1992-09-09

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, while the referendum will end much of the constitutional uncertainty in our country, coastal Atlantic Canadians are still burdened by the uncertainty about the future of the Atlantic groundfish industry.
The government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in particular are to be commended for the extensive support program put in place to alleviate the impact of the closure of the northern cod fishery.
The hard times are not yet over as we look ahead to severe quota cod cuts in the gulf and in the 4VN and 4VS stocks.
The transfer of National Sea's head office to Lunenburg is welcome news for Lunenburg county but the fact is 65 people will lose their jobs in the process, and 26 of these will be in the town of Lunenburg.
I urge the government to start planning now a support program for the impact of the 1993 quota cuts on the Nova Scotian economy.
In addition to support for individuals directly affected, consideration should be given to injecting new capital into the AFAP diversification fund. The Atlantic fishing industry must maximize its use of the ocean's resources. Government must continue to play an activist role in this process.


WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had an opportunity to pursue the North America Free Trade Agreement our worst fears have been verified.
Canada's rivers and lakes were not made explicitly exempt in the deal. In the Canada-U.S. deal beer was exempt and in the North America Free Trade Agreement culture was exempt. Why not water?
Does this government plan to eventually allow the sell off of some of our rivers and lakes to the United States and Mexico? Is that why this government has consistently failed to pass independent legislation in this House which would prohibit major water sales to the United States and Mexico?
Canadians do not want to sell fresh water from our rivers and lakes to the United States and Mexico. Water should not be considered simply another commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.
There are many reasons for us to scrap NAFTA at this stage as American political leaders are suggesting today. One of the main reasons is the fact that this deal is a tacit agreement for this government to sell water to the United States and Mexico in the future.


WOOD ISLANDS FERRY
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, a new terminal design is being proposed for the Wood Islands ferry in my riding. Transport Canada and Public Works are preparing to demolish existing buildings at the terminal site by September 30, 1992. The present federal government plan is to build a generic terminal which will eliminate the existing atmosphere that is pleasing to tourists and all commuters.
The Wood Islands ferry terminal should be a welcome mat for tourists and a nice place to relax before leaving the Island by ferry. Instead, the federal government is going to build a big wire fence and a speedway off the ferry.

September 9, 1992
The Wood Islands ferry terminal has been completely redesigned and the concerns of the people in the community are being ignored. The federal government should listen to the people and make the ferry terminal a more pleasing place for both tourists and the people of eastern Prince Edward Island.


CASH FLOW ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assi-niboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Cash Flow Enhancement Program enabled farmers to secure interest-free cash advances during the past two crop years, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Under the program each producer was able to secure up to $50,000 interest free on the security of his undelivered grain.
Regrettably there remains on the prairies a serious cash flow problem resulting from low world prices, the export subsidies of competing export nations, poor harvest conditions and in Saskatchewan, the unilateral gutting of the GRIP program by the provincial government.
The Cash Flow Enhancement Program enables farmers to get some immediate cash on grain they have produced but cannot sell. I urge the government to renew this program for the current 1992-93 crop year which commenced August 1.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Canada was one of the key players in the founding of the United Nations. This country's experience in two world wars, Korea and many other modern-day United Nations operations are invaluable on the international scene.
It is very important while we discuss constitutional and economic issues, et cetera, in this House of Commons of Canada that we never forget the responsible and the effective manner in which our Canadian Armed Forces continue to carry on Canada's major roles in the international community and continue to build goodwill for Canada wherever they go.
Some 750 members of the airborne regiment including support staff and a hospital unit from CFB Petawawa are headed for Somalia to assist in the distribution of humanitarian aid. Approximately 100 will soon leave for Cambodia as part of the UN advance mission. Another 45 will go to Kuwait on a very important mission. Others are all around the world, including Cyprus.
The appreciation and support of this Parliament of Canada goes with them and our hearts and encouragement go out to their loved ones back home in Canada. Our Canadian Forces exemplify the real spirit of Canada in the world.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question the world community now believes that conditions have matured for the restoration of justice in Cyprus, respect for the human rights of all its population, and for the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations whose efforts and particularly those of the Secretary General and the Security Council, must be sincerely supported at this crucial point of the Cyprus problem.
The occupation of northern Cyprus by Ibrkish troops since 1974 has developed into a heavy burden for Turkey which will not end unless a just, viable and workable settlement is attained for the reunification of Cyprus.
The international community expects the TUrkish government to promote a real sense of responsibility and a down-to-earth approach toward the peace talks between Greece and Tirkish Cypriots which will resume at the United Nations on October 26.
Let us hope that on October 26 we will see a greater degree of political will by the parties involved for a lasting agreement.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement has completely inadequate environmental safeguards. The environmental assessment of the deal has not been made public as promised. Why should Canadians believe that the results, whenever we see them, have not been scrambled together to support this neo-conservative deal?

Canadians have repeatedly heard this government's breezy assurances that Mexican environmental standards will rise to Canadian levels. This promise is scandalous considering we have yet to live up to our own standards.
When money is involved environmental commitments fall by the wayside. The pressure to lower environmental standards is real. It has happened here and despite Mexican legislation, multinationals have made a toxic mess of the Maquiladora.
It is naive to assume that conditions will magically right themselves with the signing of this trade deal. The Prime Minister has made national and international commitments on environmental protection, yet there are no enforceable regulations which would safeguard these promises in the proposed deal. With one stroke of a pen, the health of workers and the lives of future generations have been put at risk.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the three leaders of the national parties spoke in favour in this House of the Charlottetown accord.
This historic moment brings to mind comments from the first Premier of Alberta, Alexander Rutherford, in 1906. He said:
We live-in one of the grandest provinces in this Canadian Confederation. We believe there is a great future before our province, and that it will still be a grander province in the very near future. We hope that our fond expectations will be realized. We are a hopeful people. We have no pessimists in Alberta-a pessimist could not succeed. We are optimistic and always look on the brighter side of affairs.
I invite all Albertans to look on the brighter side as did the first premier of our province and join the yes side in this referendum campaign. Let us seize our responsibility as citizens of this country and of the province of Alberta and make our full contribution to this country.


BREAST CANCER
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada 5,200 women will die of breast cancer this year as breast cancer continues to be the most common form of cancer to women in 1992. A full 20 per cent of cancer deaths among women will be from breast cancer.
I call on the federal government to adopt the recommendations of the report of the Sub-Committee on the Status of Women. In particular, I urge the federal government to design an extensive public awareness plan aimed at educating women about preventive measures and early detection methods. I urge the federal government to take measures to improve research into the causes, the detection and treatment procedures of breast cancer.
This disease has cost many women their lives and has caused much hardship to families across the country. It is time for the federal government to take action on this issue.


CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every Canadian can find something in the Charlottetown constitutional accord that they do not like. I certainly can.
Obviously, Canada's housing ministers can as well because as recently as June 29, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of housing meeting in Toronto agreed that there continues to be a need for a strong federal role and national standards to respond to the housing needs of Canadians. I share their sentiments.
The August 28 Charlottetown constitutional accord gives exclusive jurisdiction over housing to the provinces and the territories. Despite this however, I am sure that the federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers will join me in voting yes on October 26 because we want a strong and united Canada, one which will continue to be the very best country to live in anywhere in the world.


DAVID SPENCER AND CHRISTINE LAMONT
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to urgently request the Prime Minister to make a formal request to the President of Brazil for the expulsion of David Spencer and Christine Lamont.
The parents of Christine Lamont have just returned from Brazil where they have had the opportunity to meet with the Brazilian minister of justice and other high-ranking officials.
The Brazilian minister of justice told them that under the exchange of offenders treaty, all possible appeals must be exhausted before they would be able to make an application under the treaty.
The exchange of offenders treaty has not yet been ratified. Estimates from Brazil are that two appeals launched by Spencer and Lamont could take two to four years. Christine and David cannot wait that long.
The Brazilian justice system is flawed. President Col-lor is involved in heightening political crises and faces possible impeachment. It is the president's power to respond to the expulsion request.
The window of opportunity to get these two Canadians home is quickly closing. I urge the Prime Minister to request their expulsion today and not to wait for the treaty.


TRADING CARDS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and dismayed to hear about the latest fad in trading cards.
Canadian youngsters are trading mass murderer cards from the U.S. that picture murderers and describe the details of their indecent acts of violence and sexual abuse, especially against women and children.
I understand both the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Justice are working to see that these cards will be banned from entering Canada.
I strongly support the efforts of the ministers concerned to put an end to this horrific playground fad. The Criminal Code provision dealing with obscenity must be amended so that customs officials will be able to stop
these unacceptable and obscene cards from entering Canada.


SHIP INDUSTRY
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, the signing of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement has brought to mind the dreadful loss of jobs in this country after the advent of the Canada-U.S. FTA. One of the hardest hit areas has been secondary and tertiary manufacturing in this country.
In the FTA the Jones Act was protected to allow American industry and shipbuilding to be protected from Canadian competition. The same may happen with NAFTA.
I am making an appeal to this government, through you Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the refit of the HMCS Protecteur is done on the west coast, preferably in Victoria and by the Yarrows Shipyards.
An agreement to this request will be most appreciated by the people of British Columbia.


INTERNATIONAL LITERACY DAY
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 8, we celebrated International Literacy Day, which gives us an opportunity every year to reaffirm our commitment to this cause.
The reason we attach so much importance to literacy in Canada is that it has a major impact on the quality of life of all citizens of this country and on our future as a nation.
People whose ability to read and write is limited cannot take part in the decisions affecting their neighbourhood or their community. It is harder for them to obtain the information they need to make wise choices as consumers, as workers or as parents.
The commitment we made a few years ago is still current. We made literacy one of our national priorities in order to give equal opportunity to all Canadians.
In closing I would call on all members of this House to continue their efforts beyond International Literacy Day, so that even more Canadians are made aware of the importance of knowing how to read and write.
September 9, 1992

Oral Questions


THE LATE EMILE BENOIT
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday two fiddlers were playing in a cemetery, saying their goodbyes to Emile Benoit. I was there, along with a hundred of his friends, not only to bid him goodbye but also to salute his life.
Emile Benoit was widely known for his folk music, his "joie de vivre", his sense of humor and his generosity.
Whether in Quebec City for the summer festival, in St. John's to be awarded an honorary doctorate or in France to entertain the crowds, he always managed to spread his zest for living. Emile, we will miss you.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to extend a welcome to the 43 new pages who are joining us this year.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: These young people, carefully chosen from over 200 candidates, come to us from all across the country to see our parliamentary system first hand as they serve us in the Chamber.

In this important period in our history, I am sure that they will perform their duties with energy and competence, and I hope their year of service in the House will be a positive experience in their lives.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, but before I start I want to say that we have just learned that Alberta Premier Don Getty has resigned to campaign full time for the yes side in the national referendum.
I hope the Prime Minister does not get any ideas from this because we want him around for the next election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
We learned this morning that an OECD report deplores the fact that Canada is losing any competitive position it ever had internationally and that no progress has been made in the last ten years. This decline is attributed to the fact that we are not spending wisely for education, that we do not spend enough on research and development and, as I said in the House yesterday, that tariff barriers between the provinces destroy any chances of progress.
Does the government intend to take action immediately to solve these very serious problems?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to Premier Getty. He has indeed announced his intention to resign. He has played a very constructive role in the national unity debates over the last five or six years. On behalf of all members I would like to extend to him and to his wife Margaret and family the very best wishes of the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is wondering whether I am getting any ideas. He says he wants me around for the next election. I would not want to break the hon. gentleman's heart.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will look forward to seeing him in the next election. I should remind him that the last person who said he wanted me around for the last election would not be saying that today. I just put a little word of caution to him.

Concerning the point raised by my hon. friend, the report indeed mentions certain serious problems in Canada, for instance productivity. On the other hand, the report emphasizes the fact that Canada has the most generous taxation system of the industrialized world for research and development. As for education, the report notes that, per capita, Canada invests more than any other G-7 country. On the other hand, the results remain clearly unacceptable as far as productivity is concerned.

September 9, 1992
Oral Questions
However, there is something important which should be noted. While we accept that there is a serious problem, the latest figures show a change in the trend in Canada. Here is what they tell us.

Productivity growth averaged nearly 3.5 per cent in the first half of 1992, roughly three times its average performance in the 1980s. Unit labour cost growth is way down. It averaged over 1.5 per cent in the first half of 1992 compared to 4 per cent in the first half of 1991.
While there is a serious problem, there has emerged in the last six, seven, eight months some important indications that the recovery will be led by productivity growth and by exports. Those are two encouraging signs, but we will continue to work very hard with all parties in the House to correct those areas of weakness in the Canadian economy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the OECD report talked very strongly about the problem I mentioned in the House yesterday concerning our not having enough free trade within the country and about the barriers that exist between the provinces in Canada being tougher to overcome than the barriers that exist between the countries in Europe.
I understand the Prime Minister did not have unanimity on the constitutional discussions he had with the premiers. He was seeking unanimity. Is he planning to move very quickly to have seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population agree to break down the barriers within Canada immediately?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be at variance with what my hon. friend said yesterday.
I have indicated that we have the framework agreement which will allow the first first ministers' conference on the economy to deal effectively with an expanded and modernized section 121 immediately following ratification. This, for example, was actively supported by Premier Wells from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia with a few exceptions. My hon. friend is aware of that.
Having been there in 1982, having asked for an expanded and modernized section 121 in 1981 and 1982, and having received a flat no for his efforts, he is certainly aware of the difficulties in moving recalcitrant provinces along in this regard. We have made very substantial progress. At last count we had eight of ten representing substantially in excess of 50 per cent of the population.
We have every reason to believe that the spirit of mutual accommodation and conciliation that prevailed at Charlottetown will prevail with respect to section 121 and that Canada will get the kind of common market clause it needs and deserves.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I like the very eloquent words of the Prime Minister. I wish his party would have been of that view 10 years ago when we tried to do that, but wisdom came later. We knew we had to do that 12 years ago.
Is it possible that this meeting will be held before the end of the year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if we can secure ratification of the constitutional proposals before the end of the year, we would look forward to holding a first ministers' conference on the economy. Clearly this is the priority item on the agenda.
I think the minister for constitutional affairs and the minister of health would confirm that there seemed to be an acceptance of the fact that we have an extraordinary anomaly where there are greater barriers between provinces than among countries with which we trade around the world.
This does not make a great deal of sense, and I think most provincial premiers acknowledge that. We now have a framework agreement which will allow us to correct this and I think correct it quite soon. I thank my hon. friend for his offer of assistance.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the OECD report.
According to this report, "Canada's actual level of labour productivity was 45 per cent behind that of the United States in 1990", compared to 24 per cent in 1980.



September 9, 1992

Oral Questions
This was the situation in this country after six years of Conservative government.
Why is the Prime Minister not doing something concrete to close this productivity gap instead of simply driving this country into recession and keeping it there? If the Prime Minister is so concerned about breaking hearts, why does he not realize he has broken the hearts of 1.5 million Canadians and their families who have seen nothing from him but the bread lines and the unemployment lines? Why does he not recognize this and do something to help them get back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House would acknowledge that unemployment levels are too high, that they represent a veiy serious problem.
My hon. friend chuckles over there. At 11.6 per cent they are still too high even though they are lower, a little bit lower than when the Liberal government left office in 1984. They were at 11.7 per cent. They were too high then and they are too high today, even though we managed to get them down to 7.3 per cent at the end of 1988. We have embarked on a program which will hopefully reduce that unacceptably high level of unemployment.
I point out to my hon. friend, as I did to the Leader of the Opposition, that the numbers he has just used are out of date.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, they can be tabled on the floor of the House of Commons and examined. I have just told him that his numbers are inaccurate and out of date. Canadian productivity was up 1.9 per cent in the second quarter of this year from a year ago, and competitiveness of Canadian exports has increased by 6 per cent in the first half of this year alone.
We still have a problem of productivity. We have a problem of investment in research and development even though we have the best fiscal regime that exists in the OECD. We have a problem with regard to the results of education. Even though we spend more per capita on education than any of the G-7 countries, we do not produce the results.
One of the reasons for the constitutional rearrangements is the harmonization and the elimination of overlap and duplication that will allow us to expend the taxpayers' money more beneficially, to improve productivity even further.
I acknowledge that there is a problem. We are working on it and we are making progress.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do have to acknowledge being incorrect in one of my figures. I said that the Prime Minister broke the hearts of 1.5 million out of work Canadians. It was actually more than 1.6 million so I stand corrected.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. It has been reported that the government has ordered that the report of its productivity task force, which was supposed to be made public early this month, be put off being made public until after the October 26 referendum date. Even if this task force has been largely a dog and pony show, the public has a right to see what is in the report to see if there is anything worth while in it.
Will the Prime Minister rescind that order and get the report before the public right now? Will he take some concrete action to deal with the gap which he has questioned but which is in the report of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development? Will he rescind that order and get that report tabled this week?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend hates the word competitiveness. He denigrates the notion of any examination of the prosperity initiative, but in fact this government is pursuing in every sector an examination of our competitiveness through the prosperity initiative. In no way is its tabling in this House going to be delayed. It will be on time.
I can tell the hon. member that one of the findings he is going to discover when he reads the prosperity initiative is that we have increased our share of the American market. He is against free trade and NAFTA. We have increased our share of the American market in 19 of 23 sectors since the free trade agreement.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Oral Questions
It is quite clear after the release of the draft NAFTA yesterday that this government has initialled yet another bad trade deal for Canada. This trade deal fails to stop U.S. trade harassment on things from softwood lumber to automobiles. It fails to protect workers in all regions. It fails to protect jobs and it fails to protect the environment. Any way you slice it, the NAFTA deal is a failure.
Will the Prime Minister take the advice of others who have said to withdraw from this deal right now, to withdraw this deal, take it off the table and make sure that he stands up for Canadian workers and the Canadian people? The U.S. House majority leader has recommended that to the U.S. Congress. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister remove the trade deal now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the NDP seriously suggesting that the Canadian government take the advice of the majority House leader of the United States Congress on something this important? You want us to follow the advice of those nasty Americans?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: No, take our advice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, of your House leader. That is different.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should go on to the next question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it would be useful for Canadians on this very serious matter because many Canadians have lost jobs. We have lost over 360,000 manufacturing jobs since the Canada-U.S. trade deal and the government is now intent on making this bad deal worse by signing the NAFTA deal.
I want to use one specific instance. When the agreement was announced the Minister for International Trade and the chief NAFTA negotiator said that this trade deal would reduce American trade harassment of Honda and other companies in Canada. Yesterday Carla Hills, the chief U.S. negotiator, told the U.S. Senate finance committee that "the passage of the North American free trade agreement would not absolve Honda" from the current U.S. harassment. Over 5,000 Canadian jobs are on the line.
My question to the Prime Minister is: Why has his government initialled a deal that is going to lose Canadian jobs? Why is he not here to protect Canadian jobs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why is it, after having denigrated the Americans and their negotiators for years that my hon. friend now cites Carla Hills as an authority on the interpretation of what is going to happen to a Canadian product being exported to the United States? The Minister for International Trade has already indicated that it is not the case, that there is a very clear protection for the auto pact and its advantages are expanded for Canada.
Surely my hon. friend should know that for every $1 billion of exports, 15,000 new jobs are created in Canada. Of all of the major trading countries in the world, the percentage of GDP in Canada related to foreign trade is higher than any, with the exception of Germany, almost 30 per cent. Our lifeline to new jobs is trade.
Here is an opportunity to trade into a brand new market, although 80 per cent of Mexican products enter Canada free from duties now. What we are doing is getting a level playing field for Canada in Mexico with new opportunities for financial services, new opportunities for automotive products, new opportunities that will create new jobs in telecommunications and pharmaceuticals. These are new opportunities for Canadian jobs.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Canadians recognize that the one thing which has been traded away is Canadian jobs.

U.S. trade representative Carla Hills said yesterday that "even if Canadian cultural industries are excluded from NAFTA, the United States reserves the right to take retaliatory action against Canada". I am quoting Ms. Hills. How can the Prime Minister claim our cultural industries are protected when the United States is already starting to threaten us?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend cites exactly the wrong example. The fact is that what was achieved by the Canadian negotiators was a complete and total exemption, protection for culture under the NAFTA agreement.
September 9, 1992

Prior to the free trade agreement the Americans had the ability to retaliate any time we took any measures to protect Canadian culture. The free trade agreement limited their ability to retaliate and that is enshrined in NAFTA as well. It is a major success for Canadians.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
[Editor's Note: Disturbance in Gallery.]


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think we on this side of the House want a government where everybody feels they are on the inside. That is why we hope there is an election soon.
Four years ago when the Prime Minister rammed the trade deal through the House, he promised the finest adjustment programs in the world. Four years later
600,000	more Canadians are out of work than there were when he made that promise. What happened to his fine words of four years ago when today we still have no new adjustment programs?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to the free trade agreement and our undertaking to have adjustment programs, she should read the de Grandpre report.
A task force by the private sector in this country made recommendations to the government to deal with the adjustment challenge that any industry faces in the world, free trade or not.
The number of adjustment programs in this country have been increased tremendously in the last three years. They compare us to the Americans per capita. Canada spends 35 times more per capita on adjustment programs for Canadians than does the United States.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will not have a Canada that will be the same as the United States in every respect. We in the Liberal Party want no part of that.
The Prime Minister himself gave his word four years ago, when he said there would be adjustment programs.
Oral Questions
Mr. de Grandpre made some concrete proposals which were subsequently ignored. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister why he has reneged on his commitment to adjustment programs for the millions of unemployed workers who want jobs in this country.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Grandpre report, and she says we failed to implement the report's recommendations. I would ask her to name a single one that was not implemented. One of Mr. Grandpre's main recommendations was to activate the passive funds available under the Unemployment Insurance Program.
We tabled Bill C-21, and the Liberal Party, with its friends in the other place, spent a year and a half fighting the adoption of Bill C-21, a measure that today benefits
500,000	Canadians who are receiving training thanks to this legislation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last week, the minister confirmed a promise made repeatedly by his government that the North American Free Trade Agreement would provide for a tripartite commission on the environment. Here is my question: Does the minister still maintain that commitment?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard mentioned a promise made repeatedly by the government. I am not sure what he is referring to, but I can inform him that on September 17, exactly a week from now, I will be meeting my American counterpart, Mr. Reilly. I will also be meeting my Mexican counterpart, Mr. Colosio. We will discuss a trilateral co-operation agreement involving our three countries. This is a first, and comes as a result of the trade agreement signed by our three countries. In fact, as far as I know, this is the first time a trade agreement is used as a lever to achieve something in the environmental sector. Next week I expect to have more information for the hon. member as a result of these meetings.

September 9, 1992
Oral Questions


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the minister in a speech in Toronto last week confirmed the promise. It is clear from his statement now the ink is barely dry on the North American free trade agreement and already this government is being pushed around.
The trilateral commission on the environment was to be the umbrella. It was to be the overseer for all environmental concerns arising from NAFTA.
When the minister meets next week in Washington, he might ask Carla Hills what she meant yesterday when testifying before the United States Senate when she said there would be a bilateral commission only. In other words, Canada was going to be left out.
Will the minister admit this amounts to a fundamental breach of the spirit of the North American free trade agreement, and will he tell us what he is going to do about it?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, let me be short, brief, and concise. I was not in Toronto last week. I know where I am today and I am not sure the member knows where he is today.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
After the North American free trade agreement was initialled by Canada, U.S. and Mexico, the Prime Minister announced he would be happy to sell this deal across Canada.
After that announcement by the Prime Minister, a $3 million propaganda campaign, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, was initiated by this government to sell the NAFTA deal without any comment from the opposition members of this House.
If the Prime Minister is prepared to put to a national referendum the political future of Canada, is he prepared to put on a referendum parallel to that the economic future of Canada and let Canadians vote yes or no on whether they want a North American free trade agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I understand my hon. friend, he is suggesting that Canada's future is at stake because of trade with Mexico, which represents approximately 1 per cent of our trade. The nation is in peril because of the 1 per cent of trade, which is essentially beneficial to Canada. It is demonstrably silly and fatuous for the hon. gentleman to tiy to make that point.
What I do not understand with the NDP is this: The NDP rises in this House time and time again to make the case that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada should be more generous than we already are with respect to assisting developing nations to achieve a greater degree of prosperity. Their philosophy seems to be more and more hand-outs to countries that seek to elevate the degree of prosperity and wealth of their individual citizens.
What Mexico is saying, as a developing country, is: "We are looking for an opportunity, not for handouts, but an opportunity for fair trade with developed countries". What Canada and the United States are saying is that the best way that we can create that prosperity collectively while assisting ourselves is to allow a developing country the opportunity to trade its way to prosperity. They do not want hand-outs. They want equality of opportunity which is the basis of the GATT and all other important industrialized trading arrangements. So the NDP should be in favour of this and not against it.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for making a speech about everything except my question. My question was: If this is petty, if this is small potatoes, why are you spending $3 million to sell a small-potatoes deal to Canadians? You say you can sell this deal. You will have a hard job after this is signed selling Margaritas on a Tijuana beach.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would want to address the Prime Minister or any other minister through the Chair.


David Barrett: Through you, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is this. If he is prepared to spend $3 million of tax dollars promoting this deal, why is he not prepared to put it on a referendum and let the Canadian people have a say themselves without the propaganda?

September 9, 1992


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that I indicated that this was small potatoes. I never said any such thing. I never said any such thing.


David Barrett: But you're spending $3 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor and I am sure hon. members would want to have extended to him the courtesy so that he can make an answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is an important trading arrangement. We have conventions under the British parliamentary system and here in Canada whereby these matters are dealt with. There will be an opportunity for a full and extensive debate with regard to the provisions of the North American free trade agreement. My hon. friend will be able to register his disapproval and perhaps indicate to the Canadian people the alternatives that he proposes to this kind of important trading initiative.
He refers as well to the beach of Tijuana. I can tell him that if I were to have a Margarita on the beach of Tijuana, it would be with someone other than him.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that neither eventuality is likely to happen.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: I think, Mr. Speaker, the real question is whether either of them is going to find a way to get to Tiajuana, given the state of the airline industry. That is why I would like to ask the Minister of Transport this:
The Minister of Transport yesterday would not confirm whether the Government of Canada still has a two airline policy. I think it is vital to all Canadians to know where the government stands on this important issue. Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Government of Canada continues to believe, as the Minister of Transport previously stated, that there should be two Canadian airline companies in this country. Yes or no?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I have repeated this time and again. Maybe the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was flying too high to understand the answers I gave him. If he would come back down to earth and listen to what I say, he may
Oral Questions
remember forever that we want a safe, efficient and competitive airline industry to survive in Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, if the minister ever gets his feet on the ground, I wonder whether there will be one foot or two feet. Perhaps then he could tell us.
Yesterday as well he said that the problems confronting the industry were non-existent problems, and I quote: "What we have had in this country in the face of a transportation policy that was supposed to increase competition and improve air service is a result that sees both airline companies losing together over $2 million a day. Last week the chairman of Air Canada said that up to 39,000 jobs may be lost in the airline industry and related businesses in this country". This is a serious problem and the real problem is a non-existent air transportation policy.
What does the minister have to say to the Canadians who are concerned today about losing their jobs?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the transport critic from the other side is no better at telling jokes than he is at asking questions.
The truth of the matter is that PWA has indicated this morning that it will be making an announcement as to what offer it is going to accept this afternoon, either the Air Canada offer or an alliance with American Airlines. We repeat again that it is a private transaction between two private companies and the policies of this government have been very beneficial to the travelling public and the consumers of this country.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, despite the importance of the issue, the Minister of Transport continues to be evasive. Yesterday he said in the House that his government is taking every measure to ensure a competitive airline industry. He said it again today.
Given the evasiveness of the Minister of Transport, maybe the Prime Minister can tell us what these measures are. Canadians have a right to know. Is it competition between two Canadian carriers, greater foreign competition, or no competition at all?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, there are two airlines in existence at the present time. There are offers that have been made between these two companies and another offer from American Airlines to Canadian Airlines. An announcement will be made this afternoon. After this announcement is made there are agencies of the government that will examine the projected transaction and then we will be able to answer to that.

Oral Questions


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Minister of Transport is going to sit on his haunches and wait for a decision to come from the private sector before Canadian consumers can be guaranteed what they need.
Will the minister give his unequivocal assurance to this House that whatever the result of those merger proposals this afternoon, he will protect the travelling public from price gouging and guarantee that Canadians will have access to competitive regional air carriers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that there are two transactions that are being contemplated at the present time.
Once an announcement is made by one or both airlines, we will deal with all of these questions in the proper manner with the help of the agencies that are set up precisely to look after that.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Comfortably ensconced in this House, the Prime Minister has been extolling the so-called virtues of the Charlottetown Accord, rallying to his cause such allies as the Leader of the Official Opposition, his new friend, and dead sovereignists. However, democracy demands genuine public debate, and I would like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to confront a real live sovereign-ist. I ask him to accept the challenge of meeting me in public debate in Quebec, anywhere and at any time during the referendum campaign.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am a real live Canadian, and I brought one into this world.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: For months, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has been insisting on public consultation. They want to know the views of Quebecers. There is going to be a referendum in Quebec, and on October 26,
you will know the outcome and what Quebecers really think.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think who brought who into the world is beside the point.
I thought we asked for a debate on sovereignty, but the federal government and Mr. Bourassa's government have decided there will be no debate on sovereignty. There will be a debate on the accord, the draft produced in Charlottetown. Now I want the Prime Minister to say whether he will accept my challenge, yes or no.


An hon. member:: He is scared.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last challenge I accepted was in 1988, when I went twice to the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, with my wife, to get my friend elected as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
There will be not one but many debates in Canada and Quebec, because when the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois were asking for a referendum, they said it had to be a referendum on sovereignty.


Lucien Bouchard: So let's have one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And now we have a referendum, and the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are saying: It is not on sovereignty, it is just a question, so we can say no without any consequences.
I think I hear the Bloc murmuring in the background. I can assure you there will be a watertight question, a debate according to the rules and a decisive outcome. Considering the honourable commitment made by the leader of the Bloc, I assume that if the vote is not in his favour, he will do as he said and resign the next day.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Agriculture concerns the cash flow enhancement program which enables farmers to secure up to $50,000 interest free on the strength of their farm stored grain.
September 9, 1992

Because of the cash flow problems occasioned by foreign export subsidies and in Saskatchewan by the unilateral gutting of GRIP by the provincial government, will the minister consider renewing the cash flow enhancement program for hard-pressed farmers for the current 1992-93 crop year?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of the interest free portion of the cash advance, as it is referred to.
We are consulting within government. Even with interest rates below 5 per cent, it is an expensive program. We must resource it and be able to find those resources. That is what my colleagues and I are attempting to do at this time because we recognize the value of the program.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the hon. member for Mackenzie and a single question from the hon. member for Dartmouth.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister or whoever is speaking for the government is on trade policy.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture intimated that the U.S. export enhancement program would not apply to Canadians or Mexicans due to the CUSTA and NAFTA. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that Ontario corn producers succeeded in getting a countervail of $1.10 a bushel against United States corn in 1986, using the existing GATT rules against dumping.
Is it not true that the present GATT rules clearly prevent such export subsidies, but that importing countries are simply reluctant to say no to U.S. cash and the cheap grain that results from that?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to an answer that I gave yesterday where I pointed out that in the politically driven announcement by the President of the United States to expand the export enhancement program, they have not only expanded it to countries which we find difficult to accept, they have removed some countries from eligibility that had been there in the past. I used the example of Mexico.
Business of the House
If my colleague reads the NAFTA agreement, he will see that Mexico, United States and Canada have come to a negotiated agreement as to how export subsidies may be used within our three borders.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the last year alone the port of Halifax has lost hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in port traffic as a direct result of this government's regressive tax and rail transportation policies. Now a task force, appointed by the Premier of Nova Scotia, has laid much of the blame for the decline of the port of Halifax squarely within the federal government's jurisdiction.
My question is this. Does the minister finally accept the responsibility, accept the findings of the Premier's task force? Specifically, what action has he already initiated to implement all of the 10 recommendations of that report?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we have received this report together with other reports from Canada Ports Corporation. We are examining the conclusions of this report. We expect to answer the questions raised in this report very shortly.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion.
That, after the first three speakers on Government Motion Number 11, all subsequent speakers shall speak no longer than 15 minutes each.
That, on Wednesday, September 9,1992 the House shall sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment until such time as the three Whips agree or no other member rises to speak, but in any event, not later than 9:59 a.m. on Thursday, September 10,1992, whereupon the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day, provided that no dilatory

September 9, 1992
Tributes
motions or quorum calls shall be deemed receivable during extended hours.
That, on Thursday, September 10, 1992 the House shall continue to sit between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. to consider Government Orders.
That, if the debate on Government Motion No. 11 is concluded before 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, 1992, the question on the motion shall be put at 8:00 p.m.
That, at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 10, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of Government Motion No. 11 and immediately thereafter the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 14, 1992 at 11:00 a.m.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some extensive consultations with the opposition parties. In view of what the parliamentary secretary has read I can give the consent of the Liberal Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Ditto, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, we want to thank all three parties for having had the decency to consult with us. We support this motion and will co-operate with all three parties in the House to make it a democratic debate.
We thank you for intervening yesterday to instigate these negotiations, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent in the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, we were saddened last month to hear of the passing of the Hon. George Mcllraith. George was 84 years old and had spent half of his life in Parliament. He served as a member of the House of Commons for Ottawa West and Ottawa Centre for 10 consecutive Parliaments, from 1940 to 1972, when he was summoned to the Senate where he served until 1983.
During the Mackenzie King and the St. Laurent administrations he was parliamentary assistant to C. D.
Howe. He served in the Pearson and Trudeau cabinets as Minister of Transport, President of the Privy Council, Minister of Public Works and Solicitor General.
During the tumultuous years from 1964 to 1967 he was leader of the government in the House of Commons. He was an asset to the Prime Minister of the day. George had a gift for making problems go away. Those of us who knew him well knew that sometimes George had a way of expressing himself that made problems just disappear.
After leaving cabinet he returned to his private practice of law in which he was active until the day he died.
For many years he was minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. It is no coincidence that it was during those years that the NCC played so constructive a part in the development of the national capital region, both as a symbol of national beauty and pride and as an eminently liveable community.
He never claimed for himself the credit which was due. He was too preoccupied looking after the needs of ordinary constituents, the little people as he called them, of every ethnic background, of every possible income group. George was available and there when he was needed.
George Mcllraith was a soft-spoken man whose almost understated exterior masked a canny understanding of people and government and a deep devotion to his country and community. When others sought advice, his usual admonition was: "Just keep your head down and do your job". He followed his own advice; while the flamboyance of others garnered the headlines, George Mcllraith got the job done.

On behalf of all Liberal members, as well as his friends and colleagues, I join all Canadians in mourning the death of a beloved fellow countryman.
To his children Janet, Ann Margaret, Cathy and George, and other members of his family I offer my deepest condolences.


Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to rise today to pay tribute to a fine gentleman who served this Parliament and this country well for over 40 years.
September 9, 1992

The Hon. George Mcllraith was first elected to the House of Commons in 1940 and had already established an illustrious reputation as government House leader when I came here in 1965.
He had begun his career as parliamentary secretary to the Hon. C. D. Howe during the difficult times of the Second World War.
George Mcllraith served many prime ministers. Over the 32 years he was in the House of Commons, he was sworn to the Privy Council by the Right Hon. Lester Pearson in 1963 and held several portfolios before he was summoned to the Senate in 1972. His retirement from the Senate in 1983 marked the end of 43 years of active service to the country he loved so dearly.
I served in the House of Commons with the hon. gentleman for seven years and we sat in different chambers for another eleven years after that. My memories of George Mcllraith will be of a true gentleman who always acted in a very straightforward manner. He was an excellent worker for his constituents and a credit to the Parliament that he so loved.
To his family and friends I express my condolences. To Parliament I extend hope that his memory will be an inspiration to us all in our efforts to make this a more productive and civil place to carry on the business of our nation.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on behalf of our party to pay tribute to George Mcllraith.
When I was first elected in 1968 he was the Solicitor General and later on the Minister of Public Works. He was one of the highly respected gentlemen of the House. He was of a calibre similar to that of Mr. Stanley Knowles, John Diefenbaker, and two or three others.
He had been here for many years. He was a member of Parliament from 1940 to 1972, later appointed to the Senate, and stayed there until 1983. If I recall correctly he served under four different prime ministers, a cabinet minister under two of those prime ministers. One of his former colleagues, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who is here in the House today, knew Mr. Mcllraith very well.
He was a very soft-spoken man, a very generous and sincere man. When I first came to the Hill I realized very quickly he had a lot of friends on the Hill among the staff
Tributes
who worked for Parliament. He was seen as a person around here who the staff could go to and talk to. He would listen to them and try to solve some of their problems.
He was sort of Mr. Parliament Hill. He was Mr. Ottawa, not just for the Liberal Party but for many citizens of this city of Ottawa.
On behalf of our party I want to express to his four children, to his family and to his friends, our most sincere condolences on the passing of Mr. Mcllraith.


Right Hon. John N. Tiirner (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in Ottawa-Carleton the senior member of the party in Ottawa was the Hon. George Mcllraith.
He had deep roots in the Valley. He was a very intimate friend of three generations of leaders of our country. He was a superb parliamentarian. He was leader of the House at one time. I remember one evening when he asked me to fill in for him. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the then Minister of Northern Affairs, Arthur Laing, and he asked me to be the acting House leader. The late Gordon Churchill was then the House leader for the Loyal Opposition.
After we conducted the business of the House, Mr. Churchill got up and complimented me on the very clear way that the House business had been conducted and would I arrange with the Prime Minister to replace the Hon. George Mcllraith.
I said it might be that the hon. House leader of the opposition would prefer me but he may not know, to use the parlance of football, where the play is going. That is Mr. Mcllraith's technique. I want to assure him and through you, Mr. Speaker, the entire House, that we do not often know where the ball is going either.
Mr. Mcllraith was once faced by the then very popular mayor of Ottawa, the late Dr. Charlotte Whitton, the first female mayor of a major city in this country, a remarkable woman, a remarkable person, and one of the leading social workers in the country.
She was mayor of Ottawa and she challenged George Mcllraith in the then riding of Ottawa Centre, now Ottawa West. Despite the great Diefenbaker landslide in 1958, she was unable to unseat the Hon. George Mcllraith, so deep were his roots on Preston Street and parts of Ottawa that only Jean-Robert and I would be able to describe and guide you through.

Tributes
Despite the fact that Dr. Whitton as mayor of Ottawa was defeated by the Hon. George Mcllraith, she retained him continually as her personal solicitor. He was one of the two executors of her will who administered her estate when she died. If that does not take talent, if that does not take skill, if that does not take human qualities, I do not know what does.
The Hon. George Mcllraith served our country and served Parliament for over 43 years in both Houses. He is one of the few senators I know, had he been here, who could have been elected in an elected Senate. He was a wonderful parliamentarian, a very fair man and a great credit to public life in this countiy.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in making a few comments about a man we admired so much.
I did not have the honour to serve with George. Because he was a former member for Ottawa Centre I went to visit George in order to seek his advice on whether or not I should run for federal politics. At the time I recall George looked at me and said: "Who are you?" I told George I was an engineer and a municipal politician. The first thing he did was he leaned over and pulled a book from behind his desk. The book was about Mackenzie King. He said: "Here is this book. Read about Liberals".
I was extremely inspired not only by the advice of George who gave me a tremendous amount of strength and insight into what it takes to be a true grassroots politician, but also I still look at him as a tremendous example as a true politician who truly represents the community.
Hon. George Mcllraith was a man dedicated to serving the people because he was a man of the people. He believed in Canada and in the Liberal principles. He believed in his family, his friends and his constituents.
George was a great leader who served a great countiy. He is missed by all of us. He is missed by his family and his friends. To Janet, Maiy Margaret, Cathy, George, and all of the grandchildren, we offer our deep sympathy.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of sincerity and indeed dedication that I rise today and join others in a tribute to the Hon. George Mcllraith.
If there is anything we have to say about George Mcllraith at this moment that is really important it is that he was one of those quiet, decent, gentleman-like politicians who never stood on the street comer shouting at everybody going by or trying to draw attention. He just simply got the job done in his own quiet perfectionist manner.
He loved this Parliament. He loved his country. He was absolutely dedicated to the public life of this country.
I would dock my boat at Petawawa Point and cross over the Ottawa River to Fort William, Quebec. I would pull the boat up on shore, go into George's cottage and have a chat with him. Long after he retired he wanted to be briefed on what was going on in caucus and in Parliament. It was not always easy to explain that to him, as one can well imagine.
When young members came into this House, George Mcllraith took them aside, had a reception for them, told them what happened around here and gave them some ideas on how Parliament was run. In those days that was never done much, certainly not when I first came here. I went to George Mcllraith many times, as members of the opposition did in those days. There would be no great fanfare. You may never have received a letter. You may never have received a telephone call, but in a couple of weeks' time things would have been done.
The man we are describing today is one of the last generation, quiet, extremely effective politicians who did his job with a great deal of dignity.
I join the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and relate one of my more interesting and humourous memories of those days when the Hon. George Mcllraith and the Hon. Paul Martin Sr. sat together on the government benches. The Hon. George Mcllraith was Solicitor General at the time. Someone got up and asked him a very sensitive question. By the time George sat down opposition members were looking across wondering what he had actually said. The member from the opposition asked the question a second time and by the time George sat down again they were none the wiser. Someone shouted across: "You have just won the contest

Routine Proceedings
against the Hon. Paul Martin. You have now succeeded him as the man in the House who can give an answer and when you sit down you are not in trouble". That was George.
To his children I want to say they can be very proud of their father who sat in this House with such distinction for so long. One of the eulogies given at his funeral was very apropos. One Christmas Eve in the Mcllraith home while everyone was preparing for a good dinner, a young man who was courting one of the Mcllraith girls was approached by George after he had come away from the telephone. On the telephone George had said: "Yes, yes, okay. Now, what was that address again?" He took a shopping bag, went to the fridge, dropped in a ham and a loaf of bread. He filled the bag with groceries and asked the young man who was courting his daughter: "Will you please deliver this to Mrs. So-and-So at such and such an address". That is the depth of the human side of the man whom we are remembering today.
He could sit in an office on Parliament Hill with C.D. Howe, sit around the cabinet table with prime ministers, come into this House and answer questions, but he still had time for the average individual. I believe that today's politician who does not forget where his or her roots really are will learn a good lesson and take a good page out of George Mcllraith's book on how to be respected at this time, and throughout his or her life and what the Parliament of Canada is all about to the average person across this country.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, the words of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke and the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra are hard acts to follow.
I came to Parliament Hill in 1958 and I first met George Mcllraith then. As a reporter, I interviewed him over the next 20 years. He was a veiy gentlemanly minister, member of Parliament and representative of the people.
I want to keep this brief by saying that all of us on this side will greatly miss George Mcllraith. We extend our full sympathies to his family.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong these tributes unduly but I wish to add that I had the privilege of working for
the Hon. George Mcllraith when I was a student at Queen's University at Christmastime in 1966 for a few weeks and then in the summer of 1967 and in 1968. He was a great employer.
We became quite good friends and shared a very common affection for the Ottawa Valley where both of us had roots or what one would call roots today, to use an overworked word, perhaps.
In his 43 years of service to Parliament, which by any record is an outstanding number of years, he displayed a respect and affection for this institution which he imparted by his generosity of spirit to many others.
He will be sorely missed. To his family we extend our deepest sympathy on the loss.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 299 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1991 annual reports of the Co-Operative Energy Corporation, as well as the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, and the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period of October 1, 1990 to September 30, 1991.

September 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in the House, in both official languages, Order in Council appointments recently made by the government pursuant to Section 110(1) of the Standing Orders.
These orders are deemed referred to the Standing Committee named in the appendix.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present to this House 90 petitions which have been signed by more than 3,000 people in memoiy of a young girl, Rosalynn Dupuis, who died as a result of a stabbing. A young offender has been charged with her murder.
The people who have signed these petitions, which are a few of many more to come, ask that the laws governing young offenders and the crimes they commit, especially the violent crimes, be changed in order that judges have the ability to impose sentences fitting the crimes which have been committed.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to table a petition on behalf of 100 per cent of the residents of Wildan Estates in Freelton in Hamilton-Wentworth. One hundred per cent of everyone canvassed in the survey is not bad.
After 18, going on 19 years of successfully running their own non-profit cable system, these people are being victimized by the Burlington based Cablenet network which claims Wildan Estates is on its turf. It is trying to seize Wildan Estates. I will not stand for that. I am going to bat for these people right to the chairman of the CRTC but I am tabling this petition first in the House.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to this House a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
It contains the signatures of over 10,000 Canadians who support private member's Bill C-330. They want Canadians to have a greater say in the disposition of offenders in the judicial process. They call upon Parliament to support victims' rights and the protection of the public from violent offenders.
There will be tens of thousands of signatures to follow.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by about a hundred residents from my riding.
The undersigned residents of Canada send this petition in memory of Ryan Garrioch and they want to draw attention to the following: that the majority of Canadians supports equal treatment of criminal offenders but with legislated aid shelters it shelters the criminal from the law for young adolescents. They also ask that chapter 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality of rights.
Therefore these petitioners want Parliament to revise the laws of Canada and replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act that has a lower maximum age of 13.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of tabling many petitions from the Toronto, metropolitan Toronto and Mississauga region regarding the ongoing conflict in the regions of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia. The conflict is showing no signs of abatement and it is painfully apparent that the Canadian contingent of the United Nations peacekeeping force is unable to resolve the situation.
Whereas the conflict has caused 2.5 million persons to be physically displaced from their homes thereby becoming refugees in their own nations, and whereas Canadian citizens of these ethnic backgrounds are willing and prepared to sponsor these refugees and their families, the petitioners call upon Parliament to implement legislation an/or procedures to help alleviate the plight of these 2.5 million refugees by all measures possible, including financial aid, essential supplies and permission

to enter Canada as refugees on a temporary basis, until the conflict has ceased, or perhaps on a permanent basis.


Jesse Philip Flis: I have a second petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by over 300 residents in my riding of Parkdale-High Park regarding the closing of two postal stations, Postal Station B on Ritchie Street and Postal Station M on Bloor Street West.
The closing of these two postal stations means that Parkdale-High Park no longer has a full service post office.
These petitioners call upon the minister responsible for Canada Post to review the decision to close Postal Station M and Postal Station B, renew their leases and ensure that the service remains at these two stations for the residents in Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the third petition, also from Canadians living in the metropolitan Toronto area, is regarding the plight of people living in Rwanda. I will read just the prayer, which calls upon Parliament to, first, urge the Canadian government to apply pressure on the Rwandan regime to immediately stop killing innocent Rwandans; second, urge the Canadian government to stop economic aid and other forms of assistance to the current Rwandan regime; and, third, urge the Canadian government to support the EEC resolution on Rwanda issued on February 20, 1992 in Santo Domingo.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the final petition is signed by petitioners from right across Ontario, calling upon the government to ask Canada Post to honour Marie Sklodowska Curie by issuing a commemorative stamp on the occasion of her 125th anniversary which will occur on November 7 of this year.
Routine Proceedings PHARMACEUTICALS


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from a number of people from all across Canada which notes that the current government under Bill C-91 has sought to prevent the production of no name generic drugs in Canada by allowing brand name drug manufacturers to produce drugs without competition for up to 20 years, and that this has already driven up the price of prescription drugs in Canada.
The petitioners therefore call on the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 passed in 1987 so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by several hundred people from across British Columbia, mainly seniors. They point out that the price of new and existing drugs has already increased substantially to both individuals and provincial and private drug plans since Bill C-22 was passed in 1987.
The petitioners are therefore asking this government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 in order that our provincial pharmacare programs may survive.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and the honour to present three petitions on three different issues. First I have one relating to the crisis in the fishery on the south coast of Newfoundland and in the gulf, 3Ps, 3Pn, 4R. It is from several hundreds of fishermen from a number of communities: from Baine Harbour, Brookside, Boat Harbour West, South East Bight, Petit Forte, Parker's Cove and Rushoon in my riding, as well as from the community of Southern Harbour in the minister of fisheries' riding.
These hundreds of people have written asking that the government do for their coast what it has already done for the northeast coast. The petition points out-and I will not read it all, but I will mention the one or two explicit points-that the government has already moved to implement a cod moratorium on the northeast coast and provided a compensation package.

September 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The prayer of this petition which I support wholeheartedly is that the government do likewise for the people in the southwest coast in Newfoundland and the gulf, that it provide a fair and reasonable compensation package for those who are adversely affected by the severe downturn in the fishery.
I support the petition whole-heartedly.


Roger Simmons: Second, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in the Port aux Basques-Isle aux Morts area of my riding on the issue we are now addressing in Parliament.
They are calling on the government to enact legislation providing for a referendum, but I did want to get that one on the record for the sake of the people who have taken the time to circulate it.


Roger Simmons: Third and finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which is from a number of people in my riding in Stephenville, Port au Port, Point au Mai, Kippens, Barachois Brook and Stephenville Crossing areas.
The petition reads that whereas the federal government promised to maintain the federal co-operative housing program with a budget of $6.1 million during 1992, whereas the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation informed the co-operative sector of this promise as late as six days prior to the February 25, 1992 budget, whereas that budget not only eliminated the budget for co-operative housing but also terminated the federal co-operative housing program including the indexed linked mortgage, whereas this will mean that 2,000 new homes will not be constructed with a job loss of 4,400 people during 1992, and whereas even housing co-operatives which require no government assistance are unable to secure a mortgage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for presenting petitions is limited to 15 minutes and other members want to present petitions.


Roger Simmons: I fully realize that, Mr. Speaker. I was merely reading the petition which I think was within my
right. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reinstate the federal co-operative housing program and its budget of $6.1 million for 1992 and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, rapidement, my first petition deals with Canadians who wish to axe the tax on reading and other learning materials. They feel it is contrary to our objectives of increasing literacy and educational levels in our country.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition comes from Canadians who deplore the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for education. These people believe that these cuts run counter to the government's policies on productivity and competitiveness.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my last petition deals with petitioners who wish Parliament to be very vigilant with the CRTC as it looks to control the use of foul language on radio and television.
They point out that we do not need foul language to entertain or to inform in English, in French or in any other language.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a small group of people who were part of a very large group working across my riding this year in consequence of the celebration of our 125th anniversary as a country. They are the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada. More petitions are being processed.
These people had a project they called the Proud to be Canadian project. They present their signatures to show their pride in our heritage and in our flag. They encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
September 9, 1992


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-91 and the effect it will have on no name drugs as well as on the price of drugs to seniors in particular.
The petitioners are asking Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22 so that Canadians will have the full benefit from lower priced generic drugs and so that provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops.
They are calling for the goods and services tax to be removed from feminine sanitary products such as tampons and pads. They point out the fact that these products are a necessity for women between puberty and menopause and therefore the government should not apply the tax to these necessities.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition concerning the ongoing saga over water diversion.
The petitioners are pointing out that a company presently plans to transfer water from the North Thompson River down toward San Diego, California and are hoping that the government would introduce legislation soon that would prohibit this type of project.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from pilots in Kamloops who point out that they fly into the airstrip at Jasper National Park. They have found out that the government plans to close this airstrip. They are simply asking Parliament to revoke the proposed regulations issued by the Department of the Environment and ensure that this airstrip remains open.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition calling upon the government to
Routine Proceedings
request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition under Standing Order 36 calling upon the government to reinstate immediately the federal co-operative housing program and commit the $6.1 million to that program.


George Saunders Rideout: Third, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I want to introduce a petition from the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada to support pride in our flag and in our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time for presenting petitions has now expired.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 300, 319, 322, 323, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, 347, 349, 357, 358, 359, 360, 364, 372, 373, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 and 382.


Mr. Parker: With respect to the recent trip of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Finland and South Africa (a) what was the total cost of air fares (b) who else accompanied her on the trip (c) what was the air fare for each (d) what class of ticket was used?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: FINLAND:
a)	The total cost of air fares for Finland was $29,225.40.
b)	The following accompanied the minister:
Ms. R. Mezzanotte
Mr. S. Mullin Mr. K. Phillips Ms. S. Beauchamp Mr. V Johnstone

September 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
SOUTH AFRICA:
a)	The total cost of air fares for South Africa was $61,699.
b)	The folowing accompanied the minister:
Ms. R. Mezzanotte
Mr. S. Mullin Ms. L. Edwards Ms. C. McMaster Mr. V. Johnstone Ms. E. Brannen Mr. G. Hawes FINLAND:
c) The following air fares for each:		d) the following class of ticket:
Hon. B. McDougall	$6,755.00	FMs. R. Mezzanotte	$4,080.90	JMr. S. Mullin	$4,176.90	JMr. K. Phillips	$4,133.90	JMs. S. Beauchamp	$4,080.90	JMr. V. Johnstone	$5,997.80	JSOUTH AFRICA	c) The following air fares for each:	d) the following class of ticket:Hon. B. McDougall	$10,382.00	FMs. R. Mezzanotte	$7,518.00	JMr. S. Mullin	$7,398.00	JMs. L. Edwards	$7,322.00	JMs. C. McMaster	$7,322.00	JMr. V Johnstone	$7,836.00	JMs. E. Brannen	$7,398.00	JMr. G. Hawes	$6,523.00	JQuestion No. 319	-Mr. Gardiner:	With respect to the newsprint flyer issued by Canada 125 Corportation (Volume 1, Number 1), (a) what were the total costs of	
production and distribution (b) what was the date and value of the contract related to the production of this publication (c) to whom was the contract awarded?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
a)	The total cost of producing and distributing (Volume I, Number 1) tabloid is $839,435.
b)	The contract for production and distribution of four tabloids had a net value of $3,357,743 and was dated April 1, 1992.
c)	The contract was awarded by tender to GTC Transcontinental for production and Canada Post for distribution.


Mr. Boudria: Over the last four years did the government and/or the Canada Council provide any grant to the organizers of Vancouver's Women in View Festival and, if so, what was the amount given in each year and for what purpose?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed by the Department of Communications, the Canada Council and the Department of the Secretary of State as follows:
Department of Communications
FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM-RECIPIENT		AMOUNT
1988-89		Nil
1989-90	Cultural Initiatives Program View, the Perfoming Arts Society (Women in View Festival)	$6,3001990-91	Cultural Initiatives Program View, the Perfoming Arts Society (Women in View Festival)	$1,4001991-92	Cultural Initiatives Program View, the Perfoming Arts Society (Women in View Festival)	$11,7001992-93	Canada Council	NilOver the last four years the Canada Council has provided the following grants to the organizers of Vancouver's Women in View Festival:	YEAR	PURPOSE	AMOUNT1988	Fees to artists performing at festival	$15,0001989	Honoraria to writers giving public readings at festival	$1,391
September 9, 1992

1990	Travel expenses of artists performing at festival	$3,0001990	Honoraria to writers giving public readings at festival	$7301991	Honoraria to writers giving public readings at festival	$1,294Department of the Secretary of State	
The department granted funds to the "View, the Performing Arts Society" for the organization of symposium and workshops components of the Women in View Festival:
1988-89	$2,475
1989-90	$2,500
1990-91	$2,500
1991-92	$3,000


Mr. Edmonston: Does the government intend to introduce legislation concerning the RCMP and its internal and external complaints committees and, if so (a) what changes would occur in the complaint lodging mechanism (b) what types of complaints would be acceptable under the new regulations?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Consistent with the measures outlined in the February budget, the government intends to amalgamate the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Public Complaints Commission and the RCMP External Review Committee. No substantive changes are anticipated to the existing process of lodging complaints. Further details of the amalgamation will be included in legislation which the government plans to introduce in Parliament shortly.


Mrs. Gaffney: Since January 1, 1991 what is the total amount of funding granted by the Medical Research Council (a) for pure medical research (b) for clinical medical research?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Medical Research Council of Canada does not apportion its funding on the basis of pure medical research and clinical medical research. However, one means of classifying its research expenditures is attached.
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
NUMBER OF GRANTS	AMOUNT OF FUNDING (thousand of dollars)
Bacteriology	64	4,749Biochemistry-Molecular Biology	237	21,871Blood	58	4,391Cancer	98	6,917Cardiovascular	156	11,552Cell Biology	77	6,196Dental Science	31	4,031Drug Research	81	5,514Endocrinology	88	8,044Gastro-Intestinal- Liver	77	7,010Genetics	59	5,857Hearing	8	352Imaging-Nuclear Medicine	26	2,734Immunology- Transplantation	99	9,259Metabolism	89	6,656Musculo-Skeletal	66	4,214Nephrology	39	3,642Neurosciences	339	26,682Nutrition	22	1,388Reproductive- Pregnancy	70	8,013Respiration	90	6,165Virology	65	4,866Vision	49	2,515Not classified	2	44
Mrs. Gaffney: In 1991 with respect to medically and clinically related projects (a) How many (i) women (ii) men applied for funding (b) How many (i) women (ii) men received funding (c) What was the total dollar value of research funding granted to (i) women (ii) men?


Benoît Bouchard: September 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
a)		b)	
	Applications		Approvals	
(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)Women	Men	Women	MenGRANTS	294	1,394	108	541AWARDS	1,185	1,610	315	477
NOTE:
Grants includes operating grants, clinical trials, AIDS grants, university/industry programs.
Awards includes studentships, fellowships, centennial fellowships, clinician scientists, scholarships, MRC scientists, dental clinician scientists and dental fellowships.
(c) (i) and (ii) The distribution of funding among the successful applicants was approximately $28.4 million for women and $31.6 million for men.
Ms. Langan: With respect to the construction and erection of a container crane at Centerm in Vancouver (a) Was there a contract signed by Ports Canada (b) Is it to be built in the Peoples Republic of China and, if so, (i) will there be a 51% Canadian content requirement (ii) how would the Canadian content be guaranteed (iii) what will be the Canadian content in this contract (c) How many estimated Canadian jobs will there be in this project (d) What is the total monetary value of the contract?


Jean Corbeil: The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
(a)	Yes, a contract was signed between the Vancouver Port Corporation and the Shanghai Port machinery plant.
(b)	Yes.
(b-i) Yes.
(b-ii) Canadian content is being closely monitored. Shanghai Port Machinery has been advised that the crane will not land in Canada if Canadian content is not 51%.
(b-iii) Canadian content will be 51% or better.
(c)	It is difficult to estimate the number of Canadian jobs related to the project. However, the following is a list of Canadian firms providing material and services:
Kanlift Industries-engineering consulting
Algoma Steel Co.-steel material for the crane
General Electric Canada-controls and electrics
Softac Canada-high voltage system
Hillmar Industries-cable reel and crane brakes
Fire System-fire-fighting equipment
Earl's Industries-hydraulic system
International Paints (Canada) Ltd.-paint
Sonic Barrier Sound Products Ltd.-miscellaneous
Gough Electric-electrical
Basic Hydraulics and Equipment Ltd.-hydraulics
Alimak Canada-elevator
K.W.H. Constructors-steel erection and installation Dock Express-transportation
(d)	$6,298,691.59.


Mrs. Mitchell: With respect to the recent advertising campaign "Canada-125 years to celebrate" (a) what was the total cost of this campaign (b) What companies or individuals were paid to create the ads (c) What was the cost of placement of the ads (d) What was the cost of production of the ads (e) How many times did each ad run and over what period (f) What part of the Secretary of State budget funded these ads?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
a)	The total projected cost of the advertising campaign is $12.3 million.
b)	The companies PNMD/Publitel, Palmer Jarvis Advertising and Publicite Martin were contracted to create the ads.
c)	The cost of placement of the ads is estimated to be $10.1 million.
d)	The cost of production of the ads is estimated to be $2.2 million.
e)	The ads ran between April 27, 1992 and August 9, 1992. It is not possible to determine the exact frequency of the ads because all placements have not yet been determined.
f)	The communications branch of the Department of the Secretary of State funded these ads.


Mr. Edmonston: Was Mrs. Lorraine Lagace ever the subject of electronic suiyeillance by the RCMP and, if so, (a) who authorized it and for what reason (b) when did the surveillance end?
September 9, 1992


Hon. Douglas Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: In
keeping with the practice of this government and former government, I will not comment upon any police or security investigation except as provided for in section 196 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I can tell you however, that the activities of the RCMP were closely examined by the McDonald Commission of Inquiry. The enquiry was thorough and painstaking. The commission made its report in August 1981 to the government of the day and that government took the action it deemed appropriate. I consider the matter closed.


Mr. Milliken: With respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act how many small businesses loans were made by month during 1991 and from January 1, 1992 to April 30, 1992?


