Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1992

Volume 5, Number 15

[ Page 3485 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

The Speaker: I want to welcome all hon. members to the reconvening of this first session of the thirty-fifth parliament. Before we begin, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to our refurbished Mace, which makes its first appearance in the House at this time. As the symbol of our authority as a parliament, I think the Mace is near and dear to us. The refurbishing of this particular Mace was done by Mr. Greg Griffin, who is the son of the gentleman who built the Mace in the first place, in 1954. I think all hon. members will agree that in its present state it is a beautiful tribute to the authority of this House. We are pleased to see it.

Prayers.

J. Weisgerber: I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Doug Mowat. British Columbia has lost a fine gentleman, a leading advocate for the disabled and a remarkable Member of the Legislative Assembly.

Our friend and colleague Doug Mowat succumbed to cancer on Tuesday, August 11 in Vancouver. He was 18 when he first injured his spine and became a paraplegic. After graduating from Lord Byng High School in 1949, Doug worked as a taxi dispatcher, and later, among other pursuits, opened a cleaner's and a flower shop. He became the executive director of the B.C. Paraplegic Association in 1960. His dedication and hard work created the powerful and autonomous association that we see today, with ten regional offices and dozens of employees. He was described as the finest spokesman and advocate for the disabled that this province has ever seen or likely will see in years to come.

First elected to the Legislature in 1983 and re-elected in 1986, Doug represented the constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain. He was the first wheelchair-bound MLA in British Columbia. He was a former chairman of the Parks Board in Vancouver. Doug received the Order of Canada in 1982 for his work on behalf of the disabled. He was extremely active in the Human Rights Commission and was a founding director of Rick Hansen's Man in Motion tour. He is survived by his wife Ann and his brother Charles. I'd like to ask that the Speaker send formal condolences on behalf of all members.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased to second the recommendation of the hon. leader of the third party.

I too want to make some comments about the gentleman who held one of the Vancouver-Little Mountain seats immediately prior to me. I think Denny Boyd, in the obituary published in the Vancouver Sun last August, encapsulated Doug Mowat's character very nicely. He wrote:

"Mowat made his own decision and stuck to it. Long before the glamour figure of Rick Hansen, alerting the entire world to the achievement potential of the wheelchair community, Mowat was doing the inside work, the tiresome, discouraging lobbying work, begging patronizing governments for money, for recognition, for simple understanding.

"He became Vancouver's first advocate for the physically disabled, but he was never a single-issue guy. Instead, he went to work every day like everyone else. He dispatched cabs, sold flowers and tires and cars, and then he got into politics by accident."

A later article in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in the spring of 1990 contains an interview with Doug Mowat which gives some insight into his character. He says in the interview when asked why he got into politics:

"My first experience in public affairs was a result of my involvement with a wheelchair basketball team sponsored by the automobile dealer for whom I worked. Many community centres were inaccessible to the disabled and some wanted us to build our own centre. I thought this was a mistake and that we should work toward making existing centres more accessible."

He later comments in the interview on his style as a politician. This is not meant to be a sermon or instruction to anyone in the Legislature, but it is a reflection worth thinking about. He says:

"I have never been one to lead demonstrations or embarrass a minister in public over some issue relating to the disabled. I would rather spend my time meeting with the elected persons and public servants who write the regulations that affect the disabled. Such activities do not get much publicity but they do get results."

I think that was reflected even in his campaign literature -- rather unusual literature that the library was able to provide for me from his 1986 election campaign in which he was re-elected. He points out that he had worked towards the development of programs that resulted in a continuous supply of meaningful and productive jobs for our graduating students. He continued to work with health care professionals for the improvement and expansion of his existing programs. He worked toward the development and expansion of affordable housing for persons with special needs such as seniors, low-income families and the disabled. He had endeavoured to establish a cooperative and positive dialogue between the representatives of Vancouver and the provincial Legislative Assembly -- rather different from what some politicians put before the public, and an interesting reflection on his character.

I think the individual whom I knew briefly when I sat across the floor in the Legislature was always respectful of other colleagues. He would recognize other colleagues from the Legislature in a public gathering, whereas some others might not have done that. He was the kind of person whom the public will hopefully acknowledge as less deserving of the cynicism they seem to display towards most of us these days.

I'd like to finish by returning to Denny Boyd, who summed up his life very nicely in this "Recollections" article: "He decided to travel first class and as independently as possible. And so he did until his death" -- in August -- "at 63." I would like very much to second the recommendation that the House officially send its condolences to Mrs. Ann Mowat.

[ Page 3486 ]

A. Cowie: I'd like to add my respects and admiration for Doug Mowat. Doug came from a long line of successful politicians who came from the Vancouver parks board, and undoubtedly there will be many more in the future from that organization. I can remember Doug working very hard behind the scenes on many occasions. That was his main way of working. He was a great fighter, but at the same time he was a great negotiator behind the scenes.

I ran against Doug Mowat during the last election, and during a different time, Doug would have been successful. I have a great deal of admiration for him. He is someone we are all going to miss. I certainly miss him as a politician.

The Speaker: Certainly on behalf of the Legislative Assembly I will send that letter of condolences to the family of Doug Mowat.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to be back. I rise to have the privilege of congratulating two members of the House, the member for Okanagan East and the member for Okanagan West, in their new positions as House Leaders for the opposition parties. The fact that they're both from Kelowna gives me some concern, but I look forward to working with them and establishing a good relationship -- as good as I had with the previous House Leaders. I wish them luck -- but not too much luck.

J. Beattie: With us today is a longstanding citizen of the province of British Columbia, who is also currently on the board of School District 12, Grand Forks. I'd like the House to make welcome Alice Glanville, please.

[2:15]

W. Hurd: I'd like the House to make welcome Mr. David Martin from my riding of Surrey-White Rock who is with us in the precincts today, along with Mr. Peter White, who is visiting from Ontario. Could the House give them a warm welcome.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today Ms. Anita Van Ginkel and several students from Port Moody Senior Secondary School. I believe they are grade 11 social studies students.

I also have a second introduction: two wonderful constituents from Port Moody, Lois and Sam McCready. Would the House please make them all welcome.

L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome Chris Eidt and her fiancé, who are visiting us today from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Could the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure to introduce two people. I don't often have people come from as far away as Peace River North, but it gives me great pleasure to introduce my daughter, Chantel, and someone I celebrated my twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with this past summer, my good friend LaVerne.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL BUDGET

G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier of this province gave a personal commitment to the people of British Columbia for a balanced budget. Is the Premier prepared today to honour that commitment?

Hon. G. Clark: That's it, after all these months?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I see we're clearing the pipes of a few of the members who haven't been here for a while.

Yes, hon. Speaker, our commitment is to continue to get rid of the deficit that we inherited from two sources. We're hoping that we can remove the first half of that deficit, the financial mess that we inherited from the previous government, and then go on to work on the offloading of about $1.4 billion worth of health, education, social services and other costs of the federal deficit solely onto the taxpayers of British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, unlike some governments, we're not going to do it at the expense of good-quality services for British Columbians. We intend to have a balanced approach to cap and reduce the deficit and maintain the basic integrity of services to our citizens.

G. Wilson: I was kind of hoping that the Premier might take a hint from the button he's wearing, but it seems not. The people of British Columbia have a real bone to pick with the head of this government. It seems to me that this government is presiding over a record deficit, one that is $200 million over budget in its first quarter. We're hearing now of projections of well over $2 billion in deficit. Can the Premier tell the people of British Columbia exactly what the revised deficit is now? What are we expecting the people of British Columbia to have to suffer at the end of this fiscal year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Minister of Finance has made very clear, we have entered into another round of cutting budgets and making sure that we spend the taxpayers' dollars more wisely. Yes, it is a difficult time. I think most British Columbians understand that revenues are down, that expenditures for welfare are up as more and more Canadians move out to this wonderful province of ours looking for the best opportunities in Canada. Yes, we are attempting to make cuts so that we can carry out our commitment to the people of British Columbia to cap and reduce the deficit and get this province finally in the black again.

G. Wilson: I find that's an unacceptable answer for the people of British Columbia. We are told that this province has one of the fastest growing economies. At the same time we have a government which, since coming in, has increased taxation, income tax, in-

[ Page 3487 ]

creased corporate tax, increased business tax and raised taxation on services. It has also removed the supplementary homeowner's grant.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the hon. member state his question.

G. Wilson: My question to the Premier is this: in light of the fiscal mismanagement of this government, will the Premier give a commitment to British Columbians today that at the end of this new review of fiscal spending he will not have an increase in the sales tax as part of their new fiscal strategy for strangling the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm a little surprised that the Leader of the Opposition, after a year in his position, wouldn't know that those are all matters of future policy. He knows very clearly that that is a matter for future budgets. He should know very well that it would be a breach of the oath of the Minister of Finance to disclose what the revenue sources are going to be in the next year's budget. Hon. Speaker, he should get on with learning his job, rather than talking about this government. He'd be a heck of a lot better off learning what his caucus is going to be doing or thinking than worrying about ours.

CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM
QUESTION FOR B.C.

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. Premier, you promised that all parties would have a role in developing a made-in-B.C. referendum question. You broke that promise. You promised British Columbians also that we would have an opportunity to vote in a referendum authorized by the Constitution Amendment Act of British Columbia. You broke that promise as well. Why should British Columbians believe that you will be bound by their vote on the constitution on October 26?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, hon. Speaker, I think the leader of the third party has just answered his own question. On October 26 the people of British Columbia are going to be voting on the Canadian unity agreement. It is taking place. He's answered his own question. We have said that we would be having the constitutional changes that were brought about by the leaders in this country back before the citizens of British Columbia to say yes or no to. That is taking place. Hon. Speaker, this government has made it very clear that if the people of British Columbia vote no -- and we hope that they will vote yes -- we'll respect democracy and we will not bring before this Legislature a No result on the Canadian unity agreement.

The Speaker: Supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: Is the Premier saying, then, that if British Columbians vote no on October 26 he will not bring the Charlottetown accord to this House -- either in part or in whole -- for ratification by this Legislature?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have said, hon. Speaker -- and I'll repeat it, because I said it in this Legislature before -- that I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the vote of the citizens of this province. I said I will not bring the Canadian unity agreement, which.... The Leader of the third party knows full well that a No vote in British Columbia kills this deal right across Canada. It means we will not have all of the tremendous gains that British Columbians will get out of the Canadian unity agreement -- in representation by population, in the Senate and in being masters of our own economy. I will not bring that back before our House.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier obviously didn't answer the question, but perhaps he will at the next opportunity. If the Premier won't keep his word on the referendum and on the amendment act, why should British Columbians believe, should this deal pass -- and I doubt if it will -- on October 26, that he won't use his majority to ram through a gender-equal Senate, as he had indicated earlier?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that question is out of order. It's hypothetical, among other things.

I would call on the official opposition House Leader.

