[Report continued from volume A]

1740

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT / ENTENTE CONSTITUTIONNELLE

Continuing the debate on government notice of motion number 16.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I wanted to prepare a text to be delivered on what I would say is one of the most important times in the House of Parliament that I may be able to spend, the most important time for Canadians or anyone else, and what an experience it is for me. But as I tried to write a text I found I was caught up in a certain emotion that by writing it would restrict me in some sense. So I'm going to speak from the point of view of how I see Canada and how I came to love Canada, my country.

I have been given the best opportunity that anyone could ever have: elected, able to go across this province or across this country, as a cabinet minister, as someone who has been appointed to serve on the select committee on Confederation in Ontario, and able to see Canadians from different walks of life in their homes, in their territories, at work, and able to hear Canadians as they themselves expressed what it means to them.

What a moment, what a time in our history, when we are writing the document, a Constitution that will reflect all the aspirations, or as many aspirations as possible, of those people in our land.

Many of the speakers who have spoken here today have defined what a constitution is all about. A constitution, as we know, is a document written by the people, for the people, and when that document is written, each one of us must be able to look in that document and say to ourselves: "I can see myself reflected there as a part of it. That's me."

Are people looking for that perfect document that reflects them and defines them in its entirety? I would say no, I don't think they're doing that. I don't they think it's possible that this can happen. They're looking to make sure that they are included.

I know for years and years, decades, that the attempt to write a Constitution for Canada has been attempted, and in some respects they said, "It's not good enough. It's not able to reflect the people of Canada." As we grow as a country and as we attract different people coming to this wonderful country of ours, it becomes more complex because people's aspirations and expectations change and their contribution to our country may be slightly different than those who came here 25, 30 or 40 years ago. Therefore, we must go back and work on that document, work to make sure that all the people of Canada are reflected there.

One of the best ways I can illustrate this to my colleagues here is that I was not born in Canada. My children were born here. Yet Canadian as they are in every way, those who came and those who were born here, they are still asked at times when they are seen, "Where are you from?"

When they were quite young, it was hard for them to say, "What does it mean, Dad, about where am I from?" I told them, "Davisbrook Boulevard in Scarborough." They said: "No, no, no. Where were you born?" They said, "Canada." They said, "No, no, no. Where are your parents from?" They said, "Jamaica," and so, "Oh, you are from Jamaica." Therefore, they were confused about that.

I tried to assist them in my own little way. When they came back and asked me, "Dad, how should I deal with this?" I said, "What you should then ask them is where they're from." It's quite possibly Canada and where their parents are from quite possibly is Canada. Then maybe where their grandparents are from is quite possibly Scotland, Ireland or Australia, and so it's, "Oh, so you are Australian."

That in itself tells us that people want to see themselves a part of Canada, and there's a risk with that. Today they probably understand where people are coming from, so we have a responsibility to that diverse culture of ours, diverse colour and diverse languages, to say we are Canadians and to assert ourselves. So a constitution itself, a document that is written for all the people, when they're looking in it, must be able to say: "Ah, I see myself in there. I see myself reflected."

Should we trust those who have written that document? I say that the democratic process tells us that, yes, we can. I say that there's no way that 26 million people can sit down and write the document, so we have an electoral process to say, "Let's come forward then and select and elect a couple of people whom we call first ministers or whatever to sit down, because they were elected by the people to reflect the needs of the people." So when that document is drawn, you must basically first have that trust in that process, go into it having trust in the democratic process. It's not perfect, but we do have that trust in that democratic process to say they come forth to present what the people are saying to them.

Is there any way there could be any errors in that collection of people? Yes, there could be. We have seen it. We have seen the neglect of the representation of women as they sat and talked, that these people who have come forward have not been sensitive enough to realize that their process does not recognize women playing an equal and important role in Canada.

Is there a possibility of Canadians who are considered visible minorities being omitted from that process? Yes, because the first ministers quite possibly were not women. I'm not saying you have to be a woman to be sensitized to women, but sometimes it helps somehow, if you are a woman, to bring perspective there; or if you're a visible minority or speak a different language, to bring that sensitivity, because somehow the majority sometimes controls.

I'm saying there are errors in this document, and lots of errors. People have described that it's like buying a home and the frame, and what we are voting on is to say, "Should we proceed in building that home?" I'm saying to the writers, I'm saying to the elected individuals, I'm saying to those who are reading this document, not absolute trust in the sense that, "Go ahead and build the way you can." They build homes where there is no access for the disabled. That's why we have doorknobs that are round. Maybe some people don't have the grip to go inside; no sensitivity at all that somehow access means more than to just say it is unlocked: but can we get in?

1750

To those who are voting Yes, I'm telling them that Yes is the way to go. It's not an absolute fact that it's all over. It's all up to you and our politicians and the writers to go ahead, to make sure that in the frame of that house there is a room for all who come, there is a room and a bedroom that is defined, and I can feel comfortable there and not intimidated by the huge building, feeling that I'm not a part of that.

I felt that as a human being when I was elected here. I know when I walked into this place, somehow it was, "Am I a part of this?" There was the intimidation of this huge building and the history that is here that does not reflect any part of the role that the visible minority played. Was that a deliberate omission? Could be, or maybe just insensitivity to the fact that others contribute to this country. I see pictures on the walls of this place. Does it reflect Canada? Does it reflect the true people? I would say no.

Do we trust those who write the final document? I'm saying to an extent, that we should monitor that. Therefore, as we say Yes to this, be careful of what we're saying Yes to. Or are we saying No? Be careful of what we say No to.

I have a criticism of those who have come forward and said Yes and then told everyone else who says No that they are misguided. How dare they think that people who are saying No are misguided. These are intelligent people who are taking their time, who wish to study the document to find if they're there. Usually, if someone says to you, "Sign here," you say no. You say no because you have not the full understanding of that document. You don't say, "Yes, I will sign." You usually say no, and then immediately, "How dare you say no." I dare the people to say No until they have read it and feel comfortable that they can see themselves in that. So I say to those Yes committees that are saying Yes to Canada, "Sure, who will not say Yes to Canada, this beautiful country, so we can all be able to help steer that destiny?"

Many of us who are voting today and those who are influencing and coercing those to say Yes are much older than those who will bear the burden and the responsibility of Canada. When we are saying Yes, make sure we are saying Yes to the young people who will take on those liabilities and debts that many of us as senior citizens are incurring, to make sure that my children, who are black, will be able to say, "I walk proud in Canada," and will not ask, "Where are you from?" so that when we write that document, we feel comfortable and we can find ourselves a part of Canada.

