Hansard — Wednesday, June 29, 1988, Afternoon Sitting — British Columbia Legislative Assembly

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to introduce to the House this afternoon Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith. Mr. Smith is the deputy secretary for justice in New Zealand. Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith from New Zealand are having lunch today with Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith from British Columbia. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. and Mrs. Sam Watson and their daughter Janice of Victoria, and Mr. and Mrs. Bert Bollington of Sussex, England. Would all hon. members make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: There are two people here today I would like to introduce. First, there's Mrs. Joyce Heynsbroek, who is a good friend of mine and our party, and who has been a supporter of ours for many years. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Joyce Heynsbroek.

Also in the gallery is an old political war-horse, a well-known farmer and a friend of mine over the years: Geoff Vantreight. He used to be a Saanich alderman. Over the years Geoff and I have agreed on many things, but some things we haven't agreed on. Would the House make Geoff Vantreight welcome as well.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to welcome Harry and Carol Cook from North Vancouver, who are in the area for a restful holiday. I assured them that question period in the House was one of the most restful times of the day for most of us. But apparently by the schedule, they will be denied that. But I think they'll be rewarded with a visit by His Honour. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to introduce today two gentlemen in the gallery: James Coleridge and Roy McDowall. They have been working hard with Tourism Vancouver and are here doing some work with Tourism Victoria. Please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing the same two gentlemen, only I'd introduce Mr. James Coleridge as the alderman from the city of White Rock; and also Roy McDowall from Helijet Airways. Would the House make them especially welcome on behalf of White Rock.

MR. ROSE: I take pleasure today in introducing my eldest daughter, Toni, who's in the gallery for the first time, looking beautiful, like her mother. She's coming back to British Columbia after having the privilege of teaching in California for the past three years, courtesy of the B.C. government education policy.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon are Sandra Shelford and her daughter Wendy. Sandra is the daughter-in-law of the well-known former member of this House, Cyril Shelford, and they are accompanied by Mrs. Barbara Shelford this afternoon. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is a constituent, and on behalf of the Premier and myself I'd like to ask the House to please welcome Dolena Kirkwood, who has made a fine contribution to our community and also to our local riding association. Please welcome Dolena Kirkwood.

MRS. BOONE: I notice in the gallery today a friend of mine from the wonderful constituency of Delta, my home town, and a good friend of mine. Mr. Don Anderson, from my mother's constituency as well. Would the House please welcome Don.

MR. DE JONG: Up in the members' gallery today, accompanying my wife Ann, are Henry and Alice Groothof, who are related to us: in fact. Alice is a sister to my wife, and they're farming on Sumas Prairie. Accompanying them today are Henk and Greetje Apotheker, to say it in Dutch, from the Netherlands. I would ask the House to give them a friendly welcome.

MR. ROSE: I think it's important that I give notice that I intend to raise a question of privilege at the first opportunity after His Honour has been here.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today is a former owner of the Langley Times. Would the House please welcome Gerry Maginn.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to file the annual report for the B.C. Ferry Corporation for 1987-88. I'll just advise members that this is the first issue off the press. The others won't be available until Monday, and copies will be sent to every member's office. If the courier services work as well as I expect, I'll be able to do B.C. Rail's prior to adjournment.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing orders call for a question period, and question period hasn't been called. As I read the standing orders of this House, that motion should be put to the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was agreement reached in the Legislative Assembly last night that we would dispense with question period today. I regret the hon. member for Omineca was not here, but he could perhaps be referred to standing order 8, which says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given by the House." The member was not here, the agreement was reached by members in the House, and I would presume from that that we will proceed as agreed to last evening.

MR. KEMPF: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, was a motion put to this House to that effect? I know of no such motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If he were to check with the Blues, the hon. member for Omineca would see that there was an agreement made in the House last night between the two House Leaders. It was an implicit agreement on the schedule for today's proceedings. There was no disagreement heard by

the Chair at that time, so I would rule that the agreement made between the two House Leaders — the government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — will be the format for today's proceedings.

MR. KEMPF: I will certainly accept your ruling, but I think it would be traditional if that motion were put to this House at this time, rather than have some agreement made without the party of others.

Hon. members, as you know, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in the precincts. I would ask that we just take a short recess, and if members would remain in their seats, His Honour will be here very shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Police Act
Land Title Amendment Act, 1988
Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988
Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988
Forest Amendment Act, 1988
Commercial River Rafting Safety Act
Victims' Rights and Services Act
Municipal Amendment Act, 1988
Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988
Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988
Dental Technicians Amendment Act, 1988
Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988
Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1988
Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988
Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act
Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1988
Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act
Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988
Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988
Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988
Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988
Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988
Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988
Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988
Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988
Securities Amendment Act, 1988
Nursing Statutes Amendment Act, 1988
South Moresby Implementation Account Act
Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988
Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988
Life Bible College Act
Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1988
Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice, before His Honour arrived and left, that I intended to rise on a question of privilege.

Erskine May, the great British parliamentary authority, has this to say about rights and privileges, on page 71 of his twentieth edition. Under "Breach of Privilege and 'Contempt,"' this is what is stated:

"When any of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of parliament."

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House the Attorney-General, standing in his place, stated that he was no longer able to carry on his duties because his independence and neutrality had been repeatedly interfered with by the Premier, who failed to appreciate or respect the legal and constitutional sensibility of the role of Attorney-General.

This morning — and this is why I raise this privilege now, because it's the first opportunity that we've had — the Premier's office issued a statement which, among other things, accused the former Attorney-General of lying to the House yesterday afternoon, and I quote from the press release, paragraphs three and four: "Mr. Smith's independence was at no time questioned or challenged, and to say otherwise is false." Paragraph four: "It is also preposterous to use as his reason for resigning allegations that have no substance or foundation."

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a simple disagreement over facts; it goes a great deal further than that. Attributing a falsehood or falsehoods to a former high officer of the Crown is unheard of in parliamentary history, so far as I know. Imputing false motives to a member of the Legislature from outside the House is most unparliamentary and is an attack on all members individually and collectively. Clearly someone is not telling the truth here. Either the Premier is lying in his press release when he denies meddling constitutionally and interfering with the independence of the Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General, in his resignation speech of yesterday, uttered — as the Premier says — allegations that have no basis in fact.

Whatever the case, this issue is much more than a spat. It is a serious dispute between two of the most senior officers of our government and shakes the very confidence that this Legislature has in the integrity of the present administration. If you agree, Mr. Speaker, I will move for a special committee of privilege to be struck to investigate this matter.

Let me close by reminding the House of the Speaker's role in deciding whether or not the privilege of this House is held in contempt. Mr. Speaker does not decide contempt; that is not the Speaker's role. The Speaker's role is to decide whether there is a prima facie case and whether or not there is enough evidence to justify the House considering it. Then, when consideration is made.... Upon the completion of that consideration — and this is important — the House will decide whether or not a committee should be set up to inquire into the matter further. That is all that the Speaker's role is in this issue.

I quote from a great authority of the British Columbia House in terms of procedure, George MacMinn. In his Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia he says on page 171 in section 5, "Power of Assembly to summarily inquire and punish: "The Legislative Assembly has the rights and privileges of a court of record" — not the Speaker, but the Legislature — "to summarily inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as contempt of court, without prejudice to the liability of the offender to other prosecution and punishment, the following...." It covers a series of things that are thought to be contemptuous. I will quote just one citation over on the next page: "giving false evidence, prevaricating or otherwise misbehaving in giving or refusing to give evidence or produce papers before the Assembly."

Mr. Speaker, there are extreme cases to which we could go, including summoning the Attorney-General to the bar of the House. We're asking now for the Speaker to consider the case I have made. Should consideration be given positively, then I will be very pleased to put forward the motion required.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker —and I didn't want to interrupt when the member opposite was making his comments — I must ask for a withdrawal, in the sense that there was a reference made about one member lying about another member in this House. I feet that should be withdrawn immediately before I make any further comment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, an interesting proposition made by my friend opposite dealing with comments made outside of the House about a current private member.... Let us consider that when the member for Oak Bay spoke yesterday, in his comments about retiring from this House, he made certain comments about proceedings of the executive council and how he had been treated. He made these — and I think this is important — before orders of the day were called. Then the Leader of the Opposition was allowed an appropriate reply.

I think that there might have been cause yesterday, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 35, for the opposition to move for adjournment for special purposes to discuss this case, because the facts, as have been presented now by the opposition House Leader, are in fact no different than were presented by the Attorney yesterday when he resigned.

However, the opposition leader had that opportunity, did respond to the resignation speech of the member for Oak Bay — this was all done before orders of the day — and therefore I would say the only recourse available to the opposition would be leave under standing order 35, which by now has expired.

MR. SIHOTA: Just in response to what the government House Leader said, first of all this is a....

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the member that he's not on the floor to respond to the government House Leader, but to advise the Speaker, if he can assist me in any way in ruling on this standing order.

MR. SIHOTA: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I should bring, then, to your attention the following facts: first, that the earliest opportunity really is today, because in the time between when the former Attorney-General — if I can refer to him that way — made his statement and today, we've had a subsequent statement by the Premier, which raises the matter of the truth or falsity of statements made by the former Attorney-General. It is as a consequence of the statements made this morning by the Premier that this matter is being raised now and, hence, at the earliest opportunity.

I am quoting here, Mr. Speaker, from the renowned text Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, written by Mr. MacMinn, wherein all sorts of examples are provided of statements made outside of the House. The fact that the statements were made outside of the House is not by itself a bar to the raising of these matters or to the consideration by the Speaker of these matters. Certainly they can be and have been taken into account by the Speaker.

I would draw the Speaker's attention in that regard to page 176 of the text that I referred to, where examples are given of a newspaper report containing an imputation against a Chairman of an estimates committee, the disruption of a meeting of a subcommittee outside London, the service of a writ to a member and an alleged assault on a doorkeeper during a division. All of these events occurred outside of the House. There are several others listed here.

It's my submission, therefore, that one cannot simply reject the matter raised by my learned friend the opposition House Leader on the basis that the statements were made outside the House. I want to emphasize firstly that this is the first opportunity, and secondly that the comments made by the Premier this morning ought to be germane to your consideration of this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their input, and I will defer my decision until later today.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise under standing order 35 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the danger to the guarantee that all Canadians should depend upon to have a justice system that is impartially administered. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that yesterday the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith) stood in his place as the Attorney-General and the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown and advised the House that he was obliged to resign because he perceived that the traditional independence of that office was threatened by the actions of the Premier.

The member from Oak Bay is a grievous loss to the government, and British Columbia is the poorer because of the reduced role of the Attorney-General. But the issue is not the honour of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. The issue is that the impartial administration of justice in British Columbia is no longer guaranteed by this government for our people.

I think the lack of appreciation of law and due process of this administration is demonstrated by the way the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head's successor was purported to be appointed by the Premier. We were advised that the acting Attorney-General is the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch); however, there was no cabinet order in existence that we were aware of to confirm that as of 11 o'clock this morning.

Basically the Premier does not understand the relationship of the law of the land to his office. Lord Denning put that issue very succinctly, as only he could do, when he told the cabinet minister before him: "To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, be you never so high the law is above you."

There is a definite crisis in the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia. If the Premier and the former Attorney-General disagree about the facts — that is one thing that has been mentioned by the hon. Opposition House Leader — the public is entitled to be assured that the impartial administration of justice which we have enjoyed for over 100 years will continue and that the police, prosecutors and the Attorney-General will not be subject to political direction from the Premier's office. We are entitled, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to raise this very important matter under standing order 35. I would seek leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would be simple to say that my previous argument applies in this case, except in this case I'm on far firmer ground and the opposition is on far slipperier ground. Let me read standing order 35 again: "Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before orders of the day are entered on."

The hon. member for Oak Bay made his statement yesterday prior to orders of the day being called. Following that, I note from Hansard that a response was given by the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it was a ministerial statement and the response was allowed for. If the Leader of the Opposition felt that this matter was so emergent that it required adjournment of debate, then he should have appropriately made his appeal under standing order 35 then. This is 24 hours later, orders of the day were called and the Leader of the Opposition had appropriate time to respond. I see it here in Hansard. He failed to petition under standing order 35, and I would submit, therefore, that his opportunity for standing order 35 has failed.

MR. ROSE: I'm very pleased that the government House Leader has come out in favour of my privilege motion, although didn't expect him to do it under standing order 35.

Could I just respond briefly by saying that we've always given the government an opportunity to respond to standing order 35, and we extend this courtesy now. There was no reason to raise the matter yesterday, because at that time there was no dispute between the facts of the ex-Attorney-General and the Premier.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By agreement, I call government orders on resolutions, and I call Resolution 73 in the name of the hon. Premier of British Columbia: a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. [See appendix.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this debate on ratification of the Meech Lake accord is a historic occasion. This agreement stands as a very significant event for all Canadians as one of the final steps to be taken in this stage of Canada's constitutional evolution.

Today you, as members of our Legislature, are being asked to add your voices to those in support of this great act of modern nation building. By doing so, we will move our nation one step closer towards completing the Canadian constitutional family. The accord not only completes the work left unfinished when Quebec was left out of the 1982 agreement which led to the patriation of the Constitution, but it does so on terms fair to Quebec, fair to British Columbia and fair to all Canadians.

The accord is the result of a unanimous agreement reached by the first ministers of Canada after a considerable period of constitutional consultation, debate and negotiation. The process leading up to the accord marks a new approach to federalism in Canada which is marked by flexibility, cooperation, compromise and conciliation as opposed to confrontation and divisiveness which marked the Trudeau era.

The accord is important for all Canadians. It allows Quebec to fully and actively participate in our constitutional development, while at the same time recognizing the principle of the equality of all the provinces. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how could the important work of constitutional reform carry forward in this country without the participation of one quarter of its people. That is why, in Edmonton in 1986, I joined the premiers of all provinces in agreeing to put the resolution of Quebec's constitutional isolation at the top of our reform agenda. Our feeling was unanimous that as soon as Quebec's re-entry to the constitutional fold had been properly and fairly secured, then the discussion of other important issues could begin. To further exclude Quebec from the constitution is to stand in the way of the many reforms that the people of British Columbia seek to strengthen our role in Canada's Confederation.

The positive spirit in this approach has proved successful. Quebec has rejoined the Canadian constitutional family. Their Legislature and others across our nation are ratifying this historic agreement. It is time for us to do the same. This historic document represents the best features of cooperative federalism in Canada. It is a product of the cooperation and compromise that marked these important discussions. The amendment before us embodies that cooperative spirit and calls on all parties to make it continue in all our future discussions.

Canada and Confederation cannot afford a situation where a province — whether it be Quebec, B.C. or any other province — is on the outside looking in. But the Meech Lake

accord does much more in terms of nation building than simply guaranteeing Quebec's entry into the constitution. It sets in motion an overdue process to give Canada's Pacific province a real say in the central institutions of Canada. It ensures that provinces must be equal and active partners in the process and is a call to continue our efforts for meaningful reform of central institutions such as the Senate and Supreme Court.

This amendment is a vital first step down the road to more reform. Some have argued the accord is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, no law is perfect. Some have argued that unanimity is a roadblock to future reform. Unanimity is as much a protection as a hurdle. It is protection of fundamental respect for our provincial equality. I would remind members that unanimity settled the difficult issues of Quebec's inclusion at the constitutional table, much to the surprise of the professional skeptics. It is essential that we carry that political will to future reforms. If we do, there will be consensus and there will be unanimity, and once again we will confound those skeptics.

I urge hon. members to give their consideration to those aspects of the accord which represent the new face of Canadian federalism. British Columbia now has a greater say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. The accord also recognizes our right as a province to have a greater say in the development of new shared-cost programs, rather than being subject to unilateral federal actions in areas that, after all, are exclusively in provincial jurisdiction.

We have also entrenched the annual first ministers' conference on the economy, another significant instrument of national reconciliation. When governments sit down and listen to each other, it does not mean they always have to agree, but formalizing regular and open lines of communication means there are far more opportunities for agreement, consensus and cooperation. By entrenching our annual first ministers' conference on the economy, our governments will have a real opportunity to harmonize our economic strategies and plan for the future.

Another important recognition of the equality of the provinces is in the provision giving us the right to negotiate our own immigration agreement, targeted to our needs, with the federal government. This is a provision our province has long sought, and it is one we look forward to implementing.

Another aspect of the agreement important to B.C., is reform of the Senate. The accord gives provinces a greater say in the appointment of senators, an important step in the right direction. We are now on a path to bringing new relevance to the upper House as a credible and effective forum for main regional concerns. Through a process aimed at more fundamental reform, western Premiers endorsed in Parksville the principles embodied in the triple-E Senate concept. The accord's entrenchment of annual first ministers' conferences on the constitution explicitly provides that the first of these conferences, to be held this year, will address this vital issue of Senate reform.

I am not overstating the case by saying the history of constitutional reform and the history of Canada are about one and the same. In entrenching the requirements for annual first ministers' conferences on the constitution, we have made this historical and political reality a legal and constitutional reality. Keeping the reform process alive bodes well for British Columbia. The government of British Columbia looks forward to round two of constitutional reform as a further step towards building a more equitable federation, starting with the issue of Senate reform.

We will continue to fight for what is right for British Columbia. We will not rest until we have received our fair share and rightful role in Confederation. To the critics who suggest this accord was hammered out in a hasty, all-night session in the Langevin Block, I say: look at the last two decades of Canadian history, years that have been agonizing and frustrating for all Canadians. The Meech Lake accord heals those wounds and gives us the impetus to move on to new horizons.

Since the accord was reached a year ago, Canadians have had ample opportunity to study the deal. They have had the opportunity to contribute to and listen to the views expressed, both for and against, during the parliamentary special joint committee hearings. The expert testimony received and the conclusions reached through those national committee hearings confirm our belief that evidence does not exist which would cause us to ask for the accord to be reopened. It is my belief that a much greater threat lies in a reopening of the accord, in which case there would most certainly be a throwback to the days of disunity. It is time to focus on the future, because while not a perfect solution to the many complex questions in our constitutional life, the accord represents a balanced resolution of issues that have dogged constitutional talks for years.

While federal governments have used the spending power in the past, it often brought loud protests from provinces and contributed to a climate of confrontation in federal-provincial relations. Instead, the Meech Lake accord civilizes the use of the spending power. It squarely faces up to the fact that provinces have always had — and sometimes used — the right not to participate in shared-cost programs. It provides for reasonable compensation to non-participating provinces that carry out their own programs or initiatives, but only if these are compatible with the national objectives. This will give provinces freedom to tailor programs to their special needs. These arrangements will result in a healthy bargaining process that will encourage provinces to meet national objectives.

The accord is also important in that it unblocks the constitutional reform process. By ensuring Quebec's full participation in the constitutional reform process, the accord lays the foundations for solid and lasting progress on many other issues. By providing for annual constitutional conferences of first ministers, the accord will end a history of federal-provincial differences over the timing of such conferences. This will let us get on with such important issues as Senate reform, fishery roles and responsibilities, and other matters. In fact, Senate reform will be on the agenda until reform is achieved.

This round of talks was not designed to solve all our constitutional problems in one grand sweep. Its purpose was to restore Quebec to our constitutional family as a full and enthusiastic member, and in this it has succeeded. Quebec's full participation in further constitutional talks is essential to solid and lasting progress. It is an essential first step. Concerns not dealt with in the Meech Lake pact can and will be raised at the annual constitutional conference of first ministers which will begin this year. British Columbia anxiously awaits this all-important round two.

Let me close by saying that federalism in Canada today is an evolutionary process. A constitution must recognize and reflect these economic, social and political realities. That is

what the Meech Lake accord is all about. In addition to repairing the significant gap left in our constitutional life by Quebec's non-acceptance of the 1981 constitutional package, the Meech Lake accord fully respects and recognizes the important principle of the equality of the provinces.

For these reasons, I believe the approach taken by some critics who attempt to assess who won and who lost by virtue of the Meech Lake accord is thoroughly misguided. The accord made all Canadians winners. The approach of cooperation, constructive compromise and openness to change is, in my view, in the best spirit and tradition of Canadian Confederation. It is an approach which will, I am confident, lead to even greater things in the months and years ahead.

I call on all members to share in endorsing this historic act. I urge them to exercise foresight in keeping the process moving. In the interests of all British Columbians and all Canadians, I ask this. I support this resolution today as a proud British Columbian and a proud Canadian. I call on all hon. members to say yes to the resolution and yes to a stronger and more united Canada.

MR. HARCOURT: I too rise to support this motion. I believe bringing Quebec formally into the Canadian family and granting la belle province its rightful place in Confederation is an important and indeed very happy occurrence. This is a long-overdue completion of the first round of nation building. We are all one family now.

We have, as a country, evolved from, first of all, a number of colonies — Upper and Lower Canada, the Maritimes — to the creation of our country in 1867, with four provinces and approximately four million people. Canada was formed under the British North America Act, which left us with a constitution decided in another country. However, we proceeded over the next many decades to add new territories and provinces, including our own, the province of British Columbia, in 1871.

In that process we became the second-largest country in the world. We have had several constitutional changes, including the Statute of Westminster. It wasn't until 1981, 114 years after the birth of Canada, that we became a country not just in fact but in reality, with the repatriation of our constitution. Some would say that's the Canadian way: slow and steady progress. With it, we have created a country and a province that are the envy of most areas of this world.

That process of nation-building was not completed in 1981. Our second-largest province, the home to seven million Canadians, was not brought into the constitution. We were unable to deal with that and other important issues then, but now we've been presented with the Meech Lake accord, in only the fourth time in Canadian history that unanimity among the partners has been reached on a constitutional amendment — an altogether rare example of cooperative federalism.

With this accord we are bringing Quebec proudly and fully into the Canadian family. Quebec said yes to Canada in 1982 in the referendum, and now we are saying yes to Quebec here today. For me, and for many others on this side of the House, we are prepared to play our part.

However, I want to make it very clear that I have very serious disagreements with this accord, as do New Democrats across this country. No disagreement on the substance of bringing Quebec into Confederation.... This is the completion of the first round of nation-building, but all of us New Democrats agree that by no stretch of the imagination is the process of building this great country of ours over.

I'd like to touch briefly on some of the disagreements we have about the Meech Lake accord: (1) equality for women; (2) aboriginal self-government; and (3) a fair deal for the north. We want Canadian leaders to bring in constitutional amendments that will deal with equality rights for women, to exercise an abundance of caution and to deal with some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed not just by a number of women in this country but by men as well who feel that the constitution should be amended to deal with some of those concerns about equality rights for women.

As well, we believe that bringing about equality for women is not just going to be done through the constitution, but that there is a need to address the question of affordable and accessible child care, a need for transition homes for battered women and children and a need for us to bring in proper pay equity to deal with the poverty of women. All of these are not dealt with in the constitution but have got to be addressed by members of this Legislature and legislatures right across this country.

We also ask our political leaders to ensure — and I would like the Premier to give this assurance — that the aboriginal constitutional talks will be put back on the table. The aboriginal people of British Columbia and this country have the unfinished business of self-governing, as do we. The people who have been here many, many centuries have legitimate claims. I have spoken to many native leaders in British Columbia, and I want to assure you they will never give up. As Simon Lucas, that great orator, hereditary chief of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council has said: "We are patient because we know that we are dealing with not just our future but the future of our children and our children's children, and we know who we are and where we have been and where we are going." That long-term perspective we should all share as we build British Columbia, but we have to address this unfinished item of nation building and of constitution creating.

Finally, we want the political leaders of Canada to not make it prohibitive in a few decades for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to also have the opportunity to become provinces. The accord now requires unanimous consent for the provinces, which is a greater level of consensus than was required for any of the other provinces.

There are other concerns that members of my caucus will be discussing, including the impact of the accord on our social programs and the issue of the Senate. We've heard mention of the triple-E Senate. We, of course, as New Democrats, would like to see the triple-A Senate — abolish, abolish, abolish. It is like a third leg. It is an unnecessary appendage on the body politic. We'll also be discussing the questions of judicial appointments and workers' rights.

We on this side of the House do, indeed, have reservations about the Meech Lake accord; however, as elected political leaders, I believe the ball is now in our court. With progressive and fair and open leadership, we can address the concerns many Canadians have with this accord. That is why I have asked the Premier to ensure that equality for women and aboriginal rights are placed right back at the top of the agenda in the next round of nation building.

We know that if the federal government has the political will to do so, it can establish national objectives such as accessible, affordable, quality child care under the shared cost program arrangement. It would be pretty difficult for

any province that joined in to then spend that money elsewhere. So it is a question of political will and progressive leadership.

Before I take my place, I want to make one last comment about the procedure that brought us to the Meech Lake accord. It was a process that the Premier alluded to that can best be described as a midnight patchwork of the constitution. It was, indeed, hastily assembled in two late-night sessions of the first ministers. Now, as a result, we have an accord that appears unable to bear detailed scrutiny, to absorb legitimate objections, or even to accept basic repair. We think that is unfortunate, that it's all or nothing, that we couldn't have accommodated some of these changes in this Legislature and in the Parliament of this country.

We're simply not prepared to accept this method of nation building. It is distasteful to us and must be reformed. We need a more open, participatory process for the people of this country to participate in constitutional evolution and changes to our country.

We recognize that this is a flawed and imperfect document. We realize that there are many people who are bitter and angry about it. We would hope that this government will have a second look and will resolve the outstanding disagreements in our country. We believe there is still much to be done, but we also believe it is our responsibility as Canadians to bring Quebec into our family. We are prepared to play our part here today in giving approval to the Meech Lake accord,

To improve the accord, we tabled some amendments last night. Those were agreed to and accepted by the House Leaders for the government and for the opposition, and some members of our caucus will be directing their comments towards some of those amendments.

Let me conclude my remarks today by quoting a Canadian statesperson, Henry Wise Wood, from earlier in this century, who said: "True progress can come only as a result of thoughtful, continuous, cooperative effort. This progress will be necessarily slow, but it must be continuous." That is the Canadian way. The Meech Lake accord represents progress; slow progress, yes, but that progress must be continued. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GUNO: May I say, first of all, that I rise with some mixed feelings to engage in this so-called debate on the future of our country.