PROVINCIAL ECONOMY

J. Tyabji: My question is for the Premier. How does the Premier explain that despite this province having the fastest-growing provincial economy, the misery index with regard to unemployment, inflation and rising social service costs has continued to increase since the election?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's unfortunate that the opposition House Leader hasn't heard about the Bank of Canada, John Crow, the too-high interest rates that this province has had to labour under, and the impact on our forest, mining and other industries; and that she has not had the opportunity to do her homework that British Columbia is creating more jobs than any other province in this country and that there are so many people -- and she should be more aware of this than just about anybody -- flocking to British Columbia, to the Okanagan, looking for work. The British Columbia economy is growing faster than any other area in this country. And I'll tell you, if we could put this quagmire of constitutional wrangling behind us -- and the No forces, who are always negative to positive changes -- then we could get on with job creation, put our energy into dealing with our financial situation and get those British Columbians back to work.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to hear what the people of the province have to say about the Premier's assertion that there are a lot more jobs being created here. Also to the Premier, given revenues from the AirCare fiasco, higher property taxes, increased fees to small business and 

[ Page 3488 ]

liquor revenues, when is this government going to stop profiting from programs that don't work and start working on lowering the misery index?

The Speaker: Would all members take their seats. Members have on their desks a fresh new copy of the rules on question period. That question, hon. member, unfortunately is out of order because it is a matter of future policy.

LABOUR COMMITTEE REPORT

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I'd like to know why he has not released the report from the labour commission that has been languishing on his desk for the past six weeks.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member will be pleased to know that it will be released next Tuesday.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's hardly the open government that we were promised.

This minister has been travelling the province spreading doom and gloom about economic uncertainty as it relates to the constitution. I wonder what sort of message we're getting from economic uncertainty. We don't know what's in that labour report and what effect it's going to have on jobs in British Columbia. When will you release it?

Hon. M. Sihota: Tuesday.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's wonderful that we're back into the smugness of this minister, and in this case I'll turn instead to the Attorney General.

This government has indicated that it is prepared, and the Attorney General has said numerous times in this House within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act that he tabled last session.... Further, the Attorney General indicated on May 22 in this very House that the freedom-of-information legislation requires government to justify any refusal of a request to provide information. The government would only be able to say no in limited cases, such as when the information would cause economic harm to the province. Why will the Attorney General not order the Minister of Labour to release that report today?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We haven't turned down any requests to release the report. The report will be released on Tuesday next.

NAFTA PEACE ARCH PROTEST

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Can the minister advise the House whether any provincial tax dollars were spent to bring Jesse Jackson up to the NAFTA protests at the Peace Arch, and can he explain exactly how it helps British Columbia exporters to have their Minister of Trade sit at Jesse Jackson's side in protest over free trade with the United States and Mexico?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your question is: not that I know of and not that I directed, nor would I have approved of any. I'd be happy to take it on advice. But it was certainly not under my direction.

I have to say that it was an honour to be there and appear with Jesse Jackson.

The Speaker: Would the hon. minister just clarify for us: you said you have taken it under advisement. I'm assuming that since you are continuing to answer the question, you have not taken it on notice.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the cost part. There are two questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I repeat: is the House to understand that the minister is taking the first part of the question as to cost on notice and wishes to answer the second question?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I answered the question. If there are any more details, I'd be happy to provide them later.

L. Fox: A supplementary to the Minister of Health. Does the minister agree with Jesse Jackson that the NAFTA agreement means the beginning of the end of our medicare system, and if so, why?

The Speaker: The Minister of Health for as brief a reply as possible, please.

Hon. E. Cull: The NAFTA agreement raises a lot of concerns with respect to medicare in this country. But I can assure you that our responsibility on this side of the House is to stand up for the five principles of medicare and to do whatever we can to protect them here in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to ask leave to move without notice the following motion: be it resolved that this House debate the merits of the Canadian unity agreement reached in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Be it resolved that this House debate the merits of the Canadian unity agreement reached in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992.

The Speaker: If the Chair could have a copy of this motion....

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes.

[ Page 3489 ]

The Speaker: The motion is before this House, and I call on the hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm pleased to rise today to move the motion that is before the House, to lay out the strengths and discuss the merits of the Canadian unity agreement. The discussion in this chamber over the coming days will give us an opportunity to deal with the facts and not the myths, and to add to the understanding of British Columbians the reasons for constitutional changes at this time.

I'd like to offer members of this House and British Columbians some background on the constitutional discussions that took place, involving not just first ministers but all Canadians. I think we all recognize the exhaustive, consultative process that took place, especially here in British Columbia. Nationally there was the Spicer commission, followed by the all-party joint federal committee, both of which travelled broadly and heard the opinions of thousands of Canadians. In British Columbia our all-party legislative committee consulted more than 1,000 British Columbians and many, many groups before developing its final report, which was tabled in this House on April 2. It is clear in that report that this committee listened when British Columbians spoke out about their nation, and it developed a consensus report that reflects our province's priorities. That report formed the backbone of our position at the constitutional table over the last six months.

Hon. Speaker, over these months of discussion between ministers and first ministers and constitutional officials we were able to have every one of the major concerns that were outlined in the all-party report addressed. And we were able to successfully move other governments to our position. Each of the six conditions this province laid out was met. It's important to review these for the record and to remind the leaders of both the opposition and the third party of their previous stated commitments.

First, the legislative committee of this House recommended that Quebec's distinct society be strictly defined to include only language, culture and the civil law tradition. The committee rightly wanted to avoid the traps that were contained in the Meech Lake accord, by clearly setting out just what distinct society means. The Canadian unity agreement accomplishes all of that.

Second, our committee had concerns about the amending formula. That's why I recommended that there be no change to the Senate until these concerns were resolved, and that this province be protected from future changes to the Supreme Court and the Parliament -- that those changes of our institutions require unanimous consent. Hon. Speaker, both of these recommendations were achieved, and B.C. has gained a veto in the Canadian unity agreement.

Third, our committee heard from British Columbians that they wanted a reformed Senate. That's why it recommended a regionally equal Senate to give the regions of this nation a greater say. As with all of the issues that British Columbians identified, this one was taken to the table by our negotiators and discussed at great length. Some provinces -- notably Alberta, Manitoba and Newfoundland -- came to the table with a different notion. They sought a Senate that was based on provincial rather than regional equality. And that is what is created in the Canadian unity agreement: a House with six elected Senators from each province to ensure that regional interests are protected. But because our wish for a regional Senate was not met, we fought for and won greater representation by population in the House of Commons. Because Quebec and Ontario will lose 36 Senators, they too will move closer to representation by population in the House of Commons. In the give-and-take that took place, Quebec was given the same guarantee that the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan now have: that a minimal level of representation in the House of Commons be there -- a floor. I might add that in no way does this minimum representation by any province hinder the growth of British Columbia's future representation. So while our committee's recommendation on a regional Senate was not met directly, British Columbia's condition of greater regional and provincial representation was.

Hon. Speaker, I believe it is a tribute to our constitutional team that it was able to accomplish this in the face of significant resistance. Our British Columbia committee also recommended that the people of this province be given a greater say and a greater role in planning and developing our distinct economy through the elimination of federal duplication and waste. The committee, like many British Columbians, sought new powers and new opportunities to make decisions here and not in Ottawa. With the Canadian unity agreement, we can accomplish just that. British Columbians are going to have the final say in such key areas as mining, forestry, housing, urban affairs, tourism, labour training and regional development.

Fifth, our committee recommended that a social charter not subject to review by the courts be entrenched in our constitution, to reflect the values of the people of this province and of our nation. It recommended that existing social programs be protected through federal-provincial agreements, and I'm pleased to say that both those B.C. recommendations were accepted by other ministers and leaders and are reflected in the Canadian unity agreement.

Finally, the committee of this House supported the inclusion of aboriginal self-government in the constitution so long as those governments were subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that is precisely what is found in the Canadian unity agreement.

Every major recommendation of the all-party committee of this House is a highlight in the Canadian unity agreement, and it's quite remarkable that a report signed by all three parties in this province, with the significant input of many British Columbians, could have such a great impact on the Canadian constitutional conference that was developed in Charlottetown to bring about a stronger, united Canada. That's why it should be of concern to British Columbians that the two leaders and some members of their caucuses who signed the all-party report are now arguing against it. Admittedly there are at least two members across the aisle who have stood by their commitment and shown courage in speaking out publicly.

[ Page 3490 ]

Last spring, when it didn't look like a Canadian constitutional agreement was possible, it was very easy for the leaders of the opposition parties to support the principles of the all-party committee report. But now that it's time to stand up for these principles and recognize British Columbia's achievements, it has become politically expedient for them to just walk away -- and, unfortunately, even play on people's fears by saying things like, "We're creating three distinct classes of Canadians," as the Leader of the Opposition has said.

When Canada's first ministers, aboriginal and territorial leaders sat down in Toronto, Ottawa and Charlottetown to try and reach a constitutional consensus, we did so with a resolve to see through the issues for all Canadians from all regions and to see that they were discussed and dealt with in a spirit of fairness and justice. Yes, each leader came to the table with firm ideas and positions, with concerns that reflected those of their citizens, just as our delegation went to the table with the all-party legislative committee report before us.

[2:45]

This government was not guided by the demands of special or political interests but by the genuine view of British Columbians and Canadians that leadership was needed to renew our constitution and to strengthen the Canadian family. That's something that every British Columbian and every Canadian must consider. What took place at the constitutional table was that every first minister and leader gave something so that every Canadian could gain something. This round of constitutional talks was not a Quebec round or an aboriginal round; it was a Canada round, so that all concerns could be treated equally at the negotiating table.

People opposed to the Canadian unity agreement have suggested that with a No vote we'll continue to have the status quo in Canada and that issues dealt with in this agreement would no longer dominate our daily lives. Well, let me respectfully suggest, hon. Speaker, that aboriginal rights, the matter of our economic powers, the escalation of separatist political forces in Quebec, the economic consequences of political uncertainty and perhaps even greater instability do not go away with a No vote. And let me also respectfully suggest that they don't entirely disappear with a Yes vote. However, the opportunities for our province and our nation to move ahead to better ensure the safety and security of Canadians will increase significantly with the acceptance of the Canadian unity agreement.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to speak briefly about what these changes can mean and what British Columbians can gain by saying yes to change. Yes means first and foremost that we gain a strong and united Canada. It means we achieve the political stability and security of a nation that has dealt with issues in a mature way at a time when nations around this world are falling apart and tearing themselves apart. It will mean that rather than having our nation run aground, it will be stronger by building on our common ground.

No, on the other hand, means no change. It means, at the very least, continued constitutional wrangling that will further divide Canadians rather than unite us, and at the very worst, the dismantling of Canada. No means that we gain nothing.

Yes means that we gain a constitution with a Canada clause that truly reflects our nation's mosaic. It means that our multicultural diversity will be reflected and enhanced. It means that our constitution will express our commitment to the equality of women and men, our commitment to social values such as medicare, education and the rights of working people, and a commitment to equality of all provinces. The Canada clause is a recognition of our collective rights without impeding or harming those individual rights that are protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But, hon. Speaker, no means no change. It means a constitution that recognizes only the two founding nations while ignoring the contributions of millions of other Canadians, including our aboriginal people. No means we gain nothing.