It is rather coincidental that this year it is 500 years since Columbus, a very adventurous, bold, daring individual, lost as he was. As you know, he was so lost, Mr Speaker -- and I won't get into that -- that he found the West Indies and thought they were India and what have you. At schools, we're asking questions there about when one discovers and who he found and realize that history starts then.

Today this country, Canada, has decided that the best way we can go ahead is to first recognize all of us, our first nations people, who have built this country and have formed their own government, to recognize too that they themselves can have their own self-government; nothing wrong with that at all. The maroons in Jamaica, who had beaten the Spanish out and beaten the British, have formed their own government, and what happened? There is no frightening thing about that today. They have their own self-government there, governing without any intimidation.

I welcome the fact that we in Canada have seen that we can talk about giving people rights to govern and not be frightened about it. It's a fearful thing about power. We don't like to give it up if we have it all. That's what happened to South Africa and that's what happened here. That's what happens to men who control this place without giving to women. That's what happened to those whom we regard as disabled and not functioning in that kind of society. But we must think, as human beings, that this country's for all of us, black, white, yellow, Spanish, French, Italian and the many, many languages that are spoken here that enrich our country.

I would like to speak just a little bit about the other two nations that we talk about, the francophones and the anglophones, and within all those, to say to the francophones that if you feel that francophones are those with ancestors from France and not from Haiti or from Senegal or from anywhere else, and say, "We're just asserting ourselves as a distinct society for the francophones from France, with ancestors from France, and later on we will deal with the Haitians and the Senegalese and all the other black French countries," that is wrong, because many today in Quebec are telling themselves, "We feel so very lost about ourselves as a people in Canada."

For the anglophones too who see themselves only as with ancestors from England, the others who are here contributed to this great country. We must be able to look into the document, a Constitution written by the people who were elected and for the people. That "for the people" is there, because somehow they are still asking questions. The clock is ticking away whether we say Yes or No.

I am not one who really believes that if one votes Yes, an entire country has gone to doom, and whether Quebec, as they say, or a portion of Quebec says No -- that is, the majority -- then it's all over for Canada. I don't think it will. I hope somehow, as I said, that people have gotten the experience I have gotten, and I am sure we can't.

As I was given the opportunity to travel around the world and declare myself proudly as a Canadian, to say, "Canada, a country that as we see it, welcomes all and gives each other a chance to demonstrate and to express themselves as Canada and play a role there in Canada."

We have a responsibility not only to the people we are elected by, but we have a responsibility as elected individuals to take this document and explain it to our constituents in every walk of life. What we have come to realize as we got elected in the constituency, area or riding is that our constituencies are much beyond the boundaries of whether it is Scarborough North -- a kind of microcosm, as a matter of fact, in my riding of all the people and nations, from Chinese and Japanese and Haitians, and many from India, from Pakistan -- I could go on and on. But we have a responsibility as elected individuals to take this document and say to them, "It is a document for you, written by those in a democratic, elected process, and if you do not see yourself reflected here, let us know."

There are consequences, of course, of any action we take. There are consequences when you elect me as an individual, or you, Mr Speaker, or anyone else. But in the meantime, we have the responsibility to listen in order that the consequences not be borne by the people in a way that they bear the brunt more severely and we not distribute all the responsibility. Just like debts: We know that if we cannot pay our debts and accumulate all those debts, we pass them down to our children.

1800

In any country, we have laws. Those laws are mostly written for those who overpower others without any discretion. One of those laws I'm talking about is one which previous governments, the Conservative and Liberal governments wrestled with, and now the New Democratic Party, dealing with human rights and access to jobs and opportunities of employment equity. Those are written because people in power who have excluded others are not able and willing -- I think they are quite able; it doesn't seem they want to open the doors for those others. So we form laws and build bureaucracies to do that, and the reason is that other people do not see them as inclusive.

If this document does not reflect that, I say to all those out there, reject it, because this is the moment. Go back again and write it. It cannot be perfect, but it must lead to a road where one would feel extremely confident that, "Those I have elected are building a framework, a house, within which I can find a room not only for myself but for my children, regardless of colour, regardless of class, regardless of creed."

It is so important, these critical days we have. If I had the power I would charge my colleagues here not to be so overpowering: "Say Yes or you're dumb. Say Yes or you're misguided. Say Yes or you're unpatriotic." What it has done is put them and us together.

Pierre Trudeau, one of the great scholars and great leaders, a great Prime Minister of this country, has his views and has, rightfully so, expressed his views. Gorbachev today has his passport seized and his movements are restricted within a country. Why? He can hardly express what he wants to express there. Here we can do that. That's democracy, and that's why I love this country and that's why Pierre Trudeau should speak, so we can see the other side. That's the beauty of our country. He is no fool -- we know that -- and he's not unpatriotic. As a matter of fact, others were saying No, but when he said his No it was a different No, and it allows the Yes people to start thinking.

There's an old way of buying things when the commercials are heavy on you and all the rhetoric is happening. You feel it is the most beautiful car, if it is a car they are selling, that "I must buy it, because with the things it does and the way they describe it, it's a must that I buy this car." But the best way to go about this, if you don't want to be fooled by the rhetoric and the adjectives, is to turn the voice down, turn the propaganda off and leave the picture on. Then, having a closer look, if you're still sold, buy it; go out and buy the car.

I say turn the politicians off, take the document and look at it. "Do I see myself? Am I protected here? Do I have confidence in the way things will go?" Get rid of the rhetoric. Get rid of the debates of the Bob Raes and the Lyn McLeods and the Pierre Trudeaus and the Mike Harrises and, now that the document is written, sit down, go through it carefully. If there are questions in it that you'd like to ask, go forward to them and say, "I have this." The noise and the rhetoric should be behind you, because it is so important, as we walk and assert ourselves in this country, that we find our place.

It's painful to watch the genocide that happened to our native people, as they lose their land and they lose their language and their religion has been destroyed and mimicked. It is painful to watch the francophones and the Québécois, who fight for their rights and say, "Language is important to me, and this is a part of Canada and I want to demonstrate my way in Canada," to reach this stage of debate and say, "Go back," and it goes back. Meech Lake wasn't the first time they turned it back, as we know. I'm sure we'd say Charlottetown is a better document, that we have sat down and debated that to see if it's there.

Is it perfect? As I said, no, it's not perfect. Will it be perfect? No, it will never be perfect. That's why we have Parliament, and that's why we change laws as people change and aspirations change and directions change, and as we soon take away powers from certain people because they have not done so very well. So it will not be perfect.

I say to you it is a country we must protect, and a country is more than just the minerals and the ground. It's the people's dream, the people's aspiration, and that dream is not only with us. That dream must be able to be reflected in our children, and we must have the foresight to think about our children's children, whether they can walk this road. Will they be seen as Canadians, regardless of colour, regardless of class?

