- - _.M.:!-- - ---· Volume XLI Wednesday Province of Newfoundland FORTY -FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard) Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 55 20 June 1990

The House met at 10 :00 a.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): 01~de1", please! The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: Mr . Speaker, as all han. members know, this is a very important day in this particular House and we have important matters to discuss. But it is also a very sad day in this particular House, because, Mr. Speaker, I learned just yesteJ~day of the sudden death of the father of the Leader of the Opposition. He is being buried in Fleur de Lys this afternoon at, I believe, 2:00 o'clock, and the Leader of the Opposition is not in his seat by reason of the sudden passing of his father. I want, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, on behalf of all hon. members, and thE! Opposition House Leader wiLL, I am sure, want to address the matter, express to Mr. Rideout and to the entire Rideout family the sincere condolences of the House on this sudden passing, and to express to the entire farn:ily our deep concern and our sincere appr'eciation for the circumstances in which the Leader of the Opposition Finds himself, that he cannot be in his place on this very important day by reason of that, to express to the family our most sincere sympathy.

M r . s.E e a I< e r' : The Opposition House Leader . Mr . Simms : Mr. Speake!~, of course we appred.atE! the r'E!ITlarks of Ll·w Premier and we want Lo be associated IAri.th him and lAJoulcl support Your Honour sending a message of condolence to the Leader of the Opposition, Lo Mr. Rideout's tA.Jife and, indeed, to the Ll June 20, 1990 1Jo1 XLI enU.re family, of which, by thE! tA.Jay, tl·l,?.ir lAIBt"e ttAJelve chi.lcll"en, I think, in tt"1o fam'.i:Lir:'S. So t t: is a very large family. Mr. Alfred Rideout lAJas ninE!ty years of age when he passed atA.Jay on Monday, so he had lived a good life.

He spent many of his years as a fishermen, as a logger and as a carpenter, and, indeE!d, hE• only really retired from t:hat kind of activity about six years ago, al the age of eighty-four. So I guess thE:11nE:1 is a chanCE! Fo1n some of us y e t evE! n . HE:' was a g I" E! cl't: Confederate. He was a great campaigner for ConFederatton, and he was very active in his whole life politically . I think he is a good Newfoundlander, a Lrue Newfoundlander and we would want to remember him through Your Honour. I might add, whilE!

I have thE! floor, for the benefit of anybody who might be listening, l:.hal:. t:he Government has kindly rnade some arrangement s to have representation from both sides of the House att(!nd the func~r·al l.hi·:. afternoon, at 2:00p.m., in F1E:'l. ll" de Lys. I just want l.u make mE!ntion of Lhr,, fact. L.hat the Member For Kilbride, our caucus chairman I and thE! MernbE!r r:·Ol" Moun L Pearl will be represenl.ing our caucus, and 1 arn not. qu:U:.E• sU I"E:! y e l: , b u L I I:H>. l·i e v ''" rnc:·1 y be L h c· Mini ster of Justice and ctnolher one lAiill be 1E:'aving.

SCl if anybody notice~> thaL those ITIE•rnbei"S are abSE!nt l:.his rnor'nin9 and Lhis after-noon, obviously that. tAril1 bE! the reason. rhoy tAd 1.1, hopeful 1y, be back toni~Jht· .. Thank you, Ml ". Speak1::11~. !"1 r . S p e a k .. e !: : J' h e h o n . l: h E· Government Hou se Leader . Mr. Baker' : Thank you, Ml ". No. 55 ( Mo nli. n CJ) rn

SpeakE!!~. BefoJ~e we bE:~gin, I tAJould like to, very br·iefly, go over some of the ground rules. They are quite simple, and this has been done by agJ~eement. First of all, the presence of the carnE:~ras in the House and the unique position oF the press and so on, this was done by leave of the House. As well, in terms of the speaking we have agreed that the Premier and Leader oF the Opposition could have up to an hour, that most other members would pel~ haps try to limit their speeches to at~ound tWE!nty minutes. We are not going to set any hard-and --fast rules there, Mr.

Speake!~, we have genet~al agreemE:~nt that it will be around that or 1 e s s . So this lAIO u 1 d expedite matters. We feel, on both sides I believe, that opinions which are expressed perhaps can be expressed as well in twenty or twenty-five minutes as in thirty minutes, and han. members need fE!el no nE:~ed to fill in twenty minutes or twenty- -five or thirty minutes. We recognize that on the aver·age perhaps twenty minutes would be reasonable . Mr. Speaker, I IA.Jould ask the Opposition House Leader to confir·m these aJ~rangements, and ask him if I have left out anything. Mr.

Speaker: rhe han. l:he Opposition House Leader . Mr. Simms : No, Mr . Speaket~, I do not l:hink anythin<:J ha s beE!n left out . It is pretty straightForward. It is, and I emphastze thE! Fact, by leaVE! of members of the HouSE! . The speaking arrangE:'menl:. IAJas agre~:!d to in te rrns oF a LiAJe nty minute speaking t.ime, but there lAJil.l be members, I arn surE!, from time to time, who tnay IA.Janl: l:o use thE~ir perfect right oF having thirty minutes . If thal is the cas e, I L2 June 20, 1990 Vo1 XLI do not think there would be any reason to be upset over that.

The only ol :her thing I might mE!ntion for the benefit of soll'le is that we have also arranged and agreed to have a Question PE!d .od tomorrow at 3:00 p.m., I guess, for the normal thirty minute Question Period . Other than that, throughout Lhe entire three days set aside the nor·mal Orders of thE>. Day ldi .''ll bE• dispensed with. I think that has been the agreement. Mr. Speaker: Might I ask on:::! of the hon. House Leaders to, For clarification oF the Chair and members as IA.Jell, with respE:'ct to guest s p li:~ a k E! r s , I IJ.JO n dE! r· i. F that has been The hon . the Prerrl:ler. Premier Wells: Mr .

SpE!akE·r·, I have extended an invitation l:o Lhe Prirne Minis LE•r and to a11 of the PrE:~miE!rS to address the House, -.iF they wish . I think it is impor ·tant that IA.Je hear l:he poLnts of view of other people in the co u n l r y , be c au s r:• t. he cl E~ c:i s Lon IA.IE! will make has an efFect beyond our boundar·:ies and il: is 'itnpcn·1-ant that we consider the points of view of other parts oF l:he na~ion. I am grateFu1 l:o l:he Opposil:ion For consenting Lo l:his, and we tAJill shor·t1y haVE! the p1easur·e of hearing from Premic~r Peterson. WE! propose to do it very sirnp1y.

What we intend to do is Your Honour will adjo urn the HouSE! forrnally, and Your Honour will retain the Chair and invil:e PrE:Hnier Peter·son Lo atbHlcl and address the House. M1~. Speaker : ThE:' hon. the Opposition House Leader . No. 55 (Motnning) IV

Mr. Simms: Yes, Mr. Speaker . Just for clarification. As I understand the process, it would be at the appropriate tirno, when the First Minister is ready to carne in, the debate IJJould be adjourned, he would speak, then, following that, the debate would just resume. Mr . Speak~r : The hon. the Government House Leader . Mr .. Baker: Yes, Min. Speaker, that 1 s correct. The House will adjourn during pleasure and the Speaker, I understand, will remain in the Chair. Is that correct? Mr . Speaker, care of all would Ji.ke Motion 3. Mr. Speaker: I think we have taken that business, so I now, Sir, to call. Motion 3.

The han. the Minister of Justice. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Dicks: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. The motion before the House is in honour of the commitment the Premier made at the First Ministers 1 Conference last week, and that was to bring befo1ne the Legislature of Newfoundland. given that we did not have sufficient U.me t:o pass a referendum or to cause a J~efe re nclum to be held in l~he ProvinCE!, a motion that thE• Meech Lake Accord be approvt::>d, togE!l :.her wi th the recent add-ons at the First Ministers 1 Conference. Al:. the out.set oF l:his debate, Mr.

Speak E!l", I IJJOU1d 1 i. kf~ l~o C 1<H'i fy For' l~he GoueJ"nrnent l:hal: . .i.t. is not a Government measure. This does not have the undivided support of the Government, and it remains to be seen whether it has the L3 JunE:~ 20. 1990 Vo1 XLI undivided support of any of this House. But Luhat done is to cause to be this House an open vote. lnl'~rnbers lAJe haVE! heJ.d in Now, Mr. Speaker, approxirna ·tE·J.y a week ago this House rE!Cesst:~d For' the purpose of enabling hon. members to consult wi lh th(->.ir constituents.

There has been somE! concern as to what a free vote actually means, but I think that if we reflect on what we have done over the last IAJE:~Ed<, thE•n it shou1cl be uery cll':!ar t..uhat our ob1igat.ion is ht:~rE:~ today. Peoplt'.! 1..uould JikE! to consider this to be <'l. mat.l.:er oF conscience, but on a pe!"sonal basis I reject that argument . What we have done is to consult and, I suspt?ct, det.eJ"JtJine, over the last week or so, tJ..Jhat OUI" cons tit u E• n t s lAJa n t . ThE!

I" E:' a r' e , no doubt, those who tJJou1d say that as being thE! represental.:ives or~ l:h(• electorate, we do not haVE! thal:. obligation bul: should exercise our reason in some forrn or Fashion, distinct from the wishes of our electorate, and make a dPcis:ion on that basis. Mr . Speak<"!!r, I J"t:!jE!CL that, and I rE!ject it br:•cause th'"' wishes and views of the constituents whom we represent are what has caused us t:o be hen~ in the First place. We have the honour and privilege of serving those constituents and, in rny vieiAJ, at ll~ast, thl d l" l.1.1:ishes shou1d be del:erminative.

I can r e a 11 y t h i n k o f n o b e t l. u r g u i cl ~~ i n this rnatt.E!l" than to r'r::'flect on tht:! lJJ o r d s o f A b t" a h am L i n c o 1 n , to~J h o said, 11 Why shou1cl ther·e no t bC: :! a patient confidencl:! in t:he ult·.·itJJa tC::• justice of Lht' pE·ople? ls theJ"E! any better or equal hopH in the IAJO r' 1 cl? Of co Ul" s C:~ not . 11 Mr. Speake I", in A pr'i l of 19B9 1 m<.·1 de a decision Lhal per·sona lly L\Ja s a very iiTipOI" tan t onE! :in rny life and t:hal: 1·1as caused tlldny No. SS (Mol"JYi ng) R3

changes, and that lAJas to run for the Liberal Party in the election that tJJas held on April 20 of l:hat year. One of the main reasons I decided to do so lJJas that I believed very sttnongly in the:' vietJJs the Premier had espoused and articulated concerning the Meech Lake Accord. He set forth dur·ing the course of that campaign, and subsequently, very serious concerns that confronted the nation and that reflected the views, not only of the Liberal Party and Newfoundlanders, but of Canada as whole.

Those included concerns about the distinct society, the amending formula, the provincial power of appointment to the Senate and to the Supreme Court, authority over immigration and, also, the fede1nal spr:'nding power. However, having been at last year 1s First Ministers 1 Conference, in November, and again last week, in Ottawa, I must now admit that my concerns run much deeper than the mere concern about process and substance, that what. is at issue at this point in time, to my mind, besides the substantive issues, are those that go to process, because that process has demonstrated its"~lf to be fatally flawed.

If we think for a moment, in criminal latAJ, and by and lar·ge in law in general, one minor procedural defect can . resul~ in a very serious charge being disrnissed. That is the~ importance of process in lat ... J, and I would suggest to this han.

HousE! and hon. members thal: we bear an obligation t.o consider the pr·ocr:'ss l:.hat has brought about this Accord and this Agreement fo1n us to consider· ht'lnE· today. we~ do no l: have to reflect or consider very far before we will come to the conclusion that that p1nocess is so wrong as to For·1n in itself l:he L4 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI basis for a reasoned rejecl·::ion of the Meech Lake Accord, that this issue is so important, as has bE:·en often said, it cannot be lf~ft to eleven First Ministers in pr·ivate to determine what the constitutional future of the c o u n try wi 11 be , and t hat h a s been, to date, the procE~ss that: has been followed.

Now, Ml". Speaker, therE:' :is anoth'='l" process. We cou1d have a constitutional convention, but to get into a discussion of 7 this at this point in tirne, whE!n thE! substantive issue is bE!fOI"e us, I think would be to do that pr'OCE!SS a disservice and I leavE~ i.L f7 or another occasion on whJch lAJe rnay enlarge upon it . Bul: I think it is fair· to say that in a] 1 OUI" deliberations we must consider and, indeed, are honour bound to consider. tJJhethel~ or not. Wf) ag1"e10' with the process through which these agreements have coni!:' into place.

And if we, for one rnornE!nt, are agreed that that process is lAJrong, thE:~n WE:' shouJ.d cons:i.dE:'r' that to be a reasonabJ.e basis For' rejection. Mr .

Speaker, what we have seen over the past year or so I believe to be the constitutional equivalle>nl~ of seppuku, ril :U <ill:i .zed national self-evisceration, that lJJE:' ar·e :in the proc~?ss o( 7 l:aking out: From the innards of Uds country those e1E~InE·nl:.s or: · Ca nada which are distinct, which go l~ogether· and should go l:.Cli:JC!t.:her to form a united whole, but which rather, in this process, haul:! bE•en taken out. and for111 the bas.i,<; hJin gn'at disuntty, and gr·eat potential har'ITI to t~his country.

I be1ieve thal the process of separating out. what are distinct.ive elements in sociel:ies wtthin Canada ts clangE•Jnous, is devisive and ull:.i111ately No. 55 (Moni:ing) FUJ

destructive. Mr. Speaker, it. is not too latE• For us to reverse this process. We are here today with the possibility of doing that. I believe that a nation is, by definition, the t.uhole and not thE! parts, that it is unity ftnom divetnsi ty, order frorn chaos, forrn from substance, and that if tAlE! do not see that, if we do not have as our constitutional view a united Canada and not one divided into its constituent elements that tAJi.ll be divided out, that will no longer forrn a united whole, then we, outnselves, do a great disservice to the country that wiJ.l ultirnatE•ly result in its destruction. Mr.