Yes means that British Columbians gain a greater say in the way that this country is run. Yes makes B.C. a winner. It means we gain a Senate in which all provinces are equal and a House of Commons in which our province's voice will be stronger than ever. With a Canadian unity agreement we can gain seven new seats in the House of Commons instead of two, and more new seats in the combined Parliament than any other province.

No, on the other hand, means no change. It means a Senate that's filled with patronage appointments, mostly from Ontario and Quebec, and a House of Commons in which our growing province is underrepresented. That's what no means. It means we gain nothing.

Beyond this new economic power for British Columbians, yes means we gain important new economic authority. It means that British Columbians will gain the final say in such key economic areas as forestry, mining, energy, housing and job training -- all of these recommended in the all-party legislative committee. It means decisions affecting British Columbians will be made by British Columbians. It means millions of taxpayers' dollars can be saved by ending the costly duplication of services between federal and provincial governments.

No, on the other hand, means no change. It means continuing to send millions of dollars to Ottawa for them to decide how to spend. No means we gain nothing.

Yes means we gain an opportunity to address the issues of aboriginal self-government without disrupting the other levels of government and subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It means we can deal with these issues through negotiation and not through litigation.

No, on the other hand, means no change. It means continuing the $400 million per year and the welfare state approach of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and condemning aboriginal people to live on reserves under the Indian Act. It means continued instability and confrontation. No means we gain nothing for aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in this system we want to put behind us.

[ Page 3491 ]

With the Canadian unity agreement, our province and all its regions can gain immensely. Our citizens, working women and men, business people and families can gain immensely. By saying Yes on October 26, our children too can gain immensely. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak today about a Canadian unity agreement whose time has come.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, it would be of great help to the Chair and to Hansard if speakers could advise the Chair if they are in fact the designated speakers.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I am not the designated speaker on this. I'd like to thank the government side for the applause preceding this speech.

I want to speak on what the Canadian unity agreement means with regard to some of the fundamental principles by which we've established the institutions through which we govern the country. I think it's unfortunate that we sit here in this House, and that I'm looking across at a government where everybody is wearing a Yes button.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: My point is -- and I will say it very slowly for the benefit of those on the government side who perhaps have missed this point -- that each one of us, in our constituencies, represent both the people who will be voting no and the people who will be voting yes. In fact, if these government members have been tracking the polls in the province, they will find that they are not on the leading side of the issue and that the majority of their constituents do not share their Yes campaign. So we are standing here debating the merits of an accord, and the government members do not have one representative for the 60 percent of the province who do not support the Yes side of the campaign.

Hon. Speaker, what I find offensive is.... As most of the members of this House will be aware, in the Liberal caucus we have taken the approach that we will not tell people how to vote....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I do recognize a carefully orchestrated disruptive campaign. However, it's not very convincing.

We of the Liberal caucus have decided that we will allow a free vote, and that in addition to that....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I think that the political maturity of the members with the Yes buttons is beginning to show.

Hon. Speaker, we have approached this accord very carefully, and we recognize the great importance that this accord has for the future of the country. In recognition of that, we respect every individual's right to make up their own mind for themselves in an informed manner. Even if the government members will not allow a free vote of their caucus, the least they could do is show some respect for their constituents who will not be voting yes. Hon. Speaker, when you talk about the fundamental principles by which we are all governed as elected representatives, one of them is that we have the obligation to represent our constituency. Even if there are some members of the House -- and I don't know who they would be -- who are representing constituencies where the majority are going to be voting yes -- and I can't imagine where that would be -- they should have some respect for those who will be voting on the other side and not wear the buttons. Then they would have some credibility when they stand up to speak on this deal.

The fundamental principles by which we have governed this country since the country was put together are those of equality and representation by population, although I will admit that we have not been perfect in addressing representation by population. However, hon. Speaker, to me, two wrongs do not make a right, and recognition of the fact that historically we haven't had representation by population does not then give us the right to completely abrogate that by going in the other direction. I would say that we have to go forward with those principles of equality and representation by population when we look to the institutions by which we are governed and when we set those institutions up through a constitutional accord.

Hon. Speaker, I think it's interesting to note that the Premier made reference to the aboriginal package. There were these scare tactics that the majority of the people of the country do not appreciate: if we have a No vote, we will then be denying the aboriginal people the justice that they so rightly deserve. That is not the case. We all recognize that the aboriginal situation must be addressed and that there must be justice done, but we do not approach that with a cynical point of view of brinkmanship that says: "This accord or not." We can negotiate the aboriginal deal independently of the constitutional talks, we can do so in a political accord and we can do so with the goodwill of the people of the country behind it.

One of the most unfortunate things of the Charlottetown accord is that it puts everything in one package and says yes or no -- do you like it or not? We're dealing with the three institutions by which we are governed; we're dealing with the fundamental principles which we either adhere to or not; we're dealing with the aboriginal package; we're looking at a new social charter; we've got the Canada clause, the Charter of Rights -- the whole ball of wax, one package: yes or no. Well, hon. Speaker, surely to goodness the government members aren't so naive as to believe that every aspect of that accord is good enough for the people of Canada. Surely to goodness they are going to read the accord before they put that button on and realize that we in British Columbia, as provincial legislators -- and this is a provincial House -- have to represent the interests of the people of B.C. at the table, in any federal package, and that if you read that deal carefully, there are some very important points that were not ad-

[ Page 3492 ]

dressed in our best interests. What they should have done at the table was insist that there be more than one question on the ballot or that the deal be broken into separate agreements. Even if the government members aren't willing to look at the package separately, the people of Canada are demanding that.

[3:00]

Hon. Speaker, what we are hearing from the people of Canada is that they want a say in the principles by which we are guided when we set up our institutions. One of those principles, which will be addressed in a much more forthright and detailed manner by our hon. leader, is that of the equality of every Canadian to every other Canadian. That equality must be entrenched in the constitution. The equality that I'm talking about is not an equality that separates us, that divides us and that puts walls between us based on language or race or gender, but one that recognizes that the paramount principles have to be ones of equality and that those are entrenched in the Charter of Rights. We find it offensive that the Charter of Rights can be put aside by a notwithstanding clause and that the minorities in some provinces can have their rights basically removed by the constitution. We are in a country where we have certain policies taking place in some provinces that put aside the Charter of Rights. Rather than go to battle on that, we're allowing a new constitutional accord to come forward that enhances that, that puts that into other parts of the deal.

I have some of these members heckling: "That's not true." Well, you should look at the French-only sign law that they have in Quebec, which obviously is an abrogation of minority rights.

Hon. Speaker, I want to address the amending formula in the constitution and the very misleading statement coming out of the Yes campaign that it's okay to accept this compromise in the short term because in the long term we can fix it. Anybody who thinks we can fix it in the long term hasn't spent a lot of time with the new amending formula, because the new amending formula gives a veto power to every single province. What that means, for those of you who haven't read it or maybe have read it and don't understand it, is that if we think there was horse trading to get us to the Charlottetown accord, you can imagine what kind of horse trading there will be when every province has a veto. If I want something, you'd better give me something, or I'm going to veto your best interest.

That's the wrong process. You can't start the process on institutional reform at the top and pass it down. It has to come from the bottom, which is the people, and the people recognize that you must have some principles and flexibility, and an evolving constitution. We cannot have an evolving constitution with a unanimity provision. The amending formula does not allow for an evolving constitution.

So, hon. Speaker, what is this argument? Compromise in the short term, evolution in the long term? It's just not going to happen. When you look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that have brought us to this accord.... Even the most ardent supporter of this accord will say: "Oh well, you know it's not perfect." As soon as they say, "Oh well, it's not perfect," we can't accept it, because there's a unanimity provision in there. The unanimity provision is not going to allow for any further amendment without every province having the ability to veto it.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I'm hearing all kinds of yelling across the floor: "Get your facts straight. That's not what it means." I wonder what it means, then, if every province has a veto, and there's a unanimity provision for further rounds of negotiations to reform institutions. They're trying to differentiate between the institutions and the political accord. I prefaced these remarks by saying that the majority of this is a political accord.

An Hon. Member: They're not listening.

J. Tyabji: Obviously not. Either they're not listening, or the finer points are escaping them. With all those Yes buttons, I tend to agree with the latter point of view.

I'd like to end this by saying that I hope we don't end up in the next few days putting on some kind of carefully orchestrated display that is supposed to be putting one side against the other, when the real issue is, first of all, representation of the interests of our constituents and intellectual discourse on the nature of the agreements that have been made and the package itself. It will be extremely unfortunate if someone is going to try to spin partisan messages in this House through this debate, because this is the time of all times where we put aside our partisan hats and stand up as responsible elected representatives of the provincial Legislature on behalf of Canada, look at the agreement with the provisions as they're outlined, and either accept it, reject it or speak to it without comment on which avenue we're going to choose as individuals. Ultimately we are here to represent the people of the province. In the ballot box, it's up to your individual conscience as to how you vote.

R. Neufeld: I was one of the members of the all-party committee that was chastised earlier by the Premier of the province because I dared to disagree with what was said to be unanimous in this report. I want to tell you that before we even agreed to sit down, our party had asked if we could present to the House a minority report. Of course, that was turned down. When you look at the composition of who made up that report, and you see nine New Democratic members, two Social Credit and four Liberals, it doesn't take long to figure out just exactly what's going to come out of the report. It wouldn't matter a lot what we said in committee, because what was going to come out of that report was what the NDP members had been told to say.

There are some parts of that report, though, that are in the Charlottetown accord. There's no doubt about it. For those parts of it, I am pleased. But there are quite a few in that report that we did not specifically agree to. I'm going to take it one step further, for those who weren't on the committee. When we went around the province - - I was one of those who travelled, and I 

[ Page 3493 ]

travelled for quite a while -- what we heard from the people was: "We want everyone to just be equal." That's what people said. That's not hard to do.

One other thing they said was that they wanted the size of government reduced. They told us that, loud and clear, many times. I don't think one member of that committee can say that they did not hear this. They wanted less government, streamlined government; they didn't want more seats in the House of Commons. Just taking seats out of the Senate and putting them in the House of Commons was absolutely not the answer to what the ordinary Canadian wanted.

The ordinary British Columbian told us, loud and clear, that they were tired of regulations. They were tired of the bureaucratic processes that we have to go through to get anything through government.

So what did we do with the House of Commons? We made some trade-offs.

When we prepared this report, we didn't know that somebody was going to go down there and do what took place. To say that this report reflects exactly what happened in the Charlottetown accord is nonsense. Nowhere in there did we say that there should be 18 more seats in the House of Commons for Quebec, 18 more seats for Ontario and four -- plus a possible three -- for British Columbia. When the Premier talks about seven, he should be a little more forthright with the people of British Columbia. We'll get four right away, two for sure and maybe one more. So maybe three after the 1996 census, and the seats may be added in the year 2000 or 2001. That's not seven seats right away.

They talked to us an awful lot about a triple-E Senate. In fact, I was chastised by the chairman of the committee a number of times for asking the question too often. They wanted a triple-E Senate so they could be better represented. The initial thoughts of the NDP were to totally abolish the Senate, get rid of it. That's also exactly what the people of British Columbia told us: abolish it the way it is, but reform it so it works properly for us, as a Senate should work. Reduce the size of it; let's not increase the size of it.

