Document Information

Date: 1990-03-13
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 34th Parl, 2nd Sess, 1990 at 1268-1270, 1272-1274, 1276.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

1268

QUESTION PERIOD

THE CONSTITUTION

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—RESCISSION BY GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND—POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, may I ask the Leader of the Government whether he can make any comments today about the plans of the government with respect to Meech Lake in light of recent developments? Premier Wells has given notice that he may rescind the Newfoundland adherence to the Meech Lake Accord, following which Premier Peterson has suggested that Meech Lake is not dead but requires some oxygen, and he calls upon the Government of Canada to provide that oxygen. I wonder what the Government of Canada has in mind at this stage, whether it is to stand pat waiting for developments or to take some lead itself.

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Honourable senators, I think it is fair to note that while the Newfoundland government, in the Speech from the Throne, gave notice of its intention to rescind the Meech Lake Resolution that had been passed by a previous House of Assembly in that province, Premier Wells has put no date on that action and has not indicated when he would bring this measure forward or expect to have it voted on.

I think it is fair to say that Premier Wells agrees with the statement we have made to the effect that his commitment in November last was not to rescind so long as discussions were ongoing. He himself is engaged in contacts with other governments, and, therefore, I would not expect that he would be moving quickly or immediately to rescind the Meech Lake Resolution.

So far as Premier Peterson’s statement is concerned, yes, Meech Lake is not dead and, yes, it does need oxygen. What is the federal government doing? We are party to many of the discussions that are taking place among governments and we are kept informed on other discussions that are taking place. Beyond that I do not think it would be helpful for me to go for the moment.

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—NEED FOR FIRST MINISTERS’ CONFERENCE—REPORTED STATEMENT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MINISTER-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wonder whether the Leader of the Government would clarify for us the recommendation which he is reported in the press to have made to the Prime Minister, namely, that it would not be useful to have a first ministers’ conference on Meech Lake. Is it the case that that is the view of the minister, and, if so, what is the reasoning for that particular position?

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Honourable senators, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, of course, to convene a first ministers’ conference whenever he wishes. At a similar stage in the process which led to the Meech Lake Accord I was in a position to advise him that the conditions seemed to me to lend themselves to the holding of a successful first ministers’ conference.

Having toured the country and met all of the premiers, and having engaged in other discussions with ministers and officials, I am not in a position to advise him that the calling of a

1269

first ministers’ conference at this time would be justified. That is why further discussions are taking place now among governments at both the political and the official level. As I have said, I do not believe that the first ministers are ready to be brought together. When they are ready, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will convene such a conference.

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—RELATION TO SENATE REFORM—GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Leader of the Opposition): Just one other point, honourable senators. I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski, said on the weekend that it would be helpful if Premier Bourassa were a bit more flexible on the question of Senate reform; likewise Premier Peterson, but particularly Premier Bourassa. Would I be justified in believing that the Deputy Prime Minister is expressing the view of the government on this point and that some invitation is going forward from the Prime Minister and the government to the Premier of Quebec to indicate some flexibility on the Meech Lake Accord, particularly with respect to Senate reform?

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Honourable senators, there was a discussion of Senate reform as an issue at the time that the first ministers met here last November, but the situation was canvassed without success. There is no reason to believe that the question of Senate reform would hold the key to the ratification of Meech Lake. The situation is far more complex than that, as the honourable senator knows. There are many issues related directly to Meech Lake which have been discussed by those provinces that have not yet ratified or, in the case of Newfoundland, that wish to rescind.

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS—ABSENCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND

Hon. H.A. Olson: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government and minister responsible for federal-provincial relations, including Meech Lake and all that, is reported to have said-in fact, I saw him on television saying it-that negotiations were ongoing. Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Discussions!

Senator Olson: Whatever you want to call them. When that was put to Premier Wells he was surprised, and he said that, if there were any ongoing discussions or negotiations of any substance, he had not been called to any of them. I would like to know what the problem is. Are you having discussions and negotiations with some provinces and leaving Newfoundland out? If so, why?

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, the discussions we have taken part in, at either the political or the official level, have been bilateral with various provinces, and I am aware that there have also been discussions among provinces in which the federal government has not taken part. I had a very brief conversation with Premier Wells on Sunday night, in the course of which he spoke to me of contacts that he had made with other provinces and of contacts he hoped to make in the future. I, of course, encouraged him to continue.

Senator Olson: Perhaps I could ask the Leader of the Government if he could tell us what these discussions or negotiations are which he said are ongoing and about which Premier Wells was not informed. What were you talking about when you said there were ongoing negotiations and to which Premier Wells was not invited to attend or to send a representative?

Senator Murray: The honourable senator persists in using the term “negotiations”. I have never referred to negotiations. I have spoken of discussions that are taking place and I could not, without breaching the confidentiality that the honourable senator understands, divulge at this time, and in this place, the nature of the discussions-all of them informal and without commitment on either side-that have taken place between the federal government and different provinces, or that have been reported to me by different provinces.

[…]

THE CONSTITUTION

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—RELATION TO SENATE REFORM—POSITION OF PREMIERS OF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a supplementary question to this line of questioning. My question is more closely related to Senator MacEachen’s last question.

1270

I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to comment on a quote attributed to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Mazankowski, found in one of today’s newspapers. It states:

If there was something that could be coming, I think, from both Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Peterson, to the extent that there was a real willingness on their part to move on Senate reform, it would seem to me that it would draw more western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians on side. My question is: Could the leader explain what was in the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind that left him with the impression that there is no real willingness on the part of Premier Peterson and Premier Bourassa to “move on Senate reform”?