Speaker, I think I have elaborated on rny concerns as to the process and the reasons I be1i.eve that process to be wrong. I t.uould now lib=• to consider the substance of the Meech Lake Accord, becauSE! that equally, if not morr:~so, goes to the kernel of the issue we rnust consider. Mr. Sp~~aker, we have before us, in the schedules to the Meech Lake Accord on the Order Paper and in the OrdE:'l''S of thE! Day, on page 5, the Meech Lake Accord itself, thosE! amr:~ndments and the subseqent agreemenl~s of the Pr·c,'tTli.E!rS and the PrJrne Minister at J.as t LIJE!E'k' s First Ministers' Conference.

It is faitn to say that thE! five concerns of Newfoundland which I earlir:!ln al1uded to have not been addtnesSE!d. The proposed future constitutional. amendments, which L\Jere added on, take the fot"rn of amendments proposed and Future constitutional agendas. They do not havE~ the fotnce of lat.u and, in rny view, have the substance of cot:. ton candy ; thE~ y tAli 1 J rn E:'l t in our -mouth as a country; they t.ui.11 LS Jurw 20, 1990 lJo] XU n o t b e r e a 1 ·i z e d a n d t h e y tAd 11 n o L form any basis on LIJhich tAlE! can ~~o forward as a united nation. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it. is ch~ar to any member who has taken the time, as I am sutne tAll':~ all have, to review these amendments that our concerns remain unresolved. Both in process and substance we have a document that. ts, in my vi.et"'· in er1n01n. Thr:~ Primr:~ Ministetn and others would tell us, in NeLIJfoundlancl and this L.egislatut"E!, that we should approve it, that the 1987 Meech Lake arnenclrrtt:H1ts were in error or partially flawed, that thE! lnE:'cent ones iH'E:' not entirely good, but they are th0 bE!St that could bE! done. We at""' urged, in effect, Mr.

Speai<E.~r, to accept tLIJO ert"ors and sornehotAJ believe that out of this will come some grE!at right fotn thE:~ country. I reject that view, because I believe its lack of rationality speaks for itself. But that. is not l:.hE! issUE! Fot' us to decidE! today. It :is not:. whether· Meech Lake is FL=ttAJed in process otn in substance, althou~Jh it rnay h~~lp us decide l":I'H' ull-irnat,:• issuE~.

And the issue, as 1 sr:•e it at least, is t.uhel:het" ME:'tc'Ch Lakt;!, thE! document fJ.atAJecl as il. :i.s, is so seriously flawed l.hat we as 1egis1ator·s should not pass it, or· whether, despite its FJ.aws, lhe dangE•ln of SE>parat:i.srn i.n Quel:lE:•c tAJould be so ass:isl:.,;•t·l dS l:o b~C· ult.:i.rnalE:'lY and tnut"e deslTuct.-ive t:.o th~~ na t.i.on. Now, Mr. Speaker, I J"t::'jecl thaL J.og:ic and I LIJill tel] you and lfly Fellow legtslators lhe reason lAJhy.

Thetne at"E! l.hosc:• lAJho coll"c:JUE', first of all, l:haL the uni•~U<'' r'ole of the Quebec Legislal.ure in aFfir·ming l:he Face of lAJhat- is a distinct society in Qut:•I:H:•c is already pres t::'nt and lAJi'l s rr:• ': og ni.z ('d No. 5':i (Morning) r~ '~

by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sign Law Case, or Ford, as it is also known. But there is a division of legal opinion on that issue. and I do not propose or suggest that we will resolve it here today or during the course of this debate. But, again, I do not believe that that is the crucial element to be decided. Even if that were the case, and I doubt that it is, what is disturbing is the lack of argument on the merits of the Meech Lake proposals.

We ar·e urged to pass this Accord. not because it is good for the country, but because of the perceived thr·eat of separatism in Quebec, and I suggest that if we pass it. it. tAJill foster that notion elsewhere in the country . Now this whole concept that we should react to pass something that is wrong for the future of this country on the basis of a perceived threat of separatism, really essentia11y bothers me for several reasons. The first is that it is wrong to make decisions on the basis of FE!ar rather than principle.

We should not decide tJJhf:'thE:1r or not there is a danget~ of separation, but should go forward on the basis of what is the right constitution for Canada. We cannot let constitutional decisions be dictated by or influenced by SE!parat.ists who are colllrnitted, not to the unH:.y, but, rati1E!r, to the dissolution of the country. rhe demons of separatism rnus t be exorcised, not enshrined in constitutional documents. Mt~.

Speaker, fear is arnong the tJJorst motives on which humans can act., and I suggfc•st to hon. members that if they for a moment consider l:hat par·ticular aspE!Ct of thE:' rnattE!r, thai: thE!Y r·eject it out of L6 JunP 20, 1990 Vol XLI hand. It is not in accord tAlith of this countr·y, nor the het~i tage particularly accept and lives on the Newfoundlanders, to go forward in their basis of FE!ar.

There is a second danger in this whole notion of separatism, that even if we were to accept that there is sonw question as to separative sentiment sornE'l..uhere in this country, we should 'aJ.so recognize that separatism in itself is self-destructive, that oncf::1 any group in any part of a united entity, be it a country or whatever, espouses and takes to itself the notion of a par'ti.cu1ar distinctive or cohesive group having the right to SE:!pat"atE! frorn others they have rnuch in COIIIInon with, then they have within it, and that idea has tAJithin it, l:.he seeds of its own destruction.

For if a particular group or province, shall uJe say, can, on thE! basis of some distinctive dii~FerenL identity than the rest of the country, be able to rernov('! itself from that countt~y, then cannot any group within that province which has a sirni1ar distinctive identity also be able to tAJithdr· ;'\w front l:ht:> prouince? so, that, Mr.

Speaker·, iF you accept l: he notion 1:. h a I~ t..ue are going to aJ.lotAJ any gl"oup i.tl this countt~y, b(~ it provoinci.al or otherwise, to secede:• Fl~orn L.he fE!deration, tl'lt:•n we also hi'\Ur:• to E!nFot~ce that:. pt~inciple ancl honout" it so l:hat. any gl"Oup lAJi .lhin that provincE• lAJ~dch has an uqu a11y cohesive view of itself should equally be allowed La divide itself Fl"Oin that Pt"ovince ,utd remain part oF the fedet"ation. ~3o I suggest t.o thos(~ in this country and in Lhis Legislature who consider that sE•par·al: .isll'l in it.·.;E<U . is a valid agenda or a ualid futurE~ for· any pa1~l: oF this country, that they ar·e ntis tal< on. that that notion in logic and No. 55 (Mot~ning) r\6

spirit and emotion self-defeating and principle should be of hand. is in itself that the rejected out The third reason I believe we should reject any fear of separatism is that it smacks of appeasement. We have often heard the suggestion that history repeats itself and that those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. And we do not have to SE:'arch very far back in our history, as part of the English speaking and French speaking world and the multicultural groups that have enriched this country. to find a parallel in this century .

And for rny own view I think of the year· 1938, and it is my view that Br·ian Mulroney is our Nevi.lle Chamberlain, that the distinct society and Meech Lake are peace in our timE!. Mr. Speaker, I think if one thing is very clear in this century and others it is that appeasement does not work, that we must reject that out of hand, that lAJe cannot act out of fear; we cannot think that by pas sing a f 1. awed doc urn en t that we are, thr:~refore, going to defeat a notion of separatism.

I believe l:hat whether it is out of fE~a1n or out of any such emotion, we can only reject these notions and look to some other rationale for either approval or rejection. But, Mr. Speaker, let us leave aside the whole noti.on of the matter of separatism and address what: fo1n many people in th:is country is the key element in this debate, and that is thC::! qUE!Stion of a distinct sociE!ty. I believe that within those two words we have the clash of two visions of what this country should bE!. On the one hand, there has been a L7 JunE! 20, 1990 Vo1 XLI historic v:i.ew put ForlAJard of tlAJO nati.ons.

On the othe1n hand. lAJE~ as a Party. and to some ext~::~n·l:. as a Province, hav~::~ aff.irrned a different view that I beliE!Ve E!njoys grE!ater accE•ptance in this country. and that is of ten equal provinces that form one united country. NoiAJ, Mr. Speaker. I pE•rsonaJ.ly do not espouse separate identities for English and Fr·ench Canada. This would ghettoize us. I believe we must affirm a common or, PE~Inhaps, uncommon vision of a bilingual, multicultur·al nation. I do not suggest that :i.t will bE:' easily achieved, but it is certainly one worth striving for.

There are, no doubt, thos~'! who would sug~Jest that a bilinguaJ Canada is somehow an affront to Quebec or has within it anti-Quebec sentiment. ThaL notion is malicious and wrongheaded. I l:. is out" duty, i1·1 our time and genE!raU.on, to hand dolAJn undiminished l:o thosE! I,<.Jho come after us the vision of a bilingual Canada, one that all Lh1:• distinct groups within this country can idE!nl:iFy lAJiLh.

We do a disservice to OUI" ch.Ucli"en, Lo our gr·andchtldi"en and l~o t.hi~~. nation as a lAJholE- if IAJE!, in any sense, agree to divide out, to separate, to take dist.inctive elements oF one sort or anot.her and have those as a basis fol" OUI" nation and nol~ a sl.t"ong, uniL1?.d vision of what this country can and should be. Mr. Speaker, lAJe <H'e dis l:.inc L ivH in Canada, not onJ.y fol" ou1n cu1l .. Ul"a] and multicull~ural het"it.age, but also for our toJ.erance and justice, and l:o accept a dirFC:'r·enl. viE:'lAJ of this nat:i.on wou1d clo injustice to l:hose values '"'hich WE! so ch~::,rish .

No. ~>~> (Mondn~~) rn

Mr. Speaker, I believe that 1/Jt::~ may all claim in this country, with greater and lesser legitimacy, to be distinctive. We Newfoundlanders form, among many others in this country, a great distinctive cultural group, and there are many others who can lay equal claim in Quebec, among the aboriginal peoples of Canada, those who share a central European, African and Asian heritage. We are distinctive but, again, I do not believe that to say we must espouse a unified group of Canada is, in any sense, to do harm to that notion.

Canada is not anything other than a mosaic of many countries who have contributed greatly to our cultut~e, our nation, our thought and, to some extent, our political process, and if we, For a minute, allow the passage of a measure that will do harm to that notion, then, I think, we are going to destroy ultimately the values that hold us together. Now, Mr. Speaker, over the past week or so I have poll~::'d my constituents in Humber West . I have done that by telephone, I have done it in person and by netAJspapers.

The results of l:hat consultation u..lith my constituents, in the absence of a referendum, is very clear. My constituents rejecl . the Meech Lake Accord by 80 . per cent. It is a view that i.s based on rE~a s on and l:hat. is be1sed on a vision of Canada that the Meech La ke Accord does not satisfy 01~ E!ngender. As I said earlier, Mr. Spr:~aker, I Feel honour· bound to honour the wishes of my co nstituents and not to act contrary to or' in the absencE:' of that consideration . I can say, for the reasons I have stated, I do so wholeheartedly and in complete agreement with the wishes and views of my constituents.

L8 June 20, 1990 Uol XLI BeFore closing, M1~ . Spt::'aker, I would commend to han. members some thoughts from John Kennedy, the late President of the United States, 1/Jho, in addressing members of the Legislature in lhE! United States left this thought tAiith thE!m: 'When at some futu1ne datE! t:he high court of history stts in judgement on E!ach of us, r'E!Corcling whether in one brieF span of service we fulfilled our responsibilittes to the StatE!, our· success or failure in whatever office we hold will be measured by tht::~ anSIAJE!r to four questions: First, WE!re we truly men or" courage?

Second, were we truly men of j udge1m~nt? fh:irdly, IAJE!re we truly men of integrity? Fourthly, w~::~re we truly rnE!n ot dedication?' Now, Mr. Speaker, there are men and women in this House t/Jho must consider those questions. Just let: me say that I believe we have an obligation to courageously withstand the fearmongers. Let us with honesty and integrity eXE!rcise a rE:'asoned judgt::'rnent. Meech Lake is a dangerous, destructive constitutional pi"Oposal. WE! must, fOI" a1.1 . thE:' reasons enumerated, rE!j ec l: 'i. t. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr .

Speaker· : The hon. thr• GovE:'rnmE!llt House Leaclt:'r . Mr. Baker : that th:i s pleasure . Mr . Speaker, House now adjourn l lfiOV f' dur·ing Mr. Speaker: All in Favour 'Aye' . Some Han . Members : Aye. Mr . Spe~ker : fhose c:-tr_lains t. 'Nay' Carried . No. 55 (Mor·ning) R8

Some Han. Members: Hear, h~~ar! Mr. Speaker: On behalf of han. members, I lAJould like to extE!nd a lAJar·m and cordial welcome on this very important, significant and historic occasion to the Premier of Ontario, the Han. David Peterson, and to call upon the Premier to officially introduce him to the House. The han. the Premier. Premier Wells: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said before, this is an occasion when the Legislature of this Province is debating and deciding upon an issue that affects, and could have an effect on the whole country, so it is entirely appropriate that we take into account, not only matters that. are of concern to us ~;.Ji thin the Province, but rna tters that are of concern to the whole nation. By reason of that, I have ex'tE!nded an invitation to the Prime Minister and all of the Premiers to address the House and express to us their views respecting the matter we are debating.

It is important that we hear and understand l:hE! vi.r:>lAJS of distinguished Canadians beyond our bot"ders. I welcome the distinguished Pr1~rnier of Ontario and say to him that he doE:'S this House and the people of this Province gl"eat honour today by coming to speak to us and t.o, I am sure, enlighb~n us with his views and his concerns for l:he nation. I have been greaL1y moved and impre•ssed by the commE!nl:s he has made privately to me and in First Ministers' meetings, and I ask all members of thE! House, on both sidE!S, to pay particular attention to the very important comments he will make.

I k n O\JJ I express l: he t.~.ri shes of l: he L.9 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI 0 p p o s :i t. i o n , t o tAl h o m I E! >: p r e s s g r aU. tude , a 1 so , for t h Ed. I" w:i] 1 in g consent to extend this invitation. Having expressed their gratitude on b.:~ha1F of aJl TTlE!rnbers, I extend to you, Pl"E!rnier Peterson, the invitation to address us, and express to you our great pleasure that you have agreed to do so. You are rnos L lAJelcome. Some Han. Members: Hear, hE! a I"! Premier Peterson : Mr.

