Debates of June 7th, 1994

Supply

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think I will start over again.

This member from the Bloc can huff and puff and fume and point his finger and get as red faced as he wants. However Canadians will see him for what he is. He is a political grandstander and there is not a shred of credibility in anything he says.

Unfortunately the leader of the Reform Party has to take major responsibility for the spectacle in the House this afternoon. The leader of the Reform Party has built this trap, a trap that only the Bloc Quebecois could build.

What does the Bloc want? The Bloc wants us squabbling over the Constitution. The Bloc wants us squabbling over federalism. The Bloc wants us squabbling over Canada and that is exactly what we have had all afternoon. We have had this wrangle over our country, the greatest country in the world. The leader of the Reform Party has to take full responsibility for this spectacle.

I want to say this about the Bloc. It takes advantage of Canada's democracy. It takes advantage of our generosity. Where else in the world would we allow the Leader of the Opposition to go around the country spreading separatism and doing his level best to destroy the country?

I tell the member of the Bloc who just spoke that if he were a citizen of another country he would be behind bars. He would be in jail. However this is the kind of country that we have because we allow through his democratic rights to spread this vile separatism.

Do you know what, Madam Speaker, I will support his right to say these things, but by golly we will fight him wherever we find him. We are going to beat him at his own game because ultimately this democracy is going to succeed. We are going to defeat separatism. We are going to beat the Bloc. We are going to beat all of them, all 54 of them because this is a great country

and all Canadians realize that, as do Quebecers. So they can go all they want. We are going to win this battle.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would like to make something clear. The time allowed is 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions or comments. There are questions or comments.

[An hon. member]

There are two minutes left.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There are not two minutes left. I am sorry, but I kept track of the time very carefully. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie on a point of order.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the House whether there is unanimous consent, as we did this morning when we agreed to let a member of the Liberal Party respond. We did it this morning with great generosity.

I imagine we in the House are feeling very generous, as the hon. member opposite just said, and will give the last speaker 30 or 45 seconds, as you did this morning, I think, to respond to the comments. I therefore ask for unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House heard the motion. Does the hon. member for Roberval have the unanimous consent of the House to respond?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, after the fire and brimstone of recent minutes, which reminded me of a Wagnerian opera performed by a travelling company in a provincial town, I would like to return to the subject of the debate, which is the motion moved by the leader of the Reform Party and the amendment moved by the leader of the government in the House. That concerns the issue of constitution making in our times and this issue of federalism.

I will come back to a point raised by the Reform Party which is a criticism of the government for a failure to define what the leader of the Reform Party has said, a constitutional program for the Quebec referendum.

There is a time when it is ripe for constitution making in any society but in the majority of times, it is just not simply right. The only successful ventures in constitution making occur in a period of national euphoria, a national consensus usually following on a great military victory or a great revolution. We have not had those in Canada and therefore changes have had to be made on a basis of pragmatic incremental adjustment on a step by step basis. It has worked rather well.

A problem that is basic to the Reform Party leader's program is that there are, as President Franklin Roosevelt used to say: "Too many ifs there": if a certain party should win a certain election in a province, if it should then go on to a referendum, if it should then win a referendum, if it should then decide the majority is enough to ask for negotiations and if, finally, the other party should itself decide the numbers are sufficient to give credibility to the vote and to warrant negotiations in return.

It is a counsel of folly to suggest defining constitutional conditions for an iffy situation of this sort. A Constitution is as Mr. Justice Owen Roberts of the United States Supreme Court once said: "A constitution is not a railway excursion ticket good for one particular journey at one particular time and one particular place". The ideas you put forward have to have a long range currency.

One has the feeling that constitution making is being put forward as it was in the Mulroney era as a substitute for serious substantive thinking on economic matters. We want no more of the travelling circuses of Meech and Charlottetown. They were a failure and not the answer to the problems of the time.

If I may venture the critique of the Reform Party constitutional agenda, it is that there is an absence of a coherent overall vision. It seems to be a collection of ad hoc responses to a particular problem in which the deemed political advantage seems to be very high.

I noted and agreed with some of the criticisms made by the Reform Party on Bill C-18 but I deplore the total absence of substantive ideas on electoral reform which go to the core of the constituent process and are more important than the constitutional processes themselves.

