important to analyse what benefits Quebec can find in this hastily achieved agreement. A more equitable sharing of powers? Certainly not. Quebec is far from having gained a new arrangement which would give it the powers it has demanded for 30 years, at least according to Francois Rocher, professor of political science at Carleton University.
Is there any need to remind the House that Quebec has been asking for the same thing for the past 30 years, to assure that Quebec will have the powers required to manage its own cultural, social and economic development? The so-called agreement of August 22 does not grant any new powers to Quebec. It provides for six exclusive fields of provincial jurisdiction: tourism, recreation, fisheries, housing, mines and urban affairs, which all came under provincial jurisdiction in the 1867 Constitution. I must also point out that the minister of constitutional affairs has even watered that down. He stated this week in the House that some sectors in these fields of juridiction will continue to come under federal responsibility. He said so to reassure one of his Conservative colleagues who had asked a question on the subject. As an example, he mentioned housing, which is quite a large exception.
Let us deal now with culture and immigration. Culture will come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction but- and it is an important but-the spending powers of the federal government in this area are confirmed. In addition the federal government will continue to control certain institutions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board. It is another example of the federal government giving with one hand and taking back with the other.
As for immigration, the only so-called advantage is an agreement under which the federal government simply undertakes to negotiate agreements on immigration, which it has been doing since the sixties.
Finally, under the draft agreement, manpower training would come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but once more, there are restrictions, such as the fact that unemployment insurance would remain under federal control.
As for regional development, negotiations are planned for the provinces that desire to play a greater role; what role and within what limits we shall see. In any event, it will be renegotiated in five years.
We must therefore admit that Quebec gains nothing in the distribution of powers. The answer to the federal offers is a very simple no.
Turning now to the distinct society, which was the cornerstone of the Meech Lake accord, and considered the bare minimum required for Quebec, this concept is worthless in the new constitutional agreement concocted by our first ministers.
The distinct society clause in the draft 1992 accord has virtually no value for Quebec, based on its nature, its wording and its context. The distinct society clause loses all its value because it is followed by a clause providing that the Quebec and federal governments have a commitment to the growth and development of the anglophone minority in Quebec. This clause totally limits the scope of the distinct society.
In sum, the distinct society clause in the proposed constitutional agreement becomes a mere interpretation rule subject to the discretionary power of judges; furthermore, by mentioning three criteria that distinguish Quebec, namely language, culture and civil law, the limitations are increased.
This will make it hard for Quebec to defend its social and economic legislation on the basis of the distinct society clause. For example, the law on the language of
September 10, 1992

advertising and commercial signs could be overturned on the basis of this clause.
Since Quebec gets no advantage or, worse, loses the little power it has, the answer to the offers of August 22 is a simple no.
The proposed constitutional agreement provides for a new equal Senate that confirms the triumph of English Canada's vision of federalism which diminishes Quebec.
As Professor Guy Laforet of Laval University says, by making Quebec a province like the others, the equal Senate is tantamount to official recognition, in the very heart of the Canadian political system, of the end of the dual vision of the country.
The equal Senate confirms Quebec's loss of power in the Canadian political system; its share of the representation will drop from 23 per cent to 9.6 per cent and maybe even 7 per cent, with the seats reserved for native people and new provinces.
In practical terms it means that a senator from Prince Edward Island will represent 21,717 citizens, whereas a Quebec senator will represent 1,140,833. It is quite a difference. To offset this loss of 18 seats, they are being transferred to the House of Commons. Quebec will have 93 members instead of 75 as now, but what will that change?
In any case we know that the 56 Conservative members from Quebec blend with those from the west and the maritimes. They have no opinion of their own. They will follow their party line.
Looking at the Senate and representation in the House of Commons, we cannot speak of advantages for Quebec. That is why I will again say no thanks to the offers of August 22.
Let us talk about this right of veto. Meech gave Quebec a general veto over changes to federal institutions and the establishment of new provinces. Now the federal government only has a moral obligation to consult with provinces regarding the establishment of new provinces.
What is Quebec gaining from this so-called right of veto? Nothing. Our only option is to say no to these offers.
Government Orders
This proposed constitutional agreement includes an interesting section concerning native issues. It is interesting because it reveals the open-mindedness of English Canada toward the aboriginal people, in contrast to its attitude toward Quebecers. The agreement recognizes aboriginal self-government without defining it, leaving the concept open to all kinds of interpretation.
After five years of negotiations the courts will have to settle the matter and will be free to define this important notion unrestricted by clear criteria.
It is just the opposite for Quebec where English Canada was determined to limit to only three areas the distinct society clause. Obviously English Canada's open-mindedness varies according to whom it is dealing with. Because of the insult to Quebec I say thanks, but no thanks.
All in all, English Canada's attitude is an insult to Quebecers who have shown through the years their trust in democracy, peace and negotiation only to face continued rejection. We must recognize that Quebecers are patient and tolerant.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is up so I will close by saying that Quebecers cannot accept the August 22 package. Because we must reject the centralization of powers at the federal level I say no on behalf of Quebec. Because we must refuse to become architects of our own failure, I say no on behalf of Quebec. Because we must prevent the decline of one of the founding nations of this country, I say no on behalf of Quebec.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent in the House for the debate to continue through the mid-day interruption, that is from one o'clock through to two o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member for Outremont has the floor. I am told he will share his speaking time with the member for Manicouagan.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, I have less time than I had hoped and I will have to use it sparingly. Time is precious and it is my pleasure, as you mentioned, to share this period with my colleague from Manicouagan.
I will make a few comments, primarily from my unique perspective.
First I want to make some corrections. Yesterday the leader of the Parti Quebecois gave his reply in the National Assembly to Mr. Bourassa's speech. He made a presentation that was a reflection of the man. He was calm and proper. On a few occasions, he referred to another premier of Quebec, Mr. Lesage. He did so with great gusto. He talked about him at length. Nothing was usurped. He alluded to the place occupied by a premier that belongs to the Quebec people and their past.
Nobody is offended by that. But then the Bloc Quebecois leader got all upset when the Prime Minister of Canada referred to another Quebec premier, Mr. Levesque.
This premier belongs to me just as much as he belongs to all Canadians. No one has the right to be so intolerent and think that this man only belongs to a caste.
Finally I want to get back to my university colleague and repeat again that Mr. Parizeau is an economist. If you really want to know what the agreement is all about you consult a constitutionalist, and this is what I did. I consulted our colleague, Senator Beaudoin, who is a constitutionalist of international reputation. Senator Beaudoin tells me that this agreement is a good one. He is an expert on that issue. I accept his analysis and his conclusion.
I want to deflate another falsehood. The Belanger-Campeau commission is not and was not the Bible. In fact it never will be the Bible. You had to be a member of that commission to see what went on. I was there. One must not minimize the work done by the commission, but at the same time you must not put it on a pedestal that it does not and never will deserve.
If you look at pages 53, 54 and 55 of its report where it deals with solutions, the commission makes a new attempt to redefine the status of Quebec. I am talking about the title of the paragraphs that follow and will follow within the Canadian federal regime.
They start by saying: "A first solution, as we saw, would consist for Quebec to try once again to obtain major changes within the federal constitutional framework". A
little farther they add: "Federalism, as a principle of political organization, is characterized by the flexibility of the structures that it makes possible". A little further still we can read this: "The general concept of Canada and of the federal regime that prevails today appears rigid and clearly geared towards a search for uniformity and the negation of the differences".
What happened under the authority of other governments that managed the affairs of the country in the past no longer takes place since the Conservative government has been in power and since the present Prime Minister has been in control.
This man and this party want decentralization as well as the respect of regional entities and identities. Pages 54 and 55 of the document mention changes that Quebec would accept: the need to create a new relationship based on recognition and respect between that province and the rest of the country; a sharing of jurisdictions and responsabilities; the allocation of jurisdictions and re-sponsabilities to Quebec regarding its social and economic developement, et cetera. Madam Speaker, all that you find in the Charlottetown accord is in this presentation made on pages 54 and 55 and on which the Belanger-Campeau commission agreed.
As Mr. Parizeau says, the content of the question is clear. You answer yes or no. Just like in any relationship negotiation is a continuous process, but this process can be done with either a conciliatory or antagonistic approach.
I would like to emphasize the fact that the Charlottetown process made it possible to search for a consensus in a climate of confidence. The objective was not to look for a compromise, but to recognize the true worth of all parties involved.
When the Canadian people including Quebec vote yes, it will be to demonstrate their self-confidence and its wish to control their own future.
Research has shown that national unity is possible, both in theory and in practice, even if we also promote regional differences. The people of Quebec and the way French-Canadians and Quebecers can now function show us that this nation is going through a maturing process and is becoming increasingly self-confident. Thus, these negotiations will not be the last ever. It would be illusory to believe so, but they will be productive and positive.



September 10, 1992

Voting yes will give Canadians and Quebecers another opportunity to show their maturity.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are being invited to make an historic decision on October 26. On that day they will be asked to reply to the referendum question now being debated in the House of Commons.
The question is short, clear and, most important, non-partisan. Its wording will allow all Canadian citizens to vote on the most important constitutional renewal project since the foundation of our country.
It will certainly be no surprise for anyone here or for the residents of the Manicouagan riding to learn that I shall reply yes to the referendum question. I shall vote in the affirmative because I am deeply convinced that the agreement achieved in Charlottetown a few weeks ago will make it possible for our nation to meet two basic objectives.
The first is to maintain the unity and integrity of Canada as a country which is respected and envied throughout the world. The second is to strengthen Quebec within the Canadian nation.
The provincial premiers, the leaders of the governments of the territories and Yukon, the representatives of the First Nations and the Prime Minister of Canada have come to an agreement which represents an historic stage in the evolution of the Canadian nation. This agreement completes the process begun in 1981, a process from which Quebec was unfortunately left out at the time but which was relaunched and carried out tenaciously in November 1984.
I was there in Sept-iles in 1984 when the right hon. Prime Minister undertook to bring Quebec back into the Canadian family with enthusiasm and dignity. All those who witnessed this commitment applauded the Prime Minister and gave him their support.
This commitment has now been met, thanks to the agreement achieved in Charlottetown a few weeks ago.
Why can we say today that Quebec comes back to the constitutional table with enthusiasm and dignity? Any-
Government Orders
one who reads the text of the consensus report on the Constitution will understand.
Through this agreement Quebec consolidates its position in a number of jurisdictions including immigration, culture and shared cost programs.
Through this agreement Quebec makes major gains, including recognition of the distinct identity of Quebec's society, full responsibility for manpower and manpower training programs, and full jurisdiction over forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation and municipal and urban affairs.
This agreement recognizes Quebec's expanded role in regional development and telecommunications.
The agreement also confirms Quebec's right to appoint three judges to the Supreme Court and gives Quebec 18 new seats in the House of Commons.
These are historic gains for Quebec.

This agreement, to which the Government of Quebec agrees, recognizes in its Canada clause that Canadians and their government are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada. Here is a commitment that will reassure the anglophone communities of the lower north shore in my riding. This clause assures them that their rights will be respected, will be recognized, will be protected and will be promoted.
This historic agreement makes all Canadians proud to be Canadians and it also makes the people of Quebec proud to be Canadians.
['Translation\
The aboriginal people of Canada and Quebec have finally obtained recognition of the principle of self-government. I am glad our partners in Confederation recognized the need to include in the Canadian Constitution the principle of self-government for aboriginal nations.
In 19881 made a commitment to support this principle, and it is with great pride that I invite my Montagnais constituents on the North Shore to examine the agree-

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
ment and measure the gains their people have made as a result of agreement.
It is of course understood there will be further discussions on this great principle of aboriginal self-government. The discussions will have to continue. Just because the principle has been recognized and will be enshrined in the Constitution does not mean discussions will no longer be necessary and that all obstacles have been overcome. On the contrary, we must be prepared to compromise and to continue the discussions on the principles of aboriginal self-government, in order to help undo the wrong done to aboriginal peoples since our country began and accept them as full citizens and partners in the development, including the economic development, of our country and help them achieve their legitimate cultural, language and developmental goals.
In concluding I would like to pay a real North Shore tribute to the right hon. Prime Minister, the North Shore boy who will go down in history as the man who made it possible to conclude this agreement. His perseverance and that of the right hon. member for Yellowhead have produced positive results for our country and Quebec.


Right Hon. John N. Timer@Vancouver Quadra: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister characterized as a Canadian compromise is certainly cause for congratulations to the Prime Minister, and particularly to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Those gentlemen, the leaders of our country, are entitled to bask in the glow of their achievement. For Canadians generally, however, the consensus at Charlottetown is more cause not for congratulations but for a collective sigh of relief. It is some release from the constitutional fatigue that has been building into a national trauma.
It all began when Quebec was excluded from the 1982 agreement. Reopening the constitutional issue in 1985 might have been a beau risque, to use the words of Rene Levesque cited Tuesday by the Prime Minister. It was a dangerous risk, too.
Nonetheless, the Prime Minister did achieve an accord at Meech Lake. It was an accord which, to my view,
supported by good constitutional advice from across the country, particularly from the then attorney general of Ontario-Ian Scott, who retired from the legislature early this week-was a satisfactory compromise allowing Quebec its recognition as a distinct society within our Confederation without yielding federal power.
Despite all the assertions to the contrary there was no sacrifice in that accord of the federal spending power. Indeed, the accord was specific in stating that nothing in that agreement altered in any way the balance between federal and provincial constitutional authority.
Granted, the accord responded primarily to Quebec's concerns but it would have been a useful first step in the renewal of our Confederation. It was contemplated by all the first ministers, and it was certainly contemplated by the Prime Minister, that the problem of western alienation and the injustice shown for centuries toward our original peoples would have been addressed thereafter.
I read that document of Meech Lake carefully. I have read the current document just as carefully. Meech Lake was a far cleaner deal than the document we now have before the House. In my view, those who opposed Meech Lake will bear the burden of history for the national disruption of the last three exasperating years, lost opportunities, a gnawing national frustration and who knows what permanent damage to the psyche of the country.
I have always been suspicious of referenda or plebiscites. Of course they are the ultimate democratic gesture. But the more complicated the national fabric of a country, the more divisive a referendum can be. A referendum is simplistic, reducing complex issues to a simple yes or no answer.
Moreover, under our parliamentary system we have representative democracy. In Canada we elect those who sit in the House and in the legislatures, and those who are municipal councillors. We elect those whom we charge or mandate to analyse the issues for us, to vote for us, and we hold them to account regularly at general elections.
A referendum tends to be an abrogation of that process because under our representative democracy we rely on the judgment of our members of Parliament and members of the legislatures. We rely on their ability, in
September 10, 1992

the best interests of their constituents and of the country generally, to act on our behalf and to vote on our behalf.
A referendum is an abrogation of that style of leadership. It is the quick fix. Having said that, what is done is done and there are provincial referenda in place. Therefore, I accept the fact that we now have a referendum. The people will decide and we will await their ultimate decision. I can tell you it is far from a done deal in many parts of Canada right now.
Looking at the substance of this consensus report from Charlottetown on August 28-1 have never in 30 years since being elected to the House of Commons had trouble as a Canadian, certainly as a former member of Parliament from Quebec, with the concept of a distinct society. For me it reflects reality. A different majority language, a different system of law, a different history, a different culture, different traditions, and a different sense of humour.
It is now more clearly defined in this document. I reiterate what I said in the House once before, which was reconfirmed by the judgment of the late Justice Jean Beetz in the Supreme Court of Canada on the sign language law, that a distinct society in Quebec includes not only a French speaking majority but it includes the English speaking minority. That is part of that distinct society. There is no impingement of minority rights by the concept of a distinct society.
Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver, which you and I have the honour to represent, and elsewhere Quebecers are visiting us this summer, certainly on the Voyageur Program. They must feel pretty good seeing those bumper stickers that say "My Canada Includes Quebec". For me there is no Canada without Quebec.

If I were a Quebecer, I think I would be satisfied with this agreement. It might not be as good as I would have wished, but it is probably better than what I expected. I cannot present at length the case for Quebec, but this was done, anyhow, by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, in his masterly speech yesterday. I can say that it was among the best pleadings I ever heard in this house.
If I were a Quebecer, this document would provide a better protection for my language, my culture, my
Government Orders
heritage, my system of civil law. Quebec's control over its natural resources and immigration is improved, and Quebec is guaranteed a third of the Supreme court judges and, more importantly, 25 per cent of the seats in this House, that is to say 25 per cent of the shares in the business that is Canada. It has a perpetual guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats in order to protect the home base of French speakers in Canada: Quebec. On top of that it has veto power over any change in federal institutions.
If I were a Quebecer, I would say again: My homeland is Quebec, but my country is Canada.

I salute the justice finally accorded to our first peoples. Finally recognition of the inherent constitutional rights of our original peoples, the constitutional right to selfgovernment. I want to caution the House that strong leadership is going to be needed from all quarters during the next five years to make it work.
These provisions-the distinct society and the inherent right to self-government for our original peoples-were perhaps what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had in mind when, in this House, he recalled a visit to Canterbury Cathedral in London, a cathedral made of granite, oak, and marble. This is what he said to the House:
It is the image of the nation I wish to see Canada. For here, I want the granite to remain granite, the oak to remain oak, and the marble to remain marble. Out of these elements, I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.
What about the Senate? We argued this issue in this House on a government motion by the then Minister of Justice, now Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on June 7, 1985. I remember it, it was my birthday.
At that time I repeated what I had written in a thesis that is now gathering dust in the library at the University of British Columbia, although there is a well worn copy in the Senate library here. The thesis was to the effect that the Senate should be abolished and, if not abolished, elected so that it became a real territorial balance against the overwhelming population of our central provinces.
Now we will have an elected Senate, an improvement certainly for western Canada. We are going to have an equal Senate, as the Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday, at the price of being a less effective one.
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
I have always supported the British Columbia thesis advanced by the late W.A.C. Bennett when he was premier at the 1971 Victoria conference when I was attorney general under Mr. Trudeau. The British Columbia thesis of the five regional divisions for the Senate was the thesis advanced again by Premier Harcourt, which I supported.
Parenthetically, permit me to congratulate our current premier for his very constructive role throughout the long and difficult negotiations. He spoke for British Columbia but, as the unanimous report of the legislature advised him to do, he put Canada first. That is what the legislature, after touring the province, came to the conclusion that British Columbians wanted him to do and he did it. In my view, he deserves the support of all British Columbians in supporting this agreement.
There will be a better equilibrium in our Confederation as the result of an elected Senate, but it is impossible to predict how effective individual senators are going to be under our new parliamentary process. It is impossible to predict the interaction of the two Houses. One thing is certain, the power of the Senate to defeat a bill and then force a joint session of the House of Commons and the Senate will add a new dynamic in the power structure of this country and, frankly, I am optimistic that it can work.
On the issue of division of powers between federal and provincial jurisdictions, I do not believe that the federal authority gave away too much, although I have some doubts about culture, telecommunications and broadcasting and I deplore, as the Leader of the Opposition does, the weak economic union clause.
As I said during the trade debate, I have read the document. It is not a perfect document. It is not my document. But it is the only document we have. It happens to be the document resulting from hours and days and months of strenuous negotiations finally culminating with our democratically elected leaders from every part of the country and every segment of the country agreeing on this consensus. For that reason it deserves our support.
We Canadians ought to recognize that this referendum is more than just a debate about words, laws and powers.
It is about the future of our country as a cohesive, emotional, economic union. This debate not only involves our future as a people, but our individual well-being as citizens. It involves our future as a country that can continue to welcome citizens from every comer of the globe as a proud country.
We have been warned by the new political gurus of our age, the omnipotent pollsters, that we should not preach fear in this debate.
Does that mean that we cannot say to our fellow citizens that there are economic consequences of failure for all of us, that we should not warn that dividing up the huge public debt will not be costly, that we should not caution that there will be an effect upon our credit rating in the markets of the world, or upon the exchange rate, or upon interest rates, or that our trade would not be affected, or jobs and investments not lost?
No, this is not an abstract debate. This has real consequences, on a daily basis, for every one of us and every one of our constituents. More important, if we fail, it will affect the way that we feel about ourselves. We will feel that we have let ourselves down. We will feel that we have lost, perhaps irretrievably, the uniqueness we had as a special nation.
Canadians want a positive conclusion to this question. Most of us in this country believe that we have a great and beautiful land. Most of us believe that Canada has been a wonderful experiment. Most of us believe that Canada has been a great achievement. We are reluctant to sing the praises of our country, restrained in our patriotism. Waving the flag is not our way, not our style.
I happen to believe that we need renewal. Certainly we need renewal of our Constitution. We need renewal of our pride in our country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: We need to shed our cynicism and our negativism and our sense of frustration. We need to feel good about ourselves again.
Let us remember what we have here. Let us remember what we are talking about: a land of limitless space; a tolerant people, a fair people and a decent people. Let us reassert our belief in ourselves as a nation, using the
September 10, 1992

words of Laurier, "great among the nations of the world". We are the envy of the world.
It is time we woke up. It is time we shook ourselves out of this lethargy. I hope that this national debate encourages all of us, all Canadians, to stand up, to speak up strongly and loudly and clearly for Canada.
I support the motion and I will campaign for it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate first of all the speaker from Vancouver Quadra on a very excellent, eloquent speech this morning in his defence of the amendments and of the proposal to present the referendum to the Canadian people. I found it most illuminating and historic. I would congratulate him on a very well thought out and well presented speech and text.
I am also from British Columbia and I would like to present a slightly different point of view. I would like to discuss some of the concerns that we have in British Columbia with the constitutional representation in the referendum as it has been presented to us. The Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs has done an excellent job, an outstanding job, and at times an impossible job in bringing the premiers together to present a completed document with unanimous consent. Each one involved in this whole episode and exercise deserves our thanks and appreciation for the hard work and the compromising which they have done.
I would like to point out, however, that this is a debate in which various points of view are presented. I would like to present some points of view from British Columbia that I feel are significant and need to be discussed.
There are four points that I would like to make and the first one is that the redistribution of the seats or the increase in the number of seats compounds a problem which we in western Canada have complained about and have been concerned about for many years; namely, the increase in the centralization of power in central Canada. The idea of a Triple-E Senate was presented to resolve that problem. In a way it has done that in that the Senate is now equal according to provinces. As the
Government Orders
previous speaker mentioned, it is a question as to how much effectiveness there will actually be. I think that is something that will have to be developed as time goes on.
One of our major concerns is the increased centralization of power within central Canada. Forty more seats in central Canada is the equivalent of more than what B.C. has in total in the House. It is equivalent to what the Atlantic provinces have. It means that there would be increased Cabinet representation, increased membership of committees and everything that is entailed in having more members in this institution.
The second concern that has been voiced to me by many British Columbians is the increase in number of seats. They say we want less government and not more. It is recognized that by reducing the number of senators and increasing the number of MPs, the numbers will remain essentially the same. However, we should point out that it is much more expensive to maintain a member of Parliament in today's atmosphere than it has been in the past to have our senators. The new senators also will be much more expensive to maintain with their increased office staff, their constituency offices and the many things which they do not have at the present time. There is a real concern in British Columbia about the number of members of Parliament and what they will be doing. At the present time, we find that 60 per cent of our time is spent with immigration matters and such things. This is not a responsibility of members of Parliament primarily and I think we could best spend our time doing other things.
A third area that is of great concern to British Columbians, probably more so than any province in Canada, is the concept of aboriginal self-government. To me it is a potential time bomb and one of the most serious concepts within this whole document that needs to be studied, examined and worked on with all due care and attention that is required. It will affect British Columbia more than any other province because we are not covered by any of the treaties by which the other provinces have been covered. None of the groundwork has been done. Concerning our land claims at the present time, 120 per cent of our province is claimed by the natives, by the aboriginal people under the land

September 10,1992
Government Orders
claims. There are more Indian bands in British Columbia than in any other province. We have 53 separate bands, each with its own language and system of government. There will be a very complex problem of self-government.
The majority of aboriginals in British Columbia are not going to be satisfied with the status or the Sechelt pattern as has been described. Rather, they are concerned that their goal is to have either provincial or federal status for their people. We can see that there is going to be a lot of conflict. Some of these things need to be formulated. They have told me personally that they would not be satisfied with the municipal form.
In relation to this point the costs are unknown. It has been shown in the referendum document that the federal government will be responsible for the costs that are involved. As I say, with 53 bands the educational, legal, justice and administrative systems that will be set up will be tremendously expensive to maintain because of the small numbers of people that will be involved in them. This is a real concern for the people of British Columbia.
These are some of the major concerns of people. Another major concern, the fourth concern, is the unanimity clause that has been included. Every speaker so far has pretty well said that this document was flawed, that it had problems and that they had reservations. Yet we are going to carve in stone the unanimity clause which says that all provinces and the House must agree to changes in the Constitution. Rather than doing that, we should be perhaps writing it on paper so that it can be changed much more so than carving it in stone. I cannot see any reason for putting this clause in at this time when there are so many doubts about it.
The people of British Columbia have looked at these problems and considered them. On the other side they ask: "What are the benefits of getting this referendum through and agreeing to the constitutional package?" This is a major issue that is going to be present in this whole referendum. Re-establishing political stability within the country will allow our economic problems to be resolved. We will be able to direct our attention to the economic problems which each province and area is facing.
Residents of British Columbia will have to weigh these two factors: the shortcomings and the very positive commercial aspects. As a previous speaker pointed out, the great pride we have as Canadians within Canada about Canada must also be considered.
I look forward to further debate and discussion on this matter. I hope the final package will show fairness to all Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has seven minutes.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my first thanks goes to the hon. doctor from Delta who yielded half of his time to let me make about a three-minute speech on this vital issue.
My congratulations go to the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who made one of the most magnificent speeches that I have heard him make in this House of Commons. He was fighting and has implored us to fight for this country. I really applaud him.


Some hon. members:: Tell him that.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: They say: "Tell him that". I did.
The other right hon. member in this House who should be applauded is the right hon. member for Yellowhead, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. My wife and I are very proud of that right hon. member. I have never seen him in better form, tired as he may be, over the 16 months of trying to cobble together what is the most important Canadian exercise since we were formed 125 years ago.
The question that people are being asked is the following one:
Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed
on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
I went into Zehr's Plaza across the street from where I live in Ancaster, in beautiful downtown Hamilton- Wentworth, and I asked the first 10 people: "What does the question mean to you?"
In effect, what they said was: "What the hell are you talking about? What package? What is in it? Will you be specific?" With the co-operation of editors of six weekly newspapers that I put my column in every single week, I decided to ask my own question. The question is in two parts:
September 10, 1992

1.	"Do you want to keep Canada together? Yes_________
No________"
2.	"What is the best way to do that?"
Really what we have to decide is whether we believe in Canada. If not, why not? I am not putting that in writing.
I am just saying that. I feel that you can examine nothing with a closed mind. Let nothing be invoked but the truth and the truth is we have the best country in the world to reside in according to the United Nations and according to all of us who live here. The truth is that the only answer can be yes to keeping this country together.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, I first want to say at the outset that as a British Columbian I have to respond to the statement made by the former Prime Minister of this country who happens to be not only a great Quebecer but a great British Columbian as well.
The member for Vancouver Quadra did a profound service for every Canadian, in my opinion, with his speech. Sometimes some of us can transcend political lines and talk about higher goals that the very nature of this institution attempts to implant in us. No one can accuse me of having done that very often. When I hear it and I recognize it, I must applaud it. I am proud to be a member of this House and to have heard the speech made by the member for Vancouver Quadra.
Let me say at the outset as a former premier of the province of British Columbia, I am not happy with this deal. It is imperfect. I imagine there are a lot of people in every corner of this country who are not happy with this deal and say it is imperfect. What else do we have in front of us? I do not like either/or situations. Like all politicians, I would rather move around, come out and duck back in again. However, there is no room for moving around, no room for coming out and ducking back in again. It is either/or.
Who placed us in this position? In my opinion it is the Prime Minister of Canada who must be responsible one way or the other, whether you agree with him or not on every other issue. He must take the political responsibility with the premiers to come up with a deal.
I am not crazy about referenda. Referenda catch the spirit of the moment. The population can be inflamed or cooled by intemperate remarks. Prejudices can be appealed to. Biases can be appealed to, and more impor-
Government Orders
tant, the lowest common denominator can become the basis of debate which confuses people.
I intend to hold my nose and vote for this deal. It is not Dave Barrett's deal, but who is Dave Barrett to hold up the whole country? If I had my druthers, I would have written my own constitutional deal, voted on my own referendum and said here it is, it is my best and it is mine.
Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody asked me to do that and I am presented with a human document that I am forced to make a decision on.
I was against Meech Lake. My simple pithy comment on that was go to another lake. They did and they nearly got drowned by the demands of every single sector of this nation that has a single issue it wants represented, mine included.
I am forced to look at the document. Some of the injustices that this nation has unconsciously or consciously inflicted on our aboriginal people are finally being dealt with. That is morally responsible. No politician has a monopoly on morality. When we see a morally responsible decision being made by politicians, we should have the courage to applaud it. I applaud it.
Dealing with the regions, yes, there have been compromises and deals and back room arrangements, and yes, the adjustments will be made over a period of time. The fairness of Canadian people and the fairness of our system, if you have confidence in our system, will ensure that every region is adequately represented.
I am going to vote for it. I regret that we cannot have a political debate on the economy, on NAFTA. I would have preferred to see a vote along with this on NAFTA, but that is not going to happen.
Now I am being asked, as a British Columbia politician and as a former premier, to state publicly what my position is. I say unequivocally, because the document is not perfect, it is not Dave Barrett's, but I am going to vote for it.
I want to talk some politics. I am profoundly disturbed that Conservative backbenchers, upon the immediate release of this document, attacked the premier of British Columbia for nothing more than crass political purposes. To this day, those certain Tory backbenchers have yet to say publicly if they are for or against the deal. They are spreading false and malicious information about this document without having the courage to challenge the Prime Minister on this issue or to state publicly in my

September 10,1992
Government Orders
province if they are for or against it. That is crass, cheap Why would he not do this? Is he, too, playing crass politics that is damaging no one else but every single politics? Is he appealing to the lowest common denomi-citizen of this country.	nator my province of British Columbia, trying to lie in
the bushes?
If any Tory backbencher thinks that by their equivocation and their attack on Mike Harcourt, the premier of British Columbia-whether it was W. A. C. Bennett, Bill Bennett, Vander Zalm or myself-if they think playing politics is building Canada, let me go on record as saying that it is despicable and doing great damage to this nation.
I am not opposed to their having an opposing point of view, I am not opposed to their having criticism, but if you are going to oppose and criticize, have the courage to say yes or no. Do not play the middle ground to stir up animosities in my home province of British Columbia. Those backbench Tories who saw their own leader and the other premiers of this country craft a deal that was a compromise for everybody have yet to say publicly what side they are on. They are still stirring up dirt on an ignorant basis in my home province, hoping to gain some cheap political points.
I hope I have made my point clear. I hope I have made my point clear that if you are opposed to this, stand up and say you are. If you are in favour of it, stand up and say you are. For God's sake stop playing cheap politics by ducking in and ducking out, dumping on individuals who participated, without having the courage to say exactly where the hell you stand. I find that reprehensible.
I want to address some remarks to the Liberal leader in the province of British Columbia. My dear friend, the Liberal leader of British Columbia, has decided to go on national television and attack this deal without offering alternatives, and that is his right. He, too, has yet to come out and say whether he is for it or against it. I challenge him publicly to stand up in the province of British Columbia and say he is opposed to this deal, and as a Liberal he will not support one federal Liberal candidate who is running who supports this deal, and he will write a letter to his federal leader and say he will not support him because you he is in support of this deal.
Many would suspect it. Not I. I am waiting for his answer. However, I would advise the Liberal leader of British Columbia to carefully read what the former Prime Minister of this country said, what the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and his leader said in this House. They were profound statements on the basis of the Liberal Party.
My last parting comment to the Tories in British Columbia who are playing this game is: Go to their leader in his office and tell him point blank that they will not be supporting this deal or will be supporting it. Have the courage of your convictions to face your own leader. Tell him what you have been doing in British Columbia. Tell him what you have been spreading in British Columbia and the problems you are creating in the long run for every single Canadian by not taking a position on this. Say yes or no, but for God's sake stop stirring up the water in a malicious political way that is hurting all Canadians along with the Liberal provincial leader in my province.
It appears that I am being somewhat emotional about this. It is true, I am being emotional. I come from very humble beginnings and I have never forgotten that. This country for which my father fought in the First World War, where he ultimately lost his sight, was worth fighting for. This country, with all its diversities, all its races, creeds and cultures, has been contributed to by every single one of them, including the Quebecers who have given a unique experience that has enriched all of our lives, just as we British Columbians know that we have given the rest of Canada a unique experience that enriched their lives-different maybe, different necessarily, because each one of us in each region has given something to make this country Canada.
I am not a flag waver and I never have been. I have never wrapped myself in the flag. I have just been damn thankful that I have lived in a country that has never had false pride and chased itself around with a flag. It has pride in its regions, as Quebecers have pride in themselves and we in British Columbia, who know we are the best in Canada, have pride in our region. I have also
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
understood that British Columbia is my home, Canada is changes to Canada's Constitution and the way this my country.	country is run.
Where else on the face of this earth could such a debate take place as we have had over the last year? Where else would you see members from all sides of the House with passion and feeling sitting on committees and working their guts out to come up with some kind of compromise? There are not many places. Ask the Czechoslovakians, ask Yugoslavia. It will never come to that in this country, but we could reach the same kind of emotional wounds that physical wounds create. That is the danger.
We have another agenda in this nation that must be dealt with. It is our duty. I am talking about the economy, the different philosophy of the Liberals, the different philosophy of the Conservatives, the different philosophy of the NDP and the Reform Party. Tragically the Bloc is trapped in a mindset that does not see the potential of building Canada but wants to pull it apart.
The essence of this Chamber is for competing philosophies to come up with goals. This single issue transcends all of those.
I appeal to those who are opposed in my province of British Columbia who sit in this Chamber to stand up and say yes or no. Stop playing games. To the Liberal leader in British Columbia, I say the same thing. I am proud to take my place with the Prime Minister on this issue. You will not catch me on any other one, not even in Tia Juana as the offer was yesterday, or non-offer. I would do it with the leader of the Liberal Party and with the leader of my own party. I regret the tragedy of the Reform Party that has fixed itself in some far distant past that never was there.
It is a serious decision and it is also an historic one. It bridges many years in our nation's history from 1864, when a constitutional accord was starting to evolve in Charlottetown, to 1992, when again in Charlottetown we have another constitutional accord that brings Canada into the future.
It bridges as well our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, with our current Prime Minister. I am sure that history will document both as being nation builders. The people in my riding will have an historic opportunity to vote. They will also have an historic opportunity to make real input into the political system.
In fact this government is the first one in 50 years that will actually be trusting the people to decide on the way their own country is run in an exercise of direct democracy. Of course it is expensive. It is going to cost approximately $150 million to have this referendum, and that is a real concern for those of us who worry about financial responsibility.
Given the geography of Canada and its sparse population it is probably inevitable that amount of money will be spent. However, there is also a lesson in the cost of this referendum for those people who would have those of us in the House of Commons take every decision based on this form of direct democracy.
The Reform Party, for example, thinks that every decision we take here of major consequence should be put to the people. The budget for the House of Commons for this whole year is about $250 million. That would represent just two decisions taken by referendum or direct democracy. It is important for us to remember that.
This is a multicultural nation, a multi racial nation, a	summary, we have an exceptional event ahead of us
nation of multi-religions, multi-beliefs and multi- and we have t0 take it seriously. While doing that it is creeds. We have tolerated it all. I hope to God in my important that we not view this event out of context, children's, my grandchildren's and my great-grandchil- Some peopie would say that this is a measure of loyalty, dren's time the same attitude prevails; no flag-waving, that cvery Canadian now must vote for Canada or perhaps a birthday party every 125 years, but get on with against Canada. That is wrong, being Canadians and not with cheap political games.
As the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel): Madam Speaker, on a man who deserves praise from all sides of this House, October 26 the people who live in the riding of Halton- said in this House yesterday: "This is not a test of Peel will be asked to vote yes or no to a package of loyalty". Instead it is meant more to move the country