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, we're engaged in a meaningless exercise, in some ways overshadowed by yesterday's events. I think that the resignation of the Attorney-General demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of this government.

This whole exercise reminds me of T.S. Elliot's poem, "The Hollow Men," and it goes:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dry voices when we whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless.

That's what this debate is all about. It's meaningless; it doesn't mean a thing. But this is a forum for us who have strong concerns about this resolution, and I intend to take every opportunity to express my concerns.

We are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to debate this very fundamental matter, but as an afterthought. There's not even a pretence that we're going to consult the people of British Columbia. The Premier says it was a frustrating exercise. Well, I guess the exercise of getting the trains on time is a frustrating exercise. The democratic exercise is a very difficult one — sometimes frustrating; most times time-consuming — but it's the best process that we have. And I think that this whole process has ignored that.

I have no illusions that the amendment that we're going to introduce will be adopted, so I'll speak on the main motion, and I do that with full knowledge that it will not be adopted. But again, as I say, this is a forum, and I think we ought to take every opportunity to express our concerns.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, first of all, that my position in no way means that I'm against the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. That is a historical fact. We only have to listen to their music; we only have to read their literature; we only have to hear of their aspirations. So I think every effort should have been made to make the fact that Quebec is a distinct society in Canada a reality; every effort should have been made to make that possible.

But the Meech Lake accord and this resolution, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate that no real effort was made. In fact, it was done in haste, in secrecy, by a roomful of men, overnight. This accord, Mr. Speaker, as history will show, will do much harm to our Canadian nationhood. We will, by excessive decentralization, have weakened the ability of this nation to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

What we have to remind ourselves is that we are not just British Columbians or Quebecois; we are Canadians. In fact, the very reason why the Fathers of Confederation forged a nation was to build a very unique experiment, an experiment that would build a federal state, one that would balance the need for reasonable aspirations with the need for a strong central state that can have creative, national initiatives.

We also have to remind ourselves that we are purportedly debating the constitution of Canada. It is not an ordinary bill. It is not one that we can just pass off as some kind of inconvenience, but a document that will determine the direction we are taking as a nation.

As I said, the Fathers of Confederation took a great deal of care in forging this nation. It was not done overnight. Neither was the constitution of 1982. There was full public input. The accord does not have that.

We also have to remind ourselves that the constitution safeguards the individual from the excessive and arbitrary exercise of government. This accord, in my humble opinion, jeopardizes those safeguards. Instead, as Brian Schwartz, a well-known constitutional expert, wrote in a recent article, what we have is a charter of Premiers. It was the Premiers who won, not the provinces and not the nation of Canada. In fact, I dare say we won a pyrrhic victory — a hollow one.

Let's look at the price that was exacted, mainly by the western Premiers. It was not a price that was asked by Quebec; it was not ever contemplated by Quebec. But first, I have to go back to the process, to the way this accord was reached, and it is one of the most troublesome aspects of this whole exercise, for it provides a precedent in nation-building that is disturbing, to say the least. There is, I think, both on a national and a provincial level, a trend toward circumventing the democratic process. We see that in the decentralization exercise of this government. We see that in free trade, where

Mr. Berger wrote a book called Fragile Freedoms — and this is fragile. The more we tinker with that freedom, the more chance of having a government that rules by edict rather than by consent. That's what concerns me about this whole process, where the elected representatives of each Legislative Assembly are told to accept something that is virtually a fait accompli. What are we then? Are we not the guardians of the freedom of people'?

Let's look at the way the north has been treated under this accord. Without their consent, without even their consultation, their basic aspirations to nationhood, to provincehood, have been denied. They have been deprived of the right to appoint someone to the Senate, to the Supreme Court. Was this what Quebec asked? You have to ask: why? What's the rationale? Can the Premier tell us? Can the government tell us why? I'll tell you, and I'll pose it as a rhetorical question. In the last four first ministers' conferences, the aboriginal people from the north have said: "We can exercise self-government through public government. We constitute a very significant minority." So we have to ask if the western Premiers, including our Premier, are afraid of that prospect, are afraid to share.

Let's talk about the aboriginal people. In the last four futile exercises — the last four first ministers' conferences — the aboriginal people were told: "We need more definition. We need more detail. We need more idea as to what you're talking about." The Premier of this province led the charge in the last first ministers' conference in sabotaging the aspirations of the native people for self-government. He sat in this House and said: "I will not buy a pig in a poke." Some weeks later he buys an accord that many constitutional experts are divided upon — what Eugene Forsey, a most notable constitutional expert, says is a cornucopia of ambiguities. Some pig; some poke.

Again, we must remind ourselves that we're dealing with a constitutional issue. It's not a bill. It's not something that's convenient for us to somehow put as the last item that we want to get through with very quickly.

When I talk about the process, there's no evidence of any consultation with the cabinet, with the caucuses, with the Legislatures, and most importantly, with the people. Brian Schwartz, the constitutional expert I quoted earlier, has condemned the process as deplorable, and if it were to be a model, then the damage to the nation and the discredit to democracy would be great. This is not a small point.

Today we witness the government increasingly circumventing the democratic process by reason of expediency in their own political agenda. We have to remind ourselves that democracy is difficult. The latest secret and hasty process, in my opinion, is an affront to our democratic way of life. I find it difficult to take this debate seriously, because we have had little opportunity to have significant input. I think it's demeaning to the role of the Legislature and elected members to have really no opportunity to debate this accord until after the fact.

We have a clique of Premiers, not necessarily the provinces they represent. It vests more authority in the Premiers than in the provinces. That is really the crux of the matter: the price exacted by the Premiers to accept constitutional recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

Take Senate reform. As a party on this side of the House, we have called for significant reform. The unanimity rule is going to make it virtually impossible to make any kind of reform. How can any Premier, especially the western Premiers in the way they have demonstrated their exercise of power lately, not take advantage of the full patronage opportunities that they have?

The Supreme Court. So far, the Supreme Court has been non-parochial. It has appointed justices who have demonstrated merit by their full knowledge of the law as it reflects on our country. Now the premiers have a hand in appointing Supreme Court justices. Quebec has an even bigger power now to appoint Supreme Court justices, and in fact, the provincial government has an even greater power than the federal government. We have to ask whether in the future we are going to be jeopardizing the effectiveness of that highest judicial body of our country in dealing with very fundamental legal issues that confront our nation.

I am fully aware that many of my colleagues are going to be supporting the main motion, and I know that they do so because they recognize the necessity of Quebec taking its rightful place in our constitution. I say that and acknowledge that, because I agree to a certain extent, but I think that the price exacted is too high. It will mean, in the end, that we will have deprived ourselves of the opportunity to grow and thrive as a nation.

I know that many of my colleagues felt that my strongest objection would be around aboriginal rights. I pointed out to them that as far as native people are concerned, it is not what is in the accord that is objectionable but what is not in the accord.

Someone said that society is judged by how well it protects the least protected in that society. For generations, native people have been the least protected. For many generations their aspirations have been ignored, and I think that the Meech Lake accord demonstrates that pattern. We as a nation will never really grow until we have taken the difficult challenge of meeting the aspirations of not only the native people but the northern people, the women, the poor. As I said, I think that the accord concentrates power in the hands of a few, and it is one that will deprive of protection the least protected.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to speak briefly in support of this resolution, the Meech Lake accord.

I think it is high time that some facts of Canadian society were recognized. I believe that Quebec has taken a unique position in some respects. They are not within the constitution now. They are not at the table, and this Meech Lake accord brings them to the table. I also believe that it is progress. It represents the best effort of many years of discussion by many people to bring together all of the provinces of Canada so that things can be discussed among them.

I think it confirms some provincial rights that exist. It does give us a greater say in some areas, and it means that there are some programs that we can do our way, without having the tax money that goes from British Columbia spent elsewhere because we do not agree with a particular program. It allows us to do the programs the way we see fit in British Columbia, as long as it's along the same lines, and without our being financially punished for that. I think it's important that it no longer leaves some conferences to the whim of whoever happens to be there. It confirms that conferences will be held at regular intervals.

I'd like to comment on one of the concerns that people have about the requirement for unanimity. I really believe that

unanimity is the best way to achieve results. It is not the easiest way, but it certainly is the best way. If a person chooses to be critical, it is fairly easy to be critical. If a person can stand fast on a particular position in the full security that the majority will pass it anyway and the progress of this country will go on, that person can maintain that particular position as a critic or as someone who does not agree. They can serve a particular constituency in that light, secure in the knowledge that it will be passed by a majority anyway. When unanimity is required — when a person cannot just remain as a critic — that person has to make a decision as to whether his or her position is strong enough to choose to stop something from happening or whether he or she can make a compromise. I think that can be quite important. It's the difference between remaining against something or having to make the decision about stopping something from happening.

I can tell you this: since I have been Minister of Education and a participant in the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, I at first wondered whether anything could be accomplished or achieved, because we could not reach decisions at the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education on the basis of majority vote. It had to be a consensus in order for a decision of the council to go ahead. There were many things that prevented it from happening, because there was disagreement and the disagreement remained; but there were also many things accomplished, even with the consensus.... Believe me, having chaired many meetings and many groups in my life, it was a rather interesting experience to be chairman of the Canadian ministers for one year, and at each of the meetings, having to have the members around that table thrash out a problem and compromise both ways until consensus could be reached, because there was no authority to make a decision by majority vote. What seemed at first to be a great obstacle in that year's experience with the CMEC, I found to be actually a considerable advantage.

So I believe it can work. I believe that people can reach agreement. When they do and they make the necessary compromises, it gets you the best results. I also know that if, in trying to reach that consensus, you have to sell everyone else around that table that it is important, then you have to be more careful about what you bring forward, and you can count on the support of the entire group once the decision is made. If you only have to convince a majority to vote in your favour, then it is possible to disregard what the minority may think, because you can get your way if you can sell it to two-thirds of the group. If you have to sell it to all of the group before it will proceed, you have to work harder at it. You may lose some, but the ultimate and final result is a much improved system.

There are a great many things that could be discussed in the Meech Lake accord, but I would like to think that, as in some provinces, there has been a high degree of support for this marvellous step in improving our Canadian fact: all provinces at the table and the possibility of reaching even further into the future to adjust to our changing society as necessary, so that other rights now being asked for can be brought into the agreement and we can all have a better Canada as a result.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want, as I begin my comments this afternoon, to acknowledge and pay special tribute to the speech of the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), as one of the finest speeches I have heard in my time in this House. I just wanted, perhaps on behalf of all of us sitting in this House, to acknowledge the depth, the integrity and the commitment of those remarks. They were an outstanding contribution to our discussion and our deliberations this afternoon.

The member for Atlin dwelt at some length on the process by which we have arrived at this time and debate in this House this afternoon, and I want to spend just a few moments reflecting on that process as well. Many of us can look back to the other time when we had some opportunity to be involved with nation-building, with the bringing home of our constitution, with the forging of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the balancing of the roles of the federal government and the provinces in constitution-building. All of us will perhaps remember what a dynamic time that was, a time when many people throughout this land were engaged in active debate about what should be in the constitution which was being renewed, what should be in the first constitutional charter this country had known in 121 years of its history, which we will be celebrating on July 1. We know that it involved coalition-building, consensus-building, challenges in the courts, the setting of precedents and very historic events in which all of us were meaningfully involved either directly or through our following of that process.

I want to contrast that with the events that have produced this second major constitutional renewal: two meetings of first ministers, albeit building on work that had been done in the past, and a resolution which was forged during those two meetings and which has since been presented to us as a seamless web not to be altered by a word or a phrase; not in any way to be changed, because that accord is so fragile that any of the dynamics of consultation, of public hearings, of genuine discussion in a committee or in this House, or through public hearings in this province — any of those things — would threaten it.

At the federal level there has been, over the past year and a month or two since the agreement was reached by the first ministers, a considerable amount of work done in public, both through the House of Commons and its hearing process and through the Senate, to further look at the constitutional resolution before us today. But in British Columbia we have paid the most cursory attention to that process. Within my own party there has been a very active discussion which has brought forth different points of view and concerns about the accord. Many of us have taken positions on those discussions within the councils of our own party.

However, the legislative process is one that is totally attenuated. I think it has, in the last few days, been really sullied by the means which have brought this accord to the House. Even the scheduling of this debate has been at the behest of a Premier. It has been very difficult to know when this debate would occur and if it would occur. I know that the officers of both caucuses have worked diligently in trying to facilitate the debate, but it is not one that has had the grace, dignity and importance that this particular kind of resolution should have in coming to this House. I say that with regret and with disappointment.

We are this afternoon, in the dying days of this House, able to spend as much time as we have through the due process to present our views on the accord. From my remarks, it might be assumed that I am going to be speaking in opposition to this resolution, but in fact I am supporting it. However, prior to speaking to the reasons for my support, I

want to emphasize my disappointment and my frustration at the lack of a much more extensive, public and comprehensive process in bringing this resolution to the House.

I think that all of us on both sides of the House should make a commitment that with the ongoing constitutional renewal that I think all parties have agreed to, we will not see this kind of process again. I would hope not. It is not, as my colleague from Atlin has so eloquently said, a process that is conducive to nation-building. It is not a process, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said, that can really be conducive to not necessarily unanimity, but that sense of consensus that is so important for the document which is our constitution.

Having said that, let me enter the debate now in a more substantive way around the issues that are a part of the resolution, and say first of all that I am very pleased that this resolution brings Quebec into the constitutional family. In fact, as my two sons, who have spent some time in Quebec, have noted: "Mother, you should not say 'Kweebec,' you should say 'Kaybec."' I will try to do that, to train myself that that is in fact the way it should be said. I remember that as an easterner, when westerners used to talk about Newfoundland with the emphasis on the "found" rather than the "land." So we need, in terms of that nation-building, to also learn to speak the language as well as we can, even if it is only in how we say that name.

The inclusion of Quebec to the constitutional family is one that gives to it a recognition and a maintenance of its status as a distinct society. Indeed, I believe that the resolution enshrines many of the specific working relationships that currently exist between the federal government and that province. They include, explicitly and implicitly, language, education, immigration and health measures, all of them formulated in respect to Quebec's distinctiveness, a society that now has enshrined, both from an historical and earlier constitutional perspective, its status in Canadian society.

Some have expressed concern that that distinct society is not adequately defined, but I think the Charter, which is a part of the 1982 constitutional reforms, provides a framework for all of the aspects of this particular resolution, and particularly those relating to Quebec. The guarantee of rights and freedoms, the first section of the Charter, says that the rights and freedoms set out in it are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There will be interpretation required, and that interpretation will be, I think, something that will be the character of our constitutional work and implementation over the years ahead.

There has been, in respect to the Quebec inclusion in the constitutional family, strong concerns raised by women's groups on the exclusion of clause 28 on equality of the sexes from the new clause 16 of this resolution. That clause excludes section 25, the aboriginal rights clause of the Charter, and section 27, the multicultural rights clause of the Charter, from any impact from this particular resolution. I believe there is protection for women through the guarantee of rights and freedoms, clause I of the Charter; but I think that seamless web could very readily have been amended to include section 28 on equality of the sexes, in an abundance of caution, to ensure that the rights of women are thoroughly protected by the former and the current constitutional amendment.

I want to note also that this resolution deals with linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and I want to note it particularly because it requires all provinces to preserve this fundamental characteristic in dealing with linguistic minorities within their province. It provides, I believe, a balancing of historic and current rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the Anglophone population in Quebec, and also to the francophone populations in western Canada.

I think it is important that we as British Columbians, who have perhaps been at times less sensitive to those rights, recognize that in agreeing to this constitutional amendment, we are committing ourselves to preserve that linguistic duality in our province as well. I think the balancing there will be one that all of us should give commitment to in the future. In Quebec, and in the provinces where the linguistic minority is quite small, where we have an equal responsibility, I think it is something that we should note we have committed ourselves to work on, and that means some active work on our part in a whole range of services that should be available to francophone within this province.

I want to also note that in this discussion there has been a reference to a future constitutional amendment that would recognize as a fundamental characteristic of Canada its multicultural nature. Although that is not a part of our resolution today, it seems to me very important, as we are looking at the two founding languages, that in this province, whose fabric is enriched by its multicultural nature, we should note that as a future constitutional amendment, one that we should be preparing for and in a position to support.

There is one other part of the resolution that I want to speak to specifically; that is, the part that says:

"The government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared cost program that is established by the government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with national objectives."

Over the last 20 or 30 years, a responsible and cooperative federalism has developed in this nation, which has had a good deal of nation-building going on in areas that, under the British North America Act, our first constitution, were exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I think it's fair to note that those developments have often happened at the initiative of provinces. The most notable one I could cite would be the development of our universal health system, the Canada Health Act, the Canada health plan, which grew out of initiatives in Saskatchewan and then in other provinces, and over the years — culminating in 1983-84 — produced a national consensus on objectives that produced national standards for that health act, which is binding on all of the provinces.

It seems to me that what we have in this particular clause is the constitutionalizing, if you like, of that evolution of a process. It is one that I welcome, but with some concerns. I think there have been concerns, because as we look over the 20 years that have produced some national consensus through the political process, we recognize that this is the kind of development that can very easily be short-circuited by a government that is not committed to objectives that are clearly defined.

A very good example of that at this time is the development of a child care program in Canada — one is being developed, I believe, prior to the coming into force of this

particular resolution — where the government of Canada has failed to address national objectives and where we are in danger of balkanizing the country into a series of different programs. I believe that we do need to have the capacity for some diversity in the delivery of national programs, but that diversity should be under the umbrella of clearly defined goals and objectives.

One of the best examples we have of that is in our own education system, where clearly the province defines goals and objectives for that system and then there is an opportunity for local involvement and local decision-making at the school board level. There is no question that there are clearly defined objectives and goals in the education system provincially, and I believe that those goals and objectives should be equally clearly defined by the federal government in the areas that are exclusively of provincial jurisdiction, where they are entering into cost-sharing and program development initiatives.

That will only happen where we have the political will to make it happen, which we had with the development of the national health act. That political will was a federal political will which members of this government would have preferred to short-circuit. The user fee issue is a clear example of that. National objectives can be defined in such a way that we can have standards across this nation. This constitutional accord provides the enabling of that, but it will not, unfortunately, provide for that political will.

That is something that I think people, electors, need to keep in mind when they are choosing a government that will deal with their goals and aspirations: to elect a government that does reflect those goals and aspirations. We as a province will need to fight as well for a clear definition of those standards. I believe, in the context of cooperative federalism, that those two things should go hand in hand.

I support, too, the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition that — again, in an abundance of caution — makes it clear that there is nothing in this particular clause on the cost-sharing programs under the definition of national objectives that will derogate from the right of the federal government to pursue national programs in areas of exclusive jurisdiction or areas of shared jurisdiction. In other words, where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction it has that absolute right to not allow for an opting out and some changes that would reflect provincial goals.

In my view, a constitution is an enabling document. It is a means of setting out a framework by which a federal state —which is what this country is — will work together toward goals that meet national needs and aspirations but reflect the diversity of the country. I don't often speak about my roots, but having come from a maritime province, and having come, by the birthplace of my parents, from the place of the founding of Confederation, I have that from-sea-to-sea perspective.

I am pleased that we are now, with this resolution, a nation that is from sea to sea. We have one major set of players still not included and who feel that the process we have been involved with has compromised their role in Canada, and that's the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that if we are indeed to nation-build, we should and must do that with the consensus and the consent of all those who are governed by our constitution. As we accept this resolution, we need to be reminded that it has deficiencies, that it has excluded people who deserve not to be excluded, that it has failed to give attention to aboriginal peoples, to northern peoples and to others who need to feet a sense that they have been accorded the opportunity to participate in the process. We need to remember that with any future constitutional renewal: otherwise this particular process will be a much less productive one than it should be.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will continue constitutional renewal in an enlightened, consensus-building and involving way. I am pleased that we have come, by however poor a process. to some new initiatives with this resolution.

MR. G. HANSON: This is a very important debate. It's one that we've known was coming for some period of time. It's one that members on both sides of the House have given a considerable amount of thought to. It's not an easy decision, in the sense that it's not 100 percent A-okay. It's one that raises serious concerns, but personally, through the course of my pondering and weighing this matter, I've had to ask myself, given what I know, given what I see: what is the best for Canada?

As we know, the patriation of the constitution of Canada in 1982 was a major step, but it was done at the sacrifice of Quebec being a full partner in that process. That's outstanding business that has yet to be fully addressed, and that is the historical process that we're involved in now.

In my own personal circumstances, my family comes from Quebec. They moved to Quebec in 1804 and basically stayed on the same farm until my father left there when he was in his twenties and moved via Alberta to B.C. I've visited many times. I have a particularly warm affinity for that great province, and that has added to my consideration of this matter.

I know that if Prime Minister Ed Broadbent had presided over those meetings, we would have a different document in front of us today. Unfortunately, we were just one election out of step. Our party is committed to process, and events since these announcements illustrate the historical fact that our party is committed to a process involving people — certainly to a constitution where every Canadian must be proud. That is the goal: every Canadian must be proud of this constitution at some point in time. The problem at the moment is that there are serious deficiencies in this document.

The argument was always made that nothing could be altered or else the whole thing would unravel. That never made a lot of sense, particularly in terms of minor amendments and clarifications around equality rights for women, and what impact the distinct society clause may have on equality rights. Surely that would be something on which the gentlemen in that room that evening could have come to agreement and made sure there was no ambiguity.

My party is committed to equality for women, in reality as well as in rhetoric. We've always argued that the constitution and the Charter.... The intent and spirit of equality rights for women should be contained in the accord, so that there is no possible misunderstanding on that point. Absolutely! Our federal counterparts placed amendments in the House of Commons to ensure that the rights of women would not be diminished. Testimony was heard before the Commons on this matter. Fairness for women and the equality of rights of women in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were won a mere five years ago, through the collective struggle of thousands of Canadian women. The

"taking of 28" had great significance for the women of Canada, and section 28 continues to stand as the major statement of our country's constitutional commitment to sexual equality. We recommended that the first ministers amend section 16 of the accord and add section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a struggle that we are committed to in our party, to ensure that subsequent meetings of first ministers on constitutional amendments remove any ambiguity or confusion about equality rights for women.

The way that aboriginal people were treated in this process causes me great concern. I think that if Quebec had been a part of Canada, the appeal of aboriginal people to have native self-government and to have the constitutional meetings on native self-government defining aboriginal rights.... Quebec would have been a positive factor in those deliberations. I'm embarrassed by the position taken by my own provincial government on those matters.

That was our second major series of amendments, Mr. Speaker, and they concerned the aboriginal peoples of Canada, Canada's first citizens. We argued that we would like to see included in the accord a commitment to hold a first ministers' conference on aboriginal rights, and particularly self-government. This could have been accomplished by amending section 13 of the accord to add a new subsection (c) to section 50(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and renumbering section 50(2)(c) as section 50(2)(d).

For too long the native people — certainly of this province and of Canada — have not been recognized as first citizens with their full aboriginal rights. That is long overdue, and that debate occurs in this Legislature almost on a weekly basis. As well, we believe that aboriginal peoples and territorial governments must be assured of full participation in these first ministers' hearings. This would require a new section 50(3) to ensure the Prime Minister invites representatives of aboriginal peoples and territorial governments to participate in all matters that affect aboriginal rights.

If the proper process had been in place, I'm sure we would have overcome the ambiguity around the distinct society provisions and their impact on equality rights for women. We also would have had an aboriginal rights meetings provision in the accord. Unfortunately, those struggles lie ahead of our party, and we're committed to rectifying those.

We also have concerns about fairness — or lack of — for Canada's northern citizens. We had amendments in the House of Commons in Ottawa regarding the north. First ministers should have removed the anomaly of Canadians living in the territories being denied the opportunity available to other Canadians of serving on the Supreme Court of Canada and possibly in the Senate as well — although we are essentially for dissolving that particular body. This could be done by adding the words "or territory" after the word "province" in sections 6 and 2 of the accord, relating respectively to section 101C(l) and sections 25(l) and (2) of the Constitution Act.

First ministers should immediately address the injustice of requiring unanimous approval from the provinces for the creation of new provinces in a degree of concurrence that was not required for any of the existing provinces. The amendment would delete section 41(i) in section 9 of the accord.

The Meech Lake accord is flawed, and we all know it. It has deficiencies with respect to women's rights, native rights, the emerging provinces — particularly the Yukon and the Territories — and there are other matters that should be there to guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens of Canada.

In weighing all these important matters, I have concluded that I will support the Meech Lake accord because of its embrace of seven million people into the great province of Canada. But there is much work to be done, incredible work to be done, that should not have been left to this day. The struggle will continue with the leadership of the New Democratic Party fighting for amendments for the future, that second step to clarify and ensure that equality rights for women are guaranteed in the constitution of Canada, that native people take their full place and have the aspirations and desires of true self-government realized, and that the Canadian citizens living in the north of our country, who want and aspire to be partners in Confederation and to become provinces of this country, are not given obstacles that are unfair and prejudicial to those aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the accord, but with the caveat that the concerns on process raised by my colleague from Atlin are legitimate, and that I share the concerns raised by other members of my caucus. But in weighing the total balance, I am opting to say at this juncture that now is the time to say yes to Quebec and to bring it into the family of Canada once and for all.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I stand to welcome Quebec into Confederation, into Canada, and I stand to oppose the adoption of the accord and the motion brought to the House by the government. I'd like to start off by talking about what the constitution is. This has taken on some particular significance for me in the last year and a half since being elected to this House. I'm learning about the parliamentary process as perhaps not many citizens of our country have the opportunity to do.

First of all, in political theory, a constitution is described as an agreement or contract between the governed and the governing. In substance, a constitution differs from other laws in that it sets out the rules by which the government operates, following the tradition of the British parliamentary system. Unlike the American experience, the Canadian constitution was, until the constitutional process of the 1980s, largely unwritten. That means that a great deal of the law is a matter of process, a matter of custom rather than actual statute.