Speaker and Members of the Legislative AssE:Hnbly, should I say at the outset that I am delighted, personally, to have accepl:ed your invitation, your persona1 invitation, to at'l:E!nd on this historic opportunity to share rny views with members of the Assembly. I rE!Cognize this ·.is a r·are privilege, if not a unl.qtH• honour, and I a1.so knotAI hotAJ dangerous it is on an occasion 1.ike this, when unanimous con~;ent is required, for someone like rnE! to speak here, and I thank you aLl. for the privilege you have accorded me.

I tAJas herE:!, I Lhink i n N o v e rn b e r l a s l: , a n d I r E! c 1, i v e d a very war·rn gJ"E!E:!ti.ng in you!" !·louse• from you, Mr. Speaker. I u .. Jas delighted to attend, and you l"ernindE!d ITIE! on l:hat occasion l~hat aftE!l" the Act of Union, in 1.9119, Ontario donated the Chair in whLch you sit, and rnay I Le1 '1 yeLl hO\AJ handsome you look in l:hal: . Chc~ir And, Sir, regard1.ess of Lhe outcome of l:.his discussion, you can keE·p that: Chail", Ml". Speai<lH'. I would like you to know that.

This is, inde,::·d·, i'ln l1i~ l~OI"ic occasion and pi"Obab1y, I lAJIJU]cl suqgest, as :i.mport.ant. i:H1 issU() as any to lAJhich \Ale have app1iEd OUI" collective 11d .nds as a nc.l :ion. There are 1.oLs of difficult :issues in polit.ics, lots o~ pressures, No. 5 ~) (MoJ"ning) r~9

issues come and go, as all of us know who have practiced in thE! crucible of a Legislature in our lives. And it is not as if this will affect an unemployed fish worker or an unemployed auto worker tomorrow morning or next week but, I would argue, that it t.~.Jill have as profound consequences for the future of our country as, perhaps, any discussion that we have ever had. And I know that this Legislature and all the members herein are approaching it with solemnity and seriousness, and I am proud to be part of those discussions.

I phoned my wife this morning and she wished me IAJell and she said: 1 David, this is probably the most important speech you will ever make in your whole life 1 • I thanked her very much for taking the pressure off me, and I am proud to participate. I come not . to lecture, not to cajole, not to threaten, not to plead, but to share my viet~s of this debate as someone who has be~n intimately involved in this discussion, really for the last four years, but even beyond that.

I was onE:' of thoSE! as a student, as I know many of you WE:'re, who followed the developments of QU1:1bec since the beginning of the Revolution Tranquille in the 1960s, as 1~e as a country, Quebec as a province, all of us, were trying to work out the probl.t:!JnS there in that community, and as we went through a number of di ·ffictJJ.lies, crises, if you JAJill, referendums, elections of separatist Government, all trying to address our minds to that problem and the great: question was alt~ays askE!d, Well, IAJhat does Quebec want?

How do we work out a uo June 20, 1990 Vol XLI confr:1deration that accOJI\IIlodates their needs and hopes and aspirations a'' ,) t;.Jell a~ -· contributing to the greater uniLy and to the greater whole? I come:', not really in a posi lion to speak For all of Canada, because I would neVE:'!" bE! so presumptuous, and I cannot even stand in front of you and say I speak for all of Ontario, because there are many peopJ.e in my province who disagree u..Jith me. This has been an issue that is beyond partisanship .

Il:. is as difFicult, as I said, as any is sue that we have ever fac~:\d, i l: has caused many splits in my Party and other parties, as well. riqht acr·oss this nati.on . Pr:~oplE· of" conscience, people of judgement Wl"estle with this most fundaJnenLa1 question .

But I do comE! to you as one IAJho cares passionately about this countl"Y, as on~~ who beliE•v es that we can make it IAJhole and rnakr'.· it. better For the future, that we have far more things in common that we do that separ·al:e us, yet, at t.he samE! tiJTJE•, !Ale can recogniz,:! and understand the uniquune:~ss and specialness of various areas and accommodate their speci"'l needs a·'· we haVE:' aho.Jays donr: ~ his toJ"ica11y, and wi.ll do in the future as well. and go on together and build a stronger confederat .. ion and mor"· unity of purpose. I beli.~~ve. Mr.

Speaker·, it ts important in this discussion to review, if I may, just a Joitl:1e of the history. Many of you know thal: thE! 1nos.t i.rnpoJ"t.ant ch<.Hl~Je~; probably in our Constitution occurred just i.n this last decade, in 1982, and you remember the discussions leading up to that. In my view, it was an huroic achievern(:'nt, an adloi.evE•Jnunt: of No. 55 (Morninq) I~ 10

.-!.. histor'ical proportions, to take men and women at that time, lAJho had dramatically different views on the country, and you wi.11 remember the dr:'bates wi t.h Min. fr'Udeau and Stirling Lyon and some of the western premiers, they were all there, and it looked like it was an absolutely intractable position, yet, through a process of compromise and a process of accommodation, the Constitution was brought horne for the first tirne in over a hundred years.

We now had the power to amend our own Constitution, brought in a Charter of Rights, which has had a dramatic effect on this country in the last eight years, and we now had power over our own future. But there was a price paid, and it was not perfect. That is not to in any way denigrate what the leadership of the country at that time did. But there were two omissions, or, if you like, one:~ omission and one massive comprorni s e. The notwi ths tanding clause was a massive compromise. It was far more devastating in its consequences than anything that we arE! discussing today at ME!ech Lake.

And we have seen the use of that notwithstanding clause in Qut:!bec and in o·ther provinces, for that matter, and tAle know l:hat the use of that has poisoned the debate in this country and thE•re .is a great tendE!ncy to relate the tuJo. But in fact and in latAJ, the notwithstanding clause and Meech Lake have nothing to do wil:h E:'ach other. And one or~ the points I beli(~'ve I have in agt"~~E:'TnE!nt ulith yout" PremiE:'I" is l:hal~. tAle would both likE! to gE!t l"id of that cJ.aUSE!.

There is not unanimity on that question, there is not even a general consensus on that question, but I hope somE~ day in the Future we tAJi.11 be able to get rid oF that. But that was a price Lll June 20, 1990 Vol XLI paid at the til'rlE!, bE! cause tAJithout it, we would not have what we have today. But: I also say that. had I been there in 1982, and I t~o_Jas not, but had I been therE:', I t..uould have been proud to sign on, and I t..uould have said at thE! timE! it uJas a price worth paying.

But there is another price that was paid, and that t..uas thE• pt"iCE! of patriating the Constitution without Quebec's signatut"c~·. NouJ, in fairness, Quebec would not have signed anything at that time. Qu_ebec was head1:;!d by a SE!paratist government whose sole object was to destroy the Confederation. Someone in our r'ecent discussions quoted one of the P1"ern:iers as saying, 'WE!ll, Ml". Par'iZE!au' s solE! object. is to destroy the nation.' When Mr. Parizeau uJas as kE!d about that he said, 'He is absolutely corn~ct.

That is my object, to destroy the Nation.' Bul:: l:.hen l:he question became, WeLl., houJ do LAJe bring Quebec to the table? How do we get them par'U.cipat.ing in LhE! other discussions about Senate reform, aboriginal self-government, and other things? rhe political leadership of the day 1night.ly, in rny vir:•uJ, rnaciH l:.he judgment to go ah0ad without Que be c .

They f e 1 t , an cl a ~1 a ·i n l think rightly, that thero were s t r o n g F r a n c o p h o n e s p o 1<1::• s rn e n i n Ott.awa representing QuE•bec t..uho had eve I" y bit as 1. e g j ti rna t e a v o i c e to speak For Quebec as did Lhe p r 0 v i n c i a 1 G 0 v (' I" I'll II('' n L 0 r L h ''! cl a y . And then 1.1.1e as Federal is l:.~; and as Canadians tAJE·t ~E! ble~;secl, in rny view, by an election in Quebec that brought a Federalist GOVE!r'rHnent ar-tE!r ' Len years. Mr.

Bout"assa calfiE:', and he hacl hacl a thorough discussion IAJ.i th his flt'trty and with his Province about joining Confederal:ion, si,Jn :ing on, becoming a wiLling paJ"l.nE•I", and he No. 55 (Monling) I~ 1 1

reducr"1d aJ.l of these proposals to five. It started originally about six years ago, in a document called 'Maitriser L'Avenir'. It went through a document caJ.led the Beige Paper that t!Jas submittr:1d For public discussion. Those who were interested are familiar with it. He brought that to an election in 1985 and had a mandate to negotiate his way into fuJ.J. partnership in Confederation. There was nothing secret about that . It was no t. a private discussion. It was a thorough and total public discussion.

Admittedly, it did not have the attention that some of our other discussions have, but it was all there for everyone to see. Four years ago, the Premiers gathered- the Prime Minister w.as not there - the Premiers gathered at one of our annual conferences in Edmonton, and all of us togE:'ther signed a document called the Edmonton Declaration, and we agreed then, together, that our first priority was to bring Quebec into full partnership in the Constitution . It was an initiative right across this country from coast to coast.

So we went on from there to the MN~ch discussions, and those had all been discussed publicly. Adm:i ttedly, again, it did not have a high degree of public at t.ention. I rE!rriE:'ITibE:~r personally, walking up the road to Meech Lake, where I had never been in my life, and, lAJilh any luck, lArill never go back again, and I rE•ITlE!ITJber people asking me, 'We11, are you opU .mtstic? Do you this this thing can bE! put togethE!r? 1 Because nobody thought this could bo put together.

This probl ern has bedeviled this country for a hund1ned and twenty--three years, and if you want to look beyond U2 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI that, since thE:~ PJ.ains of Ab1naharn in 1759. This is not a nEH!J or unique problem, it is a problem that has a1tJJays been there. And the history of our constitutiona1 debates in this country, the history of the great debates in Parliament, is filled with this discussion. So you, ladies and gentlemen, are part of a tnaj or historical debate, not just one that is subjt:>ct to the pressur·es of today.

We went to Meech Lake and put together the principles oF a partnership with Quebec, for Quebec to become a Full member. We tJJere not trying to so1vE· a11 the world's problems. We were not trying to dea1 tJJi.th a11 the problems of abor iginal self-governrnE:~nt or Senate rE•form or fisheries, or whatE:wer, but WE! were trying to bring Quebec to the table so they could part.icipa'tl:! in the future, rE!Cognizing that: otw Constitution, in Canadian terms, was very, very new. It was on1y since 1982.

W«::~ did not, al':. t.hat point, invent the amending pro c e d u r e , or the three ·· y f! a r t i me period required under it, that came out of 1982. And had we unilaterally tak en it upon ourselves to change that proce ss, you can imaginE:' the criticism that tJJould have carne FortJJar·d. W~:· did the best we cou] d, per·haps , and I think we have all learned a lot about SOITI<':! of t.he inadequac:i.E!S ot ' that process. So we put iL together at Meech Lake and we subSE!qUE·nt1y tJ..JE•nt on to Langevin, where th e legal niceties were a1 1 put together.

That tJJas seen, at the ti1nt,, to be an historic achtevement. Peop le across l:his country · and th ere were di ssenters, no question but, by and lar·ge, it: r:•njoyed a very high degree of popular No . 55 (Morning) Rl2

support. People thought it was wonderful. You know how r·arE! it is to get agreement on anything in this country, but to have eleven Governments sign on was seen as absolutely an amazing achievement. Little did we know then some of the changes that would develop in our country over the subsequent three years. There ~ere changes of Provincial Governments, no question about that, including in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There tJJere changes in mood. There have been many hurtful things done and said in this country, including many in my own province, which I deeply regret.

Many things haVE! been transmitted back and forth to each other, and we have seen a sensitive nation react in many ways to these things. Bill 178, that I referred to English Canada has changed dramatically the support for Meech Lake, even though it is not legally related in any way. And we have seen, at the same time, a very high degreE! of symbolism overtake this debate. In 1nany ways, in Quebec, Meech Lake, today ··- forget: the lE:'gal niceties for· a moment, I will talk about those in a moiTllc!nt ·-is seen as a symbol of belonging.

It is a question oF, in French the word is 1 appartenance 1 , thr:~ syrnbo1 of acceptance, just as, outside of Qu~::'bec, many pE!Ople have USE!d Meech Lake as a way to express frustrati.on about. QUE!bec, . about thE! fact that l~hey ar·e demanch•urs and too noisy and always, they think, whtning about somel~hing or have specia1 status, gEd:.li.ng SOirlE!thing uJe ar·e not gel~ting, a way to express their hostility. So we have seen all oF these dirnr:'nsions to this debatE! and it 1 s ForCE!d a much l~ri.der discussion as WE:~11 into thE! vetAy E!Ssence of ou1A L13 June 20, 1.990 Vol XLI Canadianism. What are we?

What kind oF federation? How do we put together this diverse population? How do we reconcile the distinctiveness of Newfoundland and Labrador with the distinctiveness of British Columbia or Ontar·io, Quebec or Manitoba? And how do we put all of that togel ·:her in a Federation? Because it is not easy as you know. Some populations, some provinces, are dramatically different than others.

Look at the linguistic component l..oday of New BrunsuJick .... and you wi01.1 bE! graced by the presence of the Premier of New BrunstArick this afternoon - who can talk from a unique perspective of the only bilingual province in this country. Newfoundland and Labrador tends to be more homogeneous than other provinces . Tot"onto today: OVE!I" 50 pE!l" cen L of the people in Toronto are not native born French or English. WE! teach in our · schools in Toronto over 80 different languages today, not just the obvious ones like Italian, and Greek, but Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese.

Ther~~ is a recognition of aLL of ou1" people, new and old, and we have historicall.y been VE:'I"Y. vel''Y good at dealing lAJith div,"rsil~y and respecting diversiLy and understanding l:hat:. 'is an impor·L ,:·mt part of the Canadian charaC'teristic . And in spil':"' or· all of our prob] ems I tAJou1cl ar~jUE· thal~ we havE.' been be l.Lc: !r than t.'tny other country in lhe wo rld probably, in reconciling those difFerencr:~s. pul:.l:.inq lhE!Ill together, respecting l..hem, yel Findoi.nq a conll'llon good at t·.he sa1111':· tirne.