Thomas Hockin: Loans made under the SBLA program since January 1991 are as follows:
January 1991	Number 672
February 1991	755
March 1991	838
April 1991	944
May 1991	1120
June 1991	907
July 1991	896
August 1991	807
September 1991	813
October 1991	918
November 1991	933
December 1991	789
January 1992	742
February 1992	745
March 1992	919
April 1992*	1021
* May not include all loans made, due to the 90-day leeway provided to lenders to report making of loans.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Boudria: Since January 1, 1988 has the Canada Council provided any grants, loans or contributions to Mr. John Hofsess and/or the Right to Die Society and, if so, what amount has been paid and/or remains to be paid?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Since January 1, 1988 the Canada Council has provided one grant to Mr. John Hofsess as follows:
Year Amount Purpose
1991	$18,000 Regular non-fiction grant awarded
by jury for the purpose of a book length study entitled: "Requiem: Death and Dying in Canada".
The full amount of this grant has been paid. The council has not provided any loans or contributions to Mr. Hofsess and it has not provided any grants, loans or contributions to the Right to Die Society.


Mr. Karygiannis: With respect to Sean Morriss of Vancouver (a) has he received any moneys from Revenue Canada or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, if so, (i) in what amount (ii) for what services and during what period of time (iii) were any moneys received before or during the commission of the criminal acts for which he was convicted in 1991 (b) Did any Revenue Canada personnel intervene on his behalf with respect to the withdrawal of criminal charges against him in 1986?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)	Mr. Sean Morriss was paid $3,500 by cheque by Revenue Canada, Taxation, under a contract of service. His services were requested by the department between March 24, 1986 and April 13, 1986 in order to identify equipment used in scientific research projects which were being investigated by Revenue Canada, Taxation. Except for the above, there was no money ever given to Mr. Morriss by the department. The criminal acts for which Mr. Morriss was convicted in 1991 occurred in 1989 or later.
(b)	No Revenue Canada personnel ever intervened on his behalf with respect to the withdrawal of criminal charges against him. Furthermore, we do not know of any criminal charges ever being raised against Mr. Sean Morriss in 1986.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Wappel: How much federal funding has the National Action Committee on the Status of Women received within the past five fiscal years?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women received $2,454,575 within the past five fiscal years.
1991-92-$300,000 1990-91-$396,000 1989-90-$506,000 1988-89-$621,897 1987-88-$630,678


Mr. Mifflin: Does the government intend to introduce legislation which would make realistic the "Total Force Concept" for Canada's Reserve Force and, if so, when?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Any amendments to legislation required to support the "Total Force Concept" will be considered as part of the over-all review of the National Defence Act mentioned by the Associate Minister of National Defence in the House on May 6, 1992. Due to the complexity of the review, no firm time can be given for introduction of legislative changes.


Mr. Wood: Since January 1, 1985 how much has the government spent in legal fees on submissions including 1hose to GATT, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce to represent Canada's case on the softwood lumber dispute with the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: During the period January 1, 1985 to March 31, 1992 the government has incurred legal fees of U.S. $2,835,022.02 related to the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.


Ms. Copps: With respect to the RCMP investigation of the Hon. John Munro, David Fredrick Ahenakew, Peter Kenneth Manywounds, Solomon G. Sanderson, Douglas L. Cuthand, James Patrick Woods, Lawrence O. Russell, Noel Starblanket, Lyle Wayne Ahenakew, the Assembly of First Nations, SINCO, and the Native Indian Business Association between January 1, 1986 and November 30, 1991, what was the total cost incurred including (a) all salaries (b) all materials (c) all travel and accommodation (d) all computer time (e) all phone and fax charges?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The
Munro el al investigation was carried out over a six-year
period involving RCMP members across Canada. A review of the available source documents has been made to determine the best available estimate of the investigative cost. The total calculated amounts are:
Salary expenses	$517,924.83
Clerical expenses	$140,111.00
Travel expenses	$24,801.22
Meals, accommodation expenses	$6,446.21
Purchase of computer imager	$58,483.68
Other (photocopying, fax, et cetera)	$19,752.07
Total estimated costs:


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): With respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (a) what is the government's policy with respect to the provision of services to different regions of Canada (b) How does the government intend to fulfil this policy?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The CBC's mandate is spelled out in paragraph 3.(l)(m) of the Broadcasting Act which was proclaimed on June 4, 1991. The mandate was arrived at and up dated after extensive study by the Caplan-Sauvageau task force on broadcasting policy and review by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Among other things the Broadcasting Act states that the programming provided by the CBC should "reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving special needs of those regions" (subparagraph 3.(l)(m)(ii)). The Act also states that the CBC's programming should "be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose" (sub paragraph 3.(l)(m)(vii)).
The government provided the CBC with an additional $46 million for 1992/93, bringing its total parliamentary appropriation for 1992/93 to $1.1 billion.
Although the CBC is funded by government the corporation operates at arm's length from the government. As such it is the responsibility of the CBC's management and board of directors to determine how best to allocate the funds made available to it by the government to fulfil its mandate, including the adminis-ration of its regional operations and activities.
September 9, 1992

The government believes that the CBC has an important role to play in the Canadian broadcasting system in reflecting our national identity, and the provision of regional programming about and for the various regions of Canada is one aspect of this role.


Mr. Rodriguez: Does the government know of plans to send two directors of Canada 125 Corporation to the North Pole to meet the Canada-U.S.-Russian polar expedition and, if so, what is the estimated cost, including transport, food, clothing and other related items?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned, the answer is as follows:
No director or staff of Canada 125 Corporation went to the North Pole to meet the Canada-U.S.-Russian polar expedition.


Mr. Corbett: Which government department produced a bookmark with the logo "With the future in mind" and how many were produced and at what cost?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned the answer is as follows:
In 1991 the Public Service Commission produced 7,500 bookmarks with the logo "With your future in mind", a la mesure de vos aspirations, at a cost of $3,275.


Mr. Angus: With respect to the series of television ads entitled either "Experience Canada" and/or "The Partnership in Travel" sponsored by the Canada 125 Corporation (a) what was the total cost (b) what were the costs of production (specifically talent costs by individual) and placement (c) what persons or companies received contracts for these ads (d) what were the dates and amounts of these contracts?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
Canada 125 Corporation was one of many sponsors of Experience Canada. The private organization Experience Canada is responsible for the production, distribution and all other costs incurred for the series of television ads.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Angus: With respect to the legal fees incurred by the Canada 125 Corporation (a) What has been the total cost of legal services from January 1, 1989 to date (b) What firms and lawyers billed for this work (c) What was the nature of the services provided (d) Were these bills ever submitted to assessment or taxation?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
a)	The total cost of legal services to June 15, 1992 is $148,193.77.
b)	The Canada 125 Corporation legal counsel is Blake, Cassels & Graydon Warren Tettensor.
c)	The services provided range from legal work associated with the structuring of the corporation (e.g. letters patent) to the development and execution of contracts with suppliers, partners and/or proponents of projects with ESSO, Experience Canada, Participaction, et cetera). They also include general advice on legal matters, such as the registration of the official Canada 125 logo.
d)	Not applicable.


Mr. Pickard: 
Otto John Jelinek: (a)	There are 137 employees affected in Revenue Canada. The majority of these employees are expected to be placed within customs and all will be made a reasonable job offer within the federal Public Service pursuant to the national joint council's work force adjustment directive.
(b)	Revenue Canada will be paying Canada Post $3. per parcel. This amount represents a portion of the costs that will be incurred by the Canada Post Corporation for assuming the responsibility to perform the data entry and material handling functions.

September 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Shields: Willi respect to union members who crossed the picket lines during the fall 1991 Public Service strike (a) has any evidence, data or reports been gathered by Departments concerning union local or PSAC interference with them (b) Have any reported that the union has taken a disciplinary action against them and, if so, (i) how many and what type of action was taken (ii) How many union memberships were suspended and for how long?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: A survey of large departments has indicated that there is no systematic or organized collection of evidence, data, or reports concerning PSAC interference with union members who may have crossed picket lines during the 1991 Public Service strike.
These departments have indicated a general awareness through informal discussions with employees and supervisors as well as through various media reports that PSAC locals have been attempting to take union disciplinary action against employees who crossed the picket line. For the most part, such action would appear to be limited to the temporary suspension of membership in the union and the expulsion of employees from union activities.
The disciplining of employees by PSAC is strictly an internal union matter. Unfortunately, Treasury Board as employer can do little, if anything, to protect employees against what could be seen as harsh treatment by the union. However, any systematic or organized gathering of information by departments could be seen by the Public Service Staff Relations Board (PSSRB) as employer interference with the administration of an employee organization and contrary to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
In a decision by the PSSRB dated March 16, 1991 responding to a complaint by a group of employees against the action by PSAC, the board stated that the rights of members are matters between those members and the employee organization. They are governed by the by-laws and constitution of that organization.


Mrs. Gaffney: With respect to companies in China which manufacture and export textiles, steel pipes, diesel engines and leather jackets (a) What are their names and addresses (b) What is the total value of these imports (i) between 1984 and June 1989 and (ii) since June 1989?


Otto John Jelinek: The statistics on imports of these commodities from China are attached herewith.
The following should be taken into consideration:
(a)	As the name and addresses of manufacturers in China are not captured by the Customs Commercial System nor by Statistics Canada, this information is unavailable. However, names of the vendors from 1988 to 1992 may be made available. It should be noted, however, that in most cases vendors are not necessarily manufacturers.
(b)	The 1984 to 1987 statistics on imports from China were obtained using the Canadian International Trade Classification commodity codes, whereas the 1988 to April 1992 statistics were obtained using the harmonized system classification codes. As this may influence the import figures, readers should interpret the commodity data cautiously.
Statistics Canada-International Trade Division Client Services Section
Imports 1984 - 1987 Annual Data from China For a Selected List CITC Codes-by Product, by Year in Canadian Dollars
Product	1984	1985	1986	1987Diesel Engines	86,186	3,082	9,838	Leather Jackets	593,470	113,146	165,549	419,033Steel	121	_Pipes Textiles	56,719,482	59,820,227	66,318,511	105,118,935
Canadian Imports From People's Republic of China
Textiles Steel Pipes Diesel Engines Leather Jackets
Jan. 1988 - May 1989 June 1989 - Apr. 1992


[Stage Direction]
Note: Textiles are H.S. chapters 50 to 63 inclusive
Steel Pipes are H.S. classes 7304; 8205; 8708; 9209.10 Diesel Engines are H.S. classes 8408.10; 8408.20; 8408.90 Leather Jackets are H.S. class 4203.10
Mr. Wood: Does the government intend to move the Canadian Forces 414 Squadron from North Bay, Ont. to Shearwater, N.S. and Comox, B.C., and, if so (a) What is the total projected cost for the transfer of equipment, personnel and families including relocation programs, legal fees and real estate commissions (b) What costs have been incurred in Shearwater and Comox to accommodate the move, including new housing and facilities (c) What is the cost to
September 9, 1992

reconsolidate and reconstruct Canadian Forces Base North Bay after the departure of the 414th Squadron?


Marcel Masse: The subject move has been effected with the squadron at CFB Comox retaining the 414 Squadron designation and the formation of 434/420 Composite Squadrons at CFB Shearwater. The stand-up date of these squadrons was July 5, 1992 with operations commencing at that time. DND airfield support operations at CFB North Bay will cease on July 31, 1992.
The costs associated with the out-of-cycle transfer of personnel and dependants including relocation programs, real estate commissions and legal fees are projected at'$1.9 million. The cost associated with the transfer of equipment is unavailable at this time.
Construction is required at both CFB Comox and CFB Shearwater to accommodate the relocation of 414 Squadron assets. This cost is anticipated to be approximately $12.2 million. Construction cost at CFB North Bay to consolidate residual activity once 414 Squadron has relocated are projected at $4.4 million.
The projected savings to the Department are $34.3 million over five years.


Mr. Riis: With regard to the program entitled Voyageurs Canada 92 (a) Will Air Canada be eligible to receive deductions or other reductions (eg. gift to Canadian Crown, business deduction, or other) of tax for the seats provided to this program and, if so, what is the total estimated cost of these tax write-offs (b) Are the seats being allocated for the program to be charged at the full fare economy rate or if not, what will the rate of fare be for these seats for the purposes of tax reductions by Air Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned the answer is as follows:
(a)	Air Canada will not be eligible to receive any tax reductions from its participation in Voyageurs Canada 92
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. Fisher: With regard to the visit of the President of Russia to Canada in June 1992 (a) what was the cost of printing documents in relation to this visit (b) What were the titles or descriptions of the materials printed (c) What quantities were printed of each document (d) Who received the contracts for such printing?


Hon. Barbara MacDougall (Minister of State for External Affairs):: In so far as External Affairs and
Routine Proceedings
International Trade Canada is concerned the reply is as follows:
The cost of printing documents in relation to the visit of the President of Russia in June, 1992 was $384. The descriptions and quantities of materials printed were: 50 copies of four backgrounders and 100 copies of five Canada-Russian treaties. Canada communications Group received the contracts for this printing.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant): With regard to the visit of the President of Russia in June 1992 (a) What was the value of contracts for public or media relations for this visit (b) What firms or individuals received such contracts and on what date (c) What was the value of each contract?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: In so far as External Affairs and International Trade Canada is concerned the reply is as follows:
There were no contracts for public of media relations undertaken for the visit of the President of Russia in June 1992. All work was handled by staff members of the department.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant): With regard to the targeting and recruitment committee (TARC) of CSIS and the Solicitor General, between January 1986 and January 1990 (a) How many times did this committee meet and on what dates, (b) Did anyone who was not either a public servant or a member of CSIS attend such meetings and, if so, who were they and what was their title and with which office were they employed?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The correct name of the committee in question is the Targeting Approval and Review cOmmittee (TARC). The purpose of this committee is to determine the appropriateness and scope of investigations conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). It is a committee internal to CSIS, chaired by the director, and it meets as required. In addition to CSIS employees one senior official from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and one senior official from the Department of Justice regularly attend TARC meetings.
In keeping with the policy of the government, I will not provide details of CSIS operational policies for reasons of national security. However, I can tell you that the make-up and responsibilities of the TARC were clearly explained in On Course, a public document which outlines the government's response to the five-year review of the CSIS Act.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Angus: With respect to the Westray Mine public inquiry, (a) What documents or memorandum (titles and dates of those documents) has the federal government provided to the inquiry (b) Were any of the documents provided to the inquiry not tabled in the House and if so which documents identified by title and date were not tabled (c) When were those documents released to the inquiry (d) Were any documents provided to the Government of Nova Scotia and if so which documents and on what dates were they provided?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: (a) On June 4, 1992 the federal government tabled certain documents concerning the Westray coal mine project. Included with these documents was a list of additional supporting material available in an ISTC reading room. A complete set of all documents (tabled and available in the reading room) were sent on the same day to the inquiry.
(b)	The supporting material listed in the tabled documents was sent to the inquiry.
(c)	These documents were released to the inquiry on June 4, 1992, the same day that all documents were tabled in the House.
(d)	On June 4, 1992 the Government of Nova Scotia received the same documents that were tabled in the House and the supporting material.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 289, 329, 330 and 368 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 289, 329, 330 and 368 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacAuIay: With respect to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), for every year since it was created, by each federal riding (a) what is the total spending (b) Which companies or individuals have received funding (c) What was the nature of each project (brief description) (d) Where is each company or project receiving funding located (e) What was the amount and type of funding (f) How many estimated jobs were created (g) Is the company or the project still in operation and, in the negative, when did the operations cease (h) What is the average ACOA contribution for every job created?
Return tabled.

Question No. 329-Mr. Mifflin:
With respect to the Canadian Armed Forces how do (a) the 1992 and 1995 planned rank structures (b) The operational to support ratio compare with those of (i) Australia (ii) France (iii) Germany (iv) Israel (v) the Netherlands (vi) New Zealand (vii) United States?
Return tabled.

Question No. 330-Mr. Shields:
Since the inception of the Arctic Winter Games has the government or any of its agencies provided the games with any grant funding and, if so, (a) To whom (b) How much was given for each game (c) For what purpose was the funding granted?
Return tabled.

Question No. 368-Mr. Saint-Julien:
Do the National Museums of Canada and the National Museum of Science and Technology in Ottawa own standard commercial vehicles and, if so, (a) how many (b) What is the make and year of these vehicles (c) To whom are they assigned?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 291 and 327.
September 9, 1992

Due to the length of the answers to those questions I would ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.

*


Mr. Saint-Julien: Did CBC invite tenders from garment manufacturers (coats, parkas and pants) for the purchase of sportswear to be worn by its organizers, journalists, analysts and officials during the 1992 Olympic Games in Albertville and, if so, (a) Were there any Canadian bidders and who were they (b) If a contract was awarded (i) to whom (ii) what quantity of clothing was involved (iii) what was the dollar value of the contract?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
The CBC issued no formal invitation to tender to garment manufacturers for the special clothing it required for its employees covering the 1992 Winter Olympic Games in Albertville. (Uniforms are mandatory on Olympic sites.)
As required for Olympics' coverage, CBC consulted the Olympic Trust of Canada to ascertain which supplier it had selected to provide uniforms for Olympic athletes. The trust advised the CBC that a Canadian company, SKIAN, had been chosen.
The CBC then contacted SKIAN for costs and samples of the product available. CBC compared those costs and samples with others from a Canadian distributor, Robert Christie Sports and Fashions Inc., a company with which it had formerly done business.
During the period when the Corporation was assessing the two product lines, SKIAN went out of business. Because there was at that point insufficient time to approach another supplier for quotations, CBC awarded the contract to Robert Christie Sports and Fashions Inc.
*


Mrs. Marleau: With respect to the government's announcement of the new look to the unemployment cheques, what was the total cost to print the announcements?


Bernard Valcourt: The new cheque announcements sent to UI claimants with their cheques costs $24,000.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Sir, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are some Orders for Return on the Order Paper, notably one I put down on May 6 of last year. Twice I raised this issue with the parliamentary secretary in June before we adjourned. Both times he assured me he would look into it to see if something could be done to expedite the matter.
It is now September and it appears nothing has been done to expedite this matter. This information must be readily available and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would undertake to present the House with this information next week.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct in that he has asked about this matter before. I would just plead that events have intervened between June and the present, notably summer.
I can assure him, in all seriousness, that I will look into the matter immediately and report back to him at the earliest opportunity.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs) moved:: That, pursuant to the act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of a referendum question:

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
yes	no
That a message be sent to the Senate accordingly and request that
the Senate concur in the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think I might be forgiven for expressing my appreciation of the unusual generosity which has been extended to me by members of the House not only today but also over the last several weeks.
As my friend and colleague the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra will know, that is a treatment reserved for former prime ministers. It is not very durable, I am sure, but I will not spend it quickly.
I have to say that no minister could have carried out the challenge I was asked to carry out without the advice, the support and the loyalty of my colleagues in this House, in my caucus and in my cabinet. Of course, no one has given me more support in carrying out these responsibilities than the right hon. member for Charlevoix, the Prime Minister.
His intense commitment to this whole country and, I have to say as someone who was there, his unparalleled negotiating skill in this last critical month served this country and all those who care about its future in a selfless and determined way. Yesterday he quoted Sir John A. Macdonald. By his nature and on his record no one has a better right to quote Sir John A. Macdonald.
To a degree never known before in Canada, these constitutional discussions have been open to the public. Literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been involved directly in town hall meetings in Valleyfield, Whitecourt and Markham, in communities large and small all across Canada, in public hearings by two national parliamentary committees and several in the provinces, by the Spicer commission, by the extensive process of aboriginal consultations in six national policy conferences, in the media, across kitchen tables and on open-line programs. That public process profoundly shaped the decisions made at Charlottetown.
It led to the rejection, for example, of the government's original proposal for a council of the federation. It led to a rejection of our first proposal for an economic union. It added a social charter. It added the inherent right to self-government. It added a Senate that was equal and not just equitable, and it brought more Canadians directly into debate about their country. So did the spontaneous gestures of affection for Quebec, the newspaper advertisements, the hockey tournaments, the exchanges, the gift from Toronto to Montreal, the citizen driven billboard campaign proclaiming: "My Canada includes Quebec". Nothing like this has ever happened in Canada before.

Three major steps remain. The first is to invite the judgment of the Canadian people in a national referendum on October 26. If Canadians vote yes, Parliament and legislatures would then act immediately to debate and, I expect, adopt the specific resolutions. Then we would seek the unanimous agreement of the provinces to shorten the period of final ratification, in a way that could have these major constitutional changes approved and ratified and effective in law within a matter of months.
In Charlottetown we agreed to renew the Canadian federation. As this House agreed when it passed the referendum legislation, the question was circulated last week to the leaders of the other parties in Parliament and then to the provincial premiers and territorial and aboriginal leaders. This question will be asked of every Canadian in every province and territory in October. The question is precise, direct and fair. It allows Canadians a personal voice in the future of this country and it invites all Canadians to read the constitutional package, to judge it, to consider whether any alternatives are practical and then to express their view.

For months, for years, this House and this country have been discussing the Constitution of Canada. We have sought agreement before and failed too often. We have sought unanimity before and have seen it slip away. We have pursued reform in slices and in so doing required some Canadians to stand in line for reform.
September 9, 1992

At Charlottetown two weeks ago that pattern was broken and a new pattern was set.
For the first time in our history, and at the most inclusive Canadian table ever, 17 Canadian leaders came together to support each other, their country and our future. For the first time in our history those leaders were able to agree unanimously on a comprehensive package of change that addresses every major constitutional issue of this past decade.
It is appropriate that we should quickly bring this package to Parliament and then to the people because in a very direct way this agreement is a product of this Parliament and this country. It would not have happened without the leadership, understanding and willingness to trust and take risks demonstrated by members of this House.
Individual members of Parliament put their careers on the line to make this happen: the member for York-ton-Melville, the member for Winnipeg South, the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, the member for Jonquiere, the member for St. John's East, the member for Macleod, the Prime Minister and other party leaders, and many more here and in the other place. This was the Canadian political process at its best.
It revealed a country that most of us do not know nearly well enough. Many of our current conflicts exist because we do not know well enough the history of our country, the defining impact of its geography and size, its diversity, or its success when compared by almost any standard to any other nation.
Canada is the community that most of the world wants to become, yet we take our advantages for granted and so we risk losing them. This is not because our differences are so deep but because what we share in common is not valued enough. Most of us profoundly hope to put this constitutional issue behind us but we cannot put aside the need to know our country better.
If I have learned two lessons in the last 17 months one is how destructive prejudice and misunderstanding can be and the other is how much we Canadians can do together when we reach beyond those barriers of anger and fear.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are all aware that there is a danger that a referendum will excite that anger and
Government Orders
that fear, that it will cause Canadians to dig in behind old lines. However, it can also be the means by which individual Canadians come to the understanding that we have come to in this House and that the leaders came to in Charlottetown, which is that if we want to keep this country we have to see it whole.
Yesterday the Prime Minister quoted Sir John A., who described the first Charlottetown agreement as bearing upon its face the marks of compromise. Canadians who find some fault in the Charlottetown agreement that was signed three weeks ago should look again at what was cobbled together to create this country. Beyond the compromises then and now were decisions that were bold, sensible and, in many cases, overdue.

We have agreed on a new partnership between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians that would close the circle of Confederation and put the energies of aboriginal peoples to work for themselves and for Canada.
We have adopted the concept of Quebec as a distinct society and given that province the instruments it requires to be confident and secure in Canada forever.
We have agreed to improve our Canadian democracy to reform this House so that it would reflect the will of the people more fairly and to create a new Senate that brings the voice of the regions into the centre of national decisions, a Senate that would be elected, equal and very effective. We have agreed that both Houses of Parliament should respect what Clyde Wells has called the third equality, that between English and French speaking cultures.
We have agreed on a new federal partnership, on a more sensible, more realistic division of powers that recognizes that Ottawa does not always know best. We have found ways to end the corrosive abuse of the federal spending power. We have agreed to strengthen our common commitment to those programs that define the very essence of Canada-like equalization and regional development.
Finally, we have agreed on a common and inclusive statement of Canadian characteristics, Canadian values of democracy, the rule of law, Quebec as a distinct society, the rights of native peoples, linguistic duality and the equality of races, of individuals, of gender and of the provinces.

Government Orders

We have never before been able to agree together on reform like that. These are not small changes, they are fundamental.
During these long discussions we sometimes fell into the habit of comparing Beaudoin-Dobbie with July 7, with August 28. That is not the comparison. The comparison is with any constitutional proposal that was ever agreed before.
In 1990 aboriginals and others felt left out. In 1982 Quebec was left out. In previous constitutional proposals the division of powers was left out. This agreement keeps the promises that were made before: promises to aboriginals, to Atlantic Canada, to the west, to the north, the promises at the Paul Sauve arena. It does so as Canadians together with unanimity in the Canada round.
Of course, there were differences around the table as there are around the country. That should not surprise anyone. This, after all, is after Russia the largest country in the world, crossing a continent, facing three oceans, formed from every culture and tradition on earth. Differences define this country. So too does how we deal with difference. We do not erase it. We do not outlaw it. We embrace it and we accept it.
The Charlottetown agreement does that. It reflects the equality of individuals and of provinces, the unique place of our French and English cultures, the obligation we have to our aboriginal citizens, our Canadian commitment to seeing equality, not as sameness, but as respect for different needs, different realities.
The Canadian achievement, the achievement of Charlottetown, is to take those different views and reconcile them fairly, freely and justly. The results of that agreement are now before the Canadian people for their decision.

The details of this agreement are important, but equally important is the underlying vision.
The Constitution we have today comes, by and large, from another time, more than a century ago, almost another country, a country that was mainly European and white, a country concentrated on the eastern seaboard, a country that treated its aboriginal citizens as savages or as children.
As we responded to the Depression and to World War and to growth and to the temptation of the federal spending power, we became a country increasingly run from the centre, a federation where the provinces were not trusted.
But that is not the country we are today. Canada has changed and our Constitution must change too. The Charlottetown Agreement allows the Constitution to catch up with the country.
It ends a view that federalism only works if it is controlled closely by Ottawa. It ends a view that strong regions mean a weak nation. It puts in place a new partnership between the provinces, the national government and the aboriginal people; a new partnership among all Canadians. It says that strong parts can make for a strong whole.

It is very important that Canadians judge this agreement by what it actually says, not by what others say it says. This is not written in Morse code. Canadians owe it to themselves to read it so that they can judge it themselves. It will be available to Canadians across the country.
Canadians should also judge this agreement on its own terms. Threats or fear or false choices have no place in this Canadian debate. This is not a loyalty test. This agreement should stand or fall on its own accord. I believe the central question is does this agreement move the whole country forward? Many members of this House and many Canadians might have written this agreement differently. I might have done that if I had been in a room alone, but I was not alone. No one was and no Canadian is today.
The goal here was agreement. The purpose was to come together. That required give and take. It required that everyone give a little ground to move to common ground, higher ground. The strength of this agreement is that it is not the product of one set of hands or one way of thinking. It was the result of different needs, different visions, different priorities coming together in one community. There is nothing new about that. If the Fathers of Confederation a century ago had insisted on either

perfection or some preordained plan, there would have been no agreement then, no Canada.
That is not what happened at Confederation, not what has kept us since, not what distinguishes us still. More often than not, more often than most, we have succeeded in Canada in balancing views, balancing interests and in moving this country steadily forward, not to Utopia but to improvement. A new Senate would bring democracy and diversity and the influence of the more distant provinces into the centre of national decision making. It would have real power. The power to reject the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of Canada is real power. The power to force the House of Commons into joint sittings, the power to initiate bills on controversial matters is improvement.
The agreement on aboriginal self-government can begin to repair the ravages of the past and put aboriginal Canadians on the road to dignity and development in the country they share. That is improvement.
Respecting the nature of Quebec, welcoming the distinct society, and respecting its difference can take us beyond the corrosive doubts about whether Quebec wants Canada, whether Canada wants Quebec. That is improvement.
Approval of this agreement can put the Constitution on the back burner out of the headlines where it belongs. That is improvement.
We have been at this far too long. We have to break the back of this problem before it breaks us. I believe this agreement can do that and do it fairly. There are serious and sensible Canadians who have substantial reservations and misgivings about the package. They have the democratic right to vote this down if they think that would be best for Canada. Before they do that they should look carefully at what it means and at what the consequences might be. This, after all, is probably the most important decision Canadians will ever make about our country and our future together. There are serious questions to ask and to answer.
If this is turned down, would there be another agreement, a better agreement around the comer, some kind of plan B for Canada? I have learned not to say that anything is impossible. Remember, 17 of Canada's lead-
Govemment Orders
ers met for hundreds of hours over dozens of days after two years of conversation and consultation and deliberation. We looked at literally hundreds of other options, other models, other measures and none worked as well as this. I suspect the real choice is not this agreement versus another, but this agreement versus no agreement at all. Canadians should consider the implications of that, of continuing with the status quo, the impact of more uncertainty on the economy, the sense of betrayal that would arise among aboriginals, the neglect that would continue to mean for other issues that matter and the perpetuation of debate, of disorder, of disunity.
There are other questions to ponder as well. If this is accepted in Quebec but turned down outside, what conclusions would reasonable Quebecers draw? Having been promised reform in 1980, having been left out of reform in 1982, having seen reform fail in 1990, how would they react in 1992? What if this agreement is supported in the rest of Canada but turned down in Quebec? Canadians should think about all of that, about how we would react the morning after.
We have been at this now for over 25 years, bickering while other countries have been building, focusing on the past and its wrongs rather than on the future and its promise, looking inward rather than outward and glaring at one another rather than taking on the world.
It is time to bring this issue to a close. It is time for Canadians to choose. It is time for this country to come together at last. We need each other here more than ever and on more than the Constitution. We need each other tomorrow too, on everything else.
If we are unable to agree on Canada, would we ever be able to agree on anything else? If we are unable to agree on Canada, would anything else matter after that? However if we can agree, if we do agree, what does that say for the future?
As the Prime Minister will attest I did not exactly volunteer for this assignment. However, none of us chose to have our country look in upon itself for so long with such anger and such misunderstanding. Yet through this process each of us has come to learn more about this extraordinary country and to appreciate it more.

Government Orders

Very few people were surprised when the United Nations judged Canada as the best place in the world to live. That is not a reason for complacency. There are problems here, prejudices, injustice, inequality. We are not a perfect country, but we are very successful.
Much of our success comes from our ability to work together. Our economy is generally stronger because our country is very large. We have influence in world trade because Canada is large, strong and very stable. Our social and medical programs are the result of a social conscience you do not find in the United States, a result of a respect for one another that you do not find everywhere.
In the end, this is not a national decision but a personal decision each of us must make about our country. I am only one Canadian. I am proud of my own roots and happy to have had the opportunity to know my country better. I am not a Quebecer and no one will be surprised to learn that French is not my first language. Yet I have come to know Quebec, as much as an Albertan can, and there is no doubt in my mind that sharing a great country with Quebec makes Alberta better, just as sharing a country with Alberta makes Quebec stronger and better.
We are brothers and sister here, not identical twins, but part of a family that is becoming more generous, more confident. I want our children to grow up in that large family. We will all be better off for it, but that decision is for each individual Canadian to make.

I have heard a lot of wise things said about our country in the last several months as I travelled across the nation. Let me conclude by referring to two of them.
On Canada's east coast, in Nova Scotia, lives a young girl, a new Canadian, who came to Canada four years ago from Holland. Andrea Eelman is a high school student from Tatamagouche.
She won a public speaking contest there earlier this year, in which she said the following:
Even before I came here, Canadians to me meant the people who
liberated my country of origin from the Nazis. Not the British, not
the Russians, not the Americans, but the Canadians. Canadians.
Canada meant a country that brought forth heroes, willing to fight, not just for their own, but for someone else's country. If Canadians are recognized as heroes in other countries, isn't it time that we recognize them as heroes here? And shouldn't we, like those who fought for my homeland so long ago, now fight for our country in its hour of need?
The other observation comes from my own foothills, from the Indian Elder Peter O'Chiese. His prayer opened my first meeting with the Assembly of First Nations. He referred to all of the differences in Canada, all the reasons we could find to disagree.
"Those differences", he said, "can divide us and make us weak, or unite us and make us strong". His prayer was that we would find the will to lift each other up. That prayer has been heeded by the aboriginal people. It has been heeded by this House of Commons. It has been heeded by the leaders in Charlottetown.
I hope it will guide the judgment of the millions of Canadians who will decide on October 26 whether we Canadians will let each other down or lift each other up.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on the referendum bill last June, I told the government: if you can reach a unanimous agreement, fine, but if not, do not hesitate to submit a constitutional revision proposal to the Canadian people by means of a pan-Canadian referendum.
Today, on behalf of my party, I would like to congratulate the Minister as well as all those who worked for so many months to get a unanimous agreement. It is obviously the result of much work, compromise and sacrifice in certain circles and certain regions of the country.
Politics is the art of the possible, and this agreement reflects what is possible today. Those who will oppose it will have to prove that, under the circumstances, they could come up with a better agreement, an agreement which would also be unanimous and which would truly be in the interests of Canada as a whole. It is important to note that, in a federation such as ours, we must always think about national interests first, sometimes at the expense of special, local or regional interests.
Once more, this agreement is probably the best possible under the circumstances. I wish to assure the Minister that, in the interests of this country, we Liberals agree to participate fully and actively on the yes side in the referendum campaign during coming days and weeks.
September 9, 1992

From the very beginning, the position of the Leader of the Opposition has been that a referendum should be held to allow the public to approve any major constitutional change. There is no need for me to remind the House about the uneasiness of the government at this suggestion. One of the government backbenchers even introduced a private member's bill on the referendum, but the government finally understood that, if there was to be a referendum in one or more province in Canada, it would be quite normal for all Canadians in all the provinces to be asked to vote on an agreement dealing with constitutional renewal. This is therefore very satisfying for us, Liberals, and for our leader, it means that a very important objective has been reached, because we are convinced that, from now on, our Constitution can no longer be amended without the entire population being asked to ratify any proposed constitutional change.
It will certainly be wonderful when all Canadian citizens are asked to vote democratically to determine their political and constitutional future.
I urge Canadians who will be asked to vote on October 26: Set aside your individual and personal interests; think about the interests of the nation and generously say yes to constitutional renewal.
I forget who said that a society will be judged by the way it treats its minorities.
I believe that the proposed constitutional agreement vividly illustrates the extraordinary spirit of compassion, understanding and tolerance of Canadian society, because it must be admitted that the major winners, the major beneficiaries of this most recent round of constitutional negotiations are our minorities. Let us deal first of all with the First Nations.
The agreement proposes to amend the Constitution to recognize that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have the inherent right to self-government in Canada. What is greatly to the credit of those who negotiated the agreement is that the recognition of the inherent right to self-government shall be interpreted as meaning that the aboriginal governments constitute one of the three orders of government in Canada. This did not come about without apprehension or reluctance in various quarters.
Government Orders

I take great pride in saying that we Liberals never hesitated. We stood firm on this issue and at the very beginning called for the recognition of the inherent right to aboriginal self government. This achievement is a major step forward. In the eyes of the world, in the eyes of history, this measure will distinguish Canada as a nation of tolerance and respect. It is a new beginning that will help to end the cycle of poverty and dependency for these people.
For this and this alone I will venture to say that this accord should be accepted. If it is worth doing the referendum and winning it in order to secure such an historic breakthrough, let us do it.
I want to extend congratulations on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to Ovide Mercredi, to Rosemarie Kuptana, to Yvon Dumont and to Ron George for their skilful work on behalf of their respective peoples.

It is not by chance that our party is so receptive and so open to the legitimate aspirations of the aboriginal peoples. I would like to pay homage today to Senators Len Marchand and Charlie Watt who have long defended the interests of the First Nations. I also wish to emphasize the exceptional contribution of the hon. members for Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq to these constitutional debates. These hard working members of our party were able to inspire and influence us so that we would support what I would describe as a visionary policy for our future relations with the First Nations.
I must say that I was especially impressed by the untiring and even colossal work of the hon. member for Western Arctic, who did so much for her people. I sat with her on the Charest committee and on the Beau-doin-Dobbie committee. I shall never forget her fierce determination to put forward the aboriginal point of view. Her influence within our party was such that that I have no hesitation in saying that, today, of all political parties, ours is the best prepared to deal with the First Nations as between equals to implement the negotiating process resulting from this agreement.
I can tell the First Nations that a future Liberal government, under Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and with the assistance of the hon. member for Western Arctic will complete the work already begun for aboriginal peoples.

Government Orders

We Liberals are also very happy to see that a new Canada clause will recognize that Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed and continue to contribute to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity.

Throughout the years there have been profound changes in Canada. Our nation comprises much more today than the descendants of French and British settlers. The contribution of new Canadians from all corners of the earth has enriched our society. It is appropriate to recognize this in our Constitution and it is also a clear way to tell new Canadians that this country also belongs to them while assuring them that they will enjoy respect and equality in this country. My colleague for Mississauga East, who sat with us on the Beaudoin-Dobbie parliamentary committee, was determined to have this clause included and I am sure that she is very happy that it has been.
I would now like to say a few words about the guarantees provided for official language minority communities under this agreement. For us Liberals, no constitutional reform would have been acceptable if the way these minorities had been overlooked in the Meech Lake Accord had not been corrected in the current constitutional round.
We are therefore pleased that the Canada clause will also state that the Constitution shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the fact that Canadians and their governments-and I emphasize the word governments because it is very important-are committed to the vitality and development of French and English speaking minority communities throughout Canada.
I think congratulations are in order for the representatives of associations of francophones outside Quebec who were determined to present their point of view and who, as the minister well knows, insisted on being invited to these constitutional talks although certain parties would have liked to ignore them.
They had a number of natural allies within our own party, including my colleagues from Ottawa-Vanier, St. Boniface and Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who played a major role in convincing the Government of Canada and a number of provincial governments of the need for this clause.
I say bravo, mission accomplished. We now have a legal text. We can only hope that governments will now no longer hesitate to protect and also promote official language minorities.
On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the six legal and political advisers who guided and helped us during the whole process of the past weeks and months, throughout the lengthy proceedings that culminated in the constitutional agreement we have today. I would like to mention Michel Bastarache, Eddie Goldenberg, Eric Maldoff, Guy Pratte, Bryan Williams and Sheila Purdey.
During the remainder of my speech I would like to focus on Quebec's place in Canada. I see, Quebec as part of a modem and renewed Canadian federation. I agree that as French speaking Quebecers on a continent with 300 million anglophones, we have entirely legitimate reasons to be concerned about our cultural security.
The question is whether our language, culture and traditions will be better protected in an independent Quebec than if we remain full members of the Canadian federation. To those who want Quebec's independence, I say that 125 years of Canadian history have certainly not emasculated our language, culture and traditions. Members of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste may not agree, but our cultural institutions in Quebec are stronger and more dynamic than ever, and new Quebecers are better integrated with the francophone majority in Quebec than they ever were in the past.
A linguistics professor at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi would have Quebecers believe that French is on the way out in Montreal. This is a crass misrepresentation of the facts and an insult to all those Italians, Greeks and Haitians who feel thoroughly Quebecois and to others living in the Montreal area who have become part of the francophone majority and are sick and tired of this futile bickering about language which is undermining Quebec's economy and prosperity.
September 9, 1992

Aware of the fact that they form a distinct community, Quebecers have always in some way expressed the need to be masters of their own destiny. In the past, Quebec's premiers have relied on a series of slogans to express that awareness, that profound awareness we as Quebecers have of being different. For Duplessis it was provincial autonomy, for Jean Lesage it was "maitre chez nous", for Daniel Johnson it was equality or independence, but Quebecers have always wanted to ensure they would be able to control their own destiny.
Not surprisingly, in Quebec the Government of Quebec enjoys a status we do not find in the other Canadian provinces. To the Quebecer, the government in Quebec City is more important than the government in Ottawa, while in the rest of Canada it is generally the other way round. However, this does not mean we should get rid of the federal government, although unfortunately, that is what some people would like to do. Because of this preference, some Quebecers would like to see the federal government disappear altogether. I say it would be a serious mistake, because although it is very important for the National Assembly to have all the powers it needs to defend and promote Quebec as a distinct society, it is every bit as important for Quebecers to be able to rely on the Parliament of Canada to defend and promote their interests.
It is obvious this new accord cannot be acceptable to those who no longer believe in Canada. However, for anyone who thinks Quebecers should continue to be fully associated with Canada, this new constitutional accord has great merit and, I insist, constitutes an adequate response to the recommendations of the Belanger-Campeau commission.
I had the honour of sitting on the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec from November 1990 to March 1991, at the invitation of Premier Bourassa. After conducting public hearings throughout Quebec, this special commission published a report that started the constitutional review process in which we are involved today. We must therefore ask ourselves whether what we are proposing now reflects the commission's recommendations. My answer is yes. Since some of our friends in Quebec City may want to
Government Orders
put a different interpretation on all this, I will be more specific. On page 52 of the report it says:
Tb break the stalemate and redefine its political and constitutional status, Quebec has only two choices. Under the first, Quebec would seek acceptance of the redefinition of its status within the constitutional framework of the Canadian federation. Such a course of action presupposes that its integration in the Canadian political system be maintained, but significantly modified. The second solution would entail Quebec's withdrawing from the constitutional framework of the Canadian federation, with or without the consent of the rest of Canada, with a view to acceding to full political sovereignty and becoming a state independent of the Canadian state, open to the establishment of economic ties with the latter.
I may remind Mr. Parizeau, Ms. Larose and their friends that they signed this report, assuming there would be no agreement.
There is an agreement to renew Canadian federalism and that is one of the two options mentioned in the Belanger-Campeau report.
First, Gerald's gang accused the Bourassa government and the federalist members of the Commission of not respecting the conclusions of the Belanger-Campeau report and of betraying their signature. Ghislain Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, issued a press release on this subject, which I quote:
Such an accusation is unworthy of our colleagues. Besides the fact that the Commission's report leaves open the two constitutional options being debated in Quebec, namely renewed federalism and sovereignty, they know very well that the four business people on the Commission-in addition to Mr. Dufour, they were Marcel Beaudry, Charles-Albert Poissant and Cheryl Campbell Steer-and others always rejected the sovereigntist demand that any referendum deal only with sovereignty. On the contrary, they always said that they would only sign the Belanger-Campeau commission's report if any referendum to be held could also deal with the federal offers, or sovereignty in the absence of such offers.
I invite those who may have any doubts to check the newspapers of March 21 and March 22, 1992 which reported these positions at length.
I conclude the quotation from Mr. Dufour with this:
One must be in bad faith or suffer from collective amnesia to say as certain sovereigntist former commissioners do that we have gone back on our signatures. Such an attitude augurs badly for the kind of debate we can expect in the coming weeks. Instead of concentrating on the substance of the issue, namely the constitutional offer and what it is worth, they are resorting to unfounded and deceitful diversionary

Government Orders
tactics. Such an approach can only taint the very credibility of those
who put forward such lies.
If it was desirable, as the Belanger-Campeau commission said, for the people of Quebec to express themselves on their political and constitutional future in a formal democratic consultation, this is as valid for the first option as for the second. Of course I know that the advocates of independence for Quebec would have wanted a referendum on total and complete sovereignty for Quebec. Then they would have been better not to sign the Belanger-Campeau commission report, which says in its conclusion on page 73: "Two courses are open to Quebec with respect to the redefinition of its status, i.e. a new, ultimate attempt to redefine its status within the federal regime, and the attainment of sovereignty. Some people feel that the first course must be adopted and, should it fail, that Quebec should achieve sovereignty. Other people prefer to adopt the second course of action immediately. Should a final attempt to renew federalism fail, sovereignty would be the only course remaining".
Even if our separatist friends do not like it, the attempt to renew federalism was successful and sovereignty as far as I am concerned could be put off indefinitely because the constitutional agreement essentially respects the required constitutional changes set forth on page 48 of the Belanger-Campeau commission's report.
I need not remind you that those who sat on the Belanger-Campeau commission were deeply influenced by the circumstances at that time. Quebec felt rejected by the collapse of the Meech Lake accord and the passions stirred among the people led the Parti Quebe-cois to say outright that there was nothing more to do with Canada, that the English and the others in the rest of Canada would never understand them, and the Liberal Party of Quebec, not wanting to find itself in an impossible situation, decided through its policy committee to ask a lot from constitutional renewal. In that context the members of the Belanger-Campeau commission drew up what they thought could be the basis of a renewed constitution. I tell you again that this document was signed by our friends in the Parti Quebecois and by those who want sovereignty for Quebec. When I read you some paragraphs from this report, you will understand that the demands were quite considerable, given the context in which they were made.
This is what it says on page 48. These changes vary in nature but have in common, among other things:
The necessity of creating a new relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, based on the recognition of and respect for the identity of Quebecers and their right to be different;
That is the first demand. It recognizes Quebec's distinctness and the first article of this new Constitution contains the distinct society clause and the role of the legislature and government of Quebec to protect and promote the distinct society. That is the first demand met in this agreement, quite rightly, I think.
The second point is:
A division of powers and responsibilities which assures Quebec of exclusive authority over those matters and domains which already fall under its exclusive jurisdiction, which means among other things eliminating in these domains federal spending power and overlapping interventions;
Item 25 of the new agreement covers this aspect. The federal spending power in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction is now limited, circumscribed and contained. It is not abolished as they would have wanted it here. It is impossible to abolish the Canadian government's spending power. You can have pipe dreams, but no government on earth will give up its spending power. If it has the power to tax, it must also have the power to spend. Nevertheless, I think that this agreement admirably meets the desired objective of ensuring that in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the Government of Canada will no longer be able to spend without having discussed, reached an understanding and decided to follow provincial priorities.
When I say that this document now limits, circumscribes and contains, I add that as item 25 indicates this should help reduce overlapping and duplication and respect provincial priorities.
The third demand was to give Quebec exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility over its social, economic and cultural development and in the area of language. Items 27, 28, 29, 36 and 37 of the new agreement meet these demands. Of course, some will claim it is not sufficient. Some will say this agreement does not meet all the demands listed in the report of the Belanger-Campeau commission. Personally, after having reviewed this document, I think it offers substantial gains to the Quebec premier. And I trust Mr. Bourassa more than I trust Leon Dion.
September 9, 1992

Another point is the transfer of tax and financial resources associated with responsibilities assumed by Quebec. Items 25, 26 and 28 in particular guarantee the transfer of funds as planned or reasonable compensation.
Another demand is the preservation of Quebec's representation within common institutions to fully reflect its particular status in Canada. Item 21 guarantees that Quebec will be assigned no fewer than 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. This is in fact an extraordinary gain showing the remarkable generosity of our Canadian partners who thus recognize Quebec's distinctivess.
That is not all. Item 18 specifies that the Supreme Court is to be composed of nine members, of whom three must have been admitted to the bar of Quebec. This constitutional guarantee could not be amended without Quebec's consent, which Quebec would of course never give.
Third, item 14 of the new agreement gives francophone senators an absolute veto over any bill affecting French language or French culture. This is another exceptional gain for the French fact which is in my opinion, one of the great Canadian realities. Some Pequistes do not like the fact that there could be francophone senators from other provinces. Get real. This is a country where we are fighting to keep our language, our culture and our traditions, and they want to deny the fact that some residents of other provinces share our French heritage. How narrow-minded can they get?
Another point is the guarantee that Quebec's consent is required for any constitutional amendment. Some have proposed that, whenever appropriate, Quebec should have the right to opt out of a transfer of jurisdiction to the federal government with reasonable compensation. Such a right to opt out with compensation would then replace the right of veto.
Items 57, 58 and 59 of the new agreement largely meet these two demands since unanimity is required to amend the Constitution. We could say that Quebec wanted an absolute veto on any constitutional change. Was it so important? I think Mr. Levesque even said back then: "The important thing is a veto on institutions, especially one that would allow us to receive some financial compensation in case certain provinces, but not Quebec, would be willing to relinquish their power to Ottawa".
Government Orders
The proposals of the Belanger-Campeau commission, perhaps the least favourable to a renewal of Canadian federalism, would then become a reality. I say that the report as presented meets expectations Quebecers had set at a very high level never dreaming the rest of Canada would accept them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: Obviously those hoping Quebec would be given the exclusive power to legislate, collect taxes and establish international relations cannot accept this agreement. It is clear they will never accept any agreement renewing Canadian federalism. Their opinion on the value of this agreement can never be objective. On the day the constitutional agreement was reached, when some of the first ministers had not yet left the conference room and before we even knew any of the details, Gerald Larose was saying on a Montreal TV station that the agreement did not take into account Quebec's aspirations.


An hon. member:: He had not seen it.


André Ouellet: He had not even seen it. He did not know what he was talking about, but he was sure it was bad for Quebec.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: To my Liberal friends in Quebec who think the Allaire report may be acceptable, I say that Quebec's interests will best be served through a close co-operation with the rest of Canada.
To be the most economically profitable for Quebec, this association should also be political. It is logical that, if Quebec wants to make decisions within this political association, its representatives must be able to exercise real powers. If too many areas of jurisdiction are transferred to Quebec, as some would like, Quebec members would lose their credibility, their influence and their ability to defend Quebec's interests at the national level.
Let us look at this agreement for what it is. It does not give many more powers to Quebec but it accomplishes something very important. It strengthens Quebec's representation at the federal level. It also strengthens the role of the Quebec government and National Assembly in areas crucial to the preservation of Quebec's distinctiveness. It is an undeniable reality, and I invite all sensible Quebec citizens to say yes to this agreement next October 26.

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: In closing, I would like to caution against two things. I am very pleased that our new partners, the Prime Minister and the minister responsible, are here to listen to what I have to say, because I must tell them that we are facing two risks. The first one has to do with the legal documents. We Liberals support this deal based on the Consensus Report on the Constitution dated August 28, 1992, described here as the final text. It is very important that the legal documents be in accordance with this final text to make sure that, at no time, any one could get the feeling of having been deceived or betrayed.
I appreciate how difficult it is to ask the public to fully comprehend and digest legal documents. In fact, the Government of Canada has not completed its task. It has yet to provide us with the legal documents. That is quite a deficiency. It is no insurmountable obstacle, but a major deficiency nonetheless. Basically what the government is asking for is an act of faith on the part of a great many people. It is taking a chance and will have to be careful not to allow the supporters of this deal to read into it what they want, each their own way. In the absence of any legal text besides this one, some time down the road yes supporters could have a different interpretation, depending on where they live, in Quebec as opposed to other parts of the country or in western Canada as opposed to Ontario.
That is one danger we are exposed to. Just think of how many problems the various interpretations put on the Meech Lake accord have caused as the months and years went by. Our party and its leader back then, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, had supported this government move, and so had the New Democratic Party. After a while, it became extremely difficult to know what we were talking about because the documents were interpreted one way in Quebec and another way elsewhere in the country. You will argue that any legal text can lend to interpretation, but I simply wanted to give this warning so that we are all perfectly aware of the importance of a coherent message, the
tightest message based on the very wording of this constitutional deal, as it appears in the final text from August 28, 1992.
My second warning deals with the non-partisan approach to making this deal. This course of action must be maintained throughout the referendum process. The future of this country must come before the future of a party, a minister or even a prime minister in politics. This government could not have put this deal together on its own and it has said so. It has enrolled, as was graciously mentioned over and over, the outstanding co-operation from the two major parties in the House of Commons: the Liberal Party of Canada as well as the New Democratic Party. This deal would not have been possible without the considerable input of the Liberal, NDP and Conservative provincial premiers.
This deal is therefore bom out of concern for objectivity and non-partisanship as well as for the higher interest of our country, irrespective of political affiliations.
I am telling you all this because I know the Prime Minister well. He is a former classmate and a longstanding friend. I know about his partisan instinct. I know he can get carried away sometimes in the heat of debate. In the interest of this country, throughout the referendum process, we should all strive to win this referendum in every single province with the three major political parties working together. The government party cannot win it on its own, but with the full and sincere support of the Liberals and NDPers, it can and that is what we must do in the interest of Canada. Let us embark upon this campaign with determination, in a non-partisan spirit, a spirit of thrust and harmony and we will manage to change in a major and remarkable way the Constitutional Act of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to suspend Private Members' Business on Wednesday, September 9, 1992 and on Thursday, September 10, 1992 to continue with Government Orders, and that both
September 9, 1992

items retain their order of precedence in the list of Private Members' Business.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that we do give consent. We agree to defer, both today and tomorrow, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business in order to pursue the debate on the referendum question.


Louis Plamondon: We appreciate having been consulted by both government and the opposition. We agree to defer the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of years we have been dealing with constitutional issues. It is one of those rare times in Parliament when we set aside our partisan differences and tiy to work for the benefit of this country.
At the outset I would like to say very clearly to all members of the House how much I appreciate the work of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs for his leadership on this issue over the last 17 or 18 months.
I also want to extend congratulations to my colleague from Papineau-Saint-Michel for the work he has done on behalf of his party. I would like to mention to the Prime Minister and others the work of the member for St. John's East on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and the Charest committee a couple of years ago.
This is a rather historic week in Canadian history. It is only the third time in the history of our country that we are going to have a national referendum. The first was in 1898, the second in 1942, and now the third will be on October 26, 1992.
It is also the first time in Canadian history that the people of this country will be consulted about their Constitution. I want to associate our party with the national referendum. It is the proper way to consult
Government Orders
people about the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to the people, not the politicians, and they should have an input and a say on the package we are about to approve.
I also want to associate our party with the approval of the question that is before the people of this country.
It is a short question, it is concise, it is fair and it is balanced. We will be there campaigning on the yes side of the referendum along with the premiers, the aboriginal territorial leaders and members of the other two parties in this House.
The package is a good package, although it is not perfection. I suppose the only way you could achieve perfection is to stand by yourself in front of a mirror and negotiate with yourself. I do not think that there is anybody in this country or in this House who would not make some changes to the document. At this time, that is the best document that we can come up with. It modernizes our Constitution in a new vision of federalism that I will argue reflects what the Canadian people have said to us they want in their Constitution.
This is a Constitution built on the basis of public hearings by a national parliamentary committee, six national conferences that were televised across the country, an aboriginal process and by committees in almost every province and territory.
What we have here is a good reflection of what this country is all about. What this package is about is the story of nation builders. It is people coming together, negotiating, making trade-offs and climbing to that common ground that unites us as a great nation. It is the best effort, it is the best accommodation. I hope when the time comes on October 26, all members of this House, with a few exceptions, will be on the right side of history in terms of pulling this country into the future.
Does it mean that people do not have the right to disagree or to ask questions about what is in this document? It is important that the people of this country have a chance to study the document, to discuss it, to see what is in it, to try to understand some of the trade-offs and some of the compromises that were made for the sake of the country as a whole.

Government Orders
I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon mentioning seven or eight of the key points of this document that are so important. The most exciting new thing in the document is the right of inherent self-government for the aboriginal people of this country. If this Constitution is amended in accordance with the accord in Charlottetown, we will have the most progressive constitution in the world bar none for aboriginal or indigenous peoples. We can be proud of that as Canadians.
We have to congratulate the aboriginal people, the leadership and the ordinary aboriginal people across this country for they are now the true mothers and fathers of Confederation. They have been involved in the process. They are inside the loop. Justice will be done to them and we can all be proud of that. There will be self-government. There will be recognition of aboriginal languages and cultures and the recognition that aboriginal people can look after their affairs within Canada.

Second, we have here with this package a promise of reconciliation with the province of Quebec. I remember clearly that night in the Paul-Sauve arena 12 years ago, in May 1980, at the time of the Quebec referendum when the then Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, made a political commitment to the people of Quebec. He said that a no to sovereignty-association was a yes to renewed federalism in Canada. Now, 12 years later, we have a very positive deal to offer the province of Quebec. It incorporates the five conditions set in the Meech Lake accord regarding: first, the distinct society, which is important for the province of Quebec; second, the Supreme Court of Canada, with the nomination of three civil law judges from the province of Quebec now entrenched in the Constitution, such an important feature; third, the agreement on immigration; fourth, the limitation of the federal spending power, a major point as well as yet another of the conditions in the Meech Lake accord; and fifth, the power of veto on federal institutions for Quebec and every other province in the Canadian federation. However there is more than the essence of the Meech Lake Accord and the five Quebec demands in here. There is the guarantee of a minimum of 25 per cent of the membership in the House of Commons coming from the province of Quebec from now on. That is an important factor for a minority in our country and in North America.
Third and last, there is something on the division of powers. It may not seem like much to some Quebecers, but it is a step in the right direction. We have obtained changes in nine jurisdictions. More flexibility is now afforded to Quebec and Quebec as well as the rest of the Canadian provinces will now have more powers.

We have also, for the first time in our country, the proposal to enshrine in our Constitution a social and economic union that will say the goal of this country is to have medical care. It is to have the five principles of medical care enshrined in our Constitution.
The mention of the environment in the Constitution and in the social charter is very important. There is the goal of providing every Canadian citizen with not only primary but secondary and post-secondary education. We have the goal of collective bargaining and the right to organize for workers as parts of the social covenant or economic and social union in the Charlottetown accord.
We also have other social, economic and community values that are part of the socio-economic union such as the goal of full employment and other goals that are important in terms of building this country.
We have the Canada clause which, for the first time, will be a description in our Constitution of what we are all about as Canadians. It mentions the valuable contribution of our minorities. I know there are some of us who wish we had stronger language in terms of protecting minority rights, particularly for visible minorities, something we mentioned in Beaudoin-Dobbie as an NDP amendment.
There is mention in the Canada clause as well of the aboriginal people, the distinct society, the diversity of our country, the equality of the provinces and the linguistic duality. These are the things that define us as a nation and will help the courts interpret the Constitution of Canada.
We have, as I said a few minutes ago in French, some progress on the division of powers. I am very pleased about what has happened in the division of powers. I think now we have more flexibility in our country to allow the provincial governments to do more things that are relevant in their domains and at the same time keep in Ottawa a strong, central government for national goals, national programs and national aspirations.
September 9, 1992

The division of powers allows more flexibility. The division of powers allows us to recognize what we are, a country that is very diverse. We have different needs and different interests in different parts of Canada.
It is not always possible, relevant or even wise to design a lot of programs in Ottawa that are precisely the same in Kamsack, Saskatchewan or Chicoutimi, Quebec as they may be in Toronto or Montreal. We have those differences in this country.
I think the movement now in terms of the division of powers allows for more flexibility and diversity to recognize the country as it is. I think that is a positive step.
Number six of the seven points I want to mention is the reform of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate. We have here a different arrangement than some of us would have preferred that was recommended in Beaudoin-Dobbie, but I think the arrangement we have is one that is going to work and one that is good for this country.
I can support an equal Senate with the powers that are now being prescribed for that particular Senate. I can support the guarantee that Quebec should have at least 25 per cent of the members of the House of Commons. That reflects the democratic weight of the province of Quebec.
I say to people like the member for Beaver River that it is not only Quebec that gets the guarantee of members in the House of Commons, but Prince Edward Island gets a guarantee of at least four seats in the House of Commons despite the fact that by representation by population it would get only about one seat in the House of Commons.
The same thing is true of New Brunswick which is guaranteed 10 seats in the House and the province of Nova Scotia which is guaranteed 10 seats in the House. New Brunswick now would not have 10 seats if we had pure representation by population. The territories would not have seats. Yukon only has about 28,000 people and the Northwest Territories has about 40,000 or 45,000 people. They are given guarantees of representation in the House of Commons. They are part of the tradeoffs that are good for Canada and make a national deal or national compromise possible.
Government Orders
At the same time we have a commitment that we will have a formula for distribution of seats that will be a greater reflection of representation by population. That will help British Columbia in the future, as well as the province of Alberta, which keeps growing, and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. At the same time the small provinces are protected.
For example, Saskatchewan, my home province, has 3.8 per cent of the population of this country. In a joint vote of the House of Commons and the Senate, with six senators and fourteen members of Parliament, Saskatchewan will have 5 per cent of the members with 3.8 per cent of the population. That is not a bad deal for a small province.

Finally, I would like to touch on section 36 of our Constitution on equalization and regional development. The Charlottetown agreement will strengthen section 36, which will give more powers to the small provinces, provinces with economic problems. I am referring to the four Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Thanks to the support of Messrs. Romanow and Filmon and the Premiers of the four Atlantic provinces, there is now a proposal to increase the powers conferred by section 36 of the Constitution regarding equalization and regional development. It is a way of distributing the wealth within this great country of ours, Canada.