That means for the House of Commons, for instance, that when the government is defeated, it is compelled to resign by custom and by convention and not by any law. Looking at what the parliamentary process means to Canada and its people, and what it has meant to the British Parliament, from a perspective that very few people have the opportunity to share — from the perspective of, ironically, the majority of people in our province, in that women represent the majority.... That custom, that convention, is one that has developed without the significant input of women. Women only very recently were given the opportunity to vote and to participate in the parliamentary process. All we have to do is look at this House to realize that women are grossly underrepresented.

For women, the constitution is a very important document, a document that begins to mould this convention, to mould the custom, and that needs the input of as many people as possible. I rise to reinforce and support the comments already made by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), and to tell this House that the people this constitution affects have not

had the opportunity to have their views heard or the opportunity to have a say in this very important document — the document that moulds the relationship between the governed and the governing.

What the Meech Lake accord represents is a process of power-sharing. It represents 11 men sitting down in two hurried sessions, talking about their interests. I say "their interests," because I don't believe they represent the interests of their provinces. I don't believe they represent the interests of the majority of people of Canada. It was a process of power-sharing that reflects a political message, and I want to reject very strongly that political message on behalf of the powerless in Canada: on behalf of women, on behalf of aboriginal people, on behalf of those who are poor. That message, the power-sharing that those 11 men undertook at Meech Lake, dealt with the making of laws to control immigration, to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, and to nominate friends and political allies to the Supreme Court and the Senate.

We've heard a great deal of criticism of this accord from many different groups that were excluded, that did not have the opportunity to raise their concerns. We've heard criticism of the process, and we are assured there is a commitment to deal with those concerns. We have been told here in this House by the Premier that he realizes it isn't perfect; no law is perfect, and there is a commitment to address some of those inequities. The way this accord has been developed and the agreement that this accord reaches makes it virtually impossible to amend. We are told that those 11 men will again enter a room, they will act in our interests, and they will deal with our problems.

I have given this a great deal of thought. It has not been easy to make the decision to vote against this accord, but I think it is of utmost importance that that negative vote be raised. The New Democratic Party has very strongly, in this House and in the federal House, argued and put forward amendments to the constitution to have these concerns addressed, and it will continue to do that. I will take my part with my party to ensure that that process has every possibility of success. Our leader has, on several different occasions, called for a public hearing process. We have asked this government to give those people who have essentially been disfranchised by this process the opportunity to express their concerns. We have worked — and will continue to work — towards making the constitutional process a better one that includes all Canadians. This process does not.

What we had, again, was a process in which 11 men were lobbied, were pressured, were requested to include, in an abundance of caution, the section from the constitution that would include and recognize the rights that the women of Canada have fought hard for. They were told that wasn't necessary. I am offended by that. The women of Canada —women from all across Canada, from many sectors of industry, from many professions, from many walks of life — have said.... It is their voice that went to those 11 men and pointed out that there was a grave error and that the inclusion of this particular section was needed. These 11 men said: "We've looked at it and we think you're wrong." That is an insult.

The section of the Meech Lake accord that deals with, and denies and ignores, aboriginal rights is a flaw. If indeed there was the commitment then, they should have dealt with it then.

The section of the constitution that deals with national cost-sharing programs is a section that, I believe, puts our very nationhood at risk. To hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) get up and say that this section was of particular interest to him, that it gave them the power to put in place programs they agreed with and reject those they disagreed with, is a frightening prospect, given the record of this government over the past year and a half.

I believe this document represents, as any political document represents, a political message. I don't believe that you can separate the Meech Lake accord from the Mulroney Reagan free trade agreement or from the privatization initiatives of this government. When you look at the significant lobby in the United States around the free trade agreement — a lobby of the service sector, huge corporations lobbying and pressuring for the opportunity to enter the Canadian market.... With this government saying that this particular section is an opportunity for them to disagree with the national programs and get the money anyway, I am afraid that means this government is looking to further erode social services and their delivery in this province. There is every indicator that this government is heading down this path with privatization and other initiatives,

This is an enabling accord that allows and facilitates the government's political direction. It's a political direction that I happen to disagree with. I believe very strongly that Brian Mulroney has coopted the good intentions of people across Canada about embracing Quebec. I believe that by putting these other things on the table, by denying the rights of the powerless in Canada, Brian Mulroney has put in jeopardy this very important move. I think it's important that people make it known, and I suspect that will happen very soon.

So I take my seat, and I again want to register my protest, my negative vote, and my condemnation of the Meech Lake accord.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's the first time in some years I've had the honour to address this assembly from these benches. With great enthusiasm I speak on and endorse the Meech Lake accord, and also the very strong efforts that were made, both by the Prime Minister and by the Premier of this province, to put differences aside and try and get an agreement which would address constitutional matters that have not been addressed successfully for decades.

I understand there are members — and the last member was one — who think that things were omitted from this accord, and the opposition House Leader's amendment specifies a number of things that were omitted from the accord, in their opinion. But you never get constitutional change by getting your whole shopping-list.

I read the testimony of many witnesses before the House of Commons committees and some of the committees in the other provinces, who said: "The distinct society clause bothers us. It may interfere with rights under the Charter." I also read testimony that somehow this accord might affect the rights of women, but there is absolutely no credible body of opinion that supports those fears. Indeed, all the experts — Peter Hogg and all the rest of them who testified — did not believe that that was the case.

This accord is as good as can be got, and many people had to give up things on their shopping-list. I am sure there were things that we would have liked to have had in this province as well, but it is like the Confederation resolutions of 1864: you take it all, you take it as a treaty, and you cannot change it piecemeal and add and subtract and take bits away.

I like it, Mr. Speaker, because it means that the provinces are going to at last have some credible participation in the formation of national institutions. That means that for the first time there is going to be some provincial presence in Senate appointments. It doesn't mean that the provinces are going to be able to appoint exactly who they want, but they are going to be able to submit a list. If you are going to make a start with Senate reform, I don't agree with the gentleman opposite that an elected Senate or an abolished Senate is the answer. There should be a chamber, but there certainly should be an upper House that is more representative and more effective. It is going to be a more effective upper House if there is provincial input into those appointments, because those people are then going to represent the provincial points of view across the country as well as the national point of view.

In many ways, including the clause on the spending power.... Really, the most important proposition here in the Meech Lake accord is the one that allows the spending power to be used for a provincial program which supports national objectives, so that it would be possible for the province to opt out of some new national social spending scheme, provided it ran a program which met the national objectives. It could run it in its own way and it could be different.

I know that there are people who think that that's going to erode Confederation or that it's going to destroy the fabric of the country. I don't believe that's so, Mr. Speaker. I don't see why there should always be exactly the same delivery of a social service in Newfoundland or Labrador as there is in British Columbia. There are local differences and local needs, and those should be taken into account. In the Meech Lake accord they can be taken into account without the province losing that federal money, without that money that comes from the taxpayers of British Columbia going to run a program somewhere else which we haven't opted into here. So I believe that that is a very good provision which will strengthen the unity of the country.

One of the reasons we had this unity in this country through the constitutional rounds and discussions that took place in the seventies and the early eighties was the desire of those in Ottawa who ran the government — and the mandarins — to try and centralize too much power in Ottawa, to try and have a uniform vision of this country that meant that everything had to be done the way it was mandated from the centre. There could be no provincial differences. There suddenly had to be a young offenders act, for instance, right across the country — all the same age clicked in; build your institutions; do it all tomorrow. All these things had to happen according to central mandate, and that's what was wrong with it. Every time we went down from this province to attend those constitutional conferences, we always had the impression that we were being beaten up by centralists down there and that their agendas were the ones that drove the conference and its agenda. The provinces were never respected in that process.

I am comfortable with the power that the province will have to send a list of senators. I am also pleased with the role that the province will have in the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges. It doesn't mean that the province will be able to decide exactly who the judge might be from this province — because they will get a list from a number of western provinces if there is a vacancy, and they can choose from whichever province they want — but it does mean that that national institution, the Supreme Court of Canada, is going to have some provincial input into who sits there. It is not just going to be decided by the federal government, whereby they might be able to place people who have a particular centralist view of the law and the country. It's going to have to reflect the fact that there are ten different points of view.

I think that great forward strides were made in the Meech Lake accord and that we should support it. For western Canada and British Columbia, it is a chance for us to break out of that centralist past. It's also a chance for us to deal with a vital problem that arose in 1981 under the accord, when Quebec was left out of that accord, did not agree to it, and therefore did not participate for a number of years in national conferences and programs. Now finally the new government of Quebec has agreed with the other provinces on the wording of this accord and the distinct society clause. I like the distinct society clause. I don't believe it erodes provincial rights one bit. I don't believe it's a threat in western Canada; I don't believe that for a minute.

I believe that what it does is give special recognition to Quebec, not special status. That's why it's important, because you can go around this province with some kind of confidence and talk about it without people saying that it's another one of those deals that was put together in a room in Ottawa, in which this province sold out to another province or another cultural point of view. We did not. We acknowledged and recognized the distinctness of that culture. There is no selling out; it's a recognition and an inclusion.

I am very proud, as a member of this House and as someone who participated and helped out in Meech Lake 1 and Langevin 2 at those conferences, to support what this government did, what the Premier did, what the Prime Minister did to bring about an accord which had eluded us for almost a century. I stand in my place proudly and support the accord.

MR. CLARK: "Something is wrong somewhere.... I find myself in disagreement with my friends and with people whose ideas I usually find congenial." So said Mr. Pierre Trudeau in 1954 in an article entitled "Federal Grants to Universities." I have a great deal of affinity for Mr. Trudeau's early academic work in the 1950s. I have no support whatsoever for his contemporary views or his views as a politician.

I too have concerns about the Meech Lake constitutional accord. Unlike many of my colleagues, however, my concerns, firstly, are relatively minor and, secondly, revolve more around the belief that the accord does not shift enough power to the provinces. Nevertheless, on balance I believe the accord is a good document, and I shall be supporting it. I certainly respect my many friends and colleagues who have profound problems with the accord. This matter is a complex one, and there are no absolutes — no right, no wrong. Rather, on such a serious matter as this constitution people must weigh their criticisms of the accord — and there are many —with its positive attributes, and I believe there are many.

It is simply not possible or, I might argue, even desirable that there could be unanimity on a document that involves, by its nature, so many facets of the Canadian constitution. In order to better explain my support for Meech Lake, it is useful, I believe, to step back and review the fundamental values enshrined in our constitution. I might say at the outset that I acknowledge a substantial amount of debt to Prof. Andrew Petter from the University of Victoria law school, who I think is one of the most articulate defenders, from a social democratic perspective, of the Meech Lake constitutional accord.

The two basic tenets of the BNA Act of 1867 and its more recent successor, the Canadian constitution, are federalism and responsible government. Federalism is a constitutional form that implies a division of responsibility between two levels of government, neither of which is subordinate to the other. Hence, in Canada the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction over certain things like natural resources, forests, lands, mines and energy, and the federal government has exclusive authority over other things like defence and external affairs.

Responsible government, on the other hand, is a system of democracy whereby the executive branch of government is accountable to a democratically elected legislature. The rationale for federalism is that some matters are best handled at the central level, while other matters are best handled at the regional level. It seems to me rather obvious why Canada chose the federal route. Among other reasons, our country is of enormous size. Some regions are more economically advanced than others, population is unevenly distributed, and linguistic and cultural patterns differ greatly between regions.

Regional governments accountable to regional electorates are better able to design policies and programs suited to local conditions. A central government can and often must ignore the wishes of a particular region in order to garner the support of other regions. In Canada, because of the population base in Ontario and Quebec, one or both of those provinces' support is required to form a majority federal government. That is a fact of life in Canada today. Federalism therefore gives citizens more influence over policies assigned to the regional governments than would be the case if those same policies were the responsibility of the central government.

However, in recent years the federal-provincial division of powers outlined in the constitution has become somewhat blurred. The reason is that the federal government has become increasingly involved in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. By using its superior financial resources, the federal government has attempted to influence provincial policies in areas like post-secondary education and health care. While one can certainly argue that the federal incursion in those areas has been progressive, and therefore should be supported, it is certainly possible that this will not always be the case; in fact, it is likely that this will not always be the case.

To many provinces, particularly Quebec, and certainly to myself, this gradual encroachment by the federal government undermines federalism. I agree with Quebec and go one step further. I believe that it undermines democracy. Federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction confounds political accountability. As Pierre Trudeau again said, in his early academic career in the 1950s: "A fundamental condition of representative democracy is a clear allocation of responsibilities. A citizen who disapproves of a policy, a law, a municipal bylaw or an education system must know precisely whose work it is so that he can hold someone responsible for it at the next election."

It is not always clear in Canada which level of government should be held responsible. For example, who should one blame for the underfunding of universities, the province or the federal government? Clearly, it is an area in the constitution of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but an area where the federal government contributes almost all of the money today.

In my view, the Meech Lake accord at least moves a small step in the direction of political accountability. The Meech Lake accord helps to better define the division of powers in Canada in light of the reality of federal involvement in provincial areas. In so doing, however, it also clarifies the ground rules of federal support and reasserts the right of the provinces to govern themselves in areas of their jurisdiction.

What the Meech Lake accord does is accept the fact that we have a system where the lines have blurred. It accepts the fact that the federal government is now the major contributor to post-secondary education. But it says we are going to reassert the provincial role in those matters, and in any future policy discussions the provincial government's role prevails. The Meech Lake accord, of course, also recognizes the distinct nature of Quebec and makes that province a willing signatory to the Canadian constitution.

There has been much criticism of the accord in Canada; and those groups, as I said, are groups with whom I usually agree. I would like to briefly respond, if I can, to some of the major points in their critique at this point.

First, one of the major arguments is that the rights of women will be undermined. It is argued that by recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, this would imperil women's rights in Quebec. It is a profound irony that the women of Quebec, represented by the Federation des feninies du Quebec, do not support this concern, while women's groups throughout the rest of the country think the accord should be scrapped on this basis.

In my view, it was a mistake, a very serious mistake, for the first ministers not to explicitly state in the accord that equality for women would not be undermined. It clearly, in an abundance of caution, should have done that. It clearly demonstrates to me that the first ministers are oblivious to the very real concerns of women in this country and should have anticipated that kind of reaction, given the nature of the federal government and their track record in this matter, and should have very easily recognized that women's rights should be protected and written that into the accord.

Nevertheless, I agree with the women of Quebec that women's rights in that province are not in jeopardy. Indeed, I think it is possible to argue that women's rights in Quebec may be enhanced by the accord. Critics of Meech Lake suggest that the Charter of Rights must now be fettered by the need to view it in the context of the distinct society clause. I agree with that criticism. I agree with that argument. But far from diminishing equality, it is likely, in my view, that this will strengthen women's rights in Quebec — or in the rest of the country.

It's quite simply because of the more liberal tradition with respect to women's rights in Quebec. For example, a women's fundamental right of access to safe abortions has

long been accepted in Quebec, unlike any other province in Canada. As the Federation des fernmes du Quebec state: "In Quebec respect for women's rights is more and more becoming a part of political culture. As a matter of fact, the progress we have made with regard to the status of women is linked to the concept of a distinct society." Far from limiting women's rights in Quebec, it is my view that it is at the very least as arguable that those rights will be expanded by the Meech Lake accord.

The second major criticism I'd like to spend a little bit of time on is the criticism that federal-provincial shared-cost programs will be impossible after the Meech Lake accord. Critics of the accord argue that the federal government has forfeited its ability to implement national social programs because of the ability of provinces to opt out of such programs with compensation. Implicit in this criticism is the view that we can't trust the reactionary provinces to formulate progressive policies, and that the federal government is more likely to enact programs designed to improve social justice.

I have two problems with this criticism. First, it is not at all clear that the federal government is weaker after the accord. The provinces have never agreed to unfettered federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and opting out was becoming the norm — in some provinces anyway. Certainly the academic community is about evenly divided on the subject, although one wouldn't think so by listening to the critics. Professor Hogg, probably the leading constitutional authority in Canada, has written that the accord does not weaken federal spending powers. Profs. Boadway, Mintz and Purvis, in a recent article, argue that federal spending powers may in fact be enhanced by the new requirement that national objectives be considered.

This is certainly the view of many of the nationalist groups in Quebec, it's interesting to note, that opposed the accord, including the Quebec NDP, some labour groups and substantial sections of the PQ. Their opposition to the accord, unlike the opposition to the accord in English Canada, is that the accord strengthens federal power. That, as I say, is supported by several academics in the field. In any event, it's at least fifty-fifty divided, and it's not very clear whether that's the case.

The second problem I have with this criticism of the accord is that historically it has not been the national government that has pioneered social programs; it has been the provinces. Why some people think that central Canadians who comprise the bulk of the electorate are more enlightened than those in western Canada or the Atlantic provinces is beyond me. Virtually every major progressive social program in Canada has been pioneered by Saskatchewan or Manitoba. This is a fact documented very clearly by Prof. David Poel's statistical study of social welfare programs.

In any event, even if it were true — and in British Columbia one might have a good argument today — what political justification is there for demanding that their particular, central Canadian vision must be imposed upon those regions that do not share their view? If one truly believes that the federal government is inherently more progressive on social issues — empirical evidence to the contrary — then the solution surely is to seek a constitutional amendment to transfer jurisdiction to the federal sphere. This is a far superior solution to the federal government using its financial resources to blackmail the provinces to enact programs.

As I stated earlier, if we want to assure that democracy is served, then clearly we should say that those people who are funding the program should have the responsibility for the program so that the people, the electorate of Canada, can pass judgment at election time on the substantive nature of those programs.

I would argue very strongly that those that believe the federal government is inherently more progressive and will act in the interest of social justice should not argue against the Meech Lake accord. They should not argue in favour of costsharing programs that confound political accountability. They should rather argue that health care and post-secondary education and the like should be transferred to the federal government, and yet I have not heard that from any of the critics of the accord.

Medicare, hospital insurance, automobile insurance, labour codes, human rights codes, were all pioneered at the provincial level before gaining acceptance across the country. I ask a very simple question: would any federal government elected to date in our history have been prepared to endure a doctors' strike to implement our form of socialized medicine? The answer is very, very clear: I think not.

Why is it that explicit protection for homosexuals in human rights codes now exists in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon, but not in the federal human rights code? The point is not that provincial politics is inherently more progressive than federal politics. We don't have to look very far; certainly British Columbia is ample evidence that that is not always the case. But neither is the reverse true, as the critics would have it.

It is my view that in a country as large and diverse as Canada, the federal government is, by its nature, often preoccupied with mediating among competing regional interests, and all the while having to take into consideration the fact that Quebec and Ontario, or one of them, is necessary to form a federal government. It is in the smaller, more homogeneous provincial units that consensus on social and economic policies can more easily be achieved. By their nature, provincial governments are more responsive to demands for innovation than the federal government.

The third major criticism which I'd like to deal briefly with is the argument that the process of constitution-making is fundamentally flawed. Some critics of the accord have argued that the process by which decisions were made condemns the document. It is suggested that constitutions are so important that the public should be involved and consensus should be reached before action is taken.

I might say that it is curious that there was so little criticism of the process by which the constitution was patriated in 1982. Those same groups that are now criticizing the process did not criticize the fact that 25 percent of the population was left out of the constitution. They did not criticize the fact that the deal was put together unilaterally by the central government and imposed, essentially, on at least one aspect of the country.

While I am certainly prepared to concede that the process could clearly be improved by seeking more and wider input, there were, I believe, very important reasons why the time was right for agreement. Firstly, and most importantly, for the first time in Canadian history all three political parties agreed with the concept of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. My own party has had a long debate on this issue. I have long supported Quebec being recognized as a distinct society. That has not been the position of the New Democratic Party; it has changed repeatedly in the 12 years I have been involved. We had a convention in Montreal where an historic

agreement was reached to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. Likewise, the Liberal Party, in contravention of their recent history, had a convention that recognized Quebec as a distinct society. So for the first time in Canadian history we had all three national parties agreeing to accept the notion of Quebec as a distinct society and that it should be put in the constitution.

We also had, of course, a new federal government, a new Quebec government and a new Ontario government. So that meant new players, a fresh start and a fresh chance at agreement. The federal system of government in Canada necessitates support from the provinces for constitutional decisions. Having the elected heads of those governments meet, confer and decide seems to me only appropriate. So we had a very unique opportunity to bring Quebec into the constitution, that opportunity was seized, and I support that.

The fourth and fifth criticisms I'd like to touch upon briefly are that aboriginal people and the two northern territories were inexcusably ignored in this round of constitution making. In my view, there's no real defence against these criticisms. It's the area in which I have a great deal of sympathy for criticism of the accord. We had just had a national conference on the question of aboriginal people which erupted in acrimony. Clearly, that should have been on the minds of the first ministers. Very clearly, aboriginal rights should have been entrenched. I think it's inexcusable that it was not discussed. In addition, the two northern territories should have been consulted. I don't understand why they were not consulted in this round of constitution-making. I think those arguments are the best criticism of the accord, and they're ones with which I agree.

However, I must say that justice for Canada's native peoples will be the result of political pressure and political decisions, not constitution-making and constitutional reform. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, provincehood for the two northern territories is possible, indeed probable, when the political will is there. I must also say that Quebec being a member, willing participant and signatory to the constitution makes both of those things more likely, particularly the aboriginal question, because they have a far better track record on that matter than any other province. So welcoming them into the constitution means that the aboriginal question will be dealt with, I believe, more fully and more adequately. As a result, it is my view that the Meech Lake accord should not be defeated, even though I share the concerns around those two matters.

There are, of course, several other areas of concern that have been raised. I agree the Senate should be abolished. I don't agree with provincial patronage appointments to the Senate. But I don't think the Senate is any worse because of it, because in my view, it's rather inconsequential.

Is the amending formula too tight? I suspect it is. However, the amending formula, the unanimity rule, only applies to areas of federal-provincial division of powers. So I don't think that's significant either.

I believe I've covered the main areas of concern. I would like to mention one other thing which I believe in strongly and which has not been raised very much by the critics, and that is that British Columbia should have a Supreme Court judge from British Columbia. We currently have one. In this round of constitution-making, Quebec got a guarantee for three Quebec judges, essentially appointed by the province. We know that by convention Ontario has three judges on the Supreme Court. But from all four provinces of the west we only have two judges, and those two judges are appointed from a list from the four provinces. It could be argued that by convention British Columbia should have one of those judges. Most of the legal experts I have talked to say that's not the case. If this government had been awake, alert and thoughtful in their deliberations on Meech Lake, it is my very strong view that we could have got in the constitution — as in the case of Quebec — a judge appointed solely from British Columbia, representing British Columbia on the Supreme Court. I think it was a great failure on the part of this government to take advantage of this opportunity.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the Meech Lake accord does not go far enough in the direction of provincial autonomy. Nevertheless, the important recognition of Quebec and the explicit recognition of limits to federal incursion in areas of provincial jurisdiction lead me to support this constitutional document.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to make a plea and to put my voice on record as being opposed to the Meech Lake accord. Because of the time available to me, I wish to address just three aspects of the accord: the corporatization of Canada, with some reflections on the compensation agreement: the judicialization of social programs and social spending; and the relative absence of women in the agenda we're facing. The theme I want to really address here is a void in consultative processes that we have been presented with since the beginning of the process that brought the accord to the table here today.

I'm voting against the Meech Lake accord, having come to it with some difficulty. I've put as much thought into this as I have put into any speech, attitude or position I've taken in this House. In fact, it's my opinion that this is probably one of the most important debates we've had since this House convened 18 months ago. It has always been my view that decentralized government is a good thing. I am a decentralist. I believe strongly in municipal government and in regional government. Being a decentralist looks like decisions flowing from people to government, and it looks like a government in constant consultation with the people who give it its mandate. It looks at government as a delicate balance between people, conducted in partnership. Finally, decentralists like their democracy as close to home as we can possibly make it.

Canada as a nation, however, is facing twentieth-century challenges that demand a solid front. The connectedness between industrial development and harmful pollutants; the whimsical nature of international capital, which doesn't really respect national boundaries at all; and the issues of trade and international deficit — these are the urgent issues that face us today, and they demand the participation of a dynamic state that can hold its own.

There are, therefore, competing demands for power and control inside our federal state. The process of constitutional change must acknowledge the presence of those competing interests and competing tensions, and ensure that changes are not made without due regard to the social costs involved, without due respect for the opinions of citizens, without proper scrutiny of the changes to be made, and without appropriate agreed-upon techniques for future change.

The Meech Lake document is a loose set of disparate amendments that are being sold as an accord, in a feat of political salesmanship rivaled only by the pitch for the free

trade agreement. The package does not satisfy either of Canada that I've put forward: the centralist solid-front vision or the decentralized partnership-with-power vision. Rather, it establishes a quasi-corporate image, one with the Premiers dissociating themselves from the legislative assemblies, which are the source of their mandate.

The emphasis on first ministers' meetings creates the appearance of government by invitation only. The elected assemblies — us — may well be relegated to the task of rubber-stamping the first ministers' decisions. This truncated corporate vision of Canada will have as its quasi-board of directors ten Premiers meeting with the Prime Minister twice a year, once on constitutional matters and once on economic matters. This body will set priorities and make deals on decisions that include the breadth and depth of our geography and our vision for the future, and it will do so behind closed doors. It is only obligated to consult legislative assemblies infrequently, and it will most likely bring things like this accord as faits accomplis to the Houses across the country.

The image of the four western Premiers on a private yacht is an apt one, as they floated from Parksville across the strait a few weeks ago. This is how I visualize what might happen —and I will refer to the compensation package in this vision. This is the compensation package that is basically the financial aspect of the accord that is bringing Quebec into Confederation. It is already in legally, but not financially.

It's worth commenting on the press release issued by those four Premiers as they disembarked from the yacht. The press release basically bashed Ontario. There is an irony here which could rock their political boat, and that deals with the provisions that broaden the availability of compensation to those provinces that choose to opt out of transfers of legislative jurisdictions from the provinces to the federal parliament. In 1982 those matters with respect to which compensation was available were limited to education and cultural matters. Now there is no financial penalty for opting out; in fact, there's an incentive for opting out.

