Mr. Johnston:

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a legal question and I have my own legal opinions, but I do agree that it would be very useful to refer the distinct society clause and a number of other clauses to the Supreme Court of Canada for determination so that Members of the House would vote with the full knowledge of what may be involved. In June of 1987,1 in fact wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting specifically that, and I wrote as well to all of the premiers because the provinces also have the right to refer matters to their respective courts of appeal for interpretation, as in fact the provinces did back in 1981 during the patriation exercise. I think there is a very serious question as to what the implication of the distinct society clause is, not only on the Charter but also on power transfers.

We have heard Members of the House say that there is a non-derogation clause, we cannot change Section 91 and Section 92. However, some of the most important powers in our Constitution, their distribution and application, including communications and much of trade and commerce and the application of the peace, order and good Government clause, have been brought about through the interpretation of the Constitution. As Professor Beaudouin, a proponent of this particular Accord, said-

"It is an interpretation rule that has changed the Canadian federation."

This interpretation clause then is very significant.

With respect to the Senate, that is not a legal question, that is a question of political dynamics. I ask Members of this House who are practising politicians if they know any politician who would voluntarily give up the right to appoint 24 Senators to the Senate of Canada in return for an equal, effective and elected Senate in order to satisfy the concerns of western Canadians. I might say that in the amendments I have put forward, that kind of Senate is put right on the agenda of the First Ministers. The Triple E Senate should be addressed by the First Ministers as soon as possible. In the meantime, no change should be made because if the change which is provided for in Meech Lake is made, then I do not think, and I think the Hon. Member from Calgary shares my view, that we will ever see Senate reform in our lifetimes.

Mr. Johnston:

Madam Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate to have a debate in this country on centralization or decentralization or whether we should have two nations in order to keep the country together. I have no problem with having that kind of debate, but let us have that debate, because that is what we are talking about. I do not happen to share that view, but let us not pretend that Meech Lake is anything other than a stepping stone to deux nations and to a highly decentralized federation with an amending formula which does not permit the flexibility that we have known historically.

The Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) asks what has this done for us. It has brought us to being one of the seventh largest industrialized countries in the world with one of the highest standards of living known to man. I think Canada has been a great success, though certainly there could be improvements.

The Hon. Member referred to the 1982 patriation exercise. It was former Prime Minister Trudeau who pointed out in the Senate that in fact, of elected Members from Quebec, whether

June 14, 1988

Message from the Senate

in the National Assembly or in this House, comparing the two of them, 109 voted in favour and only 74 against it. The entire Parti Quebecois and only four others in Quebec voted against it. We remember that in this House overwhelming support was given to the patriation exercise in the Charter by Members who represented every single region of Quebec, just as the Hon. Member represents Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

It is simply pure folklore to say that there were not elected Members from Quebec speaking in favour of the patriation exercise. Did anyone really expect a pequiste Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, whose life was dedicated to taking Quebec out of Canada, to sign a constitutional document which would basically bind Quebec to Canada? I think that is somewhat unrealistic.

Mr. Johnston:

As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, Meech Lake was in effect morally, it being the second province following Quebec to accept it. However, if one reads Meech Lake, which most people apparently have not, it clearly states that provincial legislatures have a role to "preserve the existence of French-speaking Canadians elsewhere in Canada". There is nothing in there referring to the preservation of rights, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister said that today and the Leaders of both opposition Parties said the same thing. One final nail in the coffin of that argument is that Section 2(4) of Meech Lake is absolutely clear: No power with respect to language that belonged to a legislature prior to Meech Lake is affected by Meech Lake.

The Supreme Court of Canada told Saskatchewan it had the power to do what it did, but it would seem the Prime Minister and the spokespersons for the opposition Parties are offering us legal opinions that even a layman would reject reading the text of the Meech Lake Accord itself.

Finally, I ask them this question. If Meech Lake is intended to protect existing rights, then French-speaking Canadians elsewhere in Canada would have more rights in Saskatchewan or in Ontario than they would in British Columbia. Mr. Vander Zalm presumably feels that he would be discharging his role to "preserve the existence of French-speaking Canadians" without adding any rights to his statute books. Why should not Mr. Peterson and Mr. Devine be entitled to discharge their roles at the same level as Mr. Vander Zalm? Some day the courts will answer these questions, but please do not then turn and say that we were not warned about the disastrous consequences of Meech Lake on the linguistic rights of Canadians from coast to coast.

June 14, 1988

Finally I turn to some of the remarkable comments of the Minister of Justice speaking on behalf of the Government, Mr. Speaker. He assures us that the territorial division of Canada into a distinct society of Quebec on the one hand and the other distinct society in the rest of Canada is not to be feared by minorities in Quebec. He said:

When we say that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada, it is

understood that all residents of Quebec are an integral part of that society ...

Those Quebecers from a multicultural community are part of it. Quebec's

English-speaking community is an integral part of the Quebec's distinct

society.

That is an interesting comment. Is that what Premier Bourassa meant when he said in the National Assembly:

For the first time in 120 years of history, the Constitution will recognize Quebec as a distinct society. The Constitution will provide Quebec with the means to preserve and promote its distinct identity and will give a constitutional basis for the French fact in Quebec.

Is the Minister of Justice really telling us that the Quebec Government sees itself as having a role to preserve and promote the English presence in Quebec? If so, how does he view the current policies which forbid the use of English on commercial signs, which limit access to English schooling, which insist on French dubbed films before general film distribution and so on? Does he see all this as changing after Meech Lake when Quebec will set about to promote all elements of its distinct society including the English component? If he does, then the Minister of Justice-

Mr. Johnston:

I thank you and my hon. colleagues for the courtesy, Mr. Speaker.

I was pointing out what had taken place in the Province of Quebec and that the Minister of Justice seems to believe that there is an obligation to promote the English component of Quebec society. In light of what we have seen, if he believes that, I would add that he must still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Professor Lederman in the Financial Post on August 31, 1987, an authority quoted with approval in this House by the Government, had it right when he wrote of "the distinct society of French-speaking Canadians in Quebec". That is what Meech Lake is all about. It is about a French Quebec in an English Canada. There are 800,000 English-speaking people in Quebec who are not part of that distinct society. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. Meech Lake is opting for the Belgian solution, which our Commissioner of Official Languages in his recent report has described as a recipe for national suicide. Only days ago as we know Mr. Remillard made the Quebec Government's view absolutely clear. Meech Lake is to support a French Quebec not a bilingual Quebec. For once I found myself in entire agreement with Mr. Remillard because that is what Meech Lake is telling us.

The message is coming through to Canadians despite efforts to suppress debate even in this House. What is that message Canadians are receiving? If you believe in one Canada, you must reject Meech Lake. That is part of the message.

And if you believe that this country should keep a national vision that is greater than the sum of the provincial visions, that is, that Canada is greater than the sum of its provincial parts, you must reject the Meech Lake Accord.

If you believe that the individual minority rights of Canadians, be they linguistic rights or sexual equality rights, should be protected against the collective rights of a distinct society, then you must reject Meech Lake. If you believe that Canada requires national programs meeting national standards or criteria in research, education, training, income maintenance and health and that the federal spending power should be used for such purposes in the future, I should say as it has so successfully done in the past

Mr. Johnston:

I appreciated the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) took less time than I thought had been allotted. I would be quite happy to limit myself to one question, because he has raised a point which I believe requires some clarification. It should not take more than three minutes, Mr. Speaker, to have that exchange.