What did we get? We got a Senate that is elected.

An Hon. Member: Perhaps.

R. Neufeld: That's right: perhaps. It's elected under the discretion of the government of each province, so we could have people appointed from British Columbia. We don't know exactly what the government is going to do in that case. It's just hearsay. They say that they may elect them, but we're not sure. They could appoint them, and that could pave the way for their equal-gender Senate. They could appoint them: three men and three women.

When the average British Columbian hears "elected" on TV, what does it tell that person? I don't care who it is; he or she thinks that they are going to go to a polling place, get a ballot and be able to go behind closed doors to mark that ballot. That's electing. What is proposed in this is not electing. They can be appointed by the government.

The other problem with appointing or allowing the provinces to decide what regions they come from is that if we do not show the regions for Senators, we could have all six Senators for British Columbia from the lower mainland. I come from the northern part of British Columbia. We always feel that we're left out in the cold -- maybe more than we are. That's a fact only because it's about 10 below at home today, and it's kind of warm here. Regardless, British Columbians would at least like to see their Senators from regions of the province of British Columbia. Under the Charlottetown accord, this is left up to the government of the day.

Equal. The equal part of a triple-E Senate in the Charlottetown accord is not quite right either, although there will be six Senators from every province and one from each territory. What will be added in the future -- no one knows how many, but four to six is what is stated in the Charlottetown accord -- are aboriginal members to the Senate. Hon. Speaker, this skews the equal part, because all of a sudden we have some more appointees. People want to get away from appointees. They want to elect their Senators, and they want to elect them from regions.

As for effectiveness, hon. Speaker, this Senate is not effective at all. The old Senate, although nobody liked it, at least had a veto over everything except supply bills. This Senate can veto two items only: taxes and anything to do with natural resources. But if there is an impasse in the Senate, what happens is that it goes back to the House of Commons. Well, 62 Senators are going to have a hard time voting against a majority government in the House of Commons comprised of 337 members. The only way it could ever work is if we had a minority government. We haven't had a minority government for a long time. So the Senate is not exactly what British Columbians told us they wanted when we travelled the province.

Aboriginal self-government was another large issue as we travelled the province. Aboriginal self-government is in the Charlottetown accord, but I think it's not quite as most British Columbians understood it would be. If I remember correctly, the people we talked to told us that they did not feel good about the way aboriginals had been treated for the last 50 years, that they have been treated unfairly in Canada, and that something had to be done. I think all of us agree that something has to be changed. It's a system that has been left to fester by the federal government for far too long. Everyone knows that the Department of Indian Affairs hasn't worked.

So what they have designed into the Charlottetown accord is the inherent right to self-government as a third level of government. That gives them an awful lot of power. I don't think I have to relate to everyone here some of the forms that have come out from different people who are knowledgeable on this and tell us all kinds of things. I'm not here to fearmonger or to scare, but I am here to say that obviously the native nations are a little nervous about it also, because they elected not to vote about it at this particular time. They have a lot of problems within their own organization as to whether they even agree with it or not. All of us should be very careful about the way we handle aboriginal self-government.

[3:15]

[ Page 3494 ]

If we go back a bit in the history of British Columbia, we'll find that the last administration was the first provincial administration in Canada to set up a ministry of aboriginal affairs, and it started off the Sechelt band on a type of self-government. I'm not going to stand here and say that it's perfect, but it's certainly not unworkable. I think that's what most British Columbians felt would happen with aboriginal self-government. They told us loud and clear: deal with it; don't leave it be; deal with the native self-government issue, but don't give away the farm. That's exactly what the average British Columbian told us. What do we have in the Charlottetown accord? We've given away the farm, simply because of how our senior governments and provincial governments feel we've handled aboriginal affairs for the last number of years. So I don't think that I should have to stand by a report and not speak against it or not speak against the Charlottetown accord.

The amending formula that is in the Charlottetown accord is also something that troubles each and every one of us in our caucus. We're unanimous in our caucus on our vote against the Charlottetown accord. That's just for the information of anyone who hasn't been listening lately.

The amending formula design when it first started out, in Meech Lake and also before the Charlottetown accord, was that Quebec wished a veto over our central institutions, and they wished one to protect their language, culture and law. That was unacceptable to British Columbians as we went around the province. They said no. They said that no one should have a veto. I think what they told us, when it was explained to them about how the seven-50 rule works now and what parts you could veto, was that they were happy with the way it was. In fact, it took some 50 to 60 years to get that agreement together when the constitution was patriated. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way that works.

We have a new Senate design that nobody's sure will work. We have a House of Commons that's increased in size and that nobody's sure is going to work, especially with the 25 percent guarantee for Quebec in the House of Commons in perpetuity -- they're always going to have 25 percent. We don't know whether that is going to cause much damage 50 years down the road or not. If we could only have a way of revisiting those institutions and possibly changing how they're comprised.... If we give a veto to everyone in Canada -- all provinces and the federal government -- we will never see that changed. Actually, a veto for everyone is as bad as a veto for Quebec only.

The other item that we have a problem with is the distinct society, as it's written in the Canada clause. Again I go back to what people in the province of British Columbia told us as we went around the province, and that was that everyone should be equal -- special status for none. I think I heard that loud and clear, time after time. They wanted Quebec to be part of our country. I think each one of us feels that we would like Quebec to stay in Canada. Canada is a great country. It's a country that most people around the world would like to immigrate to. I appreciate that, and I know that. I love my country and I would like Quebec to stay in it. But when we have to make special room for one province over the nine others and two territories.... Why should we do that?

I want to read a little bit that came out from the federal government on the Canadian unity agreement. It says: "However, Quebec is not accorded special status. The agreement recognizes the principle of equality of the provinces with no special or superior powers accorded to any one province which are not available to all other provinces." If distinct society means nothing, then take it out. It has caused more problems. It caused problems during Meech Lake, it's causing problems now, and it caused problems when the constitution was repatriated. Do we not learn? Let's take it out. If it means nothing, what's the point of having it there, other than to needle people and to drive wedges between people? We should be working more on our commonalities -- how we are the same -- instead of trying to make distinctive nations and distinctive people. Why do that? Why not be Canadians? Why not think Canadian?

I think Canadian. I don't think I'm special because I happen to be of German descent. None whatsoever. But if you look at the Charlottetown accord, it is actually the third attempt to bring one province into Confederation. The constitution was repatriated from Britain in the early eighties -- '81-82 -- and at that time Quebec for its particular reasons did not sign on. I was an alderman of a community in northern British Columbia at that time, and I recall receiving a letter from the federal government of the day asking us as a community to please write a letter to Quebec saying: "Yes, we want you as part of Canada." And we did that.

It took until 1990 before the Meech Lake accord came forward, and at that time there were all kinds of demands made by one province that couldn't be fulfilled because the other provinces wouldn't agree to them. And that failed.

We are now to the Charlottetown accord and trying again to convince that same province that it should join Confederation and be part of Canada, and I'm not too sure that it's not going to fail again. That's not because we who are saying no.... I've had some people tell me: "You're racist." I'm not racist. In no way am I racist. I want Quebec to be part of Canada. That person who works in Quebec in an ordinary job has an ordinary family; all he wants to do is be part of the good country that Canada is. He is not worried about all the special statuses and all the protection for his language and culture and law. He wants to be part of Canada, and it's time our leaders decided that this is what the ordinary Quebecker wants and what the ordinary British Columbian wants. That's what this constitution is all about. It's for our people. It's not to satisfy just a certain level of them; it's to satisfy everyone.

If you look through the Charlottetown accord and you start right from the things that our party takes issue with -- the Canada clause and distinct society and the promotion of its language, culture and law, when there are nine other places in our Charter of Rights that protect their language, culture and law.... Has the French language diminished in Quebec? No, I feel it hasn't. If anything, Quebec language and culture has 

[ Page 3495 ]

flourished in the last number of years. But here we are, enshrining in the constitution something special for one province to join.

Secondly, the House of Commons. And there's a thread here, and that's what the ordinary Canadian is having a problem with. There's a thread through this whole Charlottetown accord. We go to the House of Commons, the guarantee of 25 percent in perpetuity for Quebec, increasing its seats by 18. Is that special? What are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Why are we guaranteeing them 25 percent? Obviously it's something special. If we look at the Senate and its composition, although it's equal Senators from each province, what we have is a double majority for francophone Senators to protect anything that deals with their language, culture and law. That means that they have to have a majority of the French-speaking Senators and a majority of the English-speaking Senators or they can kill any legislation. Hon. Speaker, who is going to define what that means? We're going to make the lawyers rich here. Maybe this government had the right idea during the last session when they were going to tax them 6 percent. But obviously they're going to get it back from themselves. Ultimately the taxpayer is going to pay the bill for a lot of disruption. But we have that guarantee for Quebec in the Senate of a double majority vote. Again, it's something special for one province to bring them into Confederation.

Aboriginal self-government of course doesn't deal too much with Quebec, but their land claims have an affect on Quebec. The amending formula is the big one. That's where Quebec really won out, giving everyone the right to veto. Quebec wanted the only veto to start with so we could never again change institutions such as the House of Commons and the Senate. I think that they've won out quite well in the Charlottetown accord, and that's why there are a lot of nervous people out there. They're afraid of what will happen, and they're afraid of being governed by central Canada forever. At some point in the future British Columbia is going to be right up there. Our population could quite easily exceed the population of Quebec. We could be the other province for which federal governments will need to change the way things happen.

I go back to what I said before: if distinct society means nothing, take it out; if 25 percent means nothing, as we're told, take it out; and if a double majority means nothing, take it out. Canadians will accept the Charlottetown accord without all those special rights and privileges for one province. If we think back to 1982 when the constitution was repatriated, I can't remember any special status like this for any province that signed on at that time. What we have to do is get the ordinary British Columbian, Manitoban and Albertan to understand what could happen with the way this is crafted. Because they only want to have a job, raise their families and be part of Canada.

Canada is a great country, hon. Speaker, and I'm proud to be a Canadian. I have always been proud to be a Canadian. I'm a Canadian first and a British Columbian second.

J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to be able to follow one of my fellow members of the constitution committee and give my perspective on what we as a province have gone through on this issue. I will confess that when I was first elected one year ago, the constitution was not the issue that either I or my constituents decided their vote upon. It was in the back of our minds, and we were feeling the previous years of the Meech Lake accord debacle, but it was not an issue of great concern. From my perspective, that changed when I, along with my colleague from Nanaimo, was appointed as co-chair of the all-party committee on the constitution.

I have to confess that I have a different recollection of the process than the hon. member for Peace River North. I actually count differently than he does too: there were eight New Democrat members, not nine. But that's maybe a small point of vision on the part of the member for Peace River North. I recall the process as being very intense, very extensive, very inclusive, very thoughtful and very thought-provoking. In the end, after a great deal of debate back and forth, compromise and giving and taking, everyone on that committee agreed to sign the report. No one refused to sign the report, as was their right. It was a mini exercise of what went on on the national scene, as far as I can tell. At the end there was a strong feeling of accomplishment in putting together that report. I must say that I and my two colleagues from the opposition parties went forward to endorse that report publicly and express that feeling of accomplishment for British Columbia.