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
forward into the future. I think we all know what is coming in the future.
It is evident that Canada is moving into a future that will be dominated by trends like globalization, as trade barriers around the world come down and countries have to be more competitive in order to prosper and succeed in the world to come. As well, we are looking at a country with rapid demographic change. Canadians are growing older. The population is getting more stable. We have to consider what that means for our finances and economic future.
We are also coming into a future with new technologies. Technologies are changing so rapidly that the countries that are going to compete and be successful in this globalized world will be those that have modem, flexible constitutions, rules that govern their countries.
We know what is coming in the future. Therefore it is important to put constitutional change behind us so that we can concentrate on what is coming. Trade, prosperity and national unity are linked.
Trade is important to the people in my community, to the people who live in Halton-Peel. This riding is home to many companies that compete globally. They not only compete, they are successful.
The issue of Canadian constitutional unity and peace is important to the people in my riding. That is one message that I think the people of Halton-Peel would like me to record here on the floor of the House of Commons. However, there is another even more important message, which is about democracy, freedom and all the things that make this country the best in the world in which to live.
To the voters in my riding who will face a decision on Monday, October 261 have one brief message for them. Soon you will be asked to accept or reject the package of changes to the way the governments of Canada are structured. It is an important vote. The future of our country will be very much determined by its outcome. However, while the federal government, the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal leaders are all supporting this package, that does not mean that you have to. You have a clear choice and a right to vote as you see fit.
As the member of Parliament for the riding of Halton-Peel I would like to tell the voters of my riding that I do not intend to tell them over the coming weeks how they should vote. Politicians have no comer on patriotism. I will be supporting the agreement and I have an obligation to tell people why I will be doing that.
Many of the people in my riding know that I have campaigned for things that are not in this agreement, things that I would like to have seen such as a guarantee of property rights and a stronger economic union. People in my riding also know that I wanted less government, not more government. I would like to have fewer politicians, not more members of the House of Commons.
I would even like to see an end to the 19th century concept that this country is comprised of 10 provinces, widely different in size, population and economic structure. In the future other rounds of constitutional reform can perhaps restructure Canada on the basis of five regions.
In this deal I did not want to see a social charter that inhibits the flexibility that we need for the future. I did not think a reduced role for Ontario in an elected House of Commons was fair. Having said that, let us remember a fundamental truth as we reform Canada. Let us remember that there are no perfect countries, as there are no perfect marriages or perfect business partnerships.
Canada is a huge place. Many people are very attached to their regions. It is also a country that was founded by two peoples in 1867 and that remains true today and needs to be recognized.
Addressing all of these things takes compromise. In fact, if we cannot compromise we may not be able to keep our country together. The former Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Croatia, is a place where they have not been able to compromise.
Some people in my riding will not like this accord. Today members of the Reform Party are deciding whether they can support it or not support it. I sincerely hope they are with us. I hope we can speak with one voice to accept this.
My personal conclusion is that the accord that people will vote for on October 26 is not the one that I would
September 10, 1992

have written, but is one I can support. I ask the voters in my riding to take time to understand this agreement, to study it, to appreciate it and then come to their own conclusion.
God bless Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has seven minutes left.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak for a few minutes on the constitutional agreement reached on August 28.
A constitution is a framework of law, the fundamental law of the land. It is also more than the rules by which we govern ourselves. A constitution should reflect the values, the characteristics, the beliefs and the tolerances of a country.
For quite some time there has been a desire, a need to re-evaluate our present Constitution. Many areas of our country have expressed dissatisfaction and concern that their particular needs were not being addressed. The constitutional proposals reached in Charlottetown on August 28, after over two years of consultation and discussion by citizens across our country, represent a great deal of dedication and hard work by the individuals who were there: the Prime Minister, the premiers, the leaders of the territories, the aboriginal leaders. They worked together to develop this compromise agreement.
I give special tribute to the chairmen of the meetings, the Prime Minister and at other times the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, for the leadership they provided, as was brought to our attention by the participants at this final meeting.
The challenge was to remake the Constitution in the image of the countiy that we have become, not the country we once were. I believe that the proposals certainly achieve this goal.
Canadians have expressed a desire for change. They have demanded more responsive institutions and accountable government, justice for our aboriginal peoples and the rebalancing of the roles and responsibilities between federal and provincial governments. This agreement, although not perfect, is a solid step toward making our constitution work for the entire country of Canada.
Government Orders
The agreement that I am sure will be endorsed on October 26 by the Canadian people will mark an incredible milestone that has eluded many Canadians for a number of years. Outlined in this agreement is a statement of what it means to be Canadian-the Canada clause. This is important for it gives us a sense of the values that we hold in common while also accommodating our diversity in this countiy.
The Canada clause entrenches certain fundamental characteristics such as parliamentary democracy', linguistic duality, Quebec's distinct society, and equality of race and gender, to name a few.
For aboriginal peoples this agreement represents a long overdue justice through the recognition in the Constitution of the inherent right to sett-government. Our first peoples will now feel that they are truly Canadian. They can now confirm their commitment to share in building a new and stronger Canada.
By reforming our Senate to make it equal, elected and effective in responding to the demands and concerns of Canadians the Senate should become a more effective legislative body and not simply a rubber stamp.
This agreement provides for better discipline in the use of federal government spending power and the protection of intergovernmental agreements. Provinces will now receive exclusive jurisdiction, if they desire, in many areas they were requesting.
These proposals will also deal with the important issues of social and economic policy, regional development, equalization payments and the amending formula.
As I said, this agreement is not perfect. There were compromises made on all sides, but in the end I feel we have reached an agreement that all Canadians can live with. It resolves the most pressing concerns that have dominated the national debate for many years. Quebec's interests were satisfied, western Canada got its equal and elected Senate with more legislative power, and our aboriginal peoples finally achieve self-government.
In my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton I get the distinct impression from those I have talked to that over all there is great support for the constitutional amendments that have been agreed upon. I have also talked to my provincial counterparts-and I will not get into politics-the elected members of the NDP Government of Ontario. They certainly have expressed their interest

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
in working in my constituency and theirs in support of these amendments. I will certainly be available there to provide support. I am supporting these amendments.
I also will be available in my constituency as a resource person to answer questions and provide information. I ask all my constituents to take this very seriously and to be sure to cast their ballot as they see fit. I ask them to study it with serious concern and interest. I know they will. If they need information I certainly will be available to provide it to them. It is a chance for our great country to stay together and to make this a better place to live.
My family came to this country in 1849. They were also, as said the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, hard working, solid families. We came here and have thrived in this great Canadian family. Certainly my family, and also my neighbours, friends and constituents, look forward to carrying on our all-Canadian future with all of us in a confederated family staying together. These important amendments will allow us to do that.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I will be supporting this set of proposals. I will be voting yes on October 26. Obviously the first question is why. Undoubtedly the major reason is that I really want to unshackle this Parliament and future parliaments from the constitutional crisis we have suffered over the last several years. Many of my colleagues in this House and I want to get the country working again. Parliament working more smoothly and Canadians back to work.
There are other reasons I want to go through quickly to give my constituents and other Canadians a sense of where I am coming from. We all know that in any negotiation no one party ever gets everything he or she wishes. This is the case in this particular instance.
I believe that under current circumstances it would have been difficult to have had a better set of proposals that most parties could have bought into, that most parties would have supported. I think that is a significant achievement.
We have an over-all consensus. Let us remember that. The Prime Minister, 10 premiers of our 10 provinces, the
leaders of the two territories, and the leaders of four major aboriginal organizations are supporting this set of proposals. Clearly there should be some sense of satisfaction in recognizing that these individuals feel this is a good deal for Canadians and for Canada.
Let us not forget as well what is happening on October 26. It is a referendum, an opportunity to go to the people and ask Canadians whether or not they will support it. I am hoping with all my heart that the majority of Canadians in every province and each of our two territories will say yes. I am very much hoping that will happen. This referendum is something my party under the leadership of the hon. member for Beausejour has been calling for, for a long time. I am delighted the other parties have agreed this is a good idea.
Let us not forget as well that as a result of this referendum there will be no future substantial changes to our Constitution without going to the referendum. That is a major gain for all Canadians.
What are some of the other gains? Obviously aboriginal self-government. I have always felt, and I wish it had been different, that many of our aboriginal peoples from a social economic perspective can be compared, and not always favourably, with Third World nations. That is a shame. I am hoping this particular initiative will permit them to break out of the cycle of poverty.
The distinct society has been recognized and accepted. It has now been defined for those who had real concerns. There have been other gains for Quebec. If I were a Quebecer I know I would want more. Obviously I would want more, but I think we have to recognize it will be better for Quebec after this referendum, assuming that it is won, than it was before.
Canadians from origins other than French, English and aboriginal have had some modest gains as well. Linguistic minorities have much of the protection and the support they sought, providing the political will is there of course.
In the division of powers it is much clearer today, or it will be once this is accepted, what level of government supplies what kinds of services for its population. That has always been a contentious issue.
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
There is a social charter and albeit perhaps not as strong as many people would have liked it is there and it gives us a sense of direction as to what are our social values and our commitment to social programs.
There is a "reformed Senate". That will be contentious. There are some reforms but people will question the significance of them.
Those are some of the major reasons I will be supporting this agreement.
Do I have concerns? Obviously anyone who has read the agreement, anyone who has read any agreement, will have concerns. Yes, absolutely I have some concerns. I have several.
Self-government just because it is realized in the constitutional agreement is not a reality. We will require an openness of mind, a generosity of spirit, and political will if it is to happen.
Canadians of origins other than English, French and aboriginal have not felt they were sufficiently included in the process coming up to this agreement. They do not feel, certainly the people with whom I have spoken, they are sufficiently recognized in this set of proposals. Therefore there will be some problems there.
The linguistic minorities have had what they sought in terms of constitutional guarantees, but you and I know that even the constitutional guarantees will not necessarily correct the injustices that have occurred.
If there continues to be laws such as those passed in Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan limiting the use of one of Canada's official languages, be it English or French, there will continue to be tensions. That will go on until we can in fact open our hearts and recognize there is enough space in this country for everyone.
I would hope as well that subsequent to this agreement-

Provincial governments are realizing that the Supreme Court of Canada reached numerous decisions that indicated that French minorities outside Quebec had the right to administer their education system, had a right to school administration. It is a priority for that group.
I hope that finally we will go ahead and that we will not hesitate to give them their responsabilities, that we will allow them to grow, to take their own decisions for the future of their children.

The division of powers will also cause difficulties because even though it is written and somewhat defined there continues to be a need for additional work. It will require further discussion and negotiation. There is no getting around that.
The complexities of government when one looks at the federal, provincial and municipal levels are such that one cannot possibly define it in one document without having some further discussions.
On the reformed Senate the major issue is the whole notion of effective. Is it effective? We could debate that. It has probably made some gains over what exists but I wonder how many gains.
I would have much preferred the proposal my party had advanced that called upon an elected Senate, an effective Senate, and an equal regional representation of senators. It would have been better to have accentuated the effective rather than equal provinces, but it is not to be. I can accept it with some difficulty, but I am prepared to do what I can to improve that effectiveness within the tools available to us.
Because it is unclear as to whether or not senators will be appointed or elected-they may be-potentially that is very contentious. I would hope that all provinces and the territories would decide to elect their senators. I really believe it is a must.
I believe as well that we should have a system of election which is proportional, which will make sure that the under-represented groups such as women, Canadians of aboriginal origin, Canadians of origins other than English, French and aboriginal, will get an opportunity to be elected as senators.
If not, what are we going to do? We are simply going to extend that which we have at a national election, which is probably more of the same, that is more of the same people who are from the governing party. I think that would be unfortunate. We need to have mechanisms that will permit women, visible minorities and others to serve this country. This is a great opportunity to start doing something significant about it.
We should also be exploring the feasibility of having French speaking senators outside Quebec and English speaking senators in Quebec to ensure those two large linguistic minorities are fairly represented.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
I would like to see a reduction in the number of members of Parliament. Rather than go to 337 we could virtually keep the same number or reduce it and still keep the same proportions if that is necessary.
We would be responding to that cry out there that we are overly governed. We would be responding to that cry out there that government is too costly. We would be saving a lot of money. A 15 per cent reduction, for example, would amount to roughly 287 members of Parliament rather than the 295 that we have now and the 337 that is expected with these new proposals. That would save over $20 million a year, and that is not without looking at additional costs of infrastructure and a number of additional costs to support MPs.

I would really like for us to recognize that even if the proposals are there, even if there has been an agreement between the first ministers, the leaders of the two territories, the Prime Minister of Canada and the leaders of the four aboriginal groups, there is still time to improve some aspects without changing the basic principles.
I think that if we examined what people with some concerns are saying, we could reach a better consensus with much more support.

I want to point out that in my opinion the no side will have to put up. It is not sufficient simply to say that one is against something. It is necessary to propose an alternative.
What is the alternative going to be? Will all the people voting on the no side be able to get a coherent package together that the Prime Minister, whether it be this one or another one, and the premiers, the leaders of the territories and the aboriginal leaders, whether it is the ones who are there now or others, will be able to accept? Will they be able to do that? No, I do not believe it for one moment.
If they think they can, let them put their package on the table and let us take a look at it. It is not good enough to stand on the sidelines and swipe and snipe and attack. It is necessary to put forward constructive proposals.
I think there is still time to improve the package. I have made some suggestions, some modest proposals. I stressed the election of senators. I really believe that is essential. That gives senators legitimacy. It gives them additional power. If they continue to be appointed there will still be the criticism that is legitimate today.
I believe that there should be proportional elections of senators because there are under-represented groups that are not serving the nation as members of Parliament, as senators and at other levels of government.
I also believe that we have to look at whether or not we have done an injustice to those Canadians who are labelled disabled, those Canadians who have disabilities. We are not without knowing that they feel they have not been treated fairly. We saw evidence of that yesterday in this House. They believe that they were included in the first set of government proposals and that they should be included again. Let us not forget that these Canadians with disabilities are among the poorest of the poor and that they do not sufficiently often have people who advocate to better their economic and social conditions. Therefore we should look at that.
We should seriously look at the reduction of MPs. What is there to lose? We could save money. We could keep the same proportions if it is necessary. On the other hand, those two large provinces, Ontario and Quebec, if they chose, could accept fewer MPs than they would have received in order to bring about a reduction. If we could reduce the number of MPs it would not only save money, but it would give senators a greater proportional weight when there is a joint session. Of course if there were a generosity of heart from Ontario and Quebec to take one-half of what they would have received in these proposals then clearly that would be well accepted by other parts of Canada.

I suggest that we go ahead, that we try to reach specific conclusions in order to get to other issues, in order to ensure that Canadians who rely on us, on all members of this House to try to resolve the deep problems of this country, can do so.

As I complete my remarks I want to just make a couple of very brief points. We must remember that it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. That is one of my great fears as we go out on this adventure. We also have to remember that it only takes a little drop of poison to
September 10, 1992

poison a whole lake. My great, profound fear is that the several drops of discontent that will occur could kill Canada.
I believe that if we look at the pluses and the minuses over all this accord is worth supporting.

I intend to support it. I will not tell my constituents how they should vote, but I am ready to talk to them about it.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I take pleasure in taking part in this debate because for weeks, months and literally years the Canadian public has been treated to the vicissitudes and the vagaries of constitutional debate.
There has been a constant emotional tug of war for all our people because inevitably this constitutional debate is divided into camps of them versus us, winners or losers. Did they get more than we got?
Finally, we are coming down to the debate. This tug oi war has created feelings of uncertainty about the outcome and what would happen to our community, what would happen to Canada and what would happen to our place within the nations of the world.
Now we have the benefit of debate with a text before us. We are no longer dealing with promises, conjectures, vagaries and anticipations. We are now dealing with a text. I am encouraged by the fact that people in my community are calling my office asking for copies of the text. We are not talking any more about newspaper reports, what the hotlines are saying, what the news is saying. We are now talking about a document which everybody can have before them. We are talking about the precise wording in that document.
The difficulty of the debate is that there have been some premature conclusions made all across the country because of assumptions, because of fragmentary news articles, because of rumours and feelings that it is them or us and feelings of conflict within the country that have been generated by this debate. This has developed the mindset of for or against the proposals, the consensus.
Government Orders
Too often it has been a premature decision to be against the proposals even before the text is seen.
I want to emphasize throughout this debate that we have to return to the text and what it says, not what other people say, not what other people think it says. But actually, what it does say. The first question we have to ask ourselves is that very one: What does it say?
Today we have to make a decision in this House. On October 26 the people of Canada have to make a momentous decision for the country. Again, not on rumour, not on speculation, not on fragmentary quotations, but on the entire text and what it says to us.
In the process we have to reject some myths. The first myth is that we have to agree with the total package. That is an impossibility. Nobody is going to agree to the total package. The 17 people in the room negotiating and reaching a consensus on this did not agree on the total package. I do not agree with the total package. There is not one member in the House, I believe, who agrees with the terms of the entire package. What we are talking about is not individual items but the wholeness of the package. We have to destroy the myth that says if we do not agree with the package, we cannot vote for it. The fact is, we have to deal with that myth.
As the member from Winnipeg said previously, I do not believe the membership of the House should get constantly larger. Maybe we could do with a reduced number of members in the House. With the Senate being reduced in numbers, they do not necessarily have to be added to the House. We could reduce the proportion.
I do not agree with the economic package. I do not think it is strong enough. I find various segments of this package wanting, but as the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs said in Halifax some weeks ago: "If I had been alone in a room writing this package I would not have written it this way. But I was not alone in the room. There were 16 other people there".
What we have to do is deal with the myth that we have to agree with the whole package. Nothing could be further from the truth. It could never be true that 27 million Canadians are going to enjoy unanimity on all of this.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
There are Canadians who have genuine detailed concerns about individual items in the package. These need to be explained. We have a duty to go to those people as much as possible and explain the items in the agenda so that we can deal with those concerns. Many of those concerns are very legitimate. They are based not on speculation or on feelings, but on text.
We need to look at the implications of each of the ingredients and see what those implications are for the future of Canada, whether it is in the Senate proposals, the distinct society, the aboriginal agreement, or the economic package. We need to look at those implications and see what the future of Canada would be like once we have implemented those particular proposals. In the end, it is impossible for 27 million Canadians to agree.
The second myth we have to deal with is that we can oppose this. We can vote it down and simply return to the status quo. There is no stable status quo. We cannot return to the past.
The very process we have been going through has been one of dynamic change. People's attitudes have changed. People's viewpoints have changed. There is no returning to the past. Does anybody believe if we reject this package that the west will tolerate another 10 or 20 years of wrangling about institutional reform? Does anybody believe that?
If we reject this package, will the aboriginals easily accept another promise when this one is so close to being fulfilled? Can we return to some mythical status quo there? Would anybody believe the people of Quebec will quietly defer their cultural aspirations if we reject this package? Will the business community or the economic climate withstand any further postponement of this issue?
The fact is there is no returning to some kind of a mythical status quo. We have to deal with it and not pretend that we can vote it down and simply return to the past and start all over again.
Ultimately there is a big question. I am speaking now to my friends in my constituency and to the country at large. If you oppose individual items in this package, what changes would you require to be made on individual items to make the package acceptable for you?
Write them down. Is it the Senate package? What do you need changed in the Senate? Is it the 25 per cent floor for members from Quebec? What is it that you need to have changed? Write them down and then come with me to the maritimes, to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. I will introduce you to fellow Canadians there who also have a list of bottom line demands that they think are imperative to make this a complete package. Sit down with this Nova Scotian and compare those lists. I can assure you they are not the same lists. They will be different.
How will you accommodate two intransigent positions and satisfy both regions of the country? For the west, any federal government involvement is intrusive. For the maritimes, federal government involvement is imperative. Tty to reconcile those. If we in the west feel so very strongly about individual items on the agenda that are so important for us, let us sit down with people from other parts of the country and compare with them what their demands are.
A second big question is: Do we really want to have a break in the impasse? Do we want to have constant wrangling? If we want to have a break in the impasse, what is it that we are willing to concede in order to break that impasse?
I am reminded of the words of Leo Tolstoy who once said: "Everybody thinks about changing humanity; nobody thinks about changing himself". It is the other person who has to change, not me.
In an impasse it is impossible to think of a change, a resolution or a reconciliation unless both parties make a concession. The danger we have in this debate is we will overlook an ancient truth. Believing is not so much an act of gathering more information, but an act of the will. We decide to believe. We make a conscious decision that we will believe or reject certain things. Look at the people who smoke and the limp excuses they use to prove it does not hurt them: "My Uncle Fred is 90 years old and smoked two packs a day. He never died of tobacco use. He was hit by a bus". They will believe that because they want to and they have decided to believe that.
In an issue much more critical for our country, we cannot embrace ancient and continuing prejudices and accommodate new realities all at the same time. We cannot do that. We decide to believe or we can decide to reject information.
September 10, 1992

The whole commitment to education is built on the notion that we spend billions of dollars so that students change. We do not expect them to come out of educational institutions the same way they went in.
Now we are asking the public to participate in a process of change for our country and to experience what 17 leaders of our nation experienced over the last few months in intense negotiations and in intense dialogue. Can you imagine 17 more diverse people with strongly held views sitting here in Ottawa or in Charlottetown discussing what bottom lines are for them?
Compare Premier Wells with Premier Rae and their bottom line positions, Premier Getty and Premier Bou-rassa, or the aboriginal leaders and the premiers. They have very opposite points of view and yet they came to an agreement. Would anyone suggest that Premier Wells or Premier Rae denied their convictions when they came to an agreement? The fact is they kept all their convictions. What they did was they found it acceptable to acknowledge the validity of somebody else's point of view. They did not deny their own convictions. They accepted additional ones.
We ask ourselves whether there is a risk in all of this. Of course there is. There is risk in any change and we fear change because there is risk involved. Ask any businessman about an investment that he has to make. Is he afraid? Is there risk? Of course there will be risk and there is risk in this, but that is the nature of change. There is change and there is risk in the nature of change of relationships and we must accommodate that risk, not overlook it.
We are not asking for reckless, blind acquiescence to the terms of a document. What we are asking for is a willingness to be objective about the terms of a text and what it says and that we look at it with reason in the cold light of day. We ask for a willingness to accommodate change and the change of mind, the change of attitude and the change of heart.
The fundamental simple question is: Will Canada be better off with these changes? Will Canadians' futures be brighter as a result of these changes to which these people have agreed? If we ask that question and look at the text in that context, we will say a resounding yes to the package and we will have a bright future for Canada.
Government Orders
I close with one statement from William Penn who said: "Oh, Lord, help us not to despise or oppose what we do not understand."
May we look at this text in the cold light of reality and find it in our hearts to look at other people's points of view at the same time.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, let me commence my remarks by congratulating the member who has just spoken. I think he presented a very thoughtful speech to this House.
On October 26 Canadians will be asked the following 21 word question:
Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed
on the basis of the agreement reached August 28, 1992?
That is really the preamble. The question itself is yes or no.
I like the question. It is short. It is easy to understand. All Canadians can participate in the process and feel comfortable that at least they will understand that which they are voting on.
Contrary to the past constitutional accord, the Meech Lake agreement-and I voted for Meech Lake-this deal was not only approved by the first ministers. It was also approved by the territorial leaders, by the aboriginal leadership, and it will be subjected to a referendum.
Furthermore, it has been the result of extensive consultation.

Extensive consultations were held for nearly two years: the Spicer commission, the consultations I had in my own riding, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, the Unity Forum sponsored by the aboriginal people which I attended, the meetings of first ministers, with the exception of the premier of Quebec, followed by further meetings, this time with the premier of Quebec attending.

To those who say there has not been sufficient consultation, I think that Canadians have heard enough. They probably feel they have been consulted and they want to get this issue over with.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
Meech Lake took too long to ratify and I think that is one of the causes of its demise. Once the deal is approved by this House, once it is ratified not only by the Canadian people, which it will be on October 26, it has to be ratified by all legislatures and by this Parliament. I really hope we can do that quickly, having received that instruction by the Canadian people.

I would like us to do Canadians a favour and promise them the agreement will be ratified before Christmas. Would that not be a nice Christmas present? I know my constituents would appreciate the fact that we would not be talking about the Constitution for a while.
Talking about the Constitution is not a bad thing in itself. We will have an agreement approved by Canadians in a referendum and by the legislatures of all the provinces and both Houses of Parliament. Of course we can talk about the Constitution at some point in the future, although right now I have a slight case of constitutional indigestion.
As soon as we have that consent we will be able to talk about it without the threat looming on the horizon of Canada breaking up.

Discussing constitutions is not in itself wrong. There are constitutional talks in the United States. It has had one since approximaltely 1787 and that is not unhealthy. Every time it discusses a constitutional change, the fabric of the country is not threatened by the fact the U.S. talks about it.
Once we ratify this Constitution by way of a referendum and the subsequent votes of our legislatures and our Parliament, we could talk in the future if we so wish about constitutions without threatening ourselves and our very existence.

There are a few parliamentarians who say there is not enough in this agreement and who do not like certain measures. Granted, some measures may not be winners, and if I put on my partisan hat for a second, I would say my leader is a better negotiator than the leader of the party opposite. If I did not think so, I probably would not be a member of my party.
Of course the agreement could be improved on, but that is not the point. The point is not whether the agreement is perfect. As far as I know, the last perfect person was crucified nearly 2,000 years ago. The point is whether the agreement is good for our country, and my answer is yes. Of course the naysayers are grabbing the headlines today, but you can bet they are not going to stay in the House. Everybody knows who they are. Everybody is talking about them. Everybody is saying, or at least some people are, "he said more or less what I was thinking".
People will remember Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne-Cartier. People will remember George Brown who set aside partisan concerns for the sake of this country more than 125 years ago. But who remembers William Hannon, Antoine-Aime Dorion, L. H. Holton and A. J. Smith who were against Confederation in 1867? With the exception of Mr. Dorion who had been a Prime Minister several years before, I had never heard of them.
We all know about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the United States. How many of us would remember names like George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton and Robert Yates, the American anti-federalists of the time? They are no longer in the news today. No buildings or bridges were named after them.

There might be a moment of glory in being against this deal. Those who at this moment seek that advantage for their own personal gain, in the long term will be forgotten much easier because of what they are doing today.
I have the intention of voting in favour of this referendum.

I will urge my constituents to do likewise. This Saturday, I will set up a group in my riding to form a common front for the yes campaign in this referendum. Yesterday I contacted the presidents of the NDP, Progressive Conservative and Liberal riding associations and other groups. I invited them to a meeting on Saturday to form this common front in support of our country.
September 10, 1992



I also intend to organize three rallies in my riding, at least three. Perhaps this committee that I am appointing will recommend more. There will be one in Glengarry, one in Prescott and one in Russell.
They will be rallies which people could attend and hear speakers in favour of this constitutional accord. I would like to invite Conservative members of Parliament to come to my riding to speak at those rallies. In turn I would volunteer to go to theirs if that is what they choose.
I have never done that before as you can probably imagine.

Earlier today I was talking to the hon. member from Quebec City. He is a cousin of mine-once removed, but a cousin just the same. His family is originally from Cornwall, next door to my riding. In fact, his great-aunt, who is my great-aunt as well, still lives there. I asked the hon. member from Quebec City, the President of the Treasury Board, to come to my riding and make a speech during the referendum campaign and he said he was interested.
I invite other friends opposite to do the same, and perhaps I should explain that despite the impression we get from watching television, just because our role in the House is an adversarial one does not mean we are enemies. When I refer to my friends opposite, I mean what I say, because there are a number of members opposite I consider good friends. I would ask these parliamentarians to pay us a visit and I would be glad to share the platform with then.

The Leader of the Opposition said it well a few days ago when he reminded all of us that he had shared the stage in his own constituency in 1980 with the Leader of the Opposition, voluntarily doing so at that time in the 1980 referendum to speak with a united voice in favour of this country. It was that speech which inspired me to try to do the same thing in my own constituency in an attempt to show that we, as parliamentarians, not with-
Govemment Orders
standing our divergent opinions on many issues, can work together for the unity of this country.

That is why we all have a duty to work together to defend the interests of this great country of ours.

I am a Quebecer by birth, a franco-Ontarion. [Translation]
I have lived in the province of Ontario for many years, and the riding I have the privilege to represent in this House is right on the border with the province of Quebec. For instance, the eastern part of my riding borders on Quebec to the north, east and south.
Although I represent an Ontario riding, I feel at home and I am at home in both Quebec and Ontario, but I also want residents of Quebec to feel at home in Vancouver, Newfoundland and anywhere else in this country. Canadians should be made to feel once again that this country belongs to all of us. I would ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and those who are like-minded to consider, when he flies over the Rockies in Alberta and British Columbia that those mountains belong to his children. He tends to forget that, and he is not alone.
I do not say this out of contempt for nationalist feelings, because there are times when members of a minority feel they are being treated unfairly, and they are often right. However, there is a difference between feelings aggrieved and refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the country.
I believe this constitutional agreement has managed to combine a certain measure of autonomy for the provinces and regions in this country with what I believe will remain a strong central government.
I also think that the principle of guaranteed representation for Quebec in the House of Commons provides a unique safeguard that recognizes the distinctness of Quebec.
I have read the agreement. I have also read what it says about language minorities outside Quebec. Of course there were concerns, but I am satisfied that the agreement contains sufficient safeguards for the minority in my own province and language minorities elsewhere in Canada.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders

I will vote for this accord. I ask all my constituents to do so as well. To all members of this House, to the few who disagree with my position on this, I say that there is still time. There is still time to reconsider for the greater good. George Brown did it some years ago. There is still time for all of us to think that way. Just maybe we will be remembered if we do it that way, not forgotten like some of the others who were against Constitution 125 years ago.