So lJJE:' have had . as I said, probably the most cliscussecl, war ked over, ana l.y zed Li l.l: .l e pi("! c e of paper, ME •ech Lake, in t.hE! No. 1)5 (Morning) Rl3

history of this country. Quite different than 1982. In 1982 this did not go to Provincial Legislatures as you recall, it did not have Provincial hearing. Then it had to go to the Mother of all Parliaments, the Parliament in Westminster in order to patriate our Constitution. So in many respects a far, far more significant piece of paper, the Patriation and Charter of Rights in 1982 had far less attention and far fewer discussions than did this Meech Lake discussion we are having at the present time. I tAJant to, if I may, takE! the time, Mr.

Speaker, to address sornt::~ of the issues that have been raised, and I heard part of the Attorney General's speech as I was sitting in the Speaker's Office waiting to come and shar~;:1 my thoughts with you. And the question is: What is a Distinct Society? Does it give some special status? Are Quebecers difFerent than us? Do thE!Y have more rights or less rights or fewer privileges? What does it really mean for us today? What does it mE!an for someone working in a gas station in St. John's or in a mine in Sault Ste. Marie? What does that really mean? Let me back up a little bit before I come to that.

Our Constitution in 1867, the 13NA Act, is a very inten!st:ing clocurnent. It is not ·Filled tAJith the hE•roic language of the Constitution of the United States, and there is no, 'We, the peoplE!' kind of clause to summon everybody around common principles. It is in rather sparse pr'ose, Balzacian prose, if you like. It defines not only our governing institutions and the distribution of poiAJer', but it aJ.so recognizes thE! diffC::1rences. It was created by people with l_llj. June 20, 1990 Vol XLI dramatically different views of our federation. John A.

Macdonald wanted a unitary state, a very st1nong Federalist. Car'tieln had a totally diffE!r10:1nt view, a totally different view, wanted a strong Federalism to protect the rights of Quebecers. Again they were almost like Stirling Lyon and Pierre Trudeau in terms of tht::dr differences of opinion, but they tAJere able to put them togE!the1r in 1867 and it was an heroic act of statesmanship, :irreconcilable vietAJS penned togE•ther again.

And what I would argue is more important than the Governing institutions that IJ..JE!re created 'in 1867, was that that document is a rnonumE!nl: to tolt::H'ation and to respect and to minority. Here you have a completely different province of QUE!bec with a unique legal sysh'm. In 1 '7 74- in the Quebec A c t: -L t 1..ua s granted its distinct status, at that point. They still have a different legal system than the rest of Canada. They obviously spoke a different language, the rna j o r i t y h ad a d i r--r-- E:' rE! n t r 11 l i g i o n , they had a different school system.

And l:he Catho1ics and Protestants in upper Canada were worried about their particular school systems, 1nun as thr:!y IJ..JE•re by the Churches in those days, all of these d if r e \A en c E· s w~:· I" E· a c c ormnod a tC::1d c::tJ'Id q i lJl"' n constitutional protection in 1867. And what it really said is, look, I can have rny r'Edi .gion and you can have your's. You can educate your kid the tAJay you lAJant to educatE! him dnd I lAJ:i.ll l:i!clucatE• mine. You can have your legal system and I lJ..Ji11 hdve 111i.ne, and we can aLL put 'i.t l:.ogE•lheiA under'neal:.h the u1nbreLla of Canada.

That is 1..uhai:. they ~;aid to each other. And il:. is 1ny utet..u, because of the tolr1J"aUon and No. ') ') (Morninq) I~ 14-

understanding shown at that time, we created the underpinnings, the intellectual and emotional underpinnings for the most tolerant society in the world today. And now we have an advanced multi-cultural society which allows us, based on -!:hose principaJ.s, to bring in people from lands from all corners of this globe and make them feel comfortable and wanted here, and fuJ.l and true Canadians. I think that is the most important achievement in 1867. And along the way ac comrnoda tions were made. When - BC came in there were special provisions to build a railroad; part of the constitutional provisions.

Special language provisions for Manitoba in 1870. And when Newfoundland came in in 1949 there were special provisions -for the pro t e c t i o n of the parochial school system here, special provisions with respect to the sale and distribution of margarine. Now putting margarine in a constitution is not exactly the most heroic thing I have ever heard of, but it was a recognition of a reality here, and people were not so fixed in their mind that they could not adjust to a reaJ.ity, and so they fixed it. And frankly, who gives a damn? It was a Jneasonable accommodation to a reality of the situation.

Heroic, maybe no, but it sure was sf:Hlsible and has s l~ood up to the test of history. So we have gone on to that, to the question of, we1l, lAJhat l~.his dis tinct sod.E!ty means. How do we put all oF this togE!ther in l~he context of our constitutional history oF the past? I IAii .ll just. give you a litUe quotE! From Sir John A. - an Anecdote of Life,, of SiT John A. Macdonald and he tAJas talktng about Confederation at the tirnE!.

He said, 1 CeJ"tainly us June 20, 1')90 Vol XLI Confederation was the product of politicians of all stripes from five colonies. 1 And certainJ.y the idea dtd not originate with Macdonald. To Br·own 1 s od .gJna1 concept were added the fJnancial expE!rtise of A.T. Galt and Cartier 1 s insistance on rntnirnurn essentia1 guaJnantE!OS of provincial rights. There was no pride of authors hip, they all shared in the authorship of a docum1:>nt thai- is the underpinnings of our great country. So the question now becomc:•s, l;Jell, is the distinct society clause out of character tAiith thal~?

DOE!S it give special poweJ~s, special status to Quebec? Does it give them things that NewFoundJ.anders or On ·tarians do not halJe? Is it out of character wil:h the kind of decisions that we have made historically to accomrnodate netAI provinces comtng into Confederation? We soli citE!d lE·gal opinions on this, because frankly it was a question that worried us, of ME!ech and l~h<'! l.angle>uin discussions. I have an opinton, and I recognize that lawyers you get three laiAJyers in the room, you get three diFferent opinions . And I am sure thE!

PlnE•IIIieln IAii-11 l:.e] 1. you if you had 100 lawyE!rS :i.n l~he room as JAJe d-J.d, you tJJou1cl get. 100 different opinions as well. But I quote only FJ"OJn P('!l:.E'J" Hogq QC. 1 think Pel:E!I~ llogq J.S PJ"obably recogrdZl'!d as LhE! l:!ading constitutional lawyer 'in Canada today, the most quoted in Lhe Supreme CoUJ' "t. And he tAJas as h·d his lf:'ga1 opinion. Do:c!~'· the! Mel:•ch Lak1:! Accord confer spec'iaJ. stal .. t.Js on Quebec? Something everybody wan l s to k n OIAJ . I tAli ] ] lab 1 e , M I" .

SpE:'aker, this opinion tAiith you if it would be helpful in your deliberations, but, he said, in operd.ng his opinions, he said :it.' s No.

I) I) (Mon1inq) InS

important to notice that the constitution of Canada does not treat all provinces equally, and as a result there are now minor differences in the constitutional status of each provtnce, including differences in each province's power. That . is what I said in my brief exposition of our Canadian Constitutional history. But let me quote to you his conclusion, he says, 'since there is general agreement that the Constitution does not now confer special status on any province, despite mino1n variations in their powers, it follows that the distinct society clause does not confer special status on the province of Quebec'.

I recognize there are other opinions on this question, but I think I can say tJJith candor that the majority of constitutional lawyers in this country shari':~ that. view . It was also part of a document tabled with the new agreement that was signed a week or so ago, signed by a number of leading constitutional lawyers, and I commend this opinion to you . Its weight in court will be a subject of some discussion although, as you knotAJ, in the last ten years particularly, the SupremE! Coutnt has taken into account a variety of different views in a variety of different cases.

I just leave with you, fo1n example, in thE ! Famous referendum on tJJagL =! and price controJ.s, one of thE! documents quoted, indeed in the judgement and in the argurnE!nt, tJJas a speech from the then Governor of the Bank of Canada to a service cl.ub in Saskatch1':!wan t~Jith respect: to anti -inflation pol.tcy, so I believe it will have weight. rhis documL:!nt say s the FoL Lowing, and I will not read the whole thing thE! rights and freedoms guaranteed thereunder are not infringed, or denied. by thE! application of the:! 1_16 June 20, 1.')90 Vol XI... I clause.

They are not denied by the applicat :ion of thE! clause. and continue to be guarantei'::~d subje ct only to such rr::~asonablL~ 1irntts pre s c rib e d by 1 atAJ as c an bE! demonstratively justified in a free:' and democratic soci(:~ty. That is the opinion of the experts. Now nothing in that clause creates new legislative authority For Parliament or any of the Provincial Legislatures, or derogates from any of their legislative authority. It. rnay be considered in determining whether a particular law fits t~Jil:hin l:he legislative authority of Parliament or any of the Legislatures.

Those opinion s aJ"E! a rnat.tE!r of record and [ c:un suJne you will take them into consideration. I am confident, and I am one of those who had tAJorri.es about this issue , t: hat we are no t cr· u at in g a special legislative status for Quebec, or giuing special powers in those circumstance s. In fact the distinct society, by d(:!finition, dE•scribE· s QuetH:!C as a majority of french speaking Canadians and a minority of English spe aking Canad'ians. rn othE!r words 'it does g:i.vE!

U w rninority now. for the fir·st:. ti.JJ'II':! , constitutional statu s in Qu ebe c, and I think one could (!VE:'rl JJJdkl':! the <H' g u rne n t it give s l: h (o! JTJ.i J'l o J" i t:. y more potAJer . But lE!l: . us just: . say f 0 In d ITI 0 I Tl (:' rl l. I a Ill IAI I" 0 n c:J . Supposing my opinion is iJJr'o ng. and some lawyer som ewhere argues, tJJell, yes, but rnaybe ~:;uJ'Jlt:! day on the rnar·gins, out tw :•nty, th it'"ty , or Fifty years, sOJIJe judge inl:elnpl"t'tS it: d:i.f feJ"E!I'lUy thiHl I do , and says there is a littl e speci.a1 potAJBJ" J.nheJ"I'::'nl. jn U \{'' distinct society clause.

I do not bel.i eve that will be the ca se, basr::~d on legal opinion, but i·F il: doe s. if that is the cas e, il No. 5 ') (Mond.ng) Rl6

would not affect one Newfoundlander 1 s rights, or one Ontarian 1 s rights. It 1.uouJ.d only aFfect rights, if it were operable, in the province of Quebec, and Quebecers want Meech Lake . When you think about it, her e we are, non-Quebecers, all of us, passing judgement on th em . Do we have the right to tell them that they cannot have something that they want and that they think is important to their cultural identity, to developing their constitutional future.

Even at the margin, and I do not believe there is any risk, should we hold up this document because of an outside infinit esimal rem ote possibility that somebody' s rights in a Province that WE! do not live in, that wants this document, we do not think they should have it. That is a question that has to be addJ~e s sed by aLl Canadians. That question was , I think , a 1 on g IAii t h the: ~ Senate question, the major subject of discussion during the last week in Ottawa. The second question to be dealt with in great depth was a question of the Senate .

It was not the intention of l~he original authors of Meech Lake to tJ~y to solve the question of Senate reform. Even though it was high on thE! agenda of the western provinc es at l~hat time , particuJ.arly Alb e J~ t a lE!d by Pr emi er Getty . He wa s insi stent at that point on th e unanimou s vel~o . Intere stingly enough, there have been lot s of discussion on that question, but the chief author and thE! chief arc h"i.l~e c t and l:he chief propont::!nt of Senate reform tJ..Jas in favour of thr:' unanimous VE!l-:o.

I think ·it is important to note, becau se most people I think who have not rt:;!a d Mt:'e ch carE· ·fu1ly , think tha t U1E· una rd rnou s veto I. 1 7 June 20, 1')90 Vol. XU applies to ev erything in the constitution. That is not correct. It just applies to

Section 41, to institutional change on the Senate, on Parliament, the SupJ"c:~me Court c:'lnd new provinces. The gen eral amending formula still st ands, of seven provinces wH :h 50 pE! r cent of the population. Your Premier, who I respect enoJ~mous1y, ha s ve1~y strong viel~<JS about Senate reform, and fe el s that perhaps Meech Lake - n ot perhaps, and I am very, VE !ry careful becau se I wou ld never want to speak for anoth er Premi er said thi s cou ld j eopardi ze th e prospects for Senat e r.:: ~fonn in t h E~ future.

There is no que stio n t h r o u g h hi s e 1 o q u E! n c ~~ a n cl h i s great knowledge and passion on the subject that he has dramatically advanced the agE!nda on SE!natE! reform. It is something I would support, becauSE! I bE•Jieve that l~<J e have to continue to build our institutions in this coun tr y, to give real voi ce to all Canac ians , to make surE! that E•v eJ"Y Canad ian feels they ar E~ par tic ir- Jal: :ing i11 bui lding this co unt ry.

I unde J"sta nd, com:ing fr' orn CE ·ntTal Canada , so me of l~hose cr' ·ies From the 1Pss populous r'E'!gions, and l IJJanl: ev1?.1~y singl1::1 Canadtan l:o Feel that t.hey have not only a ,~ l, ~~hL bul: a responsibility to participate in the govern:irg of their cou ntry . I believe thal S(:'natE• reforrn J.s one oF Lh1'~ tJ..Jays l:O do l~ hat. l"h<.~ qUE•sl: .ion .-is hdVt:~ lJ..H:' advanced UlE! cause or haJ!'::' IAJE• s c::1 t i t b a c k ? I l. h i n k p r o b a b l y a l~ th:i_s point thE~ f>J~ern:i .el~ and 1 have dif'FE!ren t vielJJS.

We agJ":•E:!d :in 1-:hE~ last go- -aJ~ouncl t.ha t w:• IJJou1d innnmediab:'ly set: up a cornrnission of equa l rE!prE!Sentat:i .ve~; From a11 provinces l:o look at l:ht::' question of Senate reform along certa in No. ~~ 1) (Mor'ning) I~ 17

defined principles, elected Senate, bel:h~r representation from the J.ess populous regions, and an effective Senate without interfering with the powers of the House of Commons. Should that not take place over the next five years, we have agreed, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia as well, to a redistribution of Senate seats to assist the less populous regions, the west and Newfoundland particularly, in having a greater say at the center.

At the very worst, if we cannot get Senate reform in the next five years, and I believe that we can because I believe there is a great dl':'al oF momentum when we have all agreed it is the priority, at the very worst there will be guaranteed, as Ron Watts says, partial Senate reform. It does not conform with everyb6dy 1 s views on the matter, just as nothing else we did does, but I would argue it is a major step forward. We have set the course.