I want to talk a bit about what we learned during that process of touring the province.

[3:30]

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I believe we're debating the merits of the Canadian unity agreement and not the tour of the constitutional committee.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I appreciate that this debate will be fairly wide-ranging, but I would encourage all members to try to debate close to the actual constitutional accord.

J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I'm sorry that the member for Okanagan East doesn't see the connection between our wide-ranging consultation with British Columbians and the Canadian unity agreement.

I must say that the responses we as a committee got back were of great concern to me, both from a positive aspect but also from a negative aspect. Many of the people who approached our committee had concerns of a wide-ranging economic nature. Some of those concerns translated into a view of what Canada should look like. There was competition among regions, not only within British Columbia but within Canada, about who was going to get what from Canada and from British Columbia. We also found that there was a lack of understanding among some British Columbians, not through their own fault but through information on the issue of a strong, united Canada not being made available to them. All of these concerns were completely legitimate.

[ Page 3496 ]

It is for these very reasons -- the concerns expressed during this tour of the province and our wide-ranging consultations -- that I, as a member for Vancouver, after reading everything available to me and talking to as many people as possible, have decided to vote yes on the Canadian unity agreement.

This agreement, reached in a large spirit of compromise, is good for Canada. There's no question about that. But it is particularly good for British Columbia -- for our families and for our kids. It is the foundation of a sound, stable and fair economy that treats us all equally.

I'd like to explore a couple of the economic gains that we made in the Canadian unity agreement as an explanation for why I am supporting the Charlottetown accord. British Columbia, as we all know, is the furthest province from the centre of Canada and our national capital. While we have struggled as a province to assert our authority in the areas that are of exclusive jurisdiction for the provinces, we have often met head-to-head with those in Ottawa who may have a different view. That problem is not a partisan issue of dispute. The previous government -- the Social Credit Party -- ran into the same problems. In fact, governments in the last three decades have run into the same problems. This Canadian unity agreement clarifies the rules of the game and where the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise our economic rights lie. It gets rid of duplication and waste, it saves British Columbia's money, and it allows us to move forward and maximize the strength of our economy within British Columbia. That's good for all of us.

The other area touched upon that is good for our economy is training. We have been facing a dearth of skilled people to maximize our economic strengths. It's an ever-growing problem. We are going to have crises in the marine, fishing, forest and construction industries because of a lack of skilled people with whom we can go forward and have our economy grow ever stronger. The Canadian unity agreement says: "British Columbia, you know what you need in the way of a strong, well-developed, well-trained workforce in order to bring the most benefits to all of British Columbia. Go ahead and do that." I am strongly in favour of that.

I don't want to play into the fears of people who are concerned about not having a strong central government. That has always been Canada's strength as well. I am very much in favour of our wonderfully Canadian, wonderfully protective social safety net: no matter where you go in Canada, you know that you are going to be fed and clothed. This agreement maintains that strength and still gives Canada its unique perspective in the western industrialized world. That has been, if anything, strengthened in the Canadian unity agreement.

I want to spend a couple of minutes on the next point, which is how we can maximize our strengths in British Columbia by being much better represented on the national scene. Our representation on the national level will be broader, more representative and more closely reflective of the population of B.C. than it has ever been in the whole history of Confederation. I do want to disagree with the views of the hon. member for Okanagan East. The issue of representation of British Columbians is not a matter solely of exact representation by population, but I will tell you that our government negotiated a better level of representation by population than has ever been achieved by any government previous to this in all rounds of constitutional discussion.

But if we were to take a strictly academic approach that maintains only the interests of those who want to have pure representation by population, I would suggest that many of those on the other side of the House would lose their seats on that basis. They would be saying to Ontario: "You get 30 more seats in the House of Commons, Ontario." I don't think any British Columbian, no matter what party they support, wants that. But that's what true representation by population means.

Before I close I want to talk a little bit about process. Process is extremely important in this matter. This was an opening up of the process in Canada from any of the previous rounds of constitutional discussions that we've seen.... I will say that our all-party committee on the constitution can take credit for that. We argued long and loud that the process has to be open and decided by a long, clear and open dialogue with all the citizens of Canada. In fact I think this round of constitutional discussions came closer to that than ever before in the history of Canada. It needs improvement. Consultation is always a changing, living matter, but this is a beginning. It's a good beginning, and we have to take credit for that process.

I must say that the referendum process has been an enlightening one for me as a relatively new politician, but I think it has been enlightening for British Columbians and Canadians across the country. Many of us -- probably more on this side of the House than on the other side of the House -- have never participated in a referendum before. The last referendum was at the beginning of the Second World War. I must say that this has been an item of learning for all of us.

I called my mother in Ontario on the weekend. She is past retirement age and is taking this vote very seriously. But she is also very concerned about it. She doesn't think that she'll have her reading on the issue completed by October 26, and she is worried about that. I know that my mother will go to the ballot box and cast a very thoughtful vote on this matter, as all of us -- I say to my colleague from Okanagan East -- will cast a very thoughtful vote in this matter.

I talk about it with absolutely everybody these days. I ride the bus, I talk about it. I am in the restaurant, I talk about it. I talk about it with my colleagues. I talk about it with my constituents. I even manage to talk about it during the World Series. And do you know what? At the end of every single discussion there is a feeling left with me that each and every person who gives me their opinion is concerned first and foremost about a strong, united Canada. After that concern, after discussing the issues, most of them say to me: "I'm going to vote yes because this deal brings about that strong, united Canada."

When I say the process is so important, I want to make a few comments about what happens if the people 

[ Page 3497 ]

who vote no reject the process that we've gone through as a nation. I want to talk to you who are about to say no, because I see that of those of you who say no to this Canadian unity agreement each and every one of you have your own issue. They are disparate, they are separate, and they are really single-issue. It seems to me that those of you who are naysayers on the other side have singled out your own particular self-interested concern at the expense of the whole, and I'm very, very concerned about that, hon. Speaker.

One of the reasons it gives me such great concern is because I wonder about the alternative. I wonder what you naysayers are going to propose as an alternative process. Are you who are voting no within the official opposition going to get together with the others -- the former Premier Bill Vander Zalm -- and decide on what is a good constitutional arrangement? I hope that the hon. member for Peace River North will be able to see his way clear to join together with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I doubt from his comments on a Senate based on gender equality that he will be able to reach agreement with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. I also doubt that the member for Peace River North will be able to reach a suitable agreement with the leaders of the aboriginal peoples. There are just so many disparate naysayers that I really fear for the next step in the process, hon. Speaker. I fear that if we say no this time, the next round -- if there is a next round -- will be more fractious than we have ever seen before in Canada.

I will conclude by saying that I think this has taken on the seriousness and the highest priority of any issue that I have faced so far on behalf of my constituents. We have given it a great deal of thought as a government. We have put as much effort as we possibly could into the matter of making British Columbia fit well and fit comfortably within this Canadian unity agreement. We have achieved a wonderful balance, and I urge everyone to join with our government in voting yes.

[3:45]

A. Warnke: For me personally it is not the most pleasant of circumstances to rise, but I do rise to speak on this particular issue, which is the most important issue facing our nation. Indeed, one of the problems I have at the outset is that the wounds of this nation have opened up, and I believe that they have been opened up unnecessarily. French versus English, the Quebec question, east versus west, dealing with native aboriginal concerns -- all of this was really unnecessary.

Indeed, hon. Speaker, I am also most disappointed in the direction in which the debate has gone -- even by some of those whom I admire. Premier McKenna of New Brunswick gave a speech last night that I think must be questioned by all Canadians -- his repugnant remarks made last night that even the war dead would vote yes and castigating those who have served and sacrificed and survived those wars. How sad that that has come about. I sincerely believe that whether the outcome is yes or no, there are two problems we still must face, and face them we will in our generation -- I believe in this decade.

Quebec sovereignty will be pursued regardless of the outcome. Constitutional discussions will continue regardless of the outcome. Therefore no one can suggest that just because a No position might be taken, all of this could be avoided. It will not because the documents containing the constitutional proposals here are not well thought out. Those who know something about constitutions know that the best constitutions are based on reason, not simply part of a deal between first ministers that is somehow expected to be supported by the people and ratified by the legislatures without consideration as to their nature. And that is precisely what has happened here. The documents that are before us are unreasoned and unprincipled and therefore lead to a debate based on the passions. Not only that, they're unpredictable. And because they're unpredictable, the debate necessarily must be based on the passions. I agree essentially with the authors of the federalist papers. That generation went through a constitutional crisis that we could learn from. Once the passions are involved in any political process, whether it's forging a new constitution or developing new institutions, this is quite incorrect. But more than that, it opens up wounds that no nation should have.

On top of that, hon. Speaker, even those who advocate a Yes position have had to concede.... Even the former Premier of this province stated at the outset of this debate: "Hold your nose and vote for it." There are many advocates of the Yes position who have said there are many problems. They assume that there are many problems with the document, but we must go on. Therefore, is it any wonder why Canadians -- British Columbians and Quebeckers -- are asking why this set of proposals should be supported? Hon. Speaker, the process is irrational. The constitutional proposals are not well thought out. Whether one votes yes or no, it involves a tremendous leap of faith as to what our future is going to entail. This means that if we have to take a great leap of faith, we want something -- and the people want something -- concrete to leap with.

Recently I was involved in a debate on this question, and I've been fair-minded, I believe, in this question, because I have not said you must vote no. I've never said that once in this debate to any person in British Columbia. I've said what I will do. A prominent New Democrat from Richmond, attempting to change my mind, discussed with me what should be done. The best advice I gave him -- and I offer this advice to everyone -- is that if you truly want Yes to succeed in the province of British Columbia and across this country, then it is absolutely essential that you address the issues and the concerns raised by British Columbians and Canadians. You know what his response was? His response was: "It's too late to do that." Well, I was surprised. He expressed that perhaps some other significant event should happen to change the minds of Canadians and British Columbians. Many of those on the No side did not forge the public opinion of British Columbians so we cannot simply change the deep feeling of British Columbians about this matter. We are not responsible for the extremely poor strategy or the rhetoric of the Yes campaign. Therefore I would still urge that if you truly believe that Yes is the best 

[ Page 3498 ]

position, then get out there and deal with the substance of the issues at hand. I must confess: I have not seen a lot of that. I have heard a lot of assumptions about holding noses, that this document is not perfect and all the rest of it. Canadians instinctively react to that. This is the reason why there are serious problems with this document.

I have many concerns with this particular document. Some I'll just express, and I'll elaborate on one in detail. I have some concerns about the decentralization of power from the centre to the periphery, to the provincial governments -- not the legislators, incidentally, but to the executive branches of governments of all the different provinces. I have some concerns about that, and I have some concerns about whether our country can really survive that. It's so surprising to hear that from New Democrats, who in their tradition and history have always assumed a different and contrary position.