I should tell the Parliament that as I have gone around and spoken to many of the visible minority groups, they have concerns and they want explanations. When they do come forward and ask you, take the time to say, "Let me assist you to identify, if you have not done so, the role you can play, and tell me your concerns."

Let me tell you too that the document and the legal part may not reflect exactly what you think is here in the same words. I know; I have had the experience, as I said when I started, to be a cabinet minister in the government and to take bills through. Once we make a statement and then put it in law, how different it looks. I always wondered why. It is because of the way interpretation goes about; protections have got to be there, to be built in. Of course, we go to the courts after we have a debate to find out: Is it there? Am I protected?

Therefore, as we look at this document first and then look at the laws that are written, we really do need people to assist us. That is why we need those, and I put trust in the elected process.

Another of the concerns that some of the visible minorities raised is the portion about elected Senate. "Elected Senate" confuses me too, because in one portion it says it's an elected Senate, but it basically says it can be elected by Parliament or by the people at large. Some people are saying: "Why didn't it go right up front? We thought an elected Senate would have been elected by all people." I'm having a hard time convincing people about you, Mr Speaker, saying that you are elected here; that you have been elected by the members and that's a different elected process. It's a better process than an appointment within here, because then we all, as members here, do that election. But people had that impression, that an elected Senate would mean the people at large.

They also asked me to bring forth whether Ontario will have a Senate completely elected by the people, or is it a portion where Bob Rae has stated that he has to guarantee women in the Senate? That guarantee itself tells me somehow that it will not be a Senate elected by all the people. It seems to me, in order to have representation of women -- that's my interpretation -- that they may have to do so. Those things need to be explained, and those things in themselves concern the visible minorities. I'm not speaking on behalf of the visible minorities; I'm speaking from my experience, too, as a visible minority.

1810

Don't feel in any way, I would tell my colleagues, that visible minorities are looking only for visible minority play in here. They are looking to see themselves in all areas: in areas as they interact with aboriginal people; in areas of linguistic communities as a whole; in areas of the Senate; in areas where the Supreme Court would deal with everyone; in areas of the House of Commons. In other words, they are seeing themselves as a part of Canada.

It's an important document. It's an important time in our history. Please, I urge you, in explaining this document to the people, to allow them the opportunity to understand it and not be intimidated. They really feel threatened. I was very confident that a Yes vote would have won. As soon as the overpowering Yes came about, people were backing off. I would love to see Canada together. I would hate that people are voting against this because they feel intimidated by the pressure being placed on them.

I just want for a few moments, and I know that our time here is short, to talk about personalities and the messenger who carries this. I'm very proud at the moment in this House that we find that all parties are coming together in order to bring forth this document. Many people are saying to me, "I want to vote against this document because I don't like the people who are carrying the message." That's the only part I criticize. Please don't make a judgement because of the messenger, but because of the content of it.

I don't for one moment feel that this is a Brian Mulroney document. I don't for one moment feel that this is a Bob Rae or David Peterson document. I feel it's a document put together by all parties and all the people who have gone out basically to all parts of this country to get the feelings of the people and their impressions, and they've put that together.

If you don't like it, you vote against it. But to vote against it because of the messenger is a terrible and a fatal mistake because the whole fact is that even if you vote No, you will still have Brian Mulroney until the election. If you vote against Bob Rae, you still have Bob Rae to contend with for a couple more years. Or if you vote No for Lyn McLeod, you still will have her and all the other politicians. Don't vote because of that personality, but because of the content of this document.

It's not a partisan line that I speak. I speak as a Canadian who feels that this is extremely important to put that behind us, the personality game. It's a better way to come about this. This country, Canada, is a beautiful country. I strongly believe it will be together whether it is Yes or it is No. That's not the issue. I strongly believe that of course if it is a No, some of the investors may feel, "I want stability, so I'm going to go elsewhere." I also strongly believe that if they do go, the fibre of people who believe in more than the dollar in their pocket, really, and believe in a quality of life, will continue to go on.

In other words, one should never be intimidated by all the rhetoric. Turn the noise down and watch the pictures and the facts as you see them there. See yourself in that car, as I said, if you were going to buy that car. Don't let them tell you how nice it drives, how beautiful it is. See that it's there. Because if we don't have that, later on we will wonder what is it we said Yes or No to.

I was in Quebec about two weeks ago and I did not see the kind of fear that some people feel that Quebec, being a distinct society, will be alienated from us. I see a love and a passion for the love of their life and their way of life and I see a way that they want to assert themselves, as all of us want to assert ourselves, in society. We must speak loudly.

I spoke at an organization there with black people. I encouraged those who are there who do not speak French to learn the language, because when you're a part of a system it's good to understand the language, so you can communicate. It is incumbent on those too to understand those who may seem different, because in that difference itself we will build a better Canada. We'll build a Canada which is beautiful today or we'll build a better Canada, a Canada that in its way has demonstrated around this world that it is a great place to be from and a great place to be at.

What an opportunity for us to participate here. I want to tell you how happy I am to have been given this opportunity, because millions of people in this province haven't got that opportunity. I don't think I can do justice to the feeling and the passion they feel about Canada, but I'll make an attempt to do so. I hope that my talk somehow will bring to you a feeling of an area that some of us are not able to be, that, as the women speak and the native people speak, I bring that.

I believe strongly that Canada will be together whether we say Yes, whether we say No, but if we don't participate in this democratic process at all, Canada will be a place worse off, because democracy is great and one of the best ways to see any government. Canada, I love you.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Scarborough North for his contribution to the debate.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I rise in the House tonight to say a clear Yes to the Charlottetown accord and the constitutional amendments deriving from it. I'm not a constitutional lawyer; neither would I suggest that I know better than the academics and opinion makers who expressed very competent opinions about the accord, but as a Canadian citizen and as a member of the provincial Parliament of Ontario I feel I have to explain why I took such a position.

At this point in the national debate, I think everyone is more convinced than ever that the agreement is not perfect. We must not forget, though, that it is the result of the effort of human beings. How could it be perfect?

Constitutions are often asked to represent the soul of a country, and as countries change, so must their constitutions. Perhaps this is why it took so long to renew ours. It is extremely difficult to entrench in one document all the aspects of the Canadian mosaic. This is one reason for my Yes.

It took so many years, so many negotiating processes, so many meetings, and now, finally, we have succeeded. We have an agreement. I do not want to use the word "miracle," but it must be recognized that the representatives of the different governments who gathered in Charlottetown have been able to accomplish something that ever eluded their predecessors: unanimity.

1820

I am not saying that governments know better, and the Canadian people should have no say in the constitutional issue and blindly follow their leaders. Our leaders did recognize the importance of the voice of the people by calling the October 26 referendum on the accord. What I'm saying is that this compromise is the first of its kind. It is not perfect, but it is the beginning of a new chapter in our history. We Canadians, by voting Yes, must give this new chapter a chance.