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I will gladly share my speaking time with my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi.
At this critical time of our history, this special moment when all Canadians, from Halifax to Quebec City to Vancouver, are about to decide the constitutional future of their country, I have the great honour, as member of Parliament for the beautiful riding of Ahuntsic, in Montreal, to take part today in this important debate to end the constitutional adventures, so to speak, of the past few decades.
Since 1867, the year the Confederation came together, the year that saw John A. MacDonald and George-Etienne Cartier decided to found a new country, Canada, a land where freedom and democracy would flourish and both founding nations, the French and the English, would unite to build a multiethnic and multicultural society. The Canadian people have encountered political ups and downs and obstacles that they have always managed to overcome and which in retrospect have strengthened their determination to live in freedom and unity.
This constitutional agreement is fair to the French speaking province of Quebec, with the distinct society clause protecting their higher interest for years to come, as well as to the English speaking provinces which scored some points with the Triple-E Senate.
This is also an historic moment in our life as a nation, as the native people of Canada, these oft forgotten First Nations, were invited for the first time to participate freely and fully to negotiations aimed at reshaping Canada as a land whose sons will all have equal opportunities to blossom, from Halifax to Vancouver.
As far as I am concerned, as a Quebecer and the member for Ahuntsic, one of the most francophone ridings in Montreal, I am proud to be a Canadian and to support this agreement which will allow Quebec to re-enter the Canadian family, as our Prime Minister had promised.
He did keep his word. Not only does this agreement which will close a chapter in our national history and open a new one respond favourably to the historical demands of Quebec, the economic, social and cultural development of which continued within Canada over the past 125 years and has been rather outstanding, but it sets out the main thrust for a renewed country with a nice spot for a truly empowered province of Quebec to blossom freely.
On top of the five conditions contained in the Meech Lake accord, Quebec made gains in the areas of training, manpower, forestry, mining, housing, municipal affairs, tourism, recreation and culture, the most important of which, in my opinion, aside from the distinct society clause, is the guarantee that at least 25 per cent of the representation in the House of Commons would be from Quebec at any given time, whatever the population of our province may be.
Because of our disappointingly low birth rate and our aging population, this guarantee gives Quebec unmatched political and decision-making power. Once they have learned about all these gains, Quebecers in general and the people of Ahuntsic in particular will approve this agreement, the only hope for a better future for their children. They will not listen to the sirens of independence who proclaim the division and breakup of a country that despite all its problems and difficulties has the best quality of life of 160 countries in the world, according to the United Nations. The place Quebec holds in Canada and in the world is envied by over 160 countries.
By giving a majority yes vote to this agreement, Quebecers, aware of the past that they have built with the other peoples of Canada and of the present that they are building with them in mutual respect, will give a clear answer that Quebec belongs in Canada and avoids hatred, racism and division.
I know that in the Quebec referendum, the advocates of independence will accuse us of being prophets of doom who frighten people. Is it the truth that frightens
September 10, 1992

them? Their idyllic talk of bright tomorrows has more to do with passion than with reason, with narrowness than with openness, with destruction than with construction.
By saying yes to this agreement, Quebecers in general and the people of Ahuntsic in particular will say yes to Canada and especially yes to Quebec.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi has eight minutes.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, as part of my speech today, I would like to read into the record excerpts from an article by Roch Carrier published in the September 1992 edition of L'Actualite, in which he described incredibly eloquently his vision of Canada. I can only do him justice by quoting him. He said: "I have inherited Canada as a whole".
I do not intend to settle for a piece of it, be it celebrated by the poets. I feel no urge to leave Canada when people from all over the world are seeking refuge here. If we are to get off this boat, we better make sure that, like our separatist shepherds we can walk upon the water.
The global economic context will remain unchanged. What will become of us? We will be a smaller nation, so tiny next to the United States. We will also have lost the authority we presently have over the Canadian territory. No proclamation will change that.
The separatists claim that independence will give Quebec the tools required to control its own economy. When the reaction of the Tokyo or New York stock exchanges to some event sends shock waves world-wide, newly redefined boundaries-and what would they be- would not afford Quebec better protection.
Did Confederation prevent the growth of Bombardier, Lavalin or that of the Cirque du Soleil? There are admittedly a few irritants. That is no reason to scuttle a country. It calls for discussion, negotiation, not brooding!
China and Asia are restructuring their economies. Europe, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada are preparing for free trade. Latin America is putting its Mercosur into place. Black Sea countries are grouping together, and what is Quebec doing? Sadly a high percentage of our fine minds which have been preoccupied by constitution-
Government Orders
al humming and hawing for too long have been driven to stupidity by nationalism. Proclaim independence if you wish, but which state can claim to be independent in the world today with a 20 per cent illiteracy rate, with too many workers unable to meet today's challenges, with too many teenagers with very little education?
Is it really necessary to separate from Canada to put an end to this tragedy of so many young people condemned to a life of menial jobs, unemployment, prostitution and welfare? Unfortunately nationalist ramblings leave little room for those who want to decry the urgency of the situation.
I learned the lessons of tolerance from the French philosophers and I am extremely wary of nationalism. It can serve to unite a people without resources, as we saw 25 years ago. We no longer need nationalism. We should now be sufficiently lucid and self-confident to no longer need to worship the twist of fate which determined our place of birth.
The separatists want to take over all the economic tools in countries with a strong economy. It is quite obvious that the only economic tools are work, education, imagination, information, planning and ambition. No constitution can replace those tools.
According to nationalist doctrine, English-speaking Canadians constitute a homogeneous group whose only purpose is to threaten Quebecers. I find this vision of ourselves narrow minded, frustrating and disheartening. Are we really suffering that much? Is the St. Lawrence River overflowing with the tears of our distressed population? The only thing that matters is interdependency. A country can only be free if it is interdependent. In the chaos of recent years, certain populations have broken their chains. In the future, they will group together and probably reinvent what we now have in Canada.
Confederation is the best invention after democracy. It is based on the respect of differences. Someday, all countries will join in a world confederation where individuals will no longer be sacrificed to tribal rivalries. I may be naive, by I would rather be politically naive than adhere to an outdated nationalist ideal which takes its fear for courage, its withdrawal for conquest and its small mindedness for greatness.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
I believe that it would be a disaster in the long run to isolate ourselves. In Abitibi the people would rather work and have a stable job. They have families to support. What is most important for me is to help my constituents to put bread and butter on their table.
These are feelings that all of us, Canadians and Quebecers, should share because we have the marvellous opportunity of living in one of the best countries in the world, from sea to sea to sea. My Quebec understands Canada. On October 26 I shall be saying yes to this agreement, for Quebec and for Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, last week I was fortunate to attend a conference in London on the new Europe. The Danish foreign minister was in attendance at the same meeting and was asked the question: "What happened to the referendum in Denmark? Why was it defeated?"
He gave a very interesting answer that is important for all members to understand. He said: "We lost touch with the ground. We lost touch with the people. It was a matter of all the people in powerful positions, the politicians, the journalists, the academics all saying it was a good thing to have a- new Europe but we had not been able to touch the hearts and minds of the people we represented".
I raise that point because it is a lesson that is important for us all to recall as we embark upon this important referendum in Canada. We must not lose touch with the people. We must understand that their concerns and interests spread way beyond the legal wording of the Constitution. This important debate must be a time of listening. We cannot simply rely upon the public relations campaigns, the slick advertising, and the television promotions, but must be out there listening to what they have to say, listening to both the advocates and the critics, those who support it and those who are against it.
They are all going to be trying in their own way to define what this country is, to use this important occasion, as Canada debates where it wants to go, to discuss where the country should be in the future. It is a chance, if you like, to awaken the slumbering potential for goodwill within the country, to bring people together from all parts of the country in a common cause.

I remember this past summer we welcomed the young voyageurs from Drummondville riding, which is represented by their good MP. We had a party on the shore of Lake Winnipeg, which was discovered by La Verendrye over 100 years ago. It is very important to have groups from Quebec and Manitoba get together to discuss concerns like work and our common future.

These young people from Quebec and from Manitoba were not making false distinctions based upon some kind of frontiers that were divided 100 years ago. They were young people searching for their own concern about the future and looking forward to a relevance coming from the political system that maybe we had not been providing as well or as effectively as we should have in the past.
Let us use this time effectively. Let us use this time well to make sure that those rare meetings that I was part of in my constituency this summer on the shores of Lake Winnipeg when two groups of young people got together to talk in both their languages about their common problems is an example for the entire country to fulfil.
Let us make no illusions. There are concerns out there that will not be answered by this particular set of propositions in this deal. In my own part of Canada there is deep unrest and unhappiness about some of the proposals as they relate to the Senate. It is not a matter of being equal, it was a question of having a better balance of power in Confederation. Western Canadians felt that they had a better chance of having their voice heard and being listened to in this Parliament and in the councils of national influence and decision making. For many westerners that was not achieved in this deal. That is not in itself reason to oppose it because what we should be saying is that there are chances in the future to improve, to augment and to change.
My own leader, in his speech a few days ago, indicated that one of our concerns and interests will be to use the debate on the legislation of the Senate to ensure that there is a clear understanding that the Senate is not simply another chamber to which we refer legislation. It is the balance wheel of Confederation for the less populated regions, for the hinterlands. We must bring that together to make sure that it is not a question of
September 10, 1992

numbers, it is a question of fairness and equity. Equal was not the operative word, it was equitable and fairness that had to be applied.
There will be much work to do to make people understand how we can use this constitutional referendum to listen to people from western Canada who are going to talk about Senate reform, and we will hear that, to say that this is not the end of the chapter, it is just that we have to write more chapters to improve upon them.
Similarly, think about the concerns, and again I reflect on my constituents, of what is happening in our cities across Canada such as the incredible case of joblessness among our young people and older workers being laid off, a real shortage of social housing and, real problems of public safety on the streets.
In this deal we talk about exclusive concern for urban affairs, housing and training being turned over to the provinces. It is going to be very important that we show Canadians during this time that simply giving exclusive jurisdiction does not mean the end of concern or involvement or an attempt to work together in a co-operative partnership way to deal with those real underlying, deep abiding sores that afflict Canadian society at the present time.
I look forward to and welcome this referendum. I think it is a great opportunity for us not only to encourage Canadians to agree to a deal that will repair some of the injuries of the past but will also provide some building blocks for the future.
We must do it in the proper spirit and the proper sense. In that sense I go back to a saying that I will never forget. Vaclav Havel, the former President of Czechoslovakia, had just left office. He wrote a book, Summer Meditations, which I read just in the last month or two. He said: "Those who find themselves in politics bear a heightened responsibility for the moral state of society, and it is their responsibility to seek out the best in that society, to develop it and to strengthen it".
We have a rare opportunity, one that has come around maybe only every third or fourth decade, to bring Canadians together and to give them the leadership that we in elected office have to provide, to bring out the best in society, to awaken the best potential, to make sure
Government Orders
that we understand that this is not a matter of a battle between good and evil. It is a matter of how we find the best potential for all Canadians. We must reason together in both our languages, in all our regions, to ensure that the referendum becomes not a matter of dividing Canadians but of bringing them together and showing them that we can now go on to deal with the issues that concern the people of this country so that they do not lose touch with the ground but rather bring us all together.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I rise today as a Canadian who is proud of my country and a Quebecer proud of my province to say that I support the constitutional proposals and I encourage all Canadians and especially the people of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville to say yes to the referendum question. I encourage all Quebecers to say yes to a promising future in which the French language and culture will be protected in a country of 27 million.
I encourage all Quebecers to say yes to employment and a more stable economic future. I encourage all Canadians to say yes because the time has come to change political priorities. The time has come to talk about the economy and to find solutions for the problems affecting everyone.

Provincial premiers, territorial leaders and representatives of our native communities have said yes to a new constitutional deal. They have said yes to a new Canada and have now asked us through this question to say yes to Canada as well.
I believe that this deal will at the same time protect the interests of Quebec's francophone population and ensure the survival of a vibrant English speaking community in a Quebec that is strong and that is also a strong member of the Canadian family.

We are gathered here in this House today to approve the question that will be presented to Canadians on October 26. The question is simple and the options are clear.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
However, some people do not want to have anything to do with Canada. Members of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois want an independent Quebec. They oppose these offers because they are basically against political union with the rest of Canada.
Their leader, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, says that the Charlottetown accord gives Quebecers nothing. That is completely wrong. Quebec is guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in this House and is entitled to 33 per cent of the judges on the Supreme Court. Recognition of Canada's linguistic duality is reflected in the distinct society clause.
But the separatists' struggle will continue not because they want to improve Quebecers' daily lives but because they have an ideological agenda. They have a personal agenda that has nothing to do with the betterment of our province.

These people would never be satisfied with any offers from the federal government because they are ideologically committed to the break-up of our country. Do you think they really care about the average citizens of our province? Do you think they really care about the well-being of the aging population, the seniors? Do they have a plan to look after the homeless or the poor? Do you think they have a plan to battle skyrocketing unemployment and to settle political instability? The answer on all counts is absolutely no.

I think it would be a good thing at this time to remind ourselves that the agreement reached in Charlottetown on August 28 represents the conclusion of a long consultation process undertaken across the country. Everyone had the opportunity to participate in this process to express their expectations, their doubts and their hopes. Every Canadian had a chance to speak out and today we see the results. The active participation of the Canadian people through briefs, submissions and interventions was the first step. The second step will be the upcoming vote for or against the proposed package. It is important that every one of us as Canadian citizens has a say in the final decision. It is our duty. Nothing should be taken for granted. We must work together to win the fight for a strong Quebec within a united
Canada. We live in a wonderful country offering the highest standard of living in the world.
Our country is rich in physical and human resources. We cannot risk losing everything because we have become indifferent to what is happening. Every vote is important because the total number of votes will dictate the policy to be followed by the Prime Minister.

October 26 must be at the same time an end to a process and a beginning of a new time in our history, a time when we will be able to declare once and for all that the Constitution is settled.
This constitutional deal needs the support of all Quebecers committed to a united Canada. That is why I am making a personal appeal to the people of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville and Saraguay to get out and vote. Tell all of Canada that you want to remain part of this country. Tell the separatists that they do not speak for Quebecers or Quebec and tell them so by voting yes on October 26.
I would also like to send a message to members of all three federal parties in my riding. We need your help. We need your fight and your help to keep Canada united. As the Prime Minister and leaders of the oppositions have said, this is beyond partisan politics. There will be time for that later. We need each and every one of the people committed to Canada to join us in a proud fight for our country and our province. The alternative is not a pretty sight. There is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and there is no paradise in a separate Quebec.
Let us not kid ourselves. A vote for the no side on October 26 will set in motion the gears that will result in independence. A vote for the yes has the chance of putting a nail in the coffin of the separatist option.

The question should be simple and specific, quite a challenge in an environment with a tendency to elaborate endlessly. We seem to have succeeded, as Canadians will soon be able to judge for themselves. The people of this country will read, debate among themselves and make up their own minds so that they can tell us in the referendum what they want their country to be.
September 10, 1992

The coming days will be tense. There will be discussions and differences of opinion but we must remember, however difficult it may be, that we are first and foremost citizens of a wonderful country. Let us make every effort to keep it strong and united. On October 26 vote yes for a strong Quebec within a united Canada.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, on October 26, 1992, Canadians, Quebecers and the residents of Levis will have to vote on the constitutional agreement that was recently proposed to all of Canada.
In the days following this agreement I had the opportunity to discuss it with some representatives of my riding. Their comments could be grouped into three categories. First are those who question specific points.
I was told that more could have been done to abolish trade barriers among the provinces of Canada. They could have been made unconstitutional or lower trade barriers could have been encouraged and east-west trade made easier. I was also told that some duplication in some departments was overlooked. However, we know that this agreement is the result of consensus and that a perfect agreement is not possible. Perfection is the enemy of the good, something like acrobatics is bad for gymnastics. We must try to have what can be obtained and not something unrealistic. We have an agreement. This is the best agreement since 1867. It does not contain everything that each of Canada's 27 million citizens might want, nor does it have some features that the 7 million Quebecers in Canada might desire, but it bears the signatures of the Prime Minister of Canada, the ten provincial premiers and the First Nations' representatives.
This agreement is the conclusion of a generation of effort. It includes the historic demands of Quebecers. Among other things we are guaranteed three Supreme Court judges, 33 1/3 per cent of its members, forever, because of our civil code is different. This agreement guarantees that we will have 25 per cent of the members of the House of Commons of Canada. It confirms what the Quebec Act, 1774, said, namely that Quebec is a distinct society. It confirms that formally and irrevocably. This agreement gives Quebec full authority over immigration, education, manpower training, the management and exploitation of its natural resources, etc.
I also heard some very negative comments. People spoke to me of humiliation, defeat, groveling, kowtowing; they said Bourassa is a traitor and so on. That is the kind of talk usually heard where Quebec separatists
Government Orders
congregate, but is it even worth commenting on? Can such language be justified? On the contrary, does it not show the lack of practical substantial reasons for Quebecers to take their province out of Canada? These comments are exaggerated. When we ask for positive things that would flow from separation, they answer "Campeau". Who is Campeau? He was an accountant at the Caisse de depot, which handles mainly funds from government employees. When he went into management, the first thing he did resulted in a $500-million loss for Domtar; the second thing he did with other people's money cost Quebec $100 million in the Steinberg affair.
They tell us about Parizeau. Parizeau incurred a $500-million loss, the press reported recently. The asbestos corporation is being sold again because Parizeau made a half billion dollar mistake.
They tell us about Larose. They say that he must be a sensible guy. I talked about Larose to my constituents. In my riding the shipyards employ 3,500 people. I talked to the wives, the workers, their children and relatives and I told them, "Ask Larose who uses your dues to attack the federal government what has kept the shipyards going for ten years". Every cent comes from the federal government. What is Larose proposing to them? Nothing. He tells them, "Separate and we'll see after".
Finally, I met supporters of the agreement who will say yes for its intrinsic qualities and its positive effect on the economy and because the alternative would be a fiasco for our families and middle class, who would have to pay more tax for a generation as Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard have admitted.
Mr. Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard admitted that those people will have to pay more tax for a generation. Remember that Mr. Parizeau is capable of doing that because he is the one who cut Quebec public servants' pay by 20 per cent at one point. It would be a fiasco for seniors who are worried about their income security and social services. Where will they get the money so that our old people can continue to live comfortably? It is a fiasco for the less fortunate. Where will they get the money to continue to assist our disadvantaged? We have no specifics from the propagandists of separation. It is a fiasco for our young people as well except for those who camp in front of the legislature. Young people who want to develop the country but not break it up, who want to continue and not start all over, still want a solid founda-

September 10, 1992
tion. That is why they ask us to vote yes and yes is the way the riding of Levis will answer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being two p.m., the House will now proceed to statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
intelligence and understanding to support a country which for 125 years has supported us.

Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with my colleagues, many of whom have said they will be voting yes in the referendum. I think there are very few people in this House of Commons who would be on the no side.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, when I first heard the question "do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,1992 in Charlottetown", I smiled inwardly as I contemplated the public's reaction, a public that has become cynical because we have not dealt with this matter more expeditiously.
As I have said many times in this House compromise lacks perfection. Perhaps perfection is achievable only at another level, but now we have an outstanding compromise before us.
We should learn from the turmoil in other parts of the world that this is an extremely important matter. Constituents of Regina-Wascana will treat it as such.
Early this year I circulated a comprehensive questionnaire on constitutional matters. The intelligent, informed and passionate results form the basis of my own personal constitutional position which I circulated to each household in my riding.
Decision time is here. I pledged to my constituents to make myself available, for it is important to send signals to other Canadians of how important our respective contributions can be. We must show ourselves that we do not have to be exactly the same to be equal and by living in different areas of this vast country, we still have the same aspirations.
We must become informed Canadians in order that on referendum day we can all smile inwardly as we vote with
I would like to draw your attention to the serious labour dispute between Royal Oak Mines Incorporated of Yellowknife and the members of the Smelter and Allied Workers Union. This has been ongoing since May 23 of this year.
I and my colleague, the labour critic for the New Democratic Party, feel the time has come to proceed with an industrial disputes inquiry with a view to restoring confidence and jobs in Yellowknife. My colleague, the member for Western Arctic and I have been particularly worried about the rapidly deteriorating situation which has led to tension and the feeling of unnecessary and unduly harsh police intervention in this matter.
I would like the House to take notice of this point.


TRIBUTE TO MRS. LOUISE ARCAND
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to Louise Arcand who was a host, a reader and a journalist with Radio-Canada for more than 20 years and whose sudden death last month, at the age of 48 from brain cancer saddened us all in Abitibi and in Amos where she was born.
All agree that Louise was a remarkable woman, a formidable go-getter with great strength of character, like her parents and the members of her family, who are pioneers in Amos.
Louise found out about her illness in the spring of 1991. At that time, she had been a journalist for three years on the program Les affaires et la vie on Radio-Canada.


September 10, 1992

Louise will remain present in the hearts of the people of Abitibi. She will remain close to us all.


DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-91 being rammed through this House next week low priced generic drugs will be sacrificed on the altar of the Mexico-U.S. free trade deal.
The promises made in connection with the Canada-U.S. trade deal in the previous drug patent bill of 1987 have not been honoured. The promised 3,000 research jobs have not materialized and more than 700 jobs in the drug manufacturing area have been lost. The promise of not a single cent in higher drug prices is ignored.
This government even ignores its own drug price regulations when 40 per cent of all new drugs are allowed to exceed the price guidelines of the Drug Prices Review Board.
Bill C-91 will compound these mistakes because the NAFTA negotiations required the sacrifice of the cost efficient generic drugs as part of the George Bush trade deal.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, every spring tens of thousands of farmers take to the fields from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia planting millions upon millions of acres of fertile soil in the hopes they will receive a good bountiful harvest.
This year, although the weather was damp and different, that bountiful harvest seemed to project a tremendous result and guess what happened. As we stand here today, there are thousands of acres of grains in the west, in Alberta, that have been pushed down because of snow. We have had tremendous rainfalls which hamper the harvest and now we have had frost to damage the quality of the crop.
As I sit here, every member of this House and everyone in this country should pray that some good weather will come so that we can in fact reap this harvest. Then Canada can once again sustain the markets that it has and it can feed those in great poverty around the world. It can also help the farmers end up making a little bit of profit.
Thank God we had the foresight to put in programs like GRIP to improve the crop insurance programs farmers can turn to. Yes, we are hoping to bring the cash advance because farmers need help today. Pray for good weather.


THE DISABLED
Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities are disappointed that they have been left out of the Canada clause in the constitutional agreement. This came as a surprise because the federal government's draft proposals last September, Shaping Canada's Future Together, included a clear reference to disabled persons.
The Canada clause contains a number of provisions to protect specific groups in society including aboriginal people, linguistic groups, ethnic groups and women.
Persons with disabilities want to know why they have not been included this time. They would like some assurance that their rights will not have a lesser degree of judicial protection than those other groups.
There is particular concern about disability rights following the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program earlier this year. This program helped disabled Canadians and other communities clarify their legal rights under the charter and in the courts.
Canadians with disabilities are looking for some sign that this government is committed to the protection and promotion of their rights.


FISHERIES
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, during the past summer an experiment was tried in British Columbia allowing for a native commercial fishery.
Also this year there has been an alarming decimation of some salmon spawning runs with only a small percentage of the salmon expected actually arriving on the spawning grounds. One of the factors is no doubt the native fishery.

September 10,1992
This is not due to the fact that the fishery occurred but that there has been a complete failure to enforce the regulations, to keep accurate catch tallies and to control the escapement of adequate spawning stocks on several rivers.
An extremely tense situation is developing between whites and natives and between various native groups. I call on the government to get control of this fishery situation immediately by enforcing all regulations to ensure that which occurred on the Fraser does not develop elsewhere, notably in the Port Alberni and Cowichan areas.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, veterans affairs offices across this country have received thousands of calls of concern, fear and anger from veterans whose independence program benefits have been drastically cut. This valuable program allows veterans to remain in their own homes at minimal cost to taxpayers.
The minister's office has assured me there may have been miscommunication to veterans, but in reality there were no cuts. I would ask the minister to relay this good news to the thousands of veterans and hundreds of councillors who indicate quite definitely that the cuts are real and dramatic.
I cite one example of a recent stroke victim whose monthly benefit has been cut from $300 a month to $6.11 per month. Health needs were not a consideration of those who made an arbitrary, unjust decision against the advice and judgment of those who work in the field.
Rumour has it the minister is reconsidering this decision and will restore the original monthly allotments already promised to veterans. I ask him to do so promptly. Veterans are the least among us who should be subjected to this kind of treatment.
There is a positive prologue. In discussion with the veterans affairs office in Prince Edward Island I was told things will be well very soon.


RENEWAL OF THE CONSTITUTION
Mr.   GabyLarrivee@Joliette: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday August 22, in Charlottetown, the federal and provincial governments agreed on a new project for the renewal of the Constitution.
This agreement is one of the most ambitious constitutional renewal projects ever undertaken by our governments since 1867. This accord is extremely important for Quebecers since it takes into account the traditional claims made by their province throughout its history. In spite of some flaws this is a good agreement. It gives Quebec solid guarantees concerning its identity as well as new powers.
This new deal negotiated by Quebec provides Quebecers with the necessary tools for their economic, social and cultural development. I am proud to give my full support to the agreement because it represents the best possible compromise between Quebec and its Canadian partners.


THE OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Canadians marvelled at Silken Lauman's determination and Sylvie Frechette's dignity and grace during the Summer Olympics in Barcelona. Indeed the Canadian team got the best results ever obtained by Canada in any non-boycotted Olympic Games. With 16 medals our athletes represented Canada with honour and the highest sportsmanship, showing once again the unifying power of sports in Canada and its role in the history and culture of our people.
Sports fans across Canada enthusiastically encouraged our athletes. They did not care where these athletes came from. The important thing was to know that they were giving their best.
On behalf of the House of Commons and all Canadians, I salute the Canadian participants in the Barcelona Games whose outstanding performances dazzled us. I also want to extend my best wishes to Canadian athletes who take part in the Paraolympic Games for paraplegics in Barcelona.
September 10,1992


EDUCATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this week the OECD issued its report card on Canada's economy. It had some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that Canada's economy is expected to grow 2.3 per cent this year and 4.3 per cent next year. Inflation should hold steady at 2.4 per cent this year and next and the unemployment rate should drop to 9.9 per cent by the second half of next year.
The bad news is that we are not getting value for our money when it comes to education. Canada is the biggest spender on education in the G-7. However, too many students are graduating from high school functionally illiterate.
The OECD message is that if we are to prosper as a country in the future we have to ensure that our young people have the skills to meet the challenges of the next century. Education is a type of investment. Let us make sure that we invest wisely.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Employment and Immigration has failed workers in the rural area of Westmorland. After giving them a glimmer of hope in June he has refused to take any action and is now ignoring them. The unemployment situation in the area is as serious as anywhere else, and workers will be unable to find enough weeks of work to make them eligible for unemployment insurance.

The minister cannot ignore the situation in which the workers find themselves. He has to find a way to render justice to the workers of rural Westmorland who are in a completely different situation from the people living across the street in the riding of Kent.

The people of this region deserve better from this government.


CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest condolences to the family of six-year old Corinne Gustavson. Tragically, the day before yesterday, her body was found sexually assaulted and smothered. This incident is only one of many violent sexual assault crimes which occurred this summer in Edmonton.
Many Edmontonians have called my office and those of my colleagues to express their belief that our justice system has failed.
We need to send a clear message that such crimes will no longer be tolerated. We need to increase the education in our society about sexual abuse and provide education and treatment for those offenders. We must impose tougher penalties on violent and dangerous offenders. We must restore the faith of Canadians in our justice system.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, within the last month veterans have received a letter from Veterans Affairs informing them that the department is changing its payment process for some VIP services. Instead of submitting receipts every month, the VIP recipients will receive an advance cheque to cover their average monthly expenses. This amount was derived from the expenses incurred by the veteran last year and does not necessarily reflect the ceiling amounts allotted to each individual by the department.
Many veterans have contacted my office and expressed fear that this was changed without cause.
Have the veterans and their organizations asked that this change be made? We can ask ourselves and the minister if this change has been brought about to benefit the veterans, or has it been brought about to benefit the government that will now be able to run a more computerized and less personal service to the veterans? Will the minister assure the House that this change has been carefully thought out and is not the forerunner of diminished service to our veterans?

September 10,1992
Oral Questions
We must always remind ourselves that the payments made to veterans are not a benefit but rather their right as a grateful country tries to pay them back for the valuable service they performed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, this government's failure in the mid-1980s to develop a national youth policy helped create Canada's generation x, a generation largely ill prepared by education and training for the present or future economy. Statistics on youth suicide, crime, violence and drug use depict a rising level of social pathology linked with a high youth unemployment rate of 19.2 per cent, nearly double the national rate.
Neo-conservatism and its Darwinian economics continue to fail these youth as well as other Canadians. The government gives us free trade and now NAFTA so that profits are reaped by sending jobs south. It talks of the new competitiveness while cutting training, post-secondary education and job creation expenditures for youth.
What could be a stupider approach to a high value added economy? What more perverse a denial of the opportunities necessary to build it? When will the government understand that future prosperity is indispensably dependent upon the opportunity for Canadians to learn and to create, or that economic growth and social justice must go hand in hand? Or, will the continued failure of this government lead to Canadian generations y and z and perhaps omega?


NORTHERN COD FISHERY
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in June of this year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a ban on the northern cod fishery, and I supported that decision. But that decision has deprived a great number of fishermen and plant workers in my riding of a substantial source of their revenue.
I would like to ask the minister today to speed up the process so that compensation payments start flowing to those communities as soon as possible.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
My question is related to the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines yesterday. As we all know, Canada's first Prime Minister drove the last spike in building the national railway and the present Prime Minister is driving the last nail in the coffin of airline competition in Canada.
In the face of the announcement yesterday, what is this government planning to do to maintain some competition in the air in Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of both national airlines have indicated yesterday in separate press releases that they had agreed in principle to a merger, that a merger committee would be put together with representatives from both airlines, and that the details of the transaction would be ironed out in that committee.
When that deal is complete, it will be investigated by two agencies of the government. At that time we will know what the content of the transaction is and we will be able to act accordingly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the light of this airline merger, will the government take steps to ensure that Canadians will not be grounded as a result of further increases in domestic fares which are already too high? Everyone is worried that Canadians will no longer be able to travel in this country, thanks to the disastrous policies of the Minister of Transport.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that one of the main causes of the financial difficulties of both companies is the price war which has been raging during the past few years. As I said earlier, as soon as the transaction is complete it will

September 10, 1992

be examined and the Bureau of Competition Policy will ensure that competition will continue to exist within Canada's civil aviation system.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
As everybody knows, a very conservative estimate of the loss of jobs in that transaction is at least 6,000. Of course the Minister of Finance who seems to be comfortable with 1.6 million people unemployed might not be too preoccupied with that.
I would like to quote the Deputy Prime Minister. On July 16, 1985, when he was Minister of Transport, he said: "We promise to assist those who might suffer severe economic dislocation under a new regulatory regime".
Will the Minister of Finance keep the promise he expressed in this House in 1985?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, during the talks held in recent weeks the federal government made sure that Canadian Airlines International would have a chance to examine all the options, including the generous proposal made by its employees. We did our utmost, and we hope that other levels of government would do the same.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind the Minister of Transport of something that was said by his predecessor and now Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on April 12, 1988. He said: "The results of regulatory reform and the passage of the National Transportation Act have created a new environment and with it a stable, viable and very competitive airline sector in Canada".
Now we know that the result of the policies pursued by this government is an unstable, non-competitive and in fact monopolistic airline environment in Canada.
The minister now has two choices before him. Is he planning to re-regulate the industry and turn back the reforms of his colleague, or is he planning to let U.S.
Oral Questions
carriers compete on Canadian routes against this new merged carrier? Which one will it be?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has probably not examined the results of deregulation properly, because he would have noticed, for instance, that total passenger traffic grew by 19.5 per cent from 1986 to 1990 to almost 37 million passengers and passenger kilometres on scheduled services grew by 25.3 per cent to 50 billion.
The situation in which the Canadian airlines are finding themselves at the present time is equivalent to what other airlines around the world find themselves in not because of deregulation but because of the Persian Gulf war which was the spark plug of the present situation and the world-wide recession that ensued.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister might look at the war of attrition between our two air carriers that was carried on without any direction or policy interference by the Government of Canada.

All the experts agree that the airline resulting from this merger will not be able to survive without a major injection of capital. Surely the government examined the same figure. Can the minsiter tell us how much Canadian taxpayers will have to pay to help this new giant of the skies, with its super debt of $8 billion?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, first we hear concerns about competition and then we are asked why the government failed to intervene to prevent companies from competing with each other. The Liberal Party will have to make up its mind. Either it wants competition or it wants regulation, which by its very nature eliminates all opportunities for competition.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The merger of Air Canada and Canadian International goes to show what a failure deregulation has been. Yet when extolling the virtues of deregulation, government promised increased competition, lower fares and better services. What we are getting is the exact opposite: no competition, high fares and fewer services. Will government undertake to demand that this new monopoly serve our communities well and offer reasonable rates to the public?

September 10,1992
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the hon. leader of the NDP should examine carefully the effects of deregulation which has resulted in reduced air fares across Canada and better services. All consumers have benefited from deregulation and their situation at present is no worse than that of all other airlines in the world.
This all started with the Persian Gulf War and the world-wide recession that ensued.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we have very carefully examined the effects of deregulation. When the Liberal Party proposed deregulation we opposed it as well.
We see now that the effects of deregulation are in fact creating a failure and this government's policies are crash landing. If this government's deregulation policies on the airlines continue and we do not have some kind of regulation, the only thing flying over Canadian airspace is going to be Canadian geese.
It is the workers of Canada who are paying the price for this government's failed policies and now we have a projected 6,000 more job losses in the airline industry.
What adjustment programs will this government bring in for the workers who have lost their jobs as a direct result of the failed policies of this government and their families?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, if the NDP leader is so much against the merger that took place, she could have used her good services over the past couple days to convince Bob White and his union to contribute to the plan proposed by the employees to make sure that two airlines would continue to exist in Canada.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not want to deal with questions about the effects of the deregulation program and will not deal with the loss of jobs to Canadians and the projected 6,000 job losses.
I would like to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that deregulation has been bad for the economy. Bad trade
deals have lost 360,000 manufacturing jobs in this country. We are about to lose another 6,000 projected airline worker jobs.
It is clear that from coast to coast Canadians are suffering from the policies of this government. There is one thing this government could do right now to begin to reverse that trend, and that is say no to the NAFTA deal.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister do the right thing for Canadians and say no to the NAFTA deal?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Western Centre for Economic Research reports that the merger between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines will result in the loss of over 4,000 jobs in western Canada and a substantial loss of services. This means the loss in western Canada will be disproportionate in terms of the entire country.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. When will the government take its responsibility to govern and give assurances that the airline industry in western Canada will be maintained and that there will be proper, effective, accessible services to the people of western Canada in our airline industry?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the usual gloom and doom hypothesis of the Liberal Party. The airlines have indicated that they are going to enter into a merger elaboration of the transaction. When the transaction is completed we will know exactly what will happen. They have committed themselves to maintaining as many jobs as possible.
It was known by everyone in the country that there were too many people employed in the airline industry compared to every other criteria used by airline industries throughout the world.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to provide one correction for the minister. The problem in Canada is not that there are too many jobs. There are too few jobs and everyone knows that.
September 10, 1992

I want to ask the minister this very specific question. Under the Air Canada Privatization Act clear guarantees were given for the continuation of a maintenance base in Winnipeg and the computer centre and other maintenance services across Canada.
Will this government say today that it will stand by that guarantee and ensure those important facilities in western Canada will be maintained?


Jean Corbeil: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind people that I never said there were too many jobs in this country. I said that because of the over capacity in the two Canadian airlines, there were too many people for the jobs available and this has caused them great problems.
As far as the law of Air Canada as well as the law that created PWA by the Alberta legislature, we have said and the Alberta government has said that they do not intend to change the content of these two pieces of legislation.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very bleak day for people in many parts of Canada because of the job losses that are inevitably going to result from the takeover of Canadian Airlines by Air Canada. Another vital institution to western Canadians is being gutted with the complicity of this government.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. The Air Canada president said on September 2 that the proposed joint holding company "will strive to ensure the equal and fair treatment of employees and to minimize job losses in each region".
Does the minister actually believe that the new CEO of Air Canada, who has probably never been west of Chicago, will really care about the jobs of British Columbians and Albertans in this matter?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no intention of undermining the credibility of the chief operating officer of a respectable company.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member puts a supplementary question, I wonder if I could just point out to hon. members that the question as phrased was very marginal indeed and I am not at all sure that the minister needed to answer.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that his government can wash its hands of this deal, he is sadly mistaken.
Oral Questions
It was his government which blocked loan guarantees to Canadian Airlines and did not have a five cent piece to assist the employees to try to rescue this plan. Now as many as 10,000 people can lose their jobs as a result of this takeover.
My question is for the same minister. He has a clear obligation to ensure the livelihoods and careers of people who will lose their jobs. What is he going to tell this House about it today?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate how the member opposite is completely wrong, here is an excerpt from Mr. Rhys Eyton yesterday at his press conference: "The federal government was there all the way". The only government that got involved in this to make sure that Canadian would have all the time to examine all their options was the Canadian government. All other governments turned them down.


NORTHERN TELECOM
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is answering for the Minister for International Trade.
Recently Northern Telecom, perhaps Canada's high-tech jewel, announced that it is moving 36 jobs from its Saskatoon production plant to its factory in Mexico. The company says that these are lower-skilled, assembly-type jobs and moving them to Mexico "makes a lot of sense to us".
While this action may make sense to Northern Telecom concerned only with its bottom line, and perhaps the 36 people involved may be only small potatoes to the Prime Minister, this does not make sense to hard working Canadians who have lost their jobs.
When will the government start realizing that the future and family of 36 workers in Saskatoon are more important than his discredited fantasies of free trade prosperity?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few facts that the hon. member overlooked mentioning to the House of Commons. The first is that it is the intention of Northern Telecom to invest some $5 million in the Saskatoon plant to increase its fibreoptics manufacturing capability. This will result in new employment opportunities.