Consider the following scenario. Given the 7/50 formula introduced in 1982, and the demography of Ontario and Quebec, and the unlikely prospect of Quebec agreeing to any transfer of legislative jurisdiction from the province to the federal parliament, isn't it entirely possible that Ontario will wield an effective veto over all such amendments? My federal colleague, Mr. Nystrom, has astutely suggested that this in fact will be the practical impact of the new provision regarding compensation. For example, there could be aspects of the free trade legislation that could invite discussions of that transfer from provincial to federal authority. If certain aspects of free trade were designated provincial jurisdiction, then Ontario could effectively wield a veto over our participation in the transfer of provincial to federal authority.

So laying aside for a moment that aquatic fantasy of four Premiers adrift at sea on somebody else's boat, I want to prove the point here that Meech Lake amendments — although they're promoted as promising decision-making that will be closer to home — effectively separate people from decision-makers. As well, there's no requirement for public consultation prior to those first ministers' meetings — on boats or not — which is one of the reasons we're in this mess right now.

I'm trying to say here that the desires of regionalists and the desires of centralists are not being met; the accord meets neither aspiration. Moreover, the present amendments are so broadly and vaguely worded that they leave the process of defining their content to the courts, which will be asked to flesh out the constitutional skeleton, so to speak, without a course on comparative anatomy.

Given the nature of some of these provisions, such as the spending power provision, the result will be to judicialize the process of social policy-making. Social policy as reflected in shared-cost programs such as health care is a mainstay of our Canadian value system and identity. Are we prepared to see our judiciary play a key role in either limiting or shaping future social policies? Our courts are and must remain independent of the legislatures and Parliament. They were not designed to play policy-maker; yet the accord gives them great latitude to interpret such terms as "the national objectives" and "compatible with the national objectives."

As for the general issue of spending power, let's consider the risk that section 106A will lead to social programs that are reduced to a lowest common denominator. If the terms adopted for national programs are too rigid, then provinces are likely to opt out and establish their own programs that are compatible with the national objectives in order to get compensation. If the terms of the national program are too loose, then there will be a minimum quality across the country that may become — given the history of social programs — a maximum. If the phrase, "compatible with the national objectives" is given an interpretation that demands very little of opting-out provinces, what kind of quality will we see? Will we be able to develop under the Meech Lake amendments the kind of health care system that we as Canadians are proud of now?

Right now, what kind of child care program would be developed under these new provisions? Is there a reason that the federal government wishes to have its child care program implemented before the accord is in effect? Under the Meech Lake amendments, where is the political initiative for a federal government to establish a new cost-shared program in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction?

If the federal government is perceived merely as a tax collector, as has been suggested, will it bother to develop new programs? Will it have the clout? The Canada Assistance Plan, perhaps one of Canada's most flexible and innovative pieces of social legislation, crafted in 1966, still looks fresh and visionary beside 106A. Without placing a ceiling on 50 cent dollars from the federal government, it invited provinces to provide money and services to those in need or likely to be in need. The federal government was fighting a war on poverty, and each province had full power and full ability to cash in on that federal program. There will be no wars on poverty with section 106A — just border skirmishes as provinces jockey for position using the courts.

Then, too, the spending power provision ought to require that money transferred from the federal government be spent by the opted-out province on the appropriate subject matter. If this is not the case, then accessibility to post-secondary education might be interpreted by an opted-out province to be a highway to the university of the north or a bus route to Simon Fraser.

Moreover, there's no explicit reference to tax expenditure. How are federal government taxes to be tallied if they are used as social programs or the day care program are being used now? The federal government might circumvent certain provisions and agreements by using tax expenditures to the provinces, or perhaps tally them in such a way that the provinces receive less money to do the programs they want to

do. Either way, it hasn't been clarified, and either way, it's a no-win situation for either party.

These are just a few of the problems with the spending power that 106A doesn't address. The Canadian Council on Social Development recently asked for a two-year extension for an interpretative document on 106A and the spending power. The answer came back: "No." So what we have here is lowest-common-denominator programs with limited accountability, capped by minimal standards, established by a court system ill prepared to judge political and social issues, and with undoubted ceilings on funding. Some accord.

I now turn, lastly, to women. I might as well do so; they are the last on everybody else's agenda. They don't appear on the accord's agenda at all. In fact, the accord goes out of its way to ignore women by specifically addressing certain groups whose rights are protected by the Charter and failing to refer to sexual equality rights — in the same clause. That is clause 16. By lifting, out of what they call an abundance of caution, native and multicultural groups for special consideration, without mentioning women, the accord runs the risk of creating an undesirable "hierarchy of rights," as legal experts have suggested. I quote here Mary Eberts and John B. Laskin, constitutional experts at Osgoode.

Women fought long and hard to achieve the inclusion of section 28 in the Charter of Rights. In the Meech Lake accord they have either been overlooked or considered and then excluded. As a friend has said, which is worse? Perhaps clause 16 will not have an adverse effect on sexual equality rights. If it does not, then we have to amend the provision out of an abundance of caution. But if clause 16 of the accord does impair equality rights — the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" that Ms. Eberts and John B. Laskin talk about — then we have to amend the accord out of principle. In case you're wondering what that means, this is a principle of statutory interpretation which basically says that to mention one topic, by negative implication excludes other topics.

The suggestion is that in any future judicial situation women will be excluded and native and multicultural groups will be given precedence. It is not difficult, for example, to imagine a situation in which women's rights would come into conflict with multicultural rights. The example has been given of a religious or cultural community which lobbies successfully for legislation that would raise the age of independent consent for medical treatment. This could have an impact on access to birth control. If the effect of clause 16 is to create a preference for multicultural rights because section 27 of the Charter is mentioned and section 28 is not. then the arguments of women who would challenge such legislation on the basis of sexual and age equality rights could well be weakened.

I say there is nothing to be lost with the rediscovery of women by the constitution and everything to be gained. It's the easiest and least complicated amendment to approve, with the greatest effect. It's the official recognition of women's equality. Whether out of an abundance of caution or out of principle, that amendment should be made.

Our judiciary has viewed our constitution as a living tree. Likewise, the federalist structure of Canada ought to be allowed to evolve through a process of amendment. But let's not lose sight of the roots of our democracy. Government behind closed doors shuts out the voice of people. Government by invitation only will not create a better country. Rene Levesque once described Canada as a good risk worth taking. Canada can honour its obligations to the people of Quebec, as it can for all of its people. by maintaining the democratic traditions that Levesque espoused and championed. Democracies belong to the people; governments have to be accountable to their electorate; and women make up more than half of that population.

MR. R. FRASER: I'm going, to give you a rather less philosophical submission than we've heard so far today, one that probably is a greater reflection of the man on the street and his understanding of Meech Lake, which is probably minimal. But he does understand one or two things about Meech Lake, and he is either upset or delighted accordingly.

Certainly we can all quote whatever authority we wish, whether it's Pierre Elliott Trudeau or Mr. Fortier or Eric Kierans or a number of others. and we can defend or attack the Meech Lake accord on whatever basis we want. Indeed, if one was wishing to use the passage of this accord as a bargaining chip, one might say: "Yes, we will be happy to pass that, providing that you fund the pipeline to Vancouver Island or that we resolve our differences about South Moresby or that we act the kaon factory, or something of that nature." But we don't wish to do that.

The previous speaker spoke about women in particular. It has always been my opinion that first we are Canadians, as opposed to gender, and I would like to think that if there is some special way that we should mention women, then indeed we should do that. It would be very hard to accuse me of being a male chauvinist in this regard, having the record I have in this House, but I presume that, as Canadians, we will accept the document; and if indeed we have to make some special effort to make sure that equality is in fact equal, then we should do it and attain that goal with the idea in mind that we are all Canadians and all equal.

The aboriginal question is more serious, of course, and knowing there is now a claim, for example, running from the Dean Channel to Hope down to Wenatchee that is being claimed by natives, and that Dean Channel is about halfway between the north end of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes, you understand that the entire lower mainland has been claimed in land claims. That's everything, including part of the U.S.A. So to think that it will be easy to settle land claims is crazy. It will be a most difficult thing to do, and it would be hard to imagine anybody being able to compensate for the land claims that have been sought. This is a major problem, but one that we will obviously be facing. I don't know how it is going to be resolved, Mr. Speaker, because it clearly is not possible to reverse the titles of the land and to compensate. We are very much between a rock and a hard place on that one.

The things that bother the man in the street, as I hear it anyway, are things that say with respect to the Supreme Court there will be three judges from Quebec and that is fixed. We may have three from Ontario, one from here and one from there, but it's fixed for Quebec. That is an irritant. Then we look at the province of Alberta, which recently said: "Yes, English is the official language here, because we have a distinct society." So people look at Alberta and say: "Well, distinct from what? They are just as distinct as the province of Quebec, and if they want to be distinctively French, then we can be distinctively English." So there is a hazard in using the words "distinct society" to mean other than what the authors of the document might want them to mean. Nonetheless, we

are going to have a distinct society, and in some ways there is a danger there, because if we insist on doing things in different ways across the country, we will have a community of communities as opposed to a country. There is a possibility for hazards in that proposition.

I reluctantly read things like "distinct society." In my view, we are all Canadians and we just happen to live in a different province. I have been one who has advanced the case for speaking French in British Columbia and across the country as a bilingual or multilingual society, but that would possibly be made more difficult by some of the language in this agreement.

The other problem with that, of course, is that if we indeed wish to reflect on distinct societies, we have a number of them in Canada, all of which have a legitimate claim. When I lived in Alberta, there was a very significant population of German descent, and indeed in the riding of Vancouver South, which I am very happy and proud to represent, there is a very big mix of ethnic backgrounds, all of which claim a heritage that they feel is significant — and it is. We are making a great mistake if we overlook that. We talk about a distinct society — French and English — and then we live in a pluralistic society, so we indeed have a number of opportunities for conflict and dissent.

That is not new to Canada. Indeed, one of the great things about this country is that we have managed to solve most of our problems without going to war with each other. We have done it verbally. We have had Quebec offside on a couple of occasions, and we were all delighted, I am sure — at least most of us were — when Quebec said no to the referendum and stayed inside Canada. At the time, the man in the street was saying to himself and to his friends: where would they go, incidentally, if they left Canada? That's a good question, because as an independent country, they would be totally lost in North America and have far less chance of their society surviving as a little island rather than as a part of Canada.

If they did want to separate, I did not hear much about the beauty of sovereignty-association. Indeed, many people said: "If you want to go, go. You're off. You don't pay taxes to Ottawa; you don't get any money back. Away you go. You're on your own." Luckily the sanity of the nation prevailed as usual, and even though it was painful and harmful at times, time is a great healer, and we did solve a lot of problems.

We can respond to groups that make up Canadian history and society, and we can say to ourselves there are things about the agreement that are not apparently equal to each province. There are things that appear to serve the interests of the French-speaking people in Quebec more than the English-speaking people in Alberta or British Columbia.

Nonetheless, I think I personally can live with that, and accordingly will support the agreement for that reason. Indeed, when we talk about the 7/50 split for amending, from a British Columbia point of view I prefer the 100 percent. I think the power that it gives to smaller provinces like ours is more important than having majority rule. It would be difficult, I'm sure, but I'm sure that the will to improve the document will prevail. Legislation is not written in stone and never has been, and people who think it is don't understand the system.

There are certainly shortcomings in the agreement. I don't think it's any big surprise. There are advantages. I think we all want to remain as a Canada from sea to sea. We all want to enrich and accept the heritage of the country which gives us a kind of lifestyled society, a quality that is unavailable anywhere else. And so for the enhancement of Canada and the enhancement of our society for future generations, I will be supporting the accord.

MR. BARNES: I will be very candid and say that I rise reluctantly this afternoon to take my part in the debate. I say that merely because from the point of view of the guy on the street, as the previous speaker pointed out, the people who feel that the whole process has been one of quick shrift, with little opportunity for input or consultation to raise the issues for such a major initiative as amending the constitution, there has been no opportunity to participate, and from that standpoint I am reflecting their anger and displeasure and disappointment.

However, I must say that this is a very important, historic occasion because it does attempt to achieve something that is long overdue: bringing Quebec into Confederation. I certainly can remember from the days when I was a new Canadian the issues between English-speaking Canada as such and the people of Quebec. As an ex-American, I must say that it took some doing for me to begin to understand with any sense of passion and appreciation the sensitivities involved in this long-standing problem.

With that in mind, I can appreciate the main thrust of the accord — its attempt to address a long-standing, historic problem — and I'm pleased to be able to participate for that reason. My problem, however, becomes more and more complicated as we go along. I was a struggling black man in the southern United States who came to this country to play football, and got really turned on to the concept of human rights, justice, equality and the democratic process.

This accord has been called just about every name you can imagine. It's a political document, and I must say, to be perhaps a little unkind, contrived in the traditional Tory manner. It asks a lot to give something that clearly all of us want to give, and that is the right of Quebec to participate in Confederation. I don't believe that Quebec, as a province and as a government, attached all of the conditions that this accord contains in order for it to be given the consideration that is being given by all the other provinces in bringing them into Confederation.

With that, I think there are obviously several positives and several negatives. Colleagues before me have outlined the most obvious with respect to things like women's rights, aboriginal rights, the rights to self-determination; and there are long-standing issues with respect to land claims, most eloquently put to the House by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and alluded to as well by other members of the Legislature.

I think that is the kernel of my concern and dissatisfaction. Since I've come to this country, I've been hearing about the problems of native people and their grievances with respect to full participation in society and the disputes that they've had with the government over the years. Those are not being addressed. They're not even being considered, and as we just heard from the member who just took her seat, they are too complicated, too expensive and unwieldy to even consider.

The member also suggested that the person on the street was not fully informed about what's going on in this place. I think that's important as well. It would have been far better if we were addressing the real concerns that we've been talking about throughout this session, for instance. The tragedy, as I see it, is that Quebec is being used as a kind of political football. We feel like we're being blackmailed to some extent.

I haven't heard anyone say that they he was opposed to Quebec coming into Confederation and participating as a full member. I haven't heard anyone object. When you consider the negatives and the things that were not addressed in this document, in terms of opportunities for all British Columbians and guarantees as far as access to education, fundamental rights and freedoms — not just in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but institutionally guaranteed so that people can pursue their lives with dignity and respect and address the issues of poverty, for instance....

Sure, these issues have been with us for a long, time, but surely we can begin to consult with the public when it comes to a rare opportunity such as this to amend the constitution, which requires an accord and 100 percent support by all of the provinces. That is a rare occasion, and certainly one that we should exploit to the maximum, in terms of ensuring that we have heard from all sectors of the population and the community, rather than to have a restricted agenda. Some of the academics have suggested that the only way you can get any amendments is to take the package with no amendments. Is that democratic? It sounds to me like it's something other than democratic.

I think this is what the guy on the street is upset about. This is what I'm upset about. I may never reach the stage of insight and knowledge so that I can understand all the legalese that's involved, but when it comes to common sense, it's not that difficult to see that this accord does not address all of the issues that we're concerned about. It hasn't even pretended to be concerned about the issues that have been raised by previous speakers. I think that's offensive.

While I say that it is important to bring in Quebec, and I am supporting that, I see that as an opportunity. I don't think there should be any question that we are being exploited, that we are being subjected to a political agenda. and that we have to like it or lump it. That's what this accord is all about.

The people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are offended, and justifiably so. No other province in the history of this country has had to go through what they're going to have to go through. That's offensive, and it's unfair. We're being told to trust the goodwill of the federal government and the other provinces.

We're being told to act in good faith, and that all will be well. Well, I certainly hope so, because as it stands, with an amended formula for the future provincehood of the territories, it would seem to me that it's going to be virtually impossible for either of those territories to become a province in the future. That to me is a backward step. It's certainly reducing the capacity of the federal government to exercise its jurisdiction.

The accord is going to be remembered as well. perhaps, for bringing in Quebec. In addition to that, it probably will be remembered as the most undemocratic process known in this country's history, because we've clearly demonstrated the problems. The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) has called it some very unkind names in terms of it being just a sham. I'm not going to go that far. I think that in a democracy we have to give and take. Sometimes we have to hold our noses and vote, because we know that there's some good in it. You have to take a little bit at a time, You can't always Let what you want; I understand that.

This is why I think it's a historic event. It's important, and we can all celebrate for bringing, in Quebec. but I can tell you Quebec is going to have some responsibilities as well, Quebec is going to have to ensure that the act of faith we have taken by endorsing this accord with all of the caveats, deletions and omissions that clearly are the concerns of the people of this province.... It had better make sure that "distinct society" does not mean that it is going to impose upon the rest of the country conditions that are going to deny its responsibilities to all of us who are moving freely from province to province. In other words, universality should not be at risk in one province because it says it is distinctive for whatever reason and will find that it legally is not bound to assume its responsibility under the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in women's rights, for instance, or in any other condition that Canadians are accustomed to enjoying in this country.

These are the concerns. A distinct society, to me, is a rather philosophic thing, but when it comes to legalities, what's more distinct than the native people of this province? For that matter, there are all kinds of distinct societies. I'm sure we could describe the community in Chinatown in my riding as a distinct community. We're talking about something different when we put it in the constitution: we're talking about a legal definition, which is not clear. Let's just hope that goodwill will prevail in Quebec in the future as new governments come and go, and that someone will not decide to exploit that for what it's worth. We could find ourselves in a similar situation to what we have been in historically in terms of cessation from Confederation — again, another challenge. I don't know. That's up to the lawyers to figure out. But I do worry. and I think it's legitimate to be concerned about definitions.

With those remarks. I want to say that with caution and with my eyes wide open that I am happy to be part of this historic event and I am proud to join my leader, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), and our federal leader. Ed Broadbent, his colleagues and all the members, who support bringing in Quebec. But as I've said in the House in the past. sometimes they use a legal term.... It's a matter of: "Look, we help you; you help us. We recognize your rights, but you make sure you help us make this a great country. And let's work together."

MR. JONES: I too rise to offer qualified support for the motion before the House at this time and primarily to point out some concerns that, along with my colleagues, I have with regard to the process as well as the product of the Meech Lake accord.

The feeling I had yesterday in the emotionally charged atmosphere of the House, after having sat until past midnight the night before, made me think at that time that I would not be in the best shape to make serious decisions, particularly about the future of this country. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I believe that's the kind of environment that the process that produced the Meech Lake accord was steeped in.

The ten Premiers, virtually placed in a lock-up situation. where we had the kind of negotiation where you don't come out of the room until you have a deal.... The legislation-by-exhaustion technique was not the best process we have for nation-building in this country. It was not the kind of process that I think could produce the kind of document that all Canadians would be proud of. It was not the kind of process that at this point in time in our country and our constitution, where there was virtually no consultation prior to that process, where we had an elite group of men — first ministers, a very exclusive club — involved in a very exclusive process, which did not involve the Canadian public in any meaningful way by taking their goals and aspirations for the future of this country into that important decision-making process.... Rather than an inclusionary process, we had a very exclusionary process, and I think the product reflected that. Clearly what we have in the Meech Lake accord is the flawed result of that exclusionary process.

Not that the document does not have its merits and is not clearly an important accomplishment in terms of the addition of Quebec as a signatory. We don't want to diminish that, and I think that is one of the major reasons for the support of this side of the House. But that process did produce a flawed product. And even after that product was produced....

I'm pleased to see the Premier in the House at this point in the debate, because I do think it is an important discussion, and the Premier has indicated that. But what did this Premier do at that point in time when we had a document that I think affects the lives of all Canadians? Did the Premier do what was done in Manitoba and Ontario, taking the document to the people, explaining and discussing and getting feedback on the importance of the Meech Lake accord, the importance of the constitution in this country? What about the Premier that ran on a platform of open government and consultation, or even referenda, on important matters? The Premier did not initiate the kind of dialogue that we should have in this country. He did not establish any committees or task forces or create any public forum for debate on this important issue. What we saw was an exclusionary process.

MR. JONES: Well, after the next election, we will be government and you will see what we will do.

There was no thought of broadening the exclusionary process that led to this document, except for what we have at this point in time: a debate between the government side and the opposition side, the on-again-off-again debate that was promised. Then we're not sure whether we're going to have a debate tacked on to the end of a very long legislative session, an afterthought, perhaps a pro forma debate, the only kind of process of this kind of government. Contrary to the mandate that was given in terms of open, consultative government, we see a pro forma debate at the end of the session. That process did produce an imperfect product, a product that I can agree with, reluctantly, because it's my hope that the flaws in this accord are ones that can be addressed, ones that would lead me to believe that what we've accomplished at this time is an interim step in the process of developing a much better constitution for this country. My major reservation — and there are many reservations — is a section of the accord that I believe really limits the opportunity for improvement of the constitution of Canada, and that is the very restrictive amending formula that is found in the Meech Lake accord. I think that amending formula makes our constitution of this country a laughing-stock among constitutions of countries on this planet. I don't know of any other country that requires unanimous consent in terms of the ability of that country to have the flexibility to amend sections of the constitution. We had an amending formula that was a reasonable one in terms of the consent of seven provinces, and we have thrown that out with this agreement. I think that was the product of the kind of flawed process that is going to lead to great difficulty in terms of improving the constitution to the degree that I think most Canadians would agree is required.

The rigid inflexibility of unanimous consent is required in a number of important areas of this constitution. Changes to the Supreme Court, Senate reform or abolition, changes to linguistic rights and changes to the establishment of new provinces will require the unanimity of every province in this country. And what that does is give veto power to one province of the ten provinces in this country. One province now has veto power to prevent the establishment of a better constitution that I think we all would like to see.

In the comments of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) earlier, he talked about chairing the Council of Ministers of Education (Canada), and the difficulty that he had getting unanimous consent — and didn't operate on the basis of unanimous consent but worked on the basis of consensus. Clearly, when we see the wide variety of interests in this great nation, we see the difficulty of achieving unanimity among all those interests in all those provinces.

Canadians have indicated overwhelmingly that they want to see an end to the patronage-ridden Senate of this country. What we see now is a resting place for political friends of various prime ministers. The opportunity for Canada to bring about reform to that Senate is very limited by the amending formula.

Just one other area that I would like to mention in terms of the restrictions placed on the constitution by the amending formula is the opportunity to broaden nationhood in terms of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

I think all members of this Legislature received a letter from Tony Penikett, He probably moved members of both sides of this chamber when he asked:

"Imagine how residents of British Columbia would feel if one day they were to wake up only to find that during the night nine provinces and the federal government had, at a secret meeting, decided to suspend your province's membership in Confederation. What if the Prime Minister and the other Premiers had decided that British Columbia could not re-enter Confederation until all ten concurred? And what if there were no guidelines for the exercise of the discretion of the Premiers or the Primer Minister?"

In this letter he communicates how northerners feel in terms of the difficulty of the amending formula for future reform of our constitution, and he asks members of this chamber for our support on behalf of the people of the Yukon. He goes on to say: "...I ask you to consider if it is not fundamentally wrong for the fate of the Yukon to be decided by others, whether at ministerial meetings at which we are not present or through the awarding of votes on future provincehood to all Canadians except northerners" — an exclusionary process that produced a flawed and imperfect product.

Clearly, this side of the House has always been in favour of recognizing Quebec as distinct within Canada, but I question whether it was necessary in this constitution to sacrifice so much, to sacrifice the desires of the north, the aboriginal peoples and women — to sacrifice the aspirations of minorities — to achieve that.

This is not the best constitution that this great country can produce. Perhaps it's a good interim step in constitution building, but let's hope as we go beyond this point in this province and the other provinces in Canada that the future amending process to make this a more perfect constitution will be an inclusionary process, and that before future constitutional meetings — I hope the Premier takes note — he provides an opportunity for Canadians to make their views known.

If that comes about, then I think it is possible that in the future we could ensure that we had a constitution that is truly the property of all Canadians, not just the first ministers like the Premier opposite and government officials.

MR. SIHOTA: It is certainly a pleasure for me to enter into this historic debate. I do not intend to get into the questions of process that many of my other colleagues have raised. In fact, I would like to deal largely with what I could loosely call multicultural issues. I want to touch on those, I guess, more for personal reasons than political or philosophical reasons.

I don't often stand up in this House and talk about my own ethnic background. I don't do that, I guess, largely because I see my job in this Legislature not as representing a particular ethnic group but more as speaking out for the people of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever talked about my own heritage and my ethnic background. I must say that I do take some pleasure in being the first person from my ethnic heritage to ever have been elected as a member of the Legislature here in this country.

That being the case, I tend to look at a lot of the issues that come before us in terms of the multicultural fabric of this country. Certainly, when constitutional issues such as this are before us, I think it's important that they also be canvassed from the point of view of our multicultural heritage. It really is a shame — and I will say this very quickly because the Premier's here — that the provincial government has been so remiss in the area of multiculturalism in this province. Its track record with respect to funding for multicultural programs and activities has been horrendous in comparison with other provinces. One only need look at a province like Ontario or Columbia? Quebec and then look at what's lacking in British There is very clearly, in my view, a lack of appreciation on the part of the governing party as to the multicultural fact and reality of this province. Indeed, that reality is going to grow upon us as the years continue.

We are, and have historically been, the receiving place of immigrants from Asia: Japan, China, India. The first place they come to in Canada is usually the west coast — usually Vancouver now — and historically Vancouver Island. That's how my family first came here. My father came here in the thirties and set up on Vancouver Island because it was the only place where one could get work in those days. He moved to Lake Cowichan, which is where we lived until the mid-sixties. Certainly, the type of life experience that I have gone through with my family is the life experience of most typical immigrants. It is one of struggle, of hard work, of trying to establish oneself in a country and pass on a baton to your children so that they can enjoy a better lifestyle than that enjoyed by their parents.