Therefore, the accord reached by the first ministers and aboriginal and territorial leaders, and supported by the three national parties, is not a perfect deal. It is not possible to achieve perfection but it is the best deal we can get at this particular time.
I hope that when the Canadian people read the accord and understand the amendments to the Constitution they will support it in a national referendum.
We have to put this issue behind us and start dealing with the important social and economic issues facing this country today, such as free trade, NAFTA, the economy, jobs, the farm crisis and taxation.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
If we get a nod of approval from the Canadian people on October 26 maybe we can then put this issue to bed and turn the collective energies, wisdoms and riches of this country toward solving the social and economic problems haunting this nation today.
If that does not happen, what is the alternative? More years of study on the Constitution? More consultation? The division of this country? Chaos? I ask the people of this country: What is the alternative?
In the province of Quebec there is a movement-the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois-that wants to separate and divide this country. We say: "No, this country must remain one". We have a document here that can bring this country together.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. By this I mean that the debate will deal with the Charlottetown agreement. We must therefore immediately get to the heart of the matter. The question is whether or not this agreement is acceptable. To know the answer, we must first clear the way and get rid of the smoke-screens behind which the government and its allies are trying to hide their agreement. They do not want the discussion to deal with the agreement. They want to have a debate on the apocalyptic vision of a choice Canadians would have between chaos, as we have just heard, and the agreement, or else on being on the side of responsible Canadians, as the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was saying, or on the side of the others. We refuse to be confined to such alternatives.
I say also to the Reform Party of this country that I hope that Mr. Manning, after a couple of weeks of reflection, will put aside some of the rigid ideology he believes in, which is his right, and be on the right side of history and stand up with the rest of us in asking the people of this country to look very positively and favourably on the accord negotiated at Charlottetown.
As the minister said, it is a time to put aside intolerance and prejudice. It is a time to set aside suspicions in this country. It is a time to set aside divisions in this country.
It is the time to ask not what is in it for Saskatchewan, Newfoundland or Quebec, not what is in it for me or my family or my community, but what is in it for Canada. What is in it for Canada is the important question.
The time has come to hold out a hand to heal the divisions in this country and to build a nation.

The time has come to act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I should remind the House that, under the order passed earlier by this House, we are now beginning the period when all subsequent speakers will have a maximum of 15 minutes each and there will be no questions and comments afterwards.
In fact, the debate will not deal with sovereignty. Sovereignty will not be put on trial. We would have liked the debate to deal with sovereignty. As we are well aware, as long as the question of Quebec sovereignty has not been settled, no decision will have been made about this country. We have to deal with it. Until we have done so, it will always remain in the background and at the centre of our thoughts.
We have always wanted this debate. We have been demanding it for two years. We were able to get legislation passed in Quebec stating that the debate would address necessarily and legally the matter of sovereignty. However, since the federalists, namely this government and its allies including Mr. Bourassa, have decided that the referendum would not deal with sovereignty, the question asked will be on the agreement. Fine, let us reply to the question about the agreement.
There is another thing which should be cleared up. Canadians and Quebecers will not be motivated by fatigue or weariness in this referendum. They will be motivated by the need to decide whether or not the agreement is good for the future of their children.
It is quite strange, that Quebecers and Canadians should be asked to sign with their eyes closed. On this point, I must say that the government and its allies are right. You could only sign such an agreement with your eyes closed.
September 9, 1992

Recently, Canadians and Quebecers have been told: "You are tired; you are fed up with discussions. Why not sign now? The agreement is not very good and is not what you wanted, but why not sign and then everything will be settled." However such is not the case. Nothing will be settled. The situation will be more unsettled than ever before because the agreement establishes, not a constitutional system, but a system for negotiations. Canada and Quebec as well as all federal departments and provincial governments will be condemned to negotiate forever.
Hon. members may know that Jean Allaire, who is still a member of the Quebec Liberal Party, the architect of the Allaire report, the man who engineered the democratic adoption of this report by his own party, the Quebec Liberal Party, is now saying to the newspapers that he has found at least 60 contradictions, instances of weakness or matters for dispute in the agreement. In other words, there is some unfinished business. We are being given a package with all kinds of loose ends. There is still some unfinished business.
This is why the question is worded in such a way. This is why the question speaks about a basis for renewal, that is a basis for further negotiations. That is going to be the basis for further negotiations, for an attempt to deal with the many loose ends that remain. The worst part of all this, is that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to continue to negotiate a number of essential and fundamental aspects which have not been finalized. They are saying: "Later we will negotiate whatever we please and then we will not have to ask you for permission to sign the agreement we want to sign." People will never agree to a blank cheque where their future is at stake.
What does the question really mean? It means: "Citizens of Canada and Quebec, do you trust Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Mulroney to decide what the future of your children will be?" We are being asked to trust them to negotiate, without knowing what the consequences will be. I referred to a draft, and it is a draft because we do not even have the legal text. When Canadians and Quebecers buy a fridge or a car or sign a lease, and when they are asked to sign a document involving sums of $1,000 or $500, for a period of one or two years for minor items, they always want to see the small print first.
Government Orders
Today we are talking about a contract that will be forever, firmly secured by all kinds of nuts and bolts. Today, we have a contract that will be decisive for our own future and that of our children and grandchildren. Today, Quebec's heritage based on nearly 400 years of sacrifice, effort and hard work is about to go down the drain, and they tell us: "You will not see the contract before it is signed. It is not ready. We are in a hurry. We cannot afford to wait. Sign right there, on the dotted line, and we will draft the contract later on. Trust us." That is the kind of question we have here.
It is immoral, undemocratic and totally irresponsible to even consider asking people to go through a democratic referendum process to adopt a constitution that has not even been drafted. There is not a single nation in the world that would agree to such a proposal, and certainly not the people of Canada and the people of Quebec.
Let them draft the Constitution and bring us the agreement so we can read it and know exactly what it contains. We do not want any of those press releases drafted by press secretaries after three days of talks in a smoke filled room. No, we want to see the small print. Where is the text of the contract? They say it is not ready. They say it will be ready after it has been signed. On October 26, the only thing that will be ready will be Quebec's signature and the signatures of those who want to sign, if the answer is yes. Then they will start writing the Constitution in reverse, starting at the bottom, just above the signature, like they do in Arabic. People will not buy that. Let these people do their homework, and otherwise we should appoint people who can do a better job.
The agreement is the main thing. The agreement is unacceptable. In Quebec, as the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel said earlier, everyone agreed there were two options: sovereignty or a thorough renewal of federalism. What we have to ask ourselves here is whether this agreement does, in fact, thoroughly renew federalism. In Quebec, the agreement must pass two tests. The first test is this: Do we find all the conditions in Meech in this agreement? The second question is: Are all the additional powers Quebec has been demanding for over 30 years reflected in the agreement? The answer is no in both cases. Any sover-eignist or any federalist in Quebec who does not go along with the agreement will tell you, from what they have

Government Orders
read of at the text, such as it is, that we must consider the intent of Meech Lake.
The Meech Lake accord was only a first step. It was about bringing Quebec back to the constitutional table, so that Quebec would have the right, after signing the Constitution, to get down to more pressing business. However, before embarking on this process Quebec set five conditions, saying: "I am not signing and I am not coming back to the negotiating table to discuss the important issues unless five conditions are met." You can look for those five conditions, but you won't find them. There are a few, but most of them are not there. Take Quebec's distinct identity. Nobody but nobody will convince me or anyone else who reads the draft agreement that the wording of the recognition of Quebec's distinct identity is the same one as Meech.
For example, read the legal opinion. I will spare you the details; we will pursue it when we have the time. My time is limited, but I could show it clearly if I had five minutes. Just read the legal opinion published last week in the Quebec press and signed by Quebec's eight greatest experts in constitutional law.
I hear insults from the other side. I hear insults. I would like those people to repeat those insults if they have the courage to do so.
These eight recognized experts from Quebec, people who have published textbooks, who teach in universities, who have taken part in all the legal debates in Quebec in the past ten years, signed a legal opinion saying that this distinct society clause is meaningless; it is even a setback from the status quo.
The same goes for immigration. The proposed constitution does not contain the immigration clause found in the Meech Lake accord or the veto right on the process to appoint judges. It is now 7/50 instead of unanimity. Neither is there a veto any more over the admission of new provinces. We could go on. Veiy clearly, Meech is not there. Therefore the first condition-never mind all the rest-has not been met. It is not just the first condition, but also the division of powers now, because they claim today to do in a single step the two steps that were planned when Meech was begun. Now they claim to settle Quebec's powers until the end of time.
We know the demands that have been made regarding Quebec's powers. It started with Jean Lesage. He has inspired all of Quebec for 30 years. Jean Lesage was a federalist, not a sovereigntist. He was not a wicked separatist or heretical. For 30 years Jean Lesage has inspired Quebec on the basis of being masters in our own house. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is politically aware, recalled that himself. For 30 years, we in Quebec have been going on the slogan "masters in our own house". That means more economic powers and complete jurisdiction over culture, language and other fields. We do not find that here. Not a single one of them is here. On the contrary, every apparent gain for Quebec is always subject to administrative negotiations and is never guaranteed in the Constitution and in many cases we find the federal government invading fields where it does not belong.
Jake manpower, for example. TJie federal government is granting itself two new constitutional powers that it did not have before. First is the power to spend on job creation programs, which it did not have before. It will be clearly and finally entrenched in the Constitution. There will be no more negotiations about it. Secondly, there is the power to set national objectives without even spending anything or having cost-shared programs. JJiose are two additional powers that the federal government is getting in a field where we in Quebec should have made a breakthrough, as everyone involved in the field agrees, especially in the employment forum, including Ghislain Dufour whom the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel quoted.
It is the same for culture. For the first time, the federal government grants itself power over Canadian culture in the Constitution. It never had that before. It will get it now.
JTien they talk about the six powers, the six related jurisdictions, that the federal government is giving up. The federal government promises to sin no more, not to invade the areas of jurisdiction we already had: recreation, housing, the family, tourism, forestry and mining. We already had those powers in 1867. Georges-Etienne Cartier had negotiated and obtained them and the federal government has been sneaking into them for years. Now it tells us that it will not do that any more. What a gain, because in the same breath it tells us that for new programs it will invade these same fields and any others that exist by using the sacrosanct spending power.
I think of the crocodile tears shed today by the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, saying that the
September 9, 1992

federal government abused the spending power. Come on. That is how the federal government has invaded every jurisdiction. That is how it has plunged Canada into bankruptcy: the total debt will soon be $500 billion.
I will speed up because you are indicating to me that my time is running out. If Quebec were to say yes, we will continue to negotiate, although Quebec will be sorry if it says yes. If Quebec says yes, it will send premiers to Ottawa to negotiate on their knees, with no clout, after having Quebec sign away its hopes and its strength. They will find themselves at the mercy of federal negotiators and federal mandarins. Is that what we want for Quebec's future? I say no.
Topping it all is the Senate where Quebec will count for as much as Prince Edward Island. My region is as big as two Prince Edward Islands. Proportionally to Prince Edward Island, my region would need 12 senators. In other words, 20 per cent of Senate seats would have to go to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. However they are those bad separatists. It would be awful, yet this is what is being proposed.
Then there are the Senate appointments. There will be 9 per cent of us in the Senate to approve the appointments. Do you think that there will be many French-speaking governors of the Bank of Canada, many deputy ministers, many important ambassadors, many CRTC or Canada Council appointees if the decisions are to be made by a Senate with 90 percent anglophones? I shall conclude quickly.
Then there is Rene Levesque. People always talk about Rene Levesque. I thought it was a mistake, because his name is always being brought up by federalists. Rene Levesque wanted the Quebec charter to have precedence over the federal charter. He wanted Quebec to have exclusive power over linguistic matters. He wanted the existence of the Quebec people to be recognized. He wanted all powers over manpower and employment insurance. He wanted exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. He wanted the role of Quebec to be recognized internationally in its own areas of jurisdiction. Rene Levesque wanted many things. Not one of them can be found in this agreement.
Government Orders
I shall conclude. The people of Quebec will not want to sell their approval cheaply. They do not want to give it away for mere crumbs. The people of Quebec will want to make certain that the vote is not held out of boredom, out of a wish to give up, out of weariness. Quebecers will not want such feelings to be the basis for the future of their country. Quebecers will never again sign any document if they cannot do so with enthusiasm and honour.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, next October 26 Canadians throughout Canada will be asked to vote on the agreement signed on August 28 by replying to a clear and specific question. They will thus have an opportunity to say whether or not they agree with the vision of the country proposed to them and whether or not they are willing to renew the compromise of 1867 in the context of a modem Canada.
For my part, I not only support this agreement, but I also mean to defend it, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. I shall therefore reply yes to the question.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: The vision of Canada proposed in this agreement remains realistic and open to a recognition of the interests and needs of all those party to it. In a way it is an effort to reconcile the interests and aspirations of Quebecers, aboriginal peoples and Canadians in the rest of Canada.
I am a member from Quebec representing a riding, that of Roberval, which thoroughly reflects, I believe, the realities of Quebec. If I may, I shall therefore speak first of all to my fellow Quebecers to explain why I feel that this agreement is good for Quebec and why they should support it on October 26.
All of us members from Quebec know how profoundly the failure of Meech hurt Quebecers, how deeply, whether or not we admit it, this was viewed as a rejection of Quebec by the rest of Canada. Since June 1990 Quebecers have been waiting for offers, for proposals reflecting a clear vision of a renewed federalism.
I would like to note in passing the courage of the Canadian Prime Minister who decided to begin again the process of renewal in spite of major difficulties, at a time when so many people were talking about a moratorium. I believe he knew that such a moratorium would only have made Quebecers more impatient and opened the door to the only other possible option, namely independence.
No prime minister would preside over the destruction of his own country. This is why, with the constant support

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
of the members of his party, especially those from Quebec, who deserve a lot of credit because they have lived through difficult times, and the stead fast assistance of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. The Prime Minister looked for a compromise, a compromise which we have now found and which proposes a choice based on a federation renewed in those areas it can live up to today, but without precluding the possibility that others might decide to go further tomorrow. Its components are brittle, but they meet the priorities of the various parties.
Reactivating the constitutional debate and broadening its scope to include a Canada Round necessarily implied in Quebec's case that the original conditions set by the Quebec government for entering into the 1982 constitutional accord. Distinct society, veto right, control over immigration, control over spending powers and the guarantee of three Quebec judges on the Supreme Court would have to be met.
The Charlottetown Accord, and I want to make this quite clear gives Quebec the five elements of Meech Lake in their entirety.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we can put all
kinds of interpretations on this. People can have all kinds of reservations, but the fact remains that in the present negotiations, Quebec has recovered every single one of those elements. For me, for many of my colleagues, and I imagine for many Quebecers, this has always been central to any new agreement. In fact the Government of Quebec decided to go even further, and that too was fundamental. The Charlottetown accord gives Quebecers a greater role in our central institutions by adding 18 members and a 25 per cent guarantee, meaning that in the future, Quebec will never have less than 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. This guarantee provides Quebec with a long-term safeguard that should not be underestimated. As far as spending powers are
concerned, Quebec has made major advances in 11 different sectors: manpower, culture, immigration, forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation, municipal and urban affairs, regional development and telecommunications. However, it seems that for some people that is not enough.
Quebec's society is among the most dynamic and most extraordinary we know. It is a society whose economic, social and cultural policies have made an exceptional contribution to its own development as well as to that of the federation in general. Thanks to the actions of responsible governments and the administrative agreements some people find so appalling, the past 30 years have witnessed outstanding achievements like the Caisse de depot and the Quebec Pension Plan.
Furthermore, by guaranteeing control over manpower training, immigration and education, the Charlottetown Accord gives the Quebec government control over the tools it needs to develop a comprehensive human resources policy that is indispensable to Quebec as a distinct society. As a result, Quebec would be even better equipped to protect its distinct identity than it was in the past. The province would also have new essential powers to develop existing resources.
Of course, this will never convince people who want to see this accord as a step backward for Quebec, as a surrender by the Premier of Quebec. To them, any excuse is a good excuse for perpetuating the myth that the Canadian federation is a strait-jacket that has always prevented Quebec from developing its potential and that the Charlottetown accord will merely consolidate that situation.
Every day, Quebecers can see what their quality of life is like within the Canadian federation. I am not interested and they are not interested in the option of leaving Canada without knowing where or why and, above all, without being promised any more than they have already.
September 9, 1992

I am deeply convinced that Quebecers will prefer our proposals because they offer a vision of a country with a future.
The agreement is far from perfect. As we said before, it is only the result of a compromise and it rests on a basic principle: the existence of a country called Canada. We can either admit this reality of a country called Canada or we can deny it.
We must recognize that this country where we are living today is the result of a wonderful compromise that, for 125 years, despite numerous hardships, frustrations and disagreements, has given us one of the best societies in the world.

Since entering politics I have been amazed by the tremendous potential of this country and its people. I have discovered the realities of Canada outside Quebec.
I have discovered Canadians who love their country. I have discovered Canadians who are proud to be Canadian, but not denying their regional roots.
Canada is first and foremost a land of diversity. We cannot exist in this country without a compromise. We should celebrate the fact because Canada was bom of compromise. On October 26 Canadians will have to make a decision if they are still prepared to recognize the diversity and if they are prepared to renew our founding compromise.
Quebecers have faced this choice and they have been disappointed twice in recent memory. In 1980 Quebecers gave Canada a vote of confidence but they did so on the basis of promises which for us have never been fulfilled. Again in 1987 the Quebec National Assembly was the first legislature to ratify the Meech Lake accord, expressing the desire of Quebecers to rejoin the Canadian Constitution. We all know what happened to Meech Lake.
It is the third time for Quebecers and more than ever we need to know that the rest of Canada can share this vision upon which a renewed federation can be built. Canada is a remarkable country that will only fulfil its promise to the extent that it can achieve a generous and open understanding between the francophone and anglophone and native components. The future of this
Government Orders
country will be built on this understanding culturally, socially and economically.
We are at the frontier of great challenges which will show the world the stuff that we are made of, whether we are a people to succeed in taming a hostile environment and building a modem country or a people who have failed to reconcile their differences and ended in disintegration. We are entering a phase of globalization in which it is vital that we take our place. To get there we have to stop being entangled in endless debates about our future. The time has come to make a decision. It is time to get on with our future. That is the most pressing message Canadians are sending us.
On October 26 Canadians will be voting on much more than a dry legal text. They will have to affirm a renewed vision of this country, a vision that includes among other things a fundamental expression of the distinct nature of the French fact in Quebec and the right to self-government for the aboriginal people of Canada, our original founding people. We will have to say yes to the aspirations and contributions of people and regions which were not part of the original compromise, the north part of Canada and the west. All these people, particularly those from western Canada, who play such an important role in maintaining our prosperity and our future must find their aspirations reflected in this agreement and choose to vote for a renewed Canada.

My last words, will be for my fellow Quebecers. For 125 years the people of Quebec have emphasized their distinct identity within the Canadian federation as one of their most basic values.
They have been willing to face the risks, the constant frustrations, the often daunting challenges. They have exhausted themselves trying to explain what is so easy to understand: Quebec is a distinct society, proud of what is it and conscious of its particular role within the federation.
Quebecers have fought against isolation, against constant denunciation; they have made progress at the provincial and federal levels and have marked this country to the point where Canada would not be Canada without Quebec.
Are we going to give up this heritage just because Quebec did not get all it wanted? No.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
I think a clear, unequivocal yes would allow us to get on with the future, conscious of our role and our importance. The experience gained will help us build a better Quebec within a renewed Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be here with the hon. member for Roberval. Like him I am a Canadian. The question is now before us. The referendum of October 26 will ask all Canadians not only to exercise their democratic right, but also to reflect seriously on the future of our country. The text of the referendum question is simple: "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?" In my opinion this question contains nothing which could be controversial. For myself I would have preferred one word to be added, the word "political": "Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the political agreement reached on August 28, 1992?"
Let me explain. This political agreement is something new; it opens up new avenues for our country, new avenues which will lead to a Canadian agreement through public consultation. It represents a series of compromises, as pointed out by the hon. member for Roberval, of national compromises between the various parties involved, including national, regional, cultural, English speaking, French speaking and aboriginal communities, between the propronents of centralisation and those of decentralisation. They all participated actively in the development of this agreement. The governments will therefore have to respect their commitments and not spare any efforts to improve the social, cultural and economic conditions of Canadians.

Following the demise of the Meech Lake accord on June 25, 1990, an accord which I supported, it was widely believed that public resistance to the accord was, for the most part, a result of the perceived absence of public influence and input toward the conclusion of this Meech Lake accord. The executive federalism approach, in other words discussion reserved to federal and provincial ministers, was rejected as the only process to amend our Constitution. In order to avoid future failures, increased public participation had to be achieved. Co-operative federalism, if I may use that word, may be becoming the order of the day.
As the member of Parliament for Ottawa-Vanier, concerned with the views of my electors, I rejoice in this development.
The national referendum on October 26 will be our first test of formally involving all Canadians in the process of amending our Constitution. To paraphrase my leader, we are giving the Constitution back to the people.
I want to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and my fellow parliamentarians in congratulating all those who contributed to the consensus report on the Constitution. I do not forget my good friend the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I say to my friend: "Thank you very much. It is much appreciated".
I acknowledge the important contributions made by several provincial committees on constitutional matters and federal committees that sat many days and months here in the House. Native people, territorial authorities and many organizations representing varied interests also reported to their respective authorities after due consultation with their members. In other words, public dialogue and wide participation in the process was encouraged. This increased public involvement in the constitutional process will culminate, I hope, in our first national referendum on amending our Constitution. I hope and pray that it will be in the affirmative.

In a federation such as ours, we have to respect both levels of government. We should also perhaps tell political and aboriginal leaders from all government orders that they have made a political commitment to respect these constitutional rights.
Thanks to the public consultation process I mentioned earlier, we shall be able to acknowledge and to put before the public the difficulties faced by certain groups in achieving self-fulfilment in our federation. I am thinking, for instance, of the aboriginal peoples, who have long been neglected and who will now become partners in the renewal of our federation. I am also including the official language minority communities, the cultural communities, women and so on. They have all had an opportunity to express their views and to voice their concerns. I congratulate all of them for their
September 9, 1992

participation which will do much to create a better life for all Canadians.
I had no hesitation when the agreement was signed, or at least made public, in writing immediately to all Premiers congratulating them on the consensus reached, on their good understanding of the issues involved and on their excellent contribution to the collective search for solutions acceptable to all Canadians. Sometimes, we have to recognize the work of politicians. Admittedly, this is a political agreement which is not worded in legal terms yet, but which still provides a solid basis for legal wording to reflect the agreements reached.
This long and difficult process will be ratified through a referendum on October 26. Since Confederation there have been only two consultative referendums in Canada. The first in 1898 was on the consumption of alcohol, or what was called prohibition, and the second in 1942 on conscription. This most recent experience, that of 1942, left a bitter taste in the mouths of Canadians. We must avoid such a negative effect this time.
This agreement will allow Quebec to take part in the renewal of our Constitution. The serious problems caused by the failure of Meech showed the need for Canada to vote on the 1992 proposals, including the special status of Quebec and the Canadian linguistic duality.
It is also important to provide popular support for the constitutional amendments, which popular support the governments, both provincial and federal, will have to see as a political will, a clear expression of the desire to recognize certain constitutional rights.
The lack of political will shown by provincial governments in implementing the legal and educational rights recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unacceptable.
It is unbelievable that, ten years after adopting section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country in 1982 and considering court decisions, the latest of which is the Supreme Court decision in the Mahe case, the right to manage school business in the language of the minority has not yet been granted in some provinces, namely Alberta, Newfoundland, Labrador, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
It is unbelievable that 10 years after adopting a constitutional right, the political will to allow linguistic
Government Orders
minorities, to let them manage their own educational institutions is still not there. It is unbelievable that following the adoption of section 11 of the Official Languages Act, 1969, section 19 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, and section 15 of the Official Languages Act, 1988, French speaking defendants still have a hard time getting to be heard by a judge who speaks their language in several provinces, namely Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia. We have this in 1992, ten years after the adoption of the Constitution.
This needs to be said. In my view, from now on, the people will dictate their governments a political commitment, a clear and precise direction, which in turn may give them the political will to put in place the systems and services our minorities are entitled to.
I recognize that major progress has been accomplished, but much more remains to be done to facilitate access to criminal courts in French: identification of French-speaking juries, information provided to Frenchspeaking defendants regarding their right to services in their own language, language training for judges and court staff. This right does exist. It is set out right there in our Constitution. However, the political will, in terms of means of access, is horribly lacking.
In the devolution of powers to the provinces-we are familiar with them; there is no need for me to list them all again. There are at least six of them: mining, tourism, et cetera. It should be remembered that in some areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction there is an important factor in favour of national unity, and that is the need to respect institutional bilingualism. In other words it is the obligation of every level of government to provide the people of Canada public services in both official languages of this country. The level of services shall not go down after intergovernmental agreements provided for in the Charlottetown agreement are entered into. The provinces must be committed to providing services in both official languages of the country. It sounds reasonable to me to expect, in the case of provinces interested in taking over training and manpower development, that the agreements foster respect for institutional bilingualism throughout the country. Regional development, tourism, forestry and mining are all areas where continued respect for both official languages must be fostered. Institutional bilingualism should not be abandoned because of political pressures exerted at the time of transferring certain federal powers to the provinces.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Other linguistic issues will also call for careful consideration. For instance, how to identify a French speaking senator for the purpose of the double majority? It might be a good idea to give it some thought. Will a seat be set aside for the francophone representatives when senators are elected or appointed? Will provinces with a predominantly English speaking population be so gracious as to nominate a Irancophone? In the final version of the legal text of the Canada clause shall commitment be translated by attachementl Are we going to start squabbling over translations? We did not in 1982. I do not see that we should in 1992.
As far as I am concerned, all we have to do is to read over again section 23 of the Charter. In French it says "etablissement d'enseignement", while in English it reads "educational facilities". We did not squabble on that. We just took the text as such, because section 57 of the Charter states that: "The English and French versions of this act are equally authoritative".
The ultimate goal of constitutional reform is to allow Canadians to share a dream in a land inhabited by citizens who are proud to be Canadians.

The current constitutional process will not end with a referendum. It is important that we take steps to ensure the process ends successfully.
It is all very well to ask Canadians to support the consensus report and it is all very well to have a popular expression of support or non-support, but politicians will be bound, morally at least, by the results of this referendum. I must tell them that we must recognize once the people of this country have spoken on this subject matter, they must follow the direction set by the popular vote. They must follow what people have said must be done. There must be a political will to act which we must respect. This country must be built on generosity, must
be built on understanding and must be built on the things that we stand for. They are justice and equality.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first allow me to state that I deem it a distinct pleasure to take part in this very historic debate in this place.
As Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs I have the privilege of dealing each and every day with the veterans of Canada and their families. No one knows better than our veterans the value of a free, prosperous and united Canada. Veterans know all too well the price of preserving our nation and the awful consequences of allowing our unity to be broken.
Each day that I meet with them they remind me that they fought so hard and sacrificed so much for our Canada. As they answered the call with unfailing loyalty and determination, so now they set the same high standard for this generation to preserve the nation and to keep united that which was forged with the bonds of blood and sweat in times of conflict.
The Royal Canadian Legion was one of the first national organizations to form and finance its own national unity campaign, much to its credit.

Veterans risked all they had for Canada. Now, they are asking us to take a risk. It is a heavy responsibility that I take seriously.

Canada is so vast geographically and so diverse in its peoples it is impossible to impose upon her one narrowly defined vision about how we define ourselves as a country. We are composed of many visions, visions that incorporate social justice, economic vibrancy, individual freedom and collective responsibility.
The compromise that was reached in Charlottetown enables all of these visions to flourish. This is the Canadian way, to compromise and to find solutions amidst an array of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
I believe all Canadians are united in the hope that we
can resolve this issue and move on. Our nation pays a
September 9, 1992

heavy price when the threat of separation hangs constantly over our heads. It erodes investor confidence, draws our attention from other problems and saps our goodwill.
Now is the time to stop the bickering and get on with the building. It is time to turn from the disappointments of the past to the exciting promise of the future. With this in mind, I would like to convey my congratulations to all of the participants in the Canada round for a job well done. No one doubts the enormity of the task they faced. The remarkable consensus they have achieved is a testament to the sincerity and goodwill of all of those who took part in that long and arduous discussion.
The result of a process so gruelling and extensive is never perfect, but it is truly remarkable how many advances have been made in the true Canadian spirit of common sense and honourable compromise.
As a representative of Atlantic Canada in the federal cabinet I would like to highlight some of the aspects of this agreement which might be of special interest to citizens back home in Atlantic Canada. However, before I do so I want to emphasize our love for and our commitment to this nation.
Atlantic Canadians are Canadians first and last, and we rejoice in any agreement that strengthens our Canada. We do not expect or request special treatment and hopefully we will not be dissecting this agreement to look for major winners and major losers. An agreement to preserve this great nation makes winners out of all of us. I suspect that most Atlantic Canadians will say without hesitation that what is good for Canada is good for Atlantic Canada.
Were this country to separate into something smaller no one would feel the isolation and the loss more keenly than the Atlantic region. I know that in this hour of decision Canada can count on us to stand by her.
That said, there is much in this agreement that will be very encouraging to Atlantic Canadians.
First, we have the preservation of the federal government's ability to act decisively in the national interest, to introduce new programs where needed, and to maintain our national standards. There are strengthened provi-
Government Orders
sions for national cost shared programs, allowing more stability and predictability in areas of shared jurisdiction.
Thus Atlantic Canadians are assured of a continued strong federal presence to ensure that we receive a fair share of Confederation's benefits and largess.
However, at the same time, this agreement allows for a new degree of flexibility with more room for made-in-Atlantic Canada solutions. The success of ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, has shown Canada has little to fear and much to gain from improved regional responsiveness and greater sensitivity of government initiatives to the areas they seek to serve. Giving our regions room to stand on their own where needed will benefit all of Canada.
Second, the Charlottetown agreement emphasizes again and again our commitment to equality: the equality of women and men, of races, of ethnic groups and the equality of provincial communities. Our diversity is acknowledged and celebrated for what it is, and that is one of Canada's great strengths.
This commitment to equality is more than mere rhetoric. Through concrete entrenchment of the government's commitment to equalization and to the provision of regional development assistance Atlantic Canada is seeing equality of opportunity fully entrenched in our Constitution for the first time.
It is quite unprecedented and is a very major step forward in strengthening the ties of our region to the nation.

As for the Acadians who fought bravely and proudly to gain recognition as equal partners in New Brunswick, they should be doubly happy. First, they know better than anyone how tragic it would be to split this beautiful country of ours and, second, the recognition now afforded to the equality of their rights is stronger than ever before.

Third, Atlantic Canadians can celebrate because this commitment to equality has found new expression in a strong voice for our region in Canada's national affairs. The Charlottetown accord acknowledges the principle of provincial equality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.

Government Orders
Atlantic Canada will hold nearly 40 per cent of the seats in the new Senate. This provides opportunities to ensure that our needs, our concerns and our aspirations are understood and addressed in Parliament.
Finally, all Canadians will benefit from the strengthened economic union, and some lowered interprovincial trade barriers, which will allow our country to move ahead to face the challenge of global competition through quality education, improved competitiveness and strengthened partnerships among all Canadians.
This agreement does justice to many submissions that Atlantic Canadians, many of them, made throughout the extensive public consultative process. This indeed has been the Canada round and the result is an agreement that typifies all that is so great about Canada.
This has been a very busy and moving year for me as Minister of Veterans Affairs. We have just observed the 50th anniversary of the Dieppe raid and before that the 75th anniversary of our astounding victory at Vimy.
The men and women who gave up so much and did so much for Canada did not feel their sacrifice in vain for so great a cause.

The French people we have encountered during our visits had no doubt about the role of Canada, neither in the past nor in the future.

I will only say I wish all hon. members and all Canadians could have joined us on this year's pilgrimages. To stand at the Vimy monument beside 93 year old veterans, some in wheelchairs, many bearing the physical scars of that battle, to gaze at the beaches of Dieppe and remember how many young Canadians gave everything in the cause in freedom caused one to acquire an overwhelming sense of perspective.
It is tremendously humbling to look at row upon row of headstones and be reminded of the heavy prices paid for so many of the things we all tend to take for granted.
At the same time there is an exhilaration in the knowledge that to be Canadian is to be part of something greater than ourselves, something historic, something noble and courageous, something very special, something worth fighting for, something worth even dying for.
Thankfully our history is not one of civil war or bloodshed or brother fighting brother. Events around the world remind us of how fortunate we are in this case, how we have built this history through openness of mind, through generosity of spirit, through broadness of vision and above all by trying to understand and accommodate the views of others which may differ from our own.
We must resist the efforts of those who would make our vision, our nation and thus ourselves something narrower, something smaller, something less.
In the next few weeks all Canadians will be asked to keep faith of those who went before. Thankfully the sacrifice of those who went before means the test of this generation will come at the ballot boxes and not on foreign battle fields. That happy fact does not make this test any less important, however, nor does it diminish the tragedy if it were to fail.
I am reminded of the charge of Sir John A. Macdonald who stated: "Whatever you do, adhere to the union. We are a great country and 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".
The torch is now passed to us. I urge all Canadians to give sincere consideration to this agreement and pray they will stand by me in giving a resounding yes to Canada's bright future. God bless Canada.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to consider the consequences of the historic choice Canadians will be asked to make on October 26. In fact, in public life, the greatest responsibility one has is making decisions that will affect the future of the country at a decisive stage in its history.
The constitutional talks which have kept Canadians busy for the past two years go to the very heart of certain problems that are starting to become critical in the rest of the world: how to reconcile different language groups, how to reconcile five strong regions whose geography, attributes and ambitions differ widely, and how to make people who come from all comers of the globe live together in harmony.
September 9, 1992

These are some of the major problems confronting the rest of the world-in Europe today, in America tomorrow. Here in Canada we have a chance to finish these discussions well before anyone else. We can do that because we have a federal system, we know how it works and we know how to make it work. In the world today there is a rapidly developing trend towards federalism. Sovereignists must realize Canada represents the future. Why in heaven's name should we regress?
The referendum question before the House today deals with the most profound constitutional change undertaken the birth of Confederation. This renewal of our federation is in line with a tradition of great historical compromises that made it possible for Canada to become a nation, to develop and to be respected and envied by all the peoples of this earth.
All in all, the proposal reinforces Canada. For aboriginal people, it means the recognition of their inherent right to self-government, by which Canada recognizes its true history. For Quebec, it means recognition of its distinct society and its ability to protect and promote that society. Quebec's distinct identity is a fundamental characteristic of Canada's personality. For western Canada it means a stronger voice within our central institutions in order to better promote its vital interests. For the Atlantic provinces this accord guarantees a central power that can sustain the fundamental social and economic programs that will help them reach their full potential.
Furthermore, this agreement creates a framework for a more cohesive relationship between the regions and the centre. In the world today, where ultimate decision making is increasingly shifting to the international level, greater internal cohesiveness will strengthen Canada's position internationally.
A number of people have expressed disagreement, concern or disappointment with parts of this agreement. That is not unusual because of its scope and consequences, the accord is not a perfect one. Personally, I am disappointed no significant agreement was reached on establishing a genuine economic union within our borders. At a time when we are seeing the globalization of markets and economic borders are coming down throughout the world, it does not make sense to maintain domestic economic barriers. However, despite these flaws, generally speaking this historic accord leaves us
Government Orders
with only two options: Live with the benefits of an honourable compromise or take a gamble on an uncertain future. We have to accept the fact that the new Constitution will not be the answer to all our problems. There will always be the kind of political bickering and differences that cannot be regulated away. However, these are problems that have to be solved through discussion, mutual understanding and a willingness to compromise. We cannot afford to get into a constitutional strait-jacket that would keep us in a state of perpetual crisis and rob us of the flexibility we need in a changing world. A constitution is merely a framework for the future development of the country. It should only provide certain sign posts along the road to unity, prosperity and the ideals we all cherish.
Each and every one of us must realize that we must put an end to this national paralysis and we must do it now.
We must complete this necessary political revolution before we can tackle the urgently needed economic and social revolution whose success is the key to real national unity.
Let us face it: if we reject this new constitutional agreement we will be forced to undertake a political and economic revolution at the same time. We would then fail at the latter because it is impossible to conduct two revolutions at the same time.
No Canadian will find in the agreement everything he or she would have liked to see in a new Constitution but Canada will certainly find the framework and the model it needs to face the challenges of the next millennium.
I myself share this vision and it is for this reason that I will support this new constitutional agreement.

In the next month and a half Canadians will be asked to decide whether we remain united or whether we begin the debilitating march to fracture. Achieving consensus in a country with so much geography and so few inhabitants with different conceptions of its beginnings, parts of its economy pulled toward the Asia-Pacific, another part to the new Europe, part of the nation philosophically committed to individual rights, another part to the rights of the collectivity, achieving consensus in a nation such as this is not easy.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
To reject the Charlottetown accord is to affirm with certainty that one can achieve better, and at this time I do not believe that to be the case. I will for these reasons support the proposal.
However, that being said, let no one think that the mere rearranging of our legal structure will in itself heal the wounds in the nation. The deep sense of alienation, of historic injustice in many parts of the country, the destruction of the nation's industrial and agricultural base, the poverty among our aboriginal peoples mean that once the Constitution is resolved, the real task of nation building begins.
Our future does not only hinge on resolving the age-old obsession of how the two senior levels of government in this country, federal and provincial, relate to each other. Increasingly it hinges on answering an even more basic question of how any level of government in this country relates to the people it is supposed to serve.
For instance, how do we ensure equality of education that is internationally competitive? How do we reduce the crushing burden of taxation inflicted upon Canadians? How do we stem the rising tide of racism, of violence against women which is afflicting the nation? These are the questions we ought to be asking in the current national debate. These are the questions that concern Canadians.
It is because this House is not answering them satisfactorily that some of our fellow citizens are prepared to put their country into play. The crisis in national unity and the failure to face up to the problems of the nation are not unrelated.
We must debate the Constitution, but if that is all we do, then we will be negotiating a legal reform which mirrors a country in decay. We risk becoming a nation in which hearts and minds have fled to other places. We risk becoming a nation in which illiteracy becomes our legacy and in which apathy becomes our patrimony.
The problem of national unity is not going to be solved by debating the nation we were. It is going to be solved by determining the nation we must become. Why? It is because at the end of the day a country lives in the hearts
and minds of its people, not in the paper and parchment of its Constitution.
I believe with all my heart that Canadians must look outward to a world beyond our borders. When our fellow countrymen and women are presented with a vision of what this land can be, when they can see a nation facing up to the fundamental challenges before it, then and only then will the long night of our national soul-searching be over.
For instance, while our federal and provincial governments argue over political sovereignty as between themselves, the world's major trading nations are undergoing a fundamental transition in which the notion of economic sovereignty will be redefined forever. The principle that countries can interfere directly into the economic lives of others has gone far beyond the traditional bounds of trade disputes. The United States and Germany lecture each other on monetary policy. The United States seeks to change the internal distribution system of Japan. Japan revolutionizes American manufacturing methods.
The consequences of world-wide interdependence have attained a level few would have thought possible a short time ago. This revolution will have a far greater impact on whether or not our children prosper than will any debate over the commas in the Constitution.
What does this mean? First it means those who seek the independence of Quebec are living in a world that no longer exists. It also means those of us who would build a country rather than ripping it asunder, the actions we take or that we fail to take in the next few months will determine whether we begin the great advance toward progress or whether we begin a long period of decline.
Make no mistake, Canadians are equal to any challenge a government chooses to set before them. There is nothing as a nation we cannot do if we put our minds to it. Our history is one of great achievement against great odds but we have only accomplished these things when our objectives were manifest and our sights high.
Thus I would say in conclusion that today and for the month and a half to come our task is very clear. We must answer those who say that our greatest days are behind us, that all of our history has been written. We must
September 9, 1992

demonstrate as a people that we have not run out of steam, run out of ideas or run out of conviction.
I support the Charlottetown accord, but we in this House owe the Canadian people much more than that. We owe them a vision of a country prepared to triumph culturally, socially, economically, environmentally and in every field of human endeavour. Why? Therein lies the only lasting solution to the crisis of national unity.

National unity is not an end in itself. It is the natural consequence of a country that knows where it is going and how to get there, not by accident but because it wants to. We must stop fighting among ourselves and become once again a country united behind a great goal: to become the best of the best.
The time has come to unite all Canadians from coast to coast, to regain control of this country and make it move forward. After this referendum I hope Canadians, including the people of La Salle and Montreal I am so proud to represent, will be able to tell themselves they would not live anywhere but in Canada because only in this country can such big dreams come true. This is the vision we must promote. This is the motivation that should guide us, the proposed society we should all support.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, allow me to first make a digression and congratulate the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard for the content of his speech to which I listened in my office as well as here in the House. I also want to tell him that his personal contribution to the debate on national unity was appreciated. I want to say this to the hon. member because today, during Oral Question Period I was harsh with him. Occasionally, we think about things we said and we wonder if we could have said them in a different way. This is one of those days. In any case I will stop here because I do not want to impose on your patience. What is important today for me is to rise in this House to participate in the debate on the future of Quebec and Canada.
Government Orders
Today I want to express myself as a citizen, as the member representing the riding of Sherbrooke, Lennox-ville and Fleurimont, and as minister of the environment. Indeed the fact that I was elected by my constituents gives me the privilege to also be a minister in the federal government.
First, I would like to make a comment on the tone of the debate. I must tell you frankly that at times I am concerned. I believe we must be honest and tell those around us that nobody has a monopoly on truth in a debate such as the one that is being launched today. Also I must admit with some regret that there are days when our discussions are at a low level. I dare make this comment because I sensed in the last few days that people primarily want us to talk to them in an intelligent and honest manner; and they also want us to treat them with respect.
I must admit to sometimes making remarks that are not as objective as they should be, but I think we should all make an effort in the coming weeks to preserve these three elements, namely intelligence, honesty and respect for our fellow citizens.
We must remember that after October 26 comes October 27, followed by October 28 and so on, and that whatever the outcome of the current debate we will have to continue living together. It is in this spirit that I am entering today's debate.
A few seconds ago I said I was very happy to rise today as the member representing the people of Sherbrooke-Lennoxville-Fleurimont who have put their trust in me. Today's context is very different from that of 1980. I think it is a fact worth mentioning. We must remind our fellow citizens that the debate on our future is not the same today as it was 12 years ago.
Let us go quickly over the new developments without going into detail: in the last few years the communist system has collapsed in much of the world; tremendous progress has been made on the political and social front; Europe 92 is taking shape; various economic, social and political alliances are being forged all over the globe. Today's world is very different from that of 1980.
Our personal lives on a daily basis have also changed a great deal. When I got elected in 1984 we did not have cellular phones, fax machines or computers like we have today. In a few short years our personal and work lives have changed dramatically. We must remember this

Government Orders
because as the circumstances of the debate have changed provides one of the highest standards of living in the so have our options and the way they are presented. world. We have been well served by our federal system.
What I have learned in the meantime is that Canada is a privileged country and I do not think anybody can deny it. You can say what you want; everybody knows that we live in the country with the highest standard of living in the world. We have this standard of living for several reasons. Our country is rich in natural resources and very rich in geography but relatively poor in population, however. The reason we have such a high standard of living is that our forebears, our ancestors, the pioneers of this country, worked very hard to build it.
I am thinking of seniors, for example. In my riding, I am always amazed every time I meet them and ask them how many children they have. They tell me eight, nine or ten. I have three children at home and that is a big family. When I meet people of my generation who ask me how many children I have and I tell them three, they say that is a large family.
Some people have made absolutely tremendous sacrifices. There were two great world wars in the century that is now ending. We forget because our memory does not extend that far back, but the First World War decimated a whole generation of young Canadians at that time. They are people who paid dearly to build our country, and that must be recognized.
Furthermore, we enjoy a privileged position internationally. We are a bicultural, bilingual country.
We are a North American country that has signed a free trade agreement with the United States and is now proposing one that will include Mexico. In addition, our country plays a leading role in the Commonwealth and the Francophonie and we are a member of the Organization of American States. One does not have to travel much outside of Canada to realize how appreciated Canada and Canadians are. Those who have trouble believing that need only take a trip. They do not have to go far. They can go just a little outside their country to realize how much Canada and Canadians are appreciated throughout the world. There is a reason for that. This is because we have a society based and built on democracy and freedom and because Canadians have created a country founded on tolerance which also
It is a very sensible political system even more so today than in the past. Why? The answer can be found in one word, the word global. This word seems to come up whenever people try to define a situation or a problem. It seems to me that we always hear words such as global, globally or globality in such cases. We now hear about the global economy, global communications, the global environment. This is because the 1992 reality, unlike, or perhaps even more so than the reality of 1980, is that we depend a lot on other people. The situation is quite different from what it was in 1980. More than ever, our future is defined and determined globally. A federal system has the advantage of coinciding with this trend.
It is important to remember, in deciding what our future and that of our children will be, that relationships between states, governments and individuals will be just as important and determining for our future as the decisions made individually by the various states, governments and individuals. This is even more true today than ever before. We must therefore establish, develop and maintain close relations with those around us, which is why the word global is now heard so often in all our major debates. Such is the reality in 1992. This unavoidable reality will definitely influence the future of Quebec and Canada.
What about Canada? This country, which has been so successful, has institutions which are already 125 years old. This year we are celebrating the 125th anniversary of what we call Confederation. To show the state of our institutions I would like to use a simple analogy. It is somewhat like a solid 125-year old house in need of some repairs. Certain rooms are too big, others are too small, the roof might be leaking in certain spots or certain things might need to be changed. My colleague is anticipating my words. He can guess what I am going to say. Some people, faced with a solid 125-year old house, will say: "pull it down; it is not good enough." Others will want to move elsewhere. Others still will want to renovate. Others, and this is a new idea that seems to be surfacing today, will say: "Why not wait a while? There is no need to do anything yet. Let us wait a few months or years and then we will see."

I must say that faced with this magnificent old house which has been so successful and has served its purpose so well, my own choice is quite clear. I prefer to renovate, to make a few rooms bigger or smaller, to change the heating system. My colleague for LaSalle-Emard would be the first to make this house as environmentally efficient as possible. This is what the agreement before us proposes. In all honesty we have to recognize this. There has been a lot of talk about the agreement. I have heard many statements, and I must say that I have found some of them surprising.
What this agreement contains, without the shadow of a doubt, is what was proposed in the Meech Lake accord. Some people will say that the words are not the same, that this sentence, this phrase, this comma should be changed, that it is not good enough. It must honestly be said that this agreement contains all proposals made in the Meech Lake accord. What would that be? It is Quebec's recognition as a distinct society, a definition which is not restrictive. It is more powers in the field of immigration. It is the veto, the nomination of three judges from Quebec at the Supreme Court, which is constitutionalized and which gives Quebec a 33 per cent representation in a context where the courts will become more and more important in taking fundamental decisions because the charter is there. Therefore, we can say that as there is a change in the powers of our institutions, Quebec is guaranteed a presence equivalent to more than one-third in a federal institution. The federal spending power was also provided for in the Meech Lake accord, and it is part of this agreement. More so, some will say that this is status quo, that there is nothing new, and even that it is a setback.
Let me say you briefly, because it is important, that the agreement contains new powers for Quebec. There is a guaranteed minimum of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of commons. Nobody can say this is a minus, a loss. It is a permanent guarantee when we know perfectly well that the growth rate of the Quebec population is low compared to other parts of the country and the world. This is a very important point, but there is more. There are substantial gains in the area of manpower. Unemployment insurance was mentioned today. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said that Mr. Levesque
Government Orders
requested unemployment insurance. I am not sure of that. As a member I witnessed my first conference of first ministers in 1985 when Mr. Levesque was in attendance. Do you know what was the main success of this federal-provincial conference of 1985? The creation of the jobs strategy program by the present federal government. That was the great success in which Mr. Levesque, premier of Quebec, participated.
There are additional powers in the area of culture, manpower development and training, which I already mentioned. The power of disallowance has been eliminated; the declaratory power has been restricted. Then there are the telecommunications which could not be envisaged when our Constitution was drafted 125 years ago. Who could guess then what was going to happen? This is the kind of change we anticipate in this agreement. In the area of regional development, Quebec gets additional powers. The federal spending power is restricted. All that is on top of what I was mentioning at the beginning of my remarks. We do not live in isolation, that era is over.
This is more or less the trap in which independence supporters in Quebec are caught today. They are living in the wrong century. We are no longer living in a world where sovereignty was defined only by a territory, a king, a queen and their army. That era belong to the past. We have to keep up with the times, and federalism is today's system.
It must be noted that there are other issues in this round that were not a factor in the Meech Lake accord, and it is important to recognize them. I am thinking, among other things, of the demands made by western Canada and by aboriginal peoples. When you live in a world where people are so dependent on each other, you cannot forget about the others. You have to consider their needs. For a long time, the constitutional debate in Canada was based on the relationships between French and English Canadians, from the Laurendeau-Dunton report to the Meech Lake accord. We must also recognize that the problems of the aboriginal peoples were just as serious 30 or 40 years ago as they are today. The difference is that they were not taken into consideration in the debate. They were avoided. Our relationships were defined differently.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
To be honest, today we have to recognize that they have serious problems, that they too have the right to have a place in our country. I regret that some people would lead Canadians to believe that by inviting aboriginal peoples to participate we are taking away somebody else's place. Just as if somebody else was losing their place because we are making room at the table for people who were excluded for a very long time. That is not true. I for one do not want to live in a society where people are excluded in that fashion. Let me be honest with you. I think people are right to say that it will be a difficult debate for the next 10 to 15 years. Why? Aboriginal peoples will want to take their place, to assert themselves. Obviously they are going through a period of self-assertion that other groups have gone through, but they have to do it in order to take charge of their future and to define their place in the world. They too have the right to do so, and it is not an easy debate.
Yes, I sympathize with Quebecers who had a pretty hard time a few years ago. I know, because people are still talking about it. In spite of that experience no one wants to deny aboriginal people the right to take their rightful place in this world. Why should this suddenly stand in the way of a constitutional agreement? Why should the present agreement be rejected because they also want to live their lives in a way that is satisfactory to them?
Similarly western Canada has always felt alienated and far removed from the central government. Basically we are proposing changes that would increase their involvement.
I would like to say a few words about certain myths around this accord. The first one concerns language. Attempts are being made in certain circles to arouse people's concerns that the agreement would jeopardize the Quebec government's authority over language.
The notwithstanding clause, served its purpose in 1988, whatever people may think. I am not going to make any kind of value judgment because this is strictly the business of the Quebec government, but the question is whether the powers of the government and the National Assembly of Quebec with respect to language are protected. The answer is yes.


An hon. member:: Yes.


Jean J. Charest: Yes, in no uncertain terms. We can discuss the finer points later on. In Quebec the debate will continue on individual and collective rights but the answer is yes.
Does a yes for the accord mean no further discussion is possible? Does it mean that from now on, this is it? Of course not. It is pretty obvious that voting for the agreement will not eliminate all our problems. I will get back to that in my conclusions.
I see that my time is running out, but with your leave and with the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to take a few more minutes to finish my comments.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: Thank you. I will go quickly; I do not want to cheat on the time.
When we say yes to what we are offering Quebec, we are not closing the door to change forever. Obviously in this world of continual change we will want to make adjustments at some point. Besides, that is the advantage of the federal system of government.
On the other hand let me put it another way. Can anyone guarantee that a yes vote will mean the end of all debate?


An hon. member:: No.


Jean J. Charest: I cannot give that assurance. No one can. However, if you vote no I can guarantee you one thing: the debate will go on for a long time and with greater intensity. Just project into the future. If Quebec independence were proposed, imagine how long and intense the debate about that would be.
I am rather puzzled by those who argue that we must not vote yes because we will go on discussing for a long time and have endless debates, when these same people know veiy well that a no vote ensures interminable debate, not just for months but for years when the people have had enough of it. They know very well that we have been through it and that they have been offered an honest political agreement today.
Incidentally, we must not be naive in this debate. We
must know that those who will vote no, who try to defend
their option while at the same time pretending they do

not share the same views will have a hard time making us believe that it is indeed the case.
There can be no Immaculate Conception in this political debate and they cannot create a no without sleeping together.


An hon. member:: There will be marriages.


Jean J. Charest: There will be marriages at that level and I think we must take an honest look at this. Similarly the independentists must also be honest.


Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How much more time do you intend to give to the minister, because there are other very interesting members who would like to participate in this debate? I wonder how much more time you will give to the minister.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member heard the minister ask permission, and he got that permission, to carry on for what will surely be a very limited time. I am sure that the minister is about to conclude.
I ask the hon. member to bear with me for a few more minutes. The hon. minister has the floor.


Jean J. Charest: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a coincidence that the hon. member for Longueuil is with us. I was just talking about the contradictions of those who are proposing independence, and that concerns him directly. We have to be honest.
No agreement on a renewed federalism will ever satisfy Jacques Parizeau, Jacques Brassard, Gerald La-rose-


An hon. member:: Lucien Bouchard.


Jean J. Charest: Or Lucien Bouchard. No agreement will satisfy them. If there is, they should stand up and tell us. The hon. member for Longueuil will have a chance to speak. Maybe the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie will rise to tell us what form of renewed federalism his party prefers. I would really like to hear that from
Government Orders
him. I say this just to show you that their option is not sound. All we know about their proposal is that, for them, Quebec's independence means that they would have the same rule, the same citizenship, the same army, a common market-


An hon. member:: The same passport.


Jean J. Charest: The free trade agreement would also apply, and they would have the same money. Talk about a golden opportunity, the same money. Imagine how the federal government would be ridiculed if it made a proposal for us to have the same money as the United States. That is what separatists are proposing to us. The funniest thing is the constant complaining we hear about duplication in the present system, when Jacques Parizeau comes here, in the area, and promises that the
100,000	federal civil servants will all keep their jobs. Is there duplication or is there not?


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. minister asked to be allowed to carry on but he is starting a new debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. minister will want to conclude.


Jean J. Charest: Indeed I will conclude, Madam Speaker. If I were in the situation of the member for Longueuil, I might also try to end the speech because it must not please him to hear what I have to say, but it is the truth.
I would like to end by saying that it is not the present Constitution that created the problems that we are experiencing. We have serious problems such as unemployment, a huge debt and all kinds of other difficulties. At the same time it is not the settling of the constitutional issue that will solve those problems. Those who think so are mistaken. Similarly those who that independence is the solution to all their problems are seriously mistaken. The population senses that. It knows very well. It also knows that we have an opportunity to make a step forward, and that is what this agreement is all about. For the people that I represent here in the House of Commons, and for my children and their grandchildren, I will vote yes on October 26.

Government Orders


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, you will have noticed that I voiced no objection when the minister exceeded his time so significantly. However, I was really rather curious to see the outcome of strange bedfellows producing an immaculate conception. I hope he will be as generous with me, as I might inadvertently exceed my time but I would hope not.
I want to take note also of the fact that the minister took some pains to apologize to the member for LaSalle-Emard for a remark he made to him during Question Period. One of the aspects of that to which attention should be called is that it was part of an atmosphere of harmony and conciliation in this House during this debate, which must please most Canadians.
In fact, one of the outcomes of the resolution of the constitutional issue for Canadians will be the realization that politicians can, after all, come up with solutions, even though those solutions are not ideal, to the problems that vex our country even when those problems seem to have taken so long to resolve, the constitutional issue having been with us almost constantly for 30 years and constantly for the last ten years.
One of the advantages of bringing this all to an end is that it will help to provide some credibility to politicians because they have resolved a problem. It also should help to demonstrate that when politicians of various stripes from various parts of the country with various ideologies and various concerns come together to attempt to agree on anything there can be a considerable spirit of compromise. Therefore we must all understand the Charlottetown accord, in respect to which we are debating today a referendum for its approval, is not a perfect accord.
Even in its imperfection the Canadian people will be happy to say: "Get on with it". They want to ensure national unity. They understand the destruction of a country is not going to be a contribution to their greatest concern, and that is the economic status of this nation expressed in their terms as jobs and a greater sense of security that there will be jobs for them in the future.
They will know that when we have finished this debate we will still not have settled the question of Canadian survival, of taking back this country in accord with the
principles that Canadians want to see pursued as their vision of Canada.
After this is all over we will have to debate, as has been called attention to earlier, where Canada will be in the new global economy and how we will reconcile our vision of this country with a vastly changed economic reality in the rest of the world.
It would be in error to suggest there has not be substantive and significant progress made by virtue of this constitutional accord. Certainly all of us who have been participants in the process, which was a process far more acceptable I think to Canadians because it did involve vastly more consultation with the people through the special joint committee, the six conferences that were held, the various committees in the provinces, the committees that heard the people in Quebec, this referendum itself, will convince Canadians there has been as much consultation as could be reasonably expected in reaching this accord, and that I think is to signify the substantial difference between this and Meech Lake.
We have achieved a great deal and I do not think there can be any denying that. As someone else has said, probably the most admired step that was taken in this accord will have been the recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. It is a groundbreaking step forward in the position of aboriginal peoples throughout the world. Canada has once more tread new ground that others I am sure will be forced to follow by the merit of what we have achieved.
All Canadians will be most pleased that we have managed a reconciliation with Quebec. In accomplishing this, concessions will have been made by English Canada, the premiers that represented that part of Canada, that will be criticized by certain elements in English Canada. It will also be recognized that Premier Bourassa will have entered into an agreement on his part that already has been, the object of considerable criticism.
I am especially pleased by the contribution of the premier of Ontario to both of those elements of this constitutional accord. I am also proud of the part my party at the federal level played, as well as the premier of Ontario, in making a contribution to the economic union and its partner, the social covenant, expressed in the deal as a social and economic union that provides a basis on which the social programs and the harmonization of
September 9, 1992

social programs throughout the country can be to some degree assured.
It is not quite what we would have liked but it is more than we had before. To have found the economic union refers to full employment as a goal must surely be something that we as social democrats can take pride in, in having convinced others those are worthy goals on all sides of this House. Full employment and social programs which are harmonized throughout the country have now become the positions of both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. We can be pleased with that. There is much else in the deal with which we can be pleased or about which we can be proud. I think most Canadians will be inclined to say that this is good enough.
I could not be true to myself, nor could I be true to those in my own riding who are members of neither of the two founding peoples nor of the aboriginal peoples, the Ukrainians, the Italians, the Filipinos, the Germans, the Italians, the Afro-Canadians and the South Americans who are newly come to our shores to become citizens, if I did not note the utter failure of this accord to enhance the equality of the Canadian people as has been suggested that it has by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that the member for LaSalle-Emard referred to as the crisis of racism in our country that is going to plague us in the future and for which we should have a resolution.
It is clear if we are concerned about equality and if we are concerned about the plague of racism in our country, then surely it would have been fundamental to have included some form of recognition in this accord that in fact all Canadians are equal before the law.
Quite frankly I do not anticipate, given the circumstances of the constitutional deal making, that those who are going to be affected by this failure are likely to vote no because of it, because they have been denied the basic information that would allow them to make the judgment of whether or not this accord is their accord or not.
In debating whether or not there should be a national referendum I took note of the fact that there is no form
Government Orders
in which the question could be posed that would allow the electorate to understand completely what they were voting for or against. All will have available to them adequate descriptions of what is being provided to the aboriginal peoples. They will understand what a distinct Quebec is within the constitutional framework that is being proposed here. They will understand the social and economic union. They will understand a reformed Senate. They will understand all of those things that the typical politician and the typical media have made their focus of concern.
The fact is however that not in this House and not in the media has there been attention to this single failure, a failure to take into account what I myself regard as one of the fundamental ideals of all Canadians. That is that all Canadians are equal and all Canadians should be recognized as equal before the law.
There is a danger in this referendum, as there is a danger in all referendums. Yes, I am talking about those who will nit-pick about certain parts of the deal, whether it be distinct society, the recognition of minority language groups and all of that. There will be those who will perhaps mount opposition to the constitutional accord during the referendum vote in those isolated situations. However, it would be fundamentally dangerous, or let me say it is a fundamental danger that at some point vast numbers of those who constitute a significant portion of the Canadian population will recognize they have been left out.
What then would I do? I feel strongly about this country. I have supported a constitutional accord that would do all of those things which it has accomplished at least in some measure but not perfectly. I agree this is the greatest country in the world. I love this country more than anybody else, I suppose, in many ways.
But how could I be true to myself if I were confronted with a serious rise in opposition to this deal on the basis that nobody, apart from the party I represent, nobody, except the New Democratic Party, Ovide Mercredi, the NCC and yes, indeed the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and Bob Rae would support a constitutional non-contingent provision guaranteeing ethnic and racial equality.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
I could be faced with a serious choice at some point as to whether I should be true to myself, my status here and the status of so many Canadians as opposed to the issue of whether this deal is the right deal for Canada. I want this country to stay together. I want to get this over with. I do not want to see us burdened any longer with this constitutional debate.
I am faced with a dilemma. I hope that I am not confronted with it. However, one way of getting around this problem would be for those who have been responsible for negotiating this deal to give a clear and unambiguous undertaking, that they have so far failed to give, that they will address this question immediately.
I think one of the saddest things in this whole process is that he who originated in the 1982 Constitution Act section 15(1), which did at least recognize the necessity for equality and non-discrimination and who was subsequently forced to append to it the notwithstanding clause, should have his dream offended by his own party and the leader of that party in the utter rejection of a non-contingent equality clause.
There is a danger out there. Most Canadians I am sure are going to say: "Let us get this over with. This is a deal that can be lived with. This is a deal that demonstrates that Canadians, when they get together to consider certain issues even when they have differences of opinion, can come to an agreement that tries to respect all of their interests".
There is only one problem here. Thirty-five per cent of the population had their interests utterly ignored. Therefore, we are in the middle of a referendum process that could be jeopardized by the refusal to do just one simple thing. That is to say, clearly and unambiguously, it is the job of governments as well as Canadians to promote racial and ethnic equality so that there will no longer be a question in the future under any circumstances that I am as much a Canadian as anyone else.
That is my dream for my country, and I am so sorry, I regret so much that those who negotiate this deal did not share that dream. That is a dream, however, that I will continue to fight for.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I really look forward to participating in this debate tonight.
Right here in this place and, indeed, in the Senate next week and across Canada for the next four or five weeks the biggest issue in 125 years is going to be facing all of us. It is about yes to Canada. It is about yes to 10 provinces. It is yes to two territories, to the aboriginal peoples and, most important, to tomorrow's generation.
The Charlottetown agreement which was unanimous-it was a unanimous consensus-reached on August 28 was the result of months and months and months of public consultation all across this country. The proposals that came out of that meeting in Charlottetown are intended to serve as a reasonable-I really underline reasonable-compromise.
They are going to be the basis for a renewed federalism that will and indeed can secure our future together in one of the most successful countries in the world, the one that the United Nations rates as being the best place in the world to live.
Albeit, as most members have acknowledged today, it is not perfection. We know that and we understand that, but I also say that perfection is unattainable. It is a good package, it is a compromise. It was give and it was take for all those involved. Yes, people gave a little, but Canada won in the end.
I really want to emphasize that over the past few months and during the past 17 months there has been extremely extensive consultation: the Beaudoin-Ed-wards committee, the Spicer commission, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee and six national conferences: one in Halifax, one in Calgary, one in Montreal, one in Toronto, one in Vancouver and a special one here in Ottawa on aboriginal peoples.
The provinces all had committees. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have spoken their views or had the means to speak their views outlining their concerns. In Calgary Southwest, my riding, I held six town hall
September 9, 1992

meetings and I want to thank each and every individual who came out and participated.
These six national conferences across Canada were really well publicized. At each conference there were men, women, disabled, the minorities were represented, the aboriginals were represented, their voices were heard, their opinions were given, and I know many thoughts were made known.
All of us who followed those conferences learned that this country is huge, it is vast geographically. It is diverse in its views and its demands. It has a history that most people either did not know, did not study, or tend to forget. It has successes that we rarely celebrate. We also learned that we are a group of people from all parts of the world who live together in tolerance, we live together in understanding and we live together with a great deal of patience.
Once we all take just a bit of time to learn a little more about each other, understand each others' differences, consensus can be obtained. All of us have to reach out, all of us have to listen, all of us have to communicate. Canada, you have so much to offer to all your citizens, we must work together to keep you whole.
All we have to do is look elsewhere, in what was Yugoslavia, in the Baltic provinces, in Kuwait, in Iraq, in the Middle East or in China. Nobody has what this country has to offer and yet we fight among ourselves. I think the time has come for all of us to put a little more time and a little more energy into understanding what is on the table today, because it is our future.
One thing some people really tend to forget is that in 1982 the Constitution was patriated and set down the criteria for an amending formula. In simple terms that amending formula said if there were difficulties, the first ministers would sit down, resolve the issue, and if they came up with a package it had to be ratified in both Houses of Parliament and in all the legislatures right across Canada.
Last September this government tabled in this House 28 proposals for change. After all the months of consultation that I reviewed, the premiers, the territorial leaders and the aboriginal leaders met with the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Demands, different views and many concerns were all outlined and negotiations took place. By listening carefully, some give and take from all 17 people
Government Orders
involved sitting around that table, that consensus, this package, this Charlottetown agreement was reached.
This Charlottetown agreement, this agenda, is the only offer that is plausible. Rejecting the deal, thinking that there is a better one that can be negotiated is not possible. It cannot happen. We have an amending formula that we have to operate under and that is what we have been doing.
I want to outline a few areas that are contained in the accord. Senate reform originated in Alberta. I am from Alberta. My two colleagues here are from Alberta. It is 10 or 12 years old. The new Senate is going to be elected. It is going to be equal and it can be very effective.
It will be able to block appointments. It will be able to veto any tax policy changes that directly relate to natural resources, and that means no more national energy programs which devastated us in 1982.
The House of Commons is going to have more seats: 42. Lots of people disagree with this, actually I do, but it is a compromise. The Senate is going to be based on equality of provinces and this House will reflect the representation by population which was set down in 1867.
The Supreme Court: with nine members of the Supreme Court, three are going to come from Quebec. That is nothing new. That has been in the Supreme Court Act since 1949.
Immigration: bilateral agreements on the immigration for all the provinces, not just one province. It is quite interesting to note that the province of Alberta is undergoing negotiations today with regard to a special immigration agreement.
All the provinces are equal. All the provinces have been offered the same thing. All the provinces are different. This agreement is flexible. It allows Canada to face reality today, to grow up and see how we have changed, to meet global demands and move ourselves into the 21st century.
The transfer of powers; there are seven areas. Those transfers can go to each and every province. Those who want to reject it can. They are offered to all the provinces and they allow the provinces to make their own decisions. That is where the decision should be made on specific issues.