September 10, 1992
Oral Questions
Second, as a result of NAFTA, we will have access to a market in Mexico estimated at $10 billion with the result of the creation of jobs in Canada.
I invite the hon. member to send a message throughout Northern Telecom to say that he wants those jobs lost. He does not want those sales possibilities to Mexico.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the investment that the minister mentions will create only ten jobs in Saskatoon. Thirty-six jobs will be lost and ten jobs will be created. If we carry on like that, nobody is going to be working in this country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Some logic.


Chris Axworthy: Perhaps I could ask one simple question of the minister which is not dealt with in the government's propaganda which is presently being circulated to Canadians at taxpayers' expense.
What are the government's projections for the number of Canadian jobs which will be lost to Mexico over the next five years? Would you at least tell Canadians how many of them will have to pay for this government's disastrous economic policies?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that if what is happening in the telecom industry in terms of sales to Mexico continues nobody will be working in this country.
Our telecom industry is making millions and millions of dollars of sales to Mexico with the creation of thousands of jobs in Canada.
The potential in coming years for growth in telecom jobs in this country is enormous. If the NDP is opposed to creating those jobs let them say so. For our part, we want those jobs for Canadian workers.


COMPETITION POLICY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
More than any other minister in this House this minister has the responsibility for representing the interests of Canadian consumers at the cabinet table when issues of public importance are being decided.
Now that we see the results of this government's destructive air transportation policy, Canadians demand to know where his voice was. Why did he on their behalf agree to a transportation policy that may very well result in an unregulated monopoly in the air, higher prices and poorer services for Canadian consumers?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that we have in Canada a competition policy as well as a Bureau of Competition and a Competition Tribunal. These mechanisms are there so that we may keep an eye on mergers, relocations, expansions or acquisitions purchased abroad. The hon. member is well aware of that. I can also tell the House that the director of the Bureau of Competition, under section 9 of the Competition Act, has already begun to look at this situation.
My colleague will certainly agree that the two parties have simply announced their intention to merge. As soon as the papers are filed and the merger has occurred it will be examined closely by the Bureau of Competition, which is completely independent from the government. The bureau is free to take any action, to make recommendations to both parties and even, if necessary, to go to the Competition Tribunal which can then intervene. I truly believe that Canadian consumers and competition generally are very well protected.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
September 10, 1992

During testimony before a House committee in September on this very issue the chair of the Competition Bureau gave every indication that a merger between these two national airlines would have great difficulty in being approved by that bureau.
The question I want to ask the minister is this. Will he give this House and the public his assurance today that neither he, his officials nor members of this government will interfere in any way, shape or form with the examination of this merger proposal by the Bureau of Competition Policy?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever of interfering with the responsibilities of the Director of the Bureau of Competition.
I can assure my colleague and all members of this House that we should let those people do their jobs, make a full assessment of the proposal and make their decision. That is the way it is and that is how I will let them do their job.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, let us call this deal for what it is. This merger was a conspiracy between the Conservative government in Ottawa, provincial NDP governments and Bob White. That is exactly what it was.
I can understand the total embarrassment of the Deputy Prime Minister not wanting to rise to his feet. After all, it was he who said back on July 16, 1985 that the government would monitor the effects of regulatory change on the employees and respond to any adverse consequences as humanly as possible. He promised to assist those who might suffer severe economic dislocation under the regulatory system.
Now that this tentative merger has been negotiated, what is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to do in order to halt the loss of the 6,000 to 10,000 jobs in this country?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said many false things in his speech before asking his question, but I only want to address one. He said that a deal has been completed. He is completely wrong.
Oral Questions
It is in all the news media that they have agreed in principle to a merger. A committee will be formed to determine what the conditions will be of the merger. Both companies have indicated that they will do their utmost to reduce as much as possible the burden of job losses.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, let us ask the government to think ahead a little bit.


An hon. member:: Don't ask the impossible.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Since it is a given fact that Air Canada and Canadian Airlines control most regional air carriers, I want to ask the Minister of Transport what he is going to do to ensure the viability of the smaller carriers and their employees and to ensure that the high levels of service and competition between regional centres such as Hamilton, London, Windsor, et cetera, continue?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, over the past years the aviation industry has served all corners of Canada. There are a number of small airline companies that are servicing different parts of this country.
The question of competition, as we have repeated many times, is going to be examined by the Competition Bureau and it will make its recommendations after it examines a deal that has yet to be completed.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
In his interesting and constructive speech yesterday, which was very general and certainly did not paint broad strokes, there was little detail. Since this matter is not going to a parliamentary committee and the education process for Canadians has to start somewhere, could the minister answer this question to clarify a lot of confusion? How many aboriginal self-government units are we talking about in the package and is the law for that self-government to be paramount or subordinate or equal to the federal and provincial laws?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as is clear in the agreement, what is proposed is that aboriginal self-government will after

September 10,1992
Oral Questions
the adoption of this proposal be one of three orders of government in the country.
As a result of intensive negotiations at Charlottetown and concerns that have been expressed by several governments, there was an agreement on the part of the aboriginal people as to the sequence by which aboriginal law would come into place. There was an agreement that aboriginal law would always be within the context of Canada and would be subject to arrangements which are essential to peace, order and good government.
While I am on my feet, and I know there is a concern about legal text, I simply want to correct an impression that was left by the Reform member yesterday who will not be here to vote tonight. I am sure she was acting inadvertently.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I do not think it is proper to be commenting upon whether a member was here or is here.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the minister as far as it went. Could he tell Canadians with some certainty how many self-government units we are talking about? Where does the charter of rights apply in this matter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise number today just as I could not offhand give an indication of the number of status Indian bands there are in the country, or the number of aboriginal communities such as Metis communities, for example, that there are in the community.
What I can say is that when we speak at the national level about a third order of government we are talking about a very limited number of people who would take their place in , time at the constitutional table.
The proposals that have been brought forward after, I must say, extensive public hearing including by committees in this House, will allow status Indians who are now governed by an Indian Act enacted in colonial times to assume more rights and more responsibilities for themselves.
It will allow Metis people, who have been the forgotten aboriginal people in Canada for generations, to have greater control over their own destiny in Canada. It will allow urban aboriginals, who in very many cases are the victims of the most cruel personal injustice inflicted upon aboriginal people in the country, to be given some capacity to exercise more control over their own lives.
It does involve to some degree some faith on the part of the rest of us in giving effect to this agreement. It also involves a recognition that the system that we have now is dead wrong and has to be changed.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Weather conditions across the prairies are having a severe impact on the quality and harvestability of crops in that region of the countiy. Already Alberta, including the minister's own riding, and Saskatchewan have suffered huge losses and Manitoba's crop is very vulnerable.
Not only is the weather reducing the amount and quality of the harvest, but the recent addition of $1 billion to the Export Enhancement Program by the U.S. will further drive down the prices on the crop that is realized.
Does the government have any plans to financially assist those areas that need it? If so, what are those plans?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
It is a very urgent situation. I am advised by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture that an assessment is currently being undertaken of the crop damage. I think the hon. member knows that there are a number of programs available such as crop insurance, GRIP and NISA, which hopefully will offset any losses that may occur.
I can assure the hon. member that it is being monitored and assessed very closely. Working with the provin-
September 10,1992

cial departments of agriculture, we will certainly respond if there is a necessity or a need to respond.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer.
In a normal year 75 per cent of the crop in fact would be in the bin. However, this year only something like 6 per cent has been harvested. This is the type of prairie disaster for which a third line of defence payment was originally designed.
In the U.S. George Bush is making disaster relief payments available to farmers in areas that are affected by weather, including North Dakota. Will this government admit that farms in rural communities throughout the west are facing an economic disaster of monumental proportions? Will it commit itself to providing economic assistance under the third line of defence?
I remind the minister that some crops such as alfalfa are not covered under any program.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that a preliminary assessment shows that up to $500 million could be provided under the crop insurance program and well in excess of $1 billion under GRIP.
To suggest that there are no protective programs or safety net programs in place is wrong. These programs are in place. If the losses are there they will clearly be triggered for that amount, which is not a very small amount I must say.


RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. After so many studies on railway passenger service in remote regions of Quebec, has it been decided to maintain and improve the VIA Rail service from Montreal to Clova, Senneterre, Barraute, Amos, Taschereau and La Sarre in 1993 through to the year 2000?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi will agree that VIA Rail recently showed how well it could adjust to the new
Oral Questions
realities of rail transport in the Gaspe region by renewing its transportation methods and material.
As for the other remote areas I would like to be able to give an immediate answer to the hon. member, but we are now completing a very detailed study on this very matter. We shall shortly be able to suggest solutions to the problem so that Canadians can enjoy reliable and safe railway transport services throughout Canada.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister knows, northerners fly four times as often as people in the south. Air travel is not a luxurious option. It is our lifeline in most cases.
Will the minister please explain how he plans to maintain and implement airline competition in the north? For instance, what will be the impact on the Inuit-owned First Air, an independent airline that competes in the north with Canadian Airlines through an alliance with Air Canada?


An hon. member:: Good question.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I was able myself these last few months to note the efficiency of the transport service provided by the Cree line. I can assure the hon. member that under present circumstances there is no reason why this airline should not continue to provide the same quality of service to its users.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that this minister does not communicate with the head of that particular independent airline, Mr. Creighton. He would have quite a different thing to say about it.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. It is only a matter of time before the new merger forces increased fares, fewer flights to remote communities such as in the Northwest Territories and the streamlining of jobs. In fact, for our really depressed economy in the north it will be a colossal loss of jobs. The north's already fragile economy cannot withstand another devastating

September 10, 1992
Oral Questions
blow. Will the minister promise northerners they will not suffer from another increased cost of living, increased isolation and a decreased standard of living?


Jean Corbeil: I would like to inform the hon. member that I have met on occasion the president of the Cree line and again I will tell her that the deal has not been completed. We do not know what will be the conditions of that merger situation between the two airlines. I repeat that I do not see any reason why the quality of service and the price offered in the north would be changed as a result of that merger.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the same subject. It is obvious from both sides of the House that we have a very grave concern in this proposed merger.
First of all, I am convinced and committed to the logistics of a competitive, viable Canadian aviation industry. Given this turmoil that has been before us, I am convinced that the employees must certainly be facing a period of uncertainty.
I would like to ask the minister, though, given all this turmoil and given the fact that we are involved in the U.S.-Canada air bilateral air transportation agreement, has the federal government considered it wise to suspend these negotiations, or what is the status of them?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to underline the excellent work of the hon. member two years ago on the committee in charge of examining a bilateral agreement with the United States. We entered these negotiations because we wanted Canadian airlines to have better penetration on the American market. Far from wanting to slow down these negotiations which should be very useful, we shall be intensifying our efforts to ensure that Canadian airlines will be better able to penetrate the American market and increase their profitability.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in March the Minister of Transport invited proposals for the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto's Pearson airport. The government's announcement was based on the assumption of the continuation of two domestic airlines. Now, six months later, we are to see the merger of the two airlines into one.
Does the minister intend to accept the original proposals which were based on the two airline system or does he intend to ask those bidding to accept the major losses that would be involved in submitting new proposals?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the assumption of the hon. member, our assumptions were not based on the number of airlines. They were based on the number of passengers.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that those assumptions based on the number of passengers necessarily involved two domestic airlines. He knows that and there is no point in him trying to duck the issue.
Let me ask him this. In light of the statement and indeed of the fact that today we are going to see the merger of the two airlines, does he stand by his earlier promise made in this House: "that the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 will create 3,200 jobs for the people in the Tbronto area for five years"?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, again I would say to the hon. member no. In fact the assumptions were not based on the number of carriers. They were based on the number of passengers.
We based our projection of passengers on a 2.3 per cent increase annually. The Association of Air Transport Companies recently indicated that its prediction is a 5 per cent increase, and yes, I maintain what I said earlier in the House.
September 10, 1992


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
One of the great symbols of Canada's history is Old Government House in my riding of Fredericton-York- Sunbury. This magnificent property reflects the proud traditions of all three of our founding cultures, native, French and English and was the site of some of the early meetings which led to Confederation more than 125 years ago.
Today, as the minister knows, these premises are in a state of serious disrepair and a restoration plan for its long range future has been adopted by all three levels of government.
I want to ask the minister what progress and consideration has been given to the proposal which was presented to him for a partnership funding of this restoration.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as members know, my colleague has been a very eloquent proponent of this project. Our government has already made a financial contribution in this regard.
I will take his question as a representation and point out to him that it will require some co-operation from the province of New Brunswick at a time when considerable capital expenditure will be required to complete this project. We will look at it carefully and if possible we will see what we can do.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Of the helicopters purchased by the government, 35 are supposed to be used on the new frigates and the destroyers that are being refurbished at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer.
When the Minister of Finance approved the purchase, was he aware that the helicopters are too wide to fit on the frigates and too heavy to land on either the frigates or the destroyers?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if my hon. colleague actually checked his facts. He is incorrect in the facts he has put before the House.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be aware that today the government is spending $5 million on consultants to figure out if the ships are compatible with the helicopters.
Why did the government, before it set out on this purchase, not simply invest $2.89 plus GST on a ruler?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of jest of my hon. colleague, I would just like to reconfirm to him that we are well aware that the helicopters will indeed fit on our new frigates, which are the most modern state of the art ships almost in the world and are our top ships. Some minor adjustment which will be required-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mary Collins: No, no, let me finish-for any new equipment, not for the weight and not for the width but just to ensure that they will fit within all of the factors on our new ships. Nothing major, I can assure you. We do not use rulers any longer; we tend to use computers.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could advise hon. members that there has been some discussion among members about a matter which I know the House will want to deal with this afternoon, a tribute to one of our deceased colleagues. But I will accede to the request of the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and take the usual Thursday afternoon question which will be followed by tributes, and then I will be hearing a question of order from another hon. member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House Leader. Would he indicate to the House and to its members the business for Monday, Tuesday and

September 10,1992
Tributes
Wednesday, as well as the remaining days of next week in terms of government business.
While the minister is on his feet, could he also indicate to the House whether or not he anticipates any new economic measures will be introduced next week to deal with the terrible situation confronting the Canadian economy at the present time?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think the second half of that question might have been more appropriately put during Question Period. Of course, with the OECD and the IMF predicting that Canada will lead the world in 1993, I think most countries of the world are looking to what we have done to see how they might emulate it.
As to the question on House business, when we return on Monday I will be calling Bill C-80 with the intention that it be finished at report stage and third reading next week in order that we would be able to commence cheques flowing to children in need effective January 1,
1993.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Judging by the clamour on the other side, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could use this long weekend to read the bill and determine that I am accurate in my description of its intent.
I am still having discussions with colleagues, but it would also be my hope that we would consider having second reading on the extension of the Patent Act since there are a lot of research investment decisions and a lot of scientists in this country anxious to see that commitment followed up on. I will have to get back to the hon. member in terms of that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend the government House leader. As we leave shortly to participate in the unity campaign we recall one or two announcements that the government made recently that many of us thought were not necessarily helpful in the unity campaign.
I wonder if the government House leader could give us an undertaking that during the six-week referendum
campaign that government announcements about major products and so on would be made with some sensitivity to the campaign under way?


Harvie Andre: Obviously all government announcements are intended to have a positive effect. The House leader of the Liberal Party just asked for a kind of budget next week and the House leader of the New Democratic Party asked for silence I gather next week and beyond. We will try to balance these two different points of view and bear in mind what the hon. member says.
Seriously, we certainly do appreciate that. I would expect that all members on this side, as well as all members on that side, will recognize that for the next few weeks leading up to October 26 we have at issue something far more important than a partisan game for any of us and that we will all bear that in mind in terms of our public utterances.


Mr. Speaker:: I now ask the House to contribute to tributes to a former member of this place and a former colleague, the Hon. Pauline Jewett.


THE LATE PAULINE JEWETT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute today to a very special woman, a very extraordinary member of Parliament and a passionate Canadian, Pauline Jewett.
Before I begin I would like to mention that the member for New Westminster-Burnaby who replaced Pauline Jewett, who worked for Pauline Jewett for many years, is not able to be here as there was a memorial service last night in Vancouver for Pauline and she sends her regrets for being unable to return in time today.
Pauline Jewett had a remarkable career as a professor, as the first woman to become president of a Canadian university, a university chancellor and a member of Parliament. Pauline was a fighter who took on the struggle for social justice and never let it go. She was a pioneer who opened doors that had for far too long been closed to women. The changes that she helped to make still echo today both through the halls of higher learning and on the floor of this House of Commons.
September 10, 1992

One of the changes she made of course was moving from the Liberal to the New Democratic Party, an example of her great wisdom and an example I know that all members of this House will agree is sure to be followed by millions of Canadians in the years ahead.
Pauline Jewett was indeed a woman of great vision. She had a vision of a world free from nuclear threat where common security and international development took the place of arms races and poverty. She saw in Canada a country that could embrace all its peoples and in particular the people of Quebec.

Pauline firmly believed that the Constitution should be renewed. Almost every time I spoke to her during her last months, she wanted to talk about the Constitution: every new development, every new turn in the debate, every new information. She wanted to know everything, to hear everything. She was a fanatic about the Constitution because she was a fanatic about her country.
She never relented in her struggle for equality. She stood up to everyone. She gave in to nobody, neither to the administration of Simon Fraser University nor to four prime ministers of Canada.

Sometimes Pauline Jewett won her struggles and sometimes she knew victory would have to wait for a little while, but she never gave up. Perhaps the greatest of her struggles was with the disease that eventually claimed her life. Despite the pain of that last fight, she faced it with humour, courage and dignity.
In many ways, if I may allow a personal note, I learned more from Pauline in those final months than I will learn from many of the fine speeches made in Parliament.
With Pauline's passing my party has lost one of our most passionate and dedicated voices. Canada has lost one of our real heroes, but Pauline Jewett's spirit will live on in our work for fairness and equality, for the healing of our country's divisions and for a world that rejects mass destruction and embraces peace and justice for all.
Canada will miss Pauline Jewett. Her party will miss her. She is a great loss to us all.
Tributes


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I rise too with my colleagues to pay tribute to our former colleague, Pauline Jewett, whose death this summer has really saddened us all.
Pauline was a very special person. She was a trail blazer in so many different fields. She was a woman who never feared to speak her mind and she was never consumed by blind partisanship. I think that is one of the reasons she had so many friends on all sides of this House and I know the deepest respect of the Prime Minister.
She served in this House for two different periods. Of course the first one was as a Liberal and then later as an NDP, the period when I got to know her.
However, that was not her only contribution to Canada. We all know of Pauline's outstanding work, particularly her presidency of Simon Fraser University. She was the first woman to hold the presidency of a major Canadian university. She was indeed a trail-blazer during those years. She refused to be daunted by the sometimes sexist comments or arrangements that existed. She broke down so many barriers for women.
She was a founder and president of the Canadian Research Foundation for the Advancement of Women. She was on the forefront in all areas for the advancement of equality of women, not only by what she said but by what she did. It was for those reasons that she was indeed a role model and a mentor for so many others.
Pauline will certainly play a very major role in the history of this country and she will go down in the history books. As the leader of the NDP has said, she loved this country with such a great sense of passion. She understood its diversity and its uniqueness. She lived in many parts of the country. She cared deeply about international issues, the arms race and the fundamental equality of all persons.
I had many opportunities to meet with Pauline as friends, and we spent some time on trips together. Her contribution was very special. I was so pleased when that contribution was recognized, not only with an Order of Canada but by being made a member of the Privy

September 10, 1992
Tributes
Council in the last days of her life, an honour that she so richly deserved.
She would show strength and determination throughout all her life but perhaps none more than during those last months when she was faced with her illness.
Pauline was an example to us all. We are very much the lesser by her passing. I would ask that we all be left with her legacy, which is the empowerment of all of us in public life, to reflect on her spirit, her decency and her determination to achieve fairness for all persons. Her life has left us richer and in a better country.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak in honour of the life of a distinguished member of Parliament, an officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Privy Council of Canada, Pauline Jewett.
Although Ms. Jewett spent most of her years in this House as a member of the NDP caucus she began her House of Commons career in 1963 as the elected Liberal member for my riding of Northumberland. Although she was born in St. Catharines, Ontario, she felt a kinship for the village of Brighton in my riding where several of her relatives lived.
As relayed to me by constituents, Pauline was a very self-directed person, bright yet very personable, and an inspiration to many. She determined to seek the Liberal nomination in Northumberland and to this day she is remembered fondly in Northumberland by many of all political stripes.
Pauline not only made her mark in Northumberland but across Canada. As a member of the NDP caucus she held critic portfolios in external affairs, arms control and disarmament, post-secondary education and federal-provincial relations, among others. Pauline was also a very strong advocate of women's issues and rights and we owe her much for advancing women's legitimate role in Canadian society.
Pauline Jewett was the first female elected as a member of Parliament for the riding of Northumberland and certainly broke important ground for me as a female successor some 25 years later. It was not an insignificant
feat to become a female member in the rural conservative riding of Northumberland in 1963.
We remember Pauline Jewett for her many contributions to Canada, especially to post-secondary education. I personally remember her vividly and fondly for the phone call of congratulations I received from Pauline shortly after my election. She spoke affectionately of her former riding of Northumberland and with pleasure that once again a woman held that seat.
As she maintained a special affection for Northumberland, so many constituents remember Pauline Jewett with a similar affection and with respect for her many accomplishments.
We are the richer for her contributions.
May her family and friends be healed of the sorrow of her loss with the memory of the important contributions that Pauline Jewett made to Canadian society.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this tribute to Pauline Jewett.
Both the member for Yukon and the member for Northumberland referred to her previous career both in the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The member for Yukon mentioned her both as a politician and as a professor.
I first knew her as my professor when I was at Carleton University. She was my supervisor when I was doing my thesis essay. Through that experience I came to know much about her commitment to issues, public life, and public policy formation.
The thesis that I was working on concerned the role of public opinion in Canada, its formation and its influence on Parliament and public policy making. Certainly a lot that I came to understand about that, which subsequently gave rise to things like my initiative here with a referendum on a plebiscite bill, goes back to some lessons that were learned with Pauline Jewett out at the Rideau River campus of Carleton University in the early and mid-1960s.
In concluding, I would like mention the song of another woman from British Columbia, Ann Mortifee. In one of her lyrics she talks about the fact that life is not confined by time. Pauline Jewett in her experience
September 10,1992

andlife voyage has shown us that. She has also shown us that political commitment is not confined by party or by party boundaries.
More important than party boundaries is a commitment to fundamental principles. That was the hallmark of her career throughout. It is fitting that these tributes are being paid to her at a time when in the House of Commons, which she served so nobly for so many years, we are setting aside party differences to concentrate on something fundamental like the formation of Canadian public opinion about our country and its future.
In a broad sense that is a way that all of us as parliamentarians through our words and actions in this place today are paying tribute to what Pauline Jewett stood for.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the late Pauline Jewett.
I had a chance to get to know her and work closely with her for a number of years. I regarded her as a close personal friend, as I know many other members did. She was a great Canadian who made a great contribution to this country and had a very distinguished public career. She was also a very warm individual, a very outgoing and friendly human being. She touched and moved thousands of people whom she came in contact with over her lifetime.
I know all members of this House join in paying tribute to the contribution she made to this country and the impact that she had on our lives and those of so many others in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to express my thanks to hon. members for the comments that have been made. Perhaps I can also observe that I knew our former colleague very well, especially during her years in British Columbia.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox- Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the failure of the minister of Indian affairs to comply with Standing Order 109.
Point of Order
That Standing Order requires the government to respond to a report of a standing or special committee within 150 days, if the committee requests such a response at the time the report is tabled in the House.
On February 13, 1992, at page 6919 of Hansard, the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs tabled the second report of the committee relating to the Arctic exiles of Grise Fiord on Ellesmere Island.
The chairman made the request, pursuant to section 109, that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days. I have checked with the minister's office and with the Journals Branch. To my count 210 days have now passed and the government is seriously in violation of Standing Order 109. The minister is saying that he refuses to meet with the Grise Fiord people until the report is tabled in the House and on the other hand he refuses to table the report in the House, contrary to the Standing Orders.
I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this matter and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the government respects the Standing Orders of Parliament.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had not had any knowledge of this particular issue. I will certainly take it under immediate advisement and endeavour to get back to my friend at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that under the particular rule which has been raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni there is no sanction that the Speaker can apply. In these matters I am dependent upon the goodwill of ministers and the government to do everything they can to comply with the Standing Order.
I note that the hon. parliamentary secretary has answered for the government and I would hope that that would resolve the problem. I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.

September 10,1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) (pp. 12785-6).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte for seven minutes.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, to begin I will pick up where I left off on Tuesday, September 8. Under Standing Order 31 I did have a few comments on the national referendum.
In my comments on Tuesday afternoon I pointed out that the question we will be facing as Canadians on October 26 will be very simple and very straightforward. At that time, not knowing exactly what the question would be, I suggested it might be as follows: "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached August 28, 1992? Yes or No". That will in fact be the question we will be addressing on October 26. Canadians will have to decide if the answer is yes or no.
One of the things I pointed out in my comments was that although the question itself is simple and straightforward, the constitutional package that we will in fact be voting on is rather complex. There will be many Canadians, in fact there are many Canadians today, asking what is in that package and wondering if they will know on October 26 exactly what they are voting on.
This will be the first time in 50 years that Canadians have had a chance to express themselves through a national referendum. That question concerning whether they will know is a very important one. That is where we as members of Parliament come in. Many of us in the last couple of days in the House have taken the opportunity to step through the package and attempt to explain in our own way what we see in it.
That is what we will have to do back in our constituencies as well. That is what I am committing myself to do back in my home riding of Carleton-Charlotte. In other ridings around the country if I am invited to speak I will.
This is really a follow-up to a consultation process. We are going back almost two years, spending at least 17 months on this whole process of constitutional renewal. We all know what has happened in the last couple of years.
As suggested this morning by, I believe it was the hon member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca, after the collapse of Meech Lake he said that the message was to go to another lake. As he suggested, and I suggest, they did that. The Canadian people did. We have done it together. We have moved on from that and we have gone through a very lengthy consultative process.
We have gone through the various committees and the Spicer commission. Provincial governments have done the same thing. Individual members of Parliament have gone back to their constituencies and have carried that process forward as well, wanting to know the views of individual Canadians on the Constitution.
I did that as a member of Parliament in Carleton- Charlotte. We had 20 such meetings in my constituency. We started out late last fall and into the early winter months. I had a chance to hear what my constituents thought. It was a very helpful and healthy process.
The logical conclusion to this is for members of Parliament to get out into their constituencies and explain the proposals. Much of what we discussed in those late autumn days of 1991 and early winter months of 1992 are in these proposals and that is very refreshing.
Obviously much has been left out and there is some in there we do not agree with, but it will be up to me and others who will join me to explain what is in there so when our constituents from coast to coast go out on October 26 they will have a real sense of what they are voting for. That is the challenge for me and other members here.
It is refreshing to see we are going to do this on a non-partisan basis. In those constitutional meetings I had late last fall and early last winter I invited our provincial members of the legislature to join me in those discussions. They did for the most part, as did mayors and councillors from the municipalities and ordinary folk. They did that. They responded well.
September 10, 1992

We are going to carry that process forward in the rural riding of Carleton-Charlotte. Many have already accepted the invitation to join me in explaining the package to the people of Carleton-Charlotte and indeed, the people of Canada. It is important that we understand this package when we go out to vote on it.
I want to quote from an article by Peter Newman in the September 14, 1992 issue of Maclean's magazine. I think he sums it up best when he says: "The real issue of the October 26 referendum is deciding whether we have a future, not the shape of what the future will be". It goes on and concludes by saying: "Maybe the 20th century never really did belong to us. But if we do not as a country vote yes on October 26, we will not belong to the 21st century".
I do not think any of us could put it any better. It is incumbent upon us to get out there, work through this process, bring it to its logical conclusion. The logical conclusion of this very consultative process is to support a united "and strong Canada that will lead us into the 21st century. If we can do that, maybe we will preserve this nation for at least another 125 years.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan for sharing his time with me. It was very gracious of him and I will try to use the time wisely.
October 26 is a very important day for Canada. We have gone through endless discussions on the Constitution over the last number of years. At one point during the infamous Meech Lake talks it looked as if Canada was going to have a resolution of this, at least for the time being. However, for various reasons that did not come about. Over the last couple of years a number of lessons were learned from the failure of Meech Lake. As a result, Canada is now looking at substantial improvements on that agreement.
Government Orders
unprecedented public process which has brought us to where we are today.
We had the Spicer commission and the citizens' forums across Canada. Despite the cynicism, thousands of Canadians participated in those sessions. That produced a beginning of a change in the atmosphere which had been so poisoned by the failure of Meech Lake. This was followed by parliamentary committees which heard over 3,000 presentations and then decisions in this House as to the position we would take to the legislatures and across the country.
This summer first ministers spent hours working to come up with a package, an agreement which can be put to the people of Canada. Now, for the first time in our history, Canadians as individuals will vote on constitutional amendments that will eventually come back before this Parliament and the legislatures.
The final stage will come after the referendum takes place on October 26. That is the ratification of the decision of the voters on this constitutional measure. When that happens we can then turn our full attention to the other critical issues that face this country, jobs, the environment, the free trade agreement with Mexico, and so on. This is a very important process we are undertaking and it is a very important date for Canadians.
My experience in Victoria has been that most of the people I talked with until now have left the detailed discussions to those who have been involved. Therefore, there is yet to be detailed understanding and knowledge about what is in this agreement. There is an initial scepticism born from long experience that the system can produce anything of value. In that atmosphere there are voices already passing out myths about what is in this agreement.
It is said, for example, that Quebec has too much. It is said in British Columbia that British Columbia has too little. As well, it is said that this agreement seriously weakens the capacity of the federal government to provide the necessary leadership on national programs.
One of the lessons we learned goes to the heart of the I have had a chance to review the agreement and I referendum before the House today in which the people look forward to assisting my constituents in reviewing it will be participating on October 26. That is it is critically carefully. Let me say the highlights in this agreement important that the public of Canada be allowed into the offer a real opportunity for Canadians to come together process of Constitution making. It was simply unsatisfac- in a common understanding of our purpose as a country tory for constitutions to be dealt with exclusively by first and to reform substantially the systems by which we ministers behind closed doors. We have now had an govern ourselves.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
This agreement provides for a renewed Canada clause, a new clause in the Constitution which sets out the fundamental characteristics of Canada. Not only does it include as it did at the time of Meech Lake a clear statement, an entirely justifiable statement that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada which includes a French speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition it also acknowledges the commitment of this country to parliamentary and federal democracy, to the aboriginal people and the critical role they have played and the need to recognize their institutions and the integrity of their societies. It acknowledges the multicultural communities and goes on to acknowledge as well the individual and collective rights of Canadians.
The agreement provides for a social and economic union. It spells out the commitments of government not only to such things as the health care system, but also to free collective bargaining and to the rights of workers in this country.
The agreement deals with major reforms of our parliamentary institutions and these are very important gains. Above all, the agreement finally offers to our aboriginal people the fundamental rights to which they have been entitled within our Confederation and which so far have been denied them.
This is a very important agreement. I look forward to sharing the details with my constituents over the next few weeks and to working with those of whatever persuasion to see if this cannot be an important, clear and rational debate within our community.
Let me close by referring to a speech made in 1874 by the hon. Edward Blake. I am grateful to Hilda Judd of Calgary for providing this to me. My friends indicate he was a Liberal then and I knew that. But since then the New Democratic Party has come on the stage and I am sure he would have been particularly interested in what we have to offer. But all of us share the sentiment that he then offered when he said:
The future of Canada, I believe, depends very largely upon the
cultivation of a national spirit. We are engaged in a very difficult
task-the task of welding together seven provinces-
That was said in Aurora in 1874. Since then we have gained three provinces and we have the territories and our aboriginal peoples. The issue remains today. We are building a nation and we are building a federal nation. It is an important task we set on today. I commend this
agreement to the people of Victoria and to the people of Canada.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, recently a letter to the editor in The Nanaimo Daily Free Press quoted someone making the observation that there are people in Quebec who think they can get along very well without the rest of Canada and there are people in the rest of Canada who think that they can get along very well without the people of Quebec. The people would survive. I believe we would all be worse off but, whatever, we would not be Canadians. It would not be the Canada into which I was bom and not the Canada into which you were born, Mr. Speaker, and not the Canada in which I have lived all of my life and expect to live the rest of my life.
I am very proud to live in Canada. I am very proud to be a Canadian. I am very proud that people know I am a Canadian when I travel. That is the kind of Canada I want to remember. That is the kind of Canada I want to continue. For that reason I am supporting this referendum. I will be voting in favour of it.
I am sorry there are people who feel otherwise. They have the right to their opinion. In my opinion, they have the right to be wrong. I could not help but agree totally with my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca, when he took issue with those who, for political advantage, are attacking the government leadership in the province of British Columbia.
The premier of British Columbia was one of the 16 at the table bargaining, giving and taking, on behalf of Canada as a whole. To try to destroy that person is to try to destroy the referendum result in British Columbia. What would be the result? How would we interpret it if, when the referendum ballots are cast and counted, we find that British Columbia has voted against accepting that referendum? I think that would be a very bad situation for Canada and very bad for British Columbia. Trying to destroy that premier for partisan political advantage, as important as that may be to some of us, is doing a disservice to British Columbia and a disservice to Canada as a whole.
I must separate from the group of government backbenchers, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, because of the way he spoke in the House today. He blasted critics of Premier Harcourt. He
September 10, 1992