My second reason to vote Yes is a partisan one. I am a New Democrat. How can I disregard the fact that four NDP premiers were part of these negotiations? Their role around the table assures me that the ideals which I believe in are entrenched in the Constitution.

First, and most important, the social charter: This represents a first step towards recognizing those individual rights which New Democrats, and before them members of the CCF, fought a very, very long time for: the right to medicare; to a healthy environment; to decent housing; to education, all rights which should have found a place in our Constitution, and they will, because they are part of this agreement.

[Remarks in Italian]

The certainty of law is the first requisite of any jurisprudence. Without that, legality could not exist, and the Constitution represents the call of that certainty. It is up to the courts, though, to interpret the law according to the different demands coming from the society, as the Supreme Court often did with reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A constitution must be a concrete, unequivocal document to provide a certainty of law, and flexible, because it will be applied by different generations to different historic conditions.

I do understand most of the criticism of those considering a No vote. Many interest groups accuse those who negotiated the accord of having left them out. The only thing I can tell them is to be very, very cautious, because it is always too easy to criticize the effects without knowing the causes, and how can they possibly know that the Charlottetown accord will not protect them without giving it a chance.

More to the point, though, they should bear in mind a simple fact before attacking the Constitution. A constitution is not made to serve the interests of single-interest groups. A constitution is made to serve the general interest of the whole national polity. General interest will always be of a higher order than single interests of particular groups, and the sum of all the single interests is not ever the general interest.

The Constitution must speak for all of us together. The Charlottetown accord tries to accommodate the interests of many groups but never loses sight of the general interest of Canada. Perhaps some of the naysayers should remember that their constituency interest is important, but Canada comes first.

Finally, let me wrap it up by saying that a Yes to the Charlottetown accord is an act of faith in the future of Canada. I made an act of faith towards Canada almost 30 years ago when I left my home country. On October 26 all Canadians are called to demonstrate their commitment to Canada with an act of faith in its future. I will be proud, by voting Yes, to make this act of faith for the second time in my life.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oakwood for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Obviously the news has been given that Canada does include the World Series, as it might seem at this point. I saw that in a little ad to the baseball game a little while ago and I thought it was appropriate.

I don't want to take up a lot of time. I just want to start this off so that people who are viewing understand that obviously, because government members are more numerous than the opposition members, we have limited time to speak on this particular issue. Most government members have about 10 minutes to be able to get on to the agenda and to speak in the House in regard to the Constitution. I'm at a little bit of a loss because I really would like to say a couple of things and I would like to say them again in French, and I'm going to try to keep this as quick as possible.

The first thing I want to talk about is that before we get into this debate and people are able to understand what the Constitution is all about, I think people need to understand, first of all, what a Constitution is. There has been a lot of debate around this whole thing because, I feel, people who have come to the constitutional debate are really looking at the Constitution to be a lot more than what it actually is. So first of all let's ask the question, what's a constitution?

A constitution happens to be a document which sets out the basic rules and policies by which Parliament is governed. It sets up the relationship of Parliament itself and how Parliament relates to those various legislatures across our land in the 10 provinces and the territories.

The other thing a constitution is supposing to do is to set a framework by which our courts are able to interpret the decisions that Parliament makes. If a citizen feels that he or she has somehow been done wrong by a law that has been passed by the federal Parliament or a provincial Legislature, then the Constitution gives him or her the right, because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be able to go to the courts and to say, "I feel that I've been done wrong."

There have been a number of instances since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been put into the Constitution when people, citizens of this country, have taken their governments to court because they've ruled on the constitutionality of the actual law that was passed forward by the Legislature or by the House of Commons.

An example is the decision in regard to advertising around cigarettes. A federal Parliament passed a law saying you couldn't advertise tobacco within the media of Canada, and the tobacco companies basically brought the federal government to court. The Supreme Court decided that indeed it was unconstitutional and that the federal government had to change its laws.

I say that because what people need to understand, in short, is that the Constitution is basically a framework by which our parliaments work, by which we relate to other legislatures, and also on the question of the rights and privileges given to Parliament. In the end, because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it gives us, the citizens of the country, access to the courts if we disagree with a particular thing that has been done by the federal or provincial governments, and if so, if it's found unconstitutional, to our charter.

I guess, put simply, what a constitution is, it's basically a framework, it's basically a sketch. It's much like the artist who starts to paint a picture and paints a sketch on canvas before he or she starts to make the painting. The idea of the sketch is to give the painter an idea as he progresses along the actual steps of doing the painting, so that at the end, when he employs all the oils on to the canvas and he fleshes them out with his brushes, it looks similar to what his sketch was. That's all the Constitution is: It's a sketch.

1830

The problem in this debate is that a lot of people have come to the constitutional argument around coming to constitutional committees and such and have seen the Constitution as being much more than that. They've seen the Constitution as being a document that can redress all of the past, present and future grievances that they may have with this nation. The reality of that is that this is what legislation is for. If we're talking about issues from day care to geriatrics, those issues are best dealt with under legislation, not the Constitution.

What this has done, because people have seen the Constitution as much more, as being able to address all of their grievances, is raise an unreal expectation as to what can actually be accomplished through our Constitution. If we hear a lot of the rhetoric of the No side going around the country today, it's playing on those sentiments. People out there in this nation, including myself and you, Mr Speaker, feel that there are laws that are there that are unjust and do not treat us fairly. But the No side is going out there and raising those unrealistic expectations as to what the Constitution can do. If you measure the constitutional accord agreed to in Charlottetown or our present Constitution to those kinds of expectations, you can't hold them up together. I think people may need to make that separation.

The second thing I think we need to know, coming into this debate, is that we also have to understand the history of our Constitution and understand the history by which we repatriated the British North America Act in 1981.

Many Canadians will know there was something called the British North America Act, but they will not understand what the relationship of the BNA Act was to us as citizens. Prior to 1981, there was no such possibility for a citizen of this country to challenge the laws of Parliament. No citizen could take his government to court to say that the law was unconstitutional, because the BNA Act was a Constitution that was written up at the time and resided in Westminster in England that basically said: "These are the relationships of Parliament. These are the relationships within the Parliament and the legislatures." It didn't give us, the average citizens of this country, an ability to go to court and be able to challenge our government when it came to that law.

For 50 years, governments tried to deal with that question. Since the 1930s, they've been out there advocating, trying to find a way of getting the provinces to come together with the federal government to finally find a way of including average Canadians in the Constitution and giving them rights, because the BNA Act fell far short of what a Constitution should be.