If we were forced to deal tJJith that issue today, and we would not be capable of doing that because Quebec is not at the tabJ.e, then it tAJouJ.d probably stalemate itself and we would see any momentum, any advances, comE! to a grinding halt.

So I would argue that the process has been served and we are making progress. r h e r e tJJ "~ r e rna n y o t he r i rn pro v E:~ rn E:~ n t s that were agreed upon in the la st tJJeek or so, as many of you know, and they tAJr:'re thE! result of ve1~y t.~-r.i d E! h e a r i n g s a c r o s s t h i s c o u n t r y , in many difFerent provinces and a great dE!al of discussion.

We have improved the sexual E!quali .ty provisions, we have improved the provisions with respect to appoin trnE:~nts From l:he TE=~rri tories, and we haue agr'E'!ed on a process to 1_18 June 20, 1.990 Vol XLI try to develop that Canada CJ.ause which was uery important to Manitoba. And I understand that, and I would like to SE!e d Canada Clause. We don 1 t haUE! a Canada Clause but, let us be fr 'ank, it has bedE!Villed LegisJ.atun!s for the past 123 years. It. is not an easy qUE!stion; thE! phLI.osophy is easy, the specifics are difficult.

There are a nurnber oF suggestions on the table from a number of provinces, but we are now going to deal with that question and try to put into our Constitution the basic and fundamental charach~rist.ics. Someone said dur':ing l:hE:' discussion that the FundarnE!ntal characteristic of Canadd is constant Constitutional change. It might. be l~he one thing on IAJh:ich WE! a11 agree. But we have also, I think, all agreed collectively that we have to addrE•s s the question oF aboriginal self-government. I partic ipated in a conference on aboroi.ginal self-·goUE!rnrrtE!nt i.n 1987.

We tAJei"E• dealing wi Lh an E·nor'rnously co1np 'lex set of issues. We then had n:i ne provinces at the table. Quebec was not there. Quebec histor'ically has been eno1 "111ously sympathetic to the questions of our first peoples, and has been very progressive in a number of regards. Bu l: t.ue hi'\d Fiu1 :' ou l:. or· nine pt"ovinces at l.hat U .rne. The provinces which turned down the proposals on the table were the three western provinces ~nd Net.~- rfound1and.

But thr:~re haue been chang10•s in Nl':•t.ufoundland, as tAJP ll, and 'it may be w~it .h a nr:·t.~-J and r·I"E!Sh approach, and t.~-Jith Quei :H'C al". l:.he table and a gu aranteed constitutional conFerE!nce, thEH1 tAlE! can ITiake progt"ess in that t~egc:\l"d as t.uell. We havE~ not chi.H1<J C•d l:hE• a rrtt' ! n d i n g f o rrn u1 a tAl :i. L h r E! s p e c L t. o No. I)~:, (Monlinq) 1ns

aboriginal self-government, and I am one of those who beliE!VE!S that major progress has been made in that regard. We have agreed, as I said, all of us, that the process was not adequate. None of us enjoyed the way it developed, even though we got to know each other extraordinarily well in that week, and there were some enormously heroic moments and emotional moments. And I consider it to be one of the most interesting and deeply rewarding experiences of my 1 if e , because I saw acts of statesmanship and generosity that I wish all canadians could have seen. But we know we have to changE! that.

We know we haVE! to develop the Constitution in partnership with the people, and not many of us have many ideas on how to do that. That is a subject we lAiill be discussing, and I think we can make improvements. But lest we be too hard on ourselves in that regard, let me say that it was not a process we invented; we inherited it in 1982, we were working to a deadline that nonE! oF us liked, and I think in thr:1 future it can be mo1ne relaxed and Far· rnore pre-discussions going on.

But, it is aJ.so fair to say, like any other big discussion in this country, the1"e lAd.11 not always be unanimity on these questions. There are many, many people who looked at this whole Meech Lake discussion and said, 'Ah, if just those horrible politicians couJ.d just get out of this. we, the people. could sit down and soJ.ve aJ.l these problems'. So you remember the rnedJ.a wou1d gather thern up, they would a11 go away and sit in a lodge for a weekend and they would solve all the problems, and at the E!nd of thE! IJJE!Ed<end they lAJ<::'re aJ.l 1 .. 19 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI fighting.

You see, we are <::'lee ted. We do have a democratic responsibility and an obligation to make decisions, as difficult as they are, frorn time to tilfiE!, and al1 of us are used to taking the consequences of that, be thE!Y good or be they bad, and we all recognize whatever we do, there lAd.ll bo the critics, as thE!rE! should be in a free and domocrat:ic society. The question then becornc::'s, and I heard the Attorney General speak a b o u t t h i s t h i s m o r n i n g • w h a t. tkJ i. 11 happen if Meech fails?

The so-called fearmongers. the scaremongers, are we being threaten1?.d or cajoled into signinq this bitter pill? And what are our responsibilities to the nat:i.on? And is QtH:'bec a1tAiays going to be demanding something? Is this just the boginning of separation? Are they (joing to go anyway, with or w:ithout ME!E!Ch Lake? And what about the nationalists in Quebec? And maybe they are headE!d that way anytJJay, and there is nothing you and I can do to salvage that:. sil:.uat:i.on. IL is pa1nt of the debatE!. And thE! ansWE!r to the question i.s, [ do not know the ans1JJe1°. And nobody knows for sure.

I cannot plnE:'dicl: the next hundred years. I be1ieve the Meech Lake Accord will give us a period of stability in which we can work out other problems. Bu l: tJJe all reco<jrLi.ze that Quebec only has two major parties, orll'1 is a Feclc:•ralist Pa1nty and one is a Separatist Party whose arnbil:ions and aims dine vt:!ry cJ.ear, and Lue a1J rE!rne1nber the referendum of 1980. And do you know what thE! score was? It IAJa s sixty --forty . And if you take~ the AngJ.ophones out, it wa s No. 55 (Morninq) 1n <J

fifty-fifty amongst the Francophones. So make your own judgment about whether this is important in Quebec or not. And the other question asked was will this keep Quebec quiet for a while? Will they stop demanding all these things? Well, the answer to that is probably no. Because that is thE! nature of our federation. Will grain payments out west stop the farmers for asking For more? No. Will support for the fisheries here help fishermen to stop asking For more? No. Will help for Ontario get me to stop asking for more? The answer is no. That is the nature of our Federation. Everybody is a demandeur.

And tAJhat is the matter with that? And surE! they will ask for more, and Newfoundland will ask For more, and Alberta will ask for more, and British Columbia will want help with their gas pipeline projects, and Alberta will want help with their upgraders. And what is the matter t..~Jith that? We have lived with that for 123 YE!ars, we will live with it for another 123 years. Just as you have every right to stand up on every occasion and put forward the case oF your province, so do I have that right for my Province, as well, and so dOE!S the Government of Quebec.

So I br:dieve you havE• listened to the tes ·timony of 111any people bE!Fore the SeJ.ect Cornrrrittee. You have hoa1·'d l:he Chail"lnan oF Burns Fry saying interest rates would go up 2 percentage points, and you knot.u the effect of that if Meech Lake is not signed. You have othE!rs saying thE! c ou ntr y wi 1'1. Fall apart. You have read about thE! prE'ssut~E! that: M1~. BouJ~assa is under from the Separatists. But you also rE!ad about the pressure I 20 June 20, 1990 Vo 1 XLI that Mr. Getty is under, M1~. Devine is under and that I am under. that we are all unde•r.

We all recognize this is not the most popular document in the country today. but I do not beLieve that you can keep a country together on the basis of threats or fear. And if that is your only rE!ason fo1n supporting Meech Lake, do not support it. You support it because it is part of l:he groat and genE~rous tradiU.on of thJs country of accornmodat:i.ng its regions. There is nothing dramatic or unique o1n oul:. oF character with our constitut:iona1 history, either now or in the future. You see. I do not bel:i.eve you can keep a country together on the basis of ·l:hl~eats.

You can ke•ep it together on the basis of love and respect and accommodation and tolerance, the kind oF pr·incipl.es which are ar-ticulated in OUI" BNA Act of 1867. And you have to recognize. as I saJd. it i.s par·t. of our honourable tradition and it is not going to stop wil":h Me•ech Lake, it is going to continue. And there arE! going to bf:• a 1ot. more strains on t-·.h:is counl:ry. It is not the fact that we have had strains in this country that is unique. because we alt~.Jays h.ave had and we always will have in the futurE•.

What makes us un :i.qu€:! as Canadians is we have al.tAJ <::tys b:)en ab] e to solve ou1~ prob1I;!ITIS :in t.I"H=· past . And, look, rea.d l:he ConFederation debates, read about the discussions over conscr-iption, read about the Statute of Westminster, and all LI'H'! tough negotiations that have gone on. The i s s u l'! s p a 1 E~ i. 1·1 to :i.ns:ignificanCE! in thr:! clr:'al~ J.·oi.ght of history, because of l:he glory of the thing tAlE! have'! Cl"ea.t..ecl togel:her. No. 55 (Morning) 1\20

You know, Fl"ank Scott, in his essay on the Constitution, AspE!Cts of Canadian Lat.u and Politics, said this: 1 Changing a Constitution confronts a society with the most important choices, For in the Constitution wi11 be found the philosophical principles and rules which largely determine the relations of the individual and· of cuJ.tural groups to onl':~ another and to the state. If human rights and harmonious relations between cultures are Forms oF the beautiful, then the state is a work of art that is never finished. 1 We arE!, ladies and gE!ntlemen, in historical terms, a mere adolescent on thE! wor·ld stage.

WE! are only 123 years old. We are wrestling constantly with our own identity, wrestling for new ways to put ourselves together, recognizing there is much unfinished business to complete. Much of it is part of the agenda articulated forcefully and eloquently by your PrE.~mit?.r, and I share his views in that regard. Meech Lake was not a document written by one person. There !AJas the blood of twenty-five mil1ion Canadians in ·that, and eleven GovernrnE!nts. The agl"eernent signed a week ago is Lhe same way. No one person in Canada cou1d have sat down and written that document at the beginning of the discussion.

It took a week to evolve, as d:i.fficult as thc:lt t.uas. And thE!re was part of Clyde Wells in t:hat, thel"E! was part of Robt::~rt Bourassa in that, part of Grant DevinE• in it, part of Joe Ghiz in it, and part of David Pel:1?.rson in it, and I am pi"oud to have participated in that exercise. Thc::~re is, as rnany famous paJ.nti.ng of of you k n OlAJ, a our Fathel"s of I 21 June 20, 1990 Vol XU Confedel"at.ion. It was pai.nl.:E!d by Robert Harris, and it hangs in many of our legislaturE!S.

It has, as some of you know, thl"ee la1"ge windows in thE• background, behind the Fathers of Confederation, and those are the windows of thE! Legislative Assembly in Charlottetown. But behind that, the scene that is drC\IAJn in is Lhe harbour as it looks out on Qut::•bE!C City. And, interestingly t::!nouqh, in that fictional painU.ng of thE• Fathers of Confederation, thE!re are two representatives of Newfoundland, Ambrose Shea and F. B. T. Carter, and evel"ybody knotAJS that Newfoundland did not join Confederation for another eighty-two years.

But Lhere was something presciont about Lhat, and something VE!I~y, ver·y Canad i.an about that portrait that takes the best frorn across this country and puts it together in the cornrnon good, and glorifies those Lhings that we have in corm11on, but. celebrates our diversity aL Lhe sarne tirne. Lord Acton once said a country can either sacriFice seJ.F .--gOIJE•r'nnwnt to unity or pi~E!Sel~vE• Jl: lh1nough Federalism.

I would iH'<JUe Lhal this country is too J.ai"gE• and l..oo d i v e r s e to g o v E! r n t•l"i thou t. recognizing some of Lhose differences, the uniqueness or Newfoundland, the uniqueness of Ontario, l:he uniqLH!ness oF Bi" 'il-ish Co1umbia, and put it al1 together. Lad-.i.es and gE!nt1E·ITlE!rl, ]et. me just-:. o f f' e r o n E! f:i n a 1 n o t t?. , I k n o t '' o f the intensity of the debate in this Province, I know of your dis cuss ions 1.ui t. h you I" con,; t:-.i L u en t s in l:he 1as t sevel"al tAJeeks. And I knotAI and you kno!AJ that: Lhe E•yc• of" i:he nation is upon you, and Manitoba, as IAII::-11.

And you c:H'E' going to rnake as i.ll'lportant. a dE!Cision as you have rnacle, <.·1S I No. 1)5 (Morninq) I~ 2 1

have said, I bE!1.ieve in your political lives. And you have the power to kill Meech Lake. You have that democratic right, and no one denies you that . I know, as you know, that Meech Lake and these discussions, both from a process side and From substance side, is not the most popular document this country has ever seen. And I know, and you know, of the pressure that has been brought to bear on all of us, some informed, some not so informed, some to the issue and some on other issues that are bedevilling our province and our country at l:he same time. I also know that public support has gone up and down.

It has been a roller coastE!r ride. If you look at one poll one day and they say they support it, and you listen to somebody else and they do not support it, in this poll and the other. Frankly, I would likE! to define as a fundamental characteristic of Canada getting rid of pollsters, but that is another story for another day. I do not believe that any of us in making a decision of this nature can just ride the crest oF the moment. No, we cannot be oblivious to public opinion, because that would be arrogant and rude and insensitive. But, at the same time, we cannot be dragged down into the lowest level, either .

As Edmund BurkE! said, our r~esponsibility :is to speak our conscience and not just to take the lowest common denominator on every j.ssUE! . I believe in polittcs that theru are only two real tests. The onE! test is the test of conscience, which all of you havE•, and I belieVE ! that will be exercised in all of you in the benefits of h01.1.1 you SeE! thE! interests of this great country. The other test, I think, j.s thE! 1.22 June 20, 1990 Uol XLI test of history. How wil l this judgement bear up to the scnlt:iny of your kids, and your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren?

Will they say you seized the moment, that you responded to the occasion, that you served the national interest? Or will they say you did not? Because they are go ·ing to say, daddy and rnornrny, you werE• there. You had a voice. I thank you For :inviting me today. As I said at Lhe beginning, I know it is an historic occasion . This certainly is for me, and I cons :i.der i.t, personally, to bE! a r~rH'''-' privi1E!gr:• to address such a distinguished group. I will leave you with one quotation frorn Nor"rnan Ange11 in June 1913.