knows that in blasting Premier Harcourt what they are trying to do, without saying so, without admitting it, without having the intestinal fortitude to come here and say it, is saying they really do not like it and they want the referendum to be defeated although they do not have the nerve to stand up in the House and vote against it.
I intend to do what I can to see that a Canada Yes Committee is established in my riding. I intend to do as much as I can to see that it will be widely representative of the people of that constituency. I intend to make myself available to that committee, to speak anywhere and everywhere in the riding where I am invited so that I can tell people how I feel about Canada, about how I feel about the referendum.
I was never so proud of a cabinet minister as I was when the minister of labour, the Hon. Moe Sihota, spoke at a public meeting in my riding a couple of months ago. In speaking about the Constitution he said that "there is no single issue which of itself is important enough that we should risk destroying Canada because we can't achieve our ultima". That is what the leader of the Liberal Party is saying in British Columbia. He has an ultima, a single issue. Because he cannot have that, he thinks that the government of British Columbia should have walked away from the deal and destroyed Canada.
It is not worth the price. We have to do what we can to preserve this nation. I do not think when this is all resolved, and I am hoping it will be resolved soon, that the people of Canada are going to notice very much difference the morning after, the week after, the month after or the year after. The economic problems besetting this nation are the ones that will make them feel differently now and into the future, until we do something about them.
Let us get this behind us. Let us vote in favour of the referendum so that we do have a country that can hold up its head among the nations of the world, setting the kinds of standards that Canada has become famous for: in social services, in peacekeeping. There are important jobs that we as a nation can do that we could not do if we were to fall apart or separate deliberately. We would be weakened tremendously, and the world would lose as well as Canadians. That must not happen.
Government Orders
I believe the way to save it for the present is to vote in favour of this referendum. That will give us time. We can always sort this out in the future. We might even decide to send the Constitution back to Westminster and let them look after it. It was not nearly as much trouble when it was there.
In the meantime we have to start talking about economic problems, dealing with economic issues, dealing with unemployment. Once we get this behind us, surely then the government will have no reason, no excuse, for not dealing with the real problems facing Canadians today.
I will be doing what I can to support this referendum in my riding and I will do everything I can to make sure that
it passes.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, while Canada ranks first world-wide among 167 UN nations for quality of life, this government put the future of our country in the hands of the people.
It is normally the job of the elected representatives to administer and manage the business of the country in the interest of its people. Now, for some exceptional reason, we the elected representatives are asking the people of Canada to decide what they want from this country. What kind of constitution do they want? Would they agree that the Constitution of Canada be renewed on the basis of the agreement the premiers has reached in Charlottetown on August 28?
The proposal before us today is not a haphazard one. Let us be reminded of how hard is has been for many Quebecers to find the will to go on following the failure of Meech.
I come from a fiercely nationalist region, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, the riding of Jonquiere to be more precise, where being nationalistic has come to take two meanings over the years. For some, to be a nationalist means to advocate a sovereign Quebec. For others like me, it does not necessarily mean that. It means defending the interests of your province and trying to the best of your abilities and talents to guarantee that your province can develop and progress within Canadian federalism.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
Many wanted to give up after the failure of Meech Lake. The Prime Minister asked several members of his caucus, including myself, to try again to renew our Constitution and to find solutions to our problems. We had two options: to try again or to give up and throw in the towel.
For my part, I took up the challenge to defend the interests of my province as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and then of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee.
It took a lot of courage on the part of the Prime Minister to make such a decision, but he wanted Canadian unity and he had the courage to want to try. Because of this several of my colleagues from the opposition parties and from the government met a large number of individual Canadians and representatives of various organizations. We listened to what they wanted for their country and to their suggestions on how to amend the Constitution.
It is only human for a member or a chairman of a committee to hope that the decisions of the government will reflect exactly what was recommended in the committee report. It is only human and quite natural. However, should we say no simply because the contents of the constitutional proposal does not reflect exactly our own recommendations? What we must do is evaluate the agreement. This is our responsibility. We must evaluate it.
Let me give an example. The chairman of the Allaire Committee simply gave up because the agreement does not contain all of his own recommendations. He simply gave up and said: I cannot agree to that. There is the matter of the environment, for instance. Mr. Allaire wanted the environment to come under provincial jurisdiction. The people of Jonquiere are well aware of the fact that the environment and pollution know no boundaries. It cannot come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is impossible.
In negotiations we have to ask for a number of things and afterwards see if the contents of the agreement as a whole give us enough of what we wanted.
I am a Quebecer. Let us look at the proposal. What does it contain for Quebecers? What are we being offered? We are offered a veto on Senate reform. Quebec has wanted for years to make it impossible for
the other provinces to change the Senate without our agreement because we are one of the co-founding peoples of this nation. Today this is what we are being offered. We are being offered a veto on any change to the House of Commons. Under the present Constitution seven provinces could decide, for instance, that there will no longer be proprotional representation in the House of Commons. They could decide on equal representation for each province. Such a decision could be made by seven provinces and without our agreement. This proposal offers us a veto on any future change to the House of Commons.
Third, Quebec is being offered 25 per cent of all seats in the House of Commons from now on. Why is that important? Each year, a large number of immigrants are admitted to Canada. They can go to any province. Under an agreement on immigration which will now be entrenched in the Constitution Quebec can accept between 25 and 30 per cent of the total number of immigrants admitted to Canada each year. However, these immigrants do not have to remain in Quebec once they are there. They can go elsewhere, to any other province, and vice versa.
There is no guarantee that Quebec will always represent a quarter of the population of Canada. In spite of that the other provinces and premiers agree that Quebecers will always hold one-quarter of the seats in the House of Commons. This is very important. We would have a quarter of the seats in the House. A majority of 50 percent plus one is needed to pass an act in the House of Commons. Since we are assigned 25 percent of the seats, we represent half of the votes required to pass or reject any bill in the House of Commons. In the future Quebec members would be, for all practical purposes, protected against any form of abuse from future governments. We only have to consult with each other. We have the tool we need in our hands. How will we use it? It is up to us to use it to shape our future.
I have another point. We are being offered a veto over any change to the Supreme Court to be composed of nine members, of whom three must be from Quebec. This is another permanent form of protection. It is important because this country was founded in 1867 by two peoples: francophones from Quebec and anglophones from other provinces. Over the years, since there
September 10,1992

are now 20 million English Canadians and 6 million of us, Quebecers have asked for such a protection.
The constitutional offer that will be put to a vote on October 26 finally recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. Section 2 of the Constitution would be amended to read "Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, which includes a French speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition". Another important clause has been added: "The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec is affirmed". To those who claim the term distinct is not good or strong enough, I say this: should a Quebec law concerning our language ever be challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada? We could as Quebecers use the distinct society clause to justify such a law. If the Supreme Court rejected our arguments we could still invoke the notwithstanding clause to tell the judges: Notwithstanding your decision to declare our law unconstitutional we will keep it. We enjoy a double protection.
Furthermore-and Quebecers and Canadians alike must realize this-when we were sitting on the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee, the first ministers and lobby groups were telling us not to impose something against their will while insisting they wanted the same as Quebec. It was pretty difficult to deal with.
The distribution of powers as provided for in the constitutional offer meets this demand. How? Any province can ask the federal government to withdraw from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction such as mining, tourism, forestry, recreation, housing and urban affairs. At the request of a province, the federal government would be obligated to withdraw. It would then be required to negotiate how to provide reasonable compensation. All this would be entrenched in the Constitution for five years.
Any other province preferring the federal government to remain involved can stay that way. This is what I call flexibility. To those who say that it is not good enough because it is only for five years, I say think again. The Constitution will be around for a long time. The 1867 Constitution lasted until 1982 before getting a facelift and even today we see how difficult it is.
Government Orders
If we had an intergovernmental agreement giving us back a certain power with all the related responsibilities, we would be stuck with it forever. We could even have done ourselves a disservice. The proposed formula gives us more flexibility. It would allow a province to make corrections as the need arises. It meets Quebecers' expectations. We want more powers. Others may want less than we do. It is their choice. But let us look at the offer on the table.
Let us now talk about the aboriginal issue. In 1867 those who preceded us drafted a constitution that did not include the aboriginal peoples. Today we want to correct that mistake. We recognize that the aboriginal peoples have the inherent right to self-government with basic forms of protection. Just what is important? It is always to try to correct or avoid, as much as possible, any abuse of power by anybody. We have benchmarks regarding what is looming on the horizon for aboriginal peoples, namely that the legislation will always have to conform with the notion of order and good government. It is even provided that, as the aboriginal peoples gradually take control of their destiny, they will be able to contribute financially, in proportion with the resources that they have.
The fact that the aboriginal peoples blossom within our society does not take anything away from me as a Canadian; on the contrary, it makes me grow. I grow when people next to me improve their lot. To recognize that the most beautiful country in the world can continue to move forward while respecting the needs of everyone as well as the characteristics of its different provinces.
I notice that I only have a few minutes left. I want Quebecers to think seriously before saying no. If we say no to this offer it means that we say no to something that I have been trying to get for a very long time: a veto on the reform of institutions, a guarantee providing for 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, the enshrinement of our agreement on immigration, as well as other powers.
I took a close look at the accord. I did not read it only once. Of course there are times when we would like to get more in life, but there also comes a time when you have to look at what is offered. For Quebecers, this is a good offer. It is interesting. We have guarantees concerning our language, our development as well as the

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
characteristics of the country and our own as francophones from Quebec.
When you have all this you have the necessary tools to continue to blossom as Quebecers. Before rejecting all this let us ask ourselves this question: Has that country served us that badly? Honestly, the answer is no. We come first among 167 countries in the world in terms of quality of life.
I intend to support this agreement in my riding of Jonquiere, elsewhere in Quebec and also in Canada. I believe that this time a majority of Quebecers, and particularly people from the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean region, will say yes to Canada.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, the question that the government tabled yesterday reflects the true nature of behind the scenes dealings in Charlottetown. It is an acknowledgment of the failure of federal-provincial negotiations, an acknowledgment of impotence when faced with the renewal of Canada, because the Charlottetown accord is somewhat a real house of cards; the more you blow on it, the more it crumbles.
Without a real agreement the government, in collusion with Liberals and New Democrats, wants to ask Canadians and Quebecers to sign a blank cheque. Whatever my former colleagues from the Conservative Party are saying we are very far from the Meech Lake accord substance. The Meech Lake accord was subjected to a real constitutional diet. The Meech baby was not very fat in the first place. We can imagine how he looked after the drastic diet and deprivation of a few days imposed on it in Charlottetown. The five minimal conditions became trifle. Indeed, eight distinguished constitutional specialists from Quebec examined the distinct society clause and concluded it was a setback for Quebec. Surely they cannot all be wrong, and I say this for the benefit of the member for Jonquiere. The distinct society concept has been completely diminished. The only distinctness remaining is culture, language and civil law. Quebec's distinctness is far more than that. Quebec is also a distinct society in the social and economic sense. Consider its social measures, including health insurance; measures affecting labour relations, such as anti-scab legislation, legislation to regulate real estate transactions, credit unions and so forth.
At the time of the beau risque which the Prime Minister of Canada likes to recall, Rene Levesque stressed the importance of recognizing the existence of Quebec as a people in the Constitution. The concept of two founding peoples has now been swept aside in favour of provincial equality. Genuine special status has been obtained only by small provinces like Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
The distinct society, which was to be the subject of an interpretive clause, is lost in the Canada clause which says that governments are committed to the vitality and development of official language communities.
Political scientist Leon Dion, who has been advising Premier Bourassa and Minister Gil Remillard during the constitutional talks, expressed his apprehension with respect to Bill 101, especially concerning the language on signs and the language of work. If the agreement is ratified, Bill 101 might become a target for people who feel frustrated. Quebec wanted veto rights over any changes that might affect Quebec's role within federal institutions, the structure of those institutions and their jurisdiction, the appointment of members of these institutions and the creation of new provinces. Instead, we now have only bits and pieces of a veto that is no longer significant and, more important, no veto over the creation of new provinces.
As for the division of powers, Quebec now has fewer powers than it had at the beginning of Confederation in 1867. What was supposed to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold with honour and enthusiasm has now become a millstone around its neck. What the draft agreement gives Quebec with one hand, it takes away with the other. All this for a few more seats in the House of Commons which is no guarantee that Quebec's superior interests will be defended. Remember the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. At the time, with more than 28 per cent of Quebec members in the House, of which almost 50 per cent were part of the Liberal caucus, the party in power, Prime Minister Trudeau negotiated the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, without Quebec, thus creating the unfortunate situation we have now.
September 10, 1992

Perhaps I may recall that at the time, Quebec members voted in favour of this proposal, although the Quebec National Assembly objected almost unanimously-
Although my former colleagues in the Quebec Conservative caucus can boast the same membership as their Liberal counterparts in 1982, they nevertheless ignored Quebec's demands with respect to environmental issues during the debate on Bill C-13. They ignored Quebec claims during the debate on Bill C-62 on telecommunications and the same applies to the federal government's recent intrusions into the areas of education, health and regional development.
In this week's LActualite, Quebec Communications Minister Lisa Frulla-Hebert says in a very outspoken article, and I quote:
"If the Minister of Communications of Canada were a Quebecer, he would wonder about the federal government's lack of respect for Quebec's cultural priorities".
She adds: "I saw during my trip to Seville this summer the gap between the Canadian and Quebec conceptions of our culture and societies. The Imax movie showed Canada as a land defined by its vast open spaces, its multiculturalism and its native people. There was no mention of a country founded by two great cultures, past and present. Nowhere is the existence of a French Quebec mentioned".
So says this Liberal minister of the Quebec government in this week's Actualite.
The August 28 agreement renews the main elements of the July 7 accord negotiated by the federal and provincial governments except Quebec.
In fact, the only guarantee offered by the agreement means we would remain a minority forever.
The slim guarantee of 25 per cent of seats can only get smaller as representatives of the territories and the aboriginal people will be added.
We are a long way from Quebec's traditional demands of the last 30 years.
Before this agreement Quebec had three options: some were opting for the status quo, others for a genuine renewal of the Canadian federation, while the majority preferred sovereignty.
Government Orders
Whatever their preference, all Quebecers have a duty to say no to this agreement.
For some, rejecting the agreement means going back to the status quo.
For others, rejecting the agreement means scrapping this so-called constitutional renewal and forcing politicians to go back to work.
For others still, rejecting the agreement means calling for a real debate on sovereignty.
All Quebecers must reject this agreement that leads nowhere.
This is an agreement whose clauses are being challenged even before the legal text becomes available, an agreement that is only a rough draft.
From the drawers of water we did not want to be are we going to become permanent beggars of federal-provincial accords in our own areas of jurisdiction?
No, Quebec deserves better than this.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who took part in the discussions that have led to the Charlottetown agreement.
It is not often that a group of people with sometimes very different interests, such as the Prime Minister of Canada, the premiers of all the provinces, the representatives of the aboriginal peoples, and the leaders of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, can get together and reach a consensus, particularly on an issue as crucial as the future of the country.
I also want to aknowledge the important contribution made by my leader.
As the member representing Acadie-Bathurst, a riding in the only bilingual province in Canada, I am pleased that at last the substance of Bill C-88, an act recognizing the equal status of the two official linguistics communities in New-Brunswick, would be enshrined in the Constitution.
This element of the agreement reached in Charlottetown is a major gain for the Acadian people in my province. There is no doubt that those who want to find flaws, shortcomings or omissions in this accord can easily do so.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
In fact perfection is a rare thing and it never happens in politics. If we want to look for a winner, let us say that all of Canada is the big winner in this last round of negotiations because I am convinced that we have succeeded in preserving our country.
I do not hesitate to express my profound belief that a united and strong Canada is more indispensable to the four Atlantic provinces than to any other region of the country for obvious reasons.
We must not be naive. Do we want a Canada that goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic? Or, do we want to run the great risk of dismantling bit by bit this g^eat country and have nothing left? The choice is clear. The answer can only be yes to the question: "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?"

Our world is undergoing as dramatic a change as any since the birth of the nation-state. All over the planet people are demanding independence. Too many are dying for their dream of statehood and at least here in Canada we can still debate our differences.
The evolving world political order demands of us that we be a model of how diversity can be welded together to create a strong and prosperous nation.
We had best take a close look at what is happening here at home, analyse the problems and consider what kind of future we face in this country. Listen to the despair of the Atlantic fishermen and plant workers. Hear the resignation in the voices of the unemployed from coast to coast. Feel the frustration of the young men and women from Quebec who cannot understand why their identity is being questioned and bargained over like so many poker chips. Listen to the men and women from the prairies who had their hopes of being equal partners in Confederation dashed over and over again. Recognize the anger of thousands who have lost their jobs in manufacturing in Ontario who are told "it is all right, Jack".
Most of all, beware of the undisguised contempt for the political process held by Canadians from St. John's to Victoria.
If we listened to the people, we would hear a simple message. They are angiy. They are profoundly alienated but thankfully they still believe in the country though not necessarily in its politicians or the system.
Canadians despair because their political institutions are not working. They are disillusioned because the ad hoc process of constitutional reform over the past 15 years has failed to adequately address their concerns and their needs. Those involved in fine tuning the Constitution, which should lead Canada confidently into the next century, have spent much of their time and their energies not on improving Canadian national institutions and our political structures in the best interest of Canadians but on shuffling the deck, on redefining federal-provincial relations, never really addressing the underlying fundamental reason for the crisis in confidence that is eroding the fabric of Canada.
The political pendulum continues to swing between federal and provincial interests. The price has been the alienation of the people of Canada from their governments and their politicians. That is the source of the deep malaise in Canada.
Economic, social and political problems are traumatic and painful but more dangerous still is the lack of hope, the absence of trust and the discouragement of Canadians upon realizing our political system seemingly is incapable of dealing resolutely with deeply felt concerns.
Our protracted constitutional debate has demonstrated just how out of touch we are with what Canadians are really troubled about. Years have been spent trying to codify what nearly all of us already know and accept, namely that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society, that aboriginal people have a right to self-government, that an elected Senate should have real power and that Canada should be an open and free economy from sea to sea to sea.
Everyone wants reform but reform of what? I believe reform must begin at the heart of the political system in Parliament itself. We must reform the Senate and also the House of Commons. To do this we must be prepared to reveal the failings of our system.
We must explain why elected members of Parliament
do not play a meaningful role in the governing process,
why the House of Commons is a rubber stamp and why


September 10, 1992

we have allowed the executive to usurp the legislative functions of government.
When there was agreement to reduce the number of Senators, the size of the House of Commons should have been decreased, not increased. The charade must end that ordinary MPs on all sides of this House exercise any real power of any kind.
Canadians want a democratic Parliament. We need a responsible government and accountable politicians. Surely Canadians are creative enough to devise a system of government that will combine the best elements of the various models we are very familiar with.
Until this happens we will not be able to encourage more capable and competent men and women to participate in the political process and confidence will not be restored in our institutions.
Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail and we will have much to answer for because we have had every opportunity to get it right.
Canadians want to continue to survive as a nation where people have overcome diversity of language, culture, ethnic origin and religion and lived together in relative harmony.
There is no doubt in my mind that we must agree to answer the referendum question that is before us in the affirmative, but we had better begin the process of restoring integrity and credibility to our political institutions. Any student of history will tell you that great nations are not the result of constitutional, legalistic arrangements, but rather are the achievements of men and women committed toward working together to create a system of government truly responsive to the needs and aspirations of its people and to the building of a society that strives to achieve the ultimate goal of providing everyone of its citizens with an equal opportunity to live in peace, prosperity and dignity


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult in the eight minutes allotted to members on this side to try to begin to discuss what is the premier piece of federal legislation for Canada, its Constitution.
For the benefit of this debate we have an onus to distinguish between the constitutional package and the constitutional process.
On the process, we are voting later this evening on a referendum question to be put to Canadians. I recall as
Government Orders
early as last year that we as a national party and our leader as the national leader were alone in advocating a national referendum. Many people and experts thought that would never see the light of day. Others suggested we were only posturing in terms of calling for a national vote.
We took that seriously simply because it is our firm and unshakeable belief that the Constitution in the end belongs to the people. There needs to be that voice. There needs to be the consultation with the shareholders of this public company called Canada. It cannot simply be run by the chief executive officer or its board of directors which we are.
I do not think we should quibble with one or two words in this evening's question on the referendum because quite frankly by the end of the 36-day debate, Canadians from one coast to the other will certainly size up the stakes and the consequences of voting one way or another and not necessarily on the meaning of one word or another.
It is also important in that process not to castigate Canadians for raising particular concerns, that they are no less Canadians, that they are not small Canadians, or little Canadians, or enemies of Canada as they have been referred to earlier by the Prime Minister, or not to coerce Canadians into voting one way or another.
I have received calls, for instance, that a number of ethnic organizations are quite uncomfortable with being called by the political staff of the Minister of Multicul-turalism and Citizenship to ensure they vote the right way, the yes way, and at the same time talk about funding from the federal government to that particular organization for the coming year. The message is very clear but it is also a message that is quite intimidating and quite improper.
On the package, our leader and our party in April, 1991 came up with a nine-point constitutional framework that not only guided our deliberations to this moment but also was utilized as a measuring stick by which we would measure any constitutional proposal.
The deal we are discussing this evening and for the referendum campaign is not a perfect deal and no one should pretend perfection. It is also at the same time not perfect to our nine Liberal points and we on this side are not pretending it is either. We also have to recognize

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
fairly and squarely there are a number of victories contained in this constitutional proposal.
The first is the referendum that allows Canadians to decide the future course of their country and their Constitution.
The second one is the unanimity that was achieved by all representatives around that constitutional negotiating table.
Third, the Quebec government on behalf of Quebecers and Canadians in Quebec has signalled a yes that it is in the constitutional tent, not out of it, and I think that is highly significant.
Fourth, the distinct society clause has been defined and has gone a long way in trying to address properly the concerns flowing out of Meech that Canadians had perhaps with the concept of special status for some Canadians in one region of the country. By its very definition it tends to be more limiting as opposed to being more expansive.
Fifth, the entrenchment of aboriginal self-government is a landmark and an extension of our nation's hand to the aboriginal community of Canada, a hand that reflects the best in respect and in tolerance, which is Canada.
Sixth, the principles of linguistic duality are protected unlike in the earlier Meech Lake accord, which means that the French language will not be ghettoized and relegated only to Quebec and the English language in the other nine provinces, but rather, as our leader has always eloquently said across this country, you can be comfortable whether you are French Canadian or English Canadian or Italian Canadian in any part of this great country.
Seventh, a Canada clause that describes the fundamental values of who we are as a people and is much more inclusive than was the opening preamble of the Meech Lake accord which talked basically of two fundamental characteristics. Now all of its people and the breadth which is Canada are included in that opening Canada clause that does us proud.
There are concerns. We have talked about them. We have talked about the fact that there is not an economic union package. We have also talked about the fact that the Senate has lost a great deal of effectiveness in order
to achieve equality. It is our hope and intention to try to modify those shortcomings, but on balance those shortcomings do not outweigh the victories that I and others have spoken about.
In closing, it must be said that since the Prime Minister opened this file in 1987 we cannot ignore the role that the five-year time period has played in today's equation as we consider a referendum campaign in two ways: fatigue and the situation in Quebec. I am not suggesting that fatigue should be a motivation for voting or changing our Constitution but it is an undeniable variable of this equation and it is also something that translates into frustration by Canadians because they feel the government has spent so much political capital, so much political energy in the constitutional dossier to the detriment of an economy that is aggravating the lives of Canadians.
In my own city the unemployment rate is higher than the national average and highest since the Great Depression of the 1930s. That is why Parliament should continue to sit.
On the situation in Quebec, in 1987 we were told that we needed to overlook the deficiencies of Meech Lake in order to allow Quebec to be pulled back from the edge of that political constitutional cliff. I did not believe that it was at the cliff then, nor did many Canadians. Now, after five years of debate, now that Quebec is finally at the table, now that Quebecers are waiting for that offer, now that Quebec has its own rendezvous with its own referendum and now that we have a federal wing of the separatist Parti Quebecois, namely the Bloc Quebecois, to say no to this deal would be to allow the separatists in Quebec to push Quebecers to the edge of the cliff.
In summary, on October 26 I will be voting yes to Canada and yes to a Quebec within Canada. I urge my constituents to participate, to involve themselves, to speak up, to read the document and then choose the one option that is in Canada's interests for its future, and for their own future in Canada.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not be surprised that I want to register right from the outset my very strong and unequivocal support for the proposition that we are debating here this afternoon and which will lead to a vote later on in the evening.
September 10, 1992

It has been a long and arduous process. We are all a bit fatigued but perhaps not more so than the Canadian general public itself.
At the same time I am sure we have all had the experience I have had that every time we talked about the Constitution to one of our constituents we would have a response of frustration with the ongoing interminable process. Yet, as soon as those frustrations were expressed, people would give their own version of what their perfect model of a Canadian Constitution should be.
We have all learned over these many months and years that there is no perfect model that would satisfy all the legitimate needs and all the aspirations of all of us, no matter where we live in this great country or the different interest or ethnic groups to which we might belong.
We live in the largest country in the world, which is also by all objective criteria the most prosperous country in the world. I ask whether it does not stand to reason that our predecessors and perhaps we ourselves in our modest way have not done a few things right to bring us to this enviable position.
We are a very young country relative to the other democracies after which we have fashioned our public institutions. When you think about it in terms of our Constitution we are also among the older countries of the world in the sense that we have not changed our Constitution veiy much over the last 125 years.
As an example, let us look at Germany. It is an interesting comparison in the sense that it was precisely at the same time in 1867 that the northern German states first organized themselves into some kind of loose federation. Shortly thereafter, in 1871, the first German Reich was founded which in turn led to the so-called Weimar Republic. It in turn was followed by the Third Reich and after the war it turned into the two Germa-nies. Of course we all remember the dramatic events which in 1990 led to the reunification of Germany which gave form to the present federation.
One would hardly be inclined to envy the Germans for their eventful and colourful 125 year history. They did manage to relieve themselves of the kind of rigidity through these various reforms which we find necessary now to change in our own Constitution.
Government Orders
The historic facts which led us to where we are today date back much further than 125 years. They go back to 1763, the royal proclamation, which established a relationship between the settlers in the new world and the aboriginal people they would encounter. In 1774 the royal proclamation established certain rights the French would enjoy in the new world. The Quebec Act, 1791, dealt with language rights, the Napoleonic civil code and certain religious rights that would have to be granted to the French population in the new world.
To ignore or to attempt to wipe out these rigid historic facts would require nothing less than the kind of convulsive and revolutionary change that shaped the history of countries such as the one I mentioned earlier.
Canadians never had a taste for that kind of change. We are more inclined to agree to changes through consensus and through honourable compromise which requires tolerance and understanding and good will toward others. In fact, as some of our colleagues have mentioned, this is what we are known for throughout the world. This is what is distinctively Canadian. It is also what led to the accord which is now before us and which we are asking the consent of the House of Commons and the people of Canada to support on October 26.
Cartier said in 1867, and I quote him as did the Prime Minister yesterday:
We sealed our pact without bloodshed and without exploitation of the weak by the strong. All it took was fairness, justice and some compromise on both sides.
Sir John A. Macdonald added:
If we had not met in a spirit of conciliation and with an anxious overriding desire to form one country under one government we would never have succeeded.
In order to rally the Canadian people around the accord with the kind of conviction that we should all bring to it, we must not avoid speaking about the main irritants underlying the resistance we are experiencing from some quarters.
Bilingualism, the Official Languages Act and Bill 101 in Quebec are such irritants. I cannot make any excuses for the Quebec sign law except to say that perhaps had Quebec been included in the 1982 constitutional changes with the kind of reasonable guarantees which are included in this accord, I doubt that the Legislative Assembly in Quebec would have deemed it necessary to proceed with such laws, particularly since they were

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I represent an area of the country where the Reform Party claims to have strong support. Bilingualism is one of the areas around which it is trying to mobilize dissent. The Reform Party members and their leaders are generous enough to accommodate the people in Quebec with their right to speak French all they want as long as they do not have it shoved down their throats, to use the expression these kinds of people normally use.
In other words, they want their right respected to speak only English. If Quebec people want to speak only French they say that is okay too. Incidentally the Reform Party is also in favour of a strong federal government, not two but one strong federal government.
Does it not stand to reason that it requires a bilingual Public Service in order to guarantee such rights to both the English and the French ethnic groupings? Is it not a fact that the Official Languages Act applies only to federal services to which all Canadians should be and must be entitled?
What I see in the Official Languages Act and the regulations that give it effect is nothing more than a guarantee of service from the federal government and its regulated service industries for every Canadian regardless of his or her choice of language.
Is there a cost to the federal taxpayer for this guarantee? The answer is yes, but this is the cost of having a united, strong and prosperous country.
If we wanted to draw another comparison with the European experience we should look at the European Community. The Maastricht treaty will lead the European Community by the year 2000 to a total integration of their economies, their trade, their monetary system. There will be no more liras, francs, marks and whatever other currencies there are in Europe. There will be one single currency, the ECU. There will be a single standard throughout Europe. A pharmacist from Portugal can open a shop in Manchester, England.
There is also and there always has been a clear understanding that there cannot be an integration of culture. There will always be French, English, Italian and
all the other languages spoken. No attempt has ever been made to deprive someone of their culture, someone of his or her soul, which some people say language equates with.
Our friends in the Reform Party are talking about a new society, a new Canada. Will this new Canada be a more prosperous, more peaceful and secure Canada? Will it be a more tolerant and more compassionate Canada? We do know it will be a more God-fearing society if we listen to the leader of the Reform Party.
What about those of us who would prefer our God to be a loving God? We already know it will be a more fundamentally Christian society, but are there not enough signs around the world to indicate that religious fundamentalism is as much an obstacle to peace in the world as anything else?
Preston Manning's politics are the politics of another age, an age through which Canadians lived 50 years ago. I for one, and I am certain the majority of my constituents, have no taste to be reliving this age. People like myself who are neither of English or French extraction, particularly those for whom that fact is visible, are fearful of Preston Manning's politics and perhaps for good reason.
The changes that are now proposed will provide us with the opportunity to streamline our government structure and to streamline the operations and our relationship with the provinces, particularly in the area of avoiding duplication. In my own department or area of jurisdiction there was never a dispute about whose exclusive jurisdiction forestry should be. But the new deal allows us to better define a perhaps more legitimate role in forestry.
It will provide the provinces the opportunity to assist us in determining how we might best manage the international obligations that we have as custodians of 10 per cent of the planet's forests and how to best respond to our society's ever-changing needs and the values we attach to our forests; how we in Canada might be able to modify through research our practices in forestry to give meaning to the concept of sustainable development.
There will be opportunities to arrange bilateral arrangements that will have legal status and will be designed to meet both the national and the regional
September 10, 1992

interests and objectives in this critical area of our national life.
I look forward very much to negotiating and working with my colleagues through the Council of Forest Ministers and in a bilateral sense the different ministers of forestry throughout the country to accommodate a new deal.
I conclude my remarks on perhaps a very personal note. I came to this country 41 years ago at the age of 19 years. I came alone and brought with me only the dream that was inspired by what I knew and what I had learned and read about Canada. Incidentally I discovered to my surprise that I knew much more about the history of my adopted new homeland than what my children are now learning in school.
The same might be true for most post-war immigrants and that might be the reason why we have heard very little from any of the ethnic groupings in this debate. Not only are they aware of the historic facts that I have mentioned, the constrained constitutional reform process in which we were involved, but they also have a much deeper sense of appreciation of what this country can offer its citizens.
In my case I had the good fortune to launch a successful career in business together with my wife and family. I earned the privilege which all of us here enjoy, to be elected to the Parliament of Canada, and in my case to become a member of the Privy Council.
But my story by itself is not an exception. It is the story that is repeated and celebrated every day in every part of this great country as part of our national life. It is not a story you would find repeated anywhere else in the world, incidentally. It is a reflection of my Canada such as I want it preserved for my children and my grandchildren.
We can expect a resounding yes from the one-third of Canadians who were not as privileged as others were to have inherited this country by birth but who chose this country by themselves.
I will join our colleagues over the next few weeks, not so much to sell the accord to which we have agreed here in the House, but to explain it to the Canadian people
Government Orders
and to appeal to their good will. I sense that there is a lot of good will in this country and that we will find a yes answer to our plea.
I too can find lots of flaws in the proposition we are now debating. But I also know that it represents the best possible, the fairest and the most honourable compromise that was possible.
I congratulate sincerely our Prime Minister whose exceptional skills, strong conviction, his passionate love for our country and his faith in a united Canada were, after all, the glue and the bond that brought it all together. I would like to congratulate the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and thank all of the premiers, the native leaders and the territorial leaders who sat around the table and who deserve our thanks.
History will be extremely kind to all of them.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the question we are debating today is the following one:
Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
In the minute amount of time that I have been allotted to speak on this question and on the broader question of the accord, I do not intend to get into lofty constitutional discussions but I do want to make a few comments from my perspective first as a lawyer and second as a representative of the people who live in the riding of Scarborough West.
As a lawyer I have come to respect the value of words, what they mean and how they are used. I look at this question and I see a word which offends me. The methodology of the use of the word and the attempt to manipulate which offends me. The word is renewed.
One might ask: Why quibble with words? My answer to that is that the way we communicate, the way we convince ourselves, is through the use of the word, spoken or written. We have seen in the very recent past how the courts have interpreted words, how they have written meanings in where there were no such meanings, and how they have taken words out that were written in. Therefore it is very important to be as precise as possible when using words.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
There was no need to use the word renewed in this question. A simple word which would have made the question completely neutral would have been: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be amended on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992? It should have been amended instead of renewed. Renewed puts this sort of who would be against renewal spin on it. That to me is an attempt to manipulate, that is to play us, myself, my constituents and the people of Canada, for fools. I personally resent it.
Is that going to be enough for me to vote against this question? Of course not, because I believe that this question should go to the people of Canada and should be considered by them.
However, I want to put on record that it is unnecessary for the Prime Minister of this country to fool with words when a simple neutral question could have attained the same results.
Let me take a few minutes to talk about the Charlottetown accord. Many constituents have called my riding office and have asked: "What is this accord? What does it mean? What does it say? How are we supposed to vote yes or no on something that we do not know anything about?" Those are legitimate questions and I have an answer for them.
I want to remind my constituents, and I am speaking primarily to my constituents now, that this is a momentous and historical occasion. This is the first referendum that we have had in half a century. Let us take it seriously. Let us not ignore the commentary for the next number of weeks and then either simply fail to vote or not bother to vote because the subject is too complex or too boring or we are too tired of it or simply go in there, close our eyes, mark an x and hope for the best. That is not the way to deal with the future of our country.
Rather, I ask constituents of Scarborough West and the people of Canada to reflect very carefully on the words of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Yesterday he said: "Canadians should judge this agreement by what it says, not by what others say it says". That includes us here by the way. He went on to say: "This is not written in Morse code. Canadians owe it to themselves to read it themselves".
I whole-heartedly support the minister's statement. Do we care enough about this country to spend a few minutes to pick up this document and read it? I am not
going to say that we will understand it immediately, but do we care enough to investigate is?
What is my role going to be in the next little while? I am going to try my best to give the facts as I see them to my constituents. I want my constituents to know that I am going to be having a meeting on September 24 on this very topic at which I will distribute copies of the documentation and raise some questions and answer some questions if I possibly can. I am not going to be in the voting booth for each and every constituent. They will be there themselves, marking their ballots. I sincerely hope they do it, having apprised themselves of the facts.
That meeting is going to be on Thursday, September 24 at Our Lady of Fatima School library. I will have another one two weeks later on October 1 at St. Agatha separate school at 7.30 p.m. on Thursday. I will continue to have them as long as there is interest by my constituents to come out and talk about this accord. Copies will be made and we will discuss the issues.
What issues? I would like people to ask themselves what is going to happen if the referendum vote is overwhelmingly yes. Is this going to put an end to our constitutional discussions? The answer in my view is no. The Charlottetown accord is not the beginning of the end. Rather it is merely the end of the beginning.
The premier of Quebec has already stated that negotiations will continue. He said this in the National Assembly yesterday. We will continue our negotiations but in an era of solidity, stability. By no means will a yes mean that we are finished with the Constitution for the next generation. Quite the contrary. Negotiations are going to continue.
What is going to happen if the referendum vote is no?
I remind Canada that the Prime Minister of this country predicted that the world as we knew it in Canada would come crashing down around us if the Meech Lake accord was rejected. The Meech Lake accord was rejected. The world did not end. The sun rose the next day and life went on. We managed to continue the dialogue.
How about some questions? Did we in this accord achieve a Triple-E Senate? Is the Senate elected? I say only partially because it can be partially appointed. Is it equal? Who knows? Is it effective? Again, partially. What does that mean? What sorts of ramifications will that have in the future. What does aboriginal self-gov-
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
emment mean? Who pays for it? How much of this negotiations, whether they be large or small, throughout accord will be fleshed out by the courts in interpreting our lives that we know at no tune can everyone go away words, further withering the democratic powers of this from a negotiating table getting exactly what everyone House of Commons, sadly no longer the highest court of wants. The deal that put Canada in place m the nrst the land by the very abdication of its members to grapple place was a deal of compromise, and so is this one. The with tough issues? The courts are answerable to no one Charlottetown proposal in my view is the best that we but themselves.	could get at the present time.
Finally will the results be binding on anybody, on any level of government? The answer is legally no, morally I hope so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings for eight minutes.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to rise today to speak on this topic of the upcoming referendum on the renewal of the Constitution of Canada.
First I would want to thank all those in the House, in the Senate and in the Public Service for the extra time and effort they have taken to work on this proposal over many months. I also want to thank those in my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings for their participation, whether that was through letters or phone calls to the Spicer commission, the Beaudoin-Dobbie commission, the Charest committee or whatever it might be, and the hundreds of people who either phoned me, wrote to me, met me on the street or came out to town hall and public meetings I have held in the riding on this issue over the last number of months.
I can assure them their views were heard and they were passed on by myself to people who were more closely involved in this issue. I also remind Canadians, not only those in Prince Edward-Hastings riding, that we have the privilege in Canada to do that. Many countries in the world today do not have that privilege, that freedom of speech, that freedom of association, and we should all remind ourselves how fortunate we are.
Where are we now? We have a proposal, if it is passed on October 26, that I feel will certainly keep Canada together. If it does not pass, I do not even want to talk about it because I shudder at the fallout that will likely come from that. The important thing is that all of us as Canadians have that choice to make now. We have that opportunity. It is not a perfect proposal as so many of my colleagues here in the House have said. We know that. However, all of us have been involved in enough
By passing this we can tell the rest of the world and we can tell Canadians that for now at least we have made up our mind on the future direction of our country. We can get on with doing what we need to do as a country, that is get our economy going again and get people back to work and people earning money. That is important.
As I say, it is not a perfect proposal. If I had written it I would have made the Senate more effective, but it is the best we could get right now. The economic union is not as strong as it could be, but I think we can work on that. The recognition is there that it needs to be improved, and that is a step forward.
Let us look at the positive aspects of it. Of concern to many people in my riding are the words distinct society. I want to remind them that in the Canada clause distinct society is defined to refer only to language, civil law and culture. It is important that definition is there. Francophones are protected with this agreement outside Quebec and anglophones are protected within Quebec. The Senate is elected and equal and it can be made more effective by changes in the rules of the House. The aboriginal people will be given self-government as they should have. Changes to national institutions such as the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court can only be made with the full agreement of all provinces and the Parliament of Canada.
Yes, Mr. Bourassa can say that Quebec has a veto on this type of action, but I remind people that every province has a veto and that is not a special veto given to the province of Quebec.
New provinces can be created by the Parliament of Canada. I have always said that if we are going to redistribute the jurisdiction of forestry, tourism and mining to the provinces nothing special should be done for any particular province. Nothing is done special for any particular province. The opportunities in this propos-