In 1981, the final attempt, the then Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, managed to get the Constitution repatriated to Canada, but he did so at a price, because if we look at our history, there were eight holdout provinces in Canada, eight out of 10 provinces, including Quebec, that said No, that they didn't want to repatriate the BNA Act under conditions that were not favourable to the provinces, because all those provinces felt that their needs and aspirations as provinces were not going to be redressed by what Mr Trudeau was proposing.

People fixating on Quebec need to understand this whole notion. It was not only Quebec that felt that; it was seven other provinces in this country. What happened was that Mr Trudeau tried to force the issue to get the provinces on side. What ended up happening was that the provinces at that time felt there was a constitutional right to a veto. Each province in 1981 under the British North America Act felt that it had a veto, that the federal government or anyone could not make changes to the BNA Act or even repatriate it unless it had agreement on the part of all 10 provinces. That was thought because of convention and because of past practice and tradition within the Parliament of Canada when it came to the question of the Constitution.

What ended up happening was that Mr Trudeau went to the Supreme Court of Canada and challenged and said, "I have the right as a Prime Minister to be able to go to repatriate the Constitution on my own," and in a surprise decision, the Supreme Court agreed with that view. What that did was give Mr Trudeau a hammer, and the hammer was that unless the provinces came to the table, he would repatriate on his own. He didn't want to do that to a certain extent because he understood that with eight holdout provinces he would pay a political price.

I say that because Mr Trudeau has been critical of this whole process we have gone through now, in 1992. His particular tactics in 1981 were putting a hammer to the provinces, and if we feel somewhat angry towards Mr Trudeau at this point, it's because of that. We understand what he did in 1981.

What he managed to do is he managed to get seven of those eight provinces to agree to repatriate provided that they gave the provincial governments a veto through the amending formula, that if there was an amending formula put in the Constitution that allowed seven provinces to come together, representing at least 50% of the population, it would be enough to stop the federal government if it ever decided to do this again.

That was the concession Mr Trudeau gave to the provinces in order to repatriate and Quebec walked from the table because it still felt then that it had not gotten what it had asked for at the constitutional table. and it never came back.

I don't have enough time, but the point I'm getting at is that the reason we are negotiating a Constitution today is because we have never addressed the fundamental question of how the Constitution relates to the parliaments of the provinces of this country. Quebec has never accepted -- along with other provinces, I would say -- what the federal Constitution does in regard to the parliamentary relationship between the federal government and the provinces.

The other point that needs to be made, in summation, is that Quebec in all of its aspirations and negotiations around the Constitution never got a concession from the federal government. Not once in all of the years in the negotiations around the Constitution did Quebec get anything. This notion of Quebec -- as Mr Trudeau says, "You go there and you give them more and they want more and they'll take more" -- that whole thing, got really clouded.

I wish I had another 20 minutes to go through this. Unfortunately, I don't. I want to end this statement by saying this is a constitutional agreement that's been agreed to by all 10 provinces, the territories and the aboriginal people. It has never happened before. We have a good deal. People should take the time to read the constitutional agreement reached in Charlottetown and they will come to the conclusion that this is a good deal for us as Ontarians and as Canadians. With that, I urge people to vote Yes. Votez Oui le 26 octobre durant le référendum du Canada.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Cochrane South for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Lake Nipigon.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): I too echo the sentiment of all members of this House in being afforded the opportunity to say a few words about the historical vote, the referendum vote, that will take place, as we all know as Canadians, on October 26.

Pourquoi ce référendum ? Pourquoi est-il nécessaire, de temps à autre, de renouveler notre constitution ? Chez nous, comme vous le savez, elle date de plus de 125 ans. Une constitution, c'est un document vivant. Eh bien, elle a vieilli.

Bien sûr, il y a eu quelques changements au fil des ans, mais le temps est maintenant venu, sous les auspices de l'accord de Charlottetown, pour nous, Canadiens, de se pencher sur un nouveau document qui va nous permettre à regarder l'avenir avec une confiance accrue.

L'accord de Charlottetown est un document issu de générosité. C'est aussi un document qui émane de compromis. Tout le monde qui a participé, tous ses participants, bien sûr, ont évolué à part des compromis. Personne n'est retourné chez elle ou chez lui avec tout ce qu'il ou elle voulait avoir. C'est impossible dans un compromis. Dans la famille qui est le Canada, à la table des négociations, à cette table du Canada, il faut faire des compromis. C'est aussi la beauté de la diversité.

Il faut aussi savoir se reconnaître, en tant que Canadiens, dans ce document. Bien sûr, certains croiront qu'on aurait dû et qu'on aurait pu obtenir encore plus pour sa paroisse. Vous aurez même certains et certaines employant un système de démagogue. Ceux qui représentent les idées d'antan, qui croient moins que nous à cette flexibilité, qui reconnaissent moins que le texte actuel est un peu périmé -- il est désuet -- ne représentent pas ou représentent moins les aspirations des Canadiens.

Vous savez, pour ceux qui voudraient mener un peu une guerre de guérilla, pour ceux qui diraient, «Je vais me chercher un prétexte, une raison pour voter Non», bien oui, c'est facile. On n'a qu'à regarder ces 30 ou 32 pages de l'accord de Charlottetown, cette entente et se dire, «Eh bien, je n'aime pas ceci ; j'aurais aimé avoir encore plus, ou je ne veux pas accorder à mes frères et mes soeurs canadiens et canadiennes leur place sous le soleil.» La collectivité, vous savez, c'est comme la charité. Ça commence par soi-même.

1840

L'histoire du Canada est une de compromis, de générosité et de reconnaître l'aspiration de tout le monde dans cette diversité. Qu'on passe à travers le dossier de l'autogestion chez les autochtones à celui de la reconnaissance que le Québec -- vous savez, le Québec parle français en majorité -- cette société en-dedans du Canada se doit de se doter des outils qui lui permettent et lui permettront de protéger ses droits, de promouvoir sa culture. C'est une situation normale. C'est un élément, un sentiment que l'on se doit, que l'on se veut pour soi-même et bien sûr pour ses voisins.

C'est surtout dire que le 26, quand nous devrons nous prononcer, on nous invite à regarder ce document dans cet ensemble et à nous rappeler que cette famille de Canadiens et Canadiennes a obtenu, pour la première fois, l'unanimité. Ils se sont regardés, ils ont regardé les autres et ils nous disent que l'alternative n'existe pas, parce qu'il faudrait alors tout recommencer.

On est partis de loin. Vous vous souvenez, comme nous tous, des années du rapatriement de cette constitution. Mon collègue le député de Timmins l'a souligné. Vous vous souvenez sans doute du référendum au Québec en 1982, et de l'anxiété que cela avait produit au pays.