Government Orders
There is one thing that I am disappointed in. It has to do with the economic union and the fact that there was not more consensus reached in the area of bringing down interprovincial barriers. We move into trade with our colleagues south of the border. We will even be negotiating NAFTA, debating it in this House. We see Europe 92 coming together and yet here in Canada we have over 500 barriers that cost us about $6.5 billion a year.
It is provincial jurisdiction but only by working together are we going to be able to break down those barriers and have free trade in Canada.
I do believe the aboriginal constitutional reform that is contained in the package is extremely historical. The inherent right of self-government is long overdue. There will be a five year delay in the justiciability of any right that is given. We are treading into new territory. I ask all Canadians to be patient. I want them to be understanding. It is new territory. The aboriginal people will finally be able to take their place in Confederation. It is long overdue. We are treading new territory. This will be worked out through negotiations and arbitration with the provinces, with the aboriginal peoples and with the federal government. The progress to self-government is going to be through an agreed, orderly process.
I wish to emphasize that all Canadians throughout this 17-month period have had ample opportunity to make their views and their concerns known, whether at the open meetings, through their members of Parliament, their senators, their aboriginal leaders or their territorial leaders. They have had an opportunity.
We are asking them to do one more thing, to make themselves a little more knowledgeable with regard to the Charlottetown accord. This country has to stay together. We have to put our differences aside. It is so very important.
One thing I want to mention has to do with all Canadians, specifically women. We are very concerned with equality, health care, education, social services, housing and the environment. These concerns have all been met in the Charlottetown accord. Canadian women were widely consulted and they were actively involved. I know that some of you here and read the press today think that perhaps that did not take place. They were invited. They did participate and they were involved.
In conclusion, I offer my sincere thanks and my gratitude to all those involved, first to the Prime Minister and to all the members of the House of Commons and the Senate who participated in all the conferences and all the federal committees. I thank the provinces and the members of the legislatures right across the country who worked so hard to come to a consensus on what would be right for their province and would help the unity of our country. I thank the staff and the assistants, all the men and women who participated. This is everybody's Constitution. It is the Constitution of the people of Canada.
Most important, I would like to give, not only for myself but on behalf of my fellow colleagues from the province of Alberta, my sincere thanks to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs who has, over the past 17 months, devoted himself and given his all to this country. I ask that people really take a tough, hard look at this because it is only by voting yes that we will be able to keep this country together so that it will still be successful in 125 years.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the issue put before us today, which we will be debating for a day or two in this House. Many of the members speaking appear to be addressing the accord itself. The actual subject of the debate is the question that will be put on the referendum, in the very Canadian way of ratifying or giving consent to the arrangements, constitutional and other, that have been agreed to by the Prime Minister, the premiers of the provinces, representatives of the two territories and representatives of the aboriginal peoples.
I want to begin by noting all the work that has been done on this issue by Canadians, including members in this House and members in the Parliament that preceded this one. The names read like a litany. Much of the work involved commissions and a series of hearings to which we have attached the names of individuals. Those individuals themselves have done a lot of work, but so have many other people who worked with them: nonparliamentarians, members of the House of Commons, members of the Senate and, I should not say countless, the many public servants who worked with them to make those exercises an effective reality in discussing our constitutional future.

I would like to mention the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, the Charest committee, and the Spicer commission, and in Quebec the Belanger-Campeau commission and the Allaire report. There are others as well. We have spent a number of years now discussing the need to revise our Canadian Constitution to meet the needs of a modem Canada and we are close. It has, to be sure, been a very rocky road and at times there have been many Canadians who have suggested that the process we had adopted lacked legitimacy. Many Canadians felt excluded. They felt that perhaps the elected politicians, or even more specifically the premiers and the Prime Minister, were hijacking the Constitution and the country and not giving adequate heed to the real wishes of Canadians.
We went through the whole process. As I look back at it I can see that while it might not have been perfect it really was all we had. The process that we went through was the best we were able to do.
Some suggested earlier that we should attempt a constitutional convention, one which would bring together Canadians from all walks of life and all regions in an attempt to reconstruct our Constitution. It is not that it was not considered at some point, but I would point out that we were not creating a Constitution from scratch, we were simply revising a very old one.
It has been tough. It took us over 50 years simply to patriate the Constitution from Great Britain. The patri-ation occurred in 1982 and it opened the door to 10 more years of fun and games.
We seem to have reached a watershed today. Subject to the views of Canadians, we think that we are going to be able to put the Constitution to bed for maybe another generation. Perhaps we will invent what I might call an evergreen constitution. Maybe we are going to change our Constitution and update it eveiy five or ten years. That is not really what a Constitution is supposed to be there for, it is supposed to be a foundation document on which to build a country. You do not go back and change your foundation every five or ten years. However, we will see where we go from here.
The goal of the exercise now, if perhaps the process did want some legitimacy by giving Canadians a role in
Government Orders
putting the pieces together, by consenting, commenting, sanctioning and acknowledging, is to hold a referendum. My party has consistently supported a referendum almost from the beginning. We feel a sense of pride now that we in this House have been able to give this referendum to Canadians.
We are now debating what the question will be on the referendum. I recall that this round of constitutional reform was called the Quebec round some years ago. There was an attempt to address the views of many people in the province of Quebec that the Canadian Constitution, as put in place in 1867, was wanting in some respects and did not serve the constitutional needs of that province. Ottawa began responding by getting through the patriation, which took 50 years. We apologize for that delay. That was 10 years ago.
We then began attempting to address the expressed views of certain groups in the province of Quebec. Eventually, in my recollection, we had difficulty because a minority of the people in the province of Quebec really did not care much about Canada. Therefore, we began to confuse the expressed views of separatists who really did not give a damn about what happened to the country, with the legitimate, expressed views of Quebecers who did see the need for constitutional change.
For some period of time there was a blurring of the Quebec voice. During this time there was a provincial government in Quebec whose expressed objective was to take Quebec out of Confederation. This made the discussions and the negotiations a little more difficult than perhaps they should otherwise have been. However, all through that period there were Quebecois who were Canadians, who were expressing good faith and solid reservations about the existing Canadian Constitution. Ottawa and the other provincial premiers made efforts to address those. There were difficulties to be sure, but the process began.
Some of those issues involved those who should have final authority for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, how many judges on that court would come from Quebec or would be related to the particular set of laws that come from the province of Quebec. There were proponents of Senate reform from the

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
perspective of Quebec which had its own Senate in the province until not too many years ago.
There were the requests, demands or views of aboriginal Canadians that they had been excluded from the original Constitution. I think most Canadians would agree they were. I have often heard reference to the two founding peoples or cultures in Canada. Whatever was founded back in 1867 was certainly done with the consent or acquiescence of the aboriginal Canadians who were here long before the "two founding peoples".
In any event, as time went on the constitutional train got very crowded. We were not only addressing Quebec-focused issues, we began to address a whole cart-load of other issues as well. In fact, the train got so crowded that unfortunately, after the Meech Lake accord the train derailed. It just got too busy, too complex and we had to pick up the pieces and start all over again.
I want to say that I also had concerns about aspects of the Meech Lake accord. Now that we have gone through the exercise again, I believe we have a much better document.
All of these issues we have to address in this referendum evoke many questions. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to have a referendum that has many questions. We have to address a modification of the definition of Canada which would make reference to aboriginals, the distinct society in the province of Quebec in a defined way and the French and English speaking minorities across the country.
We have the issue of economic union which I understand and Canadians will come to understand simply has not been adequately addressed. That is a little embarrassing in face of the current North American free trade agreement which we have not adopted yet. We are looking at the agreement. We certainly have free trade with the U.S.A. but we do not have free trade among the provinces.
Senate reform, the Supreme Court, the whole area of first ministers conferences, jurisdictions and powers, air transportation, disease control, communications did not exist in 1867. Our country has changed a great deal since 1867. We badly need a redefinition, a reworking of the powers.
My leader has said we are happy to discuss these jurisdictions and these powers. You have to do that in a federal state. In his words they must not make Canada more difficult to govern. The changes must facilitate adaptation to the new economic realities. They must not paralyse the role of our national government. Those were the criteria he used. I believe they are good ones.
Those are some of the many questions that come out. There are also the changes to the amending formula and changes in the evolution of the way aboriginals govern themselves in this country. That is an extremely important issue and aboriginal Canadians have been reaching out for decades demanding their right to organize their affairs and govern their peoples in a way that was appropriate to their culture. I do not think any Canadian would say that is inappropriate. That is a challenge we have addressed. We have not nailed it down completely yet, but we have taken the first major step.
With all of those questions, do we ask 10 or 20 questions on the referendum? Are we going to have a cafeteria-style referendum? You like this, you do not like that? Yes for this, no for that? It could produce a very complex and inconclusive question on a referendum.
Rather than go with the cafeteria-style package what comes to mind is a dictum I recall hearing from time to time. It is keep it simple, stupid, lest the complexity simply overwhelm everyone. In order to keep it simple we therefore have one question.
While I would really like a chance-and I am sure many Canadians would like a chance-to comment specifically on separate aspects of the constitutional accord, it just may not be possible. I guess it is not because we only have one question.
With all the complexity, all the frustration that Canadians have, and the boredom, there are a lot of Canadians out there who do not want to hear anything more about this. There is a certain ennui out there. They do not want to hear any more. Amidst all of that we will try to keep it simple with the one question that asks Canadians whether they will agree to the principles contained in the Charlottetown accord of August 28 reached by the Prime Minister and the premiers.
Answering yes to that question permits Canada to move on. If the answer should be no, those who wanted to see the end of constitutional debate in this country
September 9, 1992

Government Orders
may just see the beginning of a whole new thing which may not involve Canada as we know it now.
There is the question. I support it and I intend to vote yes during the referendum.


Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the question that is before the House today:
Do you agree the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the
basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
When I speak to my constituents of York-Simcoe at different functions people ask me: "Why are you spending all your time on the Constitution? Why are you not spending more of your time on the economy?" That is a fair question for people to ask because people are concerned about their individual lives and about how they are going to cope with this world economy that Canada is entering into.
I think it is fair to recognize from the public's perception that this has been a very hot media topic over the last year and a half or two years, and for very good reasons. I will discuss them a little later on.
We must recognize that the government is continuously negotiating freer access to trade because trade is the life-blood of this country. The ongoing negotiations with GATT, the NAFTA, the free trade agreement, and negotiations that are taking place internationally are going to help build this country.
When we examine some of the other aspects of the economy that this country and this government has addressed, it has put us in a position of improvement and gain. We are gaining a greater resolve in the international market.
We cannot forget that this uncertainty facing Canada at the present time is hampering our economic recovery. It is detrimental to investment because foreign investors are not sure where Canada is going to be in a couple of months or three or four months down the road from today. It is also costing us when we borrow from international markets. The fact is that we do have to borrow there. We do not like to but that is something we must address.
By resolving this long-standing constitutional discussion we can put Canadians in a position to take advantage of all the things that Canadian federalism has to offer.
The other question that I am asked most often is whether this is just Meech Lake all over again? Is this Meech Lake 2? I do not think that is the the case at all. There were two basic problems we faced in trying to put together the Meech Lake accord. They concerned process and mandate.
The process was very limited. There was very little opportunity for Canadians to have input into that process. This process has been exactly the reverse. There have been public forums. There have been national forums. There have been committees that have travelled the country. There have been local committees. There have been opportunities for virtually every Canadian from every walk of life, from every comer of this country, to have input into this process.
As a result of that we have changed the mandate. The mandate of Meech was very specific and very limited, and rightfully so because it was addressing the difficulties that the province of Quebec and the people of Quebec had faced since 1982.
Now we have really gone into a Canada round. We have gone into a Canada round because that is what the people of Canada have asked us for. They want to address the issues that are fundamental to them, to the way this country is governed and to the future of this country.
We looked at the things that Canadians and the people who were conducting these negotiations and discussions have asked us to address. We think of the Canada round, and the Canada clause in particular, as demonstrating what it means to be a Canadian, of showing that Canadian identity. It is the unity that brings us all together and our diversity that makes us different from all the others.
It was mentioned in the House earlier today that we are a family, but we are not identical twins. We have our own characteristics and our own needs. Those have been addressed in a very fundamental statement that is straightforward, which everyone can grasp, and that really defines what we are as Canadians.
We had to address our institutions. At the centre of the Canadian federation we have an institution that needed change. It had not been substantively changed since it was originally founded in 1867, but it is much more responsive now. We have an elected, equal and effective Senate that recognizes the provincial differences and the differences in geography in this country. On the other hand we have better balanced the House of

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Commons so that it provides representation by population.
That is good stuff. That is the basis of democracy.
We have recognized our aboriginal community. For so long, for 125 years, for longer than that, our aboriginal community has been neglected as a part of Canadian life. It will now have the opportunity, as I discussed with my native community in Georgina, to stand on its own, to create an economic base, and to really show and protect its culture and heritage. That is what those people want.
We can go through the whole package. There is the reduction in friction that will occur because we can now separate federal responsibilities from provincial responsibilities in a way that will reduce that overlap. That is important to all Canadians.
There are many other points in the package that are extremely critical, but time does not allow me to discuss them. I want to return to one final point, which is the process. We recognized the difficulties, as I mentioned earlier, with the previous process. We are now going to the ultimate consultative process. We are going to have a referendum that all Canadians are going to be able to take part in. I hope that all Canadians do go out and vote on October 26.
When we have a referendum, when we have this consultative process that asks every Canadian to make up their mind, it is critical that every Canadian understand what they are voting for. What they are voting for is a package of constitutional renewal, a revitalized federalism, a revitalized Canada. It is critical that every Canadian take the time to read the constitutional package, to understand what it means to them and not be influenced by some rumour that they heard in the coffee shop next door.
They should not be influenced by a newspaper that has written an editorial to try to gain some headlines or a TV writer who is again feeding on rumour, on innuendo, on these kinds of things.
Every Canadian should take the time, and I believe they will take the time, to read that package. If Canadians read that package they can decide for themselves. I firmly believe as one Canadian who has read that
package that I understand it. There are questions about it that I have and I am sure I will always have but it is an opportunity to revitalize this country.
If everyone reads that package, they will say yes to a renewed and revitalized federation. They will say yes to a new Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I just want to point out something to the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Ma-rie who is rising. The last speaker had notified the Chair that he would share the 15-minute period with a colleague. Therefore the hon. member for Calgary West has exactly 7 minutes left.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me and for his truly Canadian attitude, which we all share in this House.
I really love my country, Canada.

When I arrived in this Chamber close to 14 years ago, if someone had said that to me I would not have understood what they were saying. It is coming to this Chamber as a member of Parliament that gave me the opportunity to learn the other official language of this country, to experience the culture that is involved in that other official language and to enhance my understanding and my feeling for this country in all of its parts, with all of its people.
As someone bom in the city of Calgary, in the west, I had a French teacher in high school who could not speak French. We took French for four years in high school and there was not a word of it spoken because none of the teachers could speak it. That is my world of the late 1940s and the early 1950s in one of Canada's larger cities then and now. It is a city that has grown a great deal.
I guess whatever feelings I had for my region and my country when I came to this place were enhanced 10 times. The experience and the opportunity to share 14 years of my life with colleagues in this Chamber who come from every comer of this land has been an enriching experience that far too few Canadians have an opportunity to experience and to enjoy.
September 9, 1992

When the United Nations recently said this was the number one country in the world in which to live, that would come as no surprise to anybody who had served in this Chamber and who had travelled on behalf of this country to some other parts of the world on the kinds of things that we are charged with the responsibility to do.
I ask myself sometimes why this country would be number one? I try to contrast it with other places I have been. I have been to France, England, the United States and Asia. There are places I have not been but I have not encountered another nation like this one. This nation is encouraged to believe in an idea, a dream that is really built on the celebration of diversity.
When I look at other countries to a greater or lesser extent, there is a tendency among the people to narrow down and say, "we are", and to try to define it with a few sets of words. When we look at our geography, from the far north to as far south as we go, from east to west, it is inconceivable that it could be more diverse. When we look at our people, it is inconceivable that there is a country in the world with a more diverse population, with cultural traditions that come from every comer of this globe. They enhance the lives of all of us because of the celebration of diversity. It is not viewed as a negative or a detriment, it is viewed as a positive.
In immediate terms, Madam Speaker, we have just been through an exercise which began with the constitutional change in the early eighties. I arrived here in 1979 and lived through the enormously emotive protests we had in this Chamber, and through changes where the courts said that we could not do it this way, we had to do it that way, and finally nine of the provinces agreed. That left us with some problems, and this is the third attempt in the last five years to resolve some of them. Three times we have come to unanimous agreement to change the Constitution of Canada in positive directions. We have lived through the Spicer commission and different parliamentary committees, provincial committees, ministerial committees, and finally the first ministers' committee.
I just wanted to make those few comments and to make a commitment to the people of my riding. My commitment is to tell them clearly, absolutely and without equivocation that I will vote yes on the referendum question. I believe it is important to the future of this country I love so much.
Government Orders
I make commitment number two, to make myself available throughout the referendum period to any group, no matter how small or how large in my community that would like to sit down and discuss the proposal in detail. I pledge that my own behaviour will be as non-partisan as possible in explaining the words and what they mean, and what I see as the possible outcome of the adoption of those words in the Constitution of Canada. In that way people can exercise not only their democratic right but their democratic responsibility.
My experience in this Chamber has taught me that the big enemy of democracy and the kind of life that this country stands for is apathy. If people do not understand what it is that is being proposed in terms of the change in arrangements for this country, then they are much more likely to stay home. I would much rather lose this referendum vote with 90 per cent of the people voting than I would win with 20 per cent of the people voting. What we need in this country is a celebration of the reality that we are in a phase of renewal which will see us into the next decade and the next century in a more harmonious way.
I say to those people who are listening tonight, who are worried about the economy and worried about jobs: resolving our political differences will enable us to take an enormous step forward in terms of the economy and the availability of jobs. The world community is watching us and a 65 per cent vote or a 70 per cent vote in favour of this agreement will have more impact than a 51 per cent or a 55 per cent vote and so will the voter turnout.
I will be doing my best to encourage the voters in my riding to support this proposal and to accept their responsibility in a democracy by getting out to vote.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, we have in front of us an agreement which is not based on legal texts. Can you believe it? After all, it is the future of Canada and of Quebec that we are debating and yet, we have no legal texts.
I was once a union negotiator and I would never have told a union assembly called to renew a collective agreement that I had an agreement but no text. I got you a raise but I do not have the numbers. There is not one businessman who would close a deal without having it in writing. There is not even one landlord and one tenant who would sign a lease without seeing it in writing. What it boils down to is that they would like us to sign a blank cheque. When I think of the process which took place in Quebec with the Belanger-Campeau commission which was rigorous and transparent and which recommended a referendum on sovereignty, there can be no comparison.

Government Orders
Yet, the Quebec government and its federalist allies here in the House refused to hold that referendum on sovereignty. The debate will therefore be on the agreement, on those general principles of the agreement which we know about but not on the legal text since we do not have one.
The proposed question refers to a renewed federalism and a covenant based on the agreement. It means, therefore, that once the legal documents have been written, the agreement could be different from the one we will vote upon and we will be thrown right back into a debate which will end only when Quebecers, and nobody else but them, will decide to choose their future through a referendum on sovereignty and nothing else.
We also hear about a renewed federalism. It reminds me of a an old Campbell soup ad that was popular a few years ago: soup like Grandma used to make but served the modem way. It is slightly the same: an old-fashioned constitution served in a modem style, but Quebec's soup bowl is smaller. Out went the two founding nations concept; now we talk about ten equal provinces. The over-all veto for Quebec disappeared; now we propose a series of narrower vetoes, trifles, which do not concern-


An hon. member:: What do you mean by trifles?


Gilles Duceppe: Look it up. It is in the dictionary. Maybe you do not understand; it means trivialities, insignificant things.
Trivialities which say nothing about the right of veto and the creation of a new province. Some say that the vetoes concerning the institutions such as the House of Commons, Supreme Court, and Senate, is as if everything was to be decided even before we obtain the right of veto. It is equivalent to entrusting ecologists with the management of a forest just after it has been cut bare.
We also hear about new powers such as forests, mines, tourism, housing, recreational activities, municipal and urban affairs. However, all of that already exists in the 1867 Constitution. There is nothing new there.
There will be a series of administrative agreements limited to five years concerning immigration and training. Most of all, the federal spending power will be enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, the federal government will be able to intervene in all fields. Indeed, we are told that the provinces can opt out and receive instead financial compensation. However, there is compensation to the extent that the provincial program meets national standards. In other words, Ottawa will establish policies and Quebec will manage the political will of Ottawa.


An hon. member:: It is you who said it.


Gilles Duceppe: There is a Senate with a double majority, a French and an English one. In Quebec, there could be an English senator who also comes from cultural minorities. There could well be two French senators from New Brunswick and two from Ontario, one from Manitoba, one from Alberta and, for some exotism, why not one from Yukon, so that Quebec, which is the national home of Quebecers and French people, could be a minority within the French majority. This would be an equal Senate where Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland would have the same number of senators.
Most of all, some odious scheme would force Quebecers to determine on a racial basis who should represent them. We, the sovereigntists, say that all men and women who live in Quebec are Quebecers, whatever their origins.
There will also be 18 new members of Parliament for a while. What does it change ultimately? In 1942 Quebec members represented a third of the Commons, and the conscription was voted nonetheless. In 1982, Quebecers made up the majority of the Liberal caucus, but that did not prevent the patriation of the Constitution. This morning, the newspaper Le Soleil tells us that 54 per cent of Quebecers oppose the deal, but only 8 Quebec members out of 75 are here to fight against it. Ten per cent is hardly representative of the opinion of Quebecers.

Government Orders
part of the reserve territory is in Quebec, another one in
Ontario and another one in the United States. The The distinct society clause is also restricted to culture, American border was never questioned. I do not see why civil law, and language.	the Quebec border should be.


An hon. member:: Notamment.


Gilles Duceppe: There is no equivalent for that word in English, and anybody who studied law knows that it means "of the same nature".
On the other side aboriginal people get not only that but more. For example they get the integrity of their society, of their way of life, of their relation to the environment. I am proud of that, but it can be said that the aboriginal people are thus defined as a nation. They are called aboriginal nations, but there is no mention of a Quebec nation. Under this Constitution, the people of Quebec are not a nation, but the aboriginal people are. I have to congratulate Ovide Mercredi, because he certainly is a good negotiator. The same cannot be said of Robert Bourassa though.
This whole distinct society issue will collide headlong with the development and blossoming of the minority, and this can lead to an attack on Bill 101. It will also lead to attacks on immigration, because some people in Quebec will say: "We do not have a number of English schools proportional to the English population in Quebec". Based on this concept, they will ask that immigrant children be accepted in French schools, and the whole debate will be launched all over again.
There are many questions which will have to be negotiated in this agreement. There are, for example, natives' rights. No one says how much they are going to cost and how native self-government will be financed. Will there be a native income tax system? Will there be an equalization program? Will it come from Ottawa or from Quebec? There is not a word on that.
The door is also open to an interpretation of land rights based on existing treaties and ancestral rights which do not jeopardize Canadian land because self-government will take place within Canada, but which could challenge Quebec land. The power to decide, in case of disagreement between the partners, what rights will be defined in the Constitution is left to the courts. It is unacceptable for Quebec. It is Quebec and the native peoples who must themselves decide what their relations will be within Quebec. That does not contradict the native peoples extra-territorial relations because they already exist. Take the case of Akwesasne, where one
Sovereigntists are in favour of the recognition of aboriginal rights, as the James Bay Agreement proves. It is Matthew Coon-Come, big chief of the Cree Council of Quebec, who said in the state house in Augusta, Maine, in 1989: "As a people, we were guaranteed the possibility of preserving our lifestyle in terms of hunting, fishing and trapping, as well as our language and our culture. With the agreement, we got what we never had before: full authority over education through our own school board, full authority over social and health services, land management, as well as a strong voice in the approval of new developments on our territory, rights that respect the resources from the land, entitlement to police protection and a modified justice system and guarantees that we can fully participate in the development of Sub-Arctic Quebec". It was Matthew Coon-Come who said that.
Sovereigntists will conduct these negotiations, and even develop a relationship between Quebec nations and aboriginal nations, on the basis of the 1985 statement of the National Assembly.
At that time the Levesque government moved a motion saying: "That this assembly (the National Assembly) recognizes the existence in Quebec of the Abenaki, Algonkin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron, Micmac, Montag-nais, Naskapi and Inuit nations, their existing native rights and the rights contained in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreements; and that it considers these conventions, and any other future convention or agreement of the same nature, as treaties. That the government reaches some agreement guaranteeing them the right to self-government within Quebec; the right to a culture, a language and a tradition; the right to own and control land; the right to hunt, fish, trap, harvest and participate in wildlife management; the right to participate and share in the economic development of Quebec, in order that they develop as distinct nations having their own identity and exercising their own rights within Quebec, these rights being equally applicable to both men and women; and that the government reaffirms its commitment to protect in its fundamental laws the rights prescribed in the agreements signed with the native nations of Quebec".

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
This is the way to follow, and this is the way that Mr. Bourassa chose not to follow, choosing instead during the Oka crisis to send the Quebec Provincial Police and then the array, when it should have been negotiating for months. That man does not make decisions, he puts the future of Quebec and of the Quebec nation as well as native nations in the hands of the Supreme Court.
The future will show that in a sovereign Quebec, native peoples will be able to develop their respective nations in an atmosphere of mutual respect, fraternity and progress. Then Canada will be able to learn from our experience.
I urge all federalists to come to Quebec and debate the merits of these agreements, instead of hiding behind the curtains, debate the agreement, and apply enough pressure so we get the texts and they can explain them. This is their duty, and we will judge the fundamental value of this agreement. They want a debate on the agreement and not on sovereignty, that is what they will get.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion:
That, pursuant to the Act to provide for Referendums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of a referendum question:
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,1992?
yes	no
I know that I speak for other members of my party in welcoming the opportunity which has been given to Canadians to participate in this meaningful way in our constitutional renewal process. For some time now, the official position of my leader and our party has been that there should be a referendum held so that Canadians could have their say. We know there were many divergent views expressed as the constitutional process unfolded over the past number of years.
The leaders who sat down and drafted the latest accord represent many shades of the political spectrum, but all have had one thing in mind: the preservation of a strong and united Canada. I salute them for their efforts and their vision. I urge Canadians, now that they have been given this opportunity, to ratify the constitutional changes and move forward together as one united nation.
We must always remember those who took part in the process were keeping the best interests of Canada in mind. While we may not agree 100 per cent with every paragraph of the proposal, we should support it as the best possible deal for Canada at this time. I am very proud we are giving the Canadian Constitution back to the people of Canada.
There are things we are not happy with as has been stated by my leader, but I know that as time goes on these things will be remedied.
It is also very appropriate that the final agreement after years of discussion should be reached in Charlottetown a city which I am very proud to represent in this Elouse. I know as all hon. members realize the original conference which led to the confederation of the colonies of North America into Canada was held in Charlottetown in 1864.
I was very pleased to have a motion passed some time ago which recognized Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation. Now our citizens can proudly state that our city is the place of the rebirth of Confederation.
There was an interesting coincidence in Charlottetown during the First Ministers' Conference. Great George Street, the street where the original Fathers of Confederation walked while on their way to the 1864 conference, was designated as a special heritage site. I congratulate the people who were involved with that, and especially the minister responsible for his part in it. It was also very appropriate that many of the First Ministers from across the country were there and able to take part in the ceremonies. I know that many years hence Canadians will still be coming to visit this area in Charlottetown and making it one of the very special places in our history.
I feel also that it would be most appropriate when this constitutional package is approved by the voters following the referendum that the first ministers should return to Charlottetown and conduct the formal agreements and ratification. They then can take their places as the new Fathers of Confederation alongside those great men
September 9, 1992

of 125 years ago whose vision led to the formation of this great nation.
There are those who will condemn this new constitutional deal and who will urge Canadians to vote no. As I said, I do not pretend that this is the perfect solution to Canada's problems, nor am I naive enough to believe that there will ever be a perfect solution to these problems. As I mentioned earlier, politicians from every political stripe were included in the discussions which led up to the agreement, and while it may not be perfect, it is a good basis for the rebirth of this nation.
We must assume that those who campaign against this agreement are those who would like to see this country die or be split into tiny pieces, none of which would be the strong vibrant country that we see today.
We have done well over the past 125 years. We have built in the northern part of North America a nation which is envied around the world. It is a nation of opportunity, a nation of freedom, a nation of fairness and a nation of compassion. We must use every ounce of our strength to preserve what we have built and we must proudly go forward, urging Canadians to vote yes so that the ever evolving country of Canada can continue to grow and prosper.
Constitutions are a guide to the way our country should operate. They are, in my opinion, a living thing which will and must change as times change. No constitution can be written in stone. There must be a flexibility which allows us to adapt and be able to seize ever-changing opportunities. This agreement may not be perfect but it represents an opportunity for renewal and a compromise of which we must take advantage.
One of the most famous authors of the United States' Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, stated in 1789:	No
society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law". He made that statement in a letter to James Madison, urging that the Constitution of the United States be revised every 19 years so that each succeeding generation of Americans could legislate for itself.
I do not believe anyone would advocate such a drastic proposal here, but it does serve to illustrate that change must come and change will come. We are fortunate that the changes to our Constitution will come about as a result of peaceful discussion, not as the result of violent
Government Orders
action such as is taking place in many countries around the world.
I believe that we have to emphasize over the next few weeks the things which bind us together and the things which we share in common.
A young man from Thurso, Quebec, flying down the ice at the Montreal Forum brought joy and pride to youngsters from Newfoundland to Victoria. When a young baseball player from Maple Ridge, British Columbia steps into the batter's box at Olympic Stadium and hits a home run for the Expos he shares that with all Canadians. Finally, when a young swimmer from Montreal loses an Olympic medal because somebody pressed the wrong button, Canadians from coast to coast to coast grieve with her.
I mention these few sporting events because sporting events represent so many things that bind us together. I could just as easily have mentioned our scientists, our two Canadian astronauts and the thousands and thousands of successful business people, the farmers, the fishermen and the artists who make this country their home and who share in our common and very precious heritage. These people are taking advantage of the very special country which we enjoy.
Let us ensure that the forces which would divide us are not allowed to do so. Over the next few weeks we must persuade all Canadians of the true value of this country and in so doing assure that this constitutional agreement is ratified.
I have long held the belief that Canadians do not spend enough time or effort in celebrating the things which unite us and the institutions which bring us together. We could take a lesson from our American neighbours who go to such lengths to honour their nation and their flag.
This year's celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation got us off to a good start, but let us make sure that is only the beginning. Let us teach our children about the genuine Canadian heroes who have distinguished themselves around the world.
It is my great privilege to be my party's critic for veterans affairs. Since I assumed that post, and before that, I met many Canadian heroes who served their country at great personal sacrifice because they believed in what Canada stood for. They offered their very lives to protect the way of life we have enjoyed. To turn our

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
backs on Canada would be to turn our backs on them and this we must never do.
Let us instil in our children and in ourselves a pride of those things which bind us together and make us different from any other nation on earth. Let us forget the things which people say would divide us and let us go forward confidently into the future as united people.
Former Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier said nearly 100 years ago that the 20th century belonged to Canada. Let us urge Canadians to vote yes in this referendum. Let us build on the Charlottetown agreement of August 1992 to assure that the next century, which we are soon to enter, truly will belong to a strong, free and united Canada.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on a matter of very vital importance to our country as a whole and for my province of Ontario, that being the constitutional agreement reached on August 28.
First I will deal with the key components of the agreement, how they improve the status quo, and why the agreement is good for the country. Then I wish to take some time to explain why the approval of this agreement is vital for Ontario.
I believe the agreement represents a blueprint for a new, modernized and flexible federalism. It will make the fundamental law of the land clearer, fairer and better able to respond to the economic and social challenge of the future.
A Canada clause expressing fundamental Canadian values would be added to section 2 of the Constitution Act. The clause will guide the courts in interpreting the Constitution. The Canada clause also contains a statement ensuring that the Constitution is integrated in a manner consist with the preservation and promotion of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.
This distinctiveness is based on Quebec's French speaking majority, its unique culture and civil law tradition. In recognition of Canada's linguistic duality, the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the commitment of Canadians to the vitality and development of the language and culture of English speaking and French speaking minority communities
throughout Canada and the role of their governments in protecting the linguistic rights of those communities.
The inherent right of the aboriginal people to selfgovernment would be recognized in the Constitution and confirmed in the Canada clause, as would the status of aboriginal government as a new third order of government within Canada. This represents a new partnership with the aboriginal peoples of Canada, a partnership based on respect, rights and responsibilities. The general principle of the division of powers would be that what is available to one province should be available to all.
This represents a new consensus on how different governments should share responsibilities in the Canadian federation. There would be exclusive provincial jurisdiction in eight areas which we believe are best handled provincially, those being forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation, municipal and urban affairs, labour market training and culture.
Federal spending in these areas would not require provincial consent. The provinces would have more power over immigration and would be able to negotiate agreements with the federal government. Culture would be an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction with the federal government maintaining responsibility for existing national cultural institutions and agencies.
Frankly, without these reforms Canada will continue to be an over-governed nation. Presently federal and provincial powers overlap and too many programs are duplicated. With the agreement, it will be responsible to have the level of government which should run a program actually run it.
This agreement represents a new consensus on how different governments should share responsibilities in the Canadian federation. As to the amending formula, unanimity would be required for changes to the Supreme Court and Senate. Each province would have a veto on constitutional change.
The Supreme Court and its current composition would be entrenched in the Constitution. The federal government would be required to name judges from lists submitted by provincial and territorial governments. An aboriginal role in appointments would be developed.
September 9, 1992

The Constitution would contain a new provision setting out policy objectives underlying the social and economic union. These would include a comprehensive health care system, adequate social services and benefits such as housing, food and other basic necessities and high quality primary and secondary education; protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment; working work together to strengthen Canada's economic union; the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within Canada; the goal of full employment; a reasonable standard of living and suitable and equitable development.
There is also a new consensus on how to make our Canadian federation more predictable for all its members. Canada's system of equalization payments will be protected from unilateral change and the Canadian commitment to regional development and national economic infrastructure will be strengthened.
The Senate will have equal representation from each province. It would be elected either by the people of each province or by provincial legislatures. The Senate's powers would make it effective in that it could defeat legislation imposing new taxes on natural resources, delay supply bills for up to 30 days and force a joint sitting of the House of Commons and the Senate by defeating other legislation.
A government that wants legislation passed in a timely fashion will have to consider the views of the Senate. For Ontario, this compromise on the Senate was secured by increasing Ontario's representation in the House of Commons by 18 seats.
Over the last 18 months, we Canadians have been facing up to the reality that our Constitution needs to be amended. We have recognized that the ground rules under which we operate no longer work properly, that they are incomplete in some instances and outdated in others. The status quo is no alternative and the costs of standing still are too high.
To my way of thinking, this constitutional package responds to the concerns of many individuals, the provinces and the territories, and the aboriginal peoples. It will help in building a more united Canada, a stronger Canada, a Canada ready for the 21st century.
In essence the agreement represents a compromise which secures national unity. It goes a fair distance in resolving many of Canada's long-standing constitutional
Government Orders
grievances and achieves fairness for minority groups in our society. The balance that so many Canadians seek between a strong central government and a strong provincial government or governments has been achieved in this package.
These are only a few of the reasons why I believe this agreement is good for Canada as a whole. I would now like to discuss specifically the importance of the approval of the agreement for Ontario.
Trade is Ontario's and Canada's economic life-blood.
It sustains our standard of living. Political instability would threaten our economic stability, which in turn would erode our capacity to compete successfully in a highly competitive global economy. In short, domestic and foreign investors are attracted by stable political and economic climates. Instability discourages investment. It denies Ontarians and Canadians opportunities for growth and prosperity.
I believe Canadians and the people of Ontario want to get on with securing their economic future. They wish to put the constitutional bickering behind them. A stable, viable economy in Canada and Ontario will encourage the investment needed to get the engine of economic growth going again in Ontario and Canada.
Canadians and the people of Ontario also want justice for our aboriginal peoples, a renewed social and economic order, and a more effective Parliament. These are the gains in this agreement for Ontario, gains which the people of Ontario do not wish to lose. They do not want to turn the clock back. They are pressuring us to move forward, to use the combined energy of all Canadians to get this great country of ours moving again and in the right direction.
The constitutional agreement will give all Canadians the new tools needed to move forward together with confidence and pride toward the 21st century. If this constitutional package secures our national unity and prevents the breakup of Canada, the agreement is worth all the compromises that had to be made.
The October referendum on the agreement will be the most important vote ever taken in Canada. Come October 26,1 believe that Canadians can answer the referendum question in only one way: a resounding yes from coast to coast for Canada and the dream that our forefathers brought into being 125 years ago.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
I will be supporting the referendum in every way possible. I will be available to the constituents in my riding to attend the meetings, to provide information in any way possible. I am certainly confident that the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka will come up with a very resounding yes.
In closing, I think back to a meeting some three or four years ago where a group of parliamentarians from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visited Parliament Hill. It was in the summer recess. One of the questions they were asking even at that time was the Quebec question and national unity. A parliamentarian who was one of the speakers for one of the provinces of India directed a question to me.
He said: "Mr. Darling, can you tell me the cause of the dissension? I live in a country of some 800 million people. We have 50 provinces. We speak 121 different languages and dialects, at least 10 or 11 of them major languages", many more than our English and French. He said: "We wonder when we can get along with all that diversity what the problem is in Canada".
I hope that on October 26 we will be able to show them that there is no more diversity and there is real union.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I am honoured tonight to participate in this historic debate.
I was also honoured to participate in two special joint parliamentary committees on the Constitution. The first was the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, which examined the amending formula for the Constitution, and the second was the Beaudoin-Dobbie joint parliamentary committee, which recommended the direction for this constitutional change in which we are now engaged.
Those experiences, combined with the constitutional conferences and the aboriginal process that ran alongside that, ensured an unprecedented level of participation from the public. It was an unprecedented inclusive and open process. All who participated should be commended for their role. If anything demonstrated to me that Canadians cared for their country that was it. The apathy of which we are frequently charged was nowhere evident throughout that process. People appeared in record numbers before the parliamentary committees to give testimony, to give their views on the country and on
how the constitutional malaise with which we have suffered could be addressed.
Participants on those committees regularly restrained their partisan instincts. They had learned throughout the process that the patience of the electorate, which had already been sorely tried, was not to be further tried by partisan posturing on this issue which is so crucial to their country.
I want to begin my discussion tonight by talking about the perception of politicians when we are playing politics. I know that there is a lot of derision attached to that view. However, when, as in the case of those parliamentary committees, the politicians actually work toward and succeed in achieving a consensus on tough issues the same degree of notice is not taken. The media does not say: "Oh, they all agreed on something", and that makes national headlines. It is only when we disagree that it seems to be worthy of news commentary. That is what news is. My father is a journalist and it is conflict that makes news, not harmony.
My experience on those parliamentary committees also taught me about the role of an opposition member of Parliament. That is also much misunderstood. It taught me about the positive contribution that an opposition member of Parliament can make in the politique of this country. It was a privilege to travel through all parts of Canada-the territories and the provinces-meeting with all sorts of people, listening to Canadians and their divergent views on how to solve this constitutional problem. I confess that at times throughout that exhaustive process I was weary. It made me envious of those countries that did not have a written constitution. Focusing on the Constitution as the salvation for us all seemed to me to be rather ill-spent at times. However, hopefully we are near the end of that path.
Canada is an example for the world in many, many aspects. It has been said before in recent days that this agreement is a compromise. It bears repeating. It is an agreement that is not perfect. It is certainly not perfect. I have real difficulties with parts of the agreement, but my experience on those parliamentary committees and my 45 years of living have taught me that I do not get everything I want and compromise is not a dirty word. As my leader said, compromise is a very Canadian quality. It is not something to be criticized. I think it is a nice quality. Nice is a nice word, compromise ain't so bad. When you look at the nightly newscasts and see what
September 9, 1992

else other countries are suffering through, compromise ain't so bad.
As I said, I have difficulties with some parts of the agreement but I can live with them. This national psychoanalysis in which we have been engaged must now end. We must stop this introspection and now reach out to those people and those issues that have not received the attention they deserve during this period of self-definition.
My role in the coming days will be to explain and to give information. I will not participate in name calling those people who disagree with my position for the yes side because I have learned a great deal in this constitutional examination in which I participated in that I have confidence in the wisdom of the Canadian people. They will do the right thing on October 26. No name calling is going to change that.
My role has been an information giver. People will know where I stand.
For those people who say that the agreement does not address their concerns, and I know there are many who feel disappointed, I remind them, and I say this with a smile, if anything, our history should have taught us that the solution to our political problems is not found through the constitutional route.
The New Democratic Party believes in an activist government. We believe that if there is a political will, great things can be achieved. For those people who feel left out, I call upon them to get involved. What is not written in the Constitution can be achieved through political will. To the women, to the disabled, to the ethnocultural community, I say get involved. Elect members of Parliament, elect senators, elect members of provincial legislatures and elect councillors who care about what you care about. It is only through political will, not by the fine tuning of legal texts in a constitution, that real change is achieved.
I feel that much of this process, having been conducted parallel to the latest examination of the UN Conference on the Environment and Development, is equivalent to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. While we have been engaged in this national introspection, hundreds of thousands of children have died, hundreds of millions of acres of rain forest have been destroyed, species of
Government Orders
plants and animal life have grown extinct and we talk about notwithstanding clauses.
One wonders about the collective intelligence of human beings whose priorities could be so misaddressed. That is why we have to get off, as I call it, national psychoanalysis. We have to get on to those issues. We have to develop and articulate a sense of urgency for our country and for the world. We can no longer have the luxury of more constitutional talks.
That is the reason I am supporting this. It has been a useful process, but we have to consider the alternatives. Last weekend at the Saanich Fair in my riding a constituent asked: "What would happen if this was not agreed to? What is the alternative"? I answered honestly in that I thought if Canada said no on October 26 there would be international curiosity as to what Canada was all about. There would be a declining confidence in the Canadian dollar, declining investment in our economy.
As if that were not bad enough, we would have another 10 years of trying to disentangle from Quebec, negotiating with the aboriginal people of Quebec, negotiating with the Government of Quebec as to what constitutes Quebec and what constitutes Canada. I am not going to an alarmist, but I do not think that would be very neat and tidy.
We have achieved a great deal through this process. My colleagues on the parliamentary committees know as well as I do that this agreement reached on August 28 in Charlottetown is a real achievement. It is a compromise and compromise is not dirty word.
In conclusion I reiterate what I said in my own caucus. I have had it with constitutional purists. I want to get on with debating the issues that propelled me to seek office: to change this country, to make it a more just, fair and environmentally concerned country. I want to stop talking the c word.
Countries have curses. We see it every night on the national news. There is famine. There is war. There are natural disasters such as occurred in Nicaragua last week. One's heart bleeds for those countries. Think of Bangladesh, think of Somalia, think of what was Yugoslavia. Our national curse seems to be constitutional ferment.

Government Orders
I assure the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands that as much as I wish we would never have to talk about the Constitution after October 26 we will because that seems to be our national curse. However, as national curses go it is not bad. We just have to watch the nightly news and compare what we have in this country to what other
people in the rest of the world have. I add my voice proudly on the yes side, proudly to Canadian compromise.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume B. ]

Wednesday, September 9,1992
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume A.]


Gabrielle Bertrand: Madam Speaker, over the course of nearly 125 years, hundreds of debates held in this House have shaped the history of this country, page after page, day after day and speech after speech.
But beyond these walls, in my riding of Brome-Mis-sisquoi or in yours, Madam Speaker, in the streets, in our living-rooms, around the kitchen table, thousands of others speeches are being made-somewhat less pompous maybe, using everyday words-but nonetheless important because they speak the heart of the people. Politicians, lawyers, constitution experts, plumbers, carpenters, teachers, students, all are concerned with our economy, but at the same time every one is very concerned with the future of this country that we will hand down to our children.
That is why we are looking into the renewal of our Constitution today. Why? Because the promises made to the people of Quebec at the time of the referendum in 1980 have not been fulfilled; because the Constitution signed in 1982 was unacceptable for Quebec; because my Prime Minister promised in Sept-Iles in 1984 that Quebec would regain its rightful place in the Canadian family; because of the failure of Meech in 1990; and above all, because in Charlottetown, a couple of weeks ago, a change in winds brought about a consensus which will be decided upon come October 26.
I am neither a lawyer nor a constitution expert. It is more as an observer of the political scene in Quebec for over 50 years that I asked to take part in the debate tonight.
I can still hear Maurice Duplessis say to Ottawa "We want our booty back", not to mention Jean Lesage's "Quebec comes first", Daniel Johnson's "Equality or
independence" and Rene Levesque's "sovereignty-association".
I have seen all these premiers, regardless of their political affiliation, spend all that energy defending Quebec. It is not surprising that some of them died in the middle of their carreer.
That explains why I understand so well, after 50 years of struggle, the impatience showed by my compatriots from Quebec, my brothers and sisters, my children. One of our great writers, Felix-Antoine Savard, taught them that they were of "a race who refused to die". Today, Gilles Vignault sings to them that they "have a country to build".
As for me, here is what I have to say to them: "This race which refuses to die, this country which we want to build, in a word, this future and this heritage we will leave to our children and grandchildren must not and cannot be less than ours".
To my Quebec compatriots I wish to say also that we now have before us a series of offers which are not perfect, I must admit, but which nevertheless reflect a consensus and are acceptable, honourable and realistic.
These offers, if accepted, will enable us at last to concentrate on our economic development; these offers were approved by great citizens like senator Claude Castonguay, the very one who had convinced Robert Bourassa to reject the Victoria agreement in 1971, who said that the July 7 offers were unacceptable, but who, today, believes the new accord contains more than Meech and gives Quebec the guarantees it needs to preserve its distinctiveness.
I repeat, for the benefit of my fellow Quebecers, what another witness and actor in the great constitutional debates, Mr. Claude Ryan, said, and I quote:
Quebec can still contribute enormously to the growth of a strong Canada. If Quebec is a happy and confident partner, if Quebec feels it is understood and accepted for what it is, there can be no imaginable limits to the aspirations of this country.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Speaking about this country, I would now like to speak to my fellow countrymen and women from outside Quebec.