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Honourable senators, my colleague is drawing an inference from Mr. Mazankowski’s statement that he did not intend and that is not there. As a matter of fact, both Premier Bourassa and Premier Peterson have indicated considerable interest in Senate reform and in pursuing the issue at the top of the Round 2 agenda. That was the agreement among all the provincial premiers in August of 1986 at Edmonton. That was confirmed at Meech Lake and was most recently referred to again in the communiqué the first ministers issued after their conference last November.

Since that time Premier Peterson’s government has taken the initiative by appointing a committee of the Ontario legislature to begin a study on Senate reform so that Ontario will be ready with a position when the First Ministers’ Conference on Senate Reform is held in western Canada in November of this year.

Senator Hays: Can the leader report any similar progress with respect to the province of Quebec? Mr. Mazankowski is quoted—and I agree with him entirely-in the same article as follows:

Clearly Senate reform is the dominant issue on the minds of western Canadians.

As an Albertan, I share that with him, and it is a matter which has us in turmoil in Alberta, at least.

I would add from memory a quotation from an article found in a newspaper several months ago, and hopefully the leader can report some progress since then. It was to the effect that the Prime Minister of Quebec “was anxious that there be no elected representatives from Quebec in addition to MPs and MNAs.”

When I read that I followed it up and called the Premier of Quebec’s office and he did confirm that he did not say that, but his office would say nothing about the Government of Quebec’s position. I am wondering if there is anything the leader can report emanating from Quebec along the same lines as Ontario.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, Quebec has not appointed a legislative committee, for example. During his tour of western Canada Mr. Rémillard was very forthright in his declarations of support for, and interest in, a reformed Senate.

My honourable friend will understand that Quebec is not prepared to enter into substantive negotiations on Senate reform, or indeed on any other constitutional matter, until the Meech Lake Accord has been proclaimed. That has been Quebec’s understanding and that was the agreement the first ministers reached in August 1986.

[…]

1272

[…]

[Translation]

THE CONSTITUTION

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—ATTITUDE OF PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER OF QUEBEC

Hon. L. Norbert Thériault: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, supplementary to other questions on Meech Lake by my colleagues.

I must say that unlike most of my colleagues in the Senate, I am worried about this country, as a francophone outside Quebec, and I want to congratulate the Leader of the Senate on the conciliatory tone he has maintained throughout this debate, and even more so today.

I want to ask him whether this conciliatory tone reflects a new approach by the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Quebec, who have finally realized that threats are no way to establish a constitutional consensus in this country. Could he give me the assurance that the federal government and its negotiators will maintain this approach until June 23?

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister of State (Federal-Provincial Relations)): Honourable senators, first of ail, Senator Thériault referred to francophones outside Quebec. I may remind him that the Fédération des francophones hors-Québec is in favour of ratifying Meech Lake without any changes.

Second, I will simply add that our attitude has always been constructive. We are all looking for a way to resolve the deadlock. That being said, we cannot ignore what the consequences of failure would be.

Senator Thériault: Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must know I am aware of the position of francophones outside Québec and francophones in my own province. I do not totally disagree nor do I totally agree with their positions. It is my conviction that Canada has survived since Confederation for more than 120 years, thanks to a consensus that was reached every time after long, amicable discussions.

No one has a monopoly on the right or wrong solution, whatever the problem may be. I may remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate that according to the editorials his leader is so fond of quoting, many Canadians believe that so far, the rhetoric used by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec and his principal spokesman, Mr. Rémillard, have done little or nothing to promote such a consensus.

1273

I hope they have now learned their lesson and that the attitude taken this afternoon by the Leader of the Government in the Senate points to a new strategy.

[…]

1274

[…]

THE CONSTITUTION

MEECH LAKE ACCORD—”DISTINCT SOCIETY CLAUSE”

Hon. Dougals D. Everett: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In a recent speech Mr. Chrétien stated that the original position of the Quebec Liberal Party and that of Mr. Rémillard was that the distinctiveness of Quebec’s society should be recognized in the preamble to the Constitution.

Can the Leader of the Government tell us if that demand was made by Quebec in that way, or was the demand such that the recognition of distinctiveness was to be included in the body of the Constitution?

Hon. Lowell Murray (Leader of the Government and Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations): Honourable senators, that statement is not quite accurate with regard to Quebec’s position or the position that Mr. Rémillard took on behalf of Quebec.

In any case, the point was made at the time, and an effort was made in 1982 to construct a preamble which would recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec society, linguistic duality in Canada, multiculturalism, aboriginal rights, and various features that go to make up the Canadian identity.

For whatever reason, the effort to draft a preamble failed. In the event, two important features of Canadian society were placed in the Constitution or the Charter. One was the recognition of our multicultural heritage and the other was aboriginal rights. So that when the time came to discuss Quebec’s five conditions no preamble was on the table. The decision was made that the recognition of linguistic duality and the distinct society should be put in an interpretative clause in the body of the Constitution.

[…]

1276

[…]

MEECH LAKE CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD AND CANADIAN CHARTER 0F RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

DEBATE ADJOURNED

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senalor Beaudoin calling the attention of the Senate to the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord and to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.—(Honourable Senator Corbin).

Hon. William J. Petten: Honourable senators, Senator Corbin has asked me to state that if any other senator wishes to take part in the debate at this time, it is fine with him, as he will resume it later.

I understand that Senator Everett would like to speak on this order tomorrow. If he agrees and the Senate agrees, I will adjourn this matter in the name of Senator Everett.

On motion of Senator Everett, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.