He said, 'God has rnaclt:• Canada one of thos~~ nations which cannot be conquered, and cannot bE! destroyed except by itselF.' I know of your· generosi t:y, I I< notAl of your love for your country, and may God grant you wisdom in your deliberations. .~Q .. ITI.~.-t!. .Q .. IJ .. .:.._._fl.~ .. !!l.Q_§! .. f..~ : H E! a r , h 1.:~ a r ! Mr. Speaker: The hen. the flr"enri.er . Premier Wells: Mr .

Speaker, if I might just have one more momen t to express l:he deep qratil:ude oF l·:he entire House to Premier PeLerson for doing us l:he gr"t'al:. honcn· of addrE•ssing us thi. s rnor~ning, and to also express to hi111 our •.Jrat .il:.ude for the sincerity with which he shar~ed his vi~C'tAJs and his opinions tAJit.h us. Though our~ opl.rdons on some point s rnay differ, WE! gr 'l)at.1y resp ect those you have expre ssed and that is why we were so anxious to have you t'Xpr'E!SS thr:!ITI to all of us . I am sure I speak r~ or the entire House when I say we are No. 55 (Morning) 1\22

deeply in your debt, and thank you very much for doing us the gr·eat honour. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity, certainly on behalf of the Opposition caucus, to express similar sentiments to the Premier of Ontario. I must say, for one of the very few times in this Legislature, I believe everybody listened intently. I did not detect any interruptions or heckling or anything of that nature, and that was, in itself, a major accomplishment here this morning. Premier Peterson: (Inaudible). Mr . Simms : And yours too.

I have sat in your Legislature, as well. I do want you to know that we were certainly very, very impressed with thE~ presentation, and I have no doubt that it t~o.lill help a11 of us, individually, in making that final and crucial decision that we wiJl have to make. We wish you Godspeed . Mr . Speaker: This House wi 11 now come to order. Orders of the Day Mr. Baker: Motion 3, Mr. Spl':'aker. Mt~. Speaker: Motion 3. The han. the Member for Humber East. Some Han . Members: Hear, hear! Ms Ver~: Thank you, Mr. L23 June 20, 1990 Vol XL.T Speaker.

The address we just heard, by the Prornier of Ontario, was onE~ of the greatest poJ.iticaJ. speeches I have ever heard. I endorse the sentiments of appreciation made by the Premier and the Opposition House Leader. Premier Peterson shared with us, in a most eloquent and moving way, his considerable knowledge about the history of Canada, about our constitutional development and, also, his wisdom about thE! pre:!sont political reality. Let me begin my remarks in this crucial debatE~ by saying sirnply I wholehearb:~dly support. tho mot-ion before us, caJ.ling for our Legislature to ratify tho ~eech Lake Accord.

I do so gladly, because I believe sincerely the constituti.onal changes E!mbodied in the Meech Lake Accord are good For Newfoundland and Labrador, beneficial for Canada as a whole, and necessary to make Canada whole. For those positive reasons, I intend to vote YE•s. I am also mindful of the ne9ative consequences for Canada if our Legislature fails to ratify the Accord, and by virAlue of lhaL failure, the Accord dies. Not..IJhE!r~e in Canada would those consequences be worse than here. My dec is ion has been madl':' frE!E!ly, not according to Party discipline, but: according to my conscience.

A free vote is an unusual evenl in parliamentary durnocracy. This is onJ.y the second free vole :in rny eleven years in this House oF Assembly; the fir"st. lAJas the vot .C'! on the flag for the Province . Ther~E! has been consi.derAablE~ debc .ll:e about how rnernbers should b(:· guided in voting on this issue. The Minister oF Justice exprus ~;ed one point of vi euJ he r·e this rno nd ng, the Premier of Ontario expressed No. 5 1:) (Mond.ng) R23

another. fhe Minister of Justice suggested that members should be guided strictly and solely by views given by constituents, however expressed in the last few days. He cited two great Presidents of the United States. fhe Premier of Ontario, drawing on the traditions of thE! British Parliamentary system, which our Legislature embodies, expressed the view that we should draw on the Vil':!lAJS of our constituents, but ultimately use our own intelligence and our own judgement.

The great 18th century British political philosopher, Burke, said t n his c l a s 1 sic s pee c h to the electors of Bristol, 'your representative owes you not his or her industry only, but his or her judgement, and he or she betrays instead of serving you if he or she sacrifices it to your opinion .' I endorse that. I believe each of us certainly have the responsibility to incorporate into our final judgement the advice of ou1n constituents, advice given over a period of time not just in the past few days.

We also have a responsibility to take and learn from statements of others in our own Province, pol~tical leaders elsewhere in Canada, commentators, constitutional 1alAJyers. we haVE! to integrate all the information at our disposal and u1t.i .matE!1y apply our own intelligence. It has been suggested that the vote on this motion on the matter of amending out constitution is of greater significance than an ordinary vote on a sirnple legislative measure of the Province. For that reason I believe it is r:!Ven more impor·tant 1_2/j. June 20, 1990 Uol XU that each of us vote accor·cl'i.ng to our own conscience.

The Premier has suggested that tAJe haVE! l:.o be guided by our hea ds and ou1n hearts. He has ind'.ical~ed that there may be a conflict between the head and the heart and that may be true for some Members in this assembly. In my own case there is no such conflict. I will vote yes for the Meech Lake Accord with both my hE! art and rny hE! ad. I support the MeE!Ch Lake Accord both on its merits and on Lhe implications For Newfoundland and LabJnador and Canada. should it Fail to be ratified. Why do I believe the Meech Lake Accord is good?

I am an elec Led reprE!SE!ntative for liurnb E!r East, a constituency in western Newfoundland. What in the Me ec h Lake Accord is good for the people I represent and the other citizens of our Province? First of aJ.l Lhe Accord guarantE•es our PJ~ovinCE!, through our Premier. a key rol1~ in future constitutional developments, and l~hat. is nol:. l~o be taken fo1n granted. As prE!ITJ.

"i.r:' l~ Peterson reminded us. when Prirne Minister Trudeau lead the eff'ort to patriate the constitution in the early 80 1 s and to add the Charter of Right s and Freed o1ns. initially hr::• did nol include the provinces in l:he discussions. It lAJi:lS onJ.y afLC::!I~ a I~E!fE!I"E:!nCE! to t.hu Supr('Jne Court: of Can<:·<da and a cour· ·t judq{c•rnenl·: uJ·'qjnq consultal: .-ion lAJith LhE!

l) l~ ov'i nces that the Premiers were brought. into l~h!:' discussions. rh::.· Me C:!C h Lake AccoJ"d ~~OE:'S on to :l.nc]ude on a short List of agenda iLI'IfiS r~or annual First Mini ster 's c o n F e r· ~~ n c e s o 11 l·: h f:' c o n s L ·-j 1:. 1 1 l~ i o n • roles and responsibilities in relation to the Fishery, our· 1nosL important industry. As rnattE!rS stand now OUl" P1nov:ince No. 55 (Morning) I~ 211-

has no legal power whatsoever over the management of our fish stocks and the harvesting of fish. We do not have any jurisdiction over the fishery until fish are landed. Right now we are facing the worst fishery cri sis in our history, a crisis that has stemmed from mismanagement of th e stocks. Sur ely it would be better for our people if our Provincial Government could gain some influence over the future management of the Fish stocks. Through the Mr:1ech Lake Accord we will have an opportunity to negotiate shared manag ement over fish harvesting, over our most important industry .

Secondly, the Meech Lake Accord constitutionalizes or formalizes the practice of the Federal Government cost sharing and spending Federal revenue on programs within Provincial jurisdiction, programs such as health . The Accord goes on to say 'The Fed eral Governm ent must compensate any province which decides to opt out of any new national cost shared program, contributed to by the Federal Government, fal ling solely within Provincial jurisdiction, providing the opting out province carries on a program compatible with the national objec tives.

The key phra ses, the key wo rds are 'n ew' and 'wi thin Pr ovincial juri sdiction .' A commonly sighl: ed prosp ect "is a new nationaJ. co st shared day car-e proqr' am, somE!thing urgently neE!CI~ :!d in ou1~ P1Aovince lAJh e i~ E! lAJE! have the lt:!a st publicly supporl:E!d day care ac commodation of any province of Canada.

It seE:'Ins l:o me that . it would be imminently de sirable for our Province to have the choi ce of ei ther hav ing a n ew na t:ional day ca re progr am d es igned and L25 JunE! 20, 1990 Uo 1 XLI delivered by the Federal Government or of receiving compensation and ta iloring and delivering our own program that is compatible with national objectives. Our Province has a bigger rural component than any other provin ce in the nation. Typically F1:-der·al programs created by publ ic servants in Ottawa are designed for urban centl~e s . They may bC::! sui.table fo1~ St.

John's, bu t. usually they do not Fit ve1~y lAJel] small communities scattered al ong our coastline . Therefore, it's good for our Province to hav ~'! the choice of de signing and delivering our own . Another example is children's education - primary, elementary, and high schooJ. educaU .on. As some Members opposi.l:E! lAJho have been involved in educat ion including the present Mtnis tE!r of Education appr eciate, our Province's current spending on children's education lags beh ind the na tional av e ra g~ . corr-espondingly our' outpu t, as measured by tes l:s, is so11lewha t below the nati onal average.

For ou r Pr ovince to come up to the nat:i.o nal averagE~ it is t:!st:i .1nal:.ed we wou J.d ha ve to increase our annua J. spending by $200 111i .llion. The M:i .nister oF FinancP u.Jould bE• 1: h e f i r s t l: o s a y 1: h a t-. u n d !:! r present circumstances tha t is i rn p o s s i b l e . r h e o n 1 y r E!! a 1 'i. s t-i c lAJay Fol~ us to close th<:! gap is F'o1~ l:hE! Federa l Gover'nii'IE!nl". to partic ipat e in funding ch ildren's 1:!duca tion.

So Far l:hi3. l:. has noL been possible because of the re luc tance or-- some:' provinces, ours includE!d, to have the F e de1~a1 GoVE!rr11nenl: encroach on su ch a sensitive area that is so clo se to citizens where they live, as No. 55 (MOI"r d nq) r'2':>

education. The Meech Lake Accord provision al1owing for the opting out and for provincial individuality in designing and delivering programs providing they are compatible with national objectives, I think, gives us a real opportunity to gain Federal cost sharing of education for our children. Third. the Meech Lake Accord provides for nominations by provinCE!S to the SupremE! Court of Canada. The Accord formalizes the present composition of the court. but provides for the first time. that provinces may recommend candidates For appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of disputes between provinces and the Federal Government over powers. Pot.uers over the fishery, powers over offshore mineral rights. It's in our best interest for provinces to help shape the future cornposi tion of that highest court of our land. So, thes r:~ are three provisions of the Meech Lake Accord, I believe benE•fit our Province. rhe crucial provision of the Accord which has generated debate, is, the distinct society section, the clause that. says that QUE!bec is a distinct society.

Premier Peterson, has acknowledged the differing points of view about the meaning of 'that clause . He has stal~ed that leading constitutional latAJyers and in his opird.on, thE! majority of constitutional lawy•:'rs have given the opinion that, that clause does not give Quebec any extra power. It certainly doesn't give Quebec any power at our expense. It is a cl•:!ar staternE!nt that nothing in it t.akes atA!ay From the power of any provincial 1 .. 26 June 20, 1.990 Vol XI...I Government or Legislature away power from the Government or Parliament. or takes Fed c,, raJ.

How do I approach formal i z:Lng in our Constitution, a statement of Quebec's distinct society and an affirmation of Quebec's right to preserve and promote its distinct identity? I arn a woman, consd.ous of age old discrimination against my sex. I arn a Newfoundlander', sensitive to put-downs of other's, offended by racist Newfie jokes.

Perhaps, because I am part of those two groups: I am a woruan, I am a Newfoundlander, I readi.ly understand and accept Quebec's need to have its distinct :l.clenti.ty stated in Canada's Constitution and I agree tAli th the conf"ir'lnat:ion of Quebec's ability to preserve and promote its distinct identity. As I said be ·fol~e. l:hat. constitutional recognition doc;!sn 't take anything away From us . It doesn't cost us. All it requires of us is , that we o p r:~ n o u I" h ·~a r l:. s • that we open OUI" rninds to Qur:-!J(:'C.

In surnrnary those arE:~ l:ht :! · 111ain positive reasons For rny whole-hearted support of l:ht~ Met:!Ch Lake Accord. We have to dt~al lAJiLh LhE:' pr'actLcal consequences of either ratification of l:hc::· Accord or rejection of the Accord by our L l:' g i s 1 a.~: u r e , w h i c h 1.u i ll k i 11 MN!Ch. Real:Lsti.cally, nobody knows For sure what will hAppen if ME!E!Ch dies. Almost cE!r'La"l.nJ.y there will be political upheaual and econorn:ic ins tabj.J.:i.ty. lrJe have had two early war'nintJ siqns that happened when Lucien Bouchard resigned From Lhe FPderal CabinE!t. The financiaJ. cornrnun:l.

Ly reacted swiftly. Intt:•resL r'al:.es went up, the dollar Fell. If Me~=!ch is pass•:>d, all our pi"<ibleHns won't be solVE!d, fal" Fl"orn :it, but No. ss (Morning) I~ 26

we will have Quebec at the constitutional table and therE!fore alJ. provinces wi11 be able to participate in l:he way outlined in the unanimous agreement reached in Ottawa after the week long deliberations. at tackling other constitutional issues that citizens require consideration of at this time. Approval of Meech will allow future constitutional development in an orderly way. It lAJi.ll also permit political leaders to spend time and energy addressing other problems. He1ne. in our Province. we have a horrendous unemployment problem.

In the area of the Province I represE!nt, according to the latest Federal statistics, there is an official unemployment rate of over 20 per cent, and that is at a time of the year when people are usually being taken into the workplace in greater numbe1ns. We have an unemployment problem of over 20 per cent in Western NewFoundland now. I have talked about the fishery crisis and that is one of thE! ma:i.n contributors to the rising unemployment rate. These are issues that need the urgent at ten·tion of thE! Premier and the Cabin,~t. and of all the elected Members of this House of Assembly.