I know that with translation they will get my message. [Translation]
Because of them, I often suffered in my soul as a francophone when I participated in commissions or read the results of polls or heard some media reports. However, I do not hold it against them, I still respect them and I will tell you why.
How can they understand, and even less appreciate, the attitude of a nation, the people of Quebec, the French speaking Quebecers whom they too often know little about?
During the Meech Lake debate, I saw them cheer on Clyde Wells, Elijah Harper and other political leaders. I heard them express their feelings in front of the Spicer commission. When I travelled outside Quebec, I could feel the distance between us. I heard some of their leaders express for the Beaudoin-Edwards commission, opinions that would make you shiver.
Such an attitude can only be explained by a total ignorance of this country's history, its past, its pioneers, its creators. I hate to use this word-ignorance-but it seems that it is time to admit the fact.
Am I wrong in presuming that the vast majority of the English-speaking people of this country, who automatically oppose all of Quebec's claims, are almost totally ignorant of whatever concerns the francophones of this country?
For a good number of them, our history starts with the Conquest, that is 200 years too late. What do they know of this country's founders, of Cartier, Champlain, Laviolette, Maisonneuve, Jeanne Mance and Marguerite Bourgeoys? Or explorers such as Jolliet, Marquette, La Salle and La Verendrye, the very same who settled the territory stretching from Lake Winnipeg to the Rockies. This territory was theirs as early as 1733. What do they know about the pioneers whose memory we are still celebrating on this 350th anniversary of Montreal, to name only these among hundreds of them?
As for those who were taught the history of British North America, do they know how hard the French speaking settlers had to fight to survive as a people on this continent? How did we explain the deportation of the Acadians to them? What about the 1774 act? And the 1791 act? And the role the French Canadians played in resisting the American invasions? And the 1837 rebellion? And the Durham report? And the 1840 Union Act?
Happily, I also sometimes realize that highly intelligent and smart Canadians understand the importance of what is at stake. The name of Andrew B rewin, who was a member of this House and who is the father of one of our colleagues, comes to my mind as a case in point. In 1967, he wrote the following in a supplement to Le Devoir.
Indeed, the future unity of Canada does not lie solely in a constitutional agreement. It will demand a lot of common sense, patience and mutual understanding from every citizen all across Canada. But it will also require the will to tackle problems, even a problem as tough as the renewal of the Constitution.
More recently, Mr. William Thorsell of The Globe and Mail, when addressing the members of the Canadian Club, said last January in Tbronto:
The present constitutional debate is putting to the test the tolerance of English Canada, our faith, our sense of social justice, our understanding of history, indeed our very imagination and our intelligence as a people.
Mr. Thorsell added that "by restricting Quebec's constitutional prerogatives, English Canada deserves to lose its status as a country and to become an annex of the United States".
Yet, if we look back on our country's history, General Murray had this to say about francophones in a letter to the King of England:
It is a brave and courageous people. If it ever decided to leave the country, it would be an irreparable loss for the Empire.
Would he say the same thing today about Canada and Quebec? I suppose so because it is a view shared by many clear-minded and enlightened anglophones. But unfortunately, those views are still too rare and people are still not ready to listen. Time goes on, debates drag on and on, emotions are high and wounds take a long time to heal.
September 9, 1992

Twenty-five years ago, Claude Ryan wrote this:
A thousand times in the last few years we said to the rest of Canada: "Listen to the other voice, accept the other view before it is too late and before the hope of a new dialogue is killed prematurely by your repeated refusals and your indifference.
Those are the sentiments that inspired my intervention here tonight. I would like all Canadians to share those sentiments and not to be blinded by mistrust, ignorance or political interest. I would like them to fully realize what is at stake here, that is the survival of a country, of our country, a country which is the envy of all peoples all over the world.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, what can we really say now about this Constitution that has not already been said? What can we do when we talk about interpretive clauses and propose changes that have not already been interpreted by so many people in the press, the commentators, the journalists and by politicians? How do we discuss an issue that has truly dominated and captivated, that has disgusted, mesmerized and yes, even enraged Canadians for over the last three years?
How do you project what might have been if the same efforts that we have imposed to effect constitutional change could really have been directed to our economy, to the creation of jobs and to the economic reality of competing in a global marketplace?
What would have happened if we had put our minds and our efforts in working our way out of this terrible recession? Instead, we spent our efforts and the majority of our efforts on the Constitution and the debate that is before us today.
I hope from this experience which we have gone through in the last few years that those of us in government have certainly learned from it. Not only members today, but those members who come after us as well. The lesson tells us that the people who elect us to public office want us as politicians to concentrate not on constitutional issues, but to concentrate on their hopes, their aspirations and their needs and to concentrate on a united country.
As politicians in this country, I am sure we have all received the message at all levels, federal, provincial and municipal, that Canadians are no longer going to tolerate a government that concentrates the entirety of its
Government Orders
efforts on issues that do not unite us but issues that tend to disunite us.
One thing is certain. On the evening of October 26, this chapter of the constitutional debate will be over for a short time.
I am assured by our leader that should the present trend continue and our side of the House form the next government, during any Liberal government, on a ranking of one to ten, the constitutional issue will certainly take up a position 20 to 30 and not be part of the agenda. We think on this side of the House that the debate is over and should be over for a long time to come.
This is welcome news for the constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon which I represent. I am sure it is tremendously good news for all Canadians to realize that the issue of the Constitution is once and for all done away with for at least the foreseeable future.
I want to congratulate the member for Papineau- Saint-Michel who participated in this process and led the charge on behalf of the Liberal Party. Certainly he represented our party with the highest degree of integrity throughout the whole process.
I also compliment the minister of constitutional affairs and our colleague, the NDP member for Yorkton-Melville for conducting themselves at all times in the very best interests of Canada and all Canadians. They all deserve a vote of thanks from every member of this House.
As members looked at the process going through its terrible stages, I think we all learned to appreciate the virtue of patience. It is a lesson that I hope all members will never forget as we attempt to fulfil our respective duties, not only to our own constituents but to all constituents in Canada.
It is interesting to look for a few moments at the historical events of this week. The two founding nations of our country, Quebec or Lower Canada, had its genesis in France, and Upper Canada with its origins in the British Isles, have such a diverse history of their own constitutional development.
France has written many constitutions since its inception. It is a country that has had a series of constitutional debates. Britain, the genesis of the other founding nation in our country, has yet to write its first Constitution.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Yet the citizens of both countries enjoy a standard of living which is envied throughout the world. Both countries have recently willingly entered into a European common community and they entered that association as equal partners. Over their histories both have created very vibrant economies. Both are truly great nations.
As we talk tonight about the two founding nations of our country, we think of the aboriginal peoples of Canada who have never had a constitution. Much like the English, all of their societies and governments have been based on tradition and precedent.
We cannot help but look at the third of Canadians today who chose Canada as their home, or their parents or grandparents chose Canada as their home. They made that decision because Canada offered and still offers freedoms and opportunities that perhaps their parents or their grandparents or themselves did not have offered to them in their own homelands.
I am very positive, as we discuss the contents of the Constitution today, that not one of the people who chose Canada as their home sat down and read the British North America Act before they made the decision to come here. They did not read the changes in 1982, make a decision based on the reading of that document itself and say they will go to Canada because of that document.
I say unequivocally that one-third of Canadians today chose Canada as their home and their parents or grandparents came to Canada because they knew in their very hearts that what we have here is opportunity, what we have here in Canada are freedoms.
What we have here in Canada is a chance of a better life for their families, themselves and for the future generations. I am sure that is the main reason why over one-third of Canadians we welcome to this country and who have made magnificent citizens have chosen Canada as their home.
What am I trying to say when I talk about the historical significance of the two founding nations, the French and the English, the many new Canadians who make up over one-third of our population, and our aboriginal peoples? What I am trying to say is the Constitution is really only a document. The Constitution is really only a piece of paper that may be tested many times in our court systems, and I am sure it will be. What I talked about is the written Constitution.
What I want to spend the last few moments of my time on is the real Constitution of Canada. The real Constitution document is truly a living and breathing document. It moves with the times and changes with the times. It represents how many of us envisage the way people treat each other. It is a way that those who truly need help and assistance in our country can get help and assistance without going through any demeaning process in order to get that help and assistance.
It is a way people can practise their faith in this country, or they can choose not to practise any faith at all. It is a way that we educate our children. It is a way that lets us care for the elderly and the infirmed in our communities that is better, unequivocally, than the way elderly and infirmed people are treated anywhere else in this world.
It is a Constitution by which all Canadians who are sick can be treated and cured or treated and made more comfortable evenly with all other Canadians and without having any concern about bankrupting themselves or their families in order to get that cure. That is what the Canadian Constitution is all about.
It is a way in which we create opportunities and we must try to create opportunities for all Canadians. It is a way by which we live through a system of law and order. It is a way that is guaranteed and I think this Constitution is guaranteed in the hearts of the men and women of Canada. It is guaranteed in the hearts of the boys and girls throughout this country, from St. John's to Victoria.
The Constitution is really a test of faith. From the very beginning of our constitutional history in Canada, from 1867 with the passing of the British North America Act and all of the changes that were made to that act since that day, to the repatriation which began in 1980 and culminated in 1982 and adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country right up to today, the Constitution is a test of faith that Canadians have in their country and we as politicians have to respect that test of faith.
I am satisfied that with what we have gone through in this process, what we have experienced in the last three years, the real Constitution of this country is not only embellished in what we have here before us today, but is a test of faith of all Canadians to do what is right for all Canadians and I am sure that document will meet those requirements for all Canadians.
September 9, 1992


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: I am
happy to have the opportunity to rise in this debate. I must say the limitation of 15 minutes on something so fundamental as the Constitution which governs all members in this Chamber does present difficulties. It is almost as bad as Picasso trying to do a portrait on a postage stamp. We will try to do it justice but because there is a 15 minute limitation I am going to refer a little more to a written script and notes than normally is my custom.
The tone of the debate has been even and positive. I am glad that we are debating the issues. Let us get the poetry and patriotism out of the way. I believe in this country as much as anybody from coast to coast, sea to sea. I respect the opinions of all my fellow colleagues. Almost all of us in this Chamber I think are patriots of this great land and want to keep the land together. Our problem is that on something so fundamental as the Constitution, we obviously have different approaches and different views as to how best to do it.
I must say that I have been wrestling with my position on this. On the earlier problem of Meech I had no problem at all because of fundamental flaws as I saw them in that document. The Charlottetown agreement was arrived at with the best intent from all 17 leaders that the minister of constitutional affairs said earlier produced this document. Quite frankly, it surprised an awful lot of Canadians, including myself, that there was an agreement. Notwithstanding that our duty, because we are talking about a constitution, is to think not just of today or tomorrow. As my colleague in front of me said, we have to think of the future.
Constitutions are very difficult to change. There is a fundamental flaw I feel in this document that makes me come down fairly hard on the no side of the equation.
I have heard a lot about constitutional fatigue. I know we are all tired of constitutions and talking about them. Frankly, the lesson of Canada and the life of Canada has been a constitutional dialogue, whether it has been up front on conferences or whether it has been in between with bilateral agreements. It is part of our very existence.
Government Orders
It is part of the tension in the land. In fact, it is a healthy tension in the land.
The only ones that do not have disagreements in terms of human conduct are those who are under the sod, those who are dead. The only countries that do not have constitutional tensions are countries that really are not very vibrant. This country is very vibrant.
I believe that there is a smouldering. One of the factors that has not been mentioned today, that I have heard, is that there is a smouldering discontent of the public, like in Meech. The leaders of the land got so far away from the people, especially because they were sort of in an incestuous incubator trying to resolve all these difficulties and they were not reaching out to the people, that there was a groundswell across the land that said no, we are not going to have Meech.
In somewhat like fashion, but without at the moment the emotional element that was in Meech, I believe there is a smouldering discontent of the public at large basically with politics and/or politicians. One of the biggest questions I have about the document, which of course most Canadians-I agree with my friend-will never read in detail, is the fundamental simple question: "Good gracious, Pat, do we need more politicians. The last thing in the world, do we need more politicians?"
Another question I get on the street from people who will never read the document, and I understand that, is: "Patrick, we wanted less government. We are going to get more government here. Pat, is this going to end constitutional dialogue and debate?" Yet, right in the constitutional agreement there are situations first of a constitutionalized First Ministers Conference once a year, which is going to be an ongoing thing. There are sections in the agreement which are going to have an ongoing constitutional flavour. There are six jurisdictions that have been basically handed back to the provinces which basically decentralize and take away a little power from the federal government.
Yet already in the debate in Quebec we have heard, understandably, in trying to sell the message there that in effect there is going to be even more dialogue and debate to make sure there are more powers that are given to certain provinces because they feel for their reasons they need them.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
While some in this Chamber think that this debate and/or even October 26 will close the chapter-and I agree with my colleague-on this section, the fact of constitutional debate and dialogue in some form is an ever present factor in our country. It is something that we should recognize and not try to shy away from.
Let us also not fall into the trap of thinking think that if we settle the issue, albeit for a while, on October 26 that they then are going to settle all the other issues that Canadians quite understandably complain about because that is an ongoing thing.
Time is extremely limited. The first ministers tried to come up with an agreement and eventually confirmed it in Charlottetown. I hestitated to do it but I felt as a member of Parliament with some years experience here that I should let my constituents and/or anyone else interested know what I felt about what had been agreed upon so before the ink was dry I issued a press release on August 21.
It said among other things:
Even in this summer of constitutional fatigue, all Canadians, and especially new Canadians, should be concerned with some of the constitutional proposals coming out of the incestuous incubator in Ottawa-in the laudable effort of nation-building, and practising the Canadian history of compromise to an extreme, Canada's first ministers, in spite of all the political euphoria, may very well be creating more problems than this country can digest. In particular, the so-called Senate agreement is a THple-E charade, centralizing even more power in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and Quebec's guarantee in perpetuity of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons-
I do not mind a guarantee of seats, but not 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. There is not a jurisdiction in the world that guarantees a percentage of seats forever and a day in perpetuity. As part of the Charlottetown agreement it will take unanimous consent to change federal institutions. Once we get a percentage involved in a constitution for an amount of seats we are never going to change it.
I suggested that it was a time bomb to federalism and representation by population. Frankly, with all the dilemmas and all the problems, it is even more dangerous in the long run than any threatening referendum deadline in the province of Quebec. I continued:
And, while all applaud the agreement in principle, to recognize the plight and resolve the exclusion of native peoples in the decisionmaking process, a creation of an undefined third level of government is fraught with peril for a meaningful federal state-for instance, does the vague and general peace, order and good government power of the federal government, usually applied only in emergency in times of
national crisis, mean that this new order is not subordinate to the laws
of the federal and provincial governments-and where does the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms fit into such a scheme?
I speak as a Nova Scotian whose province is going to lose seats in this agreement. The power is going to be centralized even more and there will be 42 extra members. We have not even talked in the House about the costs involved not only of new members but of the elected Senate.
I am one of those who is for the abolition of the Senate, but I am also one who feels that if we are going to have a Senate it should be elected. I have been wrestling with this problem. I have to compliment those who came up with the Charlottetown agreement on a most ingenious document, sort of a mutation between a parliamentary system of representation by population and a recognition of provinces of equal and yet also special characteristics. In effect they are to have equal senators but then have within the Senate a double majority on issues of language and culture. Perhaps at the most there will be 15 francophone senators, some from Quebec, some from New Brunswick, some from Ontario, and most likely one from Nova Scotia. Those 15 will be able to veto any legislation affecting language and culture.
For the preservation of the French fact and the French language I have no hesitation in terms of language. That is pretty definitive but, Madam Speaker, you have been an expert and have graced the stage in Quebec. You know more about culture than I do.
What is the definition of culture? I could suggest the ramifications of what could be culture and could be affected by this mutated Senate and House of Commons but I do not have the time.
I do not know. There is all this talk about the Senate having no power. We could have an interesting debate on that, but we are going to have 62 senators and in effect a joint session of the House. Where is the equality on some issues like this double majority? There will be the 15 francophone senators or up to 15. I do not imagine there will ever be any more. They will be able to veto legislation and in a joint session of the House the numbers will apply. Forty-two new members is more than what we have in Atlantic Canada today; we have 32 members. There will be 18 and 18 from Quebec and Ontario. Even those 36 members are more than we have in the total of Atlantic Canada. That is one of the reasons.
September 9, 1992

I know time is limited, but I want to refer to a person for whom I have a great deal of respect although I have never met him. I want to be fair on this. This man, Dr. Michael Bliss, in The Toronto Star of Thursday, September 3, wrote one article about the unity deal.
This article is entitled: "All the laws of Meech-and more". Then, to be fair, he said he would write another one, which he did on Sunday, September 6 in which he said in effect: "Opting for constitutional peace in our time". That is the dilemma that members face in terms of this debate. Do we examine this in terms of the negatives or do we try to opt for constitutional peace in our time? He has summarized it and I am going to his little article very quickly.
It is the negative side which I have come down on in terms of this constitutional conference. He summarizes in very succinct detail the problems that I have with this Charlottetown agreement. He wrote this article before Charlottetown. We have not seen the legal text, of course we are not going to see it, and of course who is going to read it anyway? Whether Canadians will even have a chance to see it before they vote is something that we do not know, but the fact of the matter is that we know the general outlines.
In effect, Mr. Bliss says let us assume that the outlines are there and then presents the case for voting against the changes. He states:
The deal is indeed Meech plus. It contains many of the flaws of Meech plus a few more.
Quebec gets special status. The whole Constitution, including the Charter, is to be interpreted in light of the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
Quebec is guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons no matter what happens to its population. It might eventually become absurdly over-represented, especially as immigration increases the population of the West.
Moreover, a handful of francophone senators appointed by the government of Quebec will hold effective veto power over any changes to Canada's language legislation and perhaps to a wide range of language-related cultural institutions.
Government Orders
Ottawa surrenders power to all of the provinces. Any province can, and Quebec certainly will, require Ottawa to vacate a wide range of jurisdictions, including immigration, tourism, recreation, mining, forestry and manpower training. The provinces probably will become dominant in cultural affairs and perhaps in telecommunications.
Complex delegation provisions in the deal apparently make possible the transfer of many more powers to the provinces. Limits on Ottawa's use of its spending power will probably prevent new national social programs.
I have not got the time but we well know that in the autobiography of the then premier Rene Levesque called Options is a statement on page 300-and-someth-ing that says: "Give me the power to opt out of federal programs and that is a more important power than a veto for Quebec because if I have the power to opt out I can define my own programs, my special programs, and therefore have my special society within the context of Canada and/or a separate society". I could quote that if I had the time but I do not.
I already mentioned the complex delegation problems and that the spending power will probably prevent new national social programs. We have not really discussed that. I think we have almost given up on that. Every man who ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party when the present Prime Minister took office at a contested Conservative convention, other than the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, was totally against financial compensation for opting out because they said then, and I still believe correctly, that this will negatively affect social programs. We most likely would not have had medicare, and goodness knows where the devil day care is going to fit if we ever even come to that.
Continuing with Mr. Bliss' article. He states:
The problem with creating a checkerboard country this way is that eventually the provinces will find ways to impede Canadians' mobility. As the possibility of a real national labour market fades, people's economic opportunities shrink. They become clients of their provincial governments, dependent on government handouts.
Atlantic Canada in particular will remain over-populated, poor and absurdly over-governed. Senate equality practically rules out the possibility of uniting the Maritime or the prairie provinces.

Government Orders
Ottawa gave up the best hope of countering some of these tendencies. In the final bargaining the Prime Minister again failed to speak for Canada when he abjectly surrendered Ottawa's position that our Constitution must support a real economic union.
If there was any bottom line in our original Confederation, it was that there must be free trade between the provinces. Power-hungry provincial governments have subverted that dream by erecting literally hundreds of barriers to the movement of goods and services.
By the end of the 1990s there may be freer trade between Ontario and Alabama than Ontario and Manitoba, more trade barriers between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia than France and Germany.
Great builders of Canada these provincial premiers, who got a lot and gave up nothing. Proud fathers of a new Canada-a Canada with no national immigration policy, no national manpower policy, no national education policy, no national common market. Something of a comic Canada.
Perhaps a tragic Canada insofar as its native peoples are concerned. Instead of experimenting carefully with native self-government, we are leaping into constitutionalizing a third order of government bound to keep aboriginal Canadians separate from the rest of us.
This is a type of quota and a form of apartheid. It is something that in every other country we object to, but we are going to put it in our Constitution. I say that is a negative.
The reserve system, which the South African racists used to taunt us about as a kind of apartheid, will be strengthened as the basis for a separate realm of native institutions. The self-governing "homelands" of native peoples are unlikely ever to generate the wealth necessary to create real independence and self-reliance; the children of native separation are always going to see themselves as set apart from the Canadian mainstream.
Does the pride that comes with self-government (at least to the newly empowered leadership class) translate into an end to poverty, illiteracy, hopelessness and social disorganization? Ask the people of Africa.
Are we stronger, though, if we make these concessions for the sake of constitutional peace? In the long run nobody believes that the separatist dream will vanish from Quebec or that separatists will never again get power.
Our grandchildren may also note that we made this new Constitution under duress, when Quebec put a knife to the throat of Canada. They may ask themselves whether this was worthy of a free people. They may ask why we wrote the faddish ideas of the 1980s-inherent self-government, the NDP's social charter-into a Constitution that was supposed to last for centuries. Above all will they ask why we agreed to strengthen the powers of governments to restrain the liberties of individuals. Why did we turn our backs on Pierre Trudeau's vision of Canada, in which the people were more important than the politicians?
When they tell us that a "no" vote is a vote-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -is a vote to dismember Canada, remind them that we have a
functioning Constitution. Quebec probably would not separate, and if
it did Canada would survive. If necessary, it would be better to have two
real nations than one pretend country.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion I have a suggestion-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Please. Would the hon. member who has been here a long time give the Speaker some courtesy. I wish the hon. member had asked because more than likely members would have allowed him an extra 30 seconds to end his speech. I am quite prepared to ask the members. I have been asking the hon. member to conclude and it is now almost two minutes past the time when he should have stopped.
Do members agree to allow the hon. member a few seconds to conclude?


An hon. member:: One minute.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I just had to read that. It just summarized so many thoughts and there are so many other things that could be said about this. I have not even gone into general equality in Nova Scotia where my premier says there are going to be three women and three men. Historically we have always had an Acadian senator. We can get into a whole argument there.
I have a positive suggestion for both the no and the yes forces. I think the smouldering disdain of the public is something that is not going to be anti anything. It is not going to be anti-Quebec. It is not going to be anti any one issue in this constitutional agreement. It is really going to be anti-politicians when the public realizes that we have more politicians and more types of government, such as self-government for the aboriginals, where there are over 650 bands that could have forms of government. Are they paramount with provinces or above provinces? From a distance, after you get rid of euphoria, it is a real mish-mash.
I know there are some in this Chamber that want to make sure the country breaks up. I feel the country has a pretty good Constitution at the moment. It has grown from 1867 and has done a lot of things for Canadians in the 125 years we have been here. That is where we can go back to the bedrock. However, if the no forces really want to win, then if they promise Canadians, whether it is in Quebec or anywhere in the country, that if there was a no vote there would be a moratorium on constitutional conferences and discussions for 20 years, I think that would help them.
September 9, 1992

In conclusion, the yes people, as Premier Getty did today, will have to remove themselves in a political way and move forward to help get a yes vote from the majority of this country.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I first would like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for her courteous gesture in letting me speak after I missed my turn because I was not paying attention.
Like all Canadians, I imagine, and like all the residents of Beauhamois-Salaberry, I am very glad and very pleased today, at long last, to see the light at the end of the constitutional tunnel.
The debate on the Constitution has been part of the national political scene for most of my life, and I must admit there were times when I thought I would never see the end of this debate during my lifetime.
I am particularly glad because I worked as parliamentary secretary to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and witnessed all the hard work done by this gentleman, this great Canadian, whose dedication to his country goes beyond personal consideration. I was very pleased to have this opportunity to work under a truly great minister.
I also take great satisfaction in the fact that the agreement to be ratified by Canadians on October 26 not only gives Quebec its historic place within our federation but also responds to the traditional aspirations and demands of the other great components of Canadian society: the western and Atlantic provinces, by providing a remedy for their feelings of alienation from the central government; and to the aboriginal people by recognizing their inherent and historic right to self-government.
Government Orders
We have before us an agreement that is acceptable and honourable, both for Quebec and for Canada as a whole. It is up to us to take up the torch and say yes to this agreement if we want to leave our children a dynamic and prosperous country. I repeat, we have before us an agreement that is acceptable and honourable.
Madam Speaker, one of the debates in this House which I particularly appreciated was the debate on abortion. I remember that at the time I met people whose position was similar to mine, one I initially supported, and I told them: "There is a flaw in your proposal. It is realistic but it is not votable". We always have to make sure that when we adopt legislation in this House, it will be acceptable to the majority of Canadian men and women. It must be legislation that Canadians and the people in the ridings approve of. The same applies here. We must have a proposal that is votable here and votable by Canadians in every riding in this country on October 26.

I am especially proud of the fact that the interests of all Canadians have been addressed in the August accord. As a Quebecer and as a Canadian I am not blind to the realities of Canada. Just as recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is an important, meaningful symbol for Quebec so an equal Senate is an important symbol for the west, as is the recognition of aboriginal Canadians' inherent right to self-government, a reality that has always existed and will always continue to exist regardless of what a constitution says or does not say.

Had it been adopted, the Meech Lake Accord would have had much the same result but only for Quebec. It would have led to a first series of constitutional amendments meeting Quebec's expectations but this first phase would have been followed-as provided for in the accord reached two or three years ago-by a succession of planned constitutional conferences growing increasingly difficult and time-consuming. We would probably still be a long way from completing the constitutional amendment process and meeting the demands of all the parties involved.

Government Orders
But all is well that ends well, as the saying goes, because it is better at this time to settle the constitutional question for a while so that we can turn our attention to economic issues too urgent and too important to be set aside by our little conflicts and family feuds.
At a time when Europe is redefining itself as a monolithic economic entity and the countries of Southeast Asia are thinking of doing the same thing, when the former communist states are about to embrace the free enterprise system, when we must learn to live with North American free trade and market globalization, the time has come, Madam Speaker, to start working together to hold our own in an increasingly competitive world.
We have seen plant closures as well as the sudden dissolution or merger of formerly reliable large businesses-as has happened in my constituency of Beauhar-nois-Salaberry where, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Goodyear company has experienced difficulties. But now Dominion Textile is closing its last plant in the riding, in Valleyfield, after having given birth to the city itself. There have been major plant closures and industrial changes. Unfortunately, the technological progress and unemployment caused by these unpredictable complications are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the impact of the economic realignment currently in progress all over the world.

While all other countries are moving forward and seizing the future we cannot afford to remain riveted to the past, looking inward.
It is no wonder that Canadians, particularly job seekers waiting for the fruits of economic recovery to reach them, are tired of hearing about the Constitution. To be perfectly frank, I agree with them. We must move on to other things and deal with other priorities. Canada is already paying the price of continued uncertainty on the constitutional front.
One thing is certain. All Canadians and Quebecers agree that we need a workable and durable solution to the constitutional dilemma we face. We need it so that all governments can concentrate on building the stronger economy we need to ensure prosperity for all.

Last week on the news I heard Quebecers say how concerned they were about their immediate future
because they had just lost their jobs. Unfortunately, they believe that the completion of the constitutional process will not improve their own situation. I sympathize whole-heartedly with these people and I would like to tell them that it is perhaps because of the constitutional instability in Canada that they are now in such in a difficult position and that once we have put all these discussions behind us, we should be able to regain the confidence of foreign investors and create jobs for those who want to work.
Positive co-operation between trading partners in Canada has, until now, given us a favourable competitive position in relation with the United States and the other great economic powers of Europe and Asia. The strong business links between Quebec and the other Canadian provinces have done a lot to give us international credibility. Thanks to these strong economic relationships, Canada now enjoys a very high standard of living, indeed, the highest among the world's seven most industrialized countries. In this regard, the purchase of the de Havilland aeronautics company by Bombardier from Quebec, thanks to the support of the governments of Canada and Ontario, is an excellent example of economic co-operation among Canadian partners.
As the chief executive officer of the SNC group, Mr. Guy Saint-Pierre, said:
No country, no people can guarantee its own social progress and development without economic prosperity.
Economic prosperity and national unity are indeed two indissociable elements which will put Canadians in a better position to meet international challenges resulting from the globalization of markets.
Canadian companies and businesses now enjoy international confidence, thanks to a reputation which took years to build up and which has virtually become a trademark itself.
Also, as we know, this year the United Nations Program for Human Development put Canada in first place in terms of over-all quality of life.
I am convinced that we are all happy of our fate when we compare ourselves to others and also happy to be living here. In fact, it would seem that a lot of foreigners, including some from rich and prosperous countries, are envious of our life-style and our standard of living.
September 9, 1992

If we were able to get there it is because others before us had the wisdom to invest in economic union and co-operation by signing the federation pact 125 years ago. It is because our ancestors, our grandparents and our parents took over from each other and strived to improve their situation and that of their children. And they were right, Madam Speaker.
Of course there have always been tensions within the Canadian federation, sometimes very strong ones, but Canadians were always able to make the adjustments and the compromises necessary to preserve the gains achieved and continue on the road to social progress and economic prosperity.
Some even feel that it is precisely those tensions between the different regions and the different components of our country that give us our strength and our energy. This is particularly true in the constitutional field.
Indeed, it was not easy to reach the present agreement. On the other hand though, it is the first time that there is a consensus on a package of amendments which, as I was saying, are accepted by the leaders of all governments.
It is the first time there is a consensus on a package of amendments and I want to emphasize that.

I want my children to grow up proud to be Quebecers and proud to be Canadians. I want them to enjoy all the benefits I had of growing up in a large country, large in size, large in spirit, large in generality, large in tolerance and large in opportunity.
This is what this debate is about. It is about saying yes to a future together.

Let us decide once and for all if we want to stay one of the frontrunners among the main industrialized nations and to face with confidence and optimism the great economic changes of the 21st century.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of the
Government Orders
constituents of Mount Royal riding in this debate on the referendum and the question to be placed before the people of Canada which will begin that much wider dialogue by Canadians with Canadians and about the promise and the opportunities for a united future together.
Early in this century, Prime Minister Laurier said that the 20th century belonged to Canada. Since then we have grown and prospered as a nation. We have met and overcome many difficulties, many formidable challenges and we are now a nation on the verge of greatness.
Without national unity, however, we will not achieve this potential. The question is whether greatness is within our grasp. As a nation, we have chosen to measure greatness not on the basis of military might or purely on the basis of economic or material well-being, but on our capacity to give all Canadians access to the diverse benefits of citizenship, even as they share in its obligations.
We have identified equality as a central value, a goal still to be attained. We have progressed from a vision of two solitudes to one of a bilingual and bicultural Canada to the real vision of today, a Canada that is a bilingual, multicultural society. That is a truly proud achievement.
The message of this vision is that unity can exist alongside diversity, that difference and distinctiveness are precious, unlimited resources waiting to be tapped for our mutual benefit. Ironic as it may sound, Canada's unity lies in this diversity and I would suggest to you that if we would accept it and build upon it, we would build a strength as a people and a nation that is unparalleled.
The United Nations and the world see us as a wonderful country, but it would be even more wonderful and certainly a model for the world. All of this positive spirit flows from our diversity when fairness and equality are our core objectives. If we can translate this pluralistic vision into reality, the 20th century will surely have been Canada's and the 21st century will be as well.
It is true that there was some malaise in the east, in the west, in the north, among the aboriginals and in Quebec. These various groups felt that they wanted to have some of their concerns addressed once again.

Government Orders
I am not so sure that we needed to reopen this Constitution. I think we would have been far better off if we paid more attention to the economy and to those daily bread and butter issues that affect our country. Notwithstanding that, this government did decide to open the Constitution, and the consensus which was arrived at in Charlottetown on August 28 speaks to this vision and to the values of our nation, its history and its many diverse realities, be they cultural, geographical or traditional.
As we know, a constitution is a living document that outlines the structures, responsibilities and arrangements that help bring order to a society. It is in a sense a primer, expressing the values of a people and how they wish to live and work together in neighbourliness and in understanding.
I do not want to give the impression that this is a perfect document. It is not, but constitutions as living documents must change as the society changes. I think this may well be the best that we could have done at this time.
There was a little disturbance in the gallery today and I think there is some misunderstanding about what has been accomplished in these changes. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains in place.
Our commitment to multiculturalism remains in place. Section 15, which is the section on equality and non-discrimination and allows for affirmative action for people who are mentally and physically handicapped, for minorities of all kinds, remains in place.
Gender equality remains recognized in the Constitution. The country holds fast in its commitment to these values and these are not being changed; those things that were brought in in 1982.
What is important in here and what is new is we have amendments that recognize officially the linguistic duality of this country and the responsibility of governments for the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada.
It puts into the Constitution the Canadian reality of racial and ethnic equality, of respect for individuals and collective human rights, and again for the equality of men and women. It is not perfect, that is true. On that we all agree and certainly our leader, my leader, spoke to that eloquently today as did the member for Papineau-
Saint-Michel who has so capably handled the dossier on this side of the House.
As a package at this time in our history it is an agreement that I and the Liberal Party are prepared to support. While some say this is a consensus by exhaustion, I say to you I think it represents a degree of progress.
My view of this constitutional agreement comes from many sources as it will for most Canadians; life experience, family experience, community experience. They all form a part of how we see our country and the Constitution.
I say to you I am a proud Quebecer. I am a proud Canadian. I am an English speaking Canadian living in Quebec, living in great harmony with my neighbour in many languages, not only English, or not only French. For me and for most of my neighbours speaking two languages is no hardship, it is an enrichment. Speaking three is better and speaking four is even better. Living comfortably with my neighbours is not a matter of language.
I am very happy to be part of this Quebec family just as I am a part of my own family and, of course, just as a I am a proud member of the Canadian family. Just as we love our family and that love is built on values, on sharing, caring, and respect, so too is our love for this much larger family, that of Canada.
Sometimes we do not all agree. I certainly have heard of the local husband and wife who have had an argument. I too have fallen into that category more than once and I do not always agree with what my children do or say, but they are always welcome at our table and they come loved and blessed, as does anyone who is part of the Canadian family.
I have faith in Canada and in our wonderful country and our ability to build consensus and to live together peacefully and in harmony. If you look around the world and see what is going on in many other nations of this world, you can say this is a very small and civilized way in which we are looking at the concerns that are being expressed and trying to bring them into a cohesive force.
I would hope that many of the residents of my riding will actively participate in the democratic process. I hope they will be encouraged to join in what is the ultimate exercise in democracy in Mount Royal riding and everywhere else in Canada. Get out and vote is my message.
September 9, 1992

If I were to travel in a helicopter and circle over the riding of Mount Royal I would see a great plurality of cultures, a tapestry of language, faith, colour, and religion. The people in the town of Mount Royal, Cote St. Luc, Hampstead, Snowdon, Cote Des Neiges, come from various backgrounds but what ties them together is their deep abiding appreciation for the freedom to move about and to be associated with anyone with whom they choose, to speak out on issues that concern them freely, unfettered, uninhibited, and to enjoy the benefits of this great country. They may worship or not in freedom and this is a wonderful open society.
To be sure many in Mount Royal still struggle to get by working very, very hard to achieve the standard of living they desire for themselves and for their children. It is for this very reason so many chose to come to this country in the very first place. They have come to Canada. Over a third of this country have come. Actually, outside of the aboriginals, we were all immigrants to this wonderful land.
I am amazed at how day in and day out, where there has been such great unemployment and such large instability and a degree of racism which has raised its ugly head, they have not felt discouraged. But no, these people came here. They are prepared to persevere for themselves and for their children. They came because of this community, their province and this country which holds out so much promise.
They do not realize the full impact or the detail that is in this Constitution. In fact, for them they often say that it is giving them constipation. But they do know it is affecting the quality of their lives and they want to get this over with. They want to say yes to a healthy inclusive Quebec in a strong Canada. They know they have a stake in the decision.
The constitutional agreement at hand, as I said, is not perfect. My leader addressed some of its achievements and some of its concerns in his speech. There are many changes and improvements however that I want to bring to your attention.
There is a reformed Senate. It is equal, it is elected. It may not be as effective as we would want and hopefully there will be ways in which we can improve that. There is a recognition for the first time of the inherent right to aboriginal self-government and for this alone we should be very proud.
Government Orders
The Canada clause in itself is a value statement. Who and what we are and what we wish to pass on to our children is found in that document. I would say there are many characteristics which are affirmed in the new Canada clause. One of them is the distinct society clause.
I support the definition of Quebec as a distinct society because it is defined with its language, its culture and its civil code.
I also believe that the vitality and development of linguistic minorities must be recognized as an integral element of Canadian society. Clearly, any agreement on the renewal of the Constitution must place the responsibility on both federal and provincial governments to recognize these realities. This would affirm the idea that the unity of Canada is based on its diversity from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a matter that is of some concern to me and I hope this is just some draft language that has come out of the consensus report on the Constitution.
In the value section that is in the Canada clause we talk about Canada being a democracy that is committed to a parliamentary and federal system of government and to the rule of law. We go on to talk about our commitment in it to the distinct society, to the vitality and development of the languages, racial and ethnic equality. The word is "committed".
On the French side we use an entirely different word which does not fully translate the meaning of commitment to me. It may well be that I do not have the language skills, but when we say "committed" in English and we say on the other hand-

-the fact that Canada is a democracy "attached" to a parliamentary system and that all the characteristics are those of an attachment instead of a "commitment",

I would hope that we have clarity in the final document that will be tabled.
I wanted to just bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some of the other concerns I have not only with respect to the Senate and with respect to the linguistic minority and the attachement and engagement and commitment, but as well to the fact that the final legislative document I hope will be fidele to the text that was there before.

Government Orders
Also, as my concern is often expressed around the cultural content in our society,

-we must preserve the artistic rights and freedom of expression of Canadian men and women across the country.

I believe that official bilingualism and multiculturalism are the essence of Canadian society today. The cultural community must be able to access doors to enable its creative work at all levels of government and the private sector to be distributed, seen and heard anywhere. The arts are essential to the development of Canadian identity and sovereignty. The Liberal Party believes the role of the federal government must be to ensure Canadian artists have opportunities to practise their art and that all Canadians have access to it. We need that strong federal public role as a complement to provincial, municipal and private roles.
I would conclude by saying to the constituents in Mount Royal riding that I would urge them to get out and vote. I just want to bring to their attention a small document. This is a document which the government has produced which everyone should read to understand better what is going on. They can get it by either calling my office or they can call 1-800-561-1188 and they will be better informed because a 30-second TV clip will not give them the full picture.
Get out, support the referendum, do your work everybody, and participate in the great act of the democratic right to vote.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief as I will be sharing my allotted time with my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
Today and in the days and weeks ahead leading up to October 26, we are being confronted with an historic opportunity, a chance to renew the Canadian federation in a way which respects and reconfirms the three essential equalities of our nation: The equality of persons, the equality of provinces and the equality of our founding English and French linguistic and cultural
communities. In addition, we have finally recognized in a truly Canadian way the inherent right of our aboriginal citizens to form their own governments within Canada.
This is not a simple deal, nor is it, as many speakers have noted, a perfect deal from any one point of view. This agreement was not reached from just one narrow point of view. It encompasses a careful and public consideration of millions of points of view which were brought to the table by 17 or more negotiators, including premiers, territorial leaders, aboriginal leaders and, of course, our Prime Minister, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I wish to congratulate and thank all of these great Canadians for their dedication and for putting one point of view above all others, that of Canada.
I would like to pay special tribute in this regard to the premier of my own province, the hon. Don Getty, who today has announced that he will soon be retiring as premier of Alberta. Mr. Getty took on a seemingly impossible task during these negotiations when he determined to follow through on the promise of Meech Lake to bring about meaningful change in the Senate. By championing and leading the fight for a Triple-E Senate, he has truly changed forever the dynamics of Canadian politics.
The new Senate will be elected, equal and effective. It will clearly allow the five smallest provinces and one territory to prevent the imposition of another national energy program. Mr. Getty deserves recognition and our sincere thanks for this historic achievement. I wish him, his wife Margaret and his family all the best as they embark on this new phase of their lives and careers.
In the few minutes available to me tonight it is only possible for me to highlight the agreement. I do not expect nor do I advise anyone to make up their mind to support this agreement without investigating it in detail. There are some major achievements for Albertans which I would like to point out.
First, there is the reform of the Senate, which I have already mentioned. By a simple majority, the new Senate will be able to kill federal legislation which taxes natural
September 9, 1992

resources. It will also be responsible for approving federal appointments to such bodies as the Bank of Canada and other national institutions. Similarly, it may suspend bills for 30 days. Most important, the Senate, whose members will have the credibility which comes from election, will be able to force a joint sitting with the House of Commons if it rejects a bill by a simple majority. The joint sitting must be preceded by a conference to discuss differences and try to reach a satisfactory compromise. I predict that this function, along with the ability of the Senate to initiate legislation, will become one of the most powerful and effective tools in our body politic. When the House and the Senate sit jointly there will be a dramatic shift in the way legislation is treated.
Parenthetically, I would like to note that this is a tremendous improvement over the American process in which disagreements between the Senate and the House of Representatives can lead to gridlock, preventing urgent and necessary action from being taken. History will show that this is another example of the power and efficiency of Canadian compromise.
Alberta also wins in the House of Commons. We will get an additional two seats immediately, and most probably another two after the 1996 census. Fortunately, when this agreement is ratified the total number of members of Parliament, Senators and MPs will be the same as it is now.
Alberta also gains from the recognition of exclusive provincial jurisdiction in the oil, gas and mining industries, not to mention in the areas of forestry, tourism, housing, municipal and urban affairs and labour market training. In the future, if Ottawa sets out a national program in these areas the province can implement its own program with complementary objectives and request its share of the funding. This will bring decision-making closer to home. Alberta, like other provinces, will also be able to negotiate an immigration agreement, giving it better control over people who are coming to our province.
Finally, Alberta has achieved full equality with other provinces in being given a veto on any future changes to our national institutions, namely the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Commons. It is important for Albertans to understand both the power and the limitations of this veto.
Government Orders
I have heard people saying that they are disappointed because Quebec got the veto. In my view, this shows a clear misunderstanding of the battle for equality that Triple-E advocates have been fighting so vigorously. Having won the Triple-E Senate, we would not want seven provinces with 50 percent of the population to be able to undo it without our agreement. If we are to truly respect the concept of provincial equality in our federation, then it is fundamental that the make-up of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the House of Commons cannot be touched without our consent or the consent of every other member of the federation.
One of the most difficult tasks in achieving this agreement was the reconciliation of provincial equality, personal equality and the equality inherent in our linguistic duality. I have received a number of comments about Quebec's minimum 25 percent allotment of the seats in the House of Commons, which is a recognition of the equality of our two founding linguistic and cultural communities. It is important to balance this with the guarantees given to other provinces of minimum numbers of seats, regardless of their populations. These guarantees reflect provincial equalities.
For example, when the House and Senate sit together each resident of Prince Edward Island will be represented by 10 votes compared to only one vote for each resident in my constituency of Calgary North. Quebec would be about 3 per cent under-represented in this situation and Alberta would be slightly over-represented. This is a clear indication that at least for smaller provinces the provincial equality that we fought so hard for is well represented indeed.
In closing, I want to again thank everyone: the citizens of Calgary North who attended town hall meetings, answered questionnaires and wrote me letters, all the people in Canada who seized this opportunity to participate in the future of this country and particularly our aboriginal, territorial, provincial and national leaders who worked so tirelessly to draft this extraordinary agreement. On October 26 I will say yes to Canada.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to speak on this most important matter facing our nation. At the outset, I would like to thank the member for Calgary North for sharing his time with me.

Government Orders
Although many of us have constitutional fatigue we must persevere through this debate in Canada because although the Constitution is distant and seems academic at times, it affects each of us every single day of our lives. The constitution is the basis for how society is governed, structured, and organized. If a constitution is rigid and unyielding, society will experience social stresses and economic strains and perhaps even disintegration. Constitutions should be living documents.
Tonight I will not speak to each and every issue in the Charlottetown accord because of time limitations. However, I do want to endorse many of the comments my Quebec colleagues have made about how the accord affects them, Quebec and the people of Quebec and those who have spoken very eloquently about how the accord deals with aboriginal people.
I will limit my comments to those issues which are of concern to western Canadians and to those issues many of my own constituents have expressed to me.
Constitutions are important because they affect us every day. For example, trade barriers between provinces make goods more expensive and Canadians have fewer dollars in their pockets to spend. This is the direct result of how a society is organized by way of our Constitution. Our standard of living is lower than it should be. Overlap and duplication by having separate federal and provincial departments cost us money. We as a nation have experienced social stresses, most notably in dealing with our aboriginal communities.
Our constitution up until now has not allowed for new approaches to accommodate different needs of French and English Canadians and of aboriginal Canadians; for example, the francophones outside of Quebec and English Canadians within Quebec and minorities and others. This accord, although not perfect, makes these necessary accommodations.
A constitution needs to be a framework for society. It must embody values and provide stability, but it must evolve to accommodate and balance these interests. It affects us every day. One might say that the Constitution, because it had few or no regional checks or balances, allowed a gross abuse of power in the early 1980s which was perpetrated on Alberta through the National Energy Program.
Today's proposals respond to changing needs and now would protect, for example, the interests of western Canadians. A national energy program would no longer be possible under the accord reached at Charlottetown.
I ask Canadians to take a close look at these proposals, to look very carefully. The Constitution affects us every day. It is vitally important for every Canadian to consider their future and their children's future.
The accord is not perfect. It is a compromise. As compromises go, it is a pretty good compromise. I believe this accord will wear well. Today's criticisms, viewed from a perspective of 20 or 30 years experience, will seem exaggerated and perhaps unfounded. For example, a Senate will become a unique Canadian institution. It will be effective. Most members of Parliament do not have their hands on the levers of power but they are effective. They express their concerns through their caucuses, through the House of Commons, through committees, in speeches and in statements to the media. Governments need the support of their members. MPs have influence. We are effective. The new Senate will be effective.
As elected officials, senators will gain a degree of legitimacy never before seen. There will be very few of them, so in using their powers of review, ratification of appointments and the ability to block legislation, they will have plenty of clout.
Some people on another issue have said the west was short-changed by not gaining as many seats in the House as it deserves. This, as the hon. member for Calgary North pointed out, will be rectified. In Alberta we will gain two seats right now and after the next redistribution in 1996 perhaps two more.
As time goes on and the House becomes fully represented by population, this will all equal out. The west will particularly gain because the west has a fast growing population.
Although I support this accord fully, I must sound a cautionary note by loading up the House of Commons. We will sacrifice efficiency and effectiveness if we expand the House indefinitely. The House must continue to evolve to allow members to better represent their constituents.
September 9, 1992

Tonight I thought I would express my views on one or two aspects of the Constitution. I want to go on to say a few words about the social and economic union. I am disappointed that we did not achieve full economic union. I encourage the government and the premiers to examine the issue of an economic union very closely. The initial agreement of July 7 had 13 exceptions. That is far too many. We need to bring down our trade barriers. We need to organize our economy on an efficient level and this is one of the challenges of the future.
In closing, I want to thank those who contributed to the making of this constitutional accord. First and foremost, I want to thank the leaders of our provinces and the Prime Minister and especially the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They did a tremendous job and put in a lot of long hours.
I especially want to pay tribute to Don Getty who achieved a lifelong dream for many Albertans of a Triple-E Senate, an elected Senate. Mr. Getty announced his resignation today. He will be noted in history has having made a vital and outstanding contribution.
I want to also thank those Canadians who participated in the many commissions and who will participate in the referendum. There is a lot at stake for each and every one of us and I encourage every Canadian to get out and vote to support this accord.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to briefly speak on the question of the Canadian Constitution.
I want members to know that I intend to support the constitutional agreement reached by the federal government, by the provincial and territorial first ministers and by aboriginal leaders in Charlottetown on August 28. I will be encouraging people in my constituency to support the agreement and I hope that all Canada will support it
Government Orders
when it comes to the referendum to be held on October 26.
Many members have indicated that this agreement is essentially a compromise. Nobody who went to Charlottetown on August 28 really came out of that meeting with all they were demanding or exactly what they were demanding. Like any agreement in a democracy, people make demands, expect to concede in some areas and to gain in others. I believe that what came out of Charlottetown was probably the best that a collection of first ministers and aboriginal groups, representing diverse areas of the country and diverse groups within the communities of this country, could possibly hope to achieve.
As the previous speaker suggested, all Canadians should be congratulated on the effort that went into achieving this agreement and the tremendous amount of time, interest and enthusiasm that was put into it by all Canadians.
As many members have pointed out today, the agreement is not perfection. If any of us were capable of perfection, whether in drafting a constitution or drafting legislation, there would no longer be a use for an entity such as Parliament and we could close down and go home now. Therefore, I do not think we are going to get perfection.
When some members were speaking I was concerned about the fact that they said: "Thank goodness it is all over. The constitutional fatigue that has set in will be finished on October 26". I have a message for those folks as well. This country has probably been involved in the constitutional game a lot longer than any other country on the globe, from the time of the military orders that were passed by Guy Carleton and Governor Murray in Quebec City in 1759, through the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act of 1774, the Constitution Act of 1791, the new Constitution in 1840 and 1841, and the Constitution of 1867 and 1982.
Given the perspective of Canadian constitutional history, I am not convinced that the constitutional issue will be closed when Canadians vote yes for this constitutional agreement on October 26 of this year.
Having said that, it has to be acknowledged that at Charlottetown some very dramatic things were achieved by those who were involved in this constitutional debate. First and foremost is the acknowledgement that Quebec, should the referendum pass in Quebec on October 26, will become a party to this agreement and will become a part of the Canadian constitutional family. Its unique cultural and historic position in the Canadian union will be recognized in the Constitution.

Government Orders
The real progress that has been made in this constitutional document and I think one that held up the Meech Lake accord is the recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. In recognizing an inherent right this Constitution is not creating a right for aboriginal people. It is doing what is unique among the nations of the world, and that is recognizing aboriginal people have had this right to self-government since before we non-aboriginal people came here, from time immemorial.
It means they have the right to make laws, to govern their own people, to enter into agreements with Canada as to which laws of Canada and the provinces will be binding on aboriginal people. It is quite a unique position for aboriginal people to occupy in a constitution in any country around the globe. As time wears on, the one thing that will be recognized around the world about this Constitution is the revolutionary change that has taken place in Canada with respect to the constitutional recognition of aboriginal people.
This part of the document will become a model for other countries of the world to work on, to improve on, and perhaps those improvements having been adopted in other countries will then be brought back to Canada and Canada may build on those improvements as well. Therefore I think in that part of this document we have created a lesson for all of the world, and it is a lesson all Canadians can be proud of.
Nobody can really understand what aboriginal people in this country have gone through over the last few centuries. When European colonists first came here in the 15th and 16th century they found aboriginal civilizations that were more highly developed than the civilizations they came from in Europe that were just emerging from the Dark Ages. They respected those people and feared those people because of their superior civilization and organization. Rather than conquering them which they did not think they were able to do, they traded with them, entered into agreements with them, recognized them as sovereign powers and signed treaties of mutual friendship and mutual support with them.
Somewhere along the line the Europeans who came to this continent did gain power and were able to exercise that power over the aboriginal civilizations, to suppress them, to colonize them, to marginalize them, and to make them second-class citizens. It is an era of shame
that all Canadians, all North Americans, should be ashamed of.
What has been done with this Constitution in terms of recognizing aboriginal Canadians as an important part of our society, recognizing the historic contribution that aboriginal people have played, and recognizing the inherent right of self-government they enjoyed on this continent from time immemorial, is one of the unique things that has ever happened in this country.
As I say, it is going to be a model and a lesson for the rest of the world. That is one thing about this constitutional accord that I am extremely proud of.
It has been mentioned tonight that one of the things we can boast about getting out of this constitutional agreement is the Triple-E Senate. It is one of the things I was most concerned about. Throughout most of the period of constitutional debate in North America the debate has been between democratic institutions and institutions that represent the propertied interest, the landed gentry.
You will remember when the Constitution Act of 1791 was put together, Mr. Speaker. It may have been a bit before your time.
I do not want to suggest that you are that old.
The Governor-General of the day suggested that this constitution of 1791 would be the image and transcript of the constitution of Great Britain. What he wanted to see most of all was a house in Canada similar to the House of Lords in London that would put into place an indigenous landed gentry in Canada that could look over the shoulders of the democratic rabble that would be elected to the legislative council.
At that time democracy was considered the equivalent of mob rule and it was felt that the landed gentry should have their own house to oversee the House of Commons, in which the democratic rabble have their deliberations. If they found, after a period of sober second thought, that it was not appropriate legislation they could veto it.
I think that kind of idea has gone out of currency. However, today we still have in Canada that relic, that appointed house, the Senate opposite. Another of the things that has been achieved in this Constitution is the end of that propertied, appointed house that was set in place to oversee as a house of sober second thought the
September 9, 1992

democratic rabble and the mob rule that was supposed to be taking place in the elected legislative council.
Fortunately, that concept has gone out of currency and we are now going to see an elected Senate. I would have preferred to see the Senate abolished because I do not think it is necessary. In fact, I think it is an expensive addition to the House. However, if we must have one in order to achieve a constitutional compromise then we have done the right thing here.
What we have not done is what certain elements in Alberta and across Canada were asking for, which is a Senate that represented individual provinces with an equal number of seats per province and ignored the concept of representation by population. It ignored the democratic concept of one person, one vote.
The compromise we have achieved in the Charlottetown agreement is one that recognizes the supremacy of the democratic principle-one person, one vote. Yet it provides for input-on a province by province basis into decisions that are made within Canada's national democratic institution.
It is not ideal but it is the ideal compromise that we could get out of those two conflicting beliefs. One is that property should be represented and the other is that people should be represented on the basis of one person, one vote.
The other thing that is a unique achievement in this Constitution is the social charter that was introduced. I think the premier of Ontario should be congratulated for keeping this issue before the public. I know it was endorsed in many of the meetings of citizens that were held across the country.
This charter states that public health care will be a national policy of Canada and that adequate social services and benefits including housing, food and the basic necessities of life should be accessible to all Canadians. Quality education systems, the rights of workers to unionize, environmental protection and the goal of full employment; all of these rights are now stated as policy statements within the Canadian Constitution.
Those statements, while they are not judiciable-they cannot be taken to court-at least can stand in the Constitution as instructions to legislative bodies and to governments in Canada so that they know what the sentiments of the people of Canada were at the time this Constitution was drafted.
Government Orders
I do not share the view that this Constitution is going to stand for all time. Members should not expect that on October 26, once the referendum resolution has been passed in all parts of Canada, the constitutional book is then closed. Canadians love the constitutional debate. They may be tired of this particular one.
There are many things within this Constitution that have to be dealt with. How are aboriginal governments going to be structured? How are they going to relate to other governments in Canada and other governments around the world?
How are policies going to be structured? The Constitution is a framework for policy not the polity itself. Canadians must realize as well that constitutions do not create equality. They do not create prosperity. In that sense they are hollow documents. People have to understand that if they are looking for prosperity, if they are looking for equality, they have to elect politicians and governments that make a commitment to those issues.
Once we pass this Constitution and once we develop the new framework, one thing people must do is take a look at the government that they have in Canada today, the government that in my view has done a great deal of damage to the unity of this country, change that government and elect governments that can bring about prosperity within the framework of our new Constitution.
That is going to be the priority of all Canadians after this debate is over on October 26.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to speak not only for my own constituents but also for a great number of Canadians who have expressed their reservations about this latest constitutional package and the impending referendum.
These people have been made to feel a sense of guilt because they have called into question many of the deficiencies of this proposal put forward by the Prime Minister and the premiers on August 28, 1992. These democratically minded citizens have been labelled enemies of Canada for no other reason than that they have chosen to examine the proposal and voice their concerns.
We know from the latest Environics poll that at least 25 per cent of Canadians would fit into this category, enemies of Canada, as determined by our Prime Minister. It is no wonder that Canadians feel intimidated and suppressed when their own government tells them that if they do not agree with this deal they are unpatriotic at best and perhaps even traitorous.

Government Orders
This is a grievous affront to democracy and a dreadful insult to the Canadian people. This is not a referendum on unity or even a referendum on sovereignty. The Quebec government has changed its own question from sovereignty to the substance of this deal. Therefore, let us be very clear about that.
Despite the tactics of the government, abetted by the Liberals and the NDP, a great many Canadians have shown the courage to ask some tough questions about this deal. One of the questions that has been posed to me by my constituents in the past few days is: "How can the House of Commons possibly approve a question for the referendum before the legal text of this agreement is even written?" It is highly unethical to commence a referendum campaign before the voters even know what the agreement really says. "Let the buyer beware" is as meaningful in politics as it is in day-to-day purchasing.
I find it incomprehensible that neither the Liberal Party nor the New Democratic Party needed to see any text at all before they quickly committed themselves to this deal.
Fortunately the Canadian electorate will be making its decision based on the merits or deficiencies of the package rather than on political expediency. I cannot stress this point enough.
It must be made emphatically clear what the public will actually be voting on. Are Canadians to merely vote on a loose set of principles outlined in this so-called consensus report, that incidentally is not even signed? If so, will this loose set of principles be interpreted broadly or will it be interpreted narrowly by the premiers and the federal government?
The fact of the matter is that neither the Canadian public nor the House of Commons, nor even this Prime Minister, knows exactly what we will be voting on. This government has an obligation to produce a legal text before it puts into motion the wheels of a referendum campaign. The bottom line is that we cannot ask the Canadian people to vote on something they have not even seen. That may be good enough for some of the politicians in this Chamber unfortunately, but I do not believe that it is good enough for the Canadian people.
On Thursday of this week, tomorrow, the caucus of nominated Reform Party members will be announcing our formal positions on the constitutional deal itself. We have not succumbed to the political and media pressure to just jump on any bandwagon. Our position will not be based on political expediency but on thorough research and thorough consultation with the people to whom the Constitution actually belongs.
Aside from the fact that the government is asking Canadians to commit to a deal which is not really a deal, it is also asking them to vote on a question that is not really a question. In other words, the referendum question posed by the government is simply not politically neutral. The phrase "Do you agree" is leading language. No pollster worth his or her salt would ever use such a phrase because it biases respondents to automatically say yes. The term "renewed" is an evaluative, not a descriptive word. It has all sorts of positive connotations that imply implicitly support for the package. Gallup, a well respected Canadian pollster, has remarked that this is a particularly loaded term.
The most frightening aspect of this question, however, is that it does not actually ask voters whether they accept the package or not. Rather it asks whether the Constitution should be changed on the basis of the agreement, not on the agreement itself. Why? The answer is because there is no agreement at this point, at least no legal text.
Such an open-ended question will allow the first ministers to alter the agreement after the referendum if they find it expedient to do so and perhaps even to go ahead with ratification despite a no vote in one or more provinces.
Australians go about their constitutional changes by bringing constitutional amendments for ratification through their federal system and only when those amendments are drawn, written up and debated in Parliament do we see that the people are consulted on it.
I think every Canadian who is watching us tonight and who loves this country, regardless of whether they would vote yes or no, is painfully aware that this system is going about it completely backward, where we are asking people to ratify a deal before they have even seen the deal.
September 9, 1992

If the government were truly serious about conducting a fair referendum campaign, it would amend its question by changing the word "renewed" to "amended" and by putting the question on the actual legal text rather than some nebulous agreement.
I appeal to my fellow members' sense of justice and objectivity. If members vote in favour of the wording of this particular question, they must realize that they are voting against a balanced and fair referendum campaign.
There are those who might say that if members vote against the particular wording of this proposed question, they are voting against the referendum itself. This of course is absolute nonsense. It should be pointed out that although I disapprove of this particular phrasing, I am fully behind the concept of public ratification of constitutional amendments through national referen-dums, provided that they are gone about in the right way and that at the end of all these constitutional debates and wranglings and amendments in the federal Parliament as well as every provincial legislature that they would be voted on by people.
Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that I voted for Bill C-81 in the spring despite the many shortcomings that the referendum legislation had. In fact, the Reform Party was the first national party in the House to advocate referendum approval of constitutional amendments. I am aware also that the Liberals have been talking recently about bringing in a referendum but we must also remember that history will bear out that the Liberals have been in charge of this country for roughly two-thirds of our history and this is the first time that we have ever really heard the word referendum. They had many opportunities to bring it about before but it has not come up.
The Liberals have adopted the positions, as with the Tories, albeit reluctantly, but Canadians must ask themselves this question: Why did it take 125 years to do so? The answer lies in the timing. It just so happens that a referendum was deemed to be favourable to their electoral fortunes at this time. Nothing grieves me more than seeing this used as a political tool, rather than an effective means of ratifying something as important as the Constitution of this country.
Government Orders
Political opportunism is evidenced by the fact that they are supporting the biased question now before us. They are merely manipulating the referendum process for political advantage.
I therefore ask all Canadians to take a good hard look at the motivation behind each party's position concerning this question and ask these questions of themselves before they vote on October 26. Is it based on principle? Is it based on consultation with their members and the public or is it based on strategy? I trust that the Canadian public will ask many tough questions and scrutinize the motivation of all members who leaped on to the bandwagon to pass this deal so quickly.
We would hope that the actual legal text that I referred to earlier would be available.
I had a very prominent person say earlier to me today: "I have not seen any legal text, I don't know when I will see any legal text, and I am getting nervous about it and I will be very nervous if I do not see the actual wording of this before October 26".
We all remember painfully the Meech Lake debate and the pain and concern that was demonstrated across the country because of that. Only when the actual text of the Meech Lake accord was put into newspapers across the country was it that Canadians sat up and said "We need to take ownership of this Constitution". When they saw that, they saw that there were deep, deep divisions and serious flaws in the Meech Lake accord. History will bear that out, as I believe history will bear out on this constitutional agreement that was brought forward in Charlottetown, when people get a chance to read it. They are not ignorant, they are not naive. Canadians are not people who would say: "Well, who cares? Let's just get this out of the way". People are deeply concerned about this and when they are given the chance to read the actual legal text I believe that they will do that with conviction and I believe that they will vote regardless of the fact that they may be painted as enemies of Canada by prominent politicians in this country. People are very tired of that.
My friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants referred to that earlier when he said that people are just smouldering with disdain for politicians. I am wondering if this debate will rise above that, or if everyone will just paint it

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
with the stroke of a brush, saying this is political expediency and nothing else.
Recently, one of my Liberal colleagues asked: "Who will speak for Canada?" Yesterday the Prime Minister replied in this Chamber that he would speak for Canada. If that is the case, I must therefore ask who then will speak for Canadians? There can be only one answer. Canadians themselves. This is the Constitution that belongs to them and somehow, finally, we must get to the point in this country where they say: "This is ours and we will take ownership of it, and maybe, just maybe we won't believe everything all the politicians say and we will get hold of this document, whenever it becomes available and we will look at it and we will be allowed to make the decision on this regardless of any amount of political manipulation" which is shown them on TV and I am sure will be in their mailboxes for the next several weeks. They will become very tired of it.
Canadians must be allowed to understand exactly what it is they are voting on. They must be allowed to speak their hearts and minds without fear or threat of being labelled enemies of Canada should their decision not coincide with the Prime Minister's.
The time has come to test the true waters of democracy in Canada. I would encourage anyone watching this debate this evening, anyone who is either politically involved or not politically involved, not just to lie down and say they are tired of listening to this, but to get involved, to read the documents, to talk to people, to phone people with information, and get out and vote on October 26 and not allow themselves to be held ransom to the fact that somebody may be criticizing them, that somebody would say to them: "If you vote yes you are a proud Canadian, but if you don't vote yes then you must not be a proud Canadian".
I have been labelled personally an enemy of Canada, in this Chamber and across the country, by the Prime Minister and some other senior cabinet representatives.
I want it on the record that I am offended by that; that I, as well as hundreds of thousands of Canadians who I am speaking for are offended and I daresay resent the fact that because they are trying to look at this in a reasoned and intelligent light that they would be called that. I would beg and implore people in this House of Commons and in the Senate and anywhere else where people are going to campaign as they freely may on the yes side
or the no side, that they would rise above that and that we would look at what this is for and exactly what it will do.
Will it freeze the Senate? I do not believe that the third E, effective, will do any good. I believe that when the Senate says in its highlights that we looked at, where we see such things as each province would be assigned six senators and each territory one, that is a breakthrough for the first E of equal. Then we see where they say that additional seats would be added to represent the aboriginal peoples of Canada. If I could see that in a legal text I may be able to have the question answered, how many seats, when, where, how? And then, regarding the second E, election; elections of senators could be by the people, which is what we thought was going to happen. That was wonderful. And then the second half of that sentence says "or by their provincial or territorial legislatures". That means, then, that election of senators is virtually non-existent. It says they can be elected then by their provincial or territorial legislatures.
Maybe things have not come as far as we thought they would. When my premier, Don Getty, came home a couple of weeks ago from Charlottetown saying: "I am Mr. Triple-E. I got a Triple-E. I am all in favour of the yes-side of this referendum." Today, less than 24 hours after legislation is put into place, he resigns. Could this be an abdication from somebody who went home and realized that it is not going to fly? This is no more Triple-E than flying to the moon.
People need to look at this document, test the waters, see what they think of it and in all good conscience vote either yes or no to it, but only after they have taken the time to study the document. Hopefully, the government will bring out the legal text so we will really know what it is we are voting on for Canada.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I must take a couple of moments at the outset of my comments this evening simply to respond to a couple of the comments that have just been made by the hon. member for Beaver River.
I have to say I am saddened by the tone and the negative approach of this hon. member in her comments here this evening. She claims to have been offended by comments alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister in which she claims to have been labelled as an enemy of Canada.
September 9, 1992

It is only fair that I set the record straight. The only people who are enemies of Canada are those who would choose to split this country up. Those in the province of Quebec we know well. There may be others in other parts of the country. They can only select themselves.
I believe the Prime Minister has made it clear. There is no question about it when he made a comment in reference to people being enemies of Canada, he was speaking of separatists who declared themselves as separatists and nobody else. I do not think it contributes to this debate to perpetuate that misconception because it is only in the narrow, partisan interests of certain people to perpetuate that kind of unfair characterization of comments.
I have every belief that the hon. member for Beaver River is not an enemy of Canada. I believe people are entitled to differences of opinion on this issue and should not be an enemy of Canada and are not enemies of Canada but simply hold different points of view. To perpetuate this unfair characterization does not serve this debate whatsoever. I would hope that the hon. member would recognize that.
Second, there was a suggestion made that Canadians would not have access to information in this debate. Let me put that to bed right now. Canadians will have full information, including the legal text on this debate, well before October 26 so that they can analyse and understand it. Why in the world would 13 governments and aboriginal leaders in Canada agree to something where they could not put the facts before the people and allow people to make their decisions? They would not do that. That is not a rational decision they would enter into.
I think the people should take a rational and reasonable look at this case. We are all Canadians and we are engaged in a very important debate. All sides of the issue have to be reviewed. People have to look at the information and make up their own minds. That is what I genuinely hope will happen during the course of this debate. I hope that we will not have negative partisan perspectives put forward during the course of this debate, but rather that people will speak from the heart to the issue of Canada, to the future of this nation and to the future that we can all build together.
I am really delighted to have the opportunity to speak here this evening in this important debate. This is an historic debate. Only twice before in this country have Canadians had the opportunity to speak in a referendum
Government Orders
in this manner. That is important because referenda do not happen very often in this country. In this nation it is really a measure of our youth and it is a measure of the fact we have only 125 years of maturity behind us that we have experienced only two such events. That means we should take this question very seriously and consider it extremely carefully.
Most important, we have never had an opportunity to vote as a people on such a fundamental and defining characteristic, a defining question, as the one that we have here before us today. This question allows us to go to the very heart of how we define ourselves as a nation, how we treat each other, how we respond to the needs of the diverse regions of this country, how we start over again in building a relationship between aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, how much respect Canadians are prepared to accord to each other, and to bring it right home, how much we respect ourselves as individuals.
As someone who has laboured long and hard over the last three and a half years, first of all working with people on issues that affect aboriginal Canadians and, second, over the last year on this national unity issue, I am very proud of the accomplishments of the various leaders of this country and the outcome they have been able to achieve in this agreement.
When the Canada round takes its place in the history books that future generations of Canadians will study, it will be remembered as much for its effort to consult as many Canadians as possible on renewed federalism as it will for its success in reconciling differences that have troubled Canada since Confederation.
I have to come back to one point. My colleague from Beaver River suggested that we should ask ourselves what was the basis for our decision to support this package. Was it a question of principle? Your are damn right it was a question of principle. This package has aspects to it that I think lead us to a stronger, more united country, a stronger economy, a better way of life for our people. Was there consultation with Canadians? There has never been consultation with Canadians like there has been over the last two years. Never in the history of this country and never in the history of any western industrialized nation like Canada has there been a consultation like there was in this case to hear from Canadians what their views were, to distil that, to work it through, to work with Canadians who were keenly interested in the issue to arrive at a result.