That was certainly the reality in my case, and it certainly is the reality in the case of immigrant groups that now come to Canada, be they from Vietnam, Hong Kong or the Philippines. That will continue to be the case in this province, and in growing numbers. I think that's very good for this country, but it hasn't been without a struggle. There were times when we did not have equality laws and constitutional protections. There were times when people. if they were of East Indian or Oriental persuasion, were paid 10 cents an hour less than everybody else to work in the sawmills. There were times when people of Asian or Oriental persuasion were not entitled to own land in the city of Vancouver or to engage in professions such as I am in — law, medicine, engineering. There were times when, if people came from certain British dominions such as India, they did not have the right to vote, the right to citizenship.

Slowly but surely, through the political efforts of parties like the one that I represent — and it's a well-documented history in that regard — there were significant changes, particularly during the thirties and forties. Things which we now take for granted, like equal wages, equality rights, the right to vote and the right to citizenship, were all obtained through struggles, through diligence and a commitment to political change which still should be a part of our traditions.

Therefore, when one looks at constitutional change and amendments today, one must, in the multicultural context, look first over the territory that we have traveled and then look forward to the territory that remains to be traveled. There is a desire on the part of multicultural groups in this country to ensure that our constitutional documents — be it the British North America Act, our Charter of Rights or the Meech Lake accord — all recognize the multicultural fact of Canada. It is essential to Canadian unity, in my submission, that all cultural and linguistic groups see — I want to emphasize that word "see" — themselves as part of the character of Canada. That must be enshrined not only in our constitutional documents but it must also be the basis of government and societal action. It is not only for government to take these types of actions.

The reason why there must be multicultural protection, equality protection, a delineation and a resolution of issues like immigration is because people who come from these ethnic backgrounds look back at the historical record. They look back at the territory that they have traveled over and the territory that I just talked about in terms of the difficulties that people like my parents had in establishing themselves in this country. They therefore seek protection in laws, in accords, in charters of rights and in constitutional documents to ensure that the multicultural facet of this country is embodied in those documents, which are designed to protect us all and which are designed to explain what our individual and collective rights are.

The accord should, of course, recognize all of this. It should recognize the multicultural fact of Canada. It should recognize the reality of the multicultural history of this country and, above all, it should provide comfort to multicultural groups in Canada.

There is some debate as to whether or not the accord satisfies those necessities. I think that in some ways there is room for improvement in the accord with respect to multicultural rights. The accord should state that all provinces, for

example, are required to preserve and promote this multicultural fact, not because I see a reversal and a return to the blatantly — if I can put it that way — racist policies which were a part of the history of this province and this country, which is something that we all scorn now, which we all realize now is wrong; so I think it is not an exaggeration for me to call it blatantly racist.

However, the legislatures must be required to preserve and promote this multicultural fact. I have already talked — and I don't want to dwell on it — about the apprehension that multicultural communities have in this province with respect to the preservation of those types of rights in British Columbia, where we have seen not only a government that seems to provide very little funding assistance with respect to multicultural activities but has eroded powers of the Human Rights Commission, reduced the number of race relation programs in schools, and which most recently has curtailed English-as a- second- language training in British Columbia.

All those things are important, and one of the areas which groups look to in order to seek assurances that these types of programs will continue, of course, is our constitutional documents. The accord goes a long way in terms of making those assurances. It falls short in some areas, and I have outlined what those areas are.

One area that is of concern to multicultural groups in this country is immigration issues. That historically has been a federal matter. The clause which appears in the accord is designed to recognize the special status that Quebec has with respect to immigration matters. I think that's appropriate as well. I think, that was recognized at the beginning in the British North America Act in 1867. Really, the provisions of the accord, by my reading of the accord, simply reinforce the existence of those powers that Quebec has and had.

However, there are groups in this country representing the multicultural community which read more into it than that. I must confess that, with my background, I see their reason for concern. They see the potential for a patchwork set of laws across this country based upon the provinces' desires for immigration, in that one reading of the provisions of the accord clearly suggests that each province will now have the liberty to set its own immigration policy. No longer will there be a uniform immigration policy in Canada.

That's dangerous. It is dangerous that there be a patchwork quilt of immigration policies in Canada, where some provinces will try to promote particular groups to the exclusion of others. If that is based on national or cultural lines, clearly that's not acceptable.

I think a better approach would be to preserve the status quo, to allow the immigration powers to remain at the federal level. The accord should make it clear that the primary power with respect to immigration remains vested in the federal government. As I say, there is some division of opinion as to whether or not the accord achieves that, and I think that in future rounds of constitutional reform and discussion there is a need to attend to that matter in order to allay the fears of multicultural groups with respect to the immigration provision. Of course, if opting out is allowed on matters of immigration, it could also be allowed in matters of multicultural policy.

I know that several of my colleagues have dealt with the third and final issue that I wanted to deal with concerning multicultural policy. That is, of course, the matter of equality rights. Given the historical experience of ethnic groups in this province and in this country, and given the day-to-day realities of some of the difficulties faced by members of visible ethnic groups with respect to access and opportunity, I think that it is imperative that the equality provisions of the Charter stand above and beyond the accord. It must be absolutely and essentially clear that equality rights are not eroded in any fashion by the provisions of the accord.

I think that the provisions of the accord which recognize the multicultural nature of the country, combined with the Charter, provide the assurances of equality that multicultural groups require. However, should I be wrong in that opinion, and should that not be the case in subsequent court matters — because, of course, all of these things are open to legal interpretation — then clearly in a subsequent round of constitutional dialogue there should be steps taken to make sure that those equality provisions remain supreme. That argument is true with respect to women, is true with respect to the native community and of course equally true for multicultural groups — albeit that it is clear from the wording of the Charter that there was an abundance of caution exercised with respect to some groups and not to others.

So I think that from the multicultural perspective it is essential, first, that the multicultural fact of Canada be recognized in our constitutional documents. Second, immigration policy should be uniform and primarily vested in the hands of federal governments. Third, equality provisions must override any enactment, be it federal, municipal, provincial or subsequent constitutional amendments such as the Meech Lake accord.

The combination of the recognition of the multicultural fact, the preservation of a uniform immigration policy and the primacy of equality provisions in the Charter — those essential ingredients — will provide to multicultural groups the comfort that they require and will demonstrate to them, indeed, that not only have we have come a long way with respect to time and distance from the types of things my family was party to in the thirties and forties but that those types of things will be guaranteed and assured in the future, so that there can be no erosion of the rights and privileges that we now enjoy as a society.

I'm going to support the accord; that will become obvious when I vote. I do it with some hesitation, quite frankly, because there are provisions in the accord which cause me concern. I have, perhaps because of my training, a great belief in the courts — perhaps more so than most members of my caucus, quite frankly. I believe that the courts will act in a fair and just fashion and that they will ensure that justice will both be done and be seen to be done. I believe that they will interpret liberally the provisions of the Charter and will provide comfort to all those groups who feel aggrieved by the Charter. But it really is a crystal-ball function in terms of knowing what the courts are going to say, and it is therefore imperative that as this document is developed and interpreted there be further constitutional discussion to make sure that the intention of those who were responsible for the drafting of our Charter is preserved not only in this accord but in subsequent constitutional enactments.

So I have a lot of concerns about this accord and what it means in particular to natives, women and multicultural groups, but I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to run its course, with the full recognition that whoever is in the chair that is currently occupied by the Premier will see fit to engage in a further round of constitutional dialogue should the objectives of this document not be

filled and should the fears of those who have concerns about it be proven to be real. If that's the case, then clearly there's a need for us to go back.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I rise here after a lot of consideration on the Meech Lake accord. This is not something that I have had an easy time with. I've had members and individuals in the community approach me on various issues — the women's rights issue, the aboriginal rights issue —and they have made some very valid arguments about their problems with the Meech Lake accord. It's obvious, when you hear the eloquent remarks by my colleagues expressing their concerns, that this accord does not address all the problems we have, and it certainly creates some others, in particular for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

It is not a perfect document by any means, and for that reason I've had a lot of problems dealing with it, because it does bring Quebec into the constitution, something that we and I think most Canadians want. Yet in doing so we also endorse some areas that create problems for other Canadians or omit areas that should have been addressed for other Canadians. If you've been listening, as I'm sure you have, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks of my colleagues, you'll realize that this accord is not one that has been taken lightly by any of us. It's one that we've struggled with, and in struggling, we have to acknowledge and weigh the various aspects of each side of it.

I will be supporting the accord, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to go at length into all of the issues that I have a problem with, because I think a great many of them have been dealt with by members previous. The guarantee of fair treatment for the residents of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is something that's of grave concern to me. As someone who comes from one of the more northern parts of this province, I can certainly be sympathetic to their case. Aboriginal rights and self-government are not mentioned in there; it does not address women's rights. And some of the restrictions of the federal powers and the addition to the provincial powers.....

I've had legal opinions from both sides, and they have argued very validly that some of these things are addressed and some of these things are not addressed. What I end up deciding, as a layperson, is that it is obvious that because there are such varied opinions on it, this is definitely a flawed document. However, as my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, there are times when we have to accept a flawed document, because it is addressing one of the major issues and that major issue is to bring Quebec into the constitution.

I will be supporting this, Mr. Speaker, because this document is not absolute. I see that there will be changes in the future, that there will be amendments, that we will be able to address some of the problems that other members have raised. I am convinced that we will be able to do this as a society, and that we will be able to address each and every one of these individually at a later date. I am also voting in favour of this accord primarily because it does say yes to Quebec. To vote against this accord at this time, I think, is to say no to Quebec, and that is something I am certainly not willing to do.

The process is something that I would have liked to have seen, and I think most British Columbians — or Canadians — would have liked to have seen it come about in a much more open manner, rather than people being pushed through late-night sittings, as we've been pushed through late-night sittings sometimes, to act through issues. If this had been done in a much more open way, where the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were included and where people were consulted much more, then we wouldn't have the problems that we're having today

However, we have this document, and we are having to address it. For that reason, I will at this time be voting in favour of the accord but doing so with great reluctance,

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to enter into this debate. It is indeed, or it should be, a momentous event for this Legislature and for this province, because not often in the history of this great province do we have the opportunity to debate changes to the way our country governs itself — constitutional changes that come very infrequently. As parliamentarians, I am sure we have over the years read great debates, way back to our Fathers of Confederation, on how this great country was formed. I am sure that when we do speak, we all think back to the early days when this country was being formed — and of course it is still being put together. This is another chapter in the constitutional development of this country

I get the feeling, though. that there isn't the attention or the feeling by the general population that this is as momentous as it should be. I'm not quite sure I understand why that is. Maybe it's because there hasn't been the public dialogue or debate across the country that there should have been over a constitutional change. Perhaps we should have had the public hearings that many have called for. I believe that they would have been quite appropriate.

There have been expressions from the public of lack of understanding and knowledge of the full implications of this constitutional change. That's sad in some ways. Be that as it may, we are bringing Quebec back into the family, making them feel a distinct society, a part of this great Canadian Confederation, without whom this country would not be the way it is. That is momentous; that is important. I think that it is probably on the minds of all of us, probably one of the strongest points to the Meech Lake accord.

It has been a tough process. I know that for me personally, I have had doubts both ways, whether I should vote for or against the accord. There are some flaws which have been well articulated by a number of my colleagues on this side of the Legislature, particularly by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who today gave an excellent speech from the heart. I know I join with my colleagues in applauding his thoughts and feelings today.

There are valid concerns with the accord. I think many of us would rather, if we could, see some amendments. I think the issues raised by the women of Canada on recognizing true and full rights and equality for women have not been addressed appropriately in the accord. There is some validity to those views. The views on aboriginal rights and self-government were expressed capably by my colleague from Atlin. There is validity behind some of those feelings of the first people of this great country, who have for years struggled for full recognition of their place in Canadian society, and who still today struggle for their appropriate and right place in Canadian society.

The question has been raised about a fair deal for the north — a valid concern. Again I would hope that in future constitutional discussions, the consensus that appears to be evolving around the flaws in this accord will be addressed. There are some good reasons why the accord in future discussions needs to be looked at.

I would hope in future when we are making significant changes to the way this country is to be governed, constitutional changes that have enormous impact on Canadians — although they may not be fully aware of it, which is, I think, somewhat sad — that we will agree to public dialogue to respect the fundamental principle that democracy just doesn't happen at election time, that voting is not the only democratic principle that we uphold, that between elections there are critical issues that we address that should also be put to the people of this country. Here, I think, is an item that has not had the attention by the people of this country.

For instance, in my case, I've only had a very few people come to me to talk about this issue. But I know that if people had had the opportunity for a full dialogue — to pull them into nation-building, if you will, because that's what we're doing, adding another pillar, another section to this nation — the dialogue could have been exciting and I think Canadians would have felt better about what we're doing. There is a feeling that this accord was developed in somewhat closed quarters by the major decision-makers of our country, separate from the Canadian people for which the accord obviously has been developed. Mr. Speaker, I feel quite strongly about that particular issue.

However, for me the overriding issue is the fact that at long last Quebec is going to once again be a part of this great nation. As my colleague from Prince George said, I think this accord is saying yes to Quebec. It's saying that we want Quebec and our friends in Quebec to be part of this great country. On that ground, Mr. Speaker, it's my intention to support the accord. There are problems which I have listed, as my colleagues have, and I hope in future discussions they can be dealt with.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise in my place to support Resolution 73, and in so doing I want to speak relatively briefly about the process. I want to talk about B.C.'s role in Canada. I want to make some comments about the distinct society clause, about immigration, about the Senate, and above all else about property rights in this country.

Today we've had a number of bits of information, and discussions, and a lot of input and advice and theories about constitutionality in Canada and about the process of this change. But two of them, in terms of the process, really stick out. The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) said that there had been no pretence of consulting the people of British Columbia. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) almost whined when he said that the government hadn't initiated certain courses of action to ensure a public discussion process. I think it should be noted and stated to them and to all other members that when we're elected to this chamber, among other things we are agents of our own free will, to do in our constituency that which we think is right. If we think it is right to have a public hearing process, then there is nothing to prevent us from doing that, short of our own lack of energy to get off our own backsides and get the job done.

So it was, Mr. Speaker, that in the constituency of Kamloops we did have that kind of process. There was a public meeting convened and chaired by an MLA, in which the people who specifically indicated they had concerns about the process and about the substance of Meech Lake were invited to participate and did participate. They presented briefs, and those briefs were tabled in this chamber and formed part of the record of this debate.

But it is interesting to note that on the day those briefs were tabled in this chamber, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) both stood in their place in this House and ridiculed — and that is the kindest word one could use to describe their demeanour — the fact that that public process had taken place, and that as a result of that public process materials were being presented in the form of briefs in this House.

I was surprised at that, but I was also surprised to find that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who has very strong views on these and all other matters, is going to stand as a matter of conscience in this House — not as the result of the whips being on, because it is a free vote in his party — and vote in favour of this accord. I was surprised that he did not assist the process of understanding for people in this province by convening meetings in his own constituency and around the province for people to whom he wishes to communicate his views, his ideas and his concerns, because he stated very eloquently what they were in this House. He has done nothing between the time when the Meech Lake accord and the Langevin amendment were agreed to and this day in this House to ensure that there was a public process in which his views and the people he wishes to hear them could be involved.

Likewise, I was surprised that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) had not taken it upon himself to take his party and his own position to the Council of the Haida Nation, to sit with them and seek out their ideas about this accord and the impact it might have on them, their people and their lands. I was surprised that he did not do that, because the opportunity was clearly open to him. It would have benefited every member in this House to have been able to hear, through their elected representative, the views of those people on this very important issue. I was surprised that that did not happen.

Likewise, I was surprised to learn that the member for Burnaby North, who stood in this House only moments ago to explain his vote of conscience, to explain his individual decision to support the Meech Lake accord, given all of the concerns he had about that accord, did not share all of those concerns with the people of his constituency so that they too would have an opportunity to inform him publicly, openly and up front of their views about this great issue.

The member for Burnaby North, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and the member for Prince Rupert were extended an opportunity by the leader of their party to vote their conscience in this House, unfettered in any way by the process of partisan, party politics and the extension of the whip. It was even more surprising to me, knowing the particularly strong views that they have on this issue, the way in which they always want those views to be shared and the way in which they always call for consultation, that they, as individual members of this great house of freedom, did not give their people that opportunity which they always demand from others.

To the extent that the process has been flawed in terms of consultation, I think the fault must rest with individual members who complained about the process but did not seize the opportunity to do something about it. Perhaps the adage that looking in the mirror might be the first step in solving the problem is one they ought to visit.

I believe that this process of Meech Lake, this change in our constitution, this resolution and what it means, is going to strengthen Canada by giving British Columbia and other provinces an opportunity for greater participation at the centre. I do not share the view that by giving that opportunity for participation we will in any way diminish the strength of Canada at the centre, because in British Columbia particularly we have somehow always been accused of being the bad boy of Confederation, the crybaby of Confederation — all of those wonderful pejorative terms that we have heard over the years. But our claim, our demand, has never been one where we've requested to stand apart from Canada. Always it has been a cry to get into Canada in a much more full and complete way.

When we look at our future and the issues we have to confront in order for us to develop this province, our economy and the aspirations of the people in the way that they want, in the way that conforms with the way the world is going and the revolutionary changes taking place in this world today.... When we look at things like banking, at areas of jurisdiction like trade, transportation. communication and immigration, all of those areas, jurisdictionally, are federal. All belong jurisdictionally to Canada, and yet each of those areas has a significant and profound impact upon British Columbia and the way we are going to be able to take hold of our destiny.

If through this process we have a chance to take a greater and more active role in the decision-making process of this country, then I say that every British Columbian ought to applaud that fact and participate in what it means. We in British Columbia have much to contribute to Canada; we only need the vehicle through which we can do so.

I do not believe that process is in any way a decentralization of Canada. I do not accept the view that by giving the opportunity to participate at the centre, you are somehow setting up a balkanization of the country. That you allow people to more fully participate and take responsibility at the centre surely must be the very opposite of that, and must surely strengthen the fabric of Canada.

I believe as well Mr. Speaker, that the impact of this resolution will help this province to enhance its role in immigration, an area of increasing concern and importance to our people. Immigration is something on which we can take steps to secure our future and to attract to B.C. people, skills and capital that will help us achieve our goals of growth, diversification and expansion of the economic pie. I think that over time, the increased role that this province will have in dealing with matters of immigration will be one of the most important results of this change in our constitutional fabric.

In looking at the distinct society clause, there's really only one issue worthy of consideration in this province, and that is simply this: will the distinct society clause usurp our constitution, and will it somehow give the Meech Lake accord primacy over all the other components of our constitutional fabric? If you look at that carefully and analytically, the answer is emphatically no, because in my view the distinct society clause is simply a rule of interpretation. It is not a command. It is not a direction to develop a constitutionally distinct society in Quebec. There is a vast difference between those two things, and I have no doubt in looking at it that the rule of interpretation will be the component that will apply.

We will retain all our other canons of interpretation. We will retain the separation of powers, our constitutional conventions and the Charter of Rights. All will be intact, and I would suggest to you that they will still be the primary constitutional ingredients of our country. They include sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act, the division of powers. They include the doctrine of paramountcy, the doctrine of exclusiveness and constitutional interpretation. and the doctrine of occupied field. But above that, they include as well Canada's general power of peace, order and good government, the broad taxing power of the Parliament of Canada, and most importantly, parliament's residuary power to legislate. All of those facets of our constitutional framework will remain in place, and all of them lead you inexorably to the conclusion that the central power in this country will not be diminished solely as a result of the constitutional accord embodied in this resolution. While the amending formula itself has by law been varied over the years, by constitution it has been unanimity as a rule in this country, save and except the 1982 agreement and its subsequent amendments which brought us the Charter of Rights. Even going beyond the area not now covered by the unanimity rule, we have in fact had a convention of unanimity in this country.

When I looked at the impact of this resolution on the Senate, I at first had some pretty deep concerns about it. I don't share the view that we ought to abolish the Senate. I believe we should reform the Senate as a way to build a process for ever more participation at the centre of this country by its regions and its provinces. I therefore support an elected Senate. one that is effective in its mandate and that equally represents the regions and the provinces of Canada.

I have to ask myself: will the new amending formula prevent Senate reform? I think it will not, for a couple of important reasons. First, I believe that the goodwill of the provinces and the central government will enable the kind of amendments and changes to allow that Senate reform to take place. But assuming for a moment that that does not happen, I believe that each of the provinces can begin the process of heading towards an equal. effective and elected Senate by beginning the election process itself. We can, and should, start that electoral process by selecting, only as the result of an electoral process, the names that are being submitted as a result of this constitutional change for Senate appointments.

We should put in place the process now, because in the years between 1996, when Senator van Roggen reaches retirement age, and 2008, all six of our senators will retire. We ought to begin now to develop the procedure for their replacement only through an electoral process. If we do that, we will be able to achieve an elected Senate across Canada, because the people in the other provinces will demand that their senators, too. be submitted only after an electoral process takes place. I think we can be the agents of pushing forward that process for change in the Senate even if the goodwill I talked about does not exist with respect to the process now in place.

Before concluding, I want to address, in the context of the constitutional change in the amendment embodied by this resolution. the question of property rights. I want to do that because even upon achieving the Meech Lake changes, our

constitutional framework will forever be flawed until individual property rights are entrenched in that written document. As the provinces have more input, we may see that process move forward following the Meech Lake changes. But as always, written constitutions are only as strong as the democratic will creating and supporting them, only as secure as our belief in the rule of law, only as safe as our belief in process over ideology. That is why I was personally disappointed — and, frankly, shocked — to discover recently that the NDP, in the year 1988, opposes the fundamental freedom to enjoy ownership of your own property and not have it removed except by due process of law and for adequate compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I say that because we hear a lot of lip-service — in fact, we've heard a lot of lip-service in this House over the last day or so, especially from the Leader of the Opposition and others, about their belief in due process, their fundamental feelings about the rule of law. But all of that lip service and all of the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition and others will mean nothing if our houses of parliament, those forums for freedom, have in them men and women who ideologically oppose and vote against resolutions to enshrine freedom and extend the due process of law by eschewing ideology and embracing processes that serve the universal goals of our people.

We must as individual citizens, in dealing with constitutional change, be very cognizant of that connection between our sense that if it is written in the constitution somehow it is safe, because it ain't so. This great planet is littered with written constitutions which have been usurped when ideology was used and abused in a way that subverted the fundamentalVanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.ca freedoms of people.

Every member in this House should always be aware that only 50 short years ago we had relatives or brothers or uncles who were prepared to give their lives in defence of the right to own property, among other rights. Only 50 short years ago people were prepared to lay down their life for that freedom. We are today in this country electing in the name of ideology people who do not have the gumption to lay down their vote in defence of that freedom, that right to own property.

So, Mr. Speaker, while I happily and proudly vote in favour of this accord and the amendments that it brings about, I think it's worth reminding ourselves, as we're in the process of constitutional change, of the limitations of constitutions in relation to our freedoms, and understanding that in our democratic system our vote at election time, the people we send to our parliaments, the ideology they represent and the underpinning of that ideology, will forever be more important than anything we can write on the books.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to say two things at the outset. The first is that I am an enthusiastic supporter of Meech Lake, and I have been since the night of the Langevin Block meetings, or the day after, when I found out about them.

The second thing I want to say — and I'll try to say this in a positive rather than in a negative way — is that constitutional development in countries should not be a subject of partisan debate. Laws, government policies and all those things are partisan in nature, and should be, and the debate should rage on in a partisan way. But when one is building a constitution for this country, or any other country, we are all involved and we should all be involved — and I mean all citizens in this country, not just all legislators — without our Vanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.capartisan hats on.

If I can add one minor negative comment to show the flip side of that point, I find it regrettable that some members of this House find it necessary to engage in NDP versus Social Credit debate when we're talking about the very constitution of this country.

I have given a lot of thought as to how I would handle myself in this particular debate. I decided early on that I would participate, given my strong feelings that Meech Lake is a good document, by and large. I've had some trouble right up until the very last minute in deciding whether to talk in global terms about the value of the process we have undergone and the nature of that process, or to get down to the nitty-gritty of individual issues that have been raised by many people, including some in my own party. I've decided I'll try to do a little bit of both, at the risk of not being able to develop any of the arguments fully enough. Nonetheless, I want to talk about all of the issues that are on my mind.

The first issue is the process of constitutional development. We have in this country, in my view, had the weirdest and strangest history of constitution-building and development of almost any country in the world. At the same time we have what is, no doubt, one of the more unique countries in the world in terms of its composition. We were governed for more than 100 years by a constitution that was an act of parliament in another country-

We have, since the battle of the Plains of Abraham, lived in tension in this country, English with French and French with English. Some of us are of the view that because Wolfe beat Montcalm, English should therefore be paramount. Others of us, including me, are of the view that the military victor should not determine the nature of the country forever.

We have a unique country. We have a difficult country to govern. We have not only the distinct society of Quebec.... And no one can say it is not a distinct society, because it's obviously distinct from every other part of this country. Sure, there are other distinctions. There are distinctions between peoples and between regions. There are a whole variety of distinctions in this country, but this country is a dual country. This country is made up of French Canadians and English Canadians in its original founding. It has been added to by a richness of immigration. All of those people who have come to this country following the French and the English have merged with the people whose country this was originally — and in some parts still is, because we haven't resolved the question of ownership and title, but that's another issue for another day.

It's unique, this country, but it's particularly unique because we have in the province of Quebec a distinct society, and finally now, by recognizing that distinct society, we are saying to the people of Quebec, "You're welcome," in our constitution.

Let’s just review history a little bit. I don't want to go back to the 1800s, but just to the sixties and the development of a new and different kind of nationalism in the province of Quebec following the election in 1960 of the Jean Lesage government, the development then of a new and more modern kind of society and a recognition that they had something to contribute to this country and also to their own culture, their own people, their own way of life and their own being as Quebeckers.