We will not b1':! doing justice to our people if WE! continue to be consumed and absorbed by constitutional tAJrangling. and I am afr·aid that-. is what will result if the Meech Lake Accord Fails Satur·day midnight, which is the deadline. I have talked about the significance of public opinion. I acknowledge that there is wisdom in the crowd. I feel a great responsibi1ity l:o the electors L•.Jho put me here. I feel throughout my whole career as l:he MHA For Hu1nber L2'7 JunE! 20, 1990 Vol. XLI East I have been available to thE• people who live there. rhat is my home. I spend more time there than I do here.

When the House of Assembly is in SE!SSion, oF COUI"SE', I have to be here. fhroughou t a period of years. especially the last few months, quite a Few people in the District have discussed constitutional issues with me. Interest began to be heightened a few mont:hs ago when our Legislature considered reversing our previous support: For the Meech Lake Accord. Interest reached an all time high in the last week or so. I have heard From more constitUE!nts on this issue than any issue other than amalgamation.

In thE:! casE'! oF amc-1lgarnation the rE•ptnE!SE:~ntal:.ions carne from the community undPr' the gun so to speak. In tE!rrns of the District as a whole, I hav~" heard from morE! PE!ople about the ME:!ech Lake Accord and the Constitution than I have on any othe:'r sing1e issue in my caroE•r as a politician. Some pE!Ople :i.n:iUated contact lAJith rne, qui'l:l:' a few actually • in thE· 1 as l:. !All':! E:! k . In other cases I tnade thE· fir·st overture.

I contacted constituents at random <:Hid t.1.Jhr:!n I had contact with people about other concer·ns, or problc'lns, I asked the first question about:. the Meech Lake Accord, so I haVE! reCEdved opinion :i.n LlAIO t.klct.ys. I h au e to t e 11 you t:. h <3. l: a ch! f i rl'i t e rnajOI"ity of Lhl:! cit:.:i.zr:•ns or· HUIItbE:-1" E as t t. h a t I h a v u h u a I" d 1: r· om, now want the Accord to bu ratified. fhE!re is a sign:i.l:icant tTiinor·ity who are against ratification. A co11trnon concE!r'n. and one l:.ha l:. I mysr,,lF shai"E! , has to do !Ar.-.l1h t.h1 :! process.

It seE•1ns to tne. and Premier Peterson, who has been more intt1nal:ely invol~JE'd E:•xplained this, that. t.hE:'I"e has bE!C: :!n a signiFicant chang(! in pub] ic No. 5f:i (Monltng) [07

attitude about l:he Const.itul:ion over the eight years since our Constitution was patriated. Prior to, and up to that time, most citizens seamed content to leave decisions about the Constitution to political leaders, and political leaders proceeded in a rather elitist way to make decisions. If you recall, at the conclusion of the 1981-82 deliberations about the contents of the patriated Constitution with the Charter, a final agreement was struck among three politicians in a kitchen. Those poJ.iticians were heralded, nobody complained about three men in the backroom making a deal and shutting out the public.

With the corning into force of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of course, our Constitution has assumed a much greater importance in the lives of individuals. Interest groups led the way in insisting on public involvement and participation. It seems to me however that political leaders were too slow to grasp the shift in public attitude.

Unfortunal:ely neither the Federal Government nor the Provincial Government conducted a comprehensive information or education campaign, and that more than anything else is resented by my constituents. !~ere just a felAI days bE!fore the deadline, just a few days before I have to vote on whethE•r or not we should ratify the Meech Lake Accord, they still lacked basic information about it. That was not their fault. To get even thE! Accord itself, a person in Humber East would have had to search.

Many people with whom I spoke told rne the fi1ost tirne they had seen the Accord and had a chance to read it for themsE!lves, was when they saw my newspaper adverU.sement on Saturday. I set out l:he full text of the Accord L28 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI and tho Add .. -ons Agre(->.ment rc:•achE•d by the First Ministers in Ott.alAJa. People are upset about the process, and I share their uneasiness. I hope we have all learned a lesson th1oough this experience, and in future will inform and involve the public in a meaningful way in our deliberations about consttt:.utionaJ. reform.

I would liko l:o say nt'alo the::' (~nd of rny speech that my support folo the Meech Lake Accord is not an indication of my satisfaction with the economic and social reaJ.ity of our Province. I've mentioned sofTIE! of our problems: our staggering unE!rnployrnent ratE•; our fish stock prices that has resulted f1oorn mismanagement of the stock; the Upper Churchill power contract which leads to an unconscionably small return to the citizens of NE!Wfoundland and Labrador f'or' Ol.ll" resource; our bc:dnq pul:. clown <?J.nd belittled by pE!Ople who repeat racist Newfie jokes.

I am not happy with ouln s t.atus, but 1 believe ratifying the Meech Lake Accord will be a step in the right direction for us. I feel the rdcL that it enhances the poWC"!rS of L.he Provincial Government is healthy. I bc:!}ieve the chance it. g:ives us to gain influence over our Fishery is necessa1oy fo1n econorntc improvement. T h e f a c t l: h a l:. I a rn s u p p o r l:. i n q 1: h e Meech Lake Accord does not mean that I ar n not gooinq to co111plain about FE!cleJnaJ Goverrllfwnt pol -j cj ,c::>s and actions.

It does not mean that I arn no L going to cornp] <.,d .n about Provincial Gouet'nment policies and actions. I am not happy with our current position. But I believe the best way in terms of constitutional deveJ.oprnent Lo Fu1othe1" OUI" sLaLus and our tAJeJ.l --bPing, is to r'al:ify No. 55 (Morrd ng) R21l

"• the Meech Lake Accord. In conclusion, draudng on my h10!ad and my heart, I believe ratifying the Meech Lake Accord will prE!Selnve the unity of Canada. It will advance the interest of Newfoundland within Canada. And the Accord ulill achieve what can be achieved today, and make possible what rno1ne can and should be achieved tomorrow. Thank you. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hE!ar! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the ME!ITiber for Exploits . Mr. Grimes: Thank you, Mr . SpE!aker. I must say, it is legitimate this time.

I know I say it many times when I 1nise in this House, but it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity t9 rise and participate in this debate.

And I think that this time, even though we use the phrase many times on other occasions, that it might be appropriate to say and describe this debate as having historic propo1ntion and consequence, ma:lnJ.y because of the way it has been framed by the Prime Minister of the country and other provincial leadE!rs, and l:hE!Y want us to believe that. 13ut I believe l:h,O!re is some substance to that, and history lAJi]l show t.hat this dt'bate in Canada, regardless of the out c Cline , tAli 11 have b c• en significant in Canadian constitutional development.

I lAJould beg, just For a rninul:E•, to di~~lness and JnE!feln to a couple of commE!nts mad~~ by the previous spE!aker, thE! hon.

Member fo1n Humber East, before I go into my own comments, one being that unless there is some kind of a L29 JUnE! 20 I 1990 Vol XLI s ma 11 con c 1 ave on the lAI!O! s t co as t of this Province that :i.s ciJ . ffelnt~nt from anything I have seen anywhere else, having received caJ.ls from all over the Province, that I would suggest it would be very difficult for someone to produce evidence that a group of peopJ.e are actually -.in a 1najority position asking NewFoundland legislators to approve this Accord. However, I haVE! to, as I always do, accE!pt the tAJord of the mE!rnber in the House.

Now, I am not questioning it, I aJJI just saying that I have some difficulty myself, from my own experience, but the rnE!ITiber, of cou1nsC::~, knouJs h e r r e g i o n o f t h E• P r o v 'i n c l! m u c h betteln. Secondly, thE:'re was sorr11:• rE!felnE!nce to information about Meech Lake and the fact that for the first time on the weekend past, a ::lt~rnbC::'r in thj.s House had to pay to provide information about Meech Lake to the constituents. That was done, as I understand it., in alJ. papers in the Province and paid For by the GovernrnE!nt, unless someone chose not to avail of that.

But I haVE! to co1n1nr::!nL that I find it VE·r·y, ver·y str·angr­ indeed that a rnember who was a Cabinet Minister in Lhe previous Adrninis ·tration, 1..11ho sl:ood in this House and vot:E!cl fol" the appr·oval, uJould, indeed, nouJ l:.alk c:-~bout information, when there was absolutely none prouidr-d in 1987 or 1988 when it was previously passed. And I do apologize for those comments, but 1 fe] l:. they had to bE! placed on l:hE• record of the Ne1..11F ou nella nd L.e ~lis lattH'e so l: h a t:. we c a n n ow c o n t. i n u e lAJ i. t h o u r comments about the remainder oF the debate.

The purpose engaged in, thal: b~;;,came oF l:he whole PI"OC(;'SS 1 986- -8'7 1 No. 5 :; beginning known as (MoJ"nj nq) j n l:. h (~ Met:'ch r' 29

Lake Accord, was stated along lines of saying that it was to promote and enhance Canadian unity. And I am sad to say that in my estimation, regardless of what happens in the next couple of days, I think that objective is doomed to failure, and mainly because of the approach that has beE!n taken to the whole evolution of constitutional debate in the last two or three years, much moreso than any differences people have with content.

So. there arc:~ significant differences in terms of thE! content being debated, but I think the approach taken has caused a rift and has caused a widening of certain gaps that may exist, and has led to EHlhanCE! and promote some tensions that have normally existed in the country, rather than to cause them to abate in any way, shape or form.

So thE! votE! in the end, in trying to achieve that very laudable objective, I think may bE! inconsequential, that I do not believe there is anything about this process now, and I do .not believe there is anything that can happen by June 23rd, that u.lill in any way SE!e history recording the debate surrounding the Meech Lake Accord as an instrument that promotE!d Can ad ian unity and talked about enhancing Canadian unity. I think that

part is doomed to faJ.1ure. The whole debate in the last while has given rise to a tremendous amount of rhetoric, as well, and I was relievc•d that the week or so that I had in my constituency served two purposes. Not only did it give me a chance to elicit input From members and constituents in my riding, but it also gave me a chance to take some time to purge myself of somE! negative emotions that I had L30 June 20, 1990 Vol Xl,..l harboured For awhile ·because of some of the rhetoric in the debate that I resented and found offensive.

And I think that I have worked very hat'd at trying l:o remove that as part of thE! decision I am about to 1nake in a couple of days, because I want that: to be rE:Hnoved. I a1ways try, when making difficult decisions, to make sure that they are decisions largely of the head with the emotion removed, because emotion sometimes blinds you to the task at hand. I was most offended, I think, in thE! past weEd<, by watching a progr·am on CBC News World, in which there was a panel discussion · with just a couple of mernb1:~rs <:'Lnd a phone -in program.

I do not know the exact wording of the qu1~stion, but the question that pE!oplE· wer'E! as ked to comment on was, Do you think it is 1night and pr•opE!r that Manitoba and Newfoundland cou1d be holding this thing up, and should have the right to vote to stop Meech Lake?

I found that offensive in the whole Canadian context, the context of Lhe Cons titut .ion and the Chartl'r, that for somE! reason, becausr:· WI? an:• srnall in nurnbE.~r. because wr:~ l.iv1=:! in a Province at the extremity tJJith only half a million puople, and because Manitobans only have a million people, l:hat anyon1~ tJJould question whether or not we have the right to exercise the constitutional rnatLer before us, in Fact the constitutional privi1ege that tAle are gr·anted J.n Canada, l:hat because lAJI~ ai"E~ ~,:1n<'lll in number sornrwne wou]d eVE!n posC:· a quesl~.ion l:.hat 1naybe tAlE• shouldn't bE! thinking about clo:i.ng t.his.

I believe quite fir ·rnly t.i1aL eVE!ry Canadian, no rnat ter whel""' they Jive, ts supposed to havo equal rights, every pt"ouincE! is supposE•d to be e qua 1 , a 11 d t-·. hat quest. ion No. 5':) (MOI"ntnq) R30

should never be asked. The size of the province or its location in the country has no bearing on whether or not the members elected in that legislature to represent their people have the right to express their free view on any matter, up to and including constitutional change, as we are discussing here. I wouJ.d like to frame my remarks in the time I have, Mr.

Speaker, along the lines of some of the things Premier Peterson put forward in this House, and I think I will do that for one reason only, that I would like to take a few minutes to try to show that it is quite possible for people to look at the exact same set of circumstances, to reason it through, and to arrive at completely different conclusions, which is what I have done. I would like to touch on just a fE!W of them.

I agree fully, and I am very proud of the fact, that here in Newfoundland we are having a free vote and we are giving more than symbolic recognition, but real recognition to the fact that t.his issue should be and is being raised beyond political partisanship. That is why I do apologize for having to put the record straight al": th1;! beginning, becau se that did smack of political partisanship and !":hat is not the purpose of the debate. But I would like to have it on the record to correct those things tJJhich were said.

He indicated clearly that he cares passionately about Canada, as do all of us in this Legislature. And he made two cornrnents, that he Feels the ME!ech Lake Accord if ratified would help make Canada whole, and would help make it L31 June 20, 1990 lJoJ. XLI better. I contend that Canada is whole . There have always been stresses and strains between the ptnovinces and between provincE·s and -the Federal Government, but Canada is whole. You can't make whole wh at already is. He talked about making it better.

I beg, respectfully, to disagrE!e that the directions outJ.ined in the amendmE!nts propos,::-d at MeE•ch Lake make Canada a better count1ny. I don't believe that. it does. So I do beg, wi t.h res pE! ct, to dis agrr:~e that this process and these am-endments wilJ. makE! thts a bE!ttetn country, because it doesn't ·: fit the vision that I believe rnany Canadians share with me. He also indicated l:.hat- it addresses the notion that there tJJas on~O! omission in 1982 and one compromise. Everybody has his view on the notwithstanding clause, and I won't go into that .

In terms of the omission, though, we talk about the lack of Quebec's s i g nature o n t h e Co n s t i t u l: i o n . We all do rE!alize, howevE•r, that there were Federally e1.(!C l:.ed members who represented the Province of Quebec, who JAJillinqly signed the Constitution, and Pre111ier Peterson, hi1nse1F, indicated that you could not expect the provincially elected leader of a Sepatnati s t GoVE!rnmen t to JAJillingly si gn a docull'lE!nl promoting Canadian unity.