Government Orders
That has not been done anywhere before. The consultation has been thorough. This is simply the last step in a very long process. I would hope that we would be able on October 26 to finish that off in a manner that does justice to all Canadians and responds to the very real need to have direct input from every single Canadian who has an interest in doing that.
The effort to consult Canadians on the shape they want for their country and to take the time to do that has been fully justified. Canadians felt the time was ripe for change and they wanted to play an active role in determining it. Though the call for reform took different forms in different parts of the country, Canadians held a common wish that their federation reflect and anticipate the challenges of the next century. As much as any other region, it was important for leaders of western Canada to hear the concerns of their constituents and bring them to the negotiating table. That is exactly what happened. Their bottom line objectives soon became very clear.
Any final agreement would have to result in a fairer, a stronger and a more united Canada. It would have to provide for a more effective regional voice in national affairs for Canada's regions and it would have to preserve the federal government's ability to act in national interests. These objectives and many others were met in the Charlottetown First Ministers' Conference on August 28. Most significantly, the Canada round was shaped by the recognition of the principle of equality of the provinces. In turn, this was also reconciled with the equality of individuals and that of Canada's founding linguistic groups.
Great strides have been made in the Canada round to reform Canada's national institutions. For western Canadians the agreement of the provinces on a reformed Senate is a tremendous victory.
Let us not compare this package to the ideal, to the best Senate one can ever dream up or the best Senate an academic can put together on paper. Let us compare this proposal to reality, to the Senate we have today and to where we are today: a Senate which is not elected, which
because it does not have electoral legitimacy is not able to be effective. It is not equal; it does not represent all regions, all provinces of the country equally. The proposal in this package is miles ahead of the existing situation so let us compare the new proposal to the current reality, not to some ideal that somebody might have.
This new Senate will give all regions including the western provinces more clout. Together western seats will account for a full 40 per cent of the entire Senate. With a 62-seat Upper House it will be far more effective and people oriented.
Just think of it, with only six senators the citizens of Alberta will all probably know the names of their senators. They will know who they are. They will know how they stand on important issues. They will know whether or not they are effective representatives of Albertans in the national government. That can only be a tremendous step forward.
A new partnership in this package is also formed with aboriginal peoples. They will be represented in the new Senate. Their numbers and the distribution of those seats will be settled at a later date, but the commitment is there to aboriginal people to be involved at the core, at the centre of this country.
Most important, the six senators from Alberta will have the same clout as the six senators from Ontario, as the six senators from Quebec, as the six senators from British Columbia and as the six senators from any other province. That is an important consideration to keep in mind.
The Senate will be able to put the brakes on the power of the government and of the House of Commons by forcing the government to take the Senate into account in preparing legislation. That is a very important consideration.
The Senate will also have the power to block bills on fundamental tax policy changes directly affecting natural resources by way of a simple majority preventing arbitrary and discriminatory measures like the National Energy Program from which we suffered so greatly in Alberta.
September 9, 1992

On supply bills the Senate will have a 30-day suspensive veto. The Senate is also a marked improvement over the existing one in that it will have the ability to block ratification of appointments to federal boards and agencies. This is an often forgotten element of influence or in fact direct power this Senate will have.
We often forget myriad federal agencies out there that have regulatory authority over the lives of Canadians through one means or another. I think of the CRTC, the National Energy Board, the Bank of Canada, or many other bodies. The heads of those agencies and many other national agencies will be named by the Prime Minister but they have to be approved by the Senate. This takes power directly away from the Prime Minister and gives it directly to the regions of this country and to the Senate of this country. That is a very important change that we have not experienced in this country before.
In addition all other legislation will, if defeated by the Senate, trigger a joint sitting where a simple majority will decide the passage or defeat of legislation. Indeed future constitutional amendments related to the Senate will require the unanimous agreement of Parliament and all the provincial legislatures.
In the House of Commons the number of seats will be increased modestly in order to reflect the principle of representation by population. The increase goes from 295 to 337 seats, but we have to keep in mind that the number of parliamentarians, senators plus members of the House, stays the same. We are shrinking the size of the Senate and are increasing the size of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that I have only a couple of minutes left. I could go on for quite a while longer because there are many very constructive and positive aspects. However, let me wrap up on the issue of the recognition of the inherent right to self-government for aboriginal people within Canada.
I am very proud of this. I was very proud to be a part of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, a part of the committee that worked with aboriginal groups to help define the parameters within which this proposal would work. I was
Government Orders
very pleased to see that taken up by the First Ministers and by the other leaders.
I think that it is a tremendous leap forward for this whole country, not just for aboriginal people. It is for this whole country. What we are doing is taking the old view of things. We are taking the old Indian Act which was drafted in the 1800s and which was based on a colonial mentality. We are saying that that moves aside.
In its place, we have a new recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves, to provide their own leadership, to govern their own communities and to provide the kind of internal strength that emerges from that kind of a system.
This is probably one of the most important aspects of this proposal. I am delighted to see it there as somebody who has worked closely with aboriginal people in this country for the last nearly four years. I am delighted to see it there. I ask all Albertans regardless of political stripe or orientation to join with us, to debate these issues and to support yes on October 26.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House tonight to speak on the referendum question.
I want to say right off that after speaking to constituents throughout my riding, in Simcoe, Caledonia, Delhi and all around the riding, there is really one feeling, that is the feeling of support. I want to say that there are various reasons that people have come to me to say that they support this deal.
Many of them do not know what is in the deal, frankly, and they understand that. They do not know what is in the legal text. In fact, many of them do not even care what is in the legal text. They figure that it is my job to read that and to explain to them what is in it.
There are many points in this deal that some have problems with. I frankly have problems with a few points in this deal also. I frankly do not like the idea of adding 42 or so members to the House of Commons. I do not think it is necessary. I would have rather seen members of the House of Commons taken away if they had to equalize them.

Government Orders
I do not like the idea that the Prime Minister and premiers could not come to some sort of an agreement on economic barriers between provinces. I frankly see that as a way that we can help rejuvenate the Canadian economy, if we can start breaking down some of these barriers.
I do not like the idea of the Senate, and I do not like the idea that much of this constitutional deal is still up in the air. I could probably nit-pick this deal to death, but I will not. I will not ask my constituents to do that either because there are those out there who will surely during this debate come to them. They will tell the little individual parts of this deal that they do not think is right.
I realize as I think my constituents realize that for the good of the country, this deal has to be ratified. I believe it has to be ratified now. I am not saying as some have that those who are against the deal are traitors. I do not believe they are. What I am saying is that those who vote against this deal would have us debate constitutional deals and wrangle over this Constitution for years and years to come.
I am one who frankly does not believe that this country can put up with this any longer. I believe this would play into the hands of those in Quebec who are separatists and those who do not want to see a strong and united Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you and I say to Canadians that this has not been an easy deal to reach, nor is it an easy one for most people to understand. Even though we have yet to see the legal text, there is information out there for Canadians to read.
The Government of Canada has put out a booklet for Canadians to read and they can receive it by calling the 1-800 number which is 1-800-561-1188. Canadians can get this and they can read it. If they do not know the answers to some of their questions, they should be calling their members of Parliament.
I say to my colleagues in the House here tonight that we should be studying this deal and we should be looking at the legal text. We should be telling Canadians what is in here and why it is that we feel that they should support this deal.
The fault of our national unity problems do not lie in one part of the country or another or with one group of Canadians or another group of Canadians. Sadly it is uniformly spread throughout this country. It is not only a Quebec problem, it is a national problem. It is not only an English versus a French or a French versus an English problem, it is a problem for all Canadians to face. It is a problem dealing with western alienation and eastern provincial poverty levels where rates of unemployment have reached some Third World levels.
Intolerance seems to be a product of hard times in this country. I see it surrounding us in today's society. Unless we as politicians deal with some of these problems I believe intolerance will overtake us.
We will not solve these problems by putting the blame on somebody else because we are going to need everyone in this country to help solve this problem. We need everyone pulling together.
I know this debate is confusing. It is confusing and irrelevant to people's day-to-day struggles. I know Canadians are concerned about the health of the Canadian economy. I know they are worried about their jobs, their families, and about the future of their children.
I know if you are in a small business your business has probably been off 30 per cent or 40 per cent this year. If you are a lawyer or an accountant, your client base is down and you are dealing with too many bankruptcies. If you are a farmer, you have had some of the lowest commodity prices ever. In fact, I know some farmers who have had to turn to welfare. Farmers having to turn to welfare.
I know taxes are too high. I know the national debt is a problem and bureaucrats in Ottawa and throughout the provinces seem to be out of control.
I know that governments and politicians do not seem to be listening. But let us not let these problems skew our vision of this country. Let us not misdirect these fears or these misunderstandings into hate for our national institution or, indeed, our country.
I believe our economic problems will not be solved unless we deal first with this national unity problem and I believe there are solutions. I do believe we are slowly coming to a consensus in this country as to the answers of how to resolve them but there is much work ahead,

and there are many bridges to go over before we solve this problem.
We as Canadians need to rejuvenate national pride and restore a national sense of purpose and a common cause in this country. But let me warn you we do have a difficult task ahead. People are upset. They are upset with politics, they are upset with politicians, with government, with national institutions, and certainly they are upset with these constitutional discussions. Some believe the breakup of this country is inevitable. In fact, some believe it is a better alternative for this country, but better for whom?
It is certainly not better for Ontario, which I represent, with $20 billion of trade and 400,000 jobs depending upon a trading relationship with the province of Quebec. Certainly we cannot have a strong Ontario, we cannot have a strong Haldimand-Norfolk without a unified Canada.
Ontario is in a unique position on this debate. In fact, it is a major partner in Confederation. It is the motor that runs the nation, and the bridge between the east and the west in this country. We in Ontario, especially in rural Ontario, must play an active role in defining the type of Canada we want.
To those who say the breakup of this country is inevitable, I say no. To those who say we will break up and we cannot solve these national unity problems, I say this country will be unified and we can reignite the political will to reunite this country.
To those who say it will go away if we ignore it, I say you are being silly. These problems do not go away and they may never go away. But I say national unity and this economy go hand in hand. If we want to tackle the problems of the economy we must first tackle the problems of national unity. That means dealing once and for all with this constitutional question that is before us today.
This country was built on compassion, compromise and understanding between peoples who came to this country and who worked hard and well. Our forefathers came from all parts of the world, especially in Haldimand- Norfolk, where people came from different parts of Europe and who built farming communities and agricultural products and agricultural commodity groups that have really been the envy of the world.
It would help, though, if we knew a little bit more as Canadians about our history, how we have stayed togeth-
Govemment Orders
er as a country and what it is we have accomplished together over these past 125 years. Surely no one is aware in this country that the three main peoples-the English, the French and the aboriginal peoples-lived in harmony in Canada prior to the foreign French and English wars that transformed lower Canada into a battleground in 1759. In 1774, when all was said and done, the Quebec Act gave French Canadians in the lower St. Lawrence the right to their language, their religion and their civil law. They did this because they knew what was happening south of the border in 1776. They knew what was coming and so this is what happened.
The Quebec Act was recognition of what we call today a distinct society. We would not be a country today if the First Nations or the French on the St. Lawrence, upper Canadians and United Empire Loyalists had not supported a British North America in 1812. Does anyone in upper Canada think that they could have defended themselves without the help of the first peoples or the French in Quebec? I do not think so.
Have we have forgotten Chateauguay, where 500 British North American troops, 90 per cent of them French Canadians, drove back and defeated an American army of some 7,000? We went through two world wars and the Korean conflict together. We have lost men and women from every part of this country. Have we forgotten as Canadians why we did that?
I believe the problems that we face today as a nation are due to the fact that we have forgotten our history. When difficulties arise, we do not have anything to turn to. We have forgotten why we have become such a great nation. If we are going to save this country we are going to have to start remembering what we have accomplished together and why we have always pulled together and how through working together we have overcome our differences in the past.
We must stop bickering and entrenching our positions or threatening separation if we do not get our way. I believe the common people support the common good and support a united Canada.
The intelligentsia in Quebec or the constitutional purists in other parts of the country and those in Canada who seem to be against everything for nothing but their own political goals will try to convince Canadians that they should vote against this Constitution for various reasons which may seem to Canadians to be important at the time. However, I asked Canadians and the people in my constituency to look at the bigger picture.

Government Orders
I believe we are debating tonight the future of this country and I would not say otherwise. I believe we are talking about a country that can no longer deal with the constitutional wrangling. I believe that the costs have been too great already for our country, not only economically but a cost in human pride for the country.
We as a country have always believed that it is better for us to work out our differences because in the end history has proven that we as a country have stayed stronger united than in little pieces. That is why in the end we will stay together, because we have survived some of the most divisive issues facing this country and in doing so we have become stronger not only as a country but as individual Canadians.
I ask that constituents in my area look at this constitutional debate. Look at this referendum openly and ask yourself the question, what is the alternative? Are the problems or the differences you have in this referendum big enough to break up this country?


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the Chamber again with a colleague whom I just heard speak from Haldimand- Norfolk.
I had an enjoyable visit to another country this summer, one that I might add probably has far more and far greater problems than Canada. It is an ally and a friend of Canada, Israel. However, that is for another day.
I would like to begin by asking those who are listening this evening across this land and those who may read the odd speech to remember that in this building there is a Peace Tower and in that Peace Tower is a chapel. In the chapel are the names of Canadians from every province of almost every nationality who fought and in the Boer War, 1902, in World War I, World War II, and the Korean war on behalf of this country and gave their lives. They were probably French Canadians, Metis Canadians and German Canadians. There is no end. Their names are there for all history to see.
Over the last 125 years Canada has evolved into a country recognized the world over as a peacekeeping nation that finds compromise before it seeks conflict. We had a great Prime Minister by the name of Lester B. Pearson, and others who preceded him, who probably set the tone for Canada. It is our responsibility as legislators to protect that image through any compromise necessary as long as it keeps our nation strong and builds a future for our young people. That is our duty and our job as
elected people representing this great nation from coast to coast, of any political stripe.
I look, first of all, at those other great nations, and there are too many to mention, but I will just mention a few. Can any here imagine the United States of America without the great states of California or Texas? Can anybody imagine England without Wales or France without Normandy today? Germany, which was divided because of a ruthless leader, once again finds itself united. In fact, Europe strives to find a way to not only unite itself economically but politically. Obviously, that is a different scenario.
What about Canada? What has caused some people to feel that Canada should be divided by some people? I believe that it was not led by grassroots individuals. This country faces the demise it faces today because of political leaders who led through the desire for power, possibly. It was started by a visitor who stimulated that independence movement in Quebec and was followed by some individuals who saw themselves leading a province out of Confederation.
We know there was a vote once before in the great province of Quebec and people rejected that thesis, and there was a collective sigh of relief. However, since then the stimulation has occurred again. In my view, this time it is not just driven by some factions in Quebec but by people outside.
For example, I want to bring to the attention of the House a recent occurrence when a minister of the Crown announced the expansion of some armouries and military installations. The Government of Canada spends $11 billion a year on defence. It is going to spend $165 million on a former air force base in my riding. That seemed to sit well with everybody else. However, when less than $12 million was just announced for an armoury in the province of Quebec some very zealous leaders of this country stood up and said: "See what I mean. They are giving it all to Quebec". I resent that capitalization on what are normal expenditures by ministers across this great land. The government is spending $165 million in my constituency, and that is fine. However, when a lousy $12 million is announced for an armoury in Quebec for the reserves, of which my son is a member-not in Quebec but in Winnipeg-because he believes he would like to be a peacekeeper if that occurred, what did we get? We got political leaders jumping opportunism in the worst way and saying this is no good for Canada. This is what I mean when one part of the country gets everything, especially Quebec. I am sick and tired of that nonsense because it is just not true.
September 9, 1992

What made matters worse at that very instant was some of our journalistic people who like the sensationalism of the National Enquirer headlines, jumping on it and saying "see, folks, headlines, Quebec gets it all". What kind of nonsense is this? It is up to us to dispel those wrongful happenings and bring some sense to the government and the opposition which are looking at a referendum-and I see there is a vast amount of support-to follow it.
What is the problem? We have gone for 10 years looking at our Constitution and wanting to find a solution. I believe, and pardon the expression, what has happened after the 10 years of consultations since 1982 and the troubles and the discussions, the thousands of meetings, the millions of words, we do not have a pig in the poke anymore when it comes to a new constitutional effort.
I think we have something real when we have the premiers for the second time working, not behind closed doors, but in a very public way as best they could, with countless advisers, the two leaders of the territories as well as our native leaders. I think they have come up with something, albeit I would not like every part of it but I can compromise. Maybe some members opposite do not think it is perfect but I am sure they would like to compromise rather than go through another 10 years. There has to come a time when we look at it and say enough is enough. It will probably work as well as anything we could come up with in another 10 years.
There you have it. What is really important today is to look from coast to coast. We have a fishing problem on the Atlantic coast. There are people without jobs. It is not the government's fault. We did not steal the fish out of the water, but there is a problem. There is an economic problem. We are ending up in a recession in Ontario. The real machinery, the real engine of this country is in a recession. Some people may want to blame it on the government but recessions do occur. I am sure they would like this government to spend some more time on that issue as soon as it could.
Government Orders
In Manitoba, right here in the prairie provinces, we have heard what has happened to the tremendous grain crop that developed in the ridings of Alberta where there was such a tremendous amount of snow and a very promising crop. What are the chances of those farmers reaping even a possibility of a profit after having to fight every way they can, using government programs that were put in by a government to assist when they were needed? Still what are their chances of making a great profit on what was going to be and is now a difficult year? As it rains, grain cut, thousands of tonnes, will probably be lost because they are sprouting and there will be of no value, not only to Canadians who like to sell them to the market, but to those starving people we have supplied food to for so many years.
The oil prices in Alberta have not been the greatest. There are difficulties there. I suppose the only place we can suggest things are not too bad is in British Columbia. We do not hear about a lot of problems there but I am sure if I talked to my colleagues out there they would know. As we speak tonight there is a possibility of a merger of an airline. I would hate to see a western developed airline maybe somehow end up not existing anymore. Is that the government's fault? I think we have probably had overkill in the airline industry. We had too much servicing and too few people and so there is a merger. What does that mean to consumers in terms of price? As the chairman of the consumer and corporate affairs committee, I intend to make that an issue. How can we look after consumers, or shall we let the marketplace? Just throw it at the market and whatever happens, happens. We have an obligation and I think it is important for us to look at these different situations.
I know I do not have a lot of time, but I say to you, Sir, and to those who view this as a very serious issue that the riding I represent of Portage-Interlake has as much history in it as any other western province. Obviously it was developed and settled by the French coureurs des bois, the great Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company, both of which still exist today.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Our country would never have grown without the participation of our two groups of founding peoples. Also, it would not have sustained and have become labelled the number one category by the United Nations. I believe it is likely to remain the number one nation.
Perhaps we could put our collective head together and get out of this dog fight of who can become the leader on the basis of dissension. Why do we not find out who will remain the leader and who will become the next leaders based on what we can collectively do together to find jobs for young people like these young pages who have joined us once again for another year? They will see how from time to time this House of Commons acts, and they will not be here every night this late, I can assure them.
However, that is our goal. That is the goal of the collective sides of this House of Commons. I really have no time of day for those who would see this country divided, who would put thoughts into peoples' minds that we would be better off to split the country up because no sovereignty type of an agreement is possible. I do not believe that. I think the Prime Minister put it best when he stated that other parts of Canada had compromised in a major way to see that Quebec would be an equal partner, with some differences admittedly, for another 125 years.
I would like to pay tribute to one particular gentleman who is not with us this evening, the right hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs who was dedicated to the work of bringing this very difficult subject together in the form of the package which was agreed upon in Charlottetown. I say to him that this country indeed owes him a great deal of respect for the time and effort he has put into it. Before it is done, which is not too long from now, I believe we will have a strong and united Canada and, yes, I intend to support it with a yes vote.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today the following motion proposed by the government:
That, pursuant to the act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of the referendum question:
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?"
I would like to refer to the consensus report on the Constitution. It is a report which is not signed and it is not binding. It has many flaws. How can we vote positively or negatively if the final document is not available? The legal document is not available.
Any constitution has a legal implication. Every word in a constitution has a legal implication. It is going to be interpreted by judges and lawyers in the future.
As I said, we do not have that legal document. What we have is a consensus report. We are trying to amend a Constitution that has served Canada relatively well for the last 125 years. The Prime Minister of Canada indicated to the people of Canada that this Constitution had not worked well and that we needed changes to it. Instead of addressing the fundamental problems Canada faces today, that is economic problems, he garnered all the energies of the premiers of the provinces and of the federal government to deal with the constitutional issue that is certainly not in the forefront of the preoccupation of the average Canadian. The average Canadian believes that we have to address economic issues first, be competitive, have higher productivity, have security of employment and jobs for the 1.6 million Canadians who are unemployed today.
Ask yourself: does this consensus report pass the constitutional test? I would like to elaborate on that.
First, would this document provide for Canadians to have constant input on constitutional amendments or changes? I would say no because there is no mechanism for binding referendums that would allow Canadians to deal with such issues as amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, there should be a provision in any constitutional amendment to have a referendum process that is binding on the government. This is essential if we believe in democracy.
Second, a constitution should have provisions that all
its citizens are being treated equally, and again it fails on
that second point.
September 9, 1992

In our Constitution there is a provision of a notwithstanding clause. A notwithstanding clause is a clause that allows for governments, both federal and provincial, to opt out on issues that infringe on human rights and equality. This question of the notwithstanding clause has not been addressed by the consensus report on the Constitution, and I wonder why.
At this point I would like to mention that the Prime Minister of Canada said not so long ago in this House that a constitution that contains a notwithstanding clause is not worth the paper it is written on. So tell me why he has not addressed this fundamental question of equality.
Third, a constitutional amendment should articulate a vision and the fundamental values of a nation. This document is being sold on the basis that the west is finally being admitted into this new Confederation of unequal basis. As well Quebec will rejoin Confederation as a signatory to the Canadian Constitution and this will stop the constant bickering and fighting in Canada.
I would like to quote from The Toronto Star of Monday, September 7, 1992. It says: "Vote on unity won't settle our demands, Bourassa says". Is the bickering going to stop on October 26? Certainly not.
Fourth, any constitutional document should be clear, simple and flexible. This consensus report on the Constitution would probably make world history in bringing into constitutional documents a series of political objectives underlying the social and economic union. I like to quote. It states further that those policy objectives or provisions should not be justiciable. I had to look in the dictionary to find out justiciable means. It simply means that you cannot challenge it in courts. This is a constitutional proposal that probably existed in the Soviet Union where you could not challenge it in the courts.
Now we have two unacceptable provisions in this new drafted Constitution: the notwithstanding clause and the provision that certain elements of that Constitution would not be justiciable.
As you know, I have been an ardent supporter of parliamentary reform. I believe in binding referendums. As well I do believe that the Senate should be reformed and that it should be a Triple-E Senate, a Senate that is really elected, that is really effective and that is really equal. What this proposal or this consensus report
Government Orders
suggests is that we will have a bastardized Triple-E Senate. The Senate will be half-elected and the legislatures can appoint senators. The leader of the government simply suggests to the legislature the person who should be a new senator. It is not elected; it is really appointed.
There is also an option to have an election, but as time passes I think that most of the senators would be appointed by the legislatures because we have party discipline in our parliamentary system.
Normally the people should be able to elect senators. Its effectiveness has been cut because there is no veto power. Third, it is not equal because senators who declare themselves francophones-and I would like to quote from the document. Article 14 on the Senate talks about double majority:
The originator of a bill should be responsible for designating whether it materially affects French language or French culture.
We note that the originator of a bill is usually a minister so he can designate a bill the way he feels.
Each designation should be subject to appeal to The Speaker of the Senate under the rules to be established by the Senate. These rules should be designed to provide adequate protection to francophones.
On entering the Senate, senators should be required to declare whether they are francophones for the purpose of the double majority voting rule.
Naturally there would be senators with one vote and senators with two votes.
Any process for challenging these declarations should be left to the rules of the Senate.
On the other hand, article 9 on the Senate states:
Aboriginal representation in the Senate should be guaranteed in the Constitution. Aboriginal Senate seats should be additional to provincial and territorial seats, rather than drawn from any province or territory's allocation of Senate seats.
Aboriginal senators should have the same role and powers as other senators, plus a possible double majority power in relation to certain matters materially affecting Aboriginal people.
We are creating three types of senators: those with one vote, those with two votes, and those with three votes.
These issues and other details relating to Aboriginal representation in the Senate (numbers, distribution, method of selection) will be discussed further by governments and the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples in the early autumn of 1992.

Government Orders
After we have voted on this proposal further discussions are going to take place. I have just quoted two articles and the senators are not equal. Their votes do not count in the same way, and therefore it is a bastardized Triple-E Senate. Some journalists in Quebec call it a One-E Senate, meaning half-elected.
With this proposal there will be first-class senators and second-class senators.
In summary, the question being debated today infers that the Prime Minister and the premiers have in fact reached an agreement. This is not a legal document. What we have is an unsigned declaration. What we have in reality is a manifesto that constitutes the first of future political accords. We have a manifesto that creates new institutions, institutions that will cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money in increased taxation. We have created a constitutional industry for bureaucrats and lawyers.
This is a manifesto that repeatedly refers to the next round of negotiations. It is full of asterisks. What we have is a document supported by the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party that is full of rhetoric and contradictions, convoluted language and anti-political objectives.
We as Canadians now face a national referendum on the constitutional deal concocted by the Prime Minister, the premiers, the territories and aboriginal leaders.
I believe as Canadians in a matured democracy, we should be entitled to make a full assessment of the merits of the deal for extensive debate. We should feel totally free to accept a deal if we think that it will strengthen our nation or to reject it if we do not.
We should not be branded as anti-Canadian if we do reject that deal. I cannot support that deal. It does not meet the criteria put forward by people who believe that the west has been left out of the constitutional fold. Some say you have to hold your nose and vote yes anyway.
The party system that we have has already committed most or all of the members to voting in favour of this agreement. Even so, they have not seen the results of the referendum process. This alone should convince us that we need a real constitutional reform or a real made-in-Canada Constitution.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada's 125th birthday year has generated and is still generating a tremendous sense of
national pride among Canadians, including those who live with me in my riding of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.
One Lachine resident, Andy Lacroix, telephoned my office today to say that he had seen a worn out Canadian flag flying over a Canada Post office and thought it should be replaced. A few days ago, residents of Dorval complained when they noticed that our flag there was not flying high at Dorval airport. Those are two very small examples of the growing pride we share in our nation and its symbols.
Just prior to Canada Day, I was happy to play a role in Parliament for the formal amalgamation of la Chambre de commerce de Montreal and the Montreal Board of Trade. These two great and longstanding associations represent the common interests of the francophone and anglophone business communities in the Montreal area, respectively.
Their amalgamation is again a signal that the leaders of our business community are ready to plan and to build together, and to say yes to working together for Canadian unity at this most critical time in our history.
Today I rise to join this debate to thank all those who were involved in the negotiation process and to congratulate them on the successful completion of an exhausting job, a job extremely well done. This was the most massive and sweeping consultation process that Canadians have ever witnessed and shared. The Spicer commission and the Beaudoin-Dobbie commission laid the groundwork for our elected leaders to follow.
The eventual, unanimous agreement reached in Charlottetown between the Prime Minister, 10 provincial premiers, two territorial leaders and four representatives from the aboriginal community is an exceptional and remarkable accomplishment. The negotiating authorities came from all sides of the political spectrum and from all parts of this extensive and diverse, sometimes perverse, country.
They still succeeded in establishing an accord with unanimity. They are greatly appreciated and will long be remembered.
Perhaps the most remarkable picture Canadians witnessed was the process of compromise which evolved and flourished for the benefit and protection of the whole country. The final success came from hard work and hard choices, both of which were faced each day of the negotiating process.
September 9, 1992

The Prime Minister quoted Sir John A. Macdonald who said 125 years ago: "The whole scheme bears upon its face the marks of compromise". Canadians can and should once again discard their traditional modesty and congratulate one another because we have achieved a remarkable milestone in Canadian and in world history. We have achieved substantial constitutional change without violence or massive political upheaval. We accomplished change through peaceful negotiation and compromise, thereby setting the example for so many others in dispute.
Even the historic Constitution Repatriation Act of 1982 missed the consent of my home province of Quebec. The Prime Minister was accurate and justified in stating that the accord reached in Charlottetown was a uniquely Canadian process of pragmatic compromise and compelling vision. The Prime Minister and our hon. colleagues, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, deserve high praise for their determination, vision, patience and negotiating skills.
The Charlottetown agreement has something for everyone. As the Prime Minister said just yesterday, it enables a new generation of Canadians to say yes to Canada with pride and confidence. This agreement includes a special reference recognizing linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
My Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis community is part of what makes Quebec and Canada unique. My neighbours, including their elected representatives at the municipal, provincial, federal and institutional levels live, work and play in both of Canada's official languages. We appreciate our neighbours and we welcome our differences.
Commitment to vitality and development of minorities is essential for Canada. For over two decades many anglophones in Quebec faced an uncertain future. These uncertainties and lost job opportunities led to a massive migration of our youth and of many qualified citizens. The Charlottetown agreement provides a commitment by all Canadians and their governments in the plural and total sense to the vitality and development of linguistic
Government Orders
minorities. Ratifying this deal I believe will put an end to the uncertainty.
My neighbours in the Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis riding have a responsibility to maintain and expand the links between the two linguistic communities in this great country. Let us commit ourselves and vote to keep all Canadians together. After 66 wonderful years I want to call Canada and Quebec my home forever. I believe that Canada is a tolerant, pluralistic nation where constitutional peace can only lead to shape and foster our economic union, our national identity, our special character and our wonderful heritage.
It is easy to speak of heritage, representing a community like Lachine. Madam Speaker, I know that as a regular visitor you would share with me the sense of glory of the patrimoine, the buildings that have stood for hundreds of years and served the community, religious, educational and municipal and other services. The fur museum is a worth-while visit for anyone taking the time to want to know something of the origins of Canada as the coureurs des bois, the voyageurs, left Lachine to explore and trade with natives across Canada.
We, each and every one of us, have a special role to play. We must persuade ourselves and each other that we are going to win this referendum. We must build bridges of confidence, create partnerships, celebrate our history and rebuild our national pride. We can start by saying yes to Canada, yes to this agreement, and yes to constitutional renewal and peace on October 26.
The United Nations Human Development Index rates Canada as the number one place in the world to live. We also have the seventh largest economy in the world. We have a lot to be proud of and a lot of previous hard work and sacrifice to build upon. As the Prime Minister said on Thesday: "We are so evidently stronger together than we could be apart".
I believe this agreement is good for Canada, good for Quebec, and good for my community and its citizens on the towns bordering Lac-Saint-Louis. We look to approval of this agreement by Canadians as a sign of constitutional peace for generations to come. Please register your support on October 26 for a renewed and revitalized Canada. Vote yes.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight, and in particular to speak after the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who by coincidence is the member for the riding with which my riding is twinned in the bureaucratic nightmare we have all come to know as Voyageur 92.
Certainly I think the hon. member and I have been doing our best to promote Canadian unity and to promote knowledge among young Canadians of each other and of their respective provinces and cities through the efforts we have been making to make these various exchanges work. There have been a few glitches along the way. We hope everything will work out and everything we planned will come to fruition.
I would like to begin my remarks this evening by hearkening back to the comments made before the Standing Committee on External Affairs in June 1990 by Sonny Ramphal, the then soon to retire Secretary General of the Commonwealth. Mr. Ramphal, an outstanding citizen of the world I think and always a very articulate and knowledgeable person, in appearing before the committee spoke to us of the situation Canada was facing at that time which was of course right at the time when the Meech Lake accord was coming undone.
He spoke not to the content of the Meech Lake accord or anything like that, but he spoke to the responsibility, regardless of one's position on that particular constitutional accord, that Canada had toward the rest of the world. He made a plea to the committee that even if Canadians were not willing to save Canada for themselves, they ought to do it out of a sense of responsibility to the world community because to the extent that other countries have looked up to Canada as a place where people of different heritages, linguistic communities, backgrounds, races, et cetera, have been able to live together in not perfect harmony but relative harmony to the extent that the world looked up to Canada in that way.
For Canada to somehow fail that vision by coming undone in some way would be not just a sin against ourselves but a sin against hope, a sin against hope for the entire human race which should we fail would then be in the position of being tempted to the despair of
saying if Canada with all its resources, with its democratic traditions, with its other traditions of tolerance et cetera cannot do it, cannot manage to stay together, cannot manage to find a way for these diverse needs and interests and communities to find a way to live together, then why should other countries which find themselves in much more desperate circumstances even try? It is that responsibility that we are faced with again tonight and in the days to come as Canadians contemplate whether to vote for or against the agreement that was reached in Charlottetown.
It is not a question, as so many people have rightly tried to point out, of being anti-Canada, certainly if one has questions about the agreement-I have some questions about the agreement myself-or even if one is finally moved to oppose the agreement. I would certainly say to those who are thinking about opposing the agreement-and I am speaking now to those who are not committed like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to sovereignty in any event but to Canadians who are not part of that particular opposition to the agreement-to consider the consequences.
They should not operate out of fear, that is not the way it should be looked at, but should seriously consider the consequences as I have just spoken about them in terms of what kind of message that might send to the world. They should also consider what the consequences might be for Canada if we were launched into a scenario in which the separation of Quebec became a real possibility, or even if we were just launched into another long period of constitutional limbo where we could not muster the political energy to finally get around to dealing with some of the problems that so desperately need to be higher on the political agenda than they are able to be because of this preoccupation with the Constitution.
One of the things that Canadians are going to have to do in the coming months is to not let their feelings about the Prime Minister get in the way of their feelings about the country. I think this was a very real problem during the time of the debate around the Meech Lake accord. However, I am not here to debate history. I am here to describe what I think needs to happen in the next little while.
September 9, 1992

Canadians need very much to keep in mind that prime ministers come and go. What we are interested in is the future of a country, a future which will long outlast not only the current prime minister but all of us here in this Chamber. We should be considering not the political status or future or points that may accrue to any one particular leader or party but what is, in the final analysis, good for the country.
I make an analogy, because I do think this is a serious problem, with those who went to war on behalf of this country in various conflicts, whether it was World War I or World War II or the Korean conflict. They did not go off and put their lives on the line for Mackenzie King. They did not go off and put their lives on the line for Sir Robert Borden or Louis St. Laurent. Those who happened to be the Prime Minister or be running the Department of National Defence were subject to all kinds of criticism at that time and rightfully so in many cases. People did not let that get in the way of their willingness to do the higher thing for the country.
That is the attitude that we have to take now and which many Canadians have to take with respect to this agreement. It should be easier to do than it was with respect to the Meech Lake accord because in many respects this Charlottetown accord is not the document that the Prime Minister himself would have written had he had the chance to write it himself. The Prime Minister wanted economic union and the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers to be in the constitutional accord. It is not there.
The Prime Minister was not early on committed to the insertion of the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal peoples into this particular agreement. It is there. Earlier on the Prime Minister did not even take seriously the idea of a social charter or a social covenant, or the social union as it has come to be called in the document that we have before us, but it is there.
There are many things in this particular constitutional accord that we have before us that are there because many others had an opportunity to contribute to this particular process. I think that those many others had that opportunity to contribute partly because of the influence that was brought to bear on the process by my leader, the member for Yukon, and by others from my party. If the House will recall we, as part of the condition for returning to participation in the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, demanded there be a set of conferences.
Government Orders
It was those conferences that overturned the idea of the economic union, rejected it out of hand. It was those conferences that established the need and the widespread acceptance for a social covenant. It was the conference on aboriginal self-government that called for the inclusion of the inherent right of self-government. All along the way this broader participation, coupled with the presence at the table of aboriginal leaders and territorial leaders, made this much broader and more inclusive document, both in terms of process and substance, possible.
I want Canadians who might be listening and others who might be contemplating what they might say to their fellow Canadians over the next little while to realize that this is not something cooked up in the Prime Minister's Office. It is the result of a legitimate process that was far superior to the process that preceded the Meech Lake accord.
For those of us who are unhappy with the current government and not happy with the Prime Minister let us not let that get in the way of seeing what real accomplishments there are, for instance in terms of aboriginal self-government. Looking back on those days in 1990 I think the aboriginal people have a right to feel vindicated by the way in which they were instrumental in bringing down the Meech Lake accord.
I was very worried at the time that they were taking a very big risk, not only with themselves but with the country, and that what they thought they might get out of bringing down the Meech Lake accord they would never get. The fact of the matter is that for them it paid off. They must be thinking about this with a great deal of satisfaction at this point. They have made gains both in terms of what is in the document and also in terms of the participation at the constitutional table, which was unprecedented.
There is one other thing happening here, and I feel compelled to mention it. When I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday he had no qualms about using his speech on the Constitution to promote his own particular economic views. He spoke of the need, as he saw it, for freer trade between the provinces and referred to the free trade agreement. I hope that as the Prime Minister has set the precedent of inserting the free trade debate into constitutional speeches I might be forgiven for saying that there is another constitution being amended in this country now. That is the economic constitution under which we live.

Government Orders
We used to have our own economic constitution, which was obviously impinged upon by international grievance, by GATT and other things. Lately, as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and now with the possibility of a North American free trade agreement we are entering into and I quote no less an authority than Ronald Reagan who said when he was promoting the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that he was changing the economic constitution of North America.
One of the things I hope Canadians will be able to do in the next little while but probably not with as much focus as I would like until after the referendum is to consider also the way in which their economic constitution is being altered and has been altered. Like the political constitution, these agreements are things which, I suppose, have amending formulas and unlike constitutions, they even have abrogation formulas. However, they are very difficult to get out of and they last for a long, long time.
I would hope at the same time as Canadians are thinking about their political constitution and how they regard what is now being put before them that they will think also of these agreements. That is why we suggested today in the House of Commons to no avail that perhaps the government should consider consulting the Canadian people on the North American free trade agreement as well as the Constitution.
I see you waving at me, Madam Speaker. I will try to wrap up very quickly. The fact is there is a great irony happening here. At the same time as I and many others are willing to join with colleagues from other parties in doing the right thing for Canada as a community we are in my judgment, I know others would disagree, but nevertheless, we are engaged in a process with the other hand of government. We are engaged in a process through these various free trade agreements of breaking down the community, of breaking down our ability to act as a community economically speaking, of breaking down our ability to even perceive ourselves as a community through the elimination of borders and control over our own lives.
Let us get our act together. If we are going to build a community with one hand, let us not tear it down with
the other. Let us try to build it up with both hands and consider not only the political constitution we have before us but the economic constitutions we have before us in the form of free trade agreements.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, certainly I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak on this very historic legislation which will give Canadians the opportunity to approve a new constitutional package through a national referendum.
In September of 1864 the Fathers of Confederation met in Charlottetown to create our great country. I am very proud of the fact, being from Prince Edward Island, that just a month ago, in August, Prince Edward Island was given the opportunity to play host to another meeting of historical significance.
I am very proud of our premier, the Hon. Joe Ghiz. His wealth of experience, his knowledge of constitutional matters and his well-known ability to excel under pressure played a very, very important role in the outcome of these negotiations.
As we embark on this historical referendum campaign the words of our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, are worth repeating: "We are a great country and 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".
Canadians recognize that what we have here in Canada is not perfect. But they also recognize that we are a very privileged people compared to the rest of the planet. We have inherited what is widely considered to be the best country in the world in which to live.
It is within that context that I join in this historic debate tonight. As I rise this evening, I hearken back to April 1991 when our leader originally proposed that the best way to handle this whole issue was to hammer out a deal and then put it to the Canadian people through a national referendum.
This was the best way to ensure we could get over this constant stumbling block of constitutional debate that has for many years taken far too much time, effort and energy. I am proud that our leader had the vision 17 months ago to lay out a nine-point plan, a plan that set much of the agenda in the constitutional discussions that followed.
September 9, 1992

I cannot remember a time in our history when an opposition leader has made such a significant contribution to a national debate such as this. Of course, the cornerstone of that package was that these changes are so monumental that Canadian people deserve an opportunity to say yes to Canada, yes to Quebec, yes to the aboriginal people, yes to the east, yes to the west, so that we join in a united effort to put our country on a stable and united road as we prepare for the 21st century.
In speaking with Islanders this summer and throughout the constitutional process I recognize that many of them, including myself, believe we have spent too much time already talking about the Constitution. The time we have spent in debating, in negotiating and in drafting our Constitution is time that could have been spent on serious problems facing this country, like the unemployment problem, improving our education system, and preparing to take on the challenges of increasingly competitive international economy.
To the average Canadian, the significance of the constitutional debate pales in comparison to their need to find work. One of the results of the constitutional reform will affect them in the long run. In the immediate future, their concern is to ensure that their children are well fed and that their rent or their mortgage payments are made.
This is why we have to settle this constitutional problem now, so that our time, efforts and energy can be put to solving some of the other serious problems in this country.
This package may not be perfect but as I say, we cannot afford another 10 years in this country of talking about the Constitution. Those seeking perfection in this deal will simply have to lower their expectations. As I said, it is not perfect, but I honestly believe it is the best deal, the best possible deal that the Government of Canada, the premiers, the aboriginal leaders and the leaders of the territories could have put together.
Canada is a very large and diverse country with many competing interests. In order for us to continue as a strong and united country there has to be some give and take. This deal is good for Canada because it will ensure that we remain united. It provides us with a reformed
Government Orders
Senate. It provides a just and a dignified arrangement for aboriginal people. It strengthens the constitutional commitment to equalization and regional development.
Most important of all is that it supplies the glue needed to hold the country together as we head into the next century. This is important. It is important that we keep this country together and probably more important in my part of the country than anywhere. I come from eastern Canada and the prospect of being cut off from the rest of Canada would have all kinds of social ramifications for easterners.
There is no telling how much investment our country has lost in recent years due to constitutional uncertainty. The jobs that this investment could have created are desperately needed, not only in my province of Prince Edward Island but all across this country.
I say in this Chamber today to the constituents of my riding of Malpeque, to Islanders and to Canadians that this is our opportunity to put the national unity uncertainty behind us and unify our future together.
Let us take the opportunity so that future generations will benefit from the strength that our country will gain from putting the constitutional uncertainty behind us.
If our leaders are to spend or had to spend another decade dealing with the Constitution and national unity, then surely many of the crucial issues facing Canadians would not be dealt with in an adequate way.
Today we have this referendum question before us and certainly I will be supporting it.
I realize that there are risks involved in referendums. Referendums can be divisive as some people say, but they can also be unifying because they give us all an opportunity to say yes to Canada, yes to Quebec, yes to the aboriginal people, yes to the east and yes to the west. Therefore, they can have a very unifying effect in this country. I would say that on this issue there is as much or more risk in not holding a referendum.
I believe that the Constitution belongs to the people. Therefore, it is only just that Canadians should have an opportunity to approve the deal through a referendum.

Government Orders
When this referendum legislation is passed, and it certainly appears that it will be passed in this House of Commons, the responsibility for the results of this measure will move from the hands of the politicians to the hands of individual Canadians.
Surely Canadians will stand up to this challenge as previous generations have had to do and as our forefathers did 128 years ago in Charlottetown.
If you visit the legislative chamber of Province House in Charlottetown, the room where the basis was established for Confederation in 1864, you will see a bronze plaque which commemorates their efforts. The plaque reads:
In the Hearts and Minds of the Delegates Who Assembled In This
Room on September 1, 1864 Was Bom the Dominion of Canada.
Providence being their guide They Builded Better than They Knew.
On September 1, 1864, our Fathers of Confederation gathered to create a country that has since become second to none.
Over the next few months Canadians will have an opportunity to ensure that the country that these people built will remain strong, united and independent.
I believe Canadians are up to that task. When they go to the polls on October 26 across the country, we will emerge as our forefathers did with a country that is better, stronger and ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: This evening, Madam Speaker, I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but we have been discussing the Constitution for so many years that all of us are or claim to have become constitutional experts.
There will be a referendum on October 26. Pursuant to Bill 150 passed in Quebec, the referendum was to be on Quebec sovereignty. We know the Quebec government has proposed amendments to hold a referendum on the offers instead. However, how can one possibly agree with the agreement reached in Charlottetown on August 28 when the legal text will only be available after October 26, that is after the referendum? I think that English Canada should be as concerned as Quebec about the implications of the legal text which will not be available after the referendum.
This agreement is bad. It is bad for Canada; it is bad for Quebec. We do not have time to go into detail this evening, especially not in 15 minutes, but I would like to go over the main points that were discussed and that might have been accepted or rejected during the constitutional negotiations.
Economic union was a very important issue for Quebec, and indeed for all of Canada. How can we seek to maintain tariff barriers between the provinces of Canada and have free trade with the United States, and soon with Mexico? It is preposterous. Even the minister was against the July 7 agreement, and therefore against the August 28 agreement because the problem of economic union had not been resolved. That is one of the issues.
As for the division of powers, just think of the demands in the Allaire report that was presented to the 1991 Liberal convention when the Liberal Party demanded 22 powers. If you study the agreement, you will find any number of powers that are already under provincial jurisdiction such as leisure, hunting, fishing, mining, urban affairs and housing. No new power is being transferred to the provinces or to Quebec as a result of these demands.
The right of veto, which was so important to Quebec, has been replaced by insignificant veto rights. After giving everything to everyone, how can you then claim to want a veto? One of the principal areas over which the Quebec government and the province of Quebec wanted a veto concerned the creation of new provinces. In this case also, there is no veto that could prevent or require discussions on the creation of new provinces.
As regards the Senate, what a joke. What a big joke. When the Prime Minister wanted the GST legislation passed, we saw him just appoint eight new senators to rubber stamp his bill in the Senate, and now they are talking a Triple-E Senate. This represents a considerable loss for Quebec.
Apparently there is some compensation. About 40 new ridings throughout Canada can be created or elected, of which approximately 18 will be in Quebec, 18 in Ontario and a few others in British Columbia and possibly elsewhere. There are already far too many members in this House. Everyone knows very well that when the
September 9, 1992

government decides something, most of the government members have to accept that decision. That is how the system works. Even if there were 10, 15, 20 or 30 more members, what would that change when we know there is a party line in this House and you have to toe that line or else leave the party. That is the democracy being practised. That is what you find in traditional political groupings and that is why there is a complete consensus among the traditional parties in this House to pass this unacceptable agreement.
As for the Senate, even Senator Beaudoin, chairperson of the Beaudoin-Dobbie commission, was against amending it as has been proposed. You do not hear anything about that anymore. You no longer hear the senators objecting. And yet they were the ones who, following the July 7 agreement, that was reached while Quebec was not even present, protested that it was absolutely unthinkable and completely unacceptable. Then on August 28 there was an agreement, a consensus to approve and adopt those very same points. We are told that the agreement was unanimous, but everyone around that table was against something. Then it was tabled here in this House, and in about three days, a few hours, the members are to ratify the agreement and enable a national referendum to be held, in accordance with Canadian legislation in effect in English Canada, in accordance with Quebec legislation in Quebec. At the same time it is hoped that federal funds will not upset or use the situation in Quebec and that they will be used in accordance with legal provisions.
The Supreme Court is also a very important element because it seems the House of Commons, the elected officials, our government, may turn increasingly to the Supreme Court to make decisions, with the government thereby abdicating any decision-making responsibility. Quebec is guaranteed three judges, and it is stipulated that they must have been accepted to the Quebec Bar. They may have practised outside Quebec for any length of time and taken bar exams in any other province. Judges appointed to the Supreme Court may not necessarily be practising or sitting in Quebec.
Distinct society, what a joke. Obviously, it is difficult for the man in the street to interpret this term. In fact, this was not going to be a restrictive expression in the
Government Orders
Meech Lake accord. In the Charlottetown accord of August 28, it is restricted to language, culture and the Civil Code. One could not claim to be teaching Quebecers anything new. Quebec has always legislated in areas of language, Quebec is different as regards its culture. The civil code is not found anywhere else but in Quebec. But the meaning is restrictive. In French, the text uses the term notamment, which implies that something else may be included. The word, notamment, is not in the English text. In English Canada, the accord is meant to help anglophones understand and in Quebec, it is meant to please francophones.
The situation of the native peoples is increasingly similar to that of Quebecers, but they obtained what they wanted in the agreement reached on the 28th of August. They had a firm negotiator, someone who wanted to address a problem and appears to have resolved it. In the current agreement, much more consideration has been given to natives than to the people of Quebec.
For all these reasons, this agreement should be rejected by all of Canada. It has been said in this House that those people in Quebec who decide to vote against the agreement are against Canada and want to break up Canada and that those outside Quebec who vote against the agreement are doing so because of their personal opinions. No, we are not against Canada. In Quebec, we are for Quebec. The constitutional problem will be resolved only when Quebec obtains its political sovereignty. The question that the federal and provincial governments are going to put to the population deals only with offers that are unacceptable.
I say to Canadians that the issue has only been put off. Those who claim that after October 27 there will be no more talks about the Constitution are wrong, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on what indeed is an historic question and an historic debate, even though as I do so I recognize that in all likelihood very few, if any, of my constituents of Brandon-Souris will be watching it as it nears the hour of one o'clock here in Ottawa.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
In my opinion, the question before us is probably the most important one facing Canada since Confederation. It is a question which merits the very careful consideration of all Canadians. I hope they will study the proposal carefully, give it their careful consideration, and accept their responsibility to be a part of a decisionmaking process on October 26.
The question before us is one which is obviously a result of the negotiation process. It is one in which there have clearly been compromises made by the various participants. But what has emerged in my opinion is a reasonable and equitable compromise.
Before discussing the nature of that compromise I would like to remind our listeners that the Confederation put together in the 1860s was of a similar nature. It was a compromise in itself.
Speakers before me have paid credit to John A. Macdonald and George-Etienne Cartier. Mention should also be made of George Brown who in several capacities made a significant contribution during the 1860s.
The individuals of whom I have spoken in putting together a Confederation pact in the 1860s did not achieve all that they as individuals desired. In fact Confederation in 1867 and subsequent changes were a series of pragmatic responses to the realities which exist. Confederation indeed was a compromise in itself.
As I speak I am reminded of the fact that John A. Macdonald would have preferred by way of example not to have had provinces. He preferred the British model, but he recognized that in the reality which would become Canada that was not a logical goal and it was a goal which he readily and quickly abandoned.
I am reminded of the fact that the entry of my province of Manitoba into Confederation in 1870 was very much a result of compromise. It was not a decision which John A. Macdonald and the leaders of the nation would have preferred at that particular time, but it was a pragmatic response to the realities of the Red River rebellion of 1869.
I am also reminded of the kind of Confederation that was put together then and in subsequent years. It has not always conformed perfectly to our stated goals. I am reminded of the fact that some provinces, by virtue of the rules on which they entered into Confederation, have more members on a per population basis than do others.
I, for example, during my term here have represented
on average some 75,000 residents of Brandon-Souris. Other members of Parliament have traditionally represented less, while many have represented more.
It seems to me the very art of governing in Canada is the art of seeking and attaining such compromises. I am reminded of the definition of politics that I most often gave to my students. It was that politics was the art of the possible. What we have before us is a demonstration of that type of art form at work.
I believe the compromise before us is a reasonable and equitable one. I believe this properly called Canada round is a significant step beyond where we were some two years ago. I believe a reformed Senate will be more relevant than the present Senate has been.
I believe the principle of election, the principle of equality of representation in the Senate, and the desire to make that body effective have been achieved to a very significant degree.
I also believe that we have made a significant step forward with respect to aboriginal rights.
For someone who has taught Canadian history for much of his life, I am very conscious that the history of relationships between the aboriginal, now called First Nations of Canada, and previous governments of Canada has not always been a happy one. In fact at times it has been a history of which we have little reason to be proud.
While we cannot in this Parliament or at any other time redo the history of the past and undo mistakes that may have been made in the past, those who have been primarily involved in the preparation of this particular agreement have recognized the importance of the principle of self-government. I believe we are moving in the right direction.
Certainly there remains much to be done in this particular area in that many do not fully understand the details which will indeed prove to be self-government. But I am confident of the good will which exists and I believe the principle is one which should be endorsed.

I also believe that the sharing of powers between the federal government and the provinces as proposed is reasonable. I say that mindful of my own background of being someone who came to my politics to a very large degree as a result of being a student of John A. Macdonald. I became knowledgeable of John A. Macdonald through those excellent biographies written by Donald Grant Creighton. I must confess and I do so readily that I believe it is important for the federal government to have and to continue to retain a very significant role within the federalism which is Canada.
Quite frankly, I am pleased that some of the proposals which have existed which called for greater decentralization than is currently before us were not in fact successful. I am particularly pleased that the federal government's role with the shared jurisdiction as protector of the environment is one which has been recognized in this proposal.
I am conscious of the fact that there are critics of this proposal, critics who are concerned about the fact that the proposal does not address their own individual concerns. As I speak, I am mindful of a great deal of activity by certain women's organizations within my own constituency who I know that individually and collectively are somewhat disappointed by the end result. I would remind them that the process which is being put in place today and which is being proposed before us is not one in itself which is absolute nor is it necessarily the end of the line. Our Constitution has been amended on numerous occasions in the past and indeed that will obviously prove to be the case in the future.
Therefore, to those who are disappointed because the present proposal does not achieve all which they would wish, I would say to them that I hope they would judge a proposal first of all as a package on its merits and that they would compare it not with the model which they had in their own mind but with the situation which exists in Canada as of today.
I would also like to say a word or two about the process that is under way because I believe the process in itself has been significant. Certainly there has been an immense amount of consultation with Canadians during the course of the last many months. I believe that consultation has had direct and significant results. Certainly the proposal which is before us now is significantly
Government Orders
different than that which was initially tabled by the Government of Canada.
Where the changes be with respect to the Senate, with respect to the division of powers, with respect to the question of inherent aboriginal rights or with respect to the wording of the Canada clause, most of those changes are a very direct result of the public consultation process in which so many Canadians participated.
I am also one of those who has believed for some time that the referendum which is now beginning would indeed be beneficial for Canada and should in fact occur. As I say that I am very conscious of the fact that many of my colleagues have not shared that view and that they have been concerned that such a referendum process would prove to be divisive and thus damaging to national unity.
The reason I believe a referendum would be valuable is that I am convinced Canadians will accept the responsibility of being a part of a decision-making process. I believe they will accept the responsibility of carefully evaluating the proposal which is before them. I believe in making their decision they will in fact be making a commitment to Canada. That I think will have positive and lasting results.
One of the things about politics that has distressed me these last few years is that there has been a growing tendency, it seems to me, on the part of Canadians to blame the process and to blame the politicians for what they perceive to have been the things that have gone wrong. Certainly the nature of the process in which a relative few make decisions on behalf of the many is the type of process which perhaps encourages that sense of feeling, that sense of alienation.
Now the decision is not up to the members of this House. It is not up to the members of the legislatures across the country. Indeed the decision is now one which must be made by Canadians. They have an opportunity to participate. They in fact have a responsibility to participate. By participating they also have to accept the responsibility for the decisions which are made. I believe as a result of their doing so they will identify much more clearly with the end result than they would be simply if others were to make that decision on their behalf.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
I know there are concerns about the cost of the process. There are concerns that perhaps people will not give careful consideration to the issues before them. I believe my constituents, and I sincerely trust that this is true of Canadians elsewhere, will give very careful consideration to the issue. I believe they will approve the resolution because they believe in Canada and they believe that the compromise which has been created is reasonable and just. They understand it is not perfect, just as I understand it is not perfect.
This is not the document that I would have written if I had had the sole opportunity to do so, just as the document which is before us, Mr. Speaker, is not what you probably would have written. What is different now is that never again in our history will such documents be written by an individual or even by a few individuals. What is more important is that such documents must be written as a result of a collective consultative process, and I am pleased therefore that the decision on that document must also be made in a collective manner.
I am confident and I say with great hope because I love this country that the end result on October 26 will be approval in each and every province of the proposal before us so we can enter into the next century conscious of the fact that we have put many of our problems behind us.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your patience and thank your for recognizing me.

The referendum question before us tonight raises a number of other questions. Any pollster will tell us that by asking "do you agree" we are asking a leading question. You ask an unbalanced question that the opening part of this question ought to be balanced by putting it in terms of do you agree or do you not agree.
When it comes to the subsequent line, what does "should be renewed" mean? It is not just a matter of renewing the Constitution. We are talking here of a profound change. What does the term "on the basis" mean? Does it mean subject to the legal text? Actually what we are debating here tonight is not exactly a question but more of a sales pitch.
Other questions come to mind when reading the proposed question. When will the legal text be made
available? Will the legal text subsequently be changed? Will there be a parliamentary committee to examine such text? Will there be amendments? If a province should turn down the referendum, what will happen next? Does it mean that voters in such a province are to be branded as bad Canadians? Certainly not.
The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs made an interesting point this afternoon when he said that people should vote on what the package actually says and not what anybody tells them it contains. Let's take him to task.
People think the deal contains an effective social charter, but it does not. People think the Senate will be elected, but it will be only partially. People think that interprovincial trade barriers are removed, but they are not. People think the Senate will be effective, but it is not quite so. People are being told this deal is strengthening federalism, but it is not.
People are being told this deal will ensure national unity, but in reality it sets into motion a two-nations Canada. People think that we will get less government through a smaller Senate, but in fact we will get more government through an enlarged House of Commons. People think that powers are being transferred to the provinces in exchange for powers being transferred to Ottawa, unfortunately this is not the case.
People are told that we must globalize trade and compete internationally. How can we if this deal gives the provinces the responsibility for training the unskilled and the unemployed? People expect the federal government to set national standards in education, in the environment, in skill training, et cetera, yet this deal does not meet these expectations. It actually makes it more difficult to establish national standards and meet international commitments in environmental matters.
There are good features in this deal, such as linguistic dualism, even if the English and French texts of the deal are at variance. However that can be remedied. There is also the recognition of aboriginal rights and the right to aboriginal self-government. We finally recognize them as partners in Canada. This is a great step but it needs totality. If one looks at the forest and not just the trees then one must conclude that this deal is not good enough for Canada. It may be good enough for the provinces, it is a provincial vision of Canada created by premiers, but it is not good enough for Canada.
September 9, 1992

I come from the constitutional school of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Eugene Forsey, one which believes that the nation is more than just the sum total of its parts, that the nation must have the tools to develop national cohesion to compete and sustain its development with respect for the environment. In a federal nation, there has to be a give and take of powers according to changing times and requirements instead of a one-way flow of powers from the federal to the provincial governments as in this deal.
When it comes to such a profound change in our system Canadians have to be given all the means and time to understand how the proposed changes will work, not just a six-week wonder with no legal text, with no public hearings, with no expert analysis.
It is worth while noting at this point that to the question: "Do you think there has or has not been enough public consultation about changes to the Constitution", 60 per cent of Canadians answered no in a poll just published by The Toronto Star.
To the question: "If the new proposals are rejected by Canadians in a vote will this lead to the break-up of Canada", 54 per cent answered no.
If you look at satisfaction, this deal does not fare well among Canadians. In Atlantic Canada 49 per cent say their region has been short-changed. Quebecers are also dissatisfied with this deal, and so are westerners with 55 per cent saying the west does not get enough. This dissatisfaction may explain why, according to the same poll, 54 per cent of Canadians said yes to the question: "Do you think there should be changes made to this package of proposals?"
It is very hard to understand for any observer who was not party to the negotiations why the federal government would agree to give the provinces responsibility in labour market training, housing, forestry, tourism, mining, urban affairs and not obtain anything in return. It is also hard to understand why in the Canada clause which expresses Canadian values the fundamental importance of the natural environment would not be included. If there is a value which strongly unites Canadians, it is the
Government Orders
deeply felt desire to protect and sustain the natural environment.
To relinquish housing is also a bad move. It means that there will no longer be a federal role in land use, creative design, new approaches to land use and environmentally inspired new approaches to urban living.
To relinquish forestry means there will be no federal role in research, no leverage in silviculture, no national voice at international gatherings.
To relinquish mining, urban affairs, and tourism is a bad move because of the role the federal government could play, and does play if it wants environmental objectives to be kept in mind.
To give the Senate powers to defeat by a simple majority any bill from the House of Commons that involves fundamental tax changes directly related to natural resources seriously undermines the federal government's ability to influence environmental behaviour in the future.
It is this weakening of the national fibre which is so upsetting and makes me sad, and which compels me to say: "No, this is not good enough for Canada". This is not the way to go because we cannot build a strong nation by giving in to requests from left, right and centre with the inevitable result, ironically, that everybody still remains dissatisfied, as revealed by the polls I just brought to the attention of the House.
Perhaps the mistake was made right at the beginning when we failed to ask ourselves: "What do we want to achieve with the Constitution? What purpose should it serve? What are the essentials? Where do we strike a balance in the federal state?" It is now becoming clear that we have put the cart before the horse, that we took the pragmatic route without first establishing what we wanted to achieve in this constitutional journey. This journey, was it really necessary? One wonders.
To conclude, for the reasons I have given, reluctantly I have to say that on October 26, if this deal remains unchanged, I will have to vote against it. This decision should not be viewed in terms of partisan politics, nor in terms of lack of support for my leader for whom I have the greatest respect, admiration and devotion.