During the sixties, members will remember, there was much debate in this country, including much debate in our

party, about how Quebec would relate to the rest of Canada, what would be the nature of the relationship of Quebec vis-a-vis the federal government and of the other provinces vis-a-vis the federal government. We in our party agonized over that. Every convention that we had as a federal party in the sixties agonized over the question of special status and about seven other words and phrases we used to describe what is now being described as a distinct society. We argued for a recognition that Quebec was special, different, unique and had a different kind of role to play in this country, and therefore should be recognized in, if not a constitutional way, at least a legislative way — since the constitution wasn't up for discussion in those days.

We were vilified for that position as a political party. Tommy Douglas tried to sell it across this country and largely failed to do that — one of the best salespeople this country has ever seen. The country wasn't ready for that kind of recognition of the distinct nature of the province of Quebec.

Some things happened as we went through the course of those discussions, and finally in 1976 the people of Quebec elected a government which was avowedly separatist. One of the reasons for that is that the rest of us in this country had failed to come to grips with the nature of the distinct society of Quebec. It added impetus to the campaign that Rene Levesque and others waged, finally successfully in 1976.

Then in 1980 a referendum took place in the province of Quebec. In my view, the referendum and the nature of the debate in that referendum within the province is crucial to the need to support this Meech Lake document. It all goes back to what was said and what assurances were made to the people of Quebec in 1980.

The people in Quebec were asked to vote no to separation and to vote yes to Canada in exchange for a clear and specific promise from the rest of Canada that we would recognize their unique nature. Whatever words we decided to apply to it, that was the bottom line. We said: "Please vote to stay in Canada and we will redress the grievances." That was the bottom line in that debate. They voted 60-40 to stay in Canada.

We then had to live up to our side of the bargain, and the process began in the year following that, 1981. The process resulted in conclusions that were reached through the famous kitchen accord, and we got the patriation of the constitution and the Charter of Rights. Whether we should or shouldn't have is yet another debate that we have never had properly in this country. Whether we actually wanted a Charter, we got it, and it's a good document, by and large. We got our constitutional arrangement. We got a Canadian constitution. But we didn't answer the question that had been debated in Quebec and we didn't fulfil the promises we made in 1980 with that document, which was finally made an act of parliament following the British ratification in, if my memory is correct, April 1982. We didn't do it, so the process then had to continue. It continued, as everybody knows, and ended up with this document.

In talking about the process, people have said there hadn't been enough public consultation; we locked up 11 men in a room to go away and make the decisions. But when you go clause by clause through all of the issues contained in the constitutional amendments proposed in Meech Lake, you will discover that every single one of these issues has been the subject of national debate across this country for 25 years. Every single one of these issues has been the subject of great debate, and many of the issues were subject to intensive scrutiny and debate in the 1980 referendum vote.

Also, most of these issues have, in one way or the other, been debated by all of the political parties in this country for decades — certainly in our party. Since 1961 in Ottawa, 1963 in Regina and 1965 in Toronto, and at every convention we have had since then, we have debated these issues. It is true also that in the 1984 general election campaign many of the conclusions reached in this particular document were part of the debate, promises made by the party that finally ended up winning the election.

I argue that there has been a good process and there was a need to put it down, to work out the details and the tension. And who should do that? We could go back and do what the Americans did in the 1770s and have a constitutional conference, I guess, but who would go, and how would you select them? You would inevitably have a delegation of 2,000 or 3,000. It would be like trying to do business the way they do in Moscow. It wouldn't work.

I say that the people who were elected in each province and the national government who were elected have a responsibility to lead and to put these issues together, and they did. They didn't do everything. There is a lot not done, all kinds of issues yet to be reached; but let's remember what the discussions were about in the Meech Lake meetings and in the Langevin Block meetings. They weren't about making sure that all of the unfinished constitutional business was finished; they were about bringing Quebec into Confederation via the constitution. That's what those meetings were about and that's what this document has achieved.

Let's think about the history of trying to get Quebec into our country — to have them come into their country as well. In 1971 in this chamber, if my memory is correct, there were meetings of the Premiers and other cabinet ministers from each of the provinces and the federal government. Robert Bourassa, who was Premier of Quebec at the time, went out of this city saying he supported the accord of that day, only to go home and discover that he didn't have enough political support for it, and so reneged on that deal.

We then had a unanimity rule about constitutional development. Did people want to get into the unanimity issue? Quebec said no, so we didn't have what we needed. We had again in effect in 1982 a unanimity rule, because Quebec wasn't in and everybody knew you had to proceed until everybody could agree.

So we have had this process, and I'll repeat myself just briefly to make this one point clear: Meech Lake is about getting Quebec into Canada and about nothing else. Given that Meech Lake is about getting Quebec into Confederation, I think it is an excellent document.

I want now to turn to some of the concerns that have been expressed about Meech Lake: some of the things it has done that people don't like and some of the things it has not done that people wish it had done. First of all, there is great concern that the new way of handling national programs means we will no longer be able to have truly national programs in this country. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth. The way this is designed.... Remember what it says: in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction only, from this point on — or from 1990 on — the federal government can set national objectives and provinces can choose to deliver those programs in different ways, as long as they are consistent with national objectives. We have not had that kind of policy enshrined in this policy.

We have had developed, I think since 1907, a program of this kind of federal funding of provincial initiatives in order to try to get nationally developed programs, but we have never had a mandated requirement that the federal parliament can establish a national objective. For example, an objective that says there shall be no medicare premiums in the delivery of medicare and hospitalization could be part of the national objective, which means that B.C., Ontario and Alberta would have to abolish their medicare premiums. We've never had the ability to do that kind of thing, short of an attempt through something like the Canada Health Act, which can't do it effectively. But you can do it through this process.

The only clout that existed before is the clout Ottawa has with its 50-cent dollars. We now have a situation where the federal government can establish national objectives for a program, and a province that wants to go beyond that or to deliver it in a different way can do so and still get the 50-cent dollars, or whatever other arrangements may be made as time goes on. That isn't possible now. For left-wingers particularly — I hate to say this to members on the other side — I think it is a challenging and exciting goal that we will be able to develop programs of a radical nature and have the federal government participate in the funding, unlike 1948, when we established hospital care in Saskatchewan, the poor prairie farmer province, which, with only a rural farm-based economy, had to pay 100-cent dollars; unlike 1961, when medicare was established in Saskatchewan with 100-cent dollars. Those days will be gone as a result of these changes in Meech Lake, and I'm delighted about that.

Now I'm going to get on to some sensitive ground, but I want to do it: discussion about Meech Lake not dealing with women's rights. I'll be measured in my response and say quietly: nonsense.

Section 28 of the Charter of Rights is untouched by Meech Lake. Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act of Canada is untouched by Meech Lake. The women of Quebec, through their organizations, understand that. They understand that the impact of a distinct society does not impact on gender equality. I hate to agree with the member for Kamloops, but he was right in his explanation of the way in which the distinct society.... The need to consider the distinct society when interpreting the constitution and the Charter does not impact at all on women's rights. Sections 25 and 27 of the Charter were specifically referred to in terms of aboriginal peoples and multiculturalism, and people say that because women's issues were not touched, therefore somehow women have been left out.

But when you read section 28 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it says that nothing whatsoever — in my words —anywhere in this entire Charter can impact on the fact that men and women in this country are equal, period — including Meech Lake, including the constitution, including any other documents or legislative program that anybody tries to do. Section 28 of the Charter is paramount. That point needs to be made. I know that when I leave the chamber later this evening I'll have people tell me I'm wrong. I recognize that there's a wide debate in this country about that issue, but I'm stating my opinion. I'm absolutely and totally convinced of the rightness of it.

I have a bit of a problem with the unanimity rule on the Yukon and the Territories, but there is a saving grace in the unanimity rule there. That is, if some expansionist provinces in the west made some deals with 50 percent of the rest of the country, or six other provinces made a deal to expand into the Yukon or into either of the new territories, that's going to be prevented. The unanimity rule will prevent that. Ian Scott, the Ontario Attorney-General, makes that point in his presentation to the Ontario select committee.

I'm not arguing that that's the position we should take. I must say, I do have some problems with unanimity there. But it's not all negative; there are some positive features in that. In any event, those questions have always been by unanimity in this country. Technically, of course, Ottawa could decide that it was going to allow or create a new province. But that kind of decision has never been made without unanimity in this country. It's just the way we are; there are unwritten rules, and it's the British nature of our being. We don't do those kinds of things arbitrarily or when there is significant dissent.

I have no question in my mind that when the Yukon or either of the new territories is ready for provincehood, there will be no province in this country that says out of pique or any other motive: "No." The reality is that when it's time to happVanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.caen, it will happen.

Aboriginal rights have been referred to in this debate. Aboriginal rights are not — even though there's a reference to them in the accord, and a section that deals with them — technically a part of this whole process. What people are referring to is the failure of the conference to reach an agreement on aboriginal rights. That conference — I now forget the date — of a couple of years ago, or more recently.... It's less than two years since the last election. That conference, people should remember, required seven plus 50 — the formula. The formula was in place then; it's in place now: seven provinces plus 50 percent. It's no different. The problem is that the provinces and Ottawa failed to agree. It's got nothing to do with Meech Lake. They failed to agree, given the same formula then as applies now or will apply in 1995.

I hope the provinces and Ottawa get on with recognizing what we've done to aboriginal people in this country and recognizing the need to redress 100 or more years of dreadful treatment and behaviour by us — the European or white society, or the non-native society, to be more accurate. But it doesn't have anything to do with Meech Lake. I think that point needs to be made.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other issues. There's the issue of immigration. I think people need to remember.... Let me just back up a bit. Everybody in this country thinks that immigration is a federal matter. You walk down the street prior to the Meech Lake debate, and you say to people: "Is immigration federal or provincial?" People will say: "Federal." I suspect many members of this House would say "federal." But you have to read the BNA Act to realize that it's never been true. Immigration has never been an exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government in this country. Quebec has always had the right to participate with Ottawa in the development of immigration policies that are particularly sensitive to Quebec's need. They've always had that right, and they've exercised that right. New Brunswick has had it as well.

It was available under the old constitution of this country — the British North America Act — to any other province too, No other province chose to exercise that right or to take advantage of it, but it was there. What Meech Lake does is to codify that to make it more prominent and to put it into language that codifies a practice that had already existed in Quebec.

So why is it in there? It's in there because the nine other Premiers were concerned about the politics of selling a document or selling a constitutional amendment.... I shouldn't say nine, because I don't think I would include Richard Hatfield in this. But most of the rest of the Premiers were concerned about selling a package of constitutional amendments in their home provinces that appeared to give too much to Quebec. So they had to bring in all these other rights — in a kind of muddy way, in some cases — to allow every province to seemingly have the same rights the province of Quebec has. That's why we have these features codified in Meech Lake.

But the reality is that nothing is different. It may be that as a result of this, more provinces might decide to get involved in negotiations with Ottawa in respect to immigration; I don't know. Some will; some won't. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter, because they could have done so before anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by.... Before I do that, let me just say a word or two about the Senate and the Supreme Court. I think I still have a few minutes. I have always been, when it comes to the Senate, an abolitionist. I've always strongly supported the views of our party and many others outside of our party who believe the Senate should be abolished. I am now beginning to come to the view that there might be a useful role for the Senate in this country, as long as it is elected by popular vote and has some effective role to play — yet to be defined.

But let me say in response to the speech before mine: not equal. I do not want ten people elected from Prince Edward Island, ten people elected from Ontario, and ten people elected from British Columbia. That is not the kind of Senate I want to see. I think that when we have that debate and discussion it will be interesting, and I'm convinced that Canadians will not choose the triple-E Senate.

But when they choose a Senate of some kind, if they choose to have a Senate, it won't work or have the clout it needs unless everybody in this country accepts it, agrees with it, supports the makeup of it and supports the way in which it is elected. For that reason, there needs to be unanimity in the country about the structure of the Senate if one is to continue. If the Senate didn't have the unanimity rule, if it had the seven provinces-50 percent rule, you could very easily have a Senate going in one direction or another that many Canadians would feel very uncomfortable with and not supportive of. It would be a waste of time and a useless endeavour, and we shouldn't even try to establish it. It does require unanimity, and I have no problems at all with that.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, I have no problem whatsoever with provinces saying to the federal government: "Here's the woman I want to have nominated to the Supreme Court." The provinces don't have, under this agreement, an exclusive right to name that justice. They have the right to say to the federal government, "Here's the person we think should be the judge," and then you work it out. What's wrong with that in a country as big and diverse as this, where different regional views are expressed? When in the future three or four western provinces are run by NDP governments, I sure as heck want to make sure that we can get some judges who have a middle-of-the-road stance, at least, instead of all these right-wingers. I'm happy to have some provincial input into selecting justices in this country.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm sorry. I won't inject politics into this. This is a dreadful place to talk about politics.

My conclusions are that we have not necessarily an historic document; 1982 was an historic document. We have a step in the process of improving the 1982 kitchen accord; that's what we have. This step, related to getting Quebec into Confederation and into the process.... If we hadn't done that, what we would have had is nine provinces and the federal government continuing to make constitutional amendments, not ten. So it was essential that we took this first step to get Quebec in. Now, once it's ratified and approved in 1990 — and I sure hope it is — we can get on with the job of making sure we've begun to deal with all of the other unfinished business, with everybody in this country participating, not just nine out of ten.

MR. ROSE: I rise to move, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition — he can't do it because he's already spoken in this debate — Resolution 75. We didn't move it earlier because we wanted a full, frank and open debate on the main motion. That's why it wasn't moved earlier, and that's why the Leader of the Opposition is not actually moving this motion on his own.

What Motion 75 is, in effect, is really an amendment to 73, which is the Meech Lake accord. Some, if they were particularly fastidious, might say that some of these clauses might not be strictly in order. But following the pattern of the federal House. which was to agree to suspend the rules of order in order for concerns to be raised during the debate in the form of amendments.... This is what we're doing with Resolution 75. What the fate of Resolution 75 will be I'm really not in a position to predict at the moment, but the House Leader suggests that he could tell me, and I'm sure he will in the fullness of time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm probably the only one in this House right now that was really involved in the constitutional accord of 1982. I know what an agony that was for everyone concerned. There were problems within every political party, and ours was not excluded from that. Ultimately, though, we did come up with an agreement on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and on the patriation of the constitution.

The flaw in all of this, though, really was the exclusion of Quebec. It's through the Meech Lake accord.... I congratulate the Premiers, including this Premier, for working to have Quebec back in the Canadian family. For that reason, I, with not very much hesitancy — but some — am going to support this, as will my leader and the majority of my party. I don't think, though. that we should gloss over the legitimate concerns expressed here today. There are some real concerns out there among many groups in our society. They feel they've been left out, ignored, or that somehow their rights have actually been lessened by the acceptance of the Meech Lake accord. That's an arguable proposition. I'm not suggesting one way or the other my own position on it, because I feel that the greater good for Canada will come out of the Meech Lake accord, and hopefully we will not be so blind or

inflexible as to not allow other changes to take place despite the very difficult requirement of unanimity.

The concerns that we share in this caucus are actually in our amendment. I'd just like to go over very briefly some of the things that are in the amendment. I don't intend to run the gamut of all the eloquent speeches that have been made here today expressing these concerns. I think that despite this late hour, and despite the fact that we're just ready to adjourn the House for the summertime, some of the most eloquent and passionate speeches I've ever heard have occurred here today. I hasten to add that it is unlikely this will be one of them. However, I am very humble about matters such as this.

MR. ROSE: That's what Churchill said to Clement Attlee, and I won't call you a sheep in sheep's clothing as a rebuttal.

The Meech Lake amendments. In Resolution 73 we have outlined our concerns and tried to repair some of the oversights we felt were in this document and to account for some of the difficulties that we face and that are faced by others, and to express the concerns of others.

MR. ROSE: I'm not interrupting you fellows, am I? I would hate to butt in to a very serious conversation.

Sections (a) and (b) of our resolution give the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the same rights to nominate senators as provinces. We feel that they have been left out of this whole process, and if we're going to have to have a Senate, even if it is a triple-E Senate — by that I mean elderly, expensive and expendable — then I think that the two Northwest Territories and the Yukon should have the same rights as provinces to suggest members of the Senate, because there are senators representing those provinces at the moment. I think to deny them that is short-sighted, and it's an oversight.

I don't think that should be allowed to prevail forever. Maybe future conferences planned — I think section 50 deals with future conferences — will be able to come up with and make amends for that.

The next one deletes the provision for provincial nomination of Supreme Court judges. I'm not going to enlarge on that, because I haven't been party to the discussion around that within our party. I'm a little concerned about that, and I can't speak to that one directly. I can't speak in favour of every part of the amendment; nevertheless, it was part of the agreement we had that we would put forward these things as the expression of our political party. All of us may not agree with every amendment in detail; I have a little bit of concern with that one.

Section (d) inserts the protection of national social programs. We are concerned that the protection of those social programs, such as medicare and the various Canada pension plans and maybe new social programs having to do with child care, be protected and not be allowed, because of provincial powers, to be eroded — the things that make Canadians distinctly different from Americans and therefore a more caring society along those lines.

Section (e) removes the requirement for unanimity over the creation of new provinces. This is quite important. I'm going back to this in a moment, because I'll be dealing with some of the concerns of the territories as the major part of my little contribution to this debate. At the moment Prince Edward Island, for instance, could frustrate the entry of the Yukon as a province. The Yukon isn't interested in becoming a province immediately; it couldn't do it because it doesn't have the financial resources, but it might in some future time. But the Meech Lake accord requires unanimity on the entry of new provinces — for instance, an expansionist province. I recall that once upon a time the late W.A.C. Bennett had an expansionist dream that included the Yukon as part of British Columbia. At the moment Yukoners are not all that excited or enthusiastic about that. So it's possible for an expansionist province to make a deal on unanimity to make a grab for the territories. It's not probable or even reasonable, in my view. Anyway, it's something that may be unrealistic, but unless it's made explicit in the constitution, it causes concern.

Why not have the territories, if they wish to become provinces, deal with the federal government in the same way that other new provinces came into being, the same way British Columbia came into being? I don't think the province, say, of Prince Edward Island, with 120,000 people — about the size of the lower Island here — should have the right to bar the Yukon or the Northwest Territories from becoming part of the Canadian fabric, becoming a province, should they wish to do that. So that's what that amendment does.

The other one, section (f), would place aboriginal rights, including self-government, on the agenda for the next constitutional conference. Section 50(2)(c), I believe, prescribes what sort of thing might be done at the next constitutional conference, and it has to do with the Senate. We would like, through this amendment, to add another section which would put other topics on the agenda, and this would be one of them — self-government for aboriginal peoples in some form. At least talk about it again. We want that to happen as well.

Section (g) would place an economic charter of rights, including full labour rights, on the agenda for future constitutional conferences. We heard a little speech a little while ago — a pretty good speech, in many ways — calling for property rights to be included. We would never mature as a people as long as that threat by some ideologue that would agree to property rights in the constitution.... Some of those ideologues belong to the Conservative Party, and the provinces led by them prevented it from happening. Those of you who were here will recall that last time this House was unanimous in support of property rights. But we want more than property rights. We want rights of labour — the right to a job — the right to a clean environment and the right to health enshrined in the constitution. To me, there are social issues that go far beyond the necessity of handling the issue of private property, which is enshrined in our common law going back God knows how many centuries. I don't think that's at risk, in spite of my great, deep love and respect for the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, section (h) ensures the participation of aboriginal leaders and the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories in any future constitutional conferences, and we've addressed that in an amendment to section 50(2)(c).

Section (i) would insert the notwithstanding clause for women's rights, saying "explicitly" not "implicitly." Regardless of the reassurances we get everywhere, a lot of women are very concerned that they are explicitly at risk in terms of equality. They are concerned that there isn't a paramountcy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms over the distinct society clause and other clauses in here, and I think it is a justifiable concern. If we can make an amendment that would make it explicit that the Charter and its equality sections reign supreme, I think we would have solved a great deal and put to rest a lot of legitimate concerns. The struggle for equality for women has taken far too long. That's what that does.

I said that I would like to dwell, if only for a moment, on the matter of the admission of new provinces and the concerns of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Sure, we want Quebec in the constitution. We all know that; we worked very hard for it. The change in public attitudes in this country since, say, 1968 or 1965 — the B and B commission — has, I think, been revolutionary. There is a lot greater understanding in our country today, a lot greater tolerance and, as a matter of fact, respect, if not affection, for the kind of society we're building in this country, which is going to be a bilingual one.

My young grandchildren are going to school in French immersion. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) applauds himself, as he usually does. I'm pleased that is part of our public education system. More and more young people are going to be bilingual. Why shouldn't they be? In Europe, as the Premier knows, linguistic skill and flexibility, to be able to move from one language to another, is not a sin. You're not somehow demeaned by the fact that you can speak another language. I think the change has been remarkable in our country over those years.

So we welcome Quebec, and we welcome the fact that our county is becoming a little bit more civilized and sophisticated. The fact that we can tap into two, if not more, great cultures of our world is an important addition that we didn't have 25 or 30 years ago.

Now that we've welcomed Quebec, let's get back to welcoming the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The only group that held hearings in the Northwest Territories on the concerns of aboriginal people and the admission of new provinces was the Senate. Some of us damn the Senate. Nevertheless, on occasion they do pretty fair work. Let me summarize their recommendations. I'll try not to belabour this, because I told everybody else to be brief, which is advice I usually give to all but myself.

The governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon want to be given powers of the province to submit names to the Privy Council of Canada for Senate appointments. I've talked about that one.

This is a summary of the Senate recommendations after extensive public hearings. Other than for Quebec, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to be granted powers to submit names for judges of the Supreme Court. Invite the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to future constitutional conferences as full participants. Any changes in boundaries be by consent of the territories — in other words, no provincial intrusion into that; it's strictly a matter between the territories and the provincial government. Provincial status be obtained when appropriate, by negotiation between the territories and the feds alone — in other words, no provincial intrusion. Add treaty rights and aboriginal self-government for the agendas of future constitutional conferences.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) spoke very eloquently about the fact that he, as a native person, an original Canadian, and the ethnic and distinct society he represents have been left out entirely — and that's very demeaning. It's very hurtful, and it shouldn't be allowed to continue, to take anywhere from 500,000 to a million Canadians and leave them out and ignore their rights and aspirations. It cannot continue. They say in this final recommendation: if Quebec is a distinct society, why not add aboriginal people as distinct societies too?

Mr. Speaker, let me close by reading from a letter from the government leader in the Yukon. He has written a very long letter. I'll spare the House: I won’t read it all. I think he puts eloquently how they feel about the Meech Lake accord and their being left out, ignored and maybe even disadvantaged:

"The north's dilemma is your dilemma, both in practice and principle. In practice, you or your successors will face yet another unnecessary constitutional crisis when northerners apply for provincial status. The current formula of unanimity will prove unworkable, and a new method will have to be found. I am therefore asking you to take whatever steps you can to ensure that the concerns of northerners are represented in your legislative review of the constitutional accord, either by yourself or by our government at your invitation. I urge you to study sections 41(h) and (i) of the proposed amendment, which deal with the admission of future provinces and the extension of boundaries of existing provinces, and to recognize their violation of constitutional history as an unnecessary element of the constitutional accord.

"Finally. I wish to assure you that we in the Yukon are as pleased as other Canadians to see national unity promoted through the signing of the constitution by Quebec. This is a significant step for all Canadians. But it is not necessary to sacrifice the north to save Quebec. Our constitution is not cut from a limited stock of cloth; we do not need to take from one jurisdiction in order to give to another. The inclusion of Quebec in the Canadian constitution should not mean the exclusion of the north."

I close by thanking the government for the opportunity for us to place this amendment through a resolution and for the opportunity for us to express what we needed to express through a very loose application of the rules of relevancy. When you're building a constitution and trying to seek changes in the way we are going to conduct ourselves as a nation, I don't think we should be too inflexible. I close by saying that I have enjoyed this debate. I think it has been a useful one and has given the House an opportunity to close on a rather high note.

MS. EDWARDS: I also rise to support the amendment, which I believe allows the opposition to make the point that needs to be made within the rules that we have managed to

make work for this purpose. The Meech Lake accord brought the Quebec provincial government into the confederated fold, and we all desired that achievement. Quebec's five conditions for signing the accord were met, and its distinct identity was entrenched in the constitution. One of the major difficulties of our constitutional acceptance was overcome thereby. We welcome Quebec's full partnership. It's long overdue and it's worth some cost. But the accord needs amendment, Mr. Speaker. The cost it asks is too high for too many citizens.

The Meech Lake accord stands itself as the clearest, most persuasive case against its own approval. How so? Eleven politicians in two 12-hour sessions, working in a rarefied atmosphere where they know the yeast for change is huge and they must behave extraordinarily well — like statesmen. This is almost like 11 archangels working in heaven, isn't it? It's like the 11 in heaven. Each of these participants knows clearly that what he decides must in all conscience be worthy of a statesman. But when this situation obtains and these people come up with a document that has the number of flaws, probably amendable and not amended.... We must never approve an accord like this. I think it needs to be amended.

The politically provincial participants in the Meech Lake accord demonstrated the all-too-human flaws that we all exhibit under pressure, but they failed to offset their first, immediate, fast political responses with sober second thought about the good of the state. The sober second thought might have convinced the 11 in heaven that the costs they are asking to get Quebec into the constitution could destroy many of our options to move again as a nation and to respond to our constitutional needs, because of the strong and inflexible nature of the veto power that was brought in with this accord.

The cost is an acceptance of veto power for every province on ten separate issues. Wise constitution-drafters do not like to include unanimity in constitutions, because of the rigidity it brings into the constitutional process. We might have expected that the so-called fathers of the accord would have adopted and accepted the membership of Canada as they were doing this changing, adopting and accepting new membership rules for Canadian provinces so as to have at least protected the constitution's capacity to adapt to conditions of the day. Even better, they might have improved that capacity to adapt. Instead, they have made it more rigid. Excessive rigidity has a major danger. If a constitution is too rigid, there will be a delay of political changes, which could take us to the point of explosive social response. We don't want that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

We had the veto power in our constitution before the Meech accord. We had it with the patriation in the 1982 kitchen accord. There were some pressures, and under that agreement we had four issues that required provincial unanimity. Now we have ten. The framers of the Meech Lake accord, instead of repairing the situation, went ahead like the movement of future shock, accelerated our race to rigidity and set up a situation where we may not be able to move with the speed that we need to.