I also wonder if the emphasis on the constitutionally acute proposals; referendum, initiative and recall do not disguise the absence of more fundamental thinking and depth on more fundamental issues such as the relationship between executive and legislative power and the need for a strong countervailing power, whether legislative or judicial, to the imperial executive that one is tended to have in Westminster derived constitutional systems today.

Finally on native Indian self-government I find enormous ambiguity that needs resolution and perhaps disguises political divisions within a party.

Let us return to the issue. What is the approach of the Liberal government on the Quebec issue? At this stage we can say there are some limiting parameters and these need to be said. The federal government has a totality of constitutional power to

control and determine the holding of a referendum by a provincial government on a subject such as leaving the federal system.

For political reasons which were no doubt right and proper in 1980 the decision was made not to exercise those. The controlling parameters today would certainly include the ability to scrutinize a question and make sure that it is clear and unambiguous and not like the deliberately cloudy formula put forward in October 1980.

Second, there is a necessary control of the timing and I think it is clear that this will be the last referendum allowed. We cannot have the country on roller skates going from one referendum to another year after year; once more, no more after.

Third, there are to be no special deals, constitutional deals made in preparation for referendum for any one province within the country. Canada is not a supermarket offering a special one day deal for one occasion at any time.

To come back to the approach of the Liberal government, is there a Chrétien doctrine? The leader of the Reform Party has suggested that there is not. I think the difference and the subtlety of the approach are well rooted in common law constitutionalism and common law constitution making. The Chrétien doctrine is closer today to the pluralistic federalism of the Pearson era, sometimes called co-operative federalism, than it is to the neo-Keynesian imperatives of the Mulroney government and to some extent perhaps the Trudeau government at certain periods.

The approach is not the Sermon on the Mount, a set of abstract a priori rules conceived in an ivory tower in the political vacuum away from concrete problems. It is essentially a pragmatic, empirical, problem oriented, step by step approach. I think this is the only one proper and possible effectively in an era of fundamental change such as we have in Canada and in the world community as a whole.

Among the considerations, to examine that sovereignty is a 19th century concept is simply out of date in a era when supernational legal engagements like the free trade agreement, like NAFTA and NATO are entered into and, as we saw in our debate on cruise missiles, are regarded as binding even if governments may think in particular cases that they were wrong, as I think our government felt in relation to the Mulroney decision on cruise missiles. We accepted it as part of our supernational obligations.

There is the passing of sovereignty even in a period of which you notice the contradictions, the survival of the contradictions, and the revival of ethnic particularism in a pathological sense as we have had in Bosnia-Hercegovina and other areas of the world.

What we really need is an operational philosophy of federalism rigorously empirical and problem oriented. Among the areas in which I think action has already been taken I will commend the emergence of this operational pragmatism in the approach to the infrastructure program which is designed to produce the economic recovery. It involves continuing and close co-operation with the provinces and with municipalities in which abstract a priori structures of government that divide power between federal and provincial governments are sensibly modified by the parties. It also involves the removal of interprovincial trade barriers and that rests on negotiation and discussion.

In my own constituency my assistants are now arguing before the electoral boundaries commissions, presenting a case. It involves a commitment to plural ethnic constituencies and not the mono-ethnic constituencies of yesteryear which are very close to 19th century approaches to multiculturalism or multinational societies.

In the area of native Indians I commend the House to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 whose debate was rudely stopped a week ago just as it was beginning.

There you do have a species of consensual pragmatism between the main parties, the native Indian leaders in the Yukon and the government in which a highly pragmatic, step by step approach to self-government within Canadian federalism and subject to the bill of rights has been worked out. I think this is a model of intelligent constitution making for the 21st century. We have arrived at it well before the 21st century.

The reform of Parliament is something to which the Prime Minister is personally committed. I think he realizes, because his approach is closer to the gentler pragmatism of Prime Minister Pearson, that Parliament has a function, that it is a necessary countervailing power to the executive. The changes that can be made here are wholly within federal power.

At the end of the day you do have a continuing, coherent constitutional process yielding precise, empirically based principles. They are problem oriented and therefore likely to stand the test of challenge of changing events.