Government Orders
In a gesture of great generosity and statesmanship, my leader has risen above partisan considerations in the constitutional debate. He felt, and quite rightly so, that this issue transcends partisan considerations. In doing so, he makes it possible for me to pursue the same approach but to arrive at a different conclusion.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations came forth with a quality of life index this year.
That quality of life index said that of the five billion people in the world, of the many countries of the world, the best country to live in in the whole world is Canada. That felt good.
It feels good that you and I, all of us listening tonight and all of Canada, have somehow put something together that has produced the highest quality of life for our citizens in the world. I am proud to be part of that Canada. British Columbians are proud to be part of that Canada and particularly those of us in the lower mainland of British Columbia think that we live not only in the best country in the world but in the best province and in the best part of that province.
Our first feelings are feelings of appreciation to our nation, to our province, to our community. We are appreciative of the quality of life that we have come to know. I would also like to say on behalf of the people I represent that they are also getting tired of the wrangling about the Constitution. They want to get on with the strengthening and the building of our country.
It is not quite that simple. I think we need to have this debate. We need to have this discussion and we have to bring it to a conclusion through a referendum. I think this is all correct procedurally. I wish I could stand tonight, though, and say that British Columbians are now satisfied, we are ready to support this package wholly. I am not really sure I can say that without issuing some qualifications or expressing some of my traditional concerns that I have expressed in this House over many years.
Even with this package, the alienation that is felt in British Columbia is still there and it is very real. It has some basis. I have always wondered about equalization grants, transfers of payments from some supposed have province to have not provinces.
I was in the maritime provinces last week in the have not provinces. I kept looking for the have nots and all I
could see was new road construction, buildings being restored or new construction. I did go to a fish plant and saw a lot of people being laid off but I could not see the have nots when I compared it to my province of British Columbia.
I can go around my province and see have nots everywhere, in city after city or town after town.
The constitutionalization of equalization grants, a trend that started many years ago, I do not like that idea. I do not think we should be subsidizing poor provinces. We should be subsidizing poor people wherever they are found in Canada. That is a traditional argument that I cannot seem to win or we cannot seem to win and so we concede. British Columbians give that to the rest of Canada because we say we are Canadians. We are proud and we are strong so I guess we will have to accept the constitutionalization of equalization grants as a way of life for Canada for the foreseeable future. However, that does not mean we necessarily approve of them or think that they are necessarily the right way to go in Canada. It just means we are perhaps willing to put that aside for another day because it seems to be the consensus of the nation that we should have equalization grants.
I grew up in Saskatchewan and like so many young people, when the jobs were not there, I left for a different lifestyle and economic advantages in British Columbia. I have a very special empathy when we take the funds of Canada and we transfer them back to the farming communities of my birth. I feel good that as a Canadian I am able to share that with them.
The question of representation is a little more difficult for me to explain because I do not really understand how it is easier to represent in British Columbia than it is in Saskatchewan or P.E.I.. I do not quite understand how I somehow should be able to represent 100,000 constituents more or three or four times as many constituents as another in a smaller geographic area. I do not quite understand the fairness of that, but I am willing to accept that and I am willing to say that I am strong, I am proud of Canada and I can represent those extra 100,000 or
200,000	people here for you and I will do it if I need to do it for Canada. I am not complaining about it, I just bring it to your attention. It is another thing that we give from British Columbia to try to make this new Constitution work. It is an attitude of giving and compromising that has come and is coming from our province.
September 9, 1992

It is kind of hard to explain that others have a fixed percentage of the population of proportional representation. Our province is growing the fastest of any in Canada and we are never, ever going to reach our proportions in a fixed formula the way it is being established now. It is hard to explain, but we say in British Columbia that we will accept that and work for those changes later because we are Canadians and we want Canada to work as it does work. Therefore, we will give again.
When B.C.'s share of national procurement stagnates at 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent or even falls, we say we will give that to eastern and central Canada as well. We will take the government procurement and we will try not to complain. We will stick with the free market system and we will throw that in for Canada.
As we compromise and give to our nation, I have to say that the alienation would disappear if somehow it were recognized that we are giving from British Columbia.
We are reaching out with compromise to save and support our nation. It does not hurt to recognize the contribution of my province. It does not hurt to recognize the contributions of every province in Canada.
We get tired of the minority situation in Canada all the time in British Columbia because every one of us out there is a part of some minority or vested interest group. They keep rearing their heads and demanding and demanding, instead of asking what they can contribute. We really need to stop demanding and start saying this is our list of what we have to give. This is what we are giving, we are giving this, we are giving this and we are giving this because we love Canada.
If every province listed all the benefits that they receive from the Government of Canada and if they felt good about their contribution, we would not be having any problems here at all.
I think that everybody should make a list of the advantages of being a Canadian. You list all the advantages. Over here you list the disadvantages. I tell you that disadvantage list is pretty short, not only in Canadian terms but in global terms. No matter where you come from, this is a great nation. I love the parts of it. I am ready to contribute to the parts of it. If I have a little more, I am willing to share that. Let us all have that idea. Let us all have that attitude so that next year and the
Government Orders
year after the world will look at Canada and see it as number one.
I will support this referendum, not because I agree with it entirely, but it establishes a framework that I can work within and try and change some of the things over time that I am not satisfied with. Almost every British Columbian says to me in the final analysis, "I do not want to lose my country. I want to build it and keep it strong". That is why I am here at a quarter after one in the morning. That is why you are here at a quarter after one in the morning, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for being here, and I thank Canadians and ask them to be generous and tolerant in the spirit that built our nation and will build it for generations to come.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, we are here discussing tonight, or rather at 1:15 this morning, the content of the question to be answered by Canadians concerning the Constitution and the future of Canada. Despite the fact that there is general support for the wording of the question within this Chamber tonight, as the vote tomorrow will no doubt substantiate, this is an important question that will likely create some dissension among a number of Canadians, and therefore the members of this House would be well advised to proceed through the upcoming referendum campaign very carefully.
The agreement covers a lot of ground and I think all Canadians owe it to themselves to have a good look at it before they vote in late October. An informed decision is the most important decision.
I support the wording of the question being put to us today. I support the consensus reached by the First Ministers on August 28 in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and I support a yes vote in the referendum campaign. I would like to talk about that to some extent tonight. At the same time, I want to stress that the Constitution is not the only issue that concerns me tonight and I think that during the next seven weeks during the referendum campaign itself, the issues of the economy will be the ones that occupy the majority of my time. I believe this because I believe strongly that if our country cannot support itself, that is, it cannot support farmers on the land, cannot keep workers in their jobs, cannot keep small businesses in business and cannot keep young people enthusiastic and optimistic, then we have a country that is in desperate need of change and looking for redirection.

Government Orders
I think it is obvious on the economic front that this country does need change and redirection.
I am told that by the media, by my colleagues, by my friends, but more important, I am told that by my constituents. I see that in my constituency. In The Battlefords-Meadow Lake in northwest Saskatchewan we are losing farm jobs, processing jobs, manufacturing jobs and jobs in the retail and service sectors because the Canadian economy as it is today will not support those jobs.
We are in northwest Saskatchewan by and large a regional resource based economy. We are dependent on many things beyond our immediate control. Government policy affects us directly because we are vulnerable in so many different ways. Low grain prices, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, policies which have kept up the value of the dollar and until recently interest rates, the newly initiated North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico and tax policies which favour the multinational corporations over ordinary wage earners are all examples of government-driven initiatives that are driving jobs and people out of Saskatchewan.
The public has been consulted in the constitutional process and throughout that consultation process ordinary Canadians have raised economic issues as being a priority concern. They said their governments should proceed with real solutions to their daily problems.
In November 1990, Keith Spicer was appointed to head the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, a royal commission designed to find out what Canadians were thinking about with regard to national unity. After millions of dollars were spent and tens of thousands of Canadians were consulted, Mr. Spicer reported that Canadians were feeling betrayed, confused and angry and his royal commission agreed that they had reasons to feel that way.
I would like to quote briefly from Mr. Spicer's report. He states: "Canadians repeatedly raised the subject of
the economy throughout the forum process. Indeed, in many cases, economic concerns ranked higher and were pressed more insistently than any other. Canadians are right to be concerned about their economy. Chronic deficits and a high and rising national debt have contributed to high interest rates. These, together with a high foreign exchange rate, have caused job losses, lost exports, missed job creating investment opportunities and a sharper cyclical downturn than necessaiy".
There is no doubt in my mind that the sooner the federal government, the provincial governments and all their parts, the MLAs, the MPs, the cabinet ministers and the First Ministers can devote their full-time energies to dealing with the human issues affecting people, the issues that determine quality of life, the issues that ensure some personal and family security, the sooner this country will feel better about itself and the sooner we will feel united as Canadians with an optimistic future.
Because the constitutional unity in this country is important as well, the economic debate has been overshadowed by the political debate and the attention of the public has been diverted for too long by this constitutional debate.
This was a debate that stirred the emotions of people from coast to coast to coast. I have also been wrapped up in the emotion of the constitutional debate. I have shared the disappointments of failed talks, failed negotiations, failed dreams. I at times thought that agreement might be impossible.
Therefore, it was with some surprise, but also with some pleasure, that I watched the First Ministers reach a tentative agreement on July 7 and then seal it with Quebec's participation on August 28. The consensus agreement, with its 60 parts contained in 20 typewritten pages, is an interesting document. It is obviously a compromise document, a negotiated agreement in which no one can claim complete victory but everyone can see some advance. The importance of that agreement is more than its substance, although substance is important.

Its importance, however, lies in the fact that representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, together with representatives of the aboriginal communities in Canada, cared enough about this country to say they would accept what was written as the bottom line. The consensus agreement establishes that Canada remains a country guided by tolerance and compromise. It establishes that despite our many differences, Canadians remain willing to co-operate to achieve greater well-being for all.
The agreement establishes beyond all else that Canadians have a right to be Canadian in different ways, in different times, in different places, and yet feel we are all Canadians just the same. There is a lot in the agreement and parts will be, and in some cases should be, criticized because at some point in our future we will look at this document and say this did not work, that did not work. However, when taken as a whole with the knowledge that it is a compromise document the agreement can be supported.
I acknowledge that the deal is not perfect. In fact, I know that if I thought the deal was perfect then there would be others for whom the deal would be completely intolerable because there are many, including members of this Chamber, with whom I do not agree.
Our differences threatened, and perhaps still do threaten, to tear this country apart. The constitutional debate took us to crisis proportions throughout Canada. The consensus agreement can remove that crisis. There will still be a debate. There will always be a debate about the constitutional issues in this country. The constitutional debate has been a fluid thing. It moves, it rolls and it bounces around, but with this agreement the debate can lose those crisis elements and it can return to a rational and relaxed level.
If I were to have written the constitutional agreement all by myself it would have been a much different document and I would have been a much happier person. By the same token if the Prime Minister had written the constitutional accord by himself it too would have been a different document than the one we have in front of us today and I would have been a very unhappy person in those circumstances.
The premiers and the aboriginal leaders in this country are to be congratulated and thanked for their efforts.
Government Orders
When one looks at the time they required to achieve their consensus one recognizes that each of them wanted this deal to work. If that time, research, negotiating principles and effort had gone into discussing Canada's economic problems instead of the Constitution, I know there would be less economic insecurity among farmers, business people, students, pensioners, wage earners and others in this country today.
Canadians would be feeling more optimistic and less fearful for their personal financial security. We still have to cross that bridge. If Canadians vote yes in support of this agreement, the First Ministers' meetings, with aboriginal and territorial participation, can begin to deal with our real Canadian crisis.
If we vote no in opposition to this deal we are telling the political leaders to go back to the drawing board, to go back into that constitutional crisis and to argue about amending formulas instead of economic development, to argue about numbers of senators instead of the price of wheat or beef, to argue about spending power jurisdictions instead of about job creation, to argue about court appointments instead of intergovernmental or international trade agreements like the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.
Personally, as a member of Parliament and as a resident of Saskatchewan I really do not think this is much of a choice. When we support this consensus agreement we are participating in the end of one historical drama and beginning a new one. The end is a pleasant one and the new one is a challenge. We are beginning the process that will allow Canadians to reclaim their economy, to reclaim their country.
In fact, I would like to put it in more personal terms. We will have a chance to reclaim our country if this constitutional consensus is accepted.
When my leader, the member for Yukon, yesterday said in this House that despite its flaws Canada is a great success and a very fortunate nation, I recalled the television images coming into our homes and offices each night; images captured forever in countries like Somalia, Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and even in parts of the United States; images that capture the human suffering of people without homes, without food, without clothing, without freedom, and without hope.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
We are a fortunate nation by comparison but we have problems and those problems need to be addressed. We have the ability to solve our problems but only when we are prepared to confront them sensibly and without undue emotion. The October 26 referendum gives us a chance to put the crisis of the constitutional debate behind us. It gives us a chance to move on to other issues. It gives us a chance to begin a new process that is built from co-operation not confrontation. It is a chance I want to take. It is a chance I want others in this country to take. I urge all Canadians no matter where they live in Canada to join with me and other members of this House in taking that chance by voting yes in the October 26 referendum.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to be participating in this historic debate. First, I would like to say that I am proud of my Italian origin. I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I am especially proud to be a Canadian. As a result of this historic period in our history, we shall, after October 26, emerge as a stronger, greater, more generous and more tolerant country.
I am proud to be a member of a party that has always shown leadership on constitutional issues and I am proud to have a leader, the Leader of the Opposition, my leader, who, at the outset, had the courage to testify before the Belanger-Campeau commission in Quebec and present the case for Canada. He had the courage to rise above all political partisanship and propose a plan of action, that is a nine-point plan to break this constitutional deadlock. Much of this plan is present in the Beaudoin-Dobbie report and today it is present in the agreement of August 28.
As Whip of the official opposition, I would now like to thank my colleagues who, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, participated in this process-especially within the Beaudoin-Dobbie parliamentary committee. First, I would like to thank our official spokesman who, for two years, has done an excellent job within the Belanger-Campeau commission and within the Beaudoin-Dobbie parliamentary committee: the member for Papineau-
St-Michel. Thank you on behalf of the whole caucus. I would also like to thank the member for St-Boniface, the member for Mississauga East, the member for Western Arctic, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, six members who represented us and did an excellent job, and of course all the other members of this House who contributed to the work of the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee and to other bodies.
From the beginning, when the Leader of the Opposition suggested that once the agreement had been reached that Canadians should vote on it in a referendum, I supported this idea. I remember having participated in public debates on open-line radio shows, even with government members, and I am happy that today we finally have agreed, on both sides of the House, that a referendum is necessary because the Constitution belongs to the people. Of course, there are people who said at the time, and who still say today, that a referendum implies a risk and may be divisive. Of course, there will be emotional debates. However, the fact is that between now and October 26 we will speak emotionally, but we will also have the opportunity to get to know each other, to get to know our regions and to appreciate Canada, this great country of ours. This will also give Canadians an opportunity to show in practical terms our tolerance and our generosity, qualities which make Canada what it is. I am sure that on October 26, this tolerance and this generosity will be reflected in the results of the referendum, because I am convinced that in all regions of Canada, there will be an overwhelming yes vote.
In the 12 or so minutes that I have left, at this very late hour, let me deal briefly with the agreement.
I would like, first of all, to touch on what I call the two solitudes that constitute Canada. There are those Canadians who think that we should not give too much to Quebec or who believe that this agreement gives too much to that province and who are therefore against it and would like to vote against it. On the other hand, there are a number of Quebecers who think that this agreement does not give enough to Quebec and who think that they have to vote against it also. That is the dilemma of the two solitudes that we have in Canada.
September 9, 1992

Given those two options, those two solitudes, if we were to go with the view that all of the powers must be maintained, that none should be given to Quebec or to the other provinces and that we should have a central government and a very centralized form of federalism, we would end up in such a rigid situation that the country might disintegrate.
If, on the other hand, we were to agree with those Quebecers who are demanding the transfer of all federal powers, we would then no longer have any reason to maintain a federation or a federal government and in that case also, the country might disintegrate.
The only way to keep this country united is the Canadian way. Thus the need for compromise, for taking a middle ground, so that all the regions of Canada may be allowed to develop and prosper, while at the same time having a federal government able to provide a prosperous future for this country as a whole and lead us into the 21st century.
If you go back in history, you will see that the discussion has changed very little in the last 125 years. Nevertheless, a compromise was reached, which gave us our Constitution. I think that the same thing will be done again.
Let us look at the arguments from those who are against the agreement. I would like to point out at the outset that the agreement is not perfect because I would not want anyone to be able to come back later on, if I were to criticize the agreement, and say that I had said it was perfect. No, the agreement is not perfect. Moreover, mere mortals cannot aspire to perfection. I do not think the agreement reached 125 years ago was perfect, nor was the agreement to patriate the Constitution in 1982, nor was the Meech Lake accord, and nor is the agreement that we have before us today. But the situation is such that, even with all its imperfections, and I intend to look at them in detail, this agreement, however imperfect, must be approved because, as I mentioned, it is a compromise position and, historically, Canada is a country built on compromise. As long as there is a willingness to compromise, there is reason to believe in and hope for a bright and prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.
Government Orders
Even though the agreement is not perfect, I believe it must be supported. We heard some of our colleagues here tonight who are against the agreement. Just what was the thrust of their criticism? It was simply that there was no legal text.
We want to consult the people. We have an agreement, a political document. The Prime Minister of Canada, all the provincial premiers, the leaders of the two territorial governments and the aboriginal leaders have agreed to this compromise. They have said publicly that there was a consensus and therefore an agreement, and although there are people who say it was not signed, to me that is as good as a signature.
As I said earlier, part of the process suggested by my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, was to submit the agreement to the people for consultation. This is unprecedented in the history of this country and I think the fact this is happening should give us cause to rejoice. For once, citizens, and not a small group of elected representatives, will decide on the future of the country.
The legal text will come later. It is our responsibility as elected representatives and legislators to ensure that the legislation as such, after consultation with and approval by the people, respects and reflects what was in the text of the August 28 agreement. That is our responsibility. For the time being, we must put this agreement or compromise before the people of Canada so they can decide and then we can continue the process.
It is like buying a house. What do you do when you buy a house? You go and look at the house, meet the seller, negotiate and strike a deal. For instance, the seller wants $150,000 and the buyer offers $120,000. Finally, an agreement is reached on the price, and a purchase offer is signed. In Quebec the offer goes to the notary and elsewhere in Canada it goes to a lawyer who prepares the sale contract. While legal experts prepare the purchase or sale contract, the buyer can show the house to his family. Before the final signature, he has plenty of time to show his family the house. In Quebec there is a law that provides for a cooling off period during which the purchase offer may be cancelled.

Government Orders
I must say that if the issue of the legal text is the only case opponents can make against the agreement, they do not have a very strong case, and I am sure that by October 26, Canadians will realize that.
People must understand the legal text is not an issue, since we have a text.

You are telling me that I have only two minutes left and I would like to tell about something that happened to me last week. Last week I had the honour and the pleasure of visiting one of my schools in the riding where it was celebrating the 125th anniversary of the Canadian Confederation. During that visit, I was given a book called Anthology of a Student Riding. This is from the school board on which I was honoured to serve as a commissioner and chairman until I was elected in 1984.
I am sure that my colleague, if I ever pass my time, will forgive me and allow me to read into the record the thoughts of a young boy which are so pertinent to what we are doing all day today and now at 1:45 in the morning. Andrew Wieczorek is a grade five student. I quote:
"Canada, ah, what a country. But have any of you noticed the different languages which people speak, the beauty of the forest and nature or all the jobs and employment?

This country of ours is much more than a geographical entity.

I am just one citizen of Canada and I am very proud to be Canadian, but sometimes I am discouraged by the attitude of our fellow Canadians. For instance, people who live in Quebec are wondering if separating from Canada is a good idea. I think that these people are foolish because they do not realize the fact that they are still Canadian and that they should look out for their country.
As a Canadian, I am proud of this vast, beautiful country from the eastern fishing coast to the prairies and of the rich forest land of British Columbia. Where else but in Canada can you have a chance to be different and enjoy it? There are St. Patrick's Day celebrations for the
Irish, Columbus Day for the Italians and of course a May 3 celebrations for the Polish. Then, on July 1 all Canadians celebrate Canada Day as one big, united family.
All people from nation to nation are welcome in our country full of freedom. People who emigrate to Canada see a future for their children here, a vision that this would be the greatest country in the world. My grandparents were also immigrants and it is because of their dreams for a new life that I am here as a Canadian today.
Canada also means freedom. As a Canadian, I have the freedom to develop into whatever I wish and to wave my flag and be proud of it. Other countries do not possess this freedom we have. I have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. When I am 18, I will have the freedom to vote for whomever I think is best to lead this great country.
Even though I am a young Canadian, I hope that my dream of a Canada staying together continues.

French and English, black and white, young and old.

When I grow older, I will try to contribute in my own way to help Canada to grow either through my career as psychiatrist or my talents as a musician.

My country, it's you, it's me, it's Canada".


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate from the beginning, and I have come to the conclusion that those who are speaking for the proposal are all trying to sidestep the issue. I have just heard the member for the Montreal area, who, of course, ended his speech on a patriotic note. I also heard the Prime Minister of Canada. His was also a very patriotic speech. Previous speakers have told us what a wonderful country we live in. They have tried at all costs to extol the virtues of this country, a country where borrowing has been a way of life for the last 20 years and which is on the fringe of bankruptcy. But they chose to ignore this and resort instead to emotional arguments, suggesting that this proposal, this draft package that has been tabled, could end up dividing the country.
September 9, 1992

I would say that they are obviously trying to sidestep the question. That strategy was, of course, made clear when on the television you had Premier Bourassa, from Quebec, and the Prime Minister, with big smiles on their faces, shaking hands and saying: at last, we have an agreement.
You also saw the Prime Minister meeting with the members of his caucus the next day in Drummondville. They were all kissing each other and crying phoney tears in order to show the population that at long last they had reached an agreement. Of course they thought that Quebecers would say:"What a welcome relief. We have been talking about the Constitution for two years; enough is enough. They finally found a solution; we will not hear about this anymore."
First thing the following morning, Quebecers started to hear experts saying: This is not an agreement, it is a rough draft, a sketch. It is not an agreement since nobody dared to sign it and since there are no legal documents. We do not know how to interpret this so-called agreement. They used words like "we should do this or that", "this should be", but nothing was clear and we are about to ask Canada's and Quebec's population to spend, directly or indirectly, nearly 200 million dollars in government money to give an answer for a proposition which is not really a proposition. According to me, this is a downright waste. We could have obtained the same results through a poll for only a few hundred thousand dollars.
Since the experts have started to analyse that draft agreement, the people, particularly the Quebecers, have realized that this agreement is really unacceptable not only for them but for all Canadians.
Since according to the polls the members of Parliament have little credibility, this evening I will first refer to what experts have to say. I would like to quote several of those who analysed this project and expressed themselves. I am going to quote a few of them. For the most part they say that the status quo is worse. That is to say that we keep exactly what we had before but it is even worse. The truth is, of course-or the credibility in any case-that Quebecers should read the analysis made by experts who come straight out against what we hear in the speeches from people who claim to see in this agreement something extraordinary, when in fact it is so "unextraordinary". That is why it is unanimous; it is because there is nothing in it; nothing final, everything will have to be renegotiated over and over again.
Government Orders
I will start with the distinct society. According to expert Josee Legault, this so-called agreement only pays lip service to Quebec as a distinct society; it will put French Quebecers in a minority position and in an ethnic strait-jacket. That is to say that they will once again be a minority in their own province. I know what it is like. When I arrived in Montreal from a small town in central Quebec, I really felt I was a member of the minority there, in Montreal, in my own province. This is what she said, a political scientist at Universite du Quebec in Montreal. She can be trusted since she is an expert: ; ''You can soon kiss goodbye to whatever is left of the French character of Montreal."
Let me give another example. Eight experts from five or six major Quebec universities, together with the University of Ottawa, state that the distinct society clause is a step backward for Quebec. These are the people that are to be believed instead of listening to those speeches which are unrelated to the substance of this deal, those patriotic speeches such as those I heard today which have nothing to do with the proposal before us.
Turning to powers, it is claimed that Quebec will have extraordinary powers, but Carleton University political science professor Frangois Rocher, who is not a Quebecer and surely not a sovereignist, says that this is the crowning moment of centralizing federalism and a deal that brings to a halt 30 years of dynamic political development in Quebec. I am not the person saying this. It was stated by a professor of political science form Carleton University in Ottawa.
As regards the claim that Quebec gained a great many powers, a neutral expert says the opposite, that this is the crowning moment of centralizing federalism, although in 1984 the Prime Minister was saying "No more centralizing federalism" in his speeches. Today the same man supports a deal that centralizes even more power in Ottawa.
In her column in Le Devoir, Lise Bissonnette, a well-known and highly credible commentator in Quebec says the following: A yes vote will mean the start of sterile negotiations and fresh problems. Of course, nothing is settled with this deal since everything is to be negotiated. Everything will have to be negotiated point by point ad vitam aetemam. This is what she says. These are not politicians speaking; these are not great patriots. This deal is real and has been tabled in this House. This is what must be debated, not Canada's beautiful mountains, and not Macdonald or Cartier who helped found Canada. We should be talking about the future, not the past. What is at issue is our future and that of our children.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
Let us talk of the future of our children. Surveys conducted in Quebec CEGEPs show that between 80 and 85 per cent of young people, especially francophone young people are against this deal. They have their future in mind. Forget about the past and look at the future, and you will see clearly that people are against this proposal, at least those who are looking toward the future.
Let us talk about business people. The president of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Bernard Roy, former chief of staff for Prime Minister Mulroney, stated: Clearly, what is being offered here is not what business wanted. This is the new president of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal speaking. He added that giving an equal Senate more powers than those of the current upper house will make the operations of the federal government even more cumbersome and inefficient. This is not just anybody speaking; this the president of the Chamber of Commerce and a friend of the Prime Minister. Mr. Le Hir, who also represents the Canadian Manufacturer's Association, the most important association in Quebec, one that is vital to our economy. Quebec could not survive without its small businesses. Mr. Le Hir says that it is the status quo, which is even worse. This proposal must be rejected, and not only by Quebecers. If this constitutional proposal is adopted, you can be sure that Canada will continue to be ineffective, have large deficits and make people poorer.
This proposal is bad not only for Quebec, but for the whole country. Let us forget about all those patriotic speeches and start thinking about the proposal. The government's strategy is to elude the real question and then people will say that, unfortunately, it did not see what was happening. We have to open our eyes and realize that this proposal is bad for Canada's economy and even worse for Quebec's economy.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? One minute. In one minute, I will tell you that Quebecers are intelligent people who, more and more, go to university and are able to understand. I can assure you that this strategy of trying to elude the issue will not work in Quebec. Quebecers are not water carriers anymore; they are intelligent people who are able to understand. I am
convinced that Quebecers will vote no because if we vote yes to this accord, we will have endless negotiations and that will be harmful for the Canadian and Quebec economy.
I will vote no and work very hard not to get into this kind of project that will totally kill Quebec and its economy.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, there are moments of truth in the lives of nations just as there are in the lives of individuals. The national referendum on the constitutional agreement will be a moment of truth for Canada. Perhaps it might be said that it is one of the most important tests in our 125 year history.
A positive vote in this referendum would not mean a final resolve to our almost pathological predisposition to bite our own tail, but it would be an affirmation of our nationhood. It would be a vote of confidence in the future of this country. It would allow Canadians to get on with their lives. It would allow us to begin to tackle the many pressing economic difficulties that also threaten the future of this nation.
On the other hand, a negative vote, whether it is a negative vote by a single province or in fact right across the nation, would only drive us into further turmoil. While it may not precipitate the departure of Quebec- and there is really no indication that that would be the final outcome-a negative vote in this referendum would ensure the continued paralysis of the federal Parliament as this nation struggles to regain its balance to find yet another formula for success.
A negative vote on this referendum would decimate the dramatic gains that this country has made at redressing the historic wrongs to our aboriginal peoples. It would jeopardize what amounts to the quantum leap we have made politically in reforming our antiquated Senate. A negative vote would ensure the continuation of the kind of economic malaise that has gripped this nation, which we have seen throw thousands and thousands of Canadians out of work and compromise and jeopardize our very economic future. This country will have no future. It will have no economic prosperity until it resolves once and for all our current constitutional dilemma.
September 9, 1992

I do not pretend for a moment that this constitutional agreement is a panacea to all current or future constitutional squabbles. Lord knows that Canada's favourite pastime has become its obsession with constitutional self-flagellation. Why are we tough on ourselves? When we look at it, we really have so much going for us as a country and as a people, it is really beyond reason but it seems to be the propensity of Canadians and of the Canadian system to be very hard on themselves, to be very critical.
With respect to the agreement that has been brought together by the first ministers of this country, it is not a perfect deal by any means. But it is an agreement that has been honourably achieved by political leaders, who I believe have been genuine in their intent in acting in our national interests.
It settles Quebec's unique status as the homeland and the protector of the French heritage. More important, it brings our aboriginal Canadians into the Constitution in a very meaningful and justifiable way. It responds to the demands from our western provinces for Senate change and for a larger presence in the national scene.
For British Columbians, the changes to the House of Commons and Senate that have been agreed upon will ensure a stronger voice for that province at the centre. An expanded House of Commons will give British Columbians greater representation and a guarantee of fairer representation by population with the awarding of seven new seats over the next six years. The reformed Senate will ensure that B.C. has an elected and responsible representation, essentially equal to Quebec or Ontario. That is really quite an accomplishment when one considers what we have now.
While the constitutional journey has been an arduous one, we have managed to achieve what was thought to be essentially impossible in a country as large and as diverse as Canada. We have achieved consensus through compromise. This constitutional deal is like a patchwork quilt, a skein of trade-offs if you like.
When the agreement is analysed, many of the elements would never stand on their own but each one is
Government Orders
crucial to the survival of the deal because each one balances in some fundamental way some other compromise in the package. While almost no one is satisfied with the total package, I would submit that most Canadians agree that it is perhaps the best we can hope for. It is a satisfactory resolution of widely divergent views and widely divergent geographic and political interests. If politics is the art of compromise, I think most would agree that Canada's first ministers have embraced a package that is the very embodiment of that sentiment. While I am certainly not happy with all aspects of the deal, I am willing to concede that an agreement that at least partially satisfies the various regions of this country is far better for the future of this country than no agreement at all.
I would also like to emphasize that I am not going to be wrapping myself in the flag to sell this deal. While I support it personally, I am not its architect and I cannot take credit for its strengths. At the same time I refuse to take the flack for its weaknesses.
My role, as I see it as the representative of the Okanagan-Shuswap in this particular referendum campaign, is really very simple. I consider it my duty to provide opportunities for my constituents to learn as many details as they can about the pros and cons of this agreement so that they can make an informed, reasoned and an intelligent choice when it comes to the vote on October 26.
I am not going to sell it. I am not going to become the bagman of the Prime Minister, should he try to play Captain Canada with it. I am not going to wrap myself in the flag or try to exorcise the demons of the no vote because there are no demons, there are no bad Canadians. There are people who might feel differently and vote differently than I do and they have every right to do so; that is our democratic process. I am going to do my best to explain this agreement, its strengths and its weaknesses, so that my constituents in Okanagan-Shuswap can make the best choice as they see fit.

Government Orders
I believe in the use of referendums as a legitimate tool in the democratic process. I supported the government in its decision to implement the referendum legislation. Although I agree it is an imperfect tool, a referendum is a legitimate way of enhancing the powers of the democratic process through empowerment of the people in a vote of ratification. That is why I am willing to abide by the expressed wishes of the constituents of the Okanagan-Shuswap and place my faith in the collective wisdom of the people of Canada through referendum.
Now that we have the proposed agreement, it is time to let the people decide quietly, to reach that decision intelligently, essentially free from the political rhetoric and the hyperbole that often confuses more than explains.
Let me add one further thought in this regard because it strikes me as odd that while we have debated the social constitution of this country to the point of exhaustion, and I submit to national nausea on the issue, we have essentially failed to recognize a very important event that has unfolded almost unnoticed before the eyes of Canadians. While Canadians have been focusing exclusively on this one debate, the government has quietly rewritten the economic constitution of this country through the agreement of the North American free trade deal between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. There was no public debate and no parliamentary process.
If the government feels obliged to test the mettle of our social constitution through a process of public referendum, then it should certainly feel obliged to put the North American free trade agreement to the same test of public scrutiny. That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, earlier today called upon the Prime Minister in the House to call a parallel referendum on the North American free trade agreement.
I support his plea for a call for a referendum on the NAFTA deal. Put it to the people as has been our social constitution and let them decide on the re-writing of our economic constitution. Whether it is distinct society, whether it is Senate reform or whether it is the formation of a continental trading bloc from the Yukon to the
Yucatan, Canadians should be allowed to ratify such sweeping social and economic changes through the process of referendum.
It is simply hypocritical for the government to call a referendum on the social constitution and not call a referendum on the re-writing of our economic constitution.
In closing, let me refer to an editorial which I found in one of my local newspapers today which I think neatly summarizes my views. It relates to the referendum process and it cautions the readers. It states:
Whatever your views on the constitutional package, base your final decision on what your head says, not your heart. An issue as important as this shouldn't be clouded by emotions.
The majority of the public is tired of the constitutional debate, but now is the time to set aside that malaise and learn everything possible about the proposal put forward. The future of our country is at stake.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting at this hour to follow the learned and well-spoken member for Okanagan-Shuswap. The riding of Stormont-Dundas and his own are paired in a very positive initiative, ongoing right now, with our young people across Canada, Voyageur '92. The feedback we are getting from our young people who have been to the Okanagan-Shuswap area and have had the opportunity to exchange views, shows they have a far better and greater understanding and more respect for young Canadians of that region.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the constitutional referendum on which Canadians will vote on October 26. There is no doubt the outcome of this vote will have a considerable impact on the future of Canada. If Canadians decide to accept the Charlottetown agreement, fundamental changes will be made to the way Canada is to be governed.
Conversely, if the agreement fails to be approved, one can only speculate as to how serious a setback this would be for Canada. One should not associate a rejection of this agreement as being a direct catalyst for the break-up of Canada. However, from a realistic point of view, a continuation of the constitutional paralysis which has plagued Canada for many years, can only lead to increased political and economic instability throughout the country.
September 9, 1992



Surely Canada's existence as a united political entity could be jeopardized. Moreover, steps to solve the pressing economic problems the country now faces would again be postponed, which could also complicate the situation. Therefore, on October 26, Canadians will have the opportunity to decide their future in clear terms.

By way of a national referendum, Canadians will have a clear means to say yes to a renewed Canada. The constitutional agreement that will be voted on was achieved through a long process of consultation and public debate. The views of Canadians from across Canada have been taken into consideration.
The Liberal Party of Canada was on record from the outset that Canadians must not be excluded from the constitutional process. Furthermore, we have maintained that the people of Canada must have the opportunity in a referendum to pass judgment on any agreement.
I am sure Canadians are pleased that these two points have been met.
The constitutional agreement does not contain everything Canadians would have liked to see included. The Liberal Party would like to have seen more with regard to establishing a stronger economic union, including a more detailed framework for the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. In addition, we would like to have seen a more effective Senate than what was devised.
Regardless of these outstanding issues, it is important for Canadians to remember that this agreement can be amended in the future. We live in a dynamic and changing society. The needs of Canada and Canadians change over time. The agreement has an amending formula and if changes become necessary, they can be introduced. However, the constitutional agreement does provide Canadians with a basis to work from.

If they accept this agreement, Canadians will continue to enjoy a standard of living which is envied the world
Government Orders
over. It has been said that Canada is a difficult country to govern. True, we live in a huge country, with an ethnically diverse population. Yet, during the past 125 years, we have built a strong country which has much to offer to its inhabitants. This agreement gives Canadians the opportunity to make their country an even better place. Yet, during the past 125 years we have built a strong country which has much to offer to its inhabitants. This agreement gives Canadians the opportunity to make their country an even better place.
This agreement will enable Canada to meet the economic and social challenges ahead as we prepare for the next century. We live in an increasingly complex and competitive global marketplace today. For Canada to survive, we must be strong and united, both economically and politically. We have an opportunity before us to provide Canada with a blueprint for reform and renewal.
Canadians have traditionally expressed a desire for compromise. This agreement is an example of compromise. It offers hope for a better future for all Canadians. Regardless of our origins, the language we speak or where we live, Canadians have shared this land in harmony.
We all have hopes and aspirations for ourselves, our families and for Canada. We have, however, realized what Canada has managed to achieve over the last 125 years. We take pride in Canada's place within the world community. We are a country committed to peace and social justice. While more work is required, we are grateful for what we have and want to remain Canadians.
Canadians want to continue to share in our country's rich resources and heritage. We want to continue contributing to the growth of Canada. More important, we want to pass on to our children and future generations of Canadians a country that will provide them with the same countless opportunities for social and economic advancement that we have enjoyed.

Government Orders
In my riding of Stormont-Dundas, English and French speaking residents have lived side by side for many years. In addition, the city of Cornwall is next to the Akwesasne reserve on Cornwall Island. My riding is a microcosm of Canada.

On the economic level, Stormont-Dundas has had its fair share of hardships. But its population knows that economic growth and future prosperity depend on a strong and united Canada. Canadians in Stormont- Dundas live together in harmony, in a community made rich by the cultural heritage of its francophone, anglophone, native and multicultural roots. This riding is an example of what Canada can go on being, that is to say a diversified nation whose diversity is an advantage rather than a handicap.

October 26 will be a milestone for Canada. Canadians will be able to support the constitutional agreement and proceed with the creation of a better Canada for every Canadian. We can choose to preserve Canada and build for its future.
All three major political parties in Canada have expressed their support for the constitutional agreement. Labour unions and business organizations across the country have also come out in favour of this agreement. However, it will be left up to the people of Canada to have the final say on whether or not this agreement will come into effect. This is as it should be and I am confident that the decision of the people will be the correct one.
I believe Canadians will want to endorse this agreement. I am sure Canadians understand the difficulty in arriving at a constitutional agreement. Certainly they know it would have been virtually impossible to obtain a constitutional agreement that would suit everyone. For that matter, arriving at a consensus for an agreement in itself is not an easy task, as the first ministers would certainly attest. Yet an agreement was reached and it is now up to Canadians to vote on it.
While the agreement is not all encompassing, it puts forward an acceptable resolution to the seemingly endless constitutional debate. I plan to campaign throughout Stormont-Dundas in favour of this it and I hope a number of my constituents will do likewise. Canada has devoted a significant amount of time and energy to
resolving our constitutional differences. We have finally arrived at an agreement worthy of support.
In conclusion, I believe Canadians will make a decision to support the constitutional agreement. I will urge my constituents to vote in favour of it on October 26. In doing so, they will be a part of an historic moment in Canadian history, when Canadians from across the country will say yes to constitutional reform and yes to a renewed Canada, a Canada that will be strong and united.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it being 2.25 in the morning, I feel I should remind our viewers what it is we are debating. Therefore, I quote from our Orders of the Day. What we are debating is:
That pursuant to the act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of a referendum question.
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992.
yes	no
We have the Consensus Report on the Constitution, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992, final text. I remind the viewers it is not the legal text but the final text. Tomorrow I am assured that we will receive the legal text.
In 1930 at the beginning of the Great Depression, my father Walter Flis and my mother Anna Flis decided to cross the ocean with two children and choose another country where they felt they would make a better living, not so much for themselves but for their children. They came to this great country called Canada. They were not coming to Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia, they were coming to Canada. That is all they knew about this country. It was Canada.
Because the immigration rules of the 1930s required that if you had no relatives in Canada you had to work two years on a farm, they were heading to Alberta to work their two years on a farm.
On the boat coming from Poland they met other friends and those friends said that they had relatives in Saskatchewan. They were persuaded to go to Saskatchewan. The two-year commitment to work on a farm in Saskatchewan turned out to be 22 years. They purchased a homestead and a half section of land. From two years they ended up farming for 22 years.
September 9, 1992

As it is today, the income from farming in Saskatchewan was insufficient to support a family, a mom and dad and six children. During the winters my father would go to Kenora, Ontario, to work in the bush camps to earn extra money to buy seed in the spring to sow the next year's crop. Other winters I remember my father and my oldest brother, who was only 16, going to Nanaimo, B.C., to unload coal off the ships, again to earn a few extra dollars to buy grain and pay for groceries for the coming year.
That reminds me that there is something wrong with this package agreed to on August 28.1 am reminded that there were no labour barriers, no trade barriers of any kind between provinces. My father and brother could work in other provinces and bring the money home to supplement the farm income.
In 1952 after three crop failures in a row, my father could not see any future for four sons and two daughters in farming. He sold the half section of land and moved to Ontario. The farms in Ontario were too expensive. He could not afford one so he ended up buying a little family restaurant business and this went very well. It put me through teacher's college and university for which I am very thankful.
I was in my mid-20s when I met my wife at the opening of the seaway in Cornwall. The late Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was there. I always credit the late John Diefenbaker for getting my wife Sophie Radziszewiski and myself together. The former parliamentary secretary is holding a book up of the former Prime Minister.
My wife was raised in Quebec. I was born and raised in Saskatchewan. We got married and where did we settle down? In Ontario. Again, there were no barriers for my wife or myself. We were free to move across this great country. Then why could the Prime Minister and the first ministers not once and for all remove all of the barriers between the provinces now, the labour barriers, the trade barriers, et cetera?
My son did the reverse. He saw no future in Ontario. He is managing a restaurant and a brew pub in Saskatoon but he cannot buy beer from Alberta or New Brunswick. He has to buy the beer that is produced in Saskatchewan and yet we want to be competitive on the world market.
Here is a Prime Minister who boasts in this House how he has removed the barriers between Canada and the
Government Orders
United States, how he has removed the trade barriers between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Yet we seem to have been powerless to remove the barriers between the provinces. I see that as a big flaw in this package we are asking the people to vote on in the referendum on October 26.
During the summer I did a lot of door-to-door canvassing. I listened to what my constituents had to say about this whole Constitution debate. Of course, they have had enough of this debate. They say: "Get on with it. Vote for it. Get it out of the way and concentrate on the important things that are troubling this country".
They pointed out what they agree with. They are very pleased the aboriginal people will have finally been recognized, that they have the right to self-government. They were very pleased with the reforms to the Senate, reducing the Senate to 62 seats.
They were not pleased with increasing the members in the House of Commons. I must say I agree with my constituents on that. For the number of people we represent I do not think we need more members. I think what members need is additional staff. Give me an additional staff person so I can serve my constituents better, but I believe we have enough MPs now.
Their biggest concern was that we are giving away too many powers to the provinces in this package. They want a strong central government. My constituency is made up of 40 per cent Anglo-Saxon Canadians and 60 per cent Canadians of other backgrounds. What they want and wish for this country is a strong central government. They are very concerned we have given away too much power to the provinces, which will weaken this country.
One of the things they pointed out was immigration. Why on earth would you give immigration to the provinces? There may not be many problems in the next decade, but who knows 30 or 50 years from now? Immigration patterns may change. Some provinces may be very selective and discriminatory and embarrass Canada because we may be breaking the United Nations conventions on immigration. We may be breaking and violating the human rights of people from certain countries. What an embarrassing situation Canada could be in because some province may want to be very selective in its immigration policy and may embarrass the whole country. We could lose the kind of reputation the United Nations gave us today.

Government Orders
Let us look at the powers we gave to the provinces on human development and training. Why would we give away training to the provinces when we are in such difficult times with unemployment and economic issues? We hear a lot of criticism today about our educational system. I do not blame the educational system. I blame us in this House, the federal leaders, for not having the foresight and the leadership. What is lacking as far as education and training? National objectives for this country are what is lacking. We do not set national goals for the next 30, 40, 50 years. If we do not have these national objectives how can the provinces strike curricu-lums to meet national objectives? It is no wonder we are floundering.
The reverse should have happened. Training and education should have been more centralized so that we can give our country direction. If, for example, in the next 30 years we feel we want to move further into space technology, then we should be building that into our school curriculums from kindergarten right on through university, but central federal government control over this is needed.
Twenty years ago I visited the school systems in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland when they were still under communist regimes. I was quite impressed with the high calibre of their educational systems. However, their educational systems were highly centralized, too highly centralized for my liking.
As a federal government we have to take a look at how, through setting national objectives for the country, we can strengthen the whole educational system and training. Unfortunately, we have gone the other way.
My constituents have great concerns about weakening the federal government.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary and you, Mr. Speaker, must be thinking: "God, is Mr. Flis voting against this agreement? Is he going to campaign on the no side?" No, Mr. Speaker. I will use every ounce of energy I have to work for the yes side of this agreement because as associate critic for external affairs for our party, I have had the opportunity of visiting and working in many other countries, including Ethiopia, Pakistan,
Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, you name it. Every time I return I am so thankful to the Lord that my parents chose to come to Canada.
I was just handed this year's silver dollar. It so beautifully captures what Canada is all about. I hope every Canadian will go to the bank and get one of these dollars and carry that dollar in his or her pocket on October 26. If they do, I am sure every Canadian will vote yes.
The coin designer, Rita Swanson, who comes from my province of birth, Saskatchewan, says this about her design:
Underlying my inspiration for the design of the new Canada 125 dollar coin was a desire that it be meaningful-in a national sense. I therefore chose what I believe to be strong national symbols: the flag as our national emblem; children as our future and our source of inspiration; the Parliament buildings as testimony to our history. I hope the design and the coin will help to remind everyone of how lucky we are to live in such a wonderful, unique and very special country.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to speak in the House tonight in this very important debate about Canada's national unity and the referendum in which all Canadians will be participating in a short six week's time, on October 26.
As I look at the clock, at one end of our country in a couple of hours the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be getting up, ready to start their day. At the other end of the country, in my province of British Columbia, perhaps some people are still awake and some are sleeping. To those people who cannot get enough of Parliament or who are not sleeping well tonight and maybe have to be put to sleep or who are working at the all-night 7-Elevens or gas stations, we want to get a message across to those people. Here in the Parliament of Canada people are doing what they feel is their best to get the message across that the debate we are having today and will be having from now until October 26 and beyond is an important one for the future of our country, for the day-to-day lives we all lead, what it means to our country and our fellow Canadians.
September 9, 1992

We are talking tonight about the question on the referendum that all Canadians I hope will participate in on October 26. It is a question that is going to ask Canadians about the constitutional agreement reached in Charlottetown between the Prime Minister, the premiers, territorial and aboriginal leaders.
It is the best bet so far for a united Canada and in particular for resolving the drawn-out debate on the Constitution. The best news of all for many is that we can put the prolonged debate about the Constitution behind us and move forward to address many pressing economic and social concerns in our country.
We know that after October 26 the Constitution will not disappear forever from the public agenda. We know and all Canadians know, now that we have the ability to amend our Constitution on our own and in particular, and as those rules are clarified in the agreement reached in Charlottetown, that we will be debating the Constitution further.
There is a sense of fatigue as has been mentioned. Certainly among most Canadians there is a desire that this Canada round be dealt with now so that when we do carry on the debate about the Constitution and about what government and agencies of government should do, that debate will then be framed around the rules of our Constitution that will have been established.
From the discussions I had with my constituents over the Labour Day weekend, I would say the main message I heard was that it was important to put these discussions behind us. Of course, they were particularly concerned about the future of our country and keeping a united Canada from coast to coast to coast, from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia, to the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
They are trying to capture just what it is to be a Canadian. We have had some difficulty doing that over the past number of years. We all know that often we define ourselves as not being Americans. As a young nation of some 125 years we are really now just making our first serious effort at trying to define exactly what a Canadian is.
The Canada clause is not ringing poetry, but it is a way to try to put on paper what it is that we think Canada stands for. I think that is a particularly important start for a sense of nationhood for us in the future.
Government Orders
When I look at the unity agreement, as I call it, I see a web of compromises and balances that tries to meet the needs of the different parts of Canada, including those of British Columbia and other areas. We are a large country and a diverse nation. As a Confederation we attempt to hold those different regions together under a common agreement and provide us with a reason to exist.
Through the course of the debate on the Constitution in the last two years I have provided information on a regular basis to my constituents by way of a constitutional updates mailing list, regular community meetings on the Constitution, and in particular a constitutional forum that I co-sponsored with students of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. All the participants at least had a commitment to their view of Canada. It was a Canada that saw our differences, that had debate about those differences, and a lot of questions often as well about those differences, but the bottom line was that we had to stay united as a country.
Our leaders, our premiers, the Prime Minister and others have attempted, certainly over the past two years, to frame an agreement that meets the demands of the different parts of Canada. As many have said before me-and it will be said from now on as we head toward the referendum date-it is not a perfect document. I recall one speaker saying that earlier today. If there were a perfect document here tonight then it would be my guess-and I would share the thoughts of the member from The Battlefords-we would likely offend a great number of people.
I would just like to comment very briefly in the short time I have on a couple of the concerns I have with the package, some of the positive areas, and then look down the road to October 26.
I have always been, I guess one might say, a little old fashioned about the Senate. It has been always my view that our country might have been better served if we did not have the Senate. Of course that is not to be. Certain governments and groups in Canada felt that in fact we needed a Senate, a revised and new Senate, and that is what we have now.
As Canadians get to read the material that will be provided to them, likely ad nauseam, there will be plenty of information around in the next couple of weeks on this. If anybody is worried about not having any reading material over the next couple of weeks, there is going to be plenty. They can mark my words.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
It is still unclear what influence the new Senate will have on national politics and policies. Will it bark or will it have a bite? Like any part of a constitution, like any part of any agreement, we will have to see it work and see what happens and down the road refine and improve that agreement.
I know a trade union organizer, a long-time resident of the Prince George area, who likened this agreement to a first contract. The employer does not like it. The workers do not like it. But they know they all have to sign it because it is a place to start from. I do not think that is a bad description of what we are debating today.
Another concern I have falls in the area of the division of powers, the exclusive jurisdiction to be granted in provinces in various areas. Two particular concerns come to light. The first one is my concern in terms of the question of a national training program and labour market training.
I have my concerns in that field and I hope this particular area will be monitored closely. I have faith that those provinces that are better off-British Columbia, Alberta, perhaps Ontario and parts of Quebec-will do okay. However, I wonder how successful those provinces that will have to continue to rely on the helping hand of the federal government will be. I urge caution in this particular field.
I mentioned another area that I spent my first months in this Parliament on, the whole question of forestry and the jurisdictional supremacy that we are prepared to give through agreement to the provinces in the field of forestry. We spent some time passing legislation in this House to get a federal Minister of Forestry. We want to make sure he still has a job to do, or perhaps it is not necessary to have the minister any longer. However, with growing concerns about the world environment and our forests, it is an area of concern that I have.
We receive from many businesses in particular and our constituents concerns about the duplication and red tape of government. I suppose one could say, and I am thinking of mining in particular, that is an area where a great deal of duplication may disappear. Some mining companies might be pleased that some effort will be
made to reduce the duplication between the different levels of government.
I am pleased that we are going to see in the agreement the whole question of a social union. This will show that we are a caring nation and one that places importance on the identification of social goals which help define us as a country and give direction to our governments.
I am particularly pleased that the whole question of native self-government has been resolved. I see us going down the road to resolving many of the problems we have in that area. I understand some credit is due to the premier of Yukon for providing some guidance and assistance to premiers and to the federal government in terms of what efforts have been made in that area in Yukon and the success that has been had there. It is something we can all learn from as we resolve problems that have been with us for some time.
I am very pleased with this particular part of the agreement that has been reached. I am hopeful about the progress in the future in this area.
In terms of where we are going now in our debate, there will be a vote tonight in this House where I certainly will be voting yes in favour of this referendum question. I am not worried about the wording of a referendum. I am not questioning the intelligence of the voters of Canada. They know what they are going to be voting on. When they go to the polls on October 26, I know that Canadians will make sure their votes are informed and educated.
All members of the House will it their duty to ensure that information is available to our constituents so that they can make their decision. I have said that before in the House. I voted for that question in the House. I believe my constituents know how strongly I feel about it.
Regardless of position and in closing I pay tribute to my leader who in supporting the yes cause of this referendum also paid heed to those who may differ because as members of Parliament we represent those people as well. I look forward to a vigorous and reasoned debate. I look forward to offering all of the information I can to my constituents so that they can make an informed vote. I encourage everyone to participate in this important and historic vote.
September 9, 1992


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the clock on the wall says seven minutes to three o'clock Eastern Daylight Time. It is a rather extraordinary time to be speaking here in the House of Commons, but after all this is rather an extraordinary issue and these are extraordinary times. Therefore I guess we should not be surprised that we are doing such things at such an unusual early hour of the day.
I am here early this morning to say unequivocally that I support whole-heartedly the Charlottetown accord. I support the October 26 referendum as a means of getting a decisive opinion from Canadians on the Charlottetown accord. I am here to say that I support the question that will be put to Canadians in the referendum of October 26.
First the question. I have heard, not directly, some criticism of the question. I really do not take the criticism seriously because I believe the question is very clear, very straight forward and neutral. I do not think people will have any difficulty understanding the question. I do not think it could be much more clear than the way it is written. It reads:
Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?
I think that is pretty clear. I concede that some people would have preferred a question that was tied a bit more directly to possible sovereignty for the province of Quebec. That might have made, in the eyes of some Canadians, the choice a bit more stark. But let us not fool ourselves. When people are responding to this question with a yes or no, whether they approve the agreement reached on August 28, I am sure that in the back of the minds of most Canadians who will take time to answer the question will be the matter of sovereignty. I am not concerned about that at all. I think the question is very fair.
Now the referendum, the vehicle by which we get the decisive opinion from Canadians. My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, has been solidly behind and advocating a referendum on this issue for more than a year now. We have stated publicly many times that we support a referendum because, in my words anyway, I think it is the only way we are going to settle this issue once and for all.
We know that talking about the Constitution is a kind of Canadian disease. There is no doubt that even after
Government Orders
the referendum and if the issue is finally settled people will continue talking about the Constitution one way or the other. We need a decisive response from Canadians and this is the only way we are going to put the issue behind us and put the issue to bed. It will really be the only way to shut some people up.
If we get approval from Canadians, and I sincerely believe we will, we can go to those people who will continue harping on the Constitution and simply put to them that the people of Canada have spoken and enough is enough. We cannot go on with this forever. I think they will respond. They will pay attention to the opinion they will hear from Canadians. If they only hear it from politicians, academics and journalists, I think they will go on. This is one time we have to get the public opinion and we are going to get it. I believe we are going to get a resounding yes vote. That is my feeling and my hope.
In so far as the agreement is concerned-let us talk about that-I do not want to go through every piece of it.
I do not want to go through the agreement line by line. That is something that was left to negotiation. We can only hope that the first ministers, the territorial leaders and the aboriginal leaders went through the agreement line by line and have come up with this package. It is now for us, for all Canadians, to vote on this agreement. They will either vote it up or they will vote it down.
When I take the position that I am in support of the accord or in support of the agreement, let us be clear that I am not totally happy with every component of it. This is not a perfect piece. But I was not looking for perfection. I knew before this process started that we were not going to get perfection. At least I was right on that. There is grumbling in Atlantic Canada, there is grumbling in Quebec, there is grumbling in Ontario, there is grumbling out on the prairies, there is grumbling everywhere. Because everybody is grumbling maybe the job was not so bad after all. It is the nature of this constitutional business that there will be grumbling, and we have got it.
It appears that people of one region are saying: "We didn't get as much as people did in some other region of Canada". I think that is a pretty typical response.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
I am not happy with every piece. I will give an example, the Senate. I was really hoping for a revised, a renewed Senate that would have more clout, that would give western Canada a larger voice in the Parliament of Canada and I do not think we got it. I think that the institution that we are going to get out of this is going to be largely symbolic. I do not think it is going to be very powerful at all.
I think the negotiators, the first ministers, the territorial leaders and the aboriginal leaders, sacrificed too much of the second E so that they could get the third E, the so-called equality E. But that is what they came up with and I am prepared to live with it.
I am optimistic that if we get this new Senate that it will grow, that it will develop, that it is not going to remain as is for 1,000 years. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the development of the U.S. Senate. It developed over the decades. It started out as an appointed body. It is not an appointed body any more. It has grown into a very powerful institution in the United States. I am hoping that the same thing will happen with the new Senate here in Canada.
I think it is unfortunate that the agreement allows for the appointment of any senators. I have really had it up to here with the appointment of senators. I do not think that is the way to go. My guess is for those Canadians who do not have the opportunity to elect directly their senators that it will not be long into the future before they will be demanding of their politicians the right to vote for their senators directly. I assume their argument will be if other Canadians can have that right, why not all of us. I think that is going to come, but it will take time.
Constitutions are documents that are designed to evolve over a long period of time, but of course the evolution is extremely slow. I can certainly live with the accord and I will support it enthusiastically because we have got to get on to other things.
The country is in an economic mess. Wherever I go in my constituency of Winnipeg-St. James, people are saying we have got to get off the Constitution and start working on the economy. The unemployment problem is horrendous. We are talking about unemployment of at least 11.6 per cent of the labour force. If we counted the people who have given up looking for jobs, I suspect that the real unemployment rate is closer to 12 per cent and it could be well over 12.
We have many, many serious economic questions facing us because of Tory mismanagement. There is the free trade agreement that was signed four years ago. There is the NAFTA. There are all kinds of social issues.
When I was door knocking this summer in my riding, if there was one particular message I heard from constituents over and over again, it was: "Let us get the Constitution out of our way. Let us do it with that old Canadian flare of compromise and get on to some very, very pressing economic problems". I would hope that when the referendum is completed on October 26 that the very next day after we get the yes vote, which I believe we will, we can train our guns on the economy because it is in a serious, serious mess and we have to do something.
I would say this to those people who are inclined to say no to the agreement: Sure we can talk about it for another year. We could talk about it for another five years. We could talk about it I suppose for another 10 years. More talk, more debate, more wringing our hands is no guarantee that we are going to get a better document than the one that is before us.
It is decision time. The document reflects compromise. Sure, it is not perfect. Sure, we are frustrated. Think about the people in some other countries in the world; the people of Sarajevo, South Africa, Somalia and in some of the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Think of their problems and ask yourself whether they would prefer our Canadian problems over theirs. I would suspect that they would say almost unanimously that in the full context of world issues, ours are not too bad.
I am glad that we have exercised compromise and that we have come up with an offer to the province of Quebec that will give Quebecers the opportunity to say yes to Canada. I think Quebecers have wanted that opportunity for a long, long time. They want that opportunity. It is here now. It is actually for Quebecers to decide whether the offer is good enough for them. But my feeling is that they will say yes to it and they will say yes to it enthusiastically. When they do and when the rest of Canadians give support to this agreement, we can turn this particular page and go on to some other things.
In my final few words, I would want to say to my constituents that I hope they participate as much as they would want to in this referendum. I would hope that they would seek out as much information as possible so that they feel comfortable with the question and with the issue.
September 9, 1992

I am prepared to do anything possible for them and to provide them with information. For example next Wednesday at the United Church in Headingley, Manitoba, which is on the west side of my riding, I will have one of my regular open houses. That is next Wednesday evening. At that time I would be more than happy to distribute material on this particular agreement. I invite as many people as possible to come out and ask questions and get the written material so that they can be as well informed as possible. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the debate. I am satisfied this agreement is a success and we will go on to much better days for this great country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be given this opportunity to participate in this historic debate this evening. This is only the second time this century that the government has asked the people of this country to make their wishes known through a referendum. As the member for Kingston and the Islands, I am pleased to have this opportunity to convey the thoughts and ideas of my constituents.
The agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers is, like the agreement creating our federation in 1867, a great compromise.
As the constitutional affairs minister said today in his speech,

it was a cobbling together of interests and issues, and I fully agree with what the minister said.
I agree also with my colleague from Winnipeg when he said this agreement is not perfect. In fact, I think almost every member of this House has said the agreement is not perfect. I am sure if every member was canvassed as to what the imperfections were, there would probably be 295 different opinions as to what was right and what was not.
There is a wide diversity of view in respect of this agreement. There is plenty of room for disagreement in respect of it. Any one of us can find fault with various provisions in the document, but in spite of that I believe it represents a reasonable compromise and it should be supported.
Government Orders
I do so not because of great enthusiasm for the agreement, but I do so because I think in the long run it can work for our country. I think it represents a significant improvement on the Meech Lake accord and for one particular reason. It is for this reason I had grave reservations and, in fact, opposed the Meech Lake accord for what good that opposition did at the time.
This agreement deals with the Senate. Meech Lake established a Senate that was appointed by the provinces and which left unchecked the Senate's powers. It also provided that the Senate arrangements could not be changed except by the unanimous consent of the provinces. Once the provincial governments got the power to appoint their senators, the Senate had an absolute veto on the House of Commons and the provision for that appointment could not be changed except by unanimous consent.
We had a situation where the provinces in effect took control of the federal Parliament in a very direct way which in my view was completely contrary to the scheme of the British North America Act, our Constitution Act, and of course contrary to any principle of separation of powers which we have in the federal system because it gave the provinces a very powerful override in this Parliament.
It was for that reason I was concerned that the Meech Lake accord was seriously flawed and should be opposed. This deal has solved that problem. I do not particularly like the way it has been solved. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we in this party have reservations about the arrangements in respect of the Senate.