Eh bien, nous en sommes à la troisième heure. Pour la troisième fois on nous demande encore une fois, et Dieu sait ; Dieu est témoin de l'anxiété économique qui hante le pays, que les gens de l'extérieur, ces investisseurs, la communauté globale mondiale nous dit : «On vous surveille. Soyez à l'écoute.» Certains iront jusqu'à dire qu'ils comprennent mal notre attitude vis-à-vis du bon sens.

Ceci est la meilleure entente. Aujourd'hui, en ce jour d'octobre, en cette veille du référendum, alors que l'on vogue vers notre destin en tant que nation, c'est la meilleure entente possible.

In conclusion, others would like to be afforded the same opportunity to say a few words. Holistically I too believe you look at the package and resist the temptation -- for it is too easy and I don't wish to impute motive. It doesn't apply here. It is far too important. Nor should, in my humble opinion, people spell the days of apocalypse should the agreement be rejected. We live in a democracy. We respect people and people's opinions.

Many of us here have had the opportunity to look long and hard at the agreement and have concluded that this is the best agreement that a round table -- Canada's table, a table for Canada -- could possibly arrive at in the spirit of compromise and generosity.

I only wish, in conclusion, that each and every day in this not only vast and magnificent land but in this blessed land, we take a moment to look at ourselves and hopefully see in ourselves what other people see in us. Then collectively not only would we begin to understand but, more importantly, we would be most thankful for having the opportunity many of us share in the sentiment that we are the luckiest, most fortunate people in the world. But we have little merit, for most of us in this House were born here. The rest was relatively easy, and in recognition of the opportunities that are presented us, I will look forward to the 26th, because I know that after the 26th, should a Yes prevail, the golden age will indeed descend upon us.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Lake Nipigon for his contribution to the debate.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm going to vote a wholehearted Yes to this Constitution and a wholehearted No, to change the government when it comes to the federal election.

I'm deeply concerned by the growing evidence that many Canadians plan to vote No, although this of course is their right. Issues which really are distinct are becoming confused due to a general feeling of dissatisfaction in the country at this time. Canadians are fortunate to have a chance to vote Yes for what is probably the best federal Constitution anywhere in the world. This is not a Mulroney deal.

I had the honour of being on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and I know we did a thorough job. People in all parts of the province were able to meet directly with the committee and put their own points of view. There were extensive hearings in Toronto and a conference was held in October 1991. The committee also travelled to other provinces and met with other groups that had been sounding out opinions in their own jurisdictions.

Although there was agreement on many points, it became very clear that different views on such issues as the nature of the Senate and on how Quebec should be accommodated would have to be balanced out in the final agreement, and that, I believe, is what has happened.

The final agreement was not produced by the federal government. It resulted from the interaction of 17 participants who came primed with the consensus of their own province, territory or nation. Nobody got everything they wanted; nobody caved in.

1850

I'm particularly proud that some suggestions made by Ontario were included, because I know that Ontario's input was very much relevant to the welfare of Canada as a whole, rather than being regionally or politically partisan.

The select committee on Ontario in Confederation, comprised of members of all three parties, was a model of harmony, and party differences played a very small role. Bigotry of whatever stripe was noticeably absent.

Our Premier and Minister of Natural Resources played a very statesmanlike part in the reaching of the accord. It was with a sense of real achievement that those who had been involved in the process viewed the final text.

Why do we now see such a strong trend towards a No vote? Obviously, no one thinks the accord is perfect, but those who criticize must remember that if one detail is to be changed, other adjustments might have to be made which they would not agree with. It is amazing that we have managed to get unanimous agreement on a document that has as many good points as this one does. The chance of negotiating a better unanimous agreement is slim. We have self-government as an inherent right for native people, we have a social charter that makes basic provision for us all and a Canada clause that guarantees respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms.

Some groups have complained that they did not receive specific mention, but there is danger in listing specific groups. The list would have to be very long before everyone felt included.

The lack of specific detail on aboriginal self-government makes great sense, because this is something that has to evolve over time.

The accommodation with Quebec is predictably a bone of contention, but has Quebec received too much or too little? Did Bourassa cave in or did he get away with far too much? Quebeckers are being told one thing, British Columbians another. This suggests that the deal has it about right.

Trying to satisfy every objection can lead to an overloading of the agreement. The goals and the objectives, including justice for the disabled and the disadvantaged, will only be achieved through future hard work and dedication and future political choices, whatever the Constitution says. There is nothing in this document that detracts from any of these goals. I firmly believe that to reject this agreement because of such supposed deficiencies will make justice and fairness less attainable in this country in the long run, not more so.

I don't normally side with bankers, but I do agree when they say that a No vote, by prolonging uncertainty or even hastening Canada's breakup, will lead to even worse economic times than those we are experiencing already. It would be a real reason for investors to put money elsewhere or to move jobs away. A sudden economic breakdown helps nobody.

I also agree with those who say that a breakaway by Quebec would be an economic disaster for all of us. It would lead to endless wrangling. How much territory would Quebec take with it? How much of the national debt? How viable would a separate currency be? What would be the cost of running a separate country? Would Canada continue to have a major role in world affairs? And so on.

However, the main point I want to make is that voters who are voting No are taking on the wrong enemy at the wrong time. There is no catch to the constitutional deal for those who love Canada, but there's an enormous catch in the international deals by which Mulroney is giving away the democratic rights of the people of this country. We could pass our Constitution only to find that Canadian electors have been left with a sham, an empty form of government and no ability to do all the wonderful things that the people of this country want so much.

I was disappointed that this province did not proceed with the NDP agenda on auto insurance because that scheme might have been blocked by the terms of the free trade agreement. This would have alerted the people of Ontario to the predicament we're in. We have lost some control over our economy. We have lost some control over our energy supplies. We're losing environmental safeguards such as the exclusion of imported foods which have been treated with pesticides that are banned in Canada. Our water supplies are compromised. It's not an issue now, but it could be a time bomb. We can no longer protect our industries and farms through the tariffs that brought them prosperity in the first place.

The whole concept of nationhood is brought into question by the free movement of capital around the world and global competition for jobs, made possible by modern communications and other technology. How can we make sure that public decision-making powers, which were earned through struggle and were never supported by the rich and powerful, will not be eroded as we collectively become a cheap workforce and a cheap supplier of goods to the few who succeed in becoming very rich?

Canadians need to stay together, to work collectively for the better, more democratic world for ourselves and others, which is within our grasp. If we quibble about the details of this accord, we may never have the opportunity to vote for such a progressive document again. It stands or falls by this vote. If we vote Yes, we can resolve its imperfections. If we vote No, we lose the very basis for discussion and are left with a vacuum, for the No side agrees on nothing.