I'm especially concerned about the implications for individual and minority rights in the province of Quebec given the nature of this document, given the specific clauses in the Canada clause, which means the omnipotence of the government of Quebec to override some of the fundamental rights and freedoms in the Charter, especially when that is reinforced through the lack of ability and lack of will of the Premiers to deal with the notwithstanding clause. I would argue that given the special role of the government of Quebec, given the special nature of the distinct-society clause and the ability to still invoke the notwithstanding clause, and given the history of Quebec there will be serious implications for individual and minority rights in Quebec.

D. Lovick: Every province has a similar history.

A. Warnke: I quite agree with you. That's a very valid point. As I reflect on Canadian history, I recall different provincial governments who on some particular cases have violated individual and minority rights: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia -- I can think of them. That's a very valid point raised by that member.

I am concerned about the institutionalization of executive federalism. I believe that executive federalism has been one major factor that has transformed the Canadian political system. I would suggest that in transforming the Canadian political system gradually over the last 30 years it has not only reinforced the power of first ministers -- the Prime Minister and the Premiers -- but has also been a way of increasing the power and authority of the executive at the expense of the legislators and of parliament itself. I am always suspicious. I believe it is my role -- a responsible role as a legislator -- to be suspicious of the actions of the executive. I have not been a supporter of executive federalism, because in the last 20 years I have seen it as a possibility, as a means, of attaining power and authority at the expense of the legislators and of the Parliament of Canada. Therefore when I see that instituted in a particular clause, I have great concerns for the Legislatures and the Parliament of Canada. Once the nature of policy-making is divided among the Prime Minister and the Premiers, then the nature of the Legislature and of Parliament itself is transformed and, I believe, is ambiguous. I think we have a real dilemma if we institute executive federalism.

I want to focus on one particular item -- because I have many items that I have concerns with -- where we have a dilemma. The purpose of a constitution is to outline the principles of the rights and fundamental freedoms of people and to outline how resolutions of conflict are to occur. Each and every individual has a political interest of some sort, whether it's explicit or not, and therefore they're in a conflicting situation. The reason that government exists in the first place is because we have to establish institutions for resolving these conflicting interests. Now we have a situation where it is assumed the resolution of conflict takes place. Parliament is supreme, and that conflict primarily is resolved in the House of Commons. If the House of Commons continues to be strong, then we have a dilemma, because in this set of proposals, there is the question of the Senate. It's a basic question. Is the House of Commons still the primary institution of power and authority in Parliament? Is the House of Commons still the primary institution for resolving conflict? This has always been the case from Macdonald through King, Diefenbaker, Pearson and so on. This is where we want to resolve the conflict. However, there has been dissatisfaction with the Senate, indeed for as long as the Senate has been around.

I want to make a comment at the outset, while we're talking about the Senate. The previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, said that a report was passed by the legislative committee earlier this year and that the report somehow conforms to what has been agreed to in the accord -- or, actually, the reverse. I would like to tell that member that recently Prof. Ted McWhinney, a colleague of mine, in a debate in which he advocated the Yes position because he felt it was one way for national unity to be established, asked me what happened with that fine report. Indeed, when we take a look at the report, British Columbians clearly said that they either want a triple-E Senate or they want it abolished, and neither was achieved.

[4:00]

Also, the member for Vancouver-Hastings referred to the report as being agreed to by all parties. I would point out to the hon. member that there is no possibility for minority reports with the standing committees in the Legislature. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out on April 2 of this year on page 485 of Hansard:

"I would also point out, for the record, that there is no possibility for minority reports with the standing committees in the Legislature. As a result, the proposition for this report was to put forward what could be the best possibility in terms of the work of those members, for the Liberal caucus is going to review, with some concern, the matters that are raised in this document, because it is, after all, the fundamental law of the land. We will be anxiously awaiting the opportunity to have a full and exhaustive debate on this subject within this chamber. We hope the notice just presented by the minister does not mean this document will now 

[ Page 3499 ]

only rise to a question of edict by cabinet, but that all members of this House should have an opportunity to fully debate the contents of the report."

Hon. Speaker, that was not made available, and, indeed, all that has existed from April 2 to the present was some deal cut way back in June during the estimates debate, which was just to explore a trial balloon introduced by that minister -- a trial balloon of the house of provinces idea, which was dismissed back in the late 1970s.

As for the Senate, there is the provision for equality, but it is nonetheless ambiguous where the power lies between the House of Commons and the Senate. Indeed, the Yukon or any other new province still is not allowed to have equal representation with the already existing provinces. That's unconscionable, because when a province comes into Confederation it is equal to every other province.

As to the question of the Senate being elected, once again it's ambiguous. In Quebec, no matter what the pro forma procedure is, the appointments are made by the Premier, and if it's left up to the province....

An Hon. Member: Patronage.

A. Warnke: Some provinces will no doubt be tempted by patronage, as the hon. member has pointed out, and some may develop some form of elections. But we don't know what it is; it's still ambiguous. Therefore I think that when this ambiguity generates inequality between the provinces -- simply because one province has one system and another province has another system -- we have a situation of: is the Senate legitimate or not? Aristotle in the Athenian constitution - - and, indeed, the Americans through the course of the nineteenth century -- had to develop a constitutional amendment to straighten out this inconsistency. They know better, and we should learn from that experience that we cannot have such an inconsistent Senate.

As for it being effective, it's not a confidence chamber. But no consensus exists among the Yes position advocates as to whether the Senate is effective or not. One prominent academic colleague of mine suggests it is a wet noodle and therefore the Senate really has no powers, or very few powers. Another prominent politician believes and understands it to be effective. Let's have it clarified as to whether the Senate is effective or not. Indeed, if there is a confrontation between the House of Commons and Senate.... I wonder whether people who have forged this document together have really thought about this, because I have not heard it discussed among academics and politicians. What happens if there is a confrontation between an effective Senate on one hand and the House of Commons on the other? Have they thought through the implications of this? If they are equal partners, where does the executive power really exist in this country?

The Articles of Confederation -- the first American constitution that was put together -- had a very severe problem that within a decade led to its failure and the necessity to establish a second workable constitution, which has worked to the present day. It failed on these points: too much decentralization of power in the provinces, and ambiguity as to what happens when two Houses collide and you don't know where the executive branch of government exists.

D. Lovick: We don't know now.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

A. Warnke: My friend from Nanaimo says we don't know now. What a comment on his own Premier! But perhaps it's nothing new. Maybe the hon. member is quite correct in his assessment of his own government. But if the Senate is to be effective and equal to the House of Commons, it is absolutely necessary to outline the procedures as to how these conflicts are to be resolved. In the last analysis, I rather strongly suspect that what we will see to resolve this question is a necessity to establish the executive branch of government somehow outside parliament itself, as a separate branch of government. That is a possibility. It is concrete and real, and not hypothetical. Therefore when the advocates of Yes on the other side assert and affirm this position, I wonder if they haven't really thought through their position and that what they may be advocating in the long term is a congressional style of government. That would make for an interesting story later on -- how that is to be dealt with. But there are some severe problems as to the nature of the Senate. I would suggest that Canadians, generation after generation, have not come to grips with this question. Indeed, the late Senator Eugene Forsey felt that every time we come to grips with the nature of the Senate, we have failed. And we have failed again, in my estimation.

There are many aspects of this set of proposals that have some very serious problems, but I want to end on another note. I do hope sincerely that at the end of this debate, with the vote on the 26th of this month, the wounds that were opened so unnecessarily will heal. The first ministers have taken an action, in my view, that has opened these wounds. But I do believe that it is up to every politician in Canada -- every legislator, perhaps especially the legislators and the parliamentarians, because the executives seem to have messed up one time after another over the last 20 to 30 years.... I believe that Canadians, but especially the politicians, must do everything they can to repair the wounds that have been opened in this most artificial debate. It is my hope and my commitment -- and I hope the commitment of everyone -- that we represent the people and that we steadfastly commit ourselves to heal these wounds so that we have a strong, united Canada.

D. Lovick: I'd like to begin by congratulating all members of this chamber on their unanimous agreement to accept this resolution for debate. I think that speaks well of this chamber and the people in it. I for one am pleased we're having the debate in the House. It's good for all members in this chamber, whoever they represent and wherever they sit, to stand up and be counted on this important issue.

The debate now going on across the country and the province, sadly, is both difficult and dangerous. It's 

[ Page 3500 ]

difficult because the issues are complex and because there are too many issues sneaking onto the table. For example, a number of people believe that a No vote means a vote against Brian Mulroney, GST or free trade, or even the metric system. Lord help us, I've had that from one person. The simple truth, of course, is that I and my colleagues on this side, I can assure everybody out there, have fought long and hard against the GST, free trade, and indeed Brian Mulroney, and we will continue to do so, despite the fact we're voting yes. Also, and perhaps more significantly, it is a dangerous debate. It's a dangerous debate because the opinions are deeply held and passionately argued, because the campaign has become a kind of lightning rod, a kind of focal point, for dissent and discontent in this nation. That's why I want to emphasize in the beginning, as passionately as I am able, that it is possible to be a good British Columbian and a good Canadian and vote yes or no. That is, in fact, a possibility -- there's no question. It is also true that there are probably some good and valid reasons for voting either way. I must confess that the parliamentarian and the combatant in me say that I haven't heard too many good reasons yet for voting no, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that there may be some. My point is: let us be considerate and tolerant of one another's opinions.

Let me just clarify for the first speaker on the other side, who suggested that we who are wearing the Yes buttons have somehow been coerced or dragooned into giving that support, that we do that because we freely choose to do so. Nobody told us otherwise. I am standing here today to support the Yes side in this debate. I want to assure you that my vote in the referendum is not given abashedly, ashamedly or apologetically. Indeed, I want to argue that this is a good deal.

I want to argue four points essentially: first, that the Charlottetown accord is good for Canada; second, that the Charlottetown accord is good for British Columbia; third, I want to touch on some of the principal arguments that have been adduced against the Charlottetown accord and suggest that they aren't necessarily so good or at least that they are not sufficiently convincing and powerful to lead one to the conclusion that the accord ought to be rejected; and finally, I want to emphasize the point that on the face of available evidence, there does not seem to be any realistic or credible alternative to a Yes vote on October 26. My appeal today is addressed to essentially three groups: first, to those who are undecided, and I recognize, acknowledge and embrace the fact that there are some who are yet undecided; second, to those who are leaning Yes but aren't sure they should be; and, just as important, to those who are leaning No but perhaps aren't sure why. That's my audience for my remarks today, Mr. Speaker.

Let me start by saying that I believe sincerely and passionately that this agreement is good for Canada. I'll be brief, because I have a fair amount of ground that I want to cover, and I am not going to be a designated speaker. We have had a constitutional wrangle in this country for some 25 years. It was in 1967 that Lester B. Pearson, the Prime Minister at the time, brought the constitution onto the table and said: "Let us reform the Canadian constitution." We have been trying to get a workable arrangement since that time. We failed in 1971, we failed in 1982 and we failed with Meech Lake. We have finally succeeded this time around. Let me emphasize what that means. Despite divisions and despite having passed through what some people refer to as the greatest crisis in Canadian history....

[4:15]

Interjection.