September 10,1992
Government Orders
al for one province are there for all provinces, and that is important.
The Canada clause protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it keeps it foremost and strong. There is a commitment and it is a very strong one. Canadians are committed to social and ethnic equality. There is a commitment to the equality of female and male persons.
Yes, we could pick holes in this agreement. Let us not get caught up in partisanship, narrow minded bigotry or narrow personal thoughts. We are talking about the future of a country, one that has withstood a lot, one that has been formed from people coming together from all parts of the world, and one that offers so much to so many.
We have in our country of Canada a very precious country and to me it is far too precious to lose. My Canada is the whole of Canada. I urge Canadians to support the Charlottetown proposal for a renewed Canadian Constitution.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity however brief to address the historic question before us about the future of our entire country.
The real question before us is whether we are to say yes to a new and stimulating move forward in Canada's journey as a unified nation or whether we are to say no and continue to drift in the agonizing impasse of constitutional conflict and threatened separation.
While it is tempting to many to forestall the heavy burden of facing that question directly and perhaps to seek refuge through preoccupation with the broad range of significant individual factors for which the referendum question will be a single proxy, it remains essential for every Canadian to address the only question that really counts squarely: Do we say yes to the unity of Canada at this time or do we say no?
Therein lies the challenge for every member of Parliament, indeed for every elected representative at every level of government and for every citizen who can be encouraged to join the referendum campaign, to ensure that Canadians are truly inspired with the magnitude of the responsibility and the opportunity now being presented to each one of us. It is a rare chance for every individual of voting age to make a direct and measurable contribution to the future directions of our country.
Over the next several weeks leading up to October 26, every citizen will be able to experience the essence of the political process in a direct and dramatic way, to recognize, to consider and to evaluate all the complex issues involved in Canada's future, and then to exercise all that collective personal knowledge and wisdom in the form of a single judgment and decision to move Canada forward in unity and inspiration or to keep Canada mired in division and discord. To be sure our first job is to inform and educate ourselves and our fellow citizens about all of the issues involved to the greatest extent possible in the time available. That in itself will be no easy task. Even at best, we must accept the reality that very few of us will really be knowledgeable about Canada's constitutional complexities before it is time to make our decision.
However, that should not be cause for frustration or undue concern because the average citizen cannot be expected to gain instant expertise in such affairs. That is why Canadians have yearned for the kind of leadership in this issue in which they can place their trust. Fortunately, and to an extent perhaps never before displayed in Canadian history, we have seen such leadership in this constitutional mission. It has come from every major jurisdiction in every comer of the country and its recommendations are unanimous about the direction in which it points us. That is not to say that Canadians should blindly follow any leadership without due caution, care and consideration, particularly in such a critical direction as we are now heading.
However, it does mean that in the absence of perfect understanding or ultimate knowledge or divine wisdom, which obviously none of us will ever have, there is a compelling basis for trust and and confidence in following the leadership which the first ministers of Canada have demonstrated along with their territorial and aboriginal colleagues in reaching the constitutional consensus that was signed at Charlottetown on August 28.
In the absence of better information or higher knowledge or wiser choice, I believe that the Charlottetown agreement is a foundation for judgment on which any Canadian can rely in making an affirmative referendum
September 10, 1992

decision. Certainly it is on that basis that I will cast my own vote.
It is especially imperative that we encourage Canadians to come to grips with the very nature of our confederation and with the realization that we continue to build Canada today in the same spirit of collaboration, concession, compromise and consensus as it was founded 125 years ago.
As the Prime Minister said in opening this debate two days ago, Confederation itself was a creative innovation to cope with the major constitutional and economic problems of the day. He went on to quote Sir John A. Macdonald who said at the beginning: "The whole scheme bears upon its face the marks of compromise. Of necessity there was a great deal of mutual concession". Obviously we now see clear evidence of a similar approach which our present leaders have used in reaching a constitutional accord.
Frankly, I would like it even better if the Charlottetown agreement was called just that, the Canada accord. For me, at least, those words more aptly describe the essence of Canadian federalism in the modem day. The concept of accord seems a stronger and more rational expression of the inter-relationship and interdependence which must exist among all participants in a federation such as ours. In truth, that is effectively what has been achieved, a Canada accord which reflects a reasoned and fair reconciliation of all the diverse interests which exist throughout this vast country.
This Canada accord is not a menu of half measures to merely provide each participant with a little bit of something and not much of anything as some critics have claimed, but rather it is an innovative and effective working plan for the continued development of Canada as a unified nation. It has been achieved through long and intensive consultation with Canadians from every walk of life, in every part of our vast land. It expresses the diversity of their hopes and aspirations in a balanced approach that offers the best prospects yet defined of making those hopes and aspirations attainable.
The Canada accord is a statement of vision for our country, a vision that is based on unity and a vision to which we must each address ourselves. It is simply not possible to side-step this ultimate question of vision.
Government Orders
That is what the referendum will be all about. Is our vision of Canada based on unity or is it based on division?
In the most simple of all terms that is what we shall each be expressing in the voters booths on referendum day: our own vision of Canada, securely unified or dangerously divided. We simply must not deceive ourselves about that question and the responsibility for each one of us to vote yes for the Canada accord and support a solution that will keep our country whole or to realize that in voting no we are accepting the prospects of continued deep division and probably even disintegration within Canada as we know it.
The day of judgment and decision for Canada will come quickly upon us.
The entire thrust and spirit of the referendum campaign will be to ask Canadians if they are prepared to place a priority on the context of the country as a whole and to accept the principles of the Canada accord which have been reached to make unity possible.
As I have said, the challenge before us is not simply to make some selective choice among individual elements of the accord, but rather to lift our sights and our judgments to the future of Canada in its entirety. Those alternatives, yes or no, are competing visions. For the destiny of Canada we must each accept the solemn responsibility to make our choice between them.
For me and my house, and I believe for most citizens in my constituency, we shall choose to stand proudly for a united Canada.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, after two years of the widest possible consultation in the history of Canada, through the Spicer commission, the Charest committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee of which I was a member, we now have a unanimous agreement by 17 people consisting of the Prime Minister, the 10 premiers, two territorial and four aboriginal leaders.
The Charlottetown agreement goes far beyond the Meech Lake accord which for a time also had unanimous agreement. It goes beyond Meech Lake in its extensive consultation process, through its involvement with literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians and through the participation of our aboriginal peoples.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
Further, the Charlottetown agreement goes beyond Meech Lake in that it provides a clear definition of the distinct society clause and its guarantee of protection for our two official language communities both in Quebec and across Canada.
There are billboards across Canada that carry the words "My Canada includes Quebec". I would go further and agree with the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who earlier in this debate said: "It is not just that my Canada includes Quebec, but for me there is no Canada without Quebec".
I would also add that this agreement with its distinct society clause, its protection of our two linguistic communities, the new division of powers, as well as the limitation of the unilateral use of the federal spending powers, is consistent with the vision for Canada of Macdonald and Cartier.
Both Macdonald and Cartier grasped the fundamental reality and secret of Canada, that of two founding peoples, English and French speaking, working harmoniously together while respecting each other's language, culture, religion, and civil codes.
Not only is this agreement consistent with the 1867 British North America Act, but it is also in harmony with our history and with other acts such as the Quebec Act, 1774, and the Canada Act, 1791.
The agreement goes far beyond Meech Lake in that all 10 provinces and the federal government are now correcting a long-standing historical problem through the recognition of the inherent right to self-government of our aboriginal people.
Additionally the agreement's process and focus is different. Meech Lake attempted to correct a past omission for a province. The Charlottetown agreement corrects that omission and focuses on the Canada of the future.
The details of the agreement are very important. I hope every Canadian will read them, but when they are read I hope every Canadian will seriously consider the months and months of deliberation and discussion, of debate and compromise, and do what the 17 individuals did in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992, and what the Fathers of Confederation did beginning at Charlottetown in 1864 through to 1867. That is to put their own agendas and preferences aside and make them secondary
to the national interest and to the needs of a strong united Canada.
I am disappointed that the preamble that was unanimously recommended by all 30 members of the House and Senate on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee was not accepted by the required seven out of 10 premiers. Nevertheless I want to publicly thank the Prime Minister who tried both in late July and again in Charlottetown to gain acceptance of that preamble. I am also disappointed that property rights were not added to the agreement for inclusion in the charter of rights. Who in this House can forget Boris Yeltsin's words to us on June 19 of this year when he said that one of the key reforms to rebuilding Russia and the democratic rights of its people would be to add the right to private property to their new constitution.
I am also disappointed that section 121, the economic union clause, was not significantly modernized and strengthened. I am however pleased that the Prime Minister and the premiers have agreed to revisit that weakness as a top priority item once the agreement has been ratified.
I am sure that all 295 members of this House and all 26 million Canadians would each have written a slightly different version of the agreement and that none would be totally alike, but I whole-heartedly endorse this agreement. It is a result of hard work and of compromise in the best sense of that word, of democratically elected representatives from all levels of government, from all regions and territories, from all political parties and involving our aboriginal people. That is why I will support the agreement.
However, the details of the agreement alone are not what this vote is all about. This vote on October 26 is about Canadians participating in a process to get Canada working again. The question is very sharp and unequivocal, requiring a simple yes or no. The issue is clear: continue or terminate.
I also believe it is not fear-mongering to simply put the stark reality of what a no vote could mean. A no answer could set in motion an irreversible unravelling of our national fabric of health care, education, transportation, social services, justice system, business cohesion, fiscal integrity and national defence. All the essential ingredients of our country would be at risk and could ultimately be compromised.
September 10, 1992

We owe it to ourselves and future generations to look beyond the details of this agreement and recognize the ultimate outcome of a no answer.
Let me say that I am the son of immigrants who fled the Soviet Union and came to Canada in 1923. My parents taught me to love Canada, to thank God for Canada and to work for the people of this great land, the best in the world. We know that and now the United Nations is saying that as well.
Canadians do not do much flag waving. In fact we complain far too much and we are far too cynical about ourselves and of our great nation. But October 26 gives us a chance to brag a bit, to feel good again and to purge some of the cynicism and some of the poison from our system and say yes to Canada and to say yes to our future. We owe that to ourselves and we owe that to the rest of the world that looks to Canada and to Canadians as a beacon of hope, good will, tolerance and common sense in a world that desperately needs those qualities.
To close, I would like to quote from George Brown who in 1865, during the American Civil War, said: "We are endeavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties that have plunged others into all of the horrors of civil war. Have we not then cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles?"
Canadians have found a better way. On October 26 we can vote yes and continue in that tradition of the better way in which we can build one another up as fellow Canadians.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, newspapers like La Presse in Quebec have already printed surveys which show that half the people who would have voted yes to that agreement would have done so because they were fed up with the constitutional debate. I was particularly shocked to hear, a few weeks ago, people like Bourassa, Mulroney and Clark, the ones who proposed that agreement, say that Canadians were fed up with the constitutional debate and that that could be used as an argument. That strategy has surely worked because nearly half the people who would vote yes would do so not because they believe the agreement is a good one, but rather because they are fed up with the constitutional debate. Constitutional weariness is what I want to talk about today
Government Orders
because it is a fact. It is affecting not only those who may find the agreement unsatisfactory, but also those who oppose this particular deal. Constitutional weariness is affecting everybody. One thing is sure: we are suffering from constitutional weariness. But could it have to do with the length of the debate? Could it be due to constant and persistent lying on the part of the leaders who prepared this agreement? Are we going to ask the people of Quebec to vote for this agreement because we feel they have had it up to here with unkept promised? Is that what we have in mind?
Let me tell you straight out what I think. If people are suffering from constitutional weariness-not so much the fact of being fed up with the Constitution or a particular piece of legislation but that of being tired of being taken for a ride and lied to by politicians elected to make decisions-it is because these very politicians, often for the sake of playing for time, talk absolute nonsense, loosing any credibility in the eyes of the people.
They may well end up sickening the people. Then to turn around and ask them to vote for this agreement, just because they have had enough of the lies they have been hearing for the past seven or eight years, up to thirty years in some instances, that is a bit much. I do not fall for it and, come voting day, I am convinced that the people of Quebec will not fall in that trap either.
This reminds me of an issue that has been one hot issue in Quebec for the longest time, and that is public funding. You remember, Mr. Speaker, do you not? You had even spoken in support of it at the time. You may also recall that it was one the main themes of the Mulroney government platform in the last campaign. As a matter of fact, it was used as an umbrella to prevent the scandals they were plagued with from getting out of hand during the campaign.
At the very end of the campaign, three days before polling day, the Prime Minister solemnly promised the people of Quebec, and it made the headlines in La Presse, that he would establish democratic public funding the very next day following his re-election. How did he play for time after that? He set up committees and commissions then waited a few months. When complaints about him not keeping his word started flying again, he said: "This is a somewhat complicated issue.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
We are going to strike a royal commission of inquiry." The Lortie commission went to great lengths for some three years I guess, to buiy the problem. Today the Prime Minister operates under the assumption that the people do not remember. He thinks that the people are so fed up that they will have forgotten. He thinks he can go before the people in the next election and tell them: "No, this is no longer valid". He believes that is the way of keeping his credibility intact. But that is not the way things work in the real world. Next time around the people of Quebec will pay the Prime Minister back for his constant lying. They will give him a ticket, all right, a one-way ticket. That is how you thank people who deceive you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon, member, but I notice that he has referred to lies and lying on four occasions already. I believe it is contrary to parliamentary practice to ascribe such intentions to our colleagues. I would therefore urge him to be more careful from now on.


François Gérin: As I was saying, the people will remember. With regard to the constitutional agreement, this one point in particular.
Mr. Bourassa told us, I do not know how many times, from the beginning that there would never be an equal Senate where Quebec would have the same weight as Prince Edward Island, which is as big as my riding and has almost the same population, a Senate where Quebec would have as much clout as Newfoundland, for example, or any other province. Quebec will never be treated like the rest of the province. He told us that constantly, all the time. He repeated it. Today he accepts it. People are fed up, disgusted, but I do not think that is a reason to vote for the agreement. I do not think that is a reason.
Both the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec told us that Quebec's five conditions for repairing the affront of 1982, the five minimum conditions of Meech, would be guaranteed and there would never be less than that. It was a prerequisite, a precondition.
Three years ago, the Prime Minister began the downward slide into accepting anything with the Charest commission. Mr. Bourassa signed this agreement or this offer from English Canada. They have completely broken their promises. Mr. Bourassa said that he would
never negotiate again with 10 partners. This time he did not negotiate with 10 but with 16.
Today, with a decision to make for or against the agreement, the same Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Mulroney ask Quebecers to vote for it not because it is good but because they have had enough. So much so that the Conseil du patronat du Quebec says today that we will have to vote for it but without enthusiasm. We will have to vote for it because it is the best we can hope for. That does not mean it is good. There will be nothing better. We are not worth much, are we? Then he adds: "Why couldn't we have more? Well, when you have to negotiate with 16 others, it is very hard to come up with a good agreement". It comes down to that. He says: "Well, we will support it".
We have had 30 years of debate on the Canadian Constitution. In the 1980 referendum, Quebecers were told to vote no, to vote against the question put to them and we would have a renewed federalism in which Quebec would have a place of honour. What happened? A year and a half later English Canada, in Quebec's absence, came up with a constitution that forced Quebec to take its punishment. It was an affront, a slap in the face. That was the answer.
We wanted to correct that affront with an agreement. Today we are told: "Well, you will have to take it. It will be enough. It is better than nothing. We cannot offer you more". Do you think Quebecers will accept that just because they are fed up with the constitutional debate? Personally, I think we can do better.
When we are fed up with something and have had it we must consider why. The reason we are disgusted is people have not been able to keep their promises. They say one thing one day and something else the next. They are politicians who cannot be trusted any more. All the polls show that throughout Canada, in Quebec but also across Canada, people have lost confidence in their institutions. Why? For those reasons.
I really hate that so-called agreement. It bothers me. It makes me sick, but I cannot vote for it by saying that will be the end of all that. I cannot sweep it under the rug like that. None of the problems raised by Quebec is solved by that agreement.
September 10, 1992

The agreement itself contains 79 points still to be discussed. They even wrote that. On the one hand they say: "You must vote for this agreement because you are sick of hearing about it". They say we should vote for the agreement because it is time we went on to other things, but on the other hand, they say there are still 79 items to discuss and finalize. Anyone who thinks the constitutional debate will end on October 26 when people vote in favour of the agreement is greatly mistaken. The leaders on the yes side are making a case based on arguments that are totally misleading. I am shocked and appalled.
The Bloc Quebecois, however, offers a valid alternative, to tell people the truth. Bloc leader Lucien Bouchard gave up ministerial privileges including staff, additional allowances and a limousine. Bloc members also gave up a lot of privileges such as trips abroad. My friends opposite know exactly what I mean. On the other hand they now have a chance to tell people the truth and nothing but.
Today the truth is yes, we are fed up with the constitutional debate; yes, 30 years of this is more than enough; and yes, some people are incapable of making decisions when they are supposed to. There are governments that govern by opinion polls, their only interest being in getting re-elected when election time come up, which applies both to the Mulroney government and the Bourassa government. However, some people realize that and will say no to the agreement because they are sick and tired of this kind of treatment.
We can hardly be expected to applaud in a supine position. Why should we applaud the fact that we have to get down on our knees? I think that is beneath our dignity.
Why should Quebec, which is demanding a number of historic rights, accept this agreement and say yes? Quebec has at least as many rights as the aboriginal people. The point is that Quebec's historic rights are extremely important. We cannot sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. There are a number of issues that are extremely important. If our leaders, our first ministers, are unable to meet their commitments, to keep their promises, to respect Quebec as it is and in such a way
Government Orders
that Quebec will feel at home in Canada and will again become a part of the Canadian family, with honour and enthusiasm, to quote the Prime Minister, if they cannot do that then they should get out, and If they do not go willingly there will be an election pretty soon.
Next year there will be a federal election, and there will probably be a number of elections at the provincial level as well. Then we will be able to deal with the real problems, because we are not getting anywhere here in the House.
We are being asked to approve an agreement without any kind of legal text. We are given a document that is not a final text and we are told that the final version will not be ready until Christmas, but just the same we are being asked to approve this one on October 26.
Why the hurry all of a sudden when the Charest committee, the Spicer commission, Castonguay-Dobbie and Beaudoin-Dobbie met for months and this was in addition to the constitutional conferences? All of a sudden we are confronted with a non-definitive draft agreement, no text, and it is all very urgent. As members of this House neither I nor my colleagues have been asked to work on this text. It was drafted without any consultation with Parliament. The best face they can put on this is to say: "Vote for this agreement because it is the best we can do. In any case, you are so fed up you might as well vote in favour of the agreement to get rid of the whole thing".
I am sure Quebecers will pronounce a resounding no to this proposal and this charade.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be able to speak on this historic occasion. Like many Canadians I have roots in all parts of Canada. When my father emigrated from Russia he landed in Montreal, moved on to Winnipeg, and settled in Edmonton. My mother was bom in southern Quebec. I was bom in Alberta, my wife was bom in British Columbia, my daughters lived in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. I have aunts, uncles, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, nieces and nephews in every part of Canada.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
For me, the loss and cutting off of one part of Canada would mean the loss and cutting off of part of my family. I, as a Canadian, will not allow this to happen. That is why I am supporting the accord reached in Charlottetown.
I am one of these people who has had some unique opportunities. I have been a negotiator for unions. I have also been a negotiator for management. I have negotiated on both sides. I have made recommendations to principals to accept the outcomes of negotiations on numerous occasions. Not once were those recommendations based on the fact that I had got everything I wanted, that I had got everything I had asked for, wished for, or dreamed for; or that the deal was perfect or that was going to be the last time there was going to be discussion about it. Contracts, like constitutions, are living. They are not static and they will evolve. However, I made recommendations based on the premise that at this time that was the best deal I could arrive at.
For me, the constitutional accord had a number of bottom lines. It had things which I felt had to be there for me to support it. There were five of them in particular. Some other minor ones, but five in particular. First, there had to be justice for our aboriginal people.
For 200 years we have kept the aboriginal peoples from controlling their own lives and their own destiny. We have stopped them from fulfilling their potential, fulfilling it in their own way and within their own culture and values. This constitutional agreement, through its recognition of the inherent right to self-government, meets my concerns to allow for justice for our first peoples. The fact that the aboriginal peoples will also be guaranteed seats in the Senate strengthens their rights and recognizes their special status in Canada.
The second point that this constitution had to include was what we call a social charter. There had to be some recognition that Canadians had social rights within this country, and this agreement does that. I am most pleased to see that it sets out policy objectives. The first is providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible. Right now in British Columbia that is very important because our medical association has gone on record stating that it does not support those five
principles of public medicare. They are now enshrined in the Constitution.
It provides for adequate social services and benefits to ensure reasonable access to housing, food and other basic necessities. It provides an objective for quality education, both primary and secondary. For me and people who have been involved in labour, it recognizes the rights of workers to organize and to be collectively represented. It recognizes the need to preserve and sustain the integrity of the environment, not only now but in the future.
It met my concerns around the second point, guarantees for social rights.
My third bottom line was to abolish that abomination of a non-elected Senate. We are in a democratic society in which we are still being governed by people who are appointed in a manner that is reminiscent of colonialism and the landed property rights of the wealthy. There is nothing more insidious than that other place has been over the years. It is an anachronism in a democracy. No other modem democracy would have tolerated it for the length of time that Canadians have.
This agreement finally abolishes the non-elected Senate. It provides us with an elected Senate that equally represents the provinces and has a meaningful role in the government of this country.
My fourth requirement was that this Constitution, and I am sorry that the previous speaker has had to leave, gives Quebec the tools and resources it needs to maintain itself as a distinct society in terms of its language and its culture.
I visited Quebec on many occasions and I love it. I love it because it is French. It is a different culture and a different society. That is what makes it so valuable. It is the one thing that I sometimes cannot understand when I talk to people, particularly people from the Reform Party. They seem not to understand that the very thing that makes Quebec so valuable to Canada is that it is different, that it is distinct, that it does have a different culture and a different language. It is like a part of a family. If everybody in the family was the same, you would not value them. You value them because they are individual, they are different, and they are distinct. That is the value we place on Quebec.
September 10, 1992

This Constitution gives Quebec those tools.
Fifth, particularly important for me with my concern for social justice and social programs, was that the federal government had to have been left with the power to institute new national programs such as day care. This constitutional agreement makes it clear that it can.
It is still going to take a government that has the will to do it. Simply because it is permitted within a Constitution does not mean that it will automatically be done. It will take a government that has the will.
Yes, there are things that I do not like about this agreement, things that fell short of what I would have liked to see. Quite frankly I am disappointed that the federal government is surrendering so much of its responsibility in the area of social housing. There is a need for social housing programs and policies that are nation-wide and uniform.
I would have liked it if the needs and wishes of the handicapped and the visible minorities were better addressed. I certainly would have liked it if issues around promotion of gender equality were addressed more strongly in the Constitution, and felt that they could have been.
That is always what happens when you go into negotiations, you do not get everything you want. On balance you have to make a decision.
My householder is coming out. It is already being printed. I would like to read what I am saying to my constituents of Surrey North which is, as everybody knows, the fastest growing riding in Canada. It consists now of 55,000 households.
As I write, a national referendum is being planned on the constitutional proposals agreed to by the first ministers and now being considered by Parliament.
I urge you to take part in the debate accompanying the referendum and to make an informed voting choice.
The constitutional process has been long and arduous but B.C. has made gains through a more equal Senate and a total of seven new House of Commons seats between now and the 1996 census redistribution.
My own choice is to accept the agreement. I have many reservations but the social charter, the recognition of native self-government and increased B.C. power in the House of Commons are clear advances.
We cannot start from scratch yet again and hope to retain one country-
Vaughn Palmer, writing in The Vancouver Sun of Aug. 28, said: "This accord represents a defeat for separatism and it will allow our
Government Orders
leaders to get on with issues like economic recovery. For those reasons alone, the deal is a good thing and we ought to accept it".
I want to say one other thing. I am not worried about the no forces being led in the province of British Columbia by the Reform Party or by the carpings of people like Gordon Wilson, the provincial leader of the Liberal Party. However, I am very much concerned about the bickering and sniping of the Tory caucus from British Columbia against the premier of B.C.
That is the only way that the referendum will be defeated in British Columbia. I urge them to unequivocally stand up, each and every one of the Tory caucus, and declare that they are fully behind this accord and fully behind the premier of British Columbia so that we may all move forward with this constitutional deal. As Vaughn Palmer says: "For those reasons alone, the deal is a good thing and we ought to accept it".


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, it is a very great privilege for me to stand in the House today and participate in this very important debate.
It seems to me after listening to some of the speeches that surely the truest test of democracy is its ability to withstand dissent. In this Canadian discussion we have certainly had many opposing points of view to bring forward. However, in spite of all that, on August 28 in Charlottetown Canada's first ministers and the territorial and aboriginal leaders finally reached a consensus on a number of constitutional reforms.
The path to this consensus was a long one with many stops for consultation and reflection along the way. However, I suppose that is the way it should be, because nation-building is a never-ending journey.
This journey that Canadians embarked upon to make Canada whole again and to revitalize our federation has been a long and sometimes a difficult one. There have been set-backs; there have even been set-tos. Throughout the journey all of us who had the honour and the privilege of participating in the process were inspired by one single goal, that at the end of the day if we listened to Canadians and heard what they themselves had to tell us then surely the outcome would be a stronger, more united, more modem Canada.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
We are close to achieving that objective. On October 26 Canadians will have an opportunity to express their views on the consensus for constitutional accord that was reached and on issues that will change the fundamental laws of our land.
Consensus itself does not reflect any individual idea of perfection. Instead it is an agreement representing the majority view after all sides have been heard and have been listened to and after all issues have been thoroughly discussed. Consensus building is the modem and civilized way to deal with opposing viewpoints.
The other old way involved conflict, anger, bitterness, all those emotions that lead us blindly and ultimately to destruction. Those engaged in building consensus know that their personal opinions, their own dearly held convictions are at risk of being lost in the search for an accord that everyone can accept.
In this discussion there is no question that the me's and I's are irrelevant. What is relevant here is the common good. Certainly the August accord reflects most of the constitutional aspirations that Canadians themselves have articulated over the past number of years and months. Canadians certainly have been articulate in this particular Canada round.
Let me just tell you a little bit about some of the consultations. It began with the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. Some 400,000 Canadians were heard. Then the special joint committee on the amending formula heard testimony from 209 witnesses and received over 500 briefs from 450 groups and individuals.
The results of these initiatives played a very important role in shaping the 28 proposals the federal government put forward last September in Shaping Canada's Future Together. This then was referred to the 30-member Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada I had the privilege of co-chairing.
Of course my committee travelled across Canada. We visited small and large communities. We heard from Canadians from all walks of life in all stations. That was part of the fulfilment of our mandate to get advice from people across the country on the government's proposals. Some 3,000 concerned individuals and groups took
the time to send written submissions to the committee and another 700 appeared before us as witnesses.
The committee also initiated a series of government-sponsored conferences that involved 1,500 participants including interest groups, academics, civil servants from various levels of government, and perhaps most important but certainly most especially, ordinary Canadians. All of this led to the final unanimous report by the committee that was tabled on February 28.
Then, of course, each of the provinces and territories held constitutional hearings. The aboriginal community itself participated in the discussion and held hearings across the land.
Equipped with the results of these extensive individual consultations and dialogue, federal, provincial and territorial leaders, and for the first time in Canadian history, aboriginal leaders from Canada's four aboriginal associations met as equal partners and looked for a consensus that was already emerging.
Throughout this phase of the Canada round, reality and flexibility were the watchwords that carried the day. We had learned from the Meech Lake process that closing doors does not open minds. At the end of each day after the negotiations, people came out and said what they thought, mentioned where they had made progress, expressed their concern and involved the public in the discussions that were going on.
On July 7 unanimous agreement on the principles of constitutional reform were reached. This opened the doors that allowed Quebec to come to the table for a first ministers' conference.
Finally on August 22, after extensive discussion, the Prime Minister announced the premises and principles of this particular accord had been achieved. The first ministers, the aboriginal leaders, the territorial leaders had reached a fair and workable consensus.
I think it is very important to remember all of these things as we proceed to the debate over the referendum question, the question on the Charlottetown accord.
We must also remember consensus does not respond to any particular interest. Consensus responds to the common interest, and the common interest at hand in this particular case is to unite our diverse federation with
September 10,1992