A single example demonstrates our predicament. The 11 ministers obviously wanted Senate reform. They established that subject for annual meeting agendas, but at the same time they established the ability of provinces to veto any reform of the Senate and they also established the right of the provinces to recommend members for the Senate. Why in the name of all politics and fantasy would a province that has the right to name members of the Senate be willing to give that up and not veto a situation where ten other first ministers were going to do something they couldn't quite agree with? What you have is a situation where the first ministers' talkathon will go on year after year, because they are going to talk about the Senate. But everybody needs to agree in order to change it, so who is going to change it? This is an attitude that is fairly well accepted — broadly accepted. When you get down to expecting all the ministers to agree, when you want 11 ministers to agree, it doesn't happen very often. We are doomed — perhaps that's the right word — to discuss this issue at annual first ministers' conferences. What we will have is first ministers talking, struggling, proposing, negotiating and perhaps even responding, but will we get any movement? We don't know, with a requirement that there be no vetoes before it happens.

I have been talking about 11 first ministers. There's another problem with the accord in that it's likely to be 11 first ministers forever and ever, because again, we require unanimous consent in order to have any graduation of a territory to provincial status. Even to have a change of provincial boundaries needs unanimous consent. It's a widespread recognition that it will be a long, long time before either of the territories gets unanimous consent to become a province. I think that what we can count on is giving our map of Canada jigsaw puzzles to our grandchildren for their grandchildren, because the map is going to stay the same, it is so rooted in this rigidity of a requirement for unanimity.

To make provincial status unreasonably remote to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories was insult enough, but there were other things that brought injury as well. The residents of the territories will have no place in constitutional discussions. They cannot provide lists of names for appointments to the Supreme Court or to the Senate, which essentially excludes any territorial resident from serving on either of those bodies. The Premier said, in his introduction of this accord today, that there should be no one on the outside looking in. Well, with this accord the residents of the territories will be outside looking in.

Remember, the root of the word "parliament" is "to speak." It's a fundamental right of people who live under parliamentary government to be at the speaking table. The people of the territories have no right to be at the constitutional speaking table. They cannot speak on their choice of judges. They cannot speak on provincial changes. These two coastal territories cannot speak on fisheries issues that will occupy the annual first ministers' talkathon. They no longer have a voice in their own fate, except by the voice of others, and that is a major and serious anomaly.

We took an unprecedented step when we recognized Quebec as a distinct society in this accord. I, too, agree with recognizing the distinctiveness of Quebec. But the aboriginal people are every bit as distinct as the Quebecois, and they are also every bit as Canadian. They have been here longer than the French or the English or the descendants of other nations that have come to Canada. In fact, they created the first federal constitution, which was known as the great law of peace, which was codified and enforceable and a constitution.

Nothing in the accord indicates that the first ministers are interested in addressing the distinctiveness of the aboriginal people. No more do we have a common resolve to continue talks on aboriginal rights and aboriginal self-government,

and the aboriginal people will not be at the table to encourage that discussion, or if it happens to occur anyway.

This failure to look ahead to a whole constitution dealing with our first citizens, as we have dealt with the two solitudes of French and English Canadians, demands action and requires amendments to the accord. Amendment could answer the reasonable demand for good-faith negotiations with aboriginal people on the issues of self-government and aboriginal title. The public demand for such discussion grows and widens in its scope. How can the nation or this province survive, and survive well, without addressing the issues of aboriginal rights and title? Were the framers of this accord considering the national welfare when they omitted this subject from consideration?

The failure to look ahead to provincial status for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories by avoiding the chance, in fact the expectation, of some other province vetoing that event casts into serious doubt the possibility of doing for those two territories what the nation did for Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905. Amendment could solve this problem by excluding provincial status as a subject on which veto can be exercised. Territorial governments deserve fair representation in deciding their future. They're talking now about separatist action and separatist politics. "Is that the way we need to get attention?" they ask. We might say, I think: "Is this the reasonable fruit of an accord?"

Who did this 11 in heaven serve when they assured, in an excess of caution, no effect of the accord over sections 25 and 27 of the Charter of Rights, while they excluded mention of section 28 of the Charter? The framers of the constitution declare — and have declared, as I understand, every one of them — that they did not mean to exclude or put in danger the equality of women. If that is the case, why would it be so difficult to make an amendment in section 16 of the accord to include section 28 as well as sections 25 and 27 of the Charter? Is this the result of requiring unanimity? Everybody says they want to have it, but without testing it we know we can't have it, because we wouldn't want to open it up. Is this how unanimity works? If that's the case, Mr. Speaker, then we should take some serious look at amending the accord.

We face some rigidity with the document. The failure of the first ministers to address important issues that still exist related to human rights, political rights and traditional social rights will be cast in the concrete of veto power. When we want to address our problems, the towering difficulty of stasis will frustrate and prevent action. Veto will protect the active provincial politicking over Supreme Court appointments. I think everyone can think of an example where it might be the case that politics could intrude unreasonably and unnecessarily into the naming of appointees to that particular court, which has an ever-increasing part in determining the law of the land.

These are important issues of long-term significance. I don't expect perfection in the accord. It's been said several times that it isn't perfect. If I expected perfection, I wouldn't be in politics. But I do expect some exercise of reason. I cannot accept that watching the process of arriving at the Meech Lake accord, which demanded unanimous consent, means that we should accept a document that enshrines the same process to answer the response of provinces to the need to have Quebec within the constitution. To do that, we should at least have recognized the foreseeable needs of the constitution, and we should have created the process that addressed those needs. I'm talking about the eventual entry of the territories into provincehood and the recognition and talk of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title.

Failing to address aboriginal rights and self-government would have less significance if Senate reform, along with fishing, had not been specifically named in the agendas for the next first ministers' meetings. Almost eliminating the probability of provincehood for the territories amounts to a deliberated abuse of future process, I think, with no explanation at all of why this kind of draconian measure was taken. Whose demand? Who wanted to have veto to prevent the achieving of provincial status by the territories? Excluding citizens of the territories from the possibility of membership in the Supreme Court or the Senate needs to be addressed, and I think it should be addressed by these amendments. I think we should take a serious look at some of these amendments, which are very important for a long-term document that deals with our constitution.

I cannot in conscience support the accord without the amendment. It provides too poor a welcome for that very valued province, Quebec.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I rise to speak to this amendment and say at the outset that I will not be supporting it.

A little bit of a backgrounder. First of all, I'm very much in favour of the Meech Lake accord. I don't think anyone in this House would say it's a perfect document. All legislation, all documents of this kind, are designed by imperfect human beings. But I believe it's a serious attempt in this country at positive nation-building. I've had the fortune to live in several provinces in Canada. I was born in Ontario. My people on my father's side came there many, many years ago from New York State as United Empire Loyalists. I've lived in Quebec. I lived in Nova Scotia for a while, in Alberta, and have spent the last 30 years in western Canada. At one time in my life I was reasonably proficient in patois; but that's gone, and my English and patois are about the same. The English hasn't improved and the patois is extinct. It's been too many years.

I do agree with former Prime Minister St. Laurent, who said: "Nous sommes tous Canadiens." We are all Canadians in this country. The Meech Lake accord, for the first time, brings Quebec into the constitution as an equal partner, and I applaud that; I applaud that step in Canada.

I have a tremendous empathy with the people from Quebec. I've lived with them; I've worked with them, and at one time I could even communicate with them. But that's a long time ago when I was much younger.

I want to speak to the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which in fact proposes nine amendments to the Meech Lake accord. I've had some research done on this. My general position on this would be this: the specific issues contained in the proposed amendments have been thoroughly canvassed in the extensive hearings held by the joint parliamentary committee in the five provinces which have approved the Meech Lake accord and by the Ontario legislative committee report. All of them concluded that the accord must be approved without amendments.

The Meech Lake accord should not be seen, in my opinion, as the end of constitutional reform, but as the beginning of constitutional reform. Our great neighbour to the south has a constitution which has several amendments, and these have been arrived at after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of

thought. So I see the Meech Lake accord, however imperfect it may be, as only the beginning of constitutional reform. The various concerns and issues identified can be dealt with in subsequent constitutional discussions among first ministers, as provided for in the Meech Lake accord. For these reasons, and out of a valid concern that Meech Lake, once reopened, would in all likelihood never come together again, and we would lose a tremendous opportunity.

I believe, and it's the government's position, that the resolution in its original form ought to be approved without any amendments.

I want to speak to some of these amendments for a few moments, and I promise not to take up too much of your time. Clauses (a) and (b): these proposals would amend the accord by allowing territorial governments to nominate senators. In my opinion, it ought to be born in mind that the Senate appointment provision in the resolution is an interim measure pending the more fundamental reform that British Columbia and other western provinces are seeking. This more fundamental reform will require a further constitutional amendment which will need the approval of Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

Territorial legislatures or governments do not have a role to play in constitutional amendments of this type, in my opinion. The very purpose of the original proposal, therefore, was to remove the current unilateral federal appointment of senators and thereby remove the perceived reason for the federal Parliament and the government to resist the more fundamental Senate reform that I think we all desire in Canada. It's our position that the interim appointment procedures contained in the amended section 25 should be overridden by more substantive Senate reform as quickly as possible, following the final entrenchment of the Meech Lake amendments, and we'll be pursuing Senate reform as a matter of paramount urgency. For these reasons, the suggested amendment regarding a role for the territories in what we see as an interim, temporary procedure is neither appropriate nor necessary.

Clause (c) in the Leader of the Opposition's amendment: the proposed amendment would delete the entire Meech Lake provisions regarding entrenchment of the Supreme Court of Canada. It should be noted that the legal basis for this extremely important national institution is currently held in a simple federal act of Parliament. The provisions contained in the Meech Lake accord give long overdue constitutional status to the court, which is only fitting, given the role of the court as the ultimate arbitrator of the constitution of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and basic federal-provincial legal disputes.

The effect of the proposed amendment of the Leader of the Opposition would render the Meech Lake accord fundamentally unacceptable to the province of Quebec. That's one of the reasons, in my opinion, for having the Meech Lake accord in the first place, in that the provisions of the accord are designed to guarantee that the court is capable of dealing with the unique civil law regime of that province and others who have long viewed the current legal foundations of the court as being fundamentally at odds with the federal principle.

The Meech Lake change, Mr. Speaker, also remedies the appearance of the inequity represented by the federal government's current unilateral power to appoint the judges of this critical central institution of federalism.

As for those who argue that the judicial appointment procedure should be more open and broadly based than the provisions which simply refer to the federal and provincial governments, it ought to be noted that nothing whatever in the provisions, in my opinion, prevents that.

I'd like to speak just for a few moments about clauses (f), (g) and (h) in the Leader of the Opposition's motion. These amendments specify further topics for the agendas of future constitutional conferences of the first ministers by adding aboriginal rights, and in particular self-government, and an economic charter of rights, including full labour rights; and clause (h) would specify whom the Prime Minister should invite to the aboriginal constitutional conferences.

In response, I'd like to note that the potential list of specific topics which one province or another might wish to see added is virtually limitless; and that once reopened, in my opinion, as I said before, the Meech Lake accord may never come together again. Secondly, the agreement reached at Meech Lake made specific reference to only two topics, both of them of direct interest to the province of British Columbia: Senate reform and fisheries. The proposed change, as specified by the Leader of the Opposition in this amendment, in my opinion would dilute the emphasis placed on these two very important topics.

For these reasons and others, Mr. Speaker, I would be forced to vote against the amendment.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise to speak in favour of the amendment. The element of time is a key actor on the stage of the constitutional drama. Time can play its bold persona and agitate for hasty action — for after all, time runs out — or time can play its cautious role, for after all, there's lots of it.

In the drama of the constitutional accord there are those who say we must pass it now and in this form; if we don't do so now, we will never do so because time is running out. And there are those who say the constitution of our country is of such importance that it is worth every moment it takes to ensure that we do it right, because time is on our side.

Given the issues raised by our resolution, those arguments are used as seems appropriate, depending on what side of those issues you happen to be on. In fact, the time-is-running-out argument can be used by a proponent to argue for acceptance of the present form of the accord, while the same proponent will argue that there is lots of time for Senate reform, for fair participation for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, for aboriginal rights, for economic rights, for women's equality rights, and for the integrity of national social programs.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've heard the argument of time used both ways, and I believe that all of us use it both ways, even within the same series of arguments we would be making, depending on what side of the issue we find ourselves on.

There's no question that Quebec must be recognized as a distinct society. There's no doubt about that; we affirm that. And yet time is too dear to leave Quebec's inclusion too long. Today I listened with a great deal of respect to many people speak on many aspects of the importance of the constitution and the importance of the inclusion of Quebec as a distinct society, and I affirm all of that and join in with that.

But I think I was especially moved by my colleague from Atlin in his championing of the legitimate concerns of northerners and aboriginal peoples. He made the watertight case, in my opinion, that the process is flawed. Mr. Speaker, when a process is flawed in a democracy, I would suggest that it is invariably those who experience the most injustice who come out of the deal with the least justice.

In this instance, the party having had a seat at the table got its distinct society status, and we rejoice with them: but how can there be rejoicing with the aboriginal people, with the northerners, with women, with low-income people, and so on? How can we rejoice with those who have been excluded from the process because of the argument that time was running out?

My colleagues have dealt with the issues referred to in our amendment, and I wish to focus on shared-cost programs — primarily 106A, which reads:

"(1) The government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.

"(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."

I would like to read our amendment to this section, which would add: "(3) Nothing in this section derogates from the right of the federal government to pursue national social programs in areas of exclusive jurisdiction or areas of shared jurisdiction." This amendment, in my opinion, is essential to avoid the creation of an imbalance in our cooperative federalism. I am not arguing for a complete balance in favour of federalism or provincialism, but I am suggesting that there is a creative balance that has existed, especially in recent years, and that needs to be protected. What is at stake here is not simply social programs; what is at stake here is the future of federalism. The argument here is not whether Ottawa is best at social programs, or whether the provinces are best, or whether to give spending powers completely to Ottawa or the provinces.

Our collective experience has been symbiotic. Medicare, for instance, was developed by one or two provinces and then facilitated by the federal government for the whole country. Provinces have been excellent incubators of progressive social programs, but that incubation stage is stage one. Stage two is the federal role of enabling universal accessibility to those programs: programs that are a tie that binds our diverse human reality together; programs that stand up for the powerless; programs that ensure fairness, nutrition, health and education for all Canadians, not just the wealthy, not just the children of the makers and the shakers.

I'm not arguing that federal spending powers will cease to play a role, nor am I arguing that the federal government is better at incubating social programs. And I'm certainly not arguing that one province's ideas for social programs should be forced on all others. But I am arguing that this accord is mischievous, in that it upsets the balance that is crucial to the effective development of programs that (a) serve the needs of social justice for Canadians, be they rich or poor, Canadian born or immigrant, men or women, adults or children; and (b) preserve the fabric of this nation's society, partly in the thin ribbon along the 49th parallel and partly dispersed throughout the length and breadth of the world's third-largest country.

I'd like to refer to Prof. Al Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. One of my colleagues — who comes down on this issue on another side than the one on which I come down — and I were commenting a little while ago that it seems that the academic community in Canada is split about fifty-fifty on this issue, so each of us brings into the House our own guru as a means of trying to support our position. Mine is Prof. Johnson, writing in Policy Options, January '88. He makes some points that are worthy of consideration. He writes: "The purpose of a constitution is to proclaim and define nationhood; to proclaim and define the rights and freedoms.... and to establish a system of governance which will contribute to the flourishing of the nation, its citizens and its identities, and in the doing of it to strengthen the bonds of nationhood."

While the accord strengthens the bond with Quebec, given section 106A, it fails to strengthen the bonds of nationhood, because it weakens certain rights and benefits that all Canadians share in and are entitled to, and it weakens the bond of nationhood by compromising the relevance and the credibility of Canada's national political institutions. We're talking here about medicate. hospital care, old age security pensions, disability allowances and access to higher education. We could even be talking about the process that brought about the Trans-Canada Highway.

As Professor Johnson points out, all of these were established or made national in scope as a result of the actions of the federal government. In each case, other than post-secondary education, where only federal finances were involved, either the programs were established with the provinces administering the programs with national principles or criteria — for example, medicare and hospital care — or a constitutional amendment was passed to enable the federal government to undertake the program itself — for example, unemployment insurance and old age security.

Professor Johnson says: "The point is clear: one of the distinguishing features of nationhood in Canada — the sharing across the country of certain common public services — has been made possible by the instruments of the constitution." Professor Johnson goes on to say that the Meech Lake accord fails to recognize this point. The future is seriously impacted by section 106A because it will be more difficult to amend the constitution to give the government of Canada the power to establish new nationwide programs. Further, the ability of the federal parliament to bring the provinces to establish new programs is seriously weakened by the Meech Lake accord.

Had Meech Lake been in effect years ago, we would not have medicare today. That is my opinion. Sure, it was incubated in the provinces. but Meech Lake upsets the balance that was crucial to federalism's role in bringing that about. To quote Professor Johnson: "All the government of Canada could have done.... would have been to declare in law the 'national objectives' it hoped to achieve." Further, he said: "It could not have incorporated into law the five principles which now bind the provinces in their medicare plans — and under which extra billing was ended." In the case of medicare, all the provinces would have had to do would have been to "carry on" plans or initiatives "compatible" with the federal objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise some problems that I think really do need to be considered as we canvass this. Number one, with free trade the intent that only new programs will be on the table is compromised. The so-called Mulroney free trade deal reaches its greasy fingers right into our constitution. National programs should not be weakened from within — or rather from without, but we don't need to help the process.

Number two, there is a difference in definition between French and English, according to Professor Johnson, as he canvasses Oxford and Robert. In English, "compatible" means — and I think this is a very important point —accordant, consistent, congruous, as well as capable of existing together. But in French, "compatible" means only capable of existing together. Therefore the only power of the federal government will be to finance provincial programs which are capable of existing together. That is a formula for weak federalism.

Number three, it is worthy of note that the balkanization of Canada that will result from 106A will be exacerbated by the more provincially oriented courts, which will surely be called on to interpret the meanings of the words "objective" and "compatible."

Number four, the opting-out principle is found twice in the accord: first, in respect to spending power and shared cost programs; and second, in respect to future constitutional amendments which might transfer powers from provincial government to federal government. In combination this could mean that federal programs are further weakened in the future.

I just want to quote, as I approach my conclusion, from the National Anti-Poverty Organization. They say:

"As social assistance benefits lose pace with inflation, as social services are reduced, and even as 'unemployable' recipients are pressured to find employment, low-income Canadians are relying on the federal standards established in federal-provincial agreements as a second line of defence. More than one provincial government has spoken about making work for welfare programs mandatory; the Canada Assistance Plan Act prohibits mandatory programs, saving social assistance recipients from slave-labour situations or from working for less than minimum wage. This example illustrates the interest of poor Canadians in maintaining strong federal standards."

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I return to the issue of time. Because I place a high priority on the inclusion of those who seek fairness and justice, I argue that time is on our side, both Quebec's side and the side of those whose concerns have not been addressed in the accord.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The debate we have heard on Resolution 75 that was introduced in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been interesting and most informative. I do not agree with many of the arguments presented by members of the opposition, but I do recognize the sincerity and genuine concern expressed for the variety of issues that have been presented by members speaking to Resolution 75.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that we didn't particularly have an agreement on the number of speakers to the amendment. Unfortunately the House Leader is not here, and I am here as the deputy

House Leader, but I am not aware that we had an agreement specifically stating the number of speakers on the amendment. We have the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who has been waiting to take his place on the amendment. It would be unfortunate, given that he feels very strongly about this issue, if he should be left out of the debate. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government House Leader, perhaps in this situation you would allow the member to speak.

MR. ROSE: The point of order, with all due deference and groveling to you, is that the member from Nanaimo has been organizing this debate and wishes to participate. He had to leave. I admit that, according to our agreement, I told the government House Leader that there would be three speakers only. It seems to me that we have got a couple of choices here. Either we allow him to proceed or else he speaks after the Premier when we return to the main motion. It's of little consequence to me, but I don't like to break an agreement with the government House Leader, and perhaps we could have some flexibility on this matter. If it is inappropriate for the second member from Nanaimo to speak now, then I think he will reserve his right to speak on the main motion, and I hope that doesn't offend our agreement. If it does, then we have to look at some other matters.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had a lot of nice things that I was going to say, but the point is that there was an agreement as to the number of speakers who would be speaking on the amendment. Regrettably the amendment is out of order, but we have out of courtesy and agreement last night allowed the amendment to proceed. You see, the resolution before us is a federal initiative agreed to by all the provincial premiers, and it is not competent for this Legislative Assembly to amend such a document. We can only pass this motion and schedule or defeat it. We cannot amend the motion. If Meech Lake, as we describe it, is to pass this Legislative Assembly, it must pass whole. To do otherwise would not be in order. Therefore I must call this, debate out of order and ask that we proceed to adjourned debate on Motion 73 in the name of the hon. Premier. The member for Nanaimo can certainly speak to that if he wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I had thought I would be speaking on the amendment, but certainly I am not about to interfere with any arrangement that was made.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. You are recognized on the main motion. Please continue.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I was simply acknowledging so.

I would have spoken in support of the amendment, because I think it is a necessary amendment, but I am in the

curious position of saying that I also support the main motion. I support the Meech Lake accord. I don't think that those two positions are as contradictory as they might appear to be, simply because the resolution that we have represents a significant step forward. Sadly, however, we could have gone further, and we chose not to. I am saddened by that. That's why I said in the beginning, quel dommage. What a pity. How sad that is.

I'm going to be brief in my comments tonight, because a number of people have preceded me. I also know that many people, my colleagues, have made points that I would have, and I am sure they have done so more eloquently than I could. Let me offer just a few comments though, beginning in an anecdotal way, if I might.

I taught a course in Canadian studies at a college before I became a politician, and two of the units that I focused on were the Canadian constitution and the French fact in Canada. I feel passionately about both those subjects; moreover, I have spent some considerable time in study of and reflection on them.

Let me say with that brief preamble that we ought to recognize what a constitution is beyond just a dry-as-dust legal document. A constitution is probably above all a consensus-building document. It's been referred to as a political crib, as a framework in which all the actors in society function and operate and, we hope, prosper. It's a document whose function is to give us a sense of who we are and, sometimes magically enough, a sense of where we might go and what we might want to be. A constitution, in short, is a sketch map of who we are, a draft of what we might be and what we aspire to be.

I want to emphasize that the present consensus we have in the constitution of Canada is one that I take pride in, and I don't think that many of us quite understand the grounds we have for pride in the constitution we hammered out for this country some six years ago. It was a tawdry process. I know it well, and I was saddened by the process. But what we came up with, miraculously enough, has some things that can make us all very proud indeed.

Let me give you just a few examples. We now acknowledge and specifically declare and embrace that there are fundamental rights and freedoms in this society, and we thereby give notice to anybody who would take those away that that will not be allowed. That's a remarkable step in the history of this country, and we didn't have it before. Similarly, in our constitution, we acknowledge and recognize the existence of group rights. We have finally gone beyond the naive nineteenth-century construct that says all rights are individual rights, because that's lunatic. It's not true. We all know it's not true, but we continued for a very long time trying to function as if it were the case. We've gone beyond that.

Similarly, what we did in that constitution and the Charter, one of the things that gives me considerable pride as a Canadian, was to spell out specifically in section 28 that there would indeed be equality between men and women enshrined in our constitution. It was a struggle to get it, but we did it. Let me quote section 28: "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." That's a marvellous achievement. We may feel blase about it, but it was an achievement.

A fourth example — just a brief one to make my point, again one that most of us probably aren't even mindful of — is in part 3 of the new constitution. We have a specific section that talks about equalization and regional disparities, and commits the government of Canada and the government of the provinces to do something about regional disparities, to try and share the wealth and produce a somewhat better and happier society for all of us. Now you won't find that in many other constitutions in the world.

We have, in short. already a consensus that I take pride in. The predicament is that it's a flawed consensus. We all know that, because there was one player missing — parce qu'il y a une autre societe an Canada, un autre peuple fondateur du Canada. There is another society. There is another culture. There is another language. The terminology and the resolution before us is une societe distincte. Great stuff. We recognize that.

We're making amends for that, and I take considerable pride in that, because again, if I can be anecdotal for just a moment, long before I was political in any other way, my first exposure was about Quebec. I listened to a guy named Jean Lesage, Premier of the province of Quebec in the early sixties. When I heard Lesage speak, I ran out and read some books and found out something about Quebec. Ironically enough, the first book I read I believe was called Quebec In Question, written by an American sociologist — but a good book. It made the point in crystal-clear fashion that Quebec is not a society like the others.

"Nous ne sommes pas comme les autres," they have said, and they're right. It is a distinct society, and we wonderfully, miraculously, marvelously have chosen to acknowledge that. It's a debt we have owed for a very long time. It is, moreover, a debt that became all the more urgently in need of repayment because of what happened some five years ago in a referendum in the province of Quebec in terms of the last round of constitutional debate, because we implicitly, if not explicitly, said: "Reject that separatist option and we will welcome you into the fold, and we will make sacrifices to welcome you back in the fold." We have done that.

I, despite my reservations about the agreement, despite the fact I think it is flawed in some ways and that I deplore the process by which we came to the agreement, cannot in good conscience not support this accord. Let me just close by saying that I appreciate and admire the comments made by my colleagues who can't support the accord because of their serious convictions that it is flawed irreparably, and that I appreciate. respect and admire that right to dissent. It, indeed, is part of what our constitution also acknowledges.

I want you to know, too, that if I believed we would put the constitution out of reach of the kind of change it ought to have. out of reach of achieving the new consensus I would have us find, I too would not support it. However, I do support it for reasons I hope I have made clear.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair proposes now to put the question on the amendment, Motion 75.