The problem I find with it is that people say that but stjll SW1~1E!St that the rest. of Canada oLues sollle debt to the Province of Quebec, relating to 1981 and 1982. So I look at the same inforrnalion and I respectfully come to a diFFerent conclusion. I do noL bel"i.eve that: there is a debt ow~'·d . I bE: !lieve there was a deliberate decision taken, duly and rightly and No . S ~) (Motnni ng) R3 1.

properly so, by the provincial GovernrrHHlt in the P1novince of Quebec at the time, and they bear responsibility for that. Nobody OtJ..Jes them anything or should feel anything about it, other than that they exercised their right at the time and they are accountable for that, not anybody else. I don't buy the argument that there is a debt owed to anybody resulting from the debate in 1981-82. The problem has always been there. Our very fine speaker. the Premier of Ontario, admits that.

I heard every speaker at the Constitutional Conference in Ottawa just a week or so ago, when they concluded, recognize that that is there. It has been a fact of J.ife in Canada. My problem lAJi th it is they say, Well, we had better do something about it now, or we have a real crisis in a day or two. My question is, if it has always been there, if these tensions are always there, they have aluJays existed since the foundation of the country as we knotJ..J it, why is it there is suddenly a crisis if we don't find the answer IJ..Jithin two days?

That boggles my mind, that all of a sudden the answer· is supposed to appear in two days time, or in three years from 1987, when eVE!rybody recogniZE!S that we have grappled IAJith it for over a century. and notJ..J IJJE! are being told l:hat. if we do not resolve "i 1-. in two or thrE!e days. thE! count1ny is at risk; all oF a sudden the country is at risk.

The only defence I have hear·d offered "in any m•:.>aningfu1 for ·rn is people were pressured thosE~ involved, the First that the inl:o it; Ministers And the thE!Y had because L32 were pressur'ed into it. defence is offered that no choice but. l:o do l:hat, lh.:•y did not cr,:-al:•:! Lhis JunE! 20, 1990 Vol XLI process thE!Y ·.inherit.E!d it from 1982. I would like to suggest, for the record again and this Assembly, that. I bE!li.eve that. one very tmportant point is rn'issed w h e n p e o p 1 e o f t h E! c o u n t ry s t. a n d up and say they object to the process.

They are not objecting to the fact that in 198'7 in ME!ech Lake the eleven First Ministers and so on, IAiith the legal opinions at the tirnr:~, ag1need that t.hE!i''E! should be unan'irnous consenl: for the Meech Lake changes. No one objects to that. No one object.s to the fact that. there was a three year tirne limit. What is objecl:ed to ts that in the three years that were available the time was not USE!d W:i.SE!ly to E!dUCC1tE! l:.hE~ pub] ic, which is what I reFerred to at:. l:he beginning.

It was not used widely, except 'in some pr'ov:i.ncE!S. to ask for pub1i.c input, and thE·n when the ministers themselves, thE! First Ministers got together. There is no difficulty with l:he process in ter1ns oF t:hE! fact that thE!Y had a dE!adJ.i.ne and nc•ecled l:'.o do something. rhe process complaint, as I understand i.t: from p e o p 1 e I r e p r e s e n t , t s IAii t h t h e fact that i.t lAJas done in pr·ivacy and secrecy. No Jtli"d.tE :!r' what deadline you are Facing, you do nol: have to sit c1osE!l'.·.ed in privacy to make your decisions. I understand, Mr.

SpE:'aker, as IAJeJl, that. i.n Fact CE'I''tain piu'Ls ol Uw E:'tJery discussion h<:Hu:• Lo b:,• clon•:­ P r i v ate 1 y . a n d t h <:d: l. he f i. I" s L Mi.nis ters should. indeed, only be deaJ. :i ng IJJ:ith Uw ba ~; j c Pl"i n ci pJ E! s they are going to address, and that the rest of the lJJork shou]d be lE!ft For a lal:er sess'ion. But, in Fact, somebody has Lo take responsibility for the real ity that the IJJhole thing IJ..Jas done privately. And that is the o b j E! c I: i o n t h '-'~ t. I u n d e I" s L c:Hl cl t o U1 .::• procc•ss, not the Facl: Lhat Lhure No . 5 ~) (Mornjn~~) R32

tAJas a three year time line, that was manageable and so on, and not the fact that you had to get unanimous consent, although I do now find it passing strange, as well, and strikingly strange, that even though it requires unanimous consent, when one or t1..1.10 provinces decide l:hat they have obj ecttons, there is tremendous pressure brought to bear for you to come onside and share the other view, and you are not allowed, on your own, to raise your objection without tremendous pressure from eVE!ryone around. Let us look for a fE!W m'inutes, if I might, Mr.

Speaker, at the issues of the Accord because they need to be addressed. The distinct society has been discussed here this morning, and it has been discussed for some months now and years. I do not disagree with Premier Peterson's assessment of what happened in 1867. As a matter of fact, I agree. HotAJever, today, in 1990, what we have been asking for is assurances that there t;.d.ll be no infringement upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor any special status or legislative authority conferred upon any one Legislature in any one Province over any other.

And again I find it strange that thE! political leaders of the country, in being the PrimE! Minister and the First Minisl:L,!r in Quebec, tJJhen askE!d is there a conflict, is there any p r o b l Nn? r h e y IJJ i 11 p u b 1 i c l y s t. a t e there is no problem. But when asked as part of this process to write something dotJJn and sign it, to say that they would ensure that, or assurE! pE!Ople of tha ·t, they refuse to sign it . I heard a word on T.V. a week or so ago, there was some '1nagic'.

I do not see any magic in the words of 1987, but For so1ne reason they are L33 Junr:! 20, 1990 Vol XLI not allowed to be touched. And that has nothing to do with the Constitution or time linE!S, that has to do with political decisions that political leaders make and they have to be responsible for'. So ver'bally they say it. is Fine, there is not a problem.

It was suggested and read into the record by Prr:Hnier Peterson, again, 'that there is a legal opinion which says there is no difficulty.' And hE! indical.E!d again that it is only an 'issuo in Quebec anyway, they cannot infringe upon any rights anytAihE:'r':o else, and if the pE!OplE! of GuE~bE•c are satisFied with that, why should we bother?

I did not solicit this, but rra l.1E ·d to me was a legal opinion with four professors oF J.atAJ, the sarne professors who teach lawyers across the country, indicating in their conclusion that a distinct society clause with distinctive weight would inject into the fundamental law of Canada, not :in the one province, but into the fundamental law of Canada, the principle l:hat a cultlH'al gr'oup may promote its interest at lhe expense oF thE• equal ritJhl: oF all cit:Lzens to the Funclair ;E·ntal freedoms constitutive of their humanity.

And they conclude, 'g iven Lhe strong possibility LhaL the Supreme Court will interpret the clause so as to att:ach rnor e lha n symbolic va1ue to it .. The clausE· should state explicitly that it confers no powers inconsistent tAli l: h t h e C h a r t e r . ' W i'l "' n i t. tAl a s aSkE!d t.hat SOITIE•body lAWjU• some l:hing about Lila l:. in a definitive fashion, the onJ.y Udng that happE!ned in OttatAii::l 1,1a.s that an opinion was given con tTaJ·'y to this one si<JnE!cl by six No. 5~i (Mond.ng) rn3

constitutional lawyers. Here is one signed by four constitutional lawyers, who teach lawyers across the c o u n try c on s tit u t i o n a 1 1 aw , saying that there is a potential problem and a risk for the fundamental law of Canada. Not rights or anything in one Province, but the Fundamental law of the country. I would enter that and table it for the record, if I could, Mr. Speaker, so that others might want to view that and look at it. Let us look at senate reform for a few minutes.

I must admit to being somewhat puzzled myself as to why, as PrE!rnier Peterson said, the chief proponent of senate reform, of the equal senate concept, in another province in this country seems wiLling to go along with the changes that have beE!n secured in the last few weeks. That does puzzle me greatly. We have been as kE!d to judge whether or no ·t the advances made are, in fact, advancements, or iF we reject, do we set back the whole process of senate reform? There is talk about a commission that will examine how we 1night propE!rly reFor·m the senate.

I would suggest to you that the commission is a lost cause and a waste of timP if we pass the Meech Lake Accord. Because from everything that I have followed deliberately from our friends in the Province of Quebec, every political leader that T have seen speak in that province, on any sidr:~ and tAli l:h any party, has altAJays said whE•n thE•y t.alk about the possibility of moving towards an equal senate, 'I ' never, neVE!r, never, J cllfW.lS, j'arnais, j'arnais. I can only take l:hem at th•?.ir word, that they have no intE!ntion of E!Ver· agrE!E!:l.ng to an E•qual s~';!na l:e.

And the real substance oF SNlate change has !:o 1_34- June 20, 1990 Vol XU be the equal representation. Because I, for one, would go on the record and say that if all we are going to do is elect the current unequal senate, then we could go back to the moVE! I used to take ten or twelve years ago of saying, why do we not aboJ.ish it? And I have no apology For saying that. I think if we are not going to refor·m it properly, thE•n maybe we should talk about having it disappear. We have talked about redistribution in the agreement reached a little while ago in Ottawa. The question is, is il: a positive first step?

I cannot see how it can be when you have one oF the participants going to havE• the right to v.:~to any changes and are alre~dy on the record as saying they tAiill not do it. rhe choice is, is it a positive first step or was it done as part oF som•O! face-· .. saving tokE!nisrn to tr·y to strike a deal or compromise at the last minutE!? I wi.J.l not say what:. I believe it is, you choose, but I belieVE!, for rrtE!, it i.s CE:'lntainly not the former, but probably l:.he J.atter.

Other issues, including spending powers, l:he abor.i<:Jinal self-golJenHnE!nt and so on, I lAJo.i]l not go into any detail at this time, other than to say I do find it again somewhat s!:r0nge that the s r:~ i. s suE's can no t b c:• ell'· e:d t t,uj l h at this ti1ne, that- aru going to talk about. major n·vj ,si.ons i.n L.he Constitution, bul:. only CE!Inl:.ai.n things are aLlowed on the aqE•ndd. I do buy, in part, the arqumE:!nt that you cannot have the Full agenda discussed every time and you shouJ.d do il. in seqiiiE!nls.

But I do reject l:he tAJhole notion, as I said be fol ne, that t.hE'l"E' shouJ.ci be such a thing as a Quebec round only because lAJE' OlAJC:' sorneUd.n·~1 !:o No. 55 (Morning) 1\34

Quebec because of 1981-82. · So I think iF there are legiU.rnate concerns that are held, th€:~se tensions are here, we have existed, we have lived with them, and we will live through them if the wi.ll is there to do so, and I cannot see why other legitimate concerns cannot be addressed at the same t-:Lme. Then Premier Peterson came to the real question, as he phrased it, which I believe is what happened in Ottawa, and what my constituents were saying to me last tAJeek was the real question, What if Meech fails? Never mind is it good or bad anymore, we are down to the last minute now and what if it fails?

What have we done? What are we about to do? Are there threats in it? Are there demands? Is Quebec leaving anyway? I have said publicly in my meetings when asked, that I do not know. The Premier of Ontario said to us in this Assembly today that he does not know. I do not know if anybody knows. So, unfortunately, we are reduced in this kind of debal~E! to guessing, to making a guess. Will it buy, t~.d t h p a s s a g e , a p t::~ rio d of stability? I do not know that either.

Do I have any problem with the Province of Quebec suggesting l~hey would like to have some changes in the Constitution bE!Fore they agre•?. to sign it? Not at all . I totally respect the right of any province and any group to stand up for· what they would like to achieve. I respect their resolve. I respect their drd~E!rrnination. But I would ur·ge all national leaders to promote Canada tAJi thin Quebec, r·ather than to suggE!S t to us that we shou1d do something that maybe we are hesitant to do because it might buy a pE!riod oF stability - only again a guess, it might buy somE!

L35 June 20, 1990 Vol XLI stability. I think the national leadership has instead given credE!nCE! tc the notion that if we do not appE!ase one province at this point in time, they may be gone. Do we t .. Jant to rts k can·ying the responsibility forever into history of seeing the nation change as we know it and have known it? I think, again, we should refuse to discuss anything in an air and aura of threat. You have to be ablE! to have an open, frank, honest discussion, and part of the discussion is recognizing that there are difFerences and sometimes the differences might be irreconci1able.

What we have done so far, For 123 years, is even though those differences have existed, lAJE! have lived tAJith thern. The sugqesl:ion is now that will not happen in three days i:imE•. But, aga:in, it is only somebody' s guess, and I am not su1ne that T lAJould gur:!SS exactly the same tAJay . So arJain I conclude differc,,ntly. PE!Ople say, lE•t us accept, let us not r··isk l~he possibility. I make the other conclusion. I say LAJe ha1;p liiH~d with it and we can continue to live l1.1i.th so1ne of l:.he differences. Why not? CAnada itself has struggl ~:. d alonq For o v E! r 100 years .

Why can ' t. lAIc· struqgle for a feLAJ JTIOr'e yr:•ars and continue to debat.e ope111y OUI" diFfert'nces? And wh.::•n w"· guL to the point where we haVE!, i ~- it requires unani1nous cons(; •nt, let: . us haVE! genu-J.rw unanimous consr:•nt instead oF consent based on the fact that people feel threatened or scar.:!d to r~::~al.ly say in public what they believe is right and what they think is the proper vision and version of Canada. I wou1d sugqest t.hat lAJe have No. 55 (Morninq) IB5

struggled thr·ough since 1982, even though the government elected in Quebec did not voluntarily sign the Constitution at the time, even though their federally elected members did. Why can't: we struggle through for a few more years and come to a more agreeable and less divisive set of proposals and changes, rather than what we are being faced with at the present time? I would ask that we do it right rather than out of some unfounded feeling of a debt owed to one Province, or the belief that we might be staving of a problem which I believe has been there and will continue to be there.

I take exception to the way it is being promoted by the national leader of the day, as a present-day national crisis that must be solved by Friday or Saturday. I think that has been created and put forward with a polit.ical agenda and does not reflect the way that the constitutional evolution of our country should be perrni tted to develop. I would like to conclude by saying that I arn no saint, as peoplE! who knou.J me would recognizu and would agree quite readily. I have done things that are wrong before.

I think when I have done things which are wrong, though, there are two things about it, I either did not know or somr::!I:)Ody sort:. of tJ"