the threads of the agreement that were spun from the consensus at Charlottetown.
It worries me greatly when I hear interest groups making statements that spurn the accord because their particular agendas are not being met. I remind all of you whose interests may not have been specifically addressed that this is not the final constitutional round. I remind you the Constitution is a living tree with roots going deep into our past to find nourishment and growth for the future.
There will be another chance. In the meantime of course we are all protected by the kind of country Canada is, by its social order, by the genesis in the British parliamentary system and the guarantees that are already contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No single interest can prevail in this particular discussion.
As I said before, there will be other times for compelling interests still to be heard and ultimately entrenched in the Constitution if it is proven they are for the greater good of our country and our society.
Let us turn now to what is in the accord. The first thing that strikes me as I read the document is that it is an affirmative document. It is a document that is positive and expresses things that say yes.
It is an affirmative statement about the interdependence of the partners in the Canadian federation. It is an affirmative statement about Quebec's right to remain in Canada while maintaining its language and its custom of civil law, both of which created a distinct, unique culture. I might just say this distinctiveness lends character to all of us as Canadians as well. I do not think any Canadian who thinks about it for very long will agree that Canada would be Canada without Quebec.
The Charlottetown consensus is also an affirmation or statement about the kind of nation we are, a parliamentary democracy wherein people respect and care for each other and where we draw strength from our diversity and from our individuality. It is an affirmative statement about our ability to be flexible about our institutions, open to changes that respond to the imperatives of the times.
Government Orders
It seeks to rebalance the sharing of power, to maintain the integrity of a strong federal government in a federal system. It seeks to empower first peoples by returning to them their right to determine their own affairs. It seeks to address an old and compelling sense of alienation and regional imbalance through changes to the Senate and through entrenched first ministers' conferences where matters of the federation can be addressed in a regular and more productive basis.
These are the issues, the important premises and principles that Canadians must keep in mind as we go through the next weeks of this discussion about the particular question at hand. It is important that we not be side-tracked by single special interests. It is important we set aside our special interests in the pursuit of a common goal.
We also must resist the temptation to get bogged down in wrangling over details or even more interestingly, get caught up in the fascinating but often unproductive exercise of constitutional hair-splitting.
When all is said and done most of us want the same things. We want fairness, equality, freedom, respect, prosperity, and the ability to have a say in the things and decisions that will affect us. Most of us want desperately to keep this country together because these are the things that Canada stands for. These are the things that are reaffirmed in this constitutional accord.
As we have heard before perhaps we do not have perfection here, but if it is not perfection, at least we know it is an honest attempt by honest men and women and by honest people everywhere in Canada to build a better country, one that will last for a millennium, a country for the future.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise to the debate on the referendum and the Constitution of Canada, the renewed Canada's Constitution.
This debate is not about our past; this debate is about our future. It is about reordering our constitutional priorities in a way that will better reflect who and what we are as a nation and what we want to become.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
In the process of finding solutions many different options were put forward. The agreement reached between federal, provincial and territorial governments and the representatives of aboriginal Canadians is not the perfect solution to all our problems. Everyone recognizes that fact and it has been stated over and over again in the House.
Many of us on both sides of this House have many questions about different aspects of this new arrangement. For example, there is no national economic union clause. That begs for more discussion.
Of course many would say it is an imperfect Senate because there is a trade-off there. Effectiveness is traded off for equality in the number of seats. Delay in the justiciability of self-government to five years rather than immediacy. Perhaps too great a shift to the provinces and the weakening of the federal government's role and the true meaning of a strong central government.
Some problems of course are referred to with the ambiguity of the words in the question itself which states "on the basis of" and means that the Charlottetown accord will be subject to interpretation by several different governments.
However, I personally believe that the deficiencies of this constitutional package do not outweigh its many positive aspects. For that reason, I intend to encourage the support of this agreement and encourage all Canadians, northerners, aboriginal people, women, minority groups, all Canadians to vote yes on the referendum on October 26.
It seems clear to me and to most other Canadians that after several years of trying and after the failure of the last attempt to reach a constitutional consensus, this proposal is the best we can expect.
I have personally been involved in several rounds of constitutional discussions. I have learned a lot and I pay tribute to those members of Parliaments, the people who provided legal advice from the various departments and from our party's perspective and to the senators who have the accumulative experience to have shared with us. It has been an honour to serve with people like Senator MacEachen and to learn from these people who have been through numerous rounds on the Constitution.
I was on the Charest committee and the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee. I have also had some dealings with the Meech Lake accord and with the last first minister's conference which I feel was a dismal failure, not just a failure for individuals but a failure for this country. It was a failure for First Nations and a failure for northerners.
I always said that I would accept Meech Lake amended and I believe what we have with this particular consensus is Meech plus. I am satisfied the aspirations of the north will be met because with the Northwest Territories we wanted to have the pre-1982 conditions prevail for the creation of new provinces and this deal gives us that.
We have a yes team in the Northwest Territories. I spoke to the Minister for Aboriginal Rights and Constitutional Development who has worked very hard for the north and the aspirations of northern peoples. He definitely agrees with this consensus that we have reached and would support what was agreed to in Charlottetown.
We also have a premier in the north, Nellie Cour-noyea, who worked very hard. We had Rosemary Kupta-na from the Northwest Territories who is the president of ITC. We also have Roger Gruben, president of the Inuvialuit Development Regional Corporation, who is also very instrumental. We also have John A. I always call John Amagoalik John A, the other John A, who also played a role in numerous rounds of the Constitution. We have Gary Bohnet who represents the Metis First Nations in the Northwest Territories.
These people have made a significant contribution. We have other people who have contributed from the north who have contributed as well. Because I am a northerner, I have to speak of northerners. These people are Mary Simon from northern Quebec who is adviser to Rosemary Kuptana. We have Francoise Paulet who participated in the AFN's national circle on Constitution.
I want to say that I feel that after numerous rounds on the Constitution we have come to a point, come to a position where we have to say this is good enough. This is as good as it can get.
I am prepared to make that commitment. I am prepared to stand with my party and with my people and say that if we proceed to open up this whole can of worms again we stand to lose everything. I believe we have achieved a lot on the inherent right to self-govem-
September 10, 1992

ment. We have the four national leaders to thank for that.
We have the Assembly of First Nations Chief, Ovide Mercredi, we have Ron George from the Native Council of Canada. We also have Yvon Dumont from the Metis and we have Rosemary Kuptana from the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.
Northerners and aboriginal people have made a significant contribution to what will become the renewed Canada. Aboriginal Canadians love this country. They love this land. They use this land. The rivers are not just scenery. The mountains are not just to look at. They are there because the aboriginal people claim title. The reason they claim title and the reason that aboriginal people find it unacceptable to extinguish their rights is that they really believe that if you utilize the land, if you respect it, you cannot be separated from it. That to us is what is Canada.
I am proud today to say: "Canada, you have my support. My people are important to me. This country is important to me. As aboriginal people we are going to contribute. There were many concessions that were made on all sides, but I have to tell you, Canada, you have my yes".


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it is with honour and with great pleasure that I stand here today to take part in this historic debate on the Charlottetown accord. At the end of the day we will have the vote that will be set down in history.
I would like to take this opportunity to join with my colleagues in the House in congratulating the minister for constitutional affairs, the member for Yellowhead, for his work. It has been a hard road for him as well as for all Canadians, but we now see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I believe that when one looks at the positive side, and there are many positive factors, of the whole constitutional debate that has taken place in recent months, one can only conclude that it has brought us closer together and has made us more aware of one another.
This proposal is a result of numerous forums and public meetings, national and regional consultations with aboriginals, women's groups, with all kinds of organizations and business interests. As the Leader of the
Government Orders
Opposition said Tuesday, we have been consulting on the Constitution since 1980.
I can report that many of my constituents took the time to tell me of their feelings about Canada and what follows is a summary of those. We now have completed the consultation process and we are at the pinnacle of our democratic system, the preparation necessary for holding a national referendum.
In April 1991 the Leader of the Opposition proposed the use of a referendum. I am extremely pleased that the federal government took the initiative to utilize this process.
We have been committed to this process every step of the way. The polls indicated that Canadians wanted a referendum and now each and every one of them will have the opportunity to help decide this country's future. October 26, 1992 will give every Canadian an incredible sense of pride to be able to mark their ballot.
The outcome of the October 26 vote will be a yes to Canada, a yes to a stronger and much better Canada.
Canadians are eager to turn the page on the Constitution. They are anxious to deal with another ailment, the economy. We have record unemployment in this country and we are facing many new challenges as we prepare for the 21st century. Now we will have the tools to face these new challenges as the country will function as a unit, as a team.
I realize that time does not permit me to speak on all the points that I wish to, but I would like to address a few issues. I am pleased that our initiative to have a Canada clause has been accepted and that it ensures a commitment by all Canadians to the future of this country. The commitment to linguistic duality also gives the two official linguistic groups an opportunity to flourish and to guarantee under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the protection of individuals' rights.
For all of us, economic union is of the utmost importance. How can we expect to be competitive in the world market when we cannot resolve our country's interprovincial barriers? It is difficult to understand that we can have a free trade agreement with the United States and we can be taking part in negotiations on NAFTA, and yet interprovincial trade has met with numerous obstacles with no agreement in sight. We must become united economically. I strongly believe that protectionism de-

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
feats to a certain extent the spirit of the Charlottetown agreement.
In 1982 the Liberal Party enshrined in its constitution the inherent right for native self-government. I am very pleased that since then the concept has evolved and many first nation communities are prepared to determine and to control their destiny according to their values and traditions. However, this objective can only be attained if the federal government and the provincial governments supply them with the economic tools favouring a balanced development of the communities.
I do have some reservations about the Senate. I really question the logic behind the allocation of senators. Do we really need a Senate in its proposed form? If we are to have a Senate we must ensure that it is useful, that it has adequate powers to be effective. Moreover, I fail to see how a senator could emulate his duties as a legislator as well as answer his constituents' needs. For example, a senator in my province of Ontario would have well over 1.5 million people to serve. It is not humanly possible to do both jobs adequately. It should be revisited, as it needs much improvement.
For the time being we have come a long way and years down the road we will look back with pride and a sigh of relief at this period in history. Once again I would like to say that I am pleased that on October 26 Canadians will be voting in a national referendum. Canadians will, once and for all, put the record straight by voting to strengthen the bonds that bind our regions together and retain this country called Canada.
This morning I was standing in my office and on the wall I have a framed copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The quote at the end of the charter summarizes exactly what we are trying to accomplish: "We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which makes us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy".
We are the envy of the world and I am proud to be a Canadian.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise
in the House in support of this consensus report on the Constitution reached in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992. I am also delighted to be here in the company of members of the House from all sides who are supporting this consensus.
We in Canada are privileged to engage in what is surely one of the most fundamental exercises of democratic tradition, a national referendum on a renewed Constitution, the fundamental document of our democracy.
There are millions of people around the world at this very moment who are not privileged, whose disagreements are settled by bullets instead of by debate, whose freedoms are defined by command instead of by consensus, whose futures depend on the laws of force instead of the force of laws.
As Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs for the past 17 months, I have been honoured to represent Canadians at the most important international organizations in the world, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of American States, to name just a few.

In each of these organizations, Canada's voice is very special and highly respected because it speaks for tolerance, respect for diversity and human rights, progress, prosperity and above all peace and stability.

Our achievements in these regards are reinforced by our actions, whether in the dangerous battlefield surrounding Sarajevo or in the desolation of Somalia. In Cambodia, in the Middle East, in Central America, Asia and in the South Pacific Canada is a welcome intervener, whether as a peacekeeper or a mediator or as a partner in development through trade or through assistance.
There are very few people, citizens of veiy few nations of the world, who are accorded the same passe-partout that is accorded to Canada and to Canadians. We are blessed with a very special measure of goodwill from virtually all of the peoples of the world. This goodwill does not show up in our national accounts, certainly not directly, but it is a very real part of our national heritage,
September 10, 1992

a heritage that we have built as Canadians together, one that is shared by all Canadians.
When the nations of the world see Canada, they do not see a collection of provinces. They see one country, Canada; a country where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. When they hear Canadian voices at international meetings they do not question the fact that we speak English or French or a combination. They hear the voice of one country, Canada, and they know the message they are hearing is an important one.
When Canadian teachers or athletes or business people go abroad, people in their host countries do not ask if they are aboriginal or first generation or second generation. They are welcomed as the citizens of one country, Canada.
At the United Nations the face of Canada is a francophone woman from Montreal. Our face in Latin America is a man from McLennan, Alberta, and at NATO it is a native from Ontario who speaks for all Canadians.
The faces of Canada abroad are much the same as the faces in this Chamber and the faces on our streets and neighbourhoods around this great nation.
These people many times over the past several years of gruelling constitutional negotiations and discussions have time and again been asked: What is happening to Canada? Will Canada stay together?
They will now be able to answer those questions with a resounding yes, Canada will stay together. Yes, Canadians have sorted out their differences in the great Canadian democratic tradition. Yes, Canadians have found new ways to live together in our diversity as neighbours and as friends with dignity and with respect for one another.
Yes, we have reformed our institutions to enhance our democratic principles. Yes, we have provided fundamental justice to our first peoples. Yes, we have rebalanced internal roles and responsibilities to ensure continued progress and prosperity. Yes, we have developed new processes that can be a shining light to those peoples throughout the world who seek sometimes at great cost their own democracy.
Yes, the shining torch of our ideals, our values, our principles can be passed to the next generation and to
Government Orders
many generations to come. Most of all, yes, we have done this despite disagreement, despite tension, through discussion with sensitivity and a sense of compromise with our only weapons: reason and love of country.

It will be a great day for the nations of the world because Canada has always had a reputation as a country that uses democracy to the limit. That it can reach this limit without oppression and bloodshed is a lesson that many other countries will want to learn thoroughly, whatever their own stage of democratic development.
Seeing a modem Canada emerge from this process even stronger and better prepared to face the challenges of the next century, they will be even more inclined to follow us on the paths of peace.
I just said how well disposed other countries in the world are towards Canada. Our great success in resolving our own internal conflicts can only strengthen that good feeling.

Canada and Canadians have never backed down in the face of suffering or adversity, from the Canadian soldiers with roots from all parts of Canada who died in distant places through two world wars, in Korea and in numerous peacekeeping missions, to the proud young men and women who carry the name Canada on their uniforms today to new and dangerous situations.
We have been and will continue to be a force for peace and justice in the world. We are on the verge of achieving inner peace and that will only strengthen our resolve to bring this same gift to the many troubled nations of the world.
Two weeks from today I will have the honour of addressing on behalf of our country the nations of the world at the 47th session of the United Nations General Assembly, an association that Canada was very active in founding. Much of my speech will deal with the quest for peace in the world, for the need for democratic development and the protection of basic human rights.
As I deliver those words in New York my thoughts will be with the thousands of Canadians who serve us around the world and those other thousands of Canadians who participated in our discussions at home through commissions and task forces, whose valuable work and insights

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
ultimately guided the agreement reached in Charlottetown.
They have done a great service not just for Canada but for the world's community of nations. They have wrestled with many of the same problems and shown that there are in fact reasonable and honourable solutions peacefully achieved.
By saying yes to Canada, Canadians will play no small part in establishing a standard for peace and tolerance to be emulated by all the nations of the world.
When I see how other countries are tearing themselves apart through ethnic hatreds, whose roots are lost in the obscure myths of history, I thank God for our country and I thank God for our success in achieving this solution so recently come to that is bringing us even closer together as Canadians. I think as well that were Canada to fail, God help the world.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words here today on behalf of my riding on an issue which future generations will most likely judge to be of great historical importance.
The agreement reached at the Charlottetown conference is the culmination of five years debate and it needs to be supported as a major step toward the evolution of our Constitution.
Previous speakers have mentioned people in their provinces, the Prime Minister has lauded a number of people who have participated in the debate leading up to the agreement, and members of my party and the New Democratic Party have done likewise, but I do not think anyone has mentioned to this point the contribution made by the host of the Charlottetown conference, Premier Joseph A. Ghiz.
Premier Ghiz over the past five years of constitutional debates, successes and failures, has always had the national good first and foremost in mind. The provincial interest of Prince Edward Island he felt would naturally be taken care of if the national good was taken care of first.
He always believed in a country which included all provinces, which included all people within those provinces. He has made an immeasurable contribution to the
success of the Charlottetown agreement and I believe he will be recognized in the future as one of the new fathers of this country.
One of the things which Premier Ghiz agreed to and which still seems to be a centre of debate not only with government members but with members of my own party, was an equal Senate.
Prince Edward Island, regardless of its population and regardless of the fact it has four members of Parliament, is much more than that. There are ridings in this country which are much bigger than Prince Edward Island, there are ridings in this country which have a greater population than Prince Edward Island, but these ridings never were, are not, and never will be provinces.
Prince Edward Island was accepted as a province in 1873 after a number of years of courtship by John A. Macdonald and the other Fathers of Confederation to enter into the Canadian union. Finally they accepted and agreed to become a participant in Confederation and they were accepted as a province by the Fathers and have been a province ever since.
The new concept of the Senate I believe is long overdue. It not only recognizes Prince Edward Island as an equal to our sister provinces, it also will be able to play an effective role because of its legitimacy as an elected body in forming legislation for the eastern region. The Atlantic region and the western region combined will have 80 per cent of the Senate. It says in one of the booklets which were passed out that the Senate could have prevented policies like the National Energy Program and the GST from ever happening. I would think if that is true, and I believe it is true, I believe the reorganization of the Senate is probably three years too late in one regard for Prince Edward Island. If that Senate had been in effect in 1989 the closure of the search and rescue facility in Prince Edward Island and more particularly in St. Eleanor's and Sum-merside would not have happened. I think the Canadian people recognized that particular move as a very unfair policy of a very vindictive government. I think they would have stopped that particular policy move and Prince Edward Island still would have enjoyed a military base as each of the other provinces do.
September 10, 1992

As we know, the federal government and the 10 premiers, the two territorial leaders and the leaders of our aboriginal peoples have come together in an historic, classic Canadian compromise. Rejection of this accord would not guarantee that some time down the road we would have a better deal. What it would guarantee, however, are many more years of tortuous constitutional debate. Canadians have been beaten to death by this constitutional debate.
For the past five long years they have undergone such a constitutional bombardment that now throughout the country there is a desperate cry for relief. Accompanying this cry is a growing demand for action on what is considered the real problems of this country. The people of Canada want this forum here, this House of Commons to get down and address the real day-to-day problems of this country, whether it is the 1.6 million people who are on unemployment insurance, the many more who have given up even looking for work and the many who have had to go to relief or welfare. The people of this country, and I think with good reason, want us to get on with the business of this country, governing this country and creating jobs for the Canadian people.
Despite all these problems that we have had, a few short months ago the UN chose Canada as the best place in the world to live. After 125 years we are now at the top of the heap as far as the 160 most developed countries in the world are concerned. I do not think we are prepared as a people to throw this rating down the drain. There are very few Canadians who do not realize what will happen economically if this particular agreement is not supported.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am prepared in my riding of Egmont to form a non-partisan group of political parties, of Royal Canadian Legions, of businessmen, whatever it takes to make sure that the vote in my particular riding is a positive vote for this country.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown agreement represents the culmination of the most inclusive public political process that this country has ever experienced, a process which is in sharp contrast to the Meech Lake process where we saw
Government Orders
a small group of men cook up a deal behind closed doors. The Charlottetown agreement was preceded by the Spicer commission. It had the input of the Allaire report, the Belanger-Campeau report, the Edwards' committee report, the Beaudoin-Dobbie report, provincial reports, public constitutional forum reports which were held across this country and televised and which included the direct active participation of hundreds and hundreds of Canadians. Last but not least, it includes the recorded opinion of my constituents in Northumberland who responded to constitutional meetings and public forums, surveys and submission requests.
As a Liberal member of the House of Commons, I did not have a personal, direct role in the formulation of the Charlottetown agreement, yet I endorse it. I did have an ample opportunity to input to the Liberal Party of Canada constitutional policy process.
I am especially proud of our leader and our constitutional affairs critic for their leadership in moving the proposal in directions which I believe reflect the history, tradition, values and wishes of the majority of Canadians. Of course they were closely and diligently assisted by other members of our caucus.
I was particularly proud when our leader appeared in 1991 before the Belanger-Campeau commission, the only federal politician to speak unequivocally and forcefully in Quebec in support of a strong, central federal government.
What we have before us today and what we are being asked to vote upon by referendum on October 26 is the so-called Charlottetown agreement, a final constitutional agreement. Because it represents the final consensus of the federal government, 10 premiers, leaders of the territories and aboriginal leaders who reflected upon all the earlier mentioned reports, I believe it has validity as a document and must be seriously considered by all Canadians.
Since the end of last week we have had copies of the actual agreement text as agreed to at the meeting in Charlottetown. The fact that we do not have the legal language translation of this is not in my opinion terribly relevant although cast as essential by those who would oppose supporting this agreement, I suspect for other reasons.
September 10,1992

Government Orders
The agreement in plain English is before us and is available to anyone in the constituency of Northumberland or Canada who wishes a copy. We do want Canadians to be fully informed on what they are being asked to make a decision on October 26.
Although the Charlottetown agreement represents a broad consensus of opinion it is not perfect, but I believe it is not possible to produce the perfect agreement, the perfect agreement to meet all of my concerns and the concerns of each and every Canadian.
Nonetheless, the agreement encompasses some very important principles and values which will enhance the character and well-being of all in our country. It will allow us to take a fresh breath of Canadian air, clear our minds of constitutional legalities, and have a vision of a new prosperous future in Canada and a perspective of Canada's important and respected place in the international community.
I am particularly pleased that the Charlottetown agreement recognizes the inherent rights of our native peoples to self-government. I am pleased that the agreement recognizes Canada's historical heritage of linguistic duality and that it recognizes Quebec's distinctiveness.
The desire of Canadians to encompass all Canadians' heritages and cultures within our mosiac is important. These positive messages must be conveyed to all citizens.
I am, however, disappointed that we did not achieve the economic union we advocated and that the Senate reform falls far short of the ideal. I do believe that much can be done to correct these inadequacies through House of Commons rules and the amending formula encompassed in the agreement.
Canadians will be urged by me to support the Charlottetown agreement. We are all weary of the constitutional issue, as my leader says: "sick to death". We are not going to get a better alternative. We have a culmination of many ideas, visions in this agreement. We do not now have room for destructive prejudice and historical misunderstandings to undermine our achievements to date.
We must get on in this country to deal at the national level with the issues that are crippling and plaguing our country: joblessness, poverty, economic and regional woes of every sort, environmental issues, equity issues and legal issues.
I will work in my riding of Northumberland to continue the public information process begun several months ago. I am promoting the organization in Northumberland of an official yes committee and will encourage all political parties, all groups and individuals who support a yes vote, to participate.
I will hold more public forums in centres such as Port Hope, Cobourg, Colbome, Campbellford, Brighton, and Trenton, much the same as was done by me previously in Northumberland, to get my constituents' views into the constitution development process.
I am anxious to meet with school groups, clubs, organizations, ad hoc groups of constituents at any time between now and October 26 in order to help in building an understanding of the Charlottetown agreement. I am pleased that the Liberal Party request and the wishes of 98 per cent of my constituents for this referendum are being met. Our Northumberland yes committee will endeavour to get a resounding yes to the Charlottetown constitutional agreement and to Canada on October 26.
In closing I would like to remind other Canadians and my constituents of Canada's very special qualities through the words of a constituent, Phetwaney Luan-grath, who arrived in Canada from Southeast Asia as a refugee at age 5 and who now, at 19, won a Cobourg Rotary Club essay on the theme of Canada and national pride. After living a year in a refugee camp in Thailand, she writes:
We had the opportunity to apply to the country in which we wished to live. The countries that one could apply to were the United States, Canada, France and Germany. My family applied to Canada, a place we had heard believed in freedom, dignity, respect, equality and fair treatment and was a country of opportunities. These were all the qualities for which my family was looking.
In conclusion she writes:
I do not think that a parent can do anything more special for their family than bring them to a country of peace and freedom.
Let us all reflect upon the words of this young Canadian. Let us all with open minds endeavour to understand the choice we are being asked to make on October 26, consider the implications of refusal and make an unequivocal choice for a renewed Canada, a land where we envision future generations of Canadians living in peace and freedom and with an abundance of opportunity and well-being for all.
September 10,1992


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the question we should be debating today is: Do you agree to give your governments the mandate of negotiating changes to the Canadian Constitution on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992? Yes or no.
We are really dealing with endless negotiations here. Indeed, in this 60-point agreement, Mr. Jean Allaire from the Quebec Liberal Party picked out 60 points requiring negotiation or clarification following the referendum. What we are really asked for is a mandate to negotiate without a deadline.
I guess that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare and member for Roberval says that he does not want to hear about the Constitution after October 26, that is just his way of telling us he plans to resign, probably in hope of being appointed ambassador, something he has been dreaming of for months.
The question is not whether there will be further negotiations but whether we agree to further negotiations on the basis of the preliminary agreement reached on August 28, 1992. To believe that this referendum will close the constitutional debate is pure nonsense. Especially considering that, under the guise of a democratic process we are asked to surrender all our aspirations. We are asked to accept minority status under federal authority. What the proposal really amounts to for the people of Quebec is the slow death so well described by Mrs. Lise Bissonnette, editor of Le Devoir.
The Prime Minister still dares to talk about honour and dignity. He still dares holding up the Canadian federalism as an example of tolerance where the French language will be protected till kingdom come. He did not make that statement in English, mind you. Two languages, two messages.
In French, this is called demagogy. Saint-Exupery said that demagogy sets in when, in the absence of a common denominator, the principle of equality is cause to degenerate and turn into that of identity.
That is why the Prime Minister is spending tens of millions of our tax dollars in publicity to make us believe that we are Canadians and proud of being Canadians, as
Government Orders
if the pride of a nation could be bought and sold like a box of soap.
Although the target of repeated brain-washing attempts, the vast majority of the people who live in Quebec have grown to become first and foremost Quebecers. That is the true identity we want to affirm. And millions of dollars in publicity cannot change that.
To get along with the rest of Canada, we are not prepared to lose our identity as has been the case for millions of francophones outside Quebec who were assimilated with no regard for their rights.
Let those who describe Canadian federalism as an example of tolerance tell us why Mr. Ovide Mercredi cannot remember that his ancestors spoke French.
We all know that since Confederation, of which the Prime Minister praises the visionary character and the spirit of tolerance, the rights of francophones have been disregarded. In fact, at one time the will to preserve one's francophone identity was even considered high treason.
Louis Riel would be ashamed to find out that more than a hundred years after he was hanged, a simple statement by the House of Commons praising his patriotism would make us forget the real history of intolerance towards francophones in this country.
We can understand that francophones outside Quebec would want to be protected as the minority group which they have become. They have a right to such protection, but Quebecers do not want to be recognized as a minority in Canada: they want to be recognized as a majority in Quebec. They do not want the provisional safeguards that the rest of Canada would deign grant them. They want, today and forever, be the masters of their own future.
Quebecers are no longer merely trying to survive: they are now asserting their full cultural, economic and social potential.
You all know very well that this basic reality is at the root of the recurring political crisis in Canadian federalism.
For Quebecers to assert their cultural, economic and social potential requires an appropriate political frame-

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
work, and there will be no constitutional peace as long as the political institutions will not recognize this need.
We all know that the citizens of the rest of Canada want the federal government, of which they form the majority, to have the right and the power to intervene in all aspects of their cultural, economic and social life. But we also know that, to the extent that Quebecers refuse to give to the federal government the tools necessary to shape their future, we will continue to be in a crisis.
We want to put an end to these endless political and constitutional crises. That is why Quebecers have reached a consensus on an approach and on concrete proposals, through the Belanger-Campeau commission. Among them, those who want to preserve the federal link have made a list of the rights and powers that they want exercised by the National Assembly, and a list of the rights and powers that they want to be exercised by the federal institutions, whereas others have proposed the patriation and devolution of all the rights and powers to the National Assembly, as well as forms of co-operation other than the federal link with the rest of Canada.
The basis for negotiation under the agreement reached on August 28, 1992 does not in any way satisfy the demands of even the federalists in Quebec.
We had reached a large consensus on our future and the decision made by Mr. Bourassa to break this consensus and accept the basis for negotiation proposed by the rest of Canada generates a major crisis in his own party, as well as disapproval among the majority of the population in Quebec. How can he claim that an agreement reached on that basis would put an end to the political crisis and the constitutional debate?
The about-face made by Mr. Bourassa will only increase tensions in Quebec and with the rest of Canada. We must call him to order. Quebecers have the opportunity during this debate to look at various aspects of the negotiation framework proposed in the August 28 agreement.
As financial critic, I am responsible for dealing more specifically with the economic side of these negotiation proposals.
Let us listen to Mr. Bernard Roy, former chief of staff of the Prime Minister and current chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Montreal. He tells
us: "It is obvious that what they are offering is not what the business community was asking for. Providing for a discussion procedure to give Quebec control over some areas of provincial jurisdiction through a five year agreement is not very efficient. And the proposal to give an equal Senate more powers will make the federal government more difficult to manage and less effective."
He then asks himself: "But if such is the price we have to pay to maintain the federal system and prevent the country from breaking up, are we going to turn our backs on this agreement because it creates some kind of monster?"
I still do not know how Mr. Roy will answer his question. I must thank him for having decided, despite his personal friendship with the Prime Minister of Canada, to make public such a clear assessment of the economic aspects of the August 28 proposals.
I can also understand the premier who decided to sell these proposals despite his friends' assessment and who joined forces so quickly with the head of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition in the upcoming referendum campaign. He has chosen his side; let us choose ours.
With the economic challenge facing Montreal and all other regions of Quebec we must not agree to live with a monster just to save an overbearing federalism. On the contrary we must give ourselves political structures meeting the aspirations of both people and allowing them to finally express, without unnecessary and costly obstacles, the economic, cultural and social leadership they are capable of.
Why accept any longer the horrendous costs and inefficiency associated with having two ministries of Science, Technology, Justice, Immigration, Labour, Manpower, Revenue, Industry and Commerce, Financial Institutions, Health and Welfare, Energy and Resources, Agriculture, Environment, Transport, Recreation, Communications, Social Affairs, Regional Development, International Trade and even External Affairs?
This duplication is exceedingly costly for taxpayers and produces well-known horror stories such as a lack of co-ordination, inconsistency and even outright contradiction between programs run by both levels of government. It has become impossible for the taxpayer to know which level of government is responsible for what and to
September 10, 1992

make their elected officials accountable for their decisions.
If we want to stop wasting federal public funds we must take away from the federal government the power to collect and spend our taxes as it sees fit in all areas essential to the development of our cultural, economic and social potential.
Preserving the federal power to collect and spend taxes as proposed in the August 28 agreement means not only giving growth hormones to an exceedingly costly bureaucratic monster but also relinquishing to the federal Parliament, where we will always be a minority, the power to use our taxes to manipulate our development as it sees fit.
Canada must not be developed at the expense of Quebec and its people. We must say no to the unacceptable proposals before us.