D. Lovick: I am referring now -- and I'm glad somebody asked the question -- to the preliminary report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which was produced in response to the greatest crisis in Canadian history as perceived at that time. Despite that acrimonious and difficult climate which has been building for 25 years and in which the parties are getting farther and farther apart, somehow, miraculously, this time around we got unanimous agreement. We did it.

Think, if you will, Mr. Speaker, about the players at the table who achieved that. We're talking about a federal government and two opposition parties supporting the federal government. We're talking about ten provincial governments representing three distinct political parties -- I'd like to think 3.5 because I'm convinced that Don Getty's government in Alberta is really half Reform -- two territorial governments and the aboriginal leadership, and we got unanimity. That is remarkable. Believe me, that is big news in constitutional circles, as I'm sure my colleagues opposite who have studied such stuff would agree. The fact is that those competing interests, those different opinions, those adversaries, those folks who fight with each other on a regular basis, nevertheless concluded that the interests that unite us and join us together are larger, more significant and more important than those that divide us. What a triumph -- amazing.

The agreement, then, is good for Canada, first and foremost, because it sends a signal to the naysayers and to those who are beginning to lose faith in this country that we can still do it. We can pull it together. We're prepared, moreover, to reform our institutions of government in this country. When you consider the dominance of central Canada in this country's history and the fact that the Senate, that patronage palace that historically has been a wonderful vehicle for every Prime Minister to use.... That power was willingly given up. We made a tremendous accomplishment in retreating from that national embarrassment, the existing Canadian Senate. What we have may not be wonderful, I'm the first to acknowledge, but as somebody who is a triple-A advocate -- abolish, abolish, abolish -- I don't have trouble with the 2.5-E Senate. I think it's elected, I think it's equal -- I know it's equal -- and I believe that it is going to go a great deal towards being effective, certainly a great deal better than what we have now.

The accord is also good for Canada because it says that we acknowledge that there are legitimate rights that have been denied to our First Nations people. That 

[ Page 3501 ]

has been a black mark on our history for a very long time. It doesn't commit us to new land rights; it doesn't confer any new rights. All it says is: "We acknowledge you have a legitimate and indeed inherent right to self-government, the right we took away as colonizers." All we're doing is acknowledging we took it away and saying: "It's yours, it's back again." That's long overdue. It's a good thing. We should be proud of that.

This accord also commits us to preserve and protect those very features that I think quintessentially and ultimately define what this country is about. I'm talking about our ability and our willingness to share with those who are less fortunate. For example, one of the parts of this accord that nobody seems to be talking about is the fact that we have made the language of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stronger than it is when it comes to regional disparities. We have said that rich provinces indeed have an obligation to poorer provinces, and that makes me proud as a Canadian. I hope it makes you that way.

I think the accord -- also fundamentally important from the perspective as a Canadian -- acknowledges Quebec and says that my Canada, our Canada, includes Quebec. And it must do. It says, moreover, that we're prepared to do something to make that commitment meaningful. We're prepared to do something. We're not prepared to just go through the motions and say: "I've got nothing against Quebec. Some of my best friends, etc., etc." It does more than that. In fact, it commits us to recognizing distinct society and the validity of that concept. Because if you are French-speaking in North America today you are living on a very small island in a vast ocean of English-speaking people, and you have every legitimate right to want to protect your culture, your language and your way of life so that it won't disappear.

It's also good for Canada because it literally buys us some peace and time. My friend from Richmond opposite who just spoke is absolutely right to say that this accord is not going to put an end to constitutional squabble. Nobody believes that. It's not going to mean that nobody in Quebec is going to come to the table and say that they want something else or different or more. What it's going to do, however, is focus the debate within particular parameters, not the kind of debate that calls into question whether we ought to have a country in the first place. That's the key difference. It buys us some peace. It also buys us some time to address issues that have woefully been neglected for far too long.

An Hon. Member: Expensive purchase.

D. Lovick: It may be an expensive purchase, but the cost of doing otherwise, I suggest, is exorbitant indeed and one too great to bear.

The accord is also good for British Columbia. A number of people have spoken about the all-party constitutional committee. I happened to be co-chair of that committee. As my leader, the Premier of the province, pointed out, the document we produced spelled out what we in B.C. saw as our shopping list to take to the table, if I may put it that way. I'm happy to report we did rather well. Go down the list, members opposite. We did pretty well. None of us had any illusion we were going to get exactly what we wanted. That's the nature of negotiation. The fact is that B.C. gets better representation than it had before and better representation than it will have if we're stuck with the status quo. It also gives us a greater power to manage our own economic affairs. It also does something, quite frankly, to improve the efficiency and efficacy of government. That's not bad from a B.C. perspective, and none of us ought to apologize for the fact B.C. got less or didn't get as much as some would say it ought to have.

I want to turn now to some arguments against. Again let me, if I may, come back to my initial point. I offer my arguments in the spirit of tolerance and understanding and of the legitimacy of differences of opinion. The point is made repeatedly by those who argue that we ought not to support the accord that it violates what we consider a sacred principle of equality. The short answer to that point is that it does not do so. I would remind members of a famous Supreme Court dictum, a famous point in law. The principle in law is that equal doesn't necessarily mean the same. It's an absolute truism. It's a necessary thing that you can recognize quickly if you stop to think about it.

Tommy Douglas, former Premier of Saskatchewan and former leader of the New Democratic Party, used to have a lovely line to put that in context. He used to say: "Every man for himself," or "We're all equal, as the elephant said when dancing among the chickens." That's the problem. The reality is that there are some people who are demonstrably not equal within our society. What we do, however, is recognize we ought to put in place the mechanisms to give them an equal shake and an equal share and an equal opportunity in our society and country. That's what makes us Canadians, for heaven's sake. That's what we take pride in as Canadians. To address the suggestion opposite that somehow individual rights are trampled upon in this document: with all due deference, my friends, not true. Section 15 of the Charter of Rights is absolutely inviolate; it's not touched by this. If section 15 ain't good enough for you, then there's section 28 in the Charter that says that even if you invoke the notwithstanding clause, you can't do so if it's on the basis of violating the equality of rights between women and men.

What then is this argument about equality? In fairness to my friends opposite who may be persuaded by it, I think what it comes to is the suggestion that maybe some provinces are more equal than others. Let me deal with that. The accord confirms no powers to any one province that are not equally available and accessible to every other province in this country. That's what the document does. The concern I suspect that people have has to do with the famous -- or infamous, depending on your point of view -- 25 percent floor. Let's think about the 25 percent floor of seats guaranteed to the province of Quebec. First of all, let's recognize that throughout all of Canadian history the province of Quebec has always been underrepresented. They have not had the number of seats they would be 

[ Page 3502 ]

entitled to on a representation-by-population model. The second point, let us recognize, is that today Quebec has about 24.6 or 24.7 percent of the Canadian population. Is 25 percent really scary? Let's look at the nature of population demographics. Let's look at the nature of that stuff.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: I'm going to get to why it's there. I promise you I shall. I felt I did so when we were travelling around the province in committee, but I wasn't clear enough -- I'm sorry.

The third point about demographics is simply that a population does not change by a radical number of 1 or 2 percent in a matter of a year. That's a slow and gradual process. B.C. presently has about 12 percent of the population. Even with the most wildly optimistic and fantastic population projections, we would not have 25 percent of the population for at least 75 years. So the notion, then....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: Don't worry. Somebody said: "What would we do then?" The answer is: because of the formula and because of the system of adjusting population as we go, we would catch up. We would get our fair share of representation. Remember, the point for the province of Quebec is that it's a floor, not a ceiling. It says that we acknowledge that you, in order to represent and defend your distinct society and your uniqueness within this culture, ought to have your historical presence in the society recognized and accepted.

I don't want to belabour this one, because there are others, but the question I would put to members opposite is: why do they disagree with a guy like the former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed? He said: "What's the problem with Quebec getting 25 percent of the seats? Doesn't hurt anybody in western Canada. Doesn't cause us any problem." The obvious issue, then, is: what is the problem with 25 percent? I would ask that question. I offer that as a challenge to members opposite. Explain to us the rational problem with 25 percent, if you will.

The other reason for the 25 percent floor has to do with distinct society. Sadly, in the climate we live in today, one can't even say société distincte without being considered a little weird. However, the fact is that distinct society is a very legitimate request on the part of the province of Quebec that I'm thrilled to see has been acceded to by the rest of the provinces and the other people at the table. We have defined it specifically and precisely better than it was in Meech Lake. It consists of three specific things: language, civil code and culture. You can't get more narrow than that. It doesn't exactly cause us a problem, wondering what this distinct society stuff is. The reality, though, is that if we believe that concept, and if we believe that the province of Quebec has a right to ensure the preservation of language, culture and civil law, we have to put something on the table to do so. That is what the 25 percent floor is all about. It's not a problem, it seems to me.

[4:30]

I want to refer now to the veto power -- a question that people love to pose about the veto power. They say that if we have the unanimous consent provision in the constitution, it means the end. We're all tied up forever and ever. A couple of points: the first one to recognize is that only about 5 percent of what is covered by the Charter is subject to the unanimity provision. The second point to remember -- and anybody who's been involved in negotiation knows this very clearly -- is that if the rules are causing you difficulty and you need unanimity or some such thing, you find a way around it. You give up something on your side, and somebody else gives up something on the other side, and that's how you get unanimity.

Just because everybody has a veto -- including B.C., which wanted a veto -- doesn't mean that we have a deadlock. And if anybody wants one final bit of evidence to show that it isn't a problem, let me put it to you this way: the Charlottetown accord is supported by the federal government, ten provincial governments, the territorial governments. Guess what! -- unanimous agreement. How did it happen?

I want to conclude with the argument.... It's a difficult one and I certainly don't want to suggest that I'm saying that the sky is falling or that fear and trembling ought to be considered. The issue is what happens if No prevails. In my submission to my colleagues in the House and to people out there who may still be watching our activities, the issue is that there is no realistic alternative, partly because there is no viable, workable, practicable coalition of No forces. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jacques Parizeau are arguing against this accord for precisely diametrically opposed sets of reasons. In other words, if you have one or the other, you can't have both. They simply won't even sit in the same room with each other, as we know. And so with other members of that coalition. The predicament, as I suggest, is that if we say no on October 26, I think it means more than most of us are willing to acknowledge.

To coin a phrase used by people like.... Well, I think Nancy Reagan or somebody might have said, "Just say no," as if that's the easy solution -- and it isn't the easy solution. I'd like to borrow a line from the women's movement and say: "No means no." No has consequences. It's not a free act. You can't say no and assume we're all going to come back happily to the table and pick it up where we left off again. Twenty-five years we've been working on this thing. The primary battle is between western Canada that says the problem with the deal is, "It gives Quebec too much power," and Quebec that says the problem is: "It doesn't give us enough power, because we're threatened by western Canada." We have two solitudes the same way Hugh MacLennan described them in 1945. No is not a viable alternative. Where do we go from here? It seems to me, given we have made some small steps forward to doing all those things that all the critics wanted, that we have no realistic, credible, meaningful choice but to say Yes on October 26.