We still have some unresolved issues pertaining to the Senate, but I think that we have at least come up with something that is acceptable and I can live with the over-all agreement when I consider all of the other solutions proposed in the agreements that we have here this evening.
Finally, the time has come to conclude our discussions on the Constitution and to begin talking about the other problems facing this country, particularly the economy and unemployment, which is a major problem for Canadians today because of this government's economic policies.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders

I want to make it very clear also why we are discussing this whole issue tonight because I think that throughout this debate Canadians are going to remember why it is that the constitutional crisis has been brought on this country at this time. It is the direct result of the election of this government in 1984.
The Prime Minister, this government, chose to meddle in constitutional matters when no one in Canada was discussing the Constitution. He had to muddy the waters, he had to ride like a white knight through the constitutional morass that is Canada.
Our Constitution has never been anything but a patchwork of agreements and compromises, and instead of leaving well alone, the Prime Minister and his cabinet decided to bungle into the area as they have bungled into so many things in the course of their administration, and they came up with this crisis. They created this crisis and they have had to solve it.
Everyone is expressing great relief-not everyone but a lot of people are expressing great relief-that the matter has apparently been finally resolved and we will know more on October 26.
The sole reason that we are facing this crisis is because of the incompetent bungling of this government. If it had left this issue alone we would not be facing this problem today. We would not have spent the last four or five years haggling over this particular difficulty.
Members of the opposition have tried to co-operate with the government, have tried to show some leadership-indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has shown tremendous leadership on this issue-to extricate the country from this morass. We have not been players directly in the negotiation of the agreement-that matter has been settled between the premiers and the Prime Minister-although it is certainly true that as an opposition we had some input in the various committee hearings that preceded the final accord.
We have been anxious to get this matter off the table. This is part of the reason for our support for the agreement that has now been reached. But the government has almost destroyed our country in its constitutional foul-ups and bungling and Canadians will not soon forget that particular sad part of the equation, and that is a very important part of the discussion tonight.
The other thing that is important to remember is that the resolution of this dispute or this conflict will do absolutely nothing to create jobs for Canadians, to provide food for Canadians, or to provide additional moneys for those who are desperately in need.

Indeed, we will be losing jobs after the referendum. Those people who were employed by the government to assist with the constitutional negotiations will not have any work once the referendum is over. Obviously a constitutional agreement does nothing to help those Canadians who need jobs, work or assistance in providing food for their families.

What I fear about the referendum debate is the activity of two groups whose aim is to break up Canada. On the one hand, we have the group in English Canada who seem to think that perhaps we can dispense with Quebec, that we should kick Quebec out of the country. On the other hand, we have a group in Quebec who believe they would be better off going it alone and should abandon the rest of us and establish their own state and break the country up.
In my view, neither of these groups is sufficiently large on its own to cause the damage that each would like to do. However, an apathetic view on the part of other Canadians, indifference to the outcome of this referendum on the part of well-meaning Canadians, and an unwillingness to enter into this agreement in the spirit of compromise and vote against the question in the referendum and vote no in the referendum, will all add to the strength and the power of those groups that seek to break our country apart.
It is important that we get behind the yes vote in this referendum and I, of course, indicate my support for it. I will campaign to ensure that the yes side does as well as can be done in my constituency of Kingston and the Islands and anywhere else I can be of assistance.
September 9, 1992

In his famous report, Lord Durham early in the last century reported that he found "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state". That situation, of course, has changed. There is not a war on. However, what I fear has been happening in Canada for a long time and which I hope has been changing in the last few years is the fact that we have two nations living apart under the same roof. Too often we fail to get together and look at each other, examine each other's culture and see what we have in common.

Notwithstanding changes in the past years, we still have two solitudes in Canada. Bilingualism is the way to slowly change that. Our history is filled with examples of agreements between the two founding nations. People who deny that there are two founding nations or that it is now an important concept in Canada are putting at risk both our country and the present agreement which is so important for everyone. We must study the history of Canada, as the minister responsible for constitutional affairs said today. That study will reveal everywhere the importance of this great partnership between the two nations that founded our country.

We have to build our country much as though we were neighbours in a community. When one of us goes to assist a neighbour who is in need of assistance, whether it is taking food over because of a problem or going to relieve the other for various physical problems that may beset him or her, we do community building. We feel better ourselves. We strengthen ourselves. We build our self-esteem. We strengthen and help the neighbour. We build up the neighbour's feelings of community and importance and strengthen him or her.
Why can we not do the same between our communities? Why are we unable to reach out and help another, build each other up by trying to learn and appreciate the other's needs, weaknesses and strengths?
We have in our country the opportunity through our culture, our multicultural heritage, but certainly through the original culture of the two if you want to call it that-the aboriginal culture which is all very much a part of it-to build a very strong and very vibrant community.
We have it now. What we need to do is build on the strength that we have developed in the past, give our citizens an opportunity to continue the job of nationbuilding which was begun 125 years ago and I believe it
Government Orders
can be continued under the new arrangements that have been negotiated.
It will be slightly different. There will be changes. But I do not believe those changes are detrimental to the basic fabric of this country which all of us have lived in, worked for and will continue to strive for in the years ahead. I am not gung ho on the deal, but it is something I can live with. I will support it and I urge my fellow Canadians to do so in the hope that we can put this sad chapter of our constitutional history behind us and get on with dealing with the economic problems that beset our country.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the issue before the House tonight and before Canadians, that is the referendum question that will be presented to Canadians for their consideration and decision concerning amendments to the Canadian Constitution.
I see this issue in a rather simplistic way. After the patriation of the Constitution from Great Britain in the early 1980s, Quebec refused to sign the document, refused to become a part of the Canadian Constitution because of various deep-seated grievances.
It has taken virtually a decade to develop a process and a package that would allow Quebecers to consider joining once again with other Canadians in bringing this country together. That is the issue before us; a set of provisions which provide an opportunity for Quebec to remain within Canada. The amendments to the Constitution appear to do this. The signals from Quebec are that there will be a very deep and divisive debate. It looks as if it will divide families. It will divide friends and divide social organizations. It will be a very intense debate in the province of Quebec.
People in other parts of Canada are very hopeful and very optimistic that these changes will meet their needs and that the majority of Quebecers will vote in support of this question and remain with Canada to build a future together.
It reminds me of a sign I see in more and more places where individual Canadians are saying: "My Canada includes Quebec and my future includes Quebec, with all Canadians together". I think many people are very concerned about the difficult debate that will go on in Quebec. Hopefully it will be resolved without lasting scars and will allow Quebec to move forward.

September 9, 1992
Government Orders
It is a serious concern when we hear the Prime Minister of Canada saying that he is going into the province of Quebec to fight separatism. It worries me and many others. We conjure up a picture of a badly damaged Prime Minister in the eyes of Canadians, going into Quebec trying to resurrect his self-image and the self-image of a damaged government by attacking Quebecers.
Many people in this country believe that Quebec should be allowed to debate this question itself and not have this badly damaged Prime Minister moving into Quebec like Sherman marching through Georgia to bum Atlanta and the damage that could result from that, motivated by personal and political self-interest. I hope that does not occur. I hope that many of us are mistaken in our interpretation of his remarks. It is going to be difficult in Quebec. Our best wishes go with them. The vast majority of Canadians want Quebec in a renewed Canada facing the future together. If Canada was without Quebec it would certainly be a damaged country and one whose prospects for the future would be grim and difficult indeed.
This document does not contain everything I or any other Canadian had hoped to see. It is unfortunate that the package that left the table is going to be difficult to improve before it leaves this House, before it is considered by Canadians. We do have a compromise arrangement.
Another aspect of the constitutional agreement is extremely important and that is the issues affecting aboriginal people. The aboriginal people of Canada seem to be relieved and supportive and to some degree very pleased at the outcome, that a right to aboriginal self-government exists within this document. The opportunity to create aboriginal self-government situations across this country is now recognized and exists.
Aboriginal people have another cause for optimism. There seems to be a movement in British Columbia, an area where I believe there has been no positive movement, on the question of aboriginal land claims. That now seems to be moving forward as the Government of British Columbia and the government here in Ottawa move closer to reaching agreements for a process to begin the resolution of that issue.
The Constitution, coupled with what appears now to be a determination to resolve aboriginal land claim issues and aboriginal rights, is now moving forward. I would think the next decade would be one of great optimism for many aboriginal people in Canada to leave the terrible ghettos in which they have found themselves and open a great opportunity to this and succeeding generations of the aboriginal people of this country.
Those two provisions give me great cause for optimism, that we can find Quebec solidly within the national framework and working toward the future together and that we resolve the issue or put on the road to solution the issue of aboriginal self-government and the aboriginal land claim.
I do not support the Senate agreement. I see the Senate as an obstacle to progress for Canadians. I certainly do not share with the previous speaker from the Liberal Party his view of the Senate. The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, the previous speaker, believes the Senate needs to be strengthened. I see it as an impediment to Canadians making judgments. In many cases the United States Senate has been a terrible curse inflicted on the democratic process of making decisions in the United States. In Canada we face the same process. I have always felt that I would abolish that institution if I ever had a say.
Unfortunately, it is the reality of the package. It is a compromise. I cannot have what I want in the Senate and the speaker from Winnipeg-St. James cannot have what he wants in the Senate. At least it appears to be elected. At least it appears that it does not completely override representation by population, the basic foundation of a democratic society. So we will both have to, as indicated, vote yes and support this package, knowing that there are many elements in it that we do not support.
This is the dilemma of all Canadians who are looking at this package, considering a vote in a referendum. They will not like everything in it and that is the reality of a compromise. That is the reality of Canada and it is going to be difficult. It is going to be extremely difficult in the province of Quebec and I know the hearts of the vast majority of Canadians go out to them as they make this very difficult decision. We all cannot have what we want.
September 9, 1992

When the premiers, the aboriginal people and those who participated in hammering out this agreement left with the accord from Charlottetown worked out and basically put before us a package of amendments, that was essentially it. Canadians, members of Parliament, everyone from coast to coast will have an opportunity to say yes or no.
I will support this. I will definitely vote for it. In the area I represent in North Island-Powell River we are holding public meetings in the major communities to provide information to people, a forum in which they can discuss it. We are also forming a yes committee, a committee which will encourage Canadians who live in that area to consider and then support the proposition.
We have a difficult task. We have to convince them that this is not Brian Mulroney or the Conservative government's proposal. This is a proposal hammered out by a group of people in Canada based on very wide public hearings on it, of consideration, debate and compromise. It is a package brought forward by many people. It is not a package of the Prime Minister of Canada or the Conservative Party.
We will convince the people that it is a much broader document. It is a document of extreme importance to Canada in that it has the opportunity to make us whole again and face the future together. I believe the people in that area will support that document.
We have a problem and I think the problem has to be identified here and dealt with. I call it the dog in the manger problem. We had a number of members of the B.C. Conservative Party who used the opportunity to attack Premier Mike Harcourt of British Columbia.
When the agreement came together, it was a compromise from all parts and when they each agreed on it, that was the end of it. We have members of the Conservative caucus, who represent areas in British Columbia, and the GST senator criticizing the premier of British Columbia instead of saying: "Look, we will go forward and work together and have British Columbians support this document to ensure we can go forward together with the province of Quebec, with aboriginal people, and with the other positive aspects of it". They chose the dog in the manger route.
Another one of British Columbia's dog in the manger advocates is the Liberal Leader, Gordon Wilson. It is
Government Orders
extremely disappointing that rather than accept this as a compromise, part of a living document that goes forward and changes to meet the needs of Canadians as they move forward into the future, the dog in the manger approach uses it to attack the premier of British Columbia rather than to work with British Columbians in understanding the document and bringing it forward.
It is my hope, and I understand this is under way, the federal Liberal caucus is working hard with Mr. Wilson and his caucus to bring him into line, to encourage him to support this document as a compromise document, and to stop the attacks on other partners in the yes approach, to stop the attack against women.
When Mike Harcourt and other members of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia and other organizations, including the Liberal organization nationally, have said that women do not have fair representation in Canada, it is incumbent on Mr. Wilson to stop his attacks.
On two occasions on two different issues he said pay equity is not a thing that can happen now because we cannot afford it and we cannot afford to have gender equity in the political institutions. That is wrong. That I think is anti-basic principles. My colleague says anti-democratic and I know she will be one of the ones trying to put Mr. Wilson back on the correct path of co-operation.
I think Mr. Wilson's approach right now is anti-aboriginal Canadian. It is anti-women and it is anti-Canadian. The dog in the manger approach cannot be continued.
I personally believe the Vancouver Sun falls into that area of the dog in the manager journalism. The attacks on the premier of British Columbia at this point in time are absolutely counterproductive. When I see Nicole Parton's article, I am disgusted by a former Social Credit candidate having a pen to attack the premier in the dog in the manger approach.
It is my hope that major institution of media in the province will turn and begin to support and provide useful information to British Columbians to help them understand this document, help them understand how important it is to Canada, even though it is a compromise, and to then lend support to the vote in support of the document.

Government Orders
It is time to end the dog in the manger approach to this and to work together as Canadians to get this document into position, to get Quebec back into the mainstream of Canada and get aboriginal people back into the mainstream of Canada, and then build and work with this living document into the future, together.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate tonight to talk not primarily as a Liberal, not primarily even as a member of Parliament, but primarily as a Canadian.
From the first time I took my seat in this Chamber I have been very aware that I have a tremendous responsibility to all the generations that have sat in this Chamber before us and to all those to come after for whom we are creating the future.
I have to ask myself as we begin this important debate, are we being true to the vision of our forebears who dared to dream of a great nation, united from sea to sea against all odds of geography and distance and economics, who dared to dream that we could combine the best of different cultures and build a nation not fragmented by our differences but richer and stronger because of them. I have to ask if we are being true to our future in a world where a country like ours is a model of how people can live in harmony without suppressing their differences but in appreciation of those differences and of what we all contribute to the fullness of humanity.
This is truly an historic moment in our long journey as a nation because for the first time Canadians have claimed their Constitution for themselves. Never again will a handful of people be able to emerge from behind closed doors proclaiming that only they know what is best for Canadians and that no one else has anything to contribute to the debate. We learned that does not work.
Tribute has been paid today and yesterday to members of Parliament, ministers, leaders, officials and experts who have led us up to this accord. I too have the deepest respect for the agonizing, difficult and heartbreaking at times process that those people have been through, but I pay tribute tonight to those thousands of Canadians, probably tens of thousands, who rejected the secret deals
by a select few and who fought for a Constitution that could truly be theirs.
I pay tribute to all our fellow citizens who have spent years pleading for open doors, presenting briefs to various committees, travelling the country to attend consultations, baring their souls to the Spicer commission, talking to their neighbours and friends, putting up posters, designing T-shirts, expressing their love and their hopes for this country in whatever way they could and expressing their insistence that they have a voice in its future.
Now it is time for us as parliamentarians to trust the wisdom they have brought to that process, a wisdom that has helped our leaders finally come to an accord. We have to trust them and we have to say that those who question aspects or even all of this agreement are not bad Canadians. They are not disloyal to our country. They are not anti any part of our country or any of its people.
It is the right of every Canadian to carefully consider, as we must do, the pros and cons of what they see in this agreement and for each Canadian to make his or her own final judgment and know that that judgment will be respected by their fellow Canadians.
We must trust all Canadians to bring a fair and open mind and a generosity of spirit to their decision and to make a decision based not on self-interest and pettiness, but on what is best for Canada, and I believe that is what they will do.
We must treat this referendum period, short as it is, as a time to build consensus, to restore the trust of Canadians in one another, to replace the fear, despair and mistrust that has been growing and has been eating away at this country, to replace those with confidence in our wholeness, confidence in one another and confidence in our future.
We must also be prepared, as we try to build that consensus, to listen and to bring back to this House then-thoughts and their ideas so that as we put legal language and form on the accord that we now have in general terms, we remain true to the trust those Canadians have placed in us.
September 9, 1992

I say with confidence that I believe they will support this accord if we remain true to the trust they have placed in us in bringing their thoughts, their ideas and their misgivings back to this House and trying to produce an even better document.
There will be people who will say no to this accord. By and large they will say no because they feel it is not good for Canada. There are others who do not want this accord to succeed because they do not want this country to succeed whole and strong.
There are those who see Quebec as a thorn in the heart of Canada, who see only one culture and one language group that should dominate this country, that their way or homogeneity is the way of the future for Canada. Most of us do not see it that way. They will fight this accord because they do not want the country to stay together.
There are those within Quebec who do not want the country to stay together because they believe in the separation of Quebec. They forget that they lost a referendum a decade and more ago when Quebecers rejected separation under different terms. They are trying to win that battle again, and I do not believe we can let that happen.
Do I have concerns about this accord? Yes, I do. No agreement so all-encompassing can contain everything I hoped it would contain or can be free of faults that I would rather not see there any more than it can be 100 per cent satisfactory to every Canadian.
For instance, in an era when we know that the health of our environment determines our future survival and our economic prosperity, I find it a great lack that we have a Constitution that talks about an economic union but neglects to integrate with that an environmental union.
I have concerns for the linguistic duality that has been so much part of our history and of our richness when I see that it is possible to enter into agreements with the provinces but service to Canadians in both official languages will be an optional add-on to those agreements when the federal government provides resources but allows others to deliver programs.
I have concerns for the commitment we have had to all parts of our country to share equally in the opportunities of this great experiment called Canada. I have concerns that the agreements to be entered into with the provinces may diminish the ability of Canada and the Government of Canada to act on behalf of all Canadians and to meet our international obligations which will become
Government Orders
increasingly important. I have concerns that an equality that is more than geographic has not been fully met or respected in this document.
I also rejoice that we have recognized the right of aboriginals to a fairer place in Canada, to determine their own future. I rejoice that we have recognized the need to break down economic barriers within Canada, that we have framed a commitment to a social contract, that we have a Senate which parts of the country that have felt left out of the process now feel answers some of their needs.
I see in that Senate new incentives for more open government because a Senate that is there to represent specific interests and capable of blocking the deliberations of this House at the last moment is going to force more open consultation in advance of putting in legislation. I think that is positive progress for this country.
It will lead to more open, honest and more democratic government as will the need for federal provincial agreements which I think every member of this House and I will insist be negotiated openly, honestly and in full view of Canadians.
We have been through a process that was needless to begin with, that has been longer and more painful than necessary, that has sapped our energy from crucial issues that we must be addressing. The 1.6 million Canadians who are out of work today and the close to half a million who are suffering because of the high unemployment level certainly want us to get on with dealing with those issues.
I do not believe and I do not believe that most Canadians believe that this will be the end of the Constitution forever and ever. We have always had a changing dynamics, adaptable country. Others have spoken today of compromise. I do not speak of compromise because that implies people giving in and giving up things. I speak of accommodation where we work together to find what works best for all of us. It is also not what I started out wanting or what somebody else started out wanting but what together we will think will work.
It is time for Canadians to trust one another again. We have had to do that throughout our history. Our Constitution has never been firm and definitive and final. There will always be a tension because we in this country are charting a course, a new way of living together as human beings, a new pattern of unity and diversity that is a beacon of hope for the world.

Government Orders
Let it be a creative tension we live in. Let us never again stretch the ties that bind to the point of breaking. Let us deal with those tensions with respect, with generosity and, yes, with love.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Elouse I am proud to take part in this debate even though it is 3.50 a.m. It is important for Canadians to debate the Constitution and the referendum that I support. We on this side of the House demanded a referendum so that the people of Canada could voice their opinion on the consensus report on the Constitution agreed upon by the first ministers in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992.
The Canadian people want this issue settled so that attention can be directed toward the economy and the 1.6 million people in Canada who are unemployed, people who need jobs and want to work to continue building a nation that is the best in the world.
This will be the first time in the history of Canada that all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their views on such a package on the same day. The Charlottetown agreement, though not perfect, reflects a broad consensus among the 10 first ministers of the provinces, the ministers of the Government of Canada, the three main parties of this House, the people and the leaders of the territories and the aboriginal peoples.
To go a bit further, the Liberal Party on this side of the House worked very hard on this constitutional program. In fact we laid out the official position of our party in April 1991. Consequently we are pleased that many of our concerns were responded to and are reflected in the document.
In the 1860s, going back in the history of this nation, the concept of Confederation remained a very elusive one until finally in 1867 the log jam was broken. One of the major builders of Confederation was the member for the constituency of Lambton from 1854 to 1857 of the Canadian Assembly of Upper and Lower Canada. While he was not a member in 1867 his untiring efforts have served us well. In the words of Lord Monck who later became Governor General: "Without the untiring efforts of George Brown the concept of Confederation would not have been feasible". Even though he was not a member of the assemblies at that time, he was one of the men who brought together the concept that was agreed
upon in Prince Edward Island at the time. He has to go down in history as being not only one of the Fathers of Confederation but also the founder and publisher of The Globe.
A few years later Prince Edward Island joined Confederation and part of that agreement was that it would have four members in the House of Commons. We also took over its railway. To show good faith it threw it into the package. Of course the rest of Canada did not realize the debt load that went with it at the time. Prince Edward Island became part of Canada. It has a population today of about 125,000 people and it still has four members of Parliament representing an area not much larger than my constituency and with a slightly larger population base.
Therefore the precedent was set back in the early 1870s when Prince Edward Island joined Confederation guaranteeing a province a specific number of members in this House. That is the provision Quebec has sought and achieved in this last agreement, asking for 25 per cent of the seats in the House. It is no different from the precedent set at that time, even though at the present time Quebec has slightly more than 25 per cent of the population of Canada within its borders.
It was not until World War I that Canada shed its colonial vestiges. In the battle of Vimy Ridge under the leadership of Sir Arthur Currie, again from my constituency, the strategic ridge was captured, where other armies had failed.
In World War II Canadian men and women distinguished themselves in world conflict. It was after World War II that our social safety nets were put in place to care for the less fortunate, safety nets that are the best in the world and that resulted in the nation being considered one of the best of all nations in the world. Our nation was built on the principle of compassion and caring to assist the less fortunate. All Canadians are considered as equals.
Since World War II there were several attempts to patriate and amend the British North America Act, our Constitution at the time. It served us well for many years, but like any piece of legislation it had to be amended and updated to keep abreast of changes in society. We had to go to the Parliament of Westminster with cap in hand to have those amendments made.
September 9, 1992

Government Orders
In 1972 we thought we had achieved an agreement of separation from the rest of Canada and it chose not to but it fell apart too. That was 20 years ago.	accept the new Constitution.
In 1980-81 we brought the Constitution home from Parliament in England and enshrined the charter of rights. However the preamble reads that Canada was founded on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of the land.
That reflects our Canadian identity and our sense of pride as builders of a nation that is celebrating its 125th birthday this year. While other nations are involved in civil wars and thousands of people are being killed, we resolve our problems here in Canada through negotiation and compromise, the Canadian way.
This package includes provision for the distinct society requested by Quebec. It is defined. It points out the language difference, the difference in the court and the legal system. Quebec has the civil law and the rest of Canada has the common law or the British system. Its culture is different, but it still has its hockey and ball teams. The people of Quebec are Canadians too.
It was the people of Quebec who opened up their homes in early years, in the pioneer times, to immigrants from Ireland suffering from famine and plague who came to this land. In some cases whole families were wiped out by the plague. Children lost their parents and children were lost. It was the people of Quebec who took these orphans into their homes and raised them as their own. These people have a sense of pride in being Canadian. I believe a sense of pride can help us keep this nation together and realize the necessity of moving forward with this package.
This document is not perfect. I am not satisfied that the proposed Senate will be effective enough, but this can be strengthened at a later date. I firmly believe we must have a Senate, because any successful democratic society must have a series of checks and balances to operate effectively. In our system of government the Senate is one of those checks and balances. [DOT]
Over the last few years we have seen attempts to better our Constitution. One of the tragedies of the eighties was that when the Constitution was patriated we realized that the Government of Quebec was in favour
Let us hope that this era of our history is behind us and that we will move on as a united Canada.
The Spicer commission criss-crossed this nation listening to Canadians. The Dobbie-Beaudoin committee, made up of members of this House and the Senate, held hearings from one side of this nation to the other and thousands of Canadians expressed their opinions. Finally, the first ministers have expressed their opinions and arrived at an agreement.
The agreement includes the aboriginal peoples, a revamped Senate, a distinct society clause and a Canadian clause and the Canadian people now have the final voice on this whole issue through a referendum.
As I indicated earlier it is not perfect, but I believe it is the best we can achieve at this point in our history. Therefore, I will be supporting this package. My offices will work to provide information to my constituents so they can make an intelligent decision when they vote on October 26. We intend to make all of our offices and our facilities available to those who request information.
I am also pleased that many of the items that my colleagues and I from this side of the House had asked for were included in this package. I would be very much remiss if I did not pay tribute to those members of Parliament and senators who worked so hard in the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee and came up with a unanimous report. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel who spoke earlier in this House today-he was the spokesperson for the Official Opposition from our benches-and to my colleagues who worked with him on that committee. I was confident that those members would strive to come up with a proposal that was in the interest of all Canadians. I hope we have achieved that objective.
As a member of Parliament in this House, and having witnessed this process twice-first in the early eighties when I was here, and then again now-I am deeply concerned that while we wrestle with constitutional problems here in Canada the government has negotiated two trade agreements that will have a traumatic longterm impact on the lives of our people and the economy of this nation.

Government Orders
I speak about the Canada-U.S. trade agreement in which Canada gave away the right to make legislative decisions or regulatory decisions that will impact on this nation for years to come. For example, in the agriculture portfolio alone eight acts were changed with 15 amendments to conform to that agreement. By the same token no U.S. laws were changed or amended.
At this point we do not know what changes will be needed to conform to the North American free trade agreement. No doubt, there will be some and they will again take away our ability to make decisions in the interests of Canada. Our standards are the very highest in the world. They have been compromised. For example, of 48 chemicals used in food production and processing in Mexico 12 are banned in Canada. Are the lives of Canadians going to be endangered, is the health of our citizens going to be endangered to conform to an agreement that was conducted behind closed doors, in quite a contrast to the hearings held by the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee or the discussion by the 10 provincial premiers?
These trade agreements are pushed by huge trans-national corporations that know no loyalty or corporate responsibility except to their shareholders. We are seeing government by corporate decision as these companies close down the plants in Canada and move to Third World countries where cheap labour exists and environmental regulations are virtually non-existent. In the name of global competitiveness this country's standard of living will suffer.
It is a national disgrace that not only do we have 1.6 million unemployed workers here in Canada but our Canadian farmers also have to find other work to put food on their own tables, even though each Canadian farmer feeds 120 other Canadians.
In 1990 the average Canadian family farm income was almost $37,000, which included income earned by the spouse or the farmer himself from sources other than the farming operation. Of the $37,000, $21,500 came from income earned from these other sources leaving a balance of $15,500 from that farming operation. Of this amount, $8,091 came from government subsidies, federal or provincial, leaving a balance of only $7,400 from the sale of those farm products alone.
This is a national disgrace. We are allowing corporate interests to achieve a level of control that forces down the price of basic products at the farm level and increases food prices for our consumers.
Just today I read an article in a European newspaper saying that a similar downward trend in farm prices in Europe did not result in lower prices to consumers. The tragedy of all this is the number of victims of those nations that are being governed by corporate decisions, those persons in our cities who have to rely on food banks to survive and, even more tragically, the millions of starving people in Africa.
Finally, I just wanted to say a word about rekindling the spirit and the sense of pride of being Canadian. I was in Calgary at the Calgary Stampede. In the evening performance the Company of Young Canadians, young Canadians from Calgary, put on a variety show. They began with a melody of songs; 15 or 20 came out and sang songs from Newfoundland; another group came out and sang about Anne of Green Gables; and another group sang some of the songs from Nova Scotia and Anne Murray. In the end they all came out together and sang "This Land is My Land, This Land is Your Land from Bonavista to Vancouver Island". While they were on stage they asked everybody to rise and 30,000 people stood and sang O Canada with them, many with tears streaming down their cheeks.
We have to rekindle that sense of pride of being Canadian. Let us hope this document will achieve that objective.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada, as Canadians, we have been very complacent about who we are and who we have been. Most of us have also been proud of who we are. We have been proud with good reason. Canada has been a place where the citizens generally have felt comfortable. Canada has been a place where people from anywhere in the world could work, study, play and find a niche for themselves where they felt comfortable.
We have not been the melting pot of the United
States. We have not harboured the hostility of national
groups like in Bosnians, Macedonians and Serbians in
September 9, 1992

the old Yugoslavia or the Georgians or Armenians of the U.S.S.R. Canada has been a model, not a melting pot but a free and accepting home for people from every part of the world. People came from all across the world knowing they would be accepted and have a somewhat equal chance of making a good home for their family in Canada. Most of them left their hostilities behind and found that they could be what they wanted to be, keep what they wanted to keep from their old culture and blend with their new country and add a new dimension to Canada's culture. We did, in Canada, what no other country has done quite so successfully. We allowed and cherished a mosaic and nourished it with policies that recognize the differences of people from other countries, and only demanded from these newcomers an acceptance in a belief about what Canada was.
These constitutional discussions have not been about community relations, race relations, freedom of religion or freedom of speech. We take all of these for granted in Canada as part of our heritage and part of our democracy. The constitutional discussions have not been about language, although many people try to make it seem as if that is implied. Rather, these constitutional talks have been about the empowerment of the people of all regions and all parts of the country. Empowerment of people means giving them, as many as possible, the decision-making opportunities without endangering the rights of others to also control their destiny.
We must look at this constitutional consensus in that light. How much power can we give each group or each region without reducing the ability of the other groups or regions to control their own destinies?
The players in the constitutional negotiations were all hoping that they could protect their own territory, be it land, opportunity or culture. The west had concerns about political and economic domination by central Canada, basically Ontario and Quebec. This is a position which, for westerners, is as old as Confederation.
The Indians, the Inuit and the Metis wanted a part in the decision-making group in Canada. After 300 years of never quite breaking into the governing structure, after 300 years of being on the outside looking in the aboriginal population wanted a structure which would let them have control of their own affairs.
Government Orders
Quebec, one of the founding nations, looked upon the rest of Canada with a certain amount of unease. Quebecers found themselves a diminishing portion of a largely English-speaking continent and felt themselves to be without the tools, without the powers if you wish, to protect their language and their unique culture. Without the powers to protect their position they could only look forward to continuing assimilation and eventual loss of their identity.
Many people across Canada from other nationalities who came to Canada will be saying that may be true but: "What about us? We also gave up our culture and our language to become Canadians, why should the French be different?" However, there is a difference. My family came from Norway expecting to learn the language of their new country. They kept a considerable amount of national pride in being Norwegian and became part of the mosaic. The French of Quebec were here, with a language and a culture which they did not give up to become part of Canada. In fact, they were not even asked to give it up. They were encouraged to keep and develop their culture, which they have done quite successfully for the last 200 years, particularly in the last 125 years that Canada has been a federation. Can anyone blame them for figuratively manning the ramparts when it seemed to them that an alien culture started bombarding them with communications, business investment, economic control and most of all, a diminishing need to speak French? Quebec did the natural thing. It demanded the tools to protect what it was and that is what we should have expected.
Ontario has much to protect as well. Those of us from the prairies and the maritimes probably think that Ontario's power to exploit the rest of Canada needs curbing. Those very ideas, that very thought are the seeds that produced the Triple-E Senate idea: More power to smaller provinces so that they can protect themselves from Ontario.
People in the maritimes also had the need, desire and ability to make decisions in their lives. The territories also felt limited in their ability. They wanted to be able to grow and develop as they felt they should and not depend upon others. They, too, wanted to be empowered and break out of the colonial status in which they had found themselves.

Government Orders
These are some of the elements that went into the negotiations on the Constitution. The consensus we are discussing tonight is what came out of those negotiations. A lot of compromise and a lot of give and take had to take place to come up with something acceptable to all.
Almost everyone has some concern with the consensus. There are parts of this consensus I do not like. You have heard that many times tonight, I am sure, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there were parts that people in every province did not like. Only compromise could make a consensus possible, and that is what we are asking the people to vote on now.
A yes or even a no vote will not stop the evolving of what has been agreed on in this consensus. The aboriginal governments will grow and evolve. The powers that have been moved to the provinces will be explored and measured. Some may even be given back to the federal government. Federal powers will also be explored and broadened or narrowed to fit the circumstances in which the government finds itself.
What I am really saying is that the Constitution consensus is not the end of this process. A yes vote will confirm that the direction taken by the negotiators in this consensus is acceptable to most Canadians. A no vote will mean that most Canadians feel that the status quo was acceptable and the status quo will survive.
In either case, Canada will still be here and we in this House along with most of the participants in these negotiations will get at least part of what we considered necessary. No one in this consensus, if it passes, will get everything they wanted. No one it would appear left the negotiations feeling that their hopes, their ability to affect their own destiny had been diminished in any way. All felt that the other negotiators, the provinces and the territories involved in these negotiations, recognized the desires and understood the needs of the other members of the group.
Now it is our turn, the turn of this House and the people across the country. It is our turn to put our trust in those we have chosen to negotiate on our behalf and to support what they have started.
If we get the support for this consensus, we can look forward to Canada continuing as a country which makes a place for all types of people of all races and makes
them feel comfortable enough to continue calling Canada their home.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to take part in this historic debate and hopefully to reflect the sentiments of my constituents in the riding of Winnipeg North. The motion before us states:
That pursuant to the Act to provide for Referendums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of a referendum question:
"Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,1992?
yes	no
Implied in this motion is the decision to hold a referendum on the constitutional package approved on that date in Charlottetown. The decision reflects the vision of my leader who on April 21 of last year included it as one of the nine-point proposals for constitutional reform.
Indeed, the Liberal Party of Canada has always believed the Constitution belongs to the people. Therefore, any reform package has to be submitted for their judgment. The voting citizens shall have the final say on acceptance or rejection of any constitutional proposal. I would like to respectfully remind the government that a referendum should automatically bind a government to the voter's wishes.
The proposed wording of the question for the referendum vote, although in my judgment is still amenable to improvement, is no major impediment to citizens exercising a democratic vote and now the constitutional package itself, called the Consensus Report on the Constitution as agreed to in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992.
Last July, I took my family to Charlottetown for a one-week vacation. We wanted to visit the seat of Confederation, as we as a people are engaged in a national debate on the future of our nation. I had no premonition that the present consensus on the Constitution would again be crafted in the same historic city the following month. I could only imagine the enormous task then before the Fathers of Confederation. I now salute the parents of a renewed Confederation. They did not achieve a truly perfect accord, but they achieved an accord that I hope we can all support.

Imagine a patient being seen by his doctor who knows the only remedy he has at hand will not totally cure his patient. But the doctor also knows that the prospects of discovering a real curative drug are distant. He knows that the ideal drug may not be discovered in time to give his patient a chance for a cure. Would you or would you not agree that the physician should give the imperfect but nevertheless partially curative medicine now? If you were the patient, would you or would you not expect the doctor to give you that prescription today?
Time is of the essence in any decision-making. Leadership, it is known, is a function of time.
The time is now some 20 minutes past the early morning hour of four o'clock on September 10. Late yesterday, I walked past Parliament Hill watching the glorious day fade as the sun dipped in the west. Overhead were hot air balloons in all the colours of the rainbow. I wondered about their view, up so high. To them the Peace Tower would be a needle threading the sky, the lawns a quilt of green edged in red flowers, the stately buildings like children's toys so far below. It was then that I paused for a moment to look, to really look at the sky, the green lawns, and the trees beginning to sport their autumn colours. I watched the people, some hurrying home, others strolling. There were couples, young and old, walking hand in hand past the aged buildings of Parliament Hill.
I felt that all was right with the world. My mood was pervaded by optimism for the future. Very soon, on October 26, the people, the Canadian citizeniy, would speak and their answer would be a resounding yes, a salvo of love for the country.
This was one of those moments when you fill your lungs as though the clean Canadian air were the most delicious thing ever tasted. It was one of those moments when you thank God you are alive and to be living in such a glorious place.
You see, Mr. Speaker, I am a newcomer to this country. Canada welcomed me in 1968 as a landed immigrant from the Philippines. As a new citizen I have often wondered about Canadians and the depth of their love for their country. Patriotism has always been such a degraded word, as we shirked from what we thought were over-zealous displays of flag-waving south of the border.
Government Orders
No, Canadians are calmer, quieter people who do not wear their love of country on their sleeves. Instead, they wear it tucked inside their shirt pockets, close to their hearts, but within easy reach in times like this when our new constitutional proposals will fly or die on the decisions of Canadian citizens.
What does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? Everyone has filled out a form or a paper at one time or another where there is a box marked "citizenship". Most of the 26 million people in this country check "Canadian" and never stop to wonder what it must feel like to check the box that reads "landed immigrant". Those landed immigrants and refugees are the people who want so much to be citizens of this great country. Over 250,000 people each year are pressing to be a part of this great nation.
I am a Canadian who chose Canada instead of being bom into it. Many of my constituents did likewise. We are first generation Canadians who came to this country by land, air and sea to make their homes in the embrace of this great land.
To live in a country that is not Canada, that is not democratic and free, is to live a life decorated in black and white. Your decisions in life are meagre, your opportunities bleak. Justice is perverted. Money greases the palms of bureaucracy. Government is corrupt or non-existent. We see these countries on the evening news and click our tongues on the roofs of our mouths in sympathy. We say: "What a shame. How horrible for the children".
To live in a country without hope is to live partially buried. That is why I feel our newest citizens are often the greatest supporters of Canada. They have seen the alternatives.
On August 28, the Prime Minister, the 10 premiers, the heads of government of the two territories and four aboriginal organizations through their leadership gave their seal of approval to the Charlottetown agreement.
I respect and support the consensus reached. Their job must have been terribly difficult. They laboured night and day and I appreciate their determination and success to reach a really genuine consensus.

Government Orders
Nevertheless I now bring to this debate some concerns raised by the ethnocultural community, all together comprising a quarter to a third of the total Canadian population and as much as 40 per cent in some major cities.
Section 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (e) of the Canada Clause states:
Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands, who have contributed and continue to contribute to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity.
In contrast, the preceding subparagraph (d) states:
Canadian and their governments-
-I underscore "and their governments".
-are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada.
Why, I ask, this seeming hierarchy of rights?
The ethnocultural community would have been greatly assured had section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms been strengthened to insure that it guarantees ethnic and racial equality. Strengthening this section and subparagraph (e) of the new section two, by adding the phrase "and their governments" would truly reflect the aspirations of the ethnocultural community since the Canada clause, according to the Charlottetown accord, states:
-would guide the courts in their future interpretation of the entire Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There are other ethnocultural concerns I would like to address. While the policy objectives of the new provision, entitled "The Social and Economic Union," which will form part of the new Constitution, are not limited to the items stated in the accord, it would have been reassuring to the ethnocultural community if this list of policy objectives already had addressed the the issues of providing culturally sensitive social services, providing services to ensure rapid integration of immigrants, and providing programs to combat racism and discrimination.
Also, it would be greatly reassuring to the ethnocultural community had the policy objectives set out on the provision of the economic union already included a commitment not only to the goal of full employment but
the equality in employment for all Canadians. As well, the policy objective set out in the provision for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital should . have spelled out a commitment to finding the appropriate mechanism for accreditation of foreign-obtained professional and vocational credentials.
Such a latter commitment would have helped enhance the self-esteem of many new citizens who bring to Canada a wealth of talents and skills.
It is recognized that increasingly the Supreme Court is playing a vital role in interpreting the intent of lawmakers, sometimes to the chagrin of the latter. It is, therefore, the submission of the ethnocultural minorities that they be also consulted regarding appointments to the highest court of Canada, just as much as the current accord specifically requires the federal government to consult with Quebec and aboriginal peoples. The basis for the latter specification equally applies to the needs of the ethnocultural minorities.
Last, but equally important, the ethnocultural minorities would like to be reassured that the devolution of powers agreed to in Charlottetown on matters such as skills training, immigration and culture will not in the future jeopardize in any way the best interests of multicultural minorities.
While I am still reflecting on the perspective of the ethnocultural community, I would like to remind the government that the Canada committee for the referendum be advised that print and broadcast advertising not exclude the ethnic media. I would also like the government to help Elections Canada to prepare brochures, using the heritage languages when necessary, to ensure full involvement and participation of the ethnocultural community during debate and on voting day.
I have two other concerns from the perspective of the west. We on this side of the House feel the Senate reform achieved, that of equality of the provinces, fails to clarify, to clearly define the effectiveness of this Chamber.
The other concern relates to economic union. The Liberal Party feels we did not get as much as we had wished. We recognize that a common market within Canada is crucial to our ability as a country to compete in the outside world.

We are confident and my leader has already made a commitment that we will address these deficiencies in the accord at the appropriate time.
I am also confident that the wisdom of Canadians of tomorrow will likewise address the concerns of the ethnocultural community.
I realize others will have similar or additional concerns and for those concerns, they will not be able to support the Charlottetown accord. It is the essence of a democratic society that differences, debate and dissent occur. We shall respect this essence of democracy but we cannot respect those who will champion the breakdown of this country. At all times we shall not allow the coolness of reason to yield to the heat of passion.
I would like to close by emphasizing the achievements in this accord. We have given Quebec the distinct society clause in a manner that is clearly defined as to what it means in terms of civil code, language and culture.
We have given the aboriginal peoples their right to self-government. This alone is a milestone triumph for our first peoples.
We have given the west and the Atlantic the first step in the reform of the Senate; namely, equality and electiveness. We have achieved a measure toward economic union within Canada. We have affirmed our commitment to a social covenant among all Canadians.
Most important, we have preserved the fabric of the Confederation, the sinews of Canada. We could have done more in an ideal world but we live in the real world of today.
I support this accord and I will fight for its victory. I love my adopted country and I want to share it with my family and my children and my children's children.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to this debate in the last few hours and yesterday. I must confess that I am having grave difficulty with this consensus report on the Constitution.
I realize in this country right now we are all tired of the Constitution and we all realize that the economy is really in deep pain. We have 1.5 million people not working. There is this great temptation to say that we have been talking about this Constitution for so long and is there
Government Orders
not some way that we can just get rid of it, get it off the agenda?
I would like to do that but I feel that the way we are doing it has some danger signals attached to it.
I find in my constituency that most people do not even know what is in this document. I did not receive this document until late Thursday night, last week. I read some of it on the weekend. I am not a constitutional lawyer. However, I took the time to speak to some constitutional lawyers. During my remarks I would like to put forward some questions that I have.
We all realize what is at stake here. I realize that things are very fragile in the province of Quebec and no one wants to see the country separate. No one wants to be perceived as anti-Canadian because they question something in a document like this. I listened to the minister for constitutional affairs speak late yesterday afternoon.
He said just read this and judge by what it says. I went home last night and read it again. Part of the reason I have difficulty with this document is that I do not really understand some of the clauses in it and, quite frankly, I find some of the sections contradicting one another.
I would like to be very specific about some of my concerns. First of all, under section 2(c) it says Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society. I really do not know exactly what that means. In the same phrase it says "which includes a French-speaking majority and a unique culture". I say to myself that there are many cultures in this country which are unique. In other words, which culture is not unique.
I then go on to (d) and I see that Canadians and their governments are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities. I do not really know what that means. I find it very difficult to just sort of say I go along with this, I do not know what it means, but I am going to go along with it.
Under section (f) it says Canadians are committed to a respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people. I find that sentence is a little bit illogical for me. I cannot see how it squares.

Government Orders
It goes on, under section 2, to say that the Government of Quebec is to preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec. However, under section 3 it says that nothing in this section derogates from the powers and rights or privileges of the Parliament or the Government of Canada. I naturally say to myself, does this not contradict section 2?
We go to the accord and under section 3 it talks about linguistic communities in New Brunswick and it talks about the equality of English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick. I said to myself that if we have this in New Brunswick, why do we not just use the same clause in Quebec?
These are the kinds of questions that I ask myself. I must confess that many people in my community are not interested in the Constitution. There are probably 1,000 to 1,500 who are interested in the Constitution and they would tell me if you are voting for something or you are voting against something, you should know what you are voting for and what you are voting against. That is the reason why I feel this sort of stress. I do not really feel that I am totally in understanding of everything that is in this document. Quite frankly, I feel that there are a lot of Canadians who feel the same way.
The thing that bothers me about this is that we are going to be approving something that is not a federal-provincial agreement, it is a Constitution. The chances of reversing this Constitution or changing it are going to be very difficult. I am concerned when I see things such as the powers, roles and responsibilities under the federal spending powers.
I see things. My leader has cited some of these concerns under labour market development and training which is no longer a responsibility of the federal government. I see under culture it says:
Provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over cultural matters
within the provinces.
What does exclusive mean?
The following sentence talks about the fact that this agreement also recognizes the continuing responsibility of the federal government in Canadian cultural matters. How can the federal government retain responsibility in Canadian cultural matters when in the previous sentence
it says that provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction over cultural matters?
I go to the issue of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over forestry. I realize that many of these operations were in the provincial jurisdiction before. I always believed that the reason why the Government of Canada also had forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation, municipal affairs and regional development was because we as a national government were there to either supplement or support when times required the federal presence to participate in these areas. Maybe a particular province lagged behind in a certain area. It could have been housing. The federal government through Canada Mortgage and Housing would move in to stimulate or supplement or support an economy in a particular region of this country.
Under this agreement, it says:
Exclusive provincial jurisdiction over housing should be recognized
and clarified through an explicit constitutional amendment and the
negotiation of federal-provincial agreements.
What does that mean?
I talked to many people in the provinces and they think it means that we, as a national government, are out of the housing business. Yesterday in the House the member for Don Valley East asked the minister of constitutional affairs that very question on Canada Mortgage and Housing. Would this mean that there would be 10 Canada Mortgage and Housing operations operated by the provinces? He said no, that Canada would still be in the housing business. These are the kinds of questions that really need to be asked.
It is interesting. Under the issue of forestry, I see on page 12 of this agreement it says:
Considerations of service to the public in both official languages
should be considered a possible part of such agreements.
Does this mean that we may pass these instruments on to the provinces without having attached to them official bilingualism?
It seems to me that all of these national departments which are under our bilingualism act should maintain that status. If the provinces want to operate them, then surely they should be operated in the same way. If they do not have to be, then we should tell people.

If it is not mandatory that tourism, for example, not be considered bilingual in every province of the country then I am sure that it would be a regressive move for promoting bilingualism in this country. I do not think most francophones would really appreciate that.
I realize I only have a couple of minutes left. I go back to the remarks of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs yesterday when he said that in 1982 Quebec was left out of the Constitution. That is not totally accurate because the people of Quebec did not vote to be left out of the Constitution in 1982; in fact, 73 of their 75 federal members voted in favour of the 1982 constitutional accord. We should remember the fact that it was Mr. Levesque, who did not believe in Canada, who wanted separatism, who said, "we are not signing on here".
It is very important that we tiy in a very rational and factual way to put this paper before Canadians. I am concerned that if we do not put the facts before Canadians that one or two or three months from now, when they start to discover what really is in this agreement, they may come back to us and ask: "Why didn't you inform me what this document really meant in terms of my day-to-day life and the future of my country, not only for me but for my children?"


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the motion that "pursuant to the act to provide for referen-dums on the Constitution of Canada, this House approves the following text of a referendum question: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992? Yes or No."
I rise on this occasion to give an unequivocal yes to that question. When the referendum day arrives on October 26 I will be voting yes. I will be voting yes for a lot of reasons. That is not to say that I do not have one or two reservations about the agreement that was reached-called the Charlottetown accord now-and we will get in to some of those slight reservations a little bit later.
I was at a reception hosted by Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South, not that long ago on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Geological Survey of Canada. The implication there, of course, is that some of the processes that went into the formation of this country were in place before 1867 and the formal Constitution of the country began.
Government Orders
I am not going to try to quote Mr. Speaker on his feelings about Canada, he has done that so eloquently himself on many occasions. But I do remember him saying that anyone who thinks that this country did not have a lot going for it before 1867 had really better take another look at history. I will not going to go into a lot of the history either, but I am certainly willing to take Mr. Speaker's word for it on the evidence. Of course, anyone who has a fairly good understanding of what the Geological Survey of Canada does would realize that a tremendous amount of political will, a tremendous amount of economic will and, of course, co-operation as well, had gone into the Geological Survey.
On a more personal basis, on an occasion such as this, I cannot help but put some of my feelings surrounding this question into personal terms. I can remember, and it dates me somewhat I suppose, when there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship.
Certainly this whole question of the Constitution and the question before us prompts one-it certainly prompts me-to think of citizenship. It is only about 40 years ago, which obviously means that I am over 40 years old, when there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship. This may be part of the formation of our multicultural nature of our country.
In those days, what we used to have to do if we moved-and it was during the war and I moved around quite a bit with my parents because my father was in the service-every time you went to a new school one of the first questions the teacher asked you was not what nationality you were but what was your national origin. That was simply because there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship. I remember that well.
I have come to think of other things as we approach this new time in our country's history. As far as my citizenship is concerned, I now do proudly proclaim it as being Canadian, of course. Something I reflect upon is Canadian citizenship when I am out of the country.
I have found that after I have been out of the country for as short a time as two or three weeks, a feeling of homesickness descends upon me and I begin to realize, regardless of where I am on the face of this earth that Canada is a rather pleasant place to be, a rather wonderful country to belong to and Canadian citizenship certainly does mean something, not only in the sense of a place to call home but also I have come to realize from association with people abroad that Canadians are viewed as a very special group of people upon the face of the earth.

Government Orders
Citizenship in our family means something which it does not in every family, although certainly there are many families in the country that share what I am about to talk about. My wife was not bom a Canadian citizen. I understand that the figure now is somewhere around 35 per cent of our population who have become Canadian citizens through naturalization.
That, of course, brings up the whole question of immigration, which again prompts me to feel a great deal of pride. Certainly as a member of Parliament, something I have become much more aware of is the fact that the 35 per cent of the population that are immigrants have chosen this country as a home. It is a great source of pride to me to hear these people talk about this country from that perspective and how proud they are to have become Canadian citizens.
When we talk about immigrants, I guess we really have to confess that all of us are immigrants. We are certainly aware of the English based immigrants to this country, as we are certainly aware of the French based immigrants to this country, the founding two races of Canada and the negotiations, I presume, not all that much different in the same city of Charlottetown in the years leading up to 1867.1 suspect the negotiations which went on were not that much different from the negotiations that went on over this summer and for several years into the past as well.
It is a fact that for various reasons which history attests to and for which there is no reason to go into because of that, the French element of our society has felt as though the objectives of 1867, the formation of this country, for them was not complete. Over the years their feelings have been expressed in several different ways. Certainly the negotiations that took place this summer and previously, most recently the Meech Lake accord, attest to the efforts of all of us to come to some kind of accommodation of this fact.
I do not wish to belabour the point at all. It does seem to me that the Charlottetown accord has completed the circle and I am certainly willing enough to take the word of the Premier of Quebec on the basis of his satisfaction that the accommodation is a satisfactory one for the French-speaking people of this country. I am only too
pleased to acknowledge that and only too pleased that it occurred.
There are some things I would like to have seen addressed more thoroughly. There is no question of the reality of 52 per cent of the population not being sufficiently recognized, and I am referring to the women of our nation. It is part of the reality of 1992 and I think it is not necessarily only in Canada. World-wide, the rights of women and the need for women to be expressly protected in constitutions and in courts and so on have not been properly addressed. The Charlottetown accord is deficient in that way. It does not mean that I am not going to vote for it.
Also, coming from an absolutely pure working background and having been very much involved in the labour movement I would like to have seen more reference to the rights of working people to be able to form their organizations unmolested by society. It is a bit of a tragedy in our country that this should be the case. In western Europe, for example, labour unions are extremely well accepted but do not feel in their situation that they ought to be protected by the constitutions of their countries and to the best of my knowledge they are not. They are an integral part of society and rightfully so. In order for them to be a full part of society in Canada they ought to have been referred to.
Immigration, of course, implies a multicultural nature to the country. I do wish that the Charlottetown accord had addressed the multicultural aspect of Canada more thoroughly. It is tremendously gratifying to me and the constituency of Saskatoon-Dundum to see the multicultural associations within the constituency do things to foster their ethnic backgrounds. I assure you that I would be almost content to view singing and dancing as almost enough insofar as multicultural expression is concerned. These communities go far beyond that.
One of the joys I have experienced over the last period of high school graduations was to see students who have taken the heritage language training, not within the schools system, but as part of the community. These students did it in their spare time after school and on Saturdays. It just demonstrates the tremendous vitality in those communities and it certainly adds to the enrichment of the country. They ought to have been far more widely recognized than they have in the accord.

I see my time is running out. The Senate could very well have been abolished. It is a change, however, that it is now to be elected.
Without a doubt, something that I am tremendously gratified over is the inherent right of our aboriginal people to self-government. I suspect that there was not an intent on the part of the negotiators to have an international reflection when it came to that segment of the accord, but that inherent right of our aboriginal people to self-government within Canada will become a shining beacon throughout the world, similar to other aspects of our country such as the peacekeeping and so on. It will be a tremendous credit to our nation. It is a tremendous credit to our negotiators, aboriginal and otherwise, to have come to that accord.
Obviously I am going to miss some, but I would like to recognize as many people as I can; namely, my member of the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan, the hon. Bob Mitchell, the minister for constitutional negotiations who has received a lot of public acclaim for the work he did and the premier of my province, Roy Romanow. I am particularly proud of his work.
I see my time is running out. I assure the House, I assure the people of Canada and in Saskatoon-Dun-dum that I will be forming a Canada committee within the constituency to do everything we can to make sure that the constituents receive as much information as they want and as broad an understanding of the accord as they need to be able to understand it. I am sure once they do understand it they will be voting in the affirmative.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is late, I know. There might be some among you who have not slept yet. I had a few hours of sleep.
It is an honour tonight, or rather this morning, to say a few words about the referendum.

What we will go through between now and October 26 will be a debate on a clause that asks if we as Canadians agree with the consensus that was reached on August 28 last. Canadians are going to hear lots of concerns that people may have. I think the overriding concern right now is that Canada must be Canada the day after. I do not think that is a scare tactic.
Government Orders
I, like everybody else, think that Canada is a great country. I am proud to be a Canadian of this country and as a politician I am proud to represent an area that shows sometimes some very good parts of being a representative from a small area in Canada. At other times perhaps we do not have enough power, coming from some of those areas, to have this debate during reasonable hours.
However, that having been said, particularly since we are going to be off for another 38 days, I guess that is the reason that Canadians feel our institutions are not working. My concerns about the present consensus are just on that point.
Before getting to my concerns, I would like to make it very clear that I think this agreement reached by the Prime Minister, the 10 premiers, the two leaders of the territories and the four national organizations for the aboriginal people in Canada is on the whole a good document and it should be agreed to by the Canadian people, agreed to or their opinions given for this House after October 26.
I have some concerns. I just want to say that my concerns are not with the Canada clause, which I think has a lot of good points in it. It was needed.

Among the characteristics included in the Canada clause, there is parliamentary democracy, Canadian federalism and the rule of law; linguistic duality; the distinct nature of Quebec society; the ancestral rights and the responsibilities of aboriginal peoples and the recognition that their governments will constitute one of the three orders of government in Canada; racial and ethnic equality; respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms of all people; equality of men and women-I am sure that exists today in most cases-and equality of provinces and recognition of their diverse characteristics.
That Canada clause alone should make us say yes, that and the fact that the aboriginal people have arrived at a process by which they can present to Canada and Canada can accept in the future their full responsibility as a partner in Canada. There is also the 25 per cent which shows a distinctiveness or the distinct society that we see in Quebec within Canada.

Government Orders
My concerns have to come in two areas. One is on the responsive institutions. I can only say, like my leader, that the Senate will have to be an effective Senate if it is going to play a part in the future representing the weaker areas in Canada.
I accept the equal. It has to be and so I am pleased with that. I accept that it should be elected and I am hoping that some day in the future it will be fully elected. I am not for gender equality because I think women, more and more, are getting into the mainstream of politics, whether at local, municipal, provincial or federal levels. I would certainly hate to think that in the future if I would want to run for the Senate, I would have to run as a woman in Nova Scotia.
I have held my own for 18 years with most of the men in this room. There has not been what I consider any separation of the goals that are strictly Canadian. Perhaps we as women have worked a little harder to make sure that some of the legislation has been directed and has helped women to be able to arrive at the same end in their careers, whichever way they want to go in Canada.
I accept that it should be elected. I am not sure it is very effective. We will have to wait and see. We will probably have to wait and see about negotiations long after October 26.1 do feel that Canadians must trust the Prime Minister, their premiers, their leaders and others who sat around the table that they wanted to see an effective institution.
My largest concern, and the concern that I have heard, is with the size of this House. To increase that size, and I use the example of 42 seats, means that those 42 members are more than we have from the east. Our population would have to grow extremely fast to come up to 42 new members who will be coming in here.
We go down in percentage. We could have a base and I agree with one of the members who said we have guaranteed the east a floor. That floor is there. I think it is section 41(b) of the 1982 Constitution and it is fixed. Nova Scotia can never have fewer than 10 members of Parliament. New Brunswick cannot have fewer than 10 members of Parliament; four in P.E.I.; six in Newfoundland. The floor is geared to the present number of senators sitting today and the number coming from the
east. They have given us a floor under which we cannot go down further. Therefore, I guess we will always be guaranteed 30 members from the east. The east in this great country can probably holler as loud as the other 307 members of Parliament that we will see in the future, but I think there is a disadvantage and perhaps this will be looked at by Canadians and changed in the future.
As I sit here in this House and with my experience in this House, I realize how hard one must travel from the extremities of Canada to be here. I also realized that if I wanted to speak in this debate I had to be up tonight to speak. I do not consider that my constituents would have been well served had I fallen asleep tonight and not come to speak. That concern and confusion that my voice is only one from an area that covers the whole size of metropolitan Toronto, where there are numerous members of Parliament, is sometimes discouraging to the rest of my constituents as to how effective the role of the member of Parliament has become in Canada.
I do not think that is enough for me to vote against because surely these are areas that our negotiators will have to look at, but I do think it is a very serious concern. As a federalist who has looked to Canada for its programs, the last part does scare me about Canada. I am not against the social and economic union, it is very good in the package. I am not against, as I said, self-government for the aboriginal peoples. This is excellent and I congratulate these people. I am not against the amending formula. However, I do have problems in another area besides our institutions, the Senate and the House of Commons, on the rebalancing roles and responsibilities.
I can only say to Atlantic Canadians that it will be a tougher world out there after because we will be even more so at the mercy of the more powerful provinces in Canada. We will be at their mercy because if they do not join a national program we will still get the financing that is equal for our area, but we will not have the support if British Columbia opts out or Alberta, Ontario or Quebec. Let us say it is day care. If the provinces take their money and present an adequate day care system to Canada, which I am sure they can, we will not have as much.

I look at the training and the system of employment across Canada and I think of those larger provinces which have equally the same fears today of no jobs, equally the same fear of trying to train, as quickly as possible, the work force in their provinces, and equally I am sure fearful that this government has not done enough to stimulate jobs or to provide training. I look and say that I come from an area that needs that superstructure. Will we have it?
I guess that is the part that is the scariest, because as our numbers decrease we can still holler, but as the dollars decrease we could probably become-and I hate to say it-very much out in the cold. We will need to have a very, very strong voice to keep this country operating in national programs.
I am glad to be able to take part tonight. I realize that my time is up.
I am glad to be able to say to my constituents that more than anything else, this country is worth keeping together. I have to say that looking at the package, we will be negotiating a technicality. I am sure that in the understanding of Canadians across Canada that we will negotiate a text. We will negotiate afterward a far greater Canada.
The flaws that I am talking about will come out. They are flaws in my view, coming from the east. Maybe that is what the premiers looked at and said: "We will be stronger if we have an effective Senate". We must have
Government Orders
an effective Senate if we come from the east. It is a necessity that we be able to at least show our dissatisfaction through a very effective Senate if our House of Commons position is getting smaller.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, you have been through a very tough evening and I appreciate the fact that I am the last speaker. I would like to say that I will be voting yes. I just want to say to my constituents that my office is available for any distribution of materials. It is certainly accessible for any problems.
I think that Canada comes first in this debate.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It appears that that will be the last speech of this morning.
I just want to, on behalf of all participants and as one who has been here for the last 15 hours as you have, Sir, thank you and thank all those who were involved in making this debate possible, the participants and the Clerks at the table, the pages and all those who are involved in the House running this so smoothly.
It has been a long night, an historic night and through you, Sir, on behalf of the government our thanks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: As there is no member rising, according to the order passed earlier in this sitting, the House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.21 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 10, 1992