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):: Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, dear fellow citizens who are listening to the debates in this House, I must tell you that it is a great privilege for me to have this opportunity to publicly voice my opinion regarding the Charlottetown agreement.
As we all know this unanimous agreement was reached by the leaders of this country after incredible efforts and long negotiations reflecting a sense of belonging to Canada and most of all in keeping with the democratic principles so essential to the survival of a people.
As the former UN Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, said yesterday, our respect for democracy is an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Indeed this Canada where every one is free to express their opinion without having to retort to violence or being its victim is well worth our making together all possible efforts to preserve it. This is really the raison d'etre of the present agreement.
Did you ever wonder why so many people want to become Canadians, Mr. Speaker? The answer to this
Government Orders
question is obvious. A country is a whole, a family. And as in any family, each member has his or her own peculiarities, expectations, needs and idiosyncrasies. If we thought of splitting up whenever there was a disagreement, where would Canadian families be? For me, this agreement is evidence of the necessary adjustments we have to make to allow for the evolution of our community, and we can do it through dialogue and sometimes compromise.
Perfection does not exist in every day life. It is impossible for everything to be perfect in a country, but there are enough positive things to keep it whole and agree to make the necessary changes as we go along.
For far too long we have been talking about constitutional reform without ever reaching an agreement which would allow us to channel our energy toward other important issues. I think that we have done it this time. Canadians, just like us, want to resolve this issue. Ask manufacturers, workers, seniors, mothers or our young people. We are mature enough to finally decide to stand strong and united in this country which is the envy of the world.
The words diversity, distinct character, dignity, honour, compromise, concession, success, strength, nationalism and patriotism are not incompatible, lb the contrary, they are the very essence of the human being, a constructive not destructive human being.
One has to strive for a country of such quality and it is now time for the Canadian people to make their choice known. I therefore commit myself from now on to making sure that my fellow citizens in Quebec-Est will be able to make their choice an informed one and to providing them with all necessary information.
I will explain the content of this agreement to them: the will to recognize the inherent right to self-government of the aboriginal peoples, a concept of justice and equity; the Senate reform, a concept of efficiency; all the implications of the Canada clause; the social and economic union; the changes affecting the Supreme Court; the representation in the House of Commons; the First Ministers' Conferences; the amending formula and any other questions. I will inform them.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
The cultural wealth of Canada is recognized all over the world. We are lucky enough to have this great territory to share with people who profess different values, have various ways of thinking and speak different languages. That reality must be entrenched once and for all in our Constitution so that we never have to relive the negative experiences of the past.
This being said, I must add that my intention is not to delve into the past; I am eager to go forward and to prepare the future for our senior citizens, for our own generation and for our children and grandchildren. All parents at one time say to a child: "don't get angiy that way, try to understand your brothers; go kiss and make up".
This sentence is an exact image of what Canadians are: peaceloving people who care for the quality of life they have acquired over the years in this country which is dear to them.
I want to remind my fellow citizens that the agreement reached in Charlottetown is the necessary tool for this renewal that can no longer wait. I do not want my family to be subjected to a weakening of any kind. This is why in 19841 decided to run in my riding of Quebec-Est. At that time I put all my faith in the Prime Minister. Some were talking about a "risk worth taking". As for me, I preferred to talk about this very determined man with an incredible sense of honor. The years have shown that I only knew part of the strength of that man and I want to pay tribute to him today for all that he has done for us and for our country.
I will end with this motto: Vox populi, vox dei. [English]


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual debate in that apart from my friends in the far comer off to the right, there is not a great deal of debate and yet, as every member would recognize on all sides, the issues that we are discussing are of the greatest importance to this country and to its future.
I have not participated in every constitutional debate in this House, most people will be glad to know, but I have participated in a few over a great number of years. Every time one of these debates occurs, it strikes me
what an unusual country we have. It was a bit more than 20 years ago when Mr. Bourassa, in his first appearance as the Prime Minister of Quebec, appeared on Quebec television and said: "Quebec, ce n'est pas une province comme les autres."
After the events of the last few years, as we have debated all these constitutional issues, you could say: "Canada ce n'est pas un pays comme les autres. When you recognize the degree to which this country can engage itself and the kinds of discussions that have gone on at every level, from the level of first ministers down to the average citizen, you realize that we are a very strange country indeed. It is not just that we have such an enormous land mass, the largest now in the world and covering so many time zones, so many types of geography and different communities, but it is a bit staggering to realize that for the first almost 100 years of our existence we did not have a flag, a national anthem or even our own Constitution.
We functioned from 1867 to the early 1960s without any of the trappings that most self-respecting nations had for themselves. It was some time in the 1920s that we started to be concerned about such things. It was with the meetings that took place and the Statute of Westminster in the 1930s when we got serious about having our own Constitution and perhaps ultimately having a flag which we got in 1964. We got around to ratifying O Canada in 1980. We ultimately, with a great deal of turmoil, brought the Constitution to Canada, retrieving the British North America Act and writing a charter of rights 10 years ago in 1982.
However, as we all recognize, the great element that was missing was, if one can put it this way, the oldest colonized part of the country which was Quebec which, in a formal sense, from the government of that day, did not participate in the constitutional accord. Therefore we spent another decade finally closing the loop.
Nobody should doubt that both in the Meech Accord and in the Charlottetown accord our first item of business was including all the provinces in this agreement.
We were told over the last year that this is a Canada round, and it very much is a Canada round, but it is crucially important that if the Constitution of 1982 is to
September 10, 1992

be the Constitution of Canada, the province of Quebec be fully a part of that accord.
Second, there was the concern for a whole variety of related matters affecting the functioning of the federal Parliament, the nature of the Senate, institutions related to it, economic and social concerns. A certain measure of progress has been made in finally democratizing the Senate, something that should have been done a very long time ago. How effective it will be remains to be seen.
I want to say that for my mind Canada has again broken new ground among the Commonwealth of nations by recognizing and righting a wrong that took place here half a millennia ago, beginning with 1492.
Finally in 1992 it is recognizing that the aboriginal peoples and all their various communities are equal citizens of this country, even to the point of describing what is being agreed to here as a new third order of government.
There is a great deal of concern around the world about what has happened over the decades and the centuries to aboriginal peoples. Nowhere has this been more poignantly revealed than in the events of Africa and the continuing events that are searing the face of southern Africa.
The recognition of aboriginal peoples as being a third order of government is absolutely crucial to the renewal of Canada and to the example Canada gives to the nations of the world. I have spent a bit of time in constitutional committees. I could spend many hours pointing out in the 60 clauses of the Charlottetown accord the weaknesses, the dangers and where the problems lie. I have to say that if Canadians from coast to coast to coast do not find this an important step forward in the history of our country, then I am a monkey's uncle because I believe that what has been achieved by first ministers, by aboriginal representatives, by a host of officials and experts is an important contribution in the 125th year of this nation's history.
I will be urging every one of my constituents in downtown Toronto and in any part of this country where I speak to say yes on October 26, a date that Canada has with history.
Government Orders


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I participated in a debate dealing with the Constitution of Canada was in 1990 on the Meech Lake accord.
Up to 1987 and leading up to the establishment of Meech Lake, there were legitimate problems in Canada. Among the major problems that we were facing and have been facing was western alienation. The west was feeling that it did not really participate in the life of the nation, that all the big decisions were made in central Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, a feeling that anything that the central government did was always done for the benefit of Quebec.
We had the problem of ignoring the First Nations as part of the Canadian Constitution. We also had the problem of the formal recognition on integration of Quebec into Canada.
The perception that grew about these problems was that they became more aggravated. Economic disparities became greater. Immigration brought people into Canada whose cultural backgrounds were certainly different from Canadians who were here. The injustices to First Nations were totally unacceptable to a vast number of Canadians. Changes were in order. We had to do something about this.
Those changes were not to the basic principles of what built this country. We were not going to change the principle of tolerance. That was not going to change. The ability to respect differences was not going to change. It was not going to touch the principle of accommodation which is the invitation to share the welcoming, to be part of the whole. It was not going to change the principle of fairness, a recognition that human rights as well as collective rights and individuals rights have to be respected and that we have to make sure that the people of this country can share in the production of the wealth of the country. There was also a need to update the social contract. This arrangement would allow the citizens to share more fully in the wealth that they helped to produce. The attempt was made in 1987 with Meech Lake, and it failed. I supported Meech Lake and I have no regrets about having done so. What followed the failure of Meech Lake was a long and elaborate process to come to grips with these problems that we were facing. It was long and protracted, and that is typically Canadian.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
It is the way we do things in Canada: millions of hours of meetings, dozens of committees, hundreds of reports, thousands of publications, dozens of forums, and hundreds of debates. Hundreds of thousands of citizens were consulted, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent, I would like to think invested.
Not one bullet was fired. Not one person was killed. Not one life was lost in this emotional, draining and sometimes very boring exercise. That is our nature in Canada. We are looked on as people who would rather talk than fight. We are people who are seen as those who would rather spend hours and hours debating how many angels would dance on the head of a pin than put on the boxing gloves and take on somebody.
We are known as a nation of compromisers. In fact, there is the notion that Canada was built on compromise. There is a lot to be said for that, when you examine the history of the formation of Canada. That is the price we pay to be-


An hon. member:: The best.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the price we pay. We do not mind people making comments about us, about how boring we are, about how we would rather talk than fight, and so on. That is the price we pay and that is a price we are willing pay. It reflects a very unique heritage. It recognizes that we have different groups in this country and that we have to let groups have a chance to say something.
When governments do not listen to what the groups have to say governments find out in a hurry that the groups do not want deals cut behind closed doors. They want a more open process.
Of course there are short cuts. If people do not like the process that we have been following there are short cuts and they can follow those short cuts. Those short cuts are Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Tajikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Georgia. If people want the short cuts they can go for them.
We have chosen our way. We have chosen to respect the principles that built this country which meant that we have to go through this process of consultation. What we have is the consensus report, third revision. Is that not typically Canadian? We are not over it. This is only one
of the many steps before we get to the end of the process.
This package represents a compromise. Even the late Senator Eugene Forsey underestimated Canadians' ability to compromise. I want to quote something he said in his presentation at the time of the Meech Lake accord in 1987. He said: "The chances of any amendment being adopted even under the seven province formula are virtually nil. Ontario and Quebec will never accept any reduction in the number of senators from either province nor will the Atlantic provinces any reduction in their quotas. The House of Commons will never accept any change that gives the Senate more real power. The reformers will never accept any change that does not. Under the unanimous consent formula, the chances of change are microscopic".
What we have here is an agreement for change. The late Eugene Forsey underestimated the ability of Canadians to compromise because I believe the document that we have before us and that we are debating is really a compromise.
How does the compromise agreement deal with the problems I have listed? What were they? Do you remember, Madam Speaker, the concern for First Nations to be finally recognized as important and integral to Canada? The First Nations are now going to be placed four square in the Constitution. That is a big step forward. That alone merits very positive support from Canadians.
The concerns of western Canadians have been advanced. I do not think they had been fully met. They may not be satisfied with respect to the Triple-E Senate which was their big push, but I think their concerns have been addressed to some extent and they have been advanced. I would think they would like the proposed agreement rather than the present system.
Quebec is recognized as a distinct society and its ability to be a master in its own universe has been consolidated, advanced and enhanced.
The Constitution is only a framework of how we relate to each other, how we govern ourselves and how we manage our affairs. But a country is more than a framework, just as a human body is more than a skeleton. A country is made up of people, people who have dreams, who have hopes, who have aspirations. They have basic needs: bread and butter, security and shelter.
September 10, 1992

Government Orders
While we Canadians have been in the back of the airplane discussing constitutional renewal, we have left the airplane in the hands of financial interests both national and international. They have been only too pleased to continue signing real estate deals, signing trade agreements, shuffling paper, putting money into their pockets, building their own and strapping on their own golden parachutes in case the airplane goes down, while large numbers of Canadians have become unemployed and have been thrown on to the welfare rolls of the municipalities and the provinces and on to unemployment insurance.
Those skyrocket and the victims are blamed for having put these funds into deficit. Imagine the unemployment insurance fund for the first six months of this year is already $10 billion in the hole.
While we have been continuing our discussions in the back of the plane we have watched the deindustrialization of our nation. What good is it if we defeat this agreement and continue discussing constitutional change in the hope of getting the perfect constitution and everyone saying: "This is the perfect constitution that I support" and we inherit at the end of it an economic wasteland for a country?
I am not supporting the agreement because it is my ideal. I suppose the only way it would be my ideal is if I had written the bloody thing. I am supporting it because it is the best we are going to get for now. We have established in this agreement what I consider to be the most important elements. With this agreement we can now hold governments accountable for what I consider to be important things to the people of the country. I want to read the things that I consider important: providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible; providing adequate social services and benefits to ensure all individuals resident in Canada have reasonable access to housing, food and other basic necessities; providing high quality primary and secondary education to all individuals resident in Canada and ensuring reasonable access to post-secondary education; and protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.
This commitment is now being made. Look at the fuss we have in Ontario over the labour bill. Now we are establishing a national goal to which all the provinces subscribe.
I also consider protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations to be important.
The policy objectives continue, and here is my favourite. Now we have written into the Constitution the objective or the goal of full employment. No longer will a government sitting across the aisle be allowed to use the unemployed in this country as cannon fodder in some war against inflation, recession or whatever else.
Ensuring that all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living and ensuring sustainable and equitable development are also important.
Those are the issues. Once we have disposed of this agreement, those are the issues on which we should concentrate all our efforts, our minds, and our strength. Those things affect Canadians very sensitively, such as the right to a job. We have put those things on hold for the last couple of years. We have left all these things to John Crowe, the international bankers, the domestic bankers, and others like them. They have been only too happy to accommodate us and now we are living with 12 per cent unemployment in this nation. Our people are taxed beyond their limits.


An hon. member:: It is nothing to crow about.


John R. Rodriguez: There is certainly nothing to crow about, absolutely nothing to crow about.
As a social democrat I am supporting the agreement because I believe those things identify clearly the kind of co-operative federalism we have always talked about.
We are putting in place a clear injunction to ourselves as lawmakers that we are indeed our brother's keeper. We do have a responsibility for each other. On that basis I believe this agreement is worthy of support and I intend to work in my riding for the yes position on this agreement.


Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased in the final hours of this debate on the national referendum question to join with colleagues

September 10,1992
Government Orders
from the three national parties in indicating that I will be supporting the yes vote.
I have been encouraged in the last number of days by the numbers of calls that have come to my constituency office in Waterloo, Ontario. They are from people, many of whom come from a multicultural background in an area that is largely German speaking, a high percentage, wanting to know more about the deal, wanting to know how they can be a part of sending messages of the importance they see in Canada.
I think of this year's largest ever, most vibrant Canada Day celebration. I think of the expressions of affection for Canada that have come largely because we have begun through the process of the Spicer commission, through the hearings of our parliamentary committees and other fora, to focus on what Canada is. We each have our own reasons for voting yes. As I speak in the Chamber tonight. I think of my days in student political life in Canada-

I have developed a close friendship with two members of the House of Commons, the members for Saint-Denis and Papineau, that offers me an opportunity to understand the essence and the spirit of the province of Quebec.

I think of my time with CUSO looking at Canada from Africa. I think also of the importance of English and language in that great continent.

I think how very important it is for the development of Africa and for numerous young men and women who work there, thanks to CIDA and to other governmental programs, I think about the Canadian contribution to development.

Along with the hon. member for Rosedale, I think of the contribution of the churches, English and French, with their connections in the developing world and in Eastern Europe. I think of Canada's partnership and leadership. I think of the challenges facing our world and I recognize what Canada has done. I feel that the best days are still ahead of us.
The great Canadian, Joseph Howe, used to say: "Brag about your country, boys". We all know we have not been much accustomed to making this sort of speech either here in the House, in committee or in the countiy. I am looking forward to going across Waterloo region and other parts of the countiy to encourage Canadians to see ourselves as others see us.
In the last five years, as a member of our Canadian delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations, I have had the opportunity to see how others see us, how they feel about us, our contribution, what they feel about our ability to deal with minorities, our sensitivity to the kinds of world problems that are on the news every few moments.
I want to say a word about Canadians serving abroad. I noticed in today's media that 30,000 Canadians who are imprisoned in provincial and federal penitentiaries will have the vote. Members of our foreign service, members of our military, members of CIDA and development staff who are overseas and are based in Quebec have come to my attention.

'Hiese bureaucrats are officially domiciled in Quebec. They have lived in Europe and worked for the United Nations for more than two years and they do not have the right to vote.

I asked the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I asked the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs if they will not review this because there are no prouder Canadians than those who serve overseas for us in our embassies and peacekeeping forces. If they have been at Lahr for a number of years and have suddenly gone into Yugoslavia to be a part of that situation, why should they lose a vote?
We have time to get the apparatus in place. Let there be consultations. There are many in Central America and many in eastern and central Europe who look to Canada and say: "We feel that you can live together". At recent conferences of the United Nations development program, people came again and again and said: "We are glad to hear your three parties have a positive proposal to put forward. We are with you and we want you to succeed".
September 10, 1992

The external affairs committee visited the former Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine. We saw what we have to offer. We know the links in Canada, people who have their roots there. We looked at southern Africa and tabled a report in June. We saw what we can do with democratic institutions, respect for minority and the whole infrastructure role.
Let me say we have already looked at the ingredients which are part of the Charlottetown package, the importance of the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, the aboriginals, the question of an elected and equal Senate and the new division of powers. Let me conclude by reflecting on this to Canadians as we gather to talk about our future. Let us reflect that when the Japanese want to learn about peacekeeping, they come to Canada; when the brave democrats of eastern Europe and Russia want to find out about parliaments, banks, stock markets and legal systems, they come to Canada; when Mikhail Gorbachev was Minister of Agriculture and wanted to improve Soviet farms, he came to Canada; when the Americans want to find out how to make health care more efficient and effective, they come to Canada; when the Namibians want expertise in municipal affairs, they come to Canada and to Kitchener-Waterloo; and, when South Africans, black or white, want to learn about elections that are fair, a new legal system that is just and modem, an economy that works, they come to Canada.
Canada is in the heart of all of us. Each of us has a different perspective of it. We have much and have given much; we have much to receive from the world. All of our futures are best off with a peaceful, just world. Canada has that reputation. The resources of English and French give us a unique position in the family of nations. I, for one, will be working to encourage a very positive yes vote in order that the legislature of Ontario may quickly pass it, along with the other legislatures, and we can move on to the important issue of jobs.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufT-ville):: Madam Speaker, I am proud to be able to participate in this historic debate. During my eight years in this House there have been many important issues and bills discussed such as capital punishment and abortion. We voted to have a free trade agreement with the United States, and we voted to go to war last year in the gulf. In my opinion none of these debates or votes was as
Government Orders
vital as the issue we have been debating for the last few days, the future of this magnificent country, Canada.
On August 28 the Consensus Report on the Constitution was agreed to unanimously by the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial premiers, the leaders of our two territorial governments and the representatives of four aboriginal associations. The agreement by these 17 leaders culminates the most extensive consultation ever with Canadians. The agreement is not perfect. It does have some flaws. I am concerned, for instance, about the cost of the increased size of the House of Commons. I am not sure if the new Senate will be effective or if it will create legislative gridlock. I believe it is accurate to say that not one of the 17 leaders meeting in Charlottetown was totally satisfied with the agreement. This situation was expected if an agreement was to be achieved. There had to be understanding, compromise and a good spirit of give and take.
Now is the time to turn to the people of Canada. One of the main criticisms of the Meech Lake accord was that it was done by 11 men behind closed doors. This negotiation process, the Canada round, was just the opposite. As I said earlier, during the past two years we have witnessed the most extensive consultation with Canadians in the history of this great country. It is now appropriate and democratic to go back to the people for their say on this historic package of fundamental changes in our parliamentary system. Between now and October 26 Canadians will be asking questions and making comments. The greatest challenge we are faced with is communicating the essence and the highlights of this Charlottetown agreement so that Canadians can make an informed decision when they cast their vote.
I know there is a great deal of cynicism about the process. Some Canadians believe we have spent too much time on this issue. They believe we should be spending more time on economic issues and job creation measures. I agree these economic issues are of vital importance, but solving the constitutional impasse is crucial for resolving economic problems. The two are entwined.
The lack of constitutional agreement has created financial instability. Foreign and Canadian investors have put projects on hold. A positive resolution of the Constitution impasse will open the path and create a climate conducive to addressing the very real and pressing economic and social challenges facing Canada. As

September 10,1992
Government Orders
the Prime Minister said on September 8: "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". I think it is useful to highlight some of the fundamental objectives that had to be attained in order to achieve a durable and lasting national reconciliation. For decades the western provinces have felt frustrated with their lack of power and influence on many major decisions made in central Canada. Atlantic Canada has had to deal with many aspects of economic disparity.
As the Prime Minister said, 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.
The voices and concerns of the people of the north and our aboriginal peoples had to be addressed in an understanding and compassionate manner. The time has come for Canadians to embrace the inherent right to self-government of aboriginal peoples.
In trying to achieve all of the above objectives, we must not ignore the frustrations and concerns of the people of Ontario, whose great contributions to the well-being of Canada are in my opinion sometimes either misconstrued or not recognized and appreciated.
I believe these fundamental objectives have been met. It is now time for Canadians to reflect on the proposals within the agreement, ask questions and discuss it with friends and neighbours.
I thought Peter Newman made a profound statement in a recent Maclean's article when he said:
The real issue of the October 26 referendum is deciding whether we have a future, not the shape of what that future might be.
A yes vote at least gives Canadians the chance to shape our future as a united countiy. A no vote does not. We have a great, tolerant, diverse, rich country that we must fight together to preserve. We must continue to be proud of Canada and all we have achieved since our birth as a nation.
Sir John A. Macdonald's words, spoken in 1861, ring equally true today:
Whatever you do, adhere to the union, we are a great country, and we shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we
preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.
I understand the House will rise next week so that we can spend the next five weeks in our ridings talking with our constituents, listening to their views and answering their questions.
I plan to help organize a yes committee in Markham and in Whitchurch-Stouffville. These will be non-partisan committees comprised of concerned residents who will help co-ordinate activities.
Canadians must have the opportunity to arrive at the polls on October 26 in a position to make an informed and bold decision about this constitutional package and the future of Canada.
On October 26 I will be voting yes to a united Canada. I hope that our pride and confidence in the future of this great nation will encourage all Canadians to participate in this historic referendum and give a renewed Canada their enthusiastic stamp of approval.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important and historic debate. I want to say from the outset that I intend to cast my vote with millions of other Canadians on October 26 for the yes side in this referendum campaign which will begin in a matter of days.
All across the country there are many voices, particularly the voices of the premiers who sat around the negotiating table, the voice of the Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties that encourage us to examine constructively this Charlottetown accord. I hope Canadians will do that. They will find a document which I think reflects Canada, reflects the shared values of a nation that is diverse from sea to sea, that is different from sea to sea, but nevertheless holds in common a set of beliefs about ourselves as a people, how we organize ourselves and those things we believe to be important.
It reflects a spirit of generosity, a spirit of tolerance, a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood that is unique among nations of the world and certainly must be seen to be unique among the nations of the world as we watch with anguish night after night the bombs in Beirut, the bullets in Bosnia and the starvation in Somalia.
September 10, 1992

We sit in the security and the comfort of our homes watching this horror. Much of the world is unveiling itself to us nightly on our televisions as we sit secure in our homes with the knowledge of the protections afforded to us in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We have to reflect upon these values of being a Canadian. I want to say that something that has bothered me as a member of Parliament for a great many years about this constitutional debate, something that I think has to cease during the course of this referendum campaign, the tendency in this country to be asked to define ourselves and our role in Canada as if we in our respective communities or provinces were mere pieces on a Monopoly board.
If we were to believe those who would seek to divide us, there are no Canadians in this country called Canada. There are only Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Ontarians, the people of British Columbia, Quebecers or Albertans. That is not true. For every voice that would ask us to examine this constitutional accord based on what it did for me in my back yard, I am convinced that there are 100 more in whose breast beats the heart of Canada.
I am a Newfoundlander, but let nobody marginalize me. Let nobody seek to reduce me. Let nobody seek to constrain my vision and my participation in this great experiment on the northern half of the North American continent to Newfoundland and Labrador, as wonderful as that is.
I take pride in all of this country. I have driven through the Rockies and their majesty. I have seen the great individualism of the people of British Columbia, their resilience and energy; people on the prairies; the great entrepreneurship of the great industrial heartland, Ontario; the uniqueness of that distinct society that is the people of Quebec and the rich tapestry of the colour and the energy of the people of Atlantic Canada. Every part of it is part of what I am. I am part of Canada.
I say to my fellow colleagues that if we ask the people of our ridings, the people of our constituencies, the people in the provinces from which we come to measure this accord on the basis of whether or not within our own back yard, whether it is our community, our town or our province, we somehow won a great victory, we came
Government Orders
away with a larger share of the national pie than our neighbour, then every one of us is doomed to come to the conclusion that we failed. But if our vision is bigger than our own back yard and if our imagination is broader than the boundaries of something called a province, if we can see, feel and participate in this referendum campaign as Canadians, if we can see beyond our disappointments, whether individual members, government or political parties, and see the opportunity that still resides in this fantastic country, I am convinced Canadians from coast to coast will say yes to the constitutional renewal of Canada.
There is something else I want to say because it has to be said. One of the reasons I am going to vote not with resignation, not with it is the best we can do attitude but with enthusiasm for this accord is that I believe it is important that we recognize the people of Quebec.
There are a few million francophones in a sea of 300 million francophones who need to know that their language and culture is secure and protected and they need to know they can look to the national Parliament, to the national government here in Ottawa and not just to their government in Quebec City to protect that language and culture.
There is provision in the Charlottetown accord so my fellow Canadians, francophones in Quebec, can count on their national government, national institutions, national courts, national Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the good will and generosity of their fellow Canadians to ensure that in a sea of anglophones the Quebec people, their language and their culture are protected. That is the spirit of generosity and tolerance I talked about.
I will not attempt to repeat the analysis done by those who have spoken before me of the individual components of this package. Let me just repeat again that if what we seek in this accord is perfection it will not be found because if perfection had been the measure of success of the British North American Act, the British North American Act of 1867 would have been a failure.
If perfection was the requirement of the Constitution Act, 1982, then the Constitution Act, 1982, would have been a failure. If perfection is what we expected in our families, in our spouses, in our children, in our friends, in our jobs, or in ourselves our lives could be nothing but failure.

September 10,1992
Government Orders
If we see as we must this accord, this compromise, this honourable compromise and a spirit of fairness, balance and tolerance, we will see it as the basis upon which to put this debate behind us, to renew this country constitutionally and to help it achieve its full potential as we march as we do toward the year 2000.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to support the referendum question and the Charlottetown accord of August 28. I do so with enthusiasm and commitment.
It is true, as many other members have said, that this accord is not perfect, but neither was the the British North American Act of 1867. It went to the Supreme Court and the Privy Council thousands of times. I am not overestimating that, thousands of times. That Constitution and the society it founded, the country it founded, lasted for 125 years.
If the people in 1867 had nit-picked at that Constitution like many of our people nit-picked at the Meech accord and at this accord, we would never have had a country. They had the political will to form a country and to adopt a Constitution despite its imperfections.
I say to this House that despite some imperfection in this accord, it represents many substantial gains for many communities in this country. What are they? To begin with, for the first time constitutionally we have recognized the inherent right of the aboriginal peoples to govern themselves. Those are landmark, world precedent, provisions. We should be proud of them.
If it were only for those provisions alone in the accord I would go to the wall in support of that accord because those are so important all by themselves.
For the first time constitutionally we have recognized the minority language communities in our Constitution with a commitment to their vitality and development. I say for the first time we have recognized the official language communities because in the Constitution of 1867 and in the Constitution of 1982 we recognized the right of individuals to go to court in English and French, to have schools in English and French, but we do not refer to the communities, to the collective rights.
This is the first time that we have said we recognize the collective rights of the communities, the francophone communities outside of Quebec, and the anglophone community in Quebec.
I must remind the House that there are now over one million francophones living outside of Quebec in this country. There are more francophones outside Quebec than there were in Quebec in 1867. There are 800,000 or more anglophones living in Quebec, which is more people than many of the provinces.
Again, these provisions represent a substantial gain for those communities.
Third, the Charlottetown accord contains several provisions that recognize the distinct society of Quebec and assure not only its continued existence but its epanouisse-ment and development.
This accord, without doubt, contains much more than the Meech accord to protect the unique position of Quebec. I cannot understand why those who supported the Meech accord, like the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and the other members of the Bloc Quebecois who at that time were in the Conservative Party, would now attack this accord when it contains much more than Meech.
If we put the Meech accord side by side with this you would see that eveiything that was in Meech is here, plus the guarantee for Quebec to keep 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons-which it historically has always had more or less so this is not something new, but it is now written in the Constitution-plus a guarantee that they will have one-third of the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada, plus a veto with other provinces on changes to national institutions, plus a double majority in the Senate to protect language and culture at the federal level, plus greater clarification and consolidation of provincial powers.
Again there are definite gains, not all that people in Quebec would like but substantial gains to protect the language and culture and the future of Quebec within Confederation.
Fourth, this accord gives more clout to the west and to the Atlantic provinces through a reformed Senate. It is true that it is not a Triple-E Senate, much to the disappointment of many people in the west. I would have supported a Triple-E Senate. However, it is a two and a half E Senate. It is an elected Senate. It is an equal
September 10, 1992

Senate and it is almost an effective Senate. That remains to be seen.
It is true that the Senate will only have a total veto on matters relating to resources and on matters relating to the French language and culture, but its power to force joint sessions with the House of Commons on other matters will have more significance than many people expect.
Right now the present Senate has full legal powers to veto every bill that comes from this place, but it is rarely done because they are not elected and because they do not have political credibility. They have full legal powers but no political credibility.
Under the Charlottetown accord the new Senate will have less legal power but much greater political power because they are fully elected and there are only six senators from each province. It is my sense that when the 24 senators from the west, with others, turn down a House of Commons bill the government will take that message very seriously and will attempt to work out compromises with the Senate rather than force a vote in a joint session in the House of Commons. I am willing to bet that we will see more compromises worked out behind the scenes than we would otherwise.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up.
I must say that seven minutes for such an important subject is not enough, but let me conclude.
While this is not a perfect document it is a definite improvement for most Canadians and it does not diminish the rights of anyone. It is time to stop nit-picking. It is time to get on with other economic and social matters. This accord demonstrates that as Canadians living in this great land we have much more that unites us as individuals than that divides us. What is required is vision and political will, and a vote yes on October 26.


M. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, as the member for that wonderful riding of Richmond- Wolfe in the Eastern Townships, I would like to say how much I appreciate the agreement arrived at by the Premiers because it is good for all of Canada, for all the regions of Canada and especially for Quebec. Therefore, I will encourage my constituents to vote yes in favour of that agreement.
Government Orders
I am tempted to list here all the reasons I will do so, but since time is short and we must compromise, I will give my colleague, the member for Verdun, the opportunity to follow up and complete my comments in a few minutes.
However, I will mention one attitude I believe to be unfortunate and harmful in this debate which is about to begin. I am thinking here about that climate of verbal violence, about those insults flying around, particularly in Quebec. I find it inadmissible, when dealing with such a fundamental issue that people, political leaders, representatives of the nation be so disgraceful, trading insults and spouting abuse at each other. I feel this is a very disturbing start to such an important debate.
My second comment is this: I disapprove, of course, of all the critics coming from the opponents to the agreement, those who favour the no. Let me give you an example. They condemn the government and the provincial premiers for not having a legal document to offer. I almost feel like asking them right out if there were legal documents for the 1980 referendum; at least let me remind them of what the situation was. I would say that the text of the question itself left the debate wide open and gave enormous leeway to any government taking office after sovereignty.
It is therefore unacceptable, that we be condemned because the debate is not supported by legal documents. Let me give you another example. Quite often business people, who are experienced and who have everything to lose because they have a fortune and they have investments will not even read a contract and the legal documents because they trust the person they have chosen to represent them, whether a notary or a lawyer. This criticism is therefore unacceptable.
There is also the so-called vagueness of the question. In my opinion the question is a lot more precise since it asks us to approve a project, a contract that is already on the table, which was not always the case in previous consultations as far as I know. This is a lot closer to something that we can evaluate concretely.
Moreover, this proposal can be improved over time. This brings me to make the following statement. We are criticized because the agreement provides for future

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
consultations which could give rise to disputes, but this is precisely what is good about it. In the present Constitution unanimity is required to be able to make changes with the result that attempts were often made but always in vain because we could never have unanimity. This agreement, however, allows us to improve the content. In a federation, to revise a contract between partners every five or ten years is the least we can do. These criticisms are not justified in my opinion.
Some members of the no side contradict each other. Recently we heard that to say no would not necessarily mean we are saying yes to sovereignty.
But it is rather strange to read this in today's issue of La Presse about the leader of the Bloc Quebecois: "The Bloc Quebecois leader said in an interview that sovereig-nists will not be bound by a Quebec vote in favour of the provisional constitutional accord". Mr. Bouchard goes on to say: "Legally it would be binding", referring to a vote in favour of the agreement.
If 50 per cent of the voters plus one are in favour it is a decision. Politically though it is different. You can see that the no which Mr. Parizeau said was not a yes to sovereignty seems to be interpreted differently in another statement made by the Bloc leader who said: "Should the yes win, we will keep going and consider that sovereignty will come back".
I see that the clock is ticking away and, as in any agreement between partners, I was willing to make a compromise. I wish to inform you that the member for Verdun-Saint-Paul will take over from me. But I urge the people from Quebec to avoid this climate of verbal violence and insults, to remain calm, to be informed, to read and to make the decision that will preserve the dignity and the honour of Quebec, that is to vote yes.


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun -Saint-Paul):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be able to say a few words on this agreement, especially in front of this very personal audience.
As you are no doubt aware we have always had a touch of nationalism in Quebec, but as it turns out one cannot
be a nationalist any more unless he or she belongs to the category of nationalists who advocate sovereignty.
I know from personal experience what it is to be a nationalist advocating sovereignty. To some extent that is why I sit on the other side of the House now.
Just yesterday the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was saying that he would vote no because he wants a better future for his children, an easier and better life, and he is willing to take the chance.
I agree with that to some extent but my position is just as good. The difference is that, in his mind, his children have a dual nationality. As you know, having married an American, his children will have the choice of settling here or in the U.S. Mine are living here.
They will live here all the time and have to face things as they come. When you go to Quebec you meet sovereignists like the leader of the opposition, Mr. Parizeau, who tells the people that sovereignty has been put aside and so on. I have also had the chance to meet him.
What he is saying is quite simple. He will tell you that the people do not count for much. What is important is to gain power and to do what you want with the people. On the other hand, Mr. Bernard Landry, his right-hand man, is promising jobs for everyone.
Everybody in an independent Quebec will have a job, he said, but what he really wanted was Parizeau's job. So we are faced with a power struggle within the no umbrella group. We in the yes umbrella group are seen as traitors because we want a better future for our children and their children.
Why should we not have the right to a strong Quebec as well as a united Canada? Who is going to deny us that? Really, nobody can deny us that because what people truly want is change. They want to focus on the economy. They need to feel secure. They need to talk about something else.
The agreement is certainly good. You can argue all the legal points. You can show all the advantages. There will always be some people who are for it and others against it. In the end what people want is someone they can trust.
September 10, 1992

For 11 months I sat on the other side and there is one person I have seen get up and fight for Quebec: the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister always believed that it was possible for Quebecers to have a future within Canada.
The reason I came back is that I trusted one person. The offers we get today are perfectly acceptable. The majority of the people are willing to accept them because they want, on October 27, to be able to work, to be able to move on to something else, to set the Constitution aside, because nobody lives on Constitution.
There are those who say that, on our side, some speak from both sides of their mouths, that the member for Roberval says that he has had enough with the Constitution or that Senator Gerald Beaudoin says that it will go on. Sure enough, Senator Beaudoin will have less work once the constitutional issue is settled. As for the member for Roberval he will resume his activities as minister of National Health and Welfare; that gives him the Opportunity to promote something, to allow people to succeed, to live.
For me, it is rather simple. Ayes is a yes to renewal, to progress and to a new life. Personally, what I want is stability; it is political stability that people need. Let them be the judge later on when general elections are called; the choice will be theirs. Right now what we need is for the economy to recover. For that every Canadian should say yes to the agreement.
What also prompted me to rise tonight is that I saw on television the press conference given by a prominent leader who cannot even make up his own mind. He had to have an 800 line to talk to his followers and get an idea of what he was supposed to do. The Reform Party of Canada said it is against it because people called in at their own expense to voice their opposition to the agreement. The party could not cover people's expenses. People had to call at their expense to give their opinion, to say wether they were for it or against it. It is an extremist like him who will be one of the leaders of the no side. We can imagine the wonderful team they will make, the reformist extremist in the west and the sovereignty extremist in Quebec will take the same side on a question people at large have already a very good understanding of. They know very well that saying yes to the agreement is saying yes to stability and solidarity;
Government Orders
they will thus show that they understand we are teaming up together.
There will always be problems between provinces. In Quebec, for once, we gain something definite. People tell us that Mr. Bourassa did not do well in the negotiations. Could anybody tell us what other premier has succeeded in reaching an agreement with all other Canadian premiers? None. No other Quebec premier was able to come to an agreement with his counterparts in the rest of the country. Mr. Bourassa is the first one to do so. He is the first one to present an acceptable offer which he is ready to defend before the people. We must not forget that it is not the big guns of the federal government who will sell the agreement in Quebec. It is Mr. Bourassa who has agreed to present the proposal to the people and defend it.
During this referendum campaign we will stand behind him and provide him with all the information we can get on our side. We are going to build. People on the no side are destructive. They do not realize that, right now, people are not in a destructive mood. The silent majority is listening. It can clearly see direct attacks on issues that are totally irrelevant. They are free to launch personal attacks against the Prime Minister or Mr. Bourassa, but they should not confuse that with the referendum question or the issue of sovereignty or any other issue. There will always be political points to make.
I think this matter is important for the people. As far as I am concerned, I will ask the people in my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul to vote for the renewal of Canada on October 26, to vote for an economic renewal so that future generations will have a chance to succeed in this world of ours that needs unity. I hope October 27 will be the beginning of a new era.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words tonight, although there will not be many because of the hour, concerning the Charlottetown agreement.
It seems to me that this agreement which was brought together after massive consultation across the country, and with the participation of the 10 premiers and the Prime Minister, represents a very good compromise for our country.

September 10, 1992
Government Orders
The miracle is that this compromise was reached. It seems to me that during the next several weeks we are going to have a chance to put forth our vision of Canada and Confederation. It represents a compromise in many directions and for that reason many members of the House have many qualms or concerns about individual parts of it.
However, at the end of the day we have to ask ourselves whether we want more consultation. Do we want the kinds of negotiations that we have been going through for the past year to continue? What are the consequences for our great nation? We know that they are very serious.
As I said, it is not a perfect document but it is the kind of compromise which has kept our country together for these many 125 years which we celebrate this year. Most of us believe that a failure in this referendum that will take place on October 26 would have the most serious consequences our nation could ever face.
Therefore I vote for this motion. I work for this Charlottetown consensus document and I hope that other members of the House will do the same.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eight o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, September 9, 1992, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of government Motion No. 11.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Lewis	Mffliken
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 8.32 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, September 9, 1992, this House stands adjourned until Monday, September 14, 1992 at eleven o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 14,1992