Brian Mulroney has been blamed for scare tactics. The fact is that no one knows what happens next if this accord is turned down. Those who want to forget the Constitution, get back to business as usual and concentrate on economic and environmental problems should vote Yes. That at least gives us a framework within which to operate as a country, and then we can start looking at our major problems, which are: How can everyone earn their living in a world where technology has made it possible to produce huge quantities of goods with very few workers and where our unsustainable habits are leading to environmental disaster, and how can we maintain the powers of a democratically elected government to carry out the wishes of the people of Canada?

People are right to be suspicious of the establishment, but not all politicians deserve the distrust and suspicion now rife. We're paying the price of succumbing to the scare tactics of the 1988 election and letting free trade go through. We won't retrieve that mistake or get rid of Mulroney by voting No in this referendum. Even if a win should bathe him in vicarious glory, he must call an election soon, and the people of Canada then have the remedy in their hands. They can vote in a government that will revoke the free trade agreement, repudiate NAFTA and start working on a viable economic future for this country and the continuing extension of the democratic rights of its people. Let's do it.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Peterborough for her contribution to the debate.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to give a few personal insights into the Charlottetown accord, and as so many have said before me, it is a privilege to be able to speak on a matter of such great importance to this nation.

The Charlottetown accord has been dissected, interpreted and reinterpreted, but I think the original document stands up very well to that kind of scrutiny. Some have said it is difficult to read. My own experience is that it is straightforward and I strongly advocate that constituents spend two hours reading the landmark document.

I am not a lawyer by training, and that may explain why I read the word "equal" to mean "equal." Constituents who read the document will see that in various clauses throughout the accord equality is reinforced, and specifically the Canada clause, clause 2(1)(g), "Canadians are committed to the equality of female and male persons." I think that's quite straightforward.

I recently held a town hall meeting where the question was asked, "Why are we not all equal?" We are, of course, but we are all different. People from Newfoundland feel themselves to be different from Ontarians or British Columbians. I know Ontarians who have found that they identify more with British Columbia and have chosen to live there. They feel that there is a lifestyle and a philosophy we in Ontario do not share. The Canada clause recognizes that diversity in this vast country, and at the same time the equality of its regions.

1900

There has been some suggestion that the accord will impinge on the social programs we all see as fundamental to this country. I believe the language is again clear and simple. The federal spending power will be used to contribute to the pursuit of national objectives. Our social programs are recognized in the accord, as is the obligation that there be reasonably comparable services throughout the country. I do not see that what we hold so dear has been threatened in any way.

Like so many of my colleagues, I feel that a great step has been taken to correct past wrongs. As a society, we have tended to ignore some of our citizens. This accord is the beginning of the process of making this country whole; the time has arrived to make the circle whole. I would like to compliment the efforts of the Premier and the Honourable Bud Wildman in that regard.

Critics have said that these constitutional discussions should end and that all our governments should return to the issues. While all of us may not be enthralled by constitutional debates, these discussions form the foundation of our country. Can we reasonably go on to address economic issues when we are not sure what the lines of obligation and accountability are? No, we have to resolve the concerns of the regions, whether those of the west or the east.

Some would seem to suggest that constitutions are documents that, once drafted and approved, should be locked away, rarely to be viewed and even more rarely discussed. Again the answer is no. Constitutions are living documents which, like all legislation, must be overhauled and revised on a regular basis to reflect the changes that all societies undergo.

I believe that compromise and consensus are the best means to resolve problems. This is not a fight, and it definitely isn't one-upmanship. One-upmanship will not bring about goodwill, nor will it see long-held divisions put to rest.

Need brought this country together back in 1867. I believe that we as a country need each other, and through ongoing dialogue, using the Charlottetown accord as the basis, we have the means at hand to ensure economic prosperity as well as social benefits for all.

I hope, I truly hope that we rise to the challenges that our forefathers -- people like Laurier, who said that the 20th century would be ours -- gave us. Like no other, now is the time for all of us to stand together and now is the time to vote Yes.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St Catharines-Brock for her contribution to the debate and recognize the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): It's a very great privilege to be able to contribute to this debate --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): The Blue Jays, they won.

Mr Frankford: -- and note for the record the good-humoured celebration behind me of this rather historic day in our city's history around baseball.

Unfortunately, I'm rather limited for time. I would have liked to have spoken more about Canada and what it means to me. I will just briefly quote, to my mind, the great expatriate writer Malcolm Lowry, who wrote what I personally think is the best novel that was written in this country, Under the Volcano, in which he refers to Canada as a "blue northern paradise." I shouldn't spend time on this, but it's an extraordinary book written from the perspective of a very hellish Mexico and seeing the peace and the constructiveness that can take place in this country, which was in fact the situation in Lowry's life.

But I must continue with what I was going to say. Seeing there isn't much time, I would like to respond to some of the objections to the accord that one hears. I'm sure that, like me, all members have to deal frequently with people asking why we have to devote so much time to the Constitution, saying that the economy is the real issue and that the Constitution is secondary. We can point to areas in the accord which contradict them.

We can point notably to the policy objectives of the economic union, where the Charlottetown agreement does directly address the economy. Here we find objectives of the free movement of goods, services and capital, all of them components of a national economy that has thrived based on the assumption of that free movement. Indirectly, I would point out, other commitments will have economic benefits in the short term. The protection, preservation and sustaining of the environment does not necessarily present hard choices between what is economic and what is socially desirable.

The accord, as has been explained by many of the previous speakers, notably by the Premier, who gave much time to it, is of course a compromise, trading off many desired objectives for different areas, but it clearly does work as a compromise when one looks at all the interests that have been protected there.

I would like to get into two areas which affect me particularly and I think mean the most to me, which are the first areas of the Charlottetown accord. Section A is appropriately headed "People and Communities," the Canada clause. Here, let me remind you, we find the recognition of Canada as a parliamentary democracy.

It is where there is recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, the recognition of official minority-language communities, of racial and ethnic equality and recognition of the contribution of citizens from many lands and the recognition that the building of Canada reflects its cultural and racial diversity.

Again, let me ask people to reflect on the importance of recognizing these things in the Constitution. Let us be frank and admit the more regrettable parts of our history, the group discrimination against Chinese, Japanese, Ukrainians, Italians and other groups. The Canada clause puts on paper the recognition that we are a society where all these groups have built and where new groups will continue to come and to add to our country.

Moving to section B, "Canada's Social and Economic Union," here we have the so-called social charter, which I'm very proud was something that was added very much from the impetus of New Democratic governments. Here is one thing on which I would very much like to respond to the critics. Here we have, among other things, the health care system, as I read from it here, "providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible."

