Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I was and remain opposed to having a notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

December 21, 1988

I was opposed to the Canadian Government's making such a concession to the provinces in 1981-82. It was not Quebec, but other provinces, that sought this concession. Mr. Bourassa did not request the notwithstanding clause; he was not there. The clause was a concession to the provinces. If I am against the clause, I am of course against using it if such use is contrary to the fundamental rights contained in the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms. I do not blame the Government of Quebec or the Government of Ontario for the existence of the clause. Neither Premier Peterson nor Premier Bourassa asked for it; it was a concession of the Canadian Government to the provinces. And unfortunately, today, using this clause has a negative effect on the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of fundamental rights. That is my position and I think that, in essence, it is shared by almost all Hon. Members.

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, let us see what position we have obtained from the Prime Minister this afternoon. He has admitted that, in his opinion, the Quebec Bill now before the National Assembly does not meet the test of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. Therefore, logically, he ought to disapprove of that Bill but has not said so.

He says he is against the notwithstanding clause, and yet the Quebec Bill employs that notwithstanding clause. Therefore, logically, he should not approve of the Bill, but we cannot get a statement from him as to his opinion on the Bill before the Quebec National Assembly.

May I ask the Prime Minister a further question?

Mr. Masse:

You are not in a courtroom.

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

The Hon. Minister says that I am not in court here. This is the highest court in the land. This is the House of Commons of Canada.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

Both of the Prime Minister's admissions, on the test of the Supreme Court

Oral Questions

of Canada as it is reflected in the Bill, and the notwithstanding clause, should lead him to the conclusion that he cannot approve of the Quebec Bill.

I want to put it in other terms. Does the Prime Minister believe that the Quebec Bill, in its suppression of the use of minority languages outside commercial business establishments in Quebec, offends the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, does he not believe that that Bill should never have been introduced in its present form?

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me a question his colleagues asked me on Monday and Tuesday, and the answer remains the same. I answered the question very clearly and very specifically.

The Quebec Bill, in my judgment, clearly does not meet the tests set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore, clearly, if it fails to do that, one of the tests being respect for the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Province of Quebec, surely in the absence of that, it offends the Charter. Therefore, as I have indicated, anything that offends the Charter is something that I find unsatisfactory both as a legislator and as a Canadian.

Mr. Nunziata:

That's pretty strong. That's strong language, Brian.

Mr. Mulroney:

Mr. Speaker:

The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question which is of great importance to the whole country. The Prime Minister is responding. I am sure Hon. Members would want the Prime Minister to continue his answer.

Mr. Mulroney:

Mr. Speaker, on October 26 in Sherbrooke, I said that in my maiden address in the House of Commons I said then that it was fundamental to the idea of Canada to ensure that the rights of our linguistic ethnic minorities are protected at all times. I believe we have done so with the Meech Lake Accord which fully respects the rights of English-speaking Canadians in Quebec and French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. We have recognized Quebec as a distinct society, and English-speaking Quebecers are an integral part of that distinct society.

December 21, 1988

Oral Questions

That is what I said in Quebec during the election campaign and that is exactly what I am saying today.

I call to my friend's attention, in regard to the instrument that gave rise to the problem we are dealing with, a press conference that took place on Wednesday, November 18, 1981, as reported by Robert Sheppard and Michael Valpy, in which the then Prime Minister was asked about the agreement to let Legislatures override fundamental legal and equality rights, about whether the Government of Canada under the new Constitution had consented to different language rights for Canada and for the rest of the country.

At page 322 it states: '"Well, yes', said the Prime Minister with some candor. 'You are asking me now', he said, 'if I consider it' the Constitution-'a success. No, I consider it an abject failure.' He abruptly stood up and walked hurriedly outside into the rain into his waiting black limousine leaving the riddle behind him". The riddle is still here. The riddle and the challenge of language rights will only be solved by tolerance, generosity, and leadership, such as the kind that Members of this House I believe have always provided.

That is the commitment that we have made in regard to language rights elsewhere.

We have been left with a less than perfect instrument which we must all try to correct.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and relates to the series of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's remarks about the notwithstanding clause, and I should like to ask him how he can reconcile the statements he has just made with those of his Secretary of State who must also champion the rights of official languages minorities.

So I am asking the Prime Minister whether his views are shared by his Secretary of State, or whether his being away from the House attests to his disagreement with the Prime Minister?

Given the seriousness of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by this kind of question. Would it be fair on my part to ask whether the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been away for two days indicates that he disagrees with the Hon. Member for Shefford? Surely the Leader of the Opposition had good reasons to be absent, just as the Secretary of State does. He deserves as much consideration on the part of the Hon. Member for Shefford.

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):

By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I will not seek justification for the absence of the Secretary of State, but justification for his remarks. I am asking the Prime Minister how he can reconcile the position he has just stated-and I agree with him-with that of his Secretary of State, which happens to be the opposite. Are there two kinds of truth for the Government, or is the Government trying to have its cake and eat it too? I would like the Prime Minister to tell us the Government's clear, precise and specific position which agrees with that of the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State is supposed to be the authorized spokesman for official languages minorities, and the matter comes under his responsibilities as Minister and Secretary of State.

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):

Yesterday I explained that there is no contradiction whatever in the position of the Secretary of State and mine as expressed to La Presse. I speak for the Canadian Government as Prime Minister of Canada. What I said is the full position of my Government, and all Members, I mean all Ministers endorse this position.

Now are there differences concerning certain nuances? I would draw the attention of the House to a statement made the day before yesterday by my friend and published in La Presse of December 20. I quote:

Mr. Lapierre has stated that the privileges of the National Assembly must be respected. According to him, federal MPs can only express personal opinions.

So the privileges of the National Assembly must be respected if it is to legislate in fields under it jurisdiction, and that is exactly the opposite of what your leader has just said.

December 21, 1988

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on the same subject.

As the Prime Minister knows, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision on Bill 101. It notably underlined that the Government of the Province of Quebec has the right to give predominance to the place of the French language in that province and suggested a course of action for a Government that wanted to do that

appropriately do that in the Province of Quebec-but which at once would be consistent with the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Premier of the Province of Quebec took a decision to move in a different direction instead of that one, and instead used the notwithstanding clause.

If I understood the Prime Minister clearly today, he has expressed his unequivocal opposition to the route that has been chosen. Has he in conversations with the Premier of the Province of Quebec in the past 24 hours, or before suggested very directly the desirability that the Premier change his legislation and bring in a Bill that would be consistent with the two Charters and, at the same time, give the desired predominance and desirable prominence to the French language in the Province of Quebec?