[ Page 3503 ]

I want to end by offering an observation. Somebody said a while ago that it's really time to give the country a hug. And you know, I think it makes sense.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: You can be jaded, my young friend. At 30 you're allowed to be jaded. I'm a little older and perhaps I'm not so. All right? But I think there's something legitimate in saying that, because we have been so busy looking at the possible dismemberment and dissection of this critter called Canada that we have forgotten it's a living and breathing entity that has nourished us all. It's a country, above all, remember, that has been created in defiance of geography, of cultural differences, of language differences, of religious differences. We have nevertheless survived. Moreover we have thrived. I do not think a No vote will enable us to say that with any certainty and any confidence. On October 26 let us all resolve to give the country a hug. Let's vote yes.

D. Schreck: For the last month I've been working with a group of people on the North Shore. They include my former Social Credit opponent, the person who ran as a candidate against me for the Social Credit Party. They include a Conservative Member of Parliament for West Vancouver. They include a Liberal MLA who shares the debate in this House with us. As a New Democrat, I'm proud to say that I am part of that pluralistic commitment to democracy, and I am proud to say that I am part of what is truly a non-partisan effort.

There's a danger in this House, in this place, of turning this very important debate for our country into a partisan wrangle that is beneath the importance of the question. What's happening in the community that I represent is that we have Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and Social Crediters working together because we all have looked at the accord and we have all come to the conclusion that it is good for British Columbia and for Canada.

There's another danger in being around this place. We, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, have been dealing with this issue quite intensely for a very long period, and our friends in the galleries are equally consumed by this issue. It's easy to come to the conclusion that the entire community is consumed by this issue. Some are; a great many are not. I find, in my experience on the North Shore, that probably about 30 percent of the population holds very strong and intense views on one side of this issue or the other. For that element of my community, I join my friend opposite and say that on October 27, whichever side prevails, I hope that we come together and heal the wounds that may have opened.

Because of our commitment to a pluralistic democracy, it is in our common interest to put those wounds behind us and work together on the next issue of the day. In the meantime, I will certainly do everything in my power to say why I am wearing a Yes button and why I am voting yes. The reason I will continue to argue for that position is not only that I deeply, personally, believe it, but also that in my experience, there's that 70 percent of the rest of the community that unlike the people in these precincts is not consumed by the question.

I walked into a restaurant last week and someone in the restaurant -- a small diner -- said to me: "What's the button you're wearing? What's it about?" I said: "Don't you know? It's the referendum question." They said: "What about the referendum question? What is that?" I said: "Haven't you been following the news? It's all people are talking about." She said: "No, I don't really bother with that. I've got my own problems and things that I'm concerned about." She honestly did not know anything about the issue.

I prepared several hundred questionnaires that were sent out to a sample of my constituents. They arrived in the mail just after Labour Day while this debate was reaching a fever pitch. The questions were on policy issues that we have dealt with as legislators over the past year. Nowhere in the questionnaire did it refer specifically to the constitution, although it had an open-ended question asking what was on their minds, what they thought we should be dealing with. Of 500 questionnaires I had received back within two weeks, only one person included a note saying something about the constitution. A couple of weeks later the return had increased to about 700 questionnaires, and out of 700 the count had gone up to about four people wanting to discuss the constitution as their matter of concern -- or had any reference to it in a detailed questionnaire.

I say that not to say that the constitution is unimportant, because obviously all of us in this chamber feel it is vitally important. Obviously our friends in the gallery feel it is vitally important. It is important at some point to step back and get in touch with reality, with the communities we represent. A very large proportion of those we represent are not as wrapped up in the issue as we are, yet it is those fellow citizens who must decide on Monday, October 27 whether we are going to change our constitution or not.

J. Weisgerber: The 26th.

D. Schreck: Yes, the 26th. On the 27th we will, hopefully, be patching up whatever differences we have, and on the 26th we're going to be voting -- on Monday.

I'd like to talk about four issues of particular concern to me that are part of the debate: the process of how we got here; the issue of are we all Canadians and how that interacts with group rights versus individual rights; the matter of self-government for our aboriginal peoples; and the implications of the agreement for social services.

Let's look at the process. I am concerned that my friends who say "Vote no" have not offered an alternative for healing the problems that face Canada today, for coming up with a better deal. Each of us could probably come up with a better deal if we were to unilaterally write it. We would have a great deal of difficulty, however, getting the other 74 members of this House to agree with us. That's the problem Canada as a whole 

[ Page 3504 ]

has. We have people with quite divergent opinions, as divergent as the four representatives of different political parties on the North Shore with whom I am working, who can't agree on many things. Yet if we are going to govern ourselves as a country, we must come together with some general framework that we call a constitution on how we are going to operate.

There have been many failures in the attempt to resolve our differences. What is miraculous about the process before us now is that for two years following the defeat of Meech Lake, citizens from across the country met in a variety of forums: legislative commissions, open-line shows to call and record your opinion, the Spicer commission. Two years of varied consultation led to the ministers of respective governments meeting for six months, to the first ministers meeting and, finally, to reaching a unanimous agreement.

If we reject that process and the conclusion that comes out of it, then we have to say that we are either prepared to live with the status quo, the current situation, forever without change, or we have some idea of a process that will lead to a successful conclusion, a satisfactory amendment to the constitution. What I see is not only no answer but no credible alternative process being put forward.

Some of my friends say: "How about this idea of a constituent assembly?" A constituent assembly, my friends, is an undefined black box. I don't mean to make less of anyone's particular concern, but all of the faults and picky little criticisms directed at a word here or a word there on the current accord -- which was reached via consensus -- can be directed at this black box called a constituent assembly when we open it up. I ask you, if we go to a constituent assembly, how many seats is British Columbia going to get? Are we going to get more seats than Quebec and Ontario or the same number of seats? Is it going to be complete representation by population? If it is, are we going to have representation of particular interest groups: aboriginal people, women, the disabled? Are we going to elect our constituent assembly at large? If we elect them at large, will that not lead to the situation in British Columbia where the lower mainland dominates, and we could exclude entire regions of this province?

[4:45]

There are fundamental questions. My friends who argue for the defeat of this consensus, which was built through two years of consultation, with the agreement of 17 elected leaders.... There are fundamental questions that my friends who urge its rejection are simply not answering. The alternative that they offer is an undefined black box that is fraught with failure, that cannot work and that can be criticized with every one of the criticisms that my friends throw at the consensus document.

I say that at the end of the day we have a choice between yes or no. Yes, we recognize the process and the conclusion that came out of it, or no, we perpetuate the status quo with all of its flaws: a patronage Senate; a federal government that can unilaterally change federal-provincial negotiated agreements; and a situation that has given us the Indian Act and 125 years of colonization and oppression of our aboriginal peoples -- a fundamentally flawed process that has created the pressures for change today. That by itself should indicate why I think we should vote yes.

Let me talk about some of the positive aspects, some of the things that are so good, and about why I have come to the conclusion that I am voting Yes on this accord. One is the careful balancing that this accord reaches between the concepts of group rights and individual rights. Some of my friends, particularly people who have read Pierre Trudeau's argument, say that there is a fundamental conflict here between group rights and individual rights. Some of my associates, largely people coming from the Reform Party, who take a less generous argument argue that everyone should be a Canadian and that we shouldn't recognize any difference in people from first nations, people from Quebec or people in other traditionally disadvantaged situations.

Is there really this inherent conflict? I accept that on a theoretical level we can count angels on pinheads and come up with a great dispute between group rights and individual rights. But I suggest that there is no fundamental conflict in the very careful balance that has been reached in the constitutional consensus, in the accord that is before us. Nowhere in that document do I find group rights imparted by the Canada clause in conflict with individual rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What I find is the recognition of people who have been traditionally oppressed, in such a way that those group rights do not trample on an individual but rather correct historic injustices. Nowhere do I find a credible argument, where there is a group right that would fundamentally impair an individual right or that any of us would argue is going to be damaged or come in conflict with our basic beliefs, that is a reason for rejecting this consensus document.

So I argue that what we have in Pierre Trudeau's argument or the Reform Party's argument are inconsistent theoretical positions that fundamentally damage the Canada that I love. When we look from the viewpoint of practical people, we have a document that corrects social injustice and advances individual rights. It's another reason to vote yes, hon. Speaker.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

On the specific issue of aboriginal self-government, I also find an opportunity to advance this nation that we haven't seen for a very long time. I am not aware of any party coming to the constitutional table opposing aboriginal self-government. I have not heard anybody in this chamber oppose aboriginal self-government. What we seem to be debating is how we arrive at some form of aboriginal self-government. The question is that of mechanics.

I know that some of my friends in the aboriginal community who have not accepted the accord argue that they reject it because they want to be recognized as independent sovereign nations separate and apart from Canada. While I respect their opinions, it is not an opinion that I can embrace, because I embrace aboriginal self-government within the context of Canada and sharing a common constitution. What I find offered in 

[ Page 3505 ]

the accord is a clear framework that eliminates some of the more radical differences between us and allows the opportunity to negotiate the precise details of what that aboriginal self-government shall consist of, in a manner that is more acceptable to me, that eliminates these unacceptable extremes, that makes my aboriginal friends reject the oppression of the Indian Act and the colonization of 125 years and that treats my friends in the Squamish nation with the same dignity as my friends in Alberta.

When I read some of these speculative legal opinions that have been thoroughly discredited, I find that they take the attitude that if you're from Alberta, you can govern yourself, but if you're from the Squamish nation, we can't trust you with the same amount of responsibility. I say: shame! That is an abhorrent argument that reflects the colonial attitude of the last 125 years. I say that what the constitutional accord offers us is the opportunity to end some of these patronizing colonial attitudes, to negotiate dignity and self-government, and to end a welfare state and replace it with self-respecting nations under the same constitution that all of us operate under.

Last, hon. Speaker, but by no means the last of the many reasons why I am voting Yes and support this accord, is my look at the question of social services. I am deeply troubled that some of my friends believe that the accord somehow conflicts with advancing social services. Some of my friends say: "Could we have a national child care program under the accord? Are we more or less likely to, given the current constitution or given the accord?" I say the reason we don't have a national child care program today is that there hasn't been a national consensus around the details and there hasn't been the political will by the federal government.

My friend opposite says "Money," and he is absolutely correct. That is precisely why social services are better protected under the accord. This province of British Columbia has three-quarters of its deficit, $1.4 billion of the deficit of this province this year alone, resulting from the unilateral federal changes to federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements. And lest people think that I am blaming Brian Mulroney, the historical record shows that this started under Pierre Trudeau, who in 1974 started a process leading to the erosion of our health and social services. Pierre Trudeau introduced a process that led to the federal government systematically withdrawing from cost sharing for social services. It was the Trudeau Liberals who rejected the notion of conditional grant-in-aid that built our great social programs. The Mulroney government has continued that, and in the last year the Mulroney government has unilaterally capped transfer payments to Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan, and they have unilaterally de-indexed transfer payments for health and education under the established programs financing acts.

What the accord does in section 26 -- and it's repeated and spelled out in precise legal detail in section 17 to be inserted as section 126A of the legal text -- is specifically prohibit that sort of unilateral federal change to federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements.