The problem with the Sermon on the Mount is that it is an illusion created for people who want simple panaceas, divorce from concrete problem situations.

There, as I see it, is the Chrétien doctrine. It is a constitutional philosophy. As was said in Molière's Le bougeois gentilhomme , you can speak prose all your life, even though you do not recognize it. The essence of operational pragmatism is at the heart of the received common law constitutionalism we have had in Canada and which has been enriched by civil law components as well.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is a specialist on constitutional issues, made some remarks which I think should be pointed out. As to whether the question in Quebec will be clear, we told you

long ago what it would be: "Do Quebecers want Quebec to become a sovereign country?" I think that is very clear.

I will say that when it comes to clear political positions and democracy, Quebec does not have much to learn. I think of the law on party financing; in Quebec, only voters can contribute to political parties, which is not the case here, where unions and big companies can finance parties, like the Liberal Party. So it will be done very democratically, as usual.

Will there be more than one referendum? Look at history. Newfoundland joined Canada after more than one referendum. All Canadians were never asked to vote on whether they would welcome Newfoundland into the federation or not. They recognized Newfoundland's choice and Newfoundlanders made their own decision, just as Quebecers' right to do the same should be recognized.

We are also told that sovereignty is a thing of the past, a nineteenth-century concept. Does that mean for my colleague and for the Liberal Party that Canada's sovereignty is a thing of the past? If having a large unit is important, why not join the United States? Either a line of reasoning is valid or it is not. Personally, I think that Canadian sovereignty is important and that Canada should exist as an independent country, a neighbour of the United States; similarly, if it is important for Canada, I do not see why it could not be so for Quebec, which also has the right to sovereignty, just as Canada has the right to sovereignty.

I am coming to the issue of the right to self-determination. It was recognized by the NDP in the 1960s, by the Conservative Party in 1991 in Toronto and its leader, the Prime Minister, wrote in a book around 1985 that his participation in the 1980 referendum was de facto recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination.

I end with a question. The other day, my colleague and I heard Professor Jackson of Carleton tell a House committee that, the way he sees things, Quebec is a nation, even though he is for Canadian unity; he thinks that Diefenbaker was wrong to speak of "one nation" when he should have spoken of "one country".

So, his colleague, who is also a constitutionalist, spoke of the existence of the Quebec nation. I want to ask the hon. member if, as a member of the Liberal Party, which recognizes the First Nations, he recognizes that, like the First Nations, Quebec is a nation too.

This is a question which his colleague for Outremont did not deign answer the other day, for obvious reasons. However, knowing that the member is an honest constitutionalist, I want to know if he indeed considers that Quebec is a nation.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question on the referendum question. My comments only applied to the question worded in 1980. There was then a calculated ambiguity which, in my opinion, would not be acceptable today.

On the issue of political party financing, I am in favour of a comprehensive reform of the system.

As regards self-determination, there are many opportunities to exercise that right. Such a right can be exercised within a federal system, as the Yukon natives chose to do.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I ask for the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I understand that you rise on a point of order, but we cannot go on and on after each speaker.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to conclude?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Regarding the last question on sovereignty-

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The nation. Quebec as a nation.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

According to the international law, the right to self-determination is limited to peoples, not to nations. Consequently, as regards peoples, international law does not require any answer for a separation.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Is Quebec a nation?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

A nation is a group of people, there is no doubt about that. However the term "nation" is not a word-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order, please. Resuming debate.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to reiterate that today we have been listening to 19th century nationalism almost continuously all day, and I apologize to some of our viewers. It is another round of constitutional negotiation which I am sure we could do without.

I would also like to mention that we are now dealing with things like the information highway. It is not important whether we connect states, member states of a country together, but we are going to connect households throughout this nation together. French speakers in Quebec and French speakers in the maritimes will be talking to each other. What is the logic of a nation state?

It gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to discuss the future of Canada. Like so many others here this is why I came to the capital, to try to shape the direction of our great country as we enter the 21st century.

I have travelled in many parts of the world and I have taken the time not only to study these countries but also to observe my own country from their perspectives. I have recently returned from China where a party of parliamentarians went to support small and medium sized businesses there seeking new trading opportunities. In this rapidly evolving country over $250 million of new business occurred.

I note that the Reform Party which is sponsoring this motion elected not to send any representatives. I find this unfortunate because many western businesses could have benefited from its involvement. At any rate, this is part of the future for Canada, establishing new trading relationships and new friends throughout the world.

I got into a rather interesting discussion when I was there with one of its economists in the agricultural department. I have not the time to discuss the whole process, but the bottom line was that this country, one of the last remaining communist countries in the world, in pursuit of new social safety nets with respect to demographic shifts in its agrarian population elected not to study those of Canada. Why? Because it thought we were too socialistic.

I believe that Canada must enter into a new age of what I would like to call entrepreneurialism. This is not necessarily the pursuit of profit, but more the pursuit of measurable objectives for our society.

We must also redefine government's role in society. To quote the recent best selling book "Reinventing Government", I believe that it should be the purpose of government to steer and not to row. By this I mean that government should not have direct involvement in the economy, but rather state its objectives which are democratically arrived at and then create the economic climate in which these goals can be realized.

I believe that the public at large as well as government in specific need to rethink their general attitude. I do not have to mention all of the global challenges that we have witnessed in the short six months that this House has been in session. GATT, NAFTA, the information highway, to name only a few, all challenge Canada and Canadians to be better, to evolve a different spirit, to meet head on the challenges of the 21st century.

We must give government back to the people. We must change our civil service so it regards the public as its customers rather than something simply to be tolerated. Public Service 2000 and total quality management are starts but they are taking way too long to get out into the real world, that is to say to make a difference to the people in the street.

We must empower a new generation of civil servants who can take responsibility for making new changes, who are not governed by regulations and orders but rather who will be judged, remunerated and promoted based on their success in achieving goals rather than simply years of tenure.

We are talking about different facets of government that will compete for the most efficient delivery systems, where the inefficient systems are uprooted and adapt or disappear.

We are talking about a government that values investment where investment means education, training and skill development, increasing our grey matter if you will, but shuns income maintenance systems for other than those who are retired or have genuine need.

While talking about changes in attitude we must put a stop to the petty parochial nature of many of our provincial legislators. We must end barriers to interprovincial trade in the new Canada. We must realize that there are strengths in both centralization and decentralization.

The new Canada will allow that national education standards be established. At the same time local school boards will be freed to compete to see which can meet the objectives most effectively. Children and their parents should have the right to decide on their school which will add to the competitive nature of education.

Business will take a constructive role in educating students while in school. They will recognize that this is their major competitive edge in dealing in the global economy.

In the new Canada the medicare system will focus on preventive medicine rather than sickness. It will have physicians paid to keep people healthy rather than treating illness. At the same time it will be a society which recognizes the difference between need and want, where symptoms such as the common cold are not insurable coverage. Physicians will be paid not for the number of patients they see but rather remunerated based on the number of patients they do not see, that is to say on the wellness of the population.

We are talking about a justice system that will focus on the causes of crime rather than on incarceration and the support of penal institutions, a system that realizes that crime prevention is far less costly to administer than long term incarceration.

We are talking about a country that will realize that unemployment is a success of our system rather than a failure. It will reduce the hours of required employment, a shorter work week, a method of spreading unemployment equally throughout the country.

It will empower our native communities to take control of their own economic future and restore the pride of their once great nations.

It will realize that single mothers living in poverty is a disgrace of our system. It will create more day care to allow these people to re-educate and find employment in the new economy, empowering both themselves and their children. Even

day care centres will compete for the most efficient delivery of educational skills for our youth.

In agriculture we will develop more competitive marketing systems. We will adjust to changes in international trade. We will become more efficient in areas in which Canada has an advantage.

Mostly this will deal with the technology of feed additives, selective breeding and artificial insemination and the use of environmentally friendly farming practices. Most important, the new Canada will realize that to empower people is the ultimate tool, to allow people to control their own economy and destiny. This is the strength of a new entrepreneurial country.

May I interject to note that this is not the narrow hierarchical nationalism espoused by those in the Bloc Quebecois, a nationalism that wants to take our fellow Canadians down the pathway to the 19th century, where we keep the rural population sequestered as a source of cheap labour and food due to their inability to reach out and participate in the world.

I am not talking about the dominance of one society over another. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can remember when Toronto was a bastion of English elite. No more. The original English stock is a minority in the city and its society is better for it. There are signs in Greek, Italian and yes, French. These are some of the new pathways which Quebec and the rest of Canada must follow together. These are the pathways to a healthier standard of living and a content society.

I am not talking about dollars and cents. I believe that this new spirit of entrepreneurial government will also recognize the new emerging family values and place greater importance on well adjusted children.

In conclusion, I want to say that the current economic restructuring has forced us to rethink who we are and where we want to go, a new entrepreneurialism where everyone shares in the success and participation of a new society and a new Canada in the 21st century. This is our challenge to the way we do government and the way we deal with one another. This is the future for Canada and all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk on this unity debate. The comments that I have heard from members across the floor do cause me some concern. They seem to feel that if we hide from the problem, if we do not recognize that this debate is taking place across the country, if we ignore it, it will go away. It will not go away. It is very important that this debate take place in this House so that we can be in step with Canadians across this land.

I would like to focus my speech this afternoon on that in which all Canadians hold a great deal of pride. That is the law and order issue.

Law and order has always been important to all Canadians. What other country has a national symbol that is a police force? An example of the importance of law and order can be demonstrated by the contrast between Canada and the United States and how these two countries developed and opened the western frontiers over 100 years ago.

With a few notable exceptions the Canadian west grew up in a very orderly fashion due in large part to the Northwest Mounted Police arriving in the west before large scale European settlement.

The success of the Mounties can best be illustrated by the story of the American cavalry escorting the Sioux back to Canada after the Battle of the Little Big Horn. A large, heavily armed U.S. cavalry escorted thousands of members of the Sioux tribes where they were met at the border by two Mounties. When the officer in charge of the cavalry force asked the Mounties where the rest of their force was, the answer was: "He's behind the hill cooking our breakfast".

This little story is an example of how the two countries developed different attitudes toward law and order. With Canadians there has been an expectation of law and order, a respect for it. We frequently compare ourselves with the United States to show that we are not really a violent country. Unfortunately compared to other developed countries we seem to have become one.

All Canadians are not happy about it. We are not satisfied that this is where we want to be. Citizens across this country have that same expectation of law and order that we had 100 years ago. We want respect for law and order to once again be an integral part of our society.

We want the feeling of security in our homes and on our streets. We would like to be able to leave our doors unlocked without having to worry about being robbed. We would like to be able to stroll through parks of our communities in the evenings without the threat of being mugged.

We would like to be able to offer assistance to strangers in need without the fear of being assaulted. We would like to be able to let our children play in neighbourhood parks alone without the fear of abduction. Students would like to be able to go to school without worrying about their fellow classmates carrying guns and knives.

Canadians would like to be able to do all of these things, but we are afraid. For the past 20 years the country not only seems to have got more violent but it has. I could use a whole litany of statistics but I am only going to use one.

In 1971, 203.9 violent crimes were recorded per 100,000 population. In 1991, 20 years later, 1,099 violent crimes were recorded for every 100,000 population, an increase of 500 per cent. That is a 500 per cent increase in 20 years. Why this increase? There does not seem to be any definitive explanation for it.

Some try to minimize this trend. Some try to suggest that the crime statistics show that there has not been an increase in crime. I would suggest that this figure shows that there has been an increase in crime and it is time that we recognized it.

We can talk about some suggested root causes like poverty, the lack of education and all sorts of other things. These things do not explain why crime crosses all social economic boundaries. If we knew what the real root causes of crime were, we could go after them but since we do not know we have to deal with the symptoms.

My party is here with a clear mandate from its constituents to do something about the crime problem, not to ignore it, not to rationalize it, but to do something to turn it around. As the Liberals heard from their chief pollster at their policy convention last month, in major urban centres crime is the number one issue.

It is not the Reform Party that is leading the call for change. It is the people of Canada. There are very few issues where the people in this country are united but I would suggest to this House that the concern about safety in our communities and safety in our streets is a concern that is shared from sea to sea to sea without exception.