YEAS — 17
G. Hanson	Barnes	Marzari
Rose	Harcourt	Boone
D'Arcy	Gabelmann	Blencoe
Edwards	Guno	Smallwood
Lovick	Sihota	A. Hagen
Jones		Cashore

NAYS — 29
Brummet	Savage	Rogers
L. Hanson	Dueck	Richmond
Parker	Michael	Pelton
De Jong	Rabbitt	Long
Veitch	McCarthy	S. Hagen
Strachan	Vander Zalm	Couvelier
Davis	Johnston	R. Fraser
Gran	Chalmers	Ree
Serwa	Vant	Huberts
Messmer	S.D. Smith

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the members that the Premier will close debate on Motion 73.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am very pleased that we have had much good debate in the House today. Certainly for the most part I think there has been good support for the resolution about which we are now to take a vote. As we get ready to vote on this resolution, I would like to make some closing comments to try to put into perspective what it is that we are doing today.

The men and women who serve in provincial legislatures across the country and in our federal parliament are all, I believe, committed to the concept of a strong and united nation. Their political philosophies may differ, they may disagree on the best road to reach certain ends, but they all in their own way hold the best interests of Canada at heart. Politicians, after all, are only people; and people, even with the best of intentions, rarely manage to create perfection even when they undertake to take great endeavours. So it is with this agreement, the Meech Lake accord.

I noted earlier that some argue that this agreement is imperfect. But I must point out that the agreement as it stands moves us one giant step forward, when you consider what existed before it was reached.

I view the Meech Lake accord not as an end, but rather as a beginning. The spirit of compromise and consensus that existed in its formation can and will be recreated again in the future, when together we move in the direction of additional reform. The agreement is not a panacea or a blanket solution for all our constitutional problems. But many of the concerns that have been raised and many of the problems that have been put forward can be raised during the annual constitutional conferences of first ministers, which start this year.

The Meech Lake agreement is, as I said, a giant step forward, but other steps will be taken in the months and years ahead. Senate reform and other issues — many of which were mentioned today — can and will be dealt with, because we have come too far in the process to be satisfied or complacent with what we have accomplished to date.

I believe the accord has generated a new spirit of unity among Canadians, and a sense that we are truly all members of one family, and that like any other family, we can grow and change together for the better.

It is up to all of us in our own way, as elected representatives of British Columbia, to take advantage of the momentum of the Meech Lake accord and commit ourselves to work toward further improving what we have accomplished in this historic agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote today as a proud supporter of the Meech Lake accord, and I would ask that all members of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, stand up and be counted for a stronger and better Canada.

What we do today can go down in history as an important step forward in the evolution of a new kind of Canada that meets the hopes, dreams and aspirations of all its people, no matter where they live.

I'm pleased that we're able to end this session of the Legislature on a note which I presume will be one of almost unanimous agreement. I thank all of the members for their excellent participation.

YEAS — 42
Brummet	Savage	Rogers
L. Hanson	_Dueck	Richmond
Parker	Michael	Pelton
De Jong	Rabbitt	Long
Veitch	McCarthy	S. Hagen
Strachan	Vander Zalm	Couvelier
Davis	Johnston	R. Fraser
Gran	Chalmers	G. Hanson
Barnes	Rose	Harcourt
Boone	D'Arcy	Gabelmann
Blencoe	Vant	Serwa
Ree	Lovick	Sihota
A. Hagen	Jones	Clark
S.D. Smith	Messmer	Huberts

NAYS — 5
Marzari	Edwards	Guno
Smallwood		Cashore

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the consolidated financial statements for British Columbia Railway for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1987.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of B.C. Systems Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1988, and the annual report of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. Leader of the Opposition sought, under standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House to discuss an urgent matter of public importance: namely, the danger to the guarantee that all Canadians should depend upon to have a justice system that is impartially administered.

In his statement of the matter in support of his application, the hon. Leader raises two principal points: (1) that having regard to statements made in the House yesterday by the former Attorney-General, the impartial administration of justice is no longer guaranteed to our people; and (2) no appropriate cabinet order exists to confirm the appointment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) as the acting Attorney-General, presumably thereby further impairing the administration of justice at this time.

The hon. government House Leader made a representation that if the hon. Leader of the Opposition felt this matter was so urgent, he should have raised this matter yesterday, and furthermore had an opportunity to do so in the course of his response to the former Attorney-General's statement.

With respect to this aspect of the restrictions pertaining to standing order 35, the Chair must note that yesterday the estimates of the Premier were then before the Committee of Supply and would have offered an opportunity to raise at least some of the concerns now expressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. members will recall that immediately preceding this standing order 35 application the hon. opposition House Leader raised a matter of privilege and also cited statements by the former Attorney-General to the effect that the independence, and neutrality of his office had been interfered with by the Premier. Beauchesne, in the fifth edition, page 92, paragraph 289, states that matters of privilege or order cannot be raised under standing order 26 of the House of Commons, Ottawa, which is the equivalent of our standing order 35.

With respect to the issue of the validity of the appointment of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon as acting Attorney-General, a perusal of relevant legislation by the Chair, while not purporting to express a legal opinion on the matter, is satisfied that the hon. Leader of the Opposition's point may be — and probably is — well taken. However, even if this should be the case, the same relevant legislation indicates that the Deputy Attorney-General is empowered under section 23(l) of the Interpretation Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, chapter 206, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Attorney-General, except with respect to the Regulations Act. Section 23(3) provides that such powers may be exercised whether or not the office of the minister is vacant.

Accordingly, the Chair must find that appropriate grounds have not been advanced to meet the requirement of standing order 35 that urgency must be established, that alleged matters of privilege must not be involved, and that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Hon. members, earlier today the hon. House Leader of the opposition rose on a matter of privilege relating to yesterday's resignation of the Attorney-General and subsequent statements issued from the Premier's office relating to the same subject matter. The essence of the point raised by the hon. member is that the former Attorney-General stated in the House that he was no longer able to carry on his duties because his independence and neutrality had been repeatedly interfered with by the Premier, while the member quoted a press release attributed to the Premier's office as follows: "Mr. Smith's independence was at no time questioned or challenged, and to say otherwise is false."

He further attributed to the Premier's office the following words: "It is preposterous to use as his reason for resigning allegations that have no substance or foundation."

If the Chair wished to dismiss this matter of privilege on technical grounds, it would point out that while the member indicated in his remarks that he would be pleased to put forward the requisite motion upon the finding of a prima facie breach of privilege, he did not tender the motion to the Chair at the conclusion of his statement, which is clearly the correct procedure to follow in matters of privilege.

In this regard I refer the hon. member to a decision of this House contained in the British Columbia Journals of April 13, 1982, at page 41, and I quote in part from that decision: "The statement of the matter, together with the tendered motion, comprise the material which the Chair must examine to determine whether or not the matter qualifies, prima facie, as a matter of privilege. Accordingly I rule this to be the correct practice in this House relating to motions founded on a matter of privilege.

Because of the gravity of this matter and the allegations made, the Chair is not relying entirely on this technicality, but states again that the member's material is deficient as presented. The Chair must also observe here that the member himself in presenting his matter of privilege was guilty of the very offence of which he complains — to wit, an accusation of lying — albeit the member readily withdrew this allegation upon being requested to do so.

The hon. member, in an otherwise well-worded argument, submits that the essence of this matter is not a simple disagreement as to facts. Yet the Chair must distill from the material present the heart of the matter, and careful examination of the material leaves the Chair to conclude that two directly contrary views are being advanced by the members in question; i.e., the former Attorney-General alleges interference on the one hand. and the hon. Premier has been quoted in a release from the Premier's office as alleging no such interference took place.

On the assumption that the quotation given to the Chair by the hon. opposition House Leader is accurate, the Chair must observe that the language attributed to the Premier's office was at its best unfortunate, and at its worst, if uttered in the House, would have required an immediate withdrawal. However, the Chair is not called upon in this application to adjudicate on the propriety of the language involved but rather whether or not, in accordance with well-established parliamentary rules, the facts as presented constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.

While I would agree with the hon. opposition House Leader's observation that the matter involved is not a simple disagreement over facts, it is nevertheless a disagreement as to facts and could perhaps better be described as a serious disagreement. However, the gravity of the disagreement does not convert the matter into a breach of privilege. I refer all hon. members to the Journals of the House of Commons of Canada of June 8. 1970, at pages 965 and 966 and two decisions of this House appearing in the Journals of June 8, 1982, at page 132 and April 13, 1982, at page 41. In particular I quote from the decision of April 13, 1982. "A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. However aggrieved a member may feel, this does not permit the Chair to extend the law of parliamentary privilege."

I thank hon. members for their contribution to the matter of privilege raised, and based on the above authorities the member's matter of privilege does not qualify under the rules.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the second session of the thirty-fourth parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order, as is duty bound. I so move.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In moving towards the final adjournment motion, I'd like to offer my compliments to all members at the conclusion of this session. We have again experienced a session where courtesy and relevancy, the cornerstones of parliamentary practice, have prevailed, and we have been able to disagree without being disagreeable.

In terms of progress and process, our record has been quite remarkable. Sixty-five bills passed this session and 104 meetings of select and special standing committees and 167 hours and 13 minutes in Committee of Supply.

In moving to adjournment, Mr. Speaker, may I offer to you, Sir, and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, my very best wishes for an enjoyable and well-earned summer vacation.

MR. ROSE: May I respond to the kind words of the government House Leader. I agree that there's a new civility and ability to confer and compromise in this House compared to when I first came here in 1983. I think we can recognize the contributions made by you, Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the government House Leader, and that charming fellow known as the opposition House Leader, for this new stability. Someone said that I left out good-looking, and I didn't mean to do that!

I think some people might regret the lack of rancour and personal attacks that have occurred here traditionally over many, many years, and the constant referrals to the Speaker or the Clerks' office over matters of procedure. I think that some people, including the Clerks, might even regret the lack of fun they had in those days, those hoary old days when they were first here as young men.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that when you have constant referrals to the Chair or to the Clerks' office over matters of procedure or rancour, it means that parliament is not working; and I think it proves, through our endeavours and consultation on both sides of the House, that this parliament is working. I like the new atmosphere here, I'm very appreciative of it, and I tVanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.cahink we should say, as Tiny Tim said: "God bless us one and all."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as Speaker, I would like to thank you all for your courtesies during the last session to the Chair. Specifically I would like the House to thank two very able people who have done a great job, I think, in this very long session: the Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton), who's done just tremendous work in this House in the past few months; and the Chairman of Committees, the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) ; and the Clerks at the table who are kept busy fairly often.

I would also like to thank the government Whips and the House Leaders for their courtesies to the Chair, and for the great job that they've done in making this House work so well.

And finally, I'm sure all members would like me to thank the staff of our buildings who just do a tremendous job.

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia hereby calls for amendments to the Meech Lake Accord by adopting the following changes to the proposed Constitution Amendment, 1987:

(a) by adding in paragraph 2, subsection 25 (1), the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";

(b) by adding in paragraph 2, subsection 25 (2), the words "or elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";

"(3) Nothing in this section derogates from the right of the federal government to pursue national social programs in areas of its exclusive jurisdiction or areas of shared jurisdiction." ;

(f) by deleting paragraph 13, section 50 (2) (c), and substituting the following therefore:

" (3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50, subsection (2) (c), representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."

"16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27, or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution."

	Motion for a Resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
	WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
	AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
	AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
	AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
	AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982;

	AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
	NOW THEREFORE the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

	SCHEDULE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT. 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
	1. The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto., immediately after section I thereof, the following section:
Interpretation	"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with (a) the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and (b) the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
Role of Parliament and legislatures	(2) The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1) (a) is affirmed.
Role of legislature and Government of Quebec	(3) The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve Government of and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (1) (b) is affirmed.
Rights of legislatures and governments preserved	(4) Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or governments privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures preserved or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
	2. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following, section:
Names to be submitted	"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate. the government of submitted the province to which the vacancy relates may. in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
Choice of Senators from names submitted	(2) Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."

	3. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections: "Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
Commitment to negotiate	95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
Agreements	95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C (1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
Limitation	(2) An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have elected only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
Application of Charter	(3) The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect Charter of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
Proclamation relating to agreements	95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B (1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
Amendment of agreements	(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B (1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized (a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or (b) in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
Application of sections 46 to 48 of Constituion Act, 1982	95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C (1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C (2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
Amendments to sections 95A to 95D or this section	95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B (1)."

	4. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading: "General" 5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading: "Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada" 6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections: "Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court continued	101A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
Constituion of court	(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Who may be appointed judges	101B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has. for a total of at least ten years. been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
Three judges from Quebec	(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years. been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
Names may be submitted	101C. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101B for appointment to that court.
Appointment from names submitted	(2) Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
Appointment from Quebec	(3) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101B (2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
Appointment from other provinces	(4) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.

Tenure, salaries, etc. of judges	101D. Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Relationship to section 101	101E. (1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
References to the Supreme Court of Canada	(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada." 7. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
Shared-cost program	"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable program compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
Legislative power not extended	(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces. "8. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections: "XII — CONFERENCES ON THE ECONOMY AND OTHER MATTERS
Conferences on the economy and other matters	148. A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate. XIII — REFERENCES
Reference includes amendments	149. A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto. Constitution Act, 1982 9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefore:
Compensation	"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38 (1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
Amendment by unanimous consent	41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988
Afternoon Sitting

	(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators; (d) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982; (e) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; (f) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language; (g) the Supreme Court of Canada; (h) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; (i) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and (j) an amendment to this Part." 10. Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefore:
Amendment by Parliament	"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive govern ment of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons." 11. Subsection 46 (1) of the said Act is repeated and the following substituted therefore:
Initiation of amendment procedures	"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province." 12. Subsection 47 (1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefore:
Amendments without Senate resolution	"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a Resolution authorizing its issue. the Senate has not adopted such a resolu tion and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution." 13. Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefore: "PART VI CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES
Consitutional conference	50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.

Agenda	(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have in cluded on their agenda the following matters: (a) Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate; (b) roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and (c) such other matters as are agreed upon." 14. Subsection 52 (2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph: "(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada." 15. Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefore:
References	"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto." General
Multi cultural heritage and aboriginal peoples	16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. CITATION
Citation	17. This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
	ANNEXE MODIFICATION CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1987 Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 1. La Loi constitutionnellede 1867 est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 1, de ce qui suit:
Règle interprétative	"2. (1) Toute interprétation de la Constitution du Canada doit concorder avec: a) la reconnaissance de ce que l'existence de Canadiens d'expression fromçraise, concentrés au Québec mais présents aussi dans le reste du pays, et de Canadiens d'expression anglaise, concentrés dans le reste du pays mais aussi présents au Québec, constitue une caractéristique fondamentale du Canada; b) la reconnaissance de ce que le Québec forme au sein du Canada une société distincte.
Rôle due Parlement et des législatures	(2) Le Parlement du Canada et les 1égislatures des provinces one le rôle de protéger la caractéristique fondamentale du Canada visée à 1'alinéa (1) a).

Rôle de la législature et du gouvernement du Québec	(3) La 1égislature et le ouvernement dt, Québec one le rôle de legislature protéger et de promouvoir le caractère distinct du Québec visé à l'alinéa (1) b).
Maintien des droits des législatures et gouvemements	(4) Le présent article n'a pas pour effet de déroger aux pouvoirs, droits you privilèges du Parlement you du gouvernement du Canada, ou des législatures you des gouvernements des provinces, y compris à leurs pouvoirs, droits you privilèges en matière de langue. "2. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 24, de ce qui suit:
Propositions	"25. (1) En cas de vacance au Sénat, le gouvernement de la province à représenter peut proposer au Conseil privé de la Reine pour le Canada des personnes susceptibles d'être nommées au sièget vacant.
Choix des sénateurs	(2) Jusqu'à la modification, faite conformément à l'article 41 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, de toute disposition de la Constitution du Canada relative au Sénat, les personnes nommées aux sièges vacants au Sénat sont choisies parmi celles qui one été proposées par le gouvernement de la province à représenter et agréées par le Conseil privé de la Reine pour le Canada."
	3. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 95, de ce qui suit: "Accords relatifs à l'immigration et aux aubains
Engagement	95A. Sur demande du gouvernement d'une province, le gouvernement du Canada négocie avec lui en vue de conclure, en matière d'immigration you d'admission temporaire des aubains dans la province, un accord adapté aux besoins et à la situation particulière de celle-ci.
Accords	95B. (1) Tout accord conclu centre le Canada et une province en matière d'immigration you d'admission temporaire des aubains dans la province a, une fois faite la déclaration visée au paragraphe 95C (1), force de loi et a dès lors effetVanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.ca findépendamment tant du point 25 de l'article 91 que de l'article 95.
Restriction	(2) L'accord ayant ainsi force de loi n'aVanessa.Thomson@gov.bc.ca d'effet que dans la mesure de same compatibilité avec les dispositions des lois du Parlement du Canada qui fixent des normes et objectifs nationaux relatifs à l'immigration et aux aubains, notamment en ce qui concerne 1'établissement des catégonies générales d'immigrants, les niveaux d'immigration au Canada et la détermination des catégories de personnes inadmissibles au Canada.
Application de la Charte	(3) La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés s'applique aux accords ayant ainsi force de loi et à toute mesure prise sous leur régime par le Parlement you le gouvernement du Canada you par la législature you le gouvernement d'une province.
Proclamation relative aux accords	95C. (1) La déclaration portant qu'un accord visé au paragraphe 95B (1) a force de loi se fait par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblée législative de la province qui est partie à l'accord.

Modification des accords	95C. (1) La déclaration portant qu'un accord visé au paragraphe 95B (1) a force de loi se fait par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblée législative de la province qui est partie à l'accord. (2) La modification d'un accord visé au paragraphe 95B (1) se fait par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée: a) soit par des résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblée 1égislative de la province qui est partie l'accord; b) soit selon les modalités prévues dans l'accord même.
Application des articles 46 à 48 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982	95D. Les articles 46 à 48 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 s'appliquent, avec les adaptations nécessaires, à toute déclaration faite aux termes du paragraphe 95C (1), à toute modification d'un accord faite aux termes du paragraphe 95C (2) you à toute modification faite aux termes de l'article 95E.
Modification des articles 95A à 95D you du présent article	95E. Les articles 95A à 95D you le présent article peuvent étre articles modifiés conformément au paragraphe 38 (1) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, à condition que la modification soit autorisée par des résolutions des assemblées législatives de toutes les provinces qui sont, à1'époque de celle-ci, parties à un accord ayant force de loi aux termes duparagraphe 95B (1)." 4. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, avant l'article 96, de ce qui suit: "Dispositions générales" 5. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, avant l'article 101, de ce qui suit: "Tribunaux créés par le Parlement du Canada" 6. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 101, de cc qui suit: "Cour suprême du Canada
Maintien de la Cour suprême du Canada	101A. (1) La cour qui existe sous le nom de Cour suprême du Canada Canada est maintenue à titre de cour générale d'appel pour le Canada et de cour additionnelle propre à améliorer l'application des lois du Canada. Elle conserve ses attributions de cour supérieure d'archives.
Composition	(2) La Cour suprême du Canada se compose du juge en chef, appelé juge en chef du Canada, et de huit autres juges, que nomme le gouverneur général en conseil par lettres patentes sous le grand sceau.
Conditions de nomination	101B. (1) Les juges sont choisis parmi les personnes qui, après avoir été admises au barreau d'une province you d'un territoire, one, pendant au moins dix ans au total, été juges de n'importe quel tribunal du pays you inscrites au barreau de n'importe quelle province you de n'importe quel terfitoire.
Québec: trois juges	(2) Au moins trois des juges sont choisis parmi les personnes qui, après avoir été admises au barreau du Québec, one, pendant au moins dix ans au total, été inscrites à ce barreau you juges d'un tribunal du Québec you d'un tribunal créépar le Parlement du Canada.

Propositions de nomination	101C. (1) En cas de vacance à la Cour suprême du Canada, le gouvernement de chaque province peut proposer au ministre fédéral de la Justice, pour la charge devenue vacante, des personnes admises au barreau de cette province et remplissant les conditions visées a l'article 101B.
Nomination parmi les personnes proposées	(2) Le gouverneur général en conseil procède aux nominations parmi les personnes proposées et qui agréent au Conseil privé de la Reine pour le Canada; le présent paragraphe ne s'applique pas à la nomination du juge en chef dans les cas où il est choisi parmi les juges de la Cour suprême du Canada.
Nomination parmi les personnes proposées par le Québec	(3) Dans le cas de chacune des trois nominations à faire conformément au paragraphe 101B (2), le gouverneur général en conseil nomme une personne proposée par le gouvernement du Québec.
Nomination parmi les personnes proposées par les autres provinces	(4) Dans le cas de toute autre nomination, le gouverneur général en conseil nomme une personne proposée par le gouvernement d'une autre province que le Québec.
Inamovibilité traitement. etc.	101D. Les articles 99 et 100 s'appliquent aux juges de la Cour suprême du Canada.
Rapport avec l'article 101	101E. (1) Sous réserve que ne solent pas adoptées, dans les matières visées a l'article 101, de dispositions incompatibles avec les articles 101A à 101D, ceux-ci n'one pas pour effet de porter atteinte à la compétence 1égislative conférée au Parlement du Canada en ces matières.
Renvois à la Cour suprême du Canada	(2) Il est entendu que l'article 101A n'a pas pour effet de porter atteinte à la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en ce qui concerne le renvoi à la Cour suprême du Canada de questions de droit you de fait, you de toute autre question." 7. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 106, de ce qui suit:
Programmes cofinancés	"106A. (1) Le gouvernement du Canada fournit une juste compensation au gouvernement d'une province qui choisit de ne pas participer à un programme national cofinancé qu'il établit après l'entrée en vigueur du présent article dans un secteur de compétence exclusive provinciale, si la province applique un programme you une mesure compatible avec les objectifs nationaux.
Non- élargissement des compétences législatives	(2) Le présent article n'élargit pas les compétences législatives du Parlement du Canada you des 1égislatures des provinces." 8. La même loi est modifiée par insertion, après l'article 147, de ce qui suit: "XII. — CONFERENCES SUR L'ÉCONOMIE ET SUR D'AUTRES QUESTIONS
Convocation	148. Le premier ministre du Canada convoque au moins une fois par an une conférence réunissant les premiers ministres provinclaux et lui même et portant sur l'économie canadienne ainsi que sur toute autre question appropriée.

	XIII. — MENTIONS
Présomption	149. Toute mention de la présente loi est réputée constituer également une mention de ses modifications." Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 9. Les articles 40 à 42 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 sont abrogés et remplacés par ce qui suit:
Compensation	"40. Le Canada fournit une juste compensation aux provinces aux-quelles ne s'applique pas une modification faite conformément au paragraphe 38 (1) et relative à un transfert de compétences législatives provinciales au Parlement.
Compensation unanime	41. Toute modification de la Constitution du Canada portant sur lesquestions suivantes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des résolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblée législative de chaque province: a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur général et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur; b) les pouvoirs du Sénat et le mode de sélection des Sénateurs; c) le nombre des sénateurs par lesquels une province est habilitée à être représentée et les conditions de résidence qu'ils doivent remplir; d) le droit d'une province d'avoir à la Chambre des communes un nombre de députés au moins égal à celui des sénateurs par lesquels elle était habilitée à être représentée le 17 avril 1982; e) le principe de la représentation proportionnelle des provinces à la Chambre des communes prévu par la Constitution du Canada; f) sous réserve de l'article 43, l'usage du fromçais you de l'anglais; g) la Cour suprême du Canada; h) le rattachement aux provinces existantes de tout you partie des territoires; i ) par dérogation à toute autre loi you usage, la création de provinces; j) la modification de la présente partie." 10. L'article 44 de la même loi est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit:
Modification par le Parlement	"44. Sous réserve de l'article 41, le Parlement a compétence exclusiv pour modifier les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada relatives u pouvoir exécutif fédéral, au Sénat you à la Chambre des communes." 11. Le paragraphe 46 (1) de la même loi est abrogé etremplacé par ce qui suit:
Initiative des procédures	"46. (1) L'initiative des procédures de modification visées aux articles 38, 41 et 43 appartient au Sénat, à la Chambre des communes you à une assembiée législative."

	12. Le paragraphe 47 (1) de la même loi est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit:
Modification sans résolution du Sénat	"47. (1) Dans les cas visés à l'article 38, 41 you 43, il peut être passé au défaut d'autorisation du Sénat si celui-ci n'a pas adopté de résolution dans un délai de cent quatre-vingts jours suivant l'adoption de celle de la Chambre des communes et si cette dernière, après l'expiration du délai, adopte une nouvelle résolution dans le même sens." 13. Lapartie VI de la même loi est abrogée et remplacée par ce qui suit: "PARTIE VI CONFÉRENCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES
Convocation	50. (1) Le premier mini stre du Canada convoque au moins une fois par an une conférence constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers ministres provinciaux et lui-même, la première devant avoir lieu en 1988.
Ordre du jour	(2) Sont placées à l'ordre du jour de ces conférences les questions suivantes: a) la réforme du Sénat, y compris son rôle et ses fonctions, ses pouvoirs, le mode de sélection des sénateurs et la représentation au Sénat; b) les rôles et les responsabilités en matière de pêches; c) toutes autres questions dont il est convenu." 14. Le paragraphe 52 (2) de la même loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit: "d) les autres modifications qui lui sont apportées." 15. L'article 61 de la même loi est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit:
Mentions	"61. Toute mention de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 you des Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 à 1982 est réputée constituer également une mention de leurs modifications." Dispositions générales
Patrimoine multiculturel et peuples autochtones	16. L'article 2 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 n'a pas pour effet de porter atteinte aux articles 25 you 27 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à la l'article 35 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 you au point 24 de l'article 91 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867. TITRE
Titre	17. Titre de la présente modification: Modification constitutionnelle de 1987.

1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988 Afternoon Sitting

1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988
Afternoon Sitting