I really find it regrettable that the critics, in this in particular but in other things, say, "We cannot afford it." I strongly believe that we cannot not afford it. I believe strongly, and it's been my privilege in my professional career here to have it confirmed from my perspective, that universality, the demarketing of benefits, is a social good and is something that we can be most proud of, and it is cheaper. One only has to look to other jurisdictions south of us, for instance, to see how true this is.

I really should close. One other area in which I would like to add some contradiction to the critics is around the role of politicians. You'll have heard the objections saying we already have too many politicians and why do we need more levels of government, more elected members. I think it's regrettable that we have this cynicism about politicians. Despite all our differences, I believe we do all work extremely hard, that there is a representativeness, an advocacy role, an accountability.

1910

I happened to have the good fortune earlier this year to be visited by an Australian senator named Margaret Reynolds, and it was very interesting to learn how elected senators function and do a valuable representative job. I think we don't realize yet the mindset that we'll have to change. The idea of election of senators does seem very farfetched to us at the present time, but I'm sure that after the vote on the accord, or when it is implemented, presumably at the time of the next federal election, we will find individuals who will serve, who will respond to that elected office.

I am pleased to support this and I will stand down and defer to my next colleague.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Scarborough East for his contribution to this debate and recognize the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm only going to spend a few moments in order to give my colleagues an opportunity to participate in this debate.

I don't need speaker's notes to talk about my country. I was born and raised in Scarborough and I'm fiercely proud of the kinds of contributions people from Scarborough have made to this country. I know that when I went out to Cedarbrae Collegiate yesterday and spoke to approximately 750 students at Cedarbrae, they listened quite intently to the remarks I made in terms of my support for the Charlottetown accord.

Many people during these past two days have talked about the details within the accord, and I'd just like to go over some of the things I feel are important to me as a person living in Ontario and as a citizen of this country.

First of all, the member for Scarborough East alluded to the issue of universality of health care. That's one of the very important things our Premier started off with during the negotiations process, and that's the importance of the social charter. The reaction initially was mixed, to say the least, but now it's my view that the social charter has taken a place among the crown jewels of this Charlottetown accord and we in Ontario should be justly proud of the kind of work we did in that respect.

In terms of the aboriginal issue, clearly we have gone forward and moved steps ahead of other jurisdictions around the world. First of all, we signed our statement of special relationship with the aboriginal communities earlier this year. We have now recognized the inherent right of the aboriginal community to self-government.

We have taken the opportunity to understand that Quebec is a distinct society and needs to be recognized as such. They clearly have the right to protect their culture and their language, and we certainly are pleased to be able to do that for the province.

Mention was made around the issue of equality and rights for women in this society. No other constitutional agreement, no other series of negotiations, has gone as far as we have in this right. The Canada clause specifically recognizes the commitment to respect for individual and collective human rights and freedoms for all people, as well as the equality of female and male persons.

I think it's very important to note that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not be changed, including the guarantee of equality of men and women. Now that we have language like this written down, hopefully we'll be able to look back on the 27th and then begin to start the educational process to ensure that this equality is in fact not just written on a piece of paper but is enacted in people's everyday lives.

In closing, Mr Speaker, I want to indicate to you, as a colleague in Scarborough and a fellow member of the Scarborough Yes committee that we will continue to work hard to ensure that this referendum is passed. I ask the people who are now watching this debate after the glorious win by the Toronto Blue Jays that you take the time to think about the issue, that you take the time to think about how this accord will affect you as citizens in this country.

Clearly, the status quo is not good enough. People tell that to us on a daily basis in our constituency offices. People tell us on a daily basis in our Queen's Park offices. The status quo is not good enough. In order to facilitate the change, we urge you to vote Yes. I urge you to walk with me on the 26th in voting Yes.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Scarborough Centre. Any further debate?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much for this opportunity, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to be very long in my remarks, but I'd like to start off my remarks by congratulating the Toronto Blue Jays as the new American League champions. It's been 13 years in the making. I got this pennant fresh off the press.

There were 51,000 Blue Jay fans at the Dome this afternoon watching the game and running around the city celebrating. There are millions of others across this country celebrating the great thrills that the team has given them this year, the enjoyment that it provides to quite literally millions of people both at the Dome and at home across the country. I think they are a credit to this city, a credit to this province and a credit to this country. As they move across North America, zigzagging the United States -- and hopefully some day Canada when we engage the Montreal Expos in a World Series matchup -- they truly are ambassadors for this city, this province and this country. I thank them in this regard.

In very quickly addressing some of the highlights within the constitutional accord, as I go around and talk to people about our country, our province and our Constitution, I run into many naysayers, people who are going to be voting No. When you engage them in discussion as to why they are going to vote No, there is no clear reason that they point to and say, "This is the reason I'm going to vote No."

They don't point to the fact that provinces are going to now have a veto for further amendments to the Constitution. They don't directly point to: "It's the Senate. That's the part that causes me great grief. That's the part that causes me problems, because giving equal representation across the country is going to impact on my daily life, that's going to impact on my family life and so on." Those are not the kinds of arguments that are forwarded.

They don't talk about: "Let's sit down and talk about the clearer separation of powers. What are the provinces going to get and what is the federal government going to keep? Who's going to be responsible for training and who's going to be responsible for governance of key resources and so on?" That's not what I hear.

In fact, to date I have run into only one individual who came up to me and said: "Why the heck should we give 25% to Quebec? Why should we?" I said: "Did you know that Quebec has always had, traditionally, more than 25% of the population in Canada? In their history, they've always topped 25% of the population, well over 30%. Why shouldn't they be entitled to 25% of the seats in the Commons?"

That's not what the grievance was for; that's not what the grievance was about. The grievance wasn't about the 25%; the grievance had to do more directly with the fact that there's an anti-French, conversely anti-English, sentiment that prevails in this country, and quite frankly, it has prevailed for quite some time, because as you engage people further in discussion that's what comes up over and over again.

People don't understand what "distinct society" means. I don't understand what "distinct society" means. I don't understand how the courts are going to interpret what "distinct society" means. I challenge anyone here, I challenge anyone outside of this place, to explain to me what "distinct society" means. I will wager with them today that when the courts finally rule at some point in time about what "distinct society" means, they'll probably be dead wrong in their assessment, in their assertions today.

I think that's what this debate is all about, and I think that a number of people have come forward. As of late, the former Prime Minister of Canada came forward and, quite frankly in my view, certainly in the kind of community I represent, he gave the No side the fuel. He gave them the credibility and the fuel to be able to turn on our Quebec brethren and say No to Quebec, to say nay to Quebec.

This is wrong. This could be the worst thing that could have happened in this particular debate, because in this political game in which we have been tossed, if that holds true, if that carries the day, we will pay the price and our children will pay the price. I encourage everyone to vote Yes. I will be voting Yes.

The Speaker: Since the time allocated by party has expired for debate today, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1922.