In my last householder, I included a question about changing the age limit in the Young Offenders Act to 10 to 15-year olds. I received almost 3,500 responses. That is an 8 per cent return. Over 90 per cent agreed with this change. In addition, many of those who disagreed stated that the act should be abolished entirely.

How can any politician ignore the will of such an overwhelming majority of the population? Those who will not listen, who refuse to accept the fact that we have a problem with crime in our streets do so at their own peril. If they really think that Canadians are going to wait a good deal longer for action, for a government to start showing some concern, they are dearly mistaken.

Our job is very simple in this House of Commons. As a member of Parliament, I think we can start doing something and do it quickly. What we have to do in this Chamber is that in every aspect of criminal legislation we need to follow one principle. That principle is that the protection of society has a greater priority than the rights of the criminal. We have to send a strong message to all Canadians that violence against other Canadians is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

In my community, a husband murdered his wife. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and got five years. That is five years for murdering a Canadian.

Let us remove the dangerous offenders from society until such time as society can be assured they are no longer dangerous. Let us get the Fishers and the Barlows off our streets so people can feel safer. Let us get the non-violent offenders out of our prisons and have them repay their debts to society in a more constructive manner, for example by restitution, community work service, or the like. Let us make sure our criminal justice system is swift, fair and consistent. Let us return the control of the streets in our communities back to the average citizens.

Canadians across this great country are demanding change. We have the legislative tools to help accomplish this. It will be a great disservice to this country if we fail to fulfil this demand and to react and deliver back to Canadians their communities and their streets.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member would like us to believe that only Reform Party members are concerned about safety in this country, that only they are concerned about crime. That is not true. We on this side are just as concerned and sometimes just as befuddled by crime as they are.

I am concerned about how in her remarks she glosses over the causes of crime. In fact she said that we do not know the causes of crime, which I do not think is true. If she were to ask herself that again she would have to answer that we know most of the causes. They relate to family dysfunction, substance abuse, poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of hope, racism. Those are many of the sources of crime.

If the member does not think those are the sources of crime, if she really thinks we should treat only the symptoms, I would ask her about the problems facing the aboriginal community. Why do so many aboriginals fill our jails? For example, why in my province is well over half of the jail and penitentiary population made up of aboriginals?

It is self-evident. It is because aboriginals unfortunately share more family dysfunction than anyone else. They suffer more racism than anyone else. They suffer from poverty more than anyone else. They suffer from the lack of hope more than anyone else, and so it goes. That is the reason aboriginals fill our jails.

It is nonsensical for the member to suggest we can ignore the sources of crime, that we can ignore the causes of crime and treat only the symptoms. We will never get to the solutions if we do not focus on the sources of crime. We can build all the jails in the world. We can have all the punishments and all the deterrents, but as long as the mills keep grinding and turning out young criminals, it will be an endless process.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, nobody is suggesting to ignore some of the causes of crime. However to suggest that all poor people are potential criminals, to suggest that all single parent families are creating criminals is totally unfair. These groups are getting very tired of taking the blame for producing the criminals.

As I mentioned in my speech, crime crosses all socioeconomic boundaries. One man who killed his wife was an engineer. Many of the people in our jails have very well established professions and have crossed the bounds. Yes, drug and alcohol abuse is a cause of crime. We should be treating that not by locking people up in a prison but by treating the illness from which they suffer. Yes, poverty does put people in a vulnerable position but it is not the only cause of crime. To pretend that it is and to hide by saying: "Let us attack the root causes of crime and ignore the symptoms", is foolhardy. We need to do both and one cannot be done at the exclusion of the other. We can address the symptoms of crime now and we can deal with the more long term problem starting now. The results of crime prevention will not be seen in the next year or two. It will take five or ten years for the results of crime prevention to have any kind of impact.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately the way the Reform Party would handle the Constitution is the same way it would handle crime, rather simplistically.

A point needs to be made to the Bloc which has been making a great day of this. The Meech Lake accord did not receive popular support, but it did receive the support of three Canadian Prime Ministers from the province of Quebec: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and certainly the present Prime Minister. That is important. The Charlottetown accord unified this country. It was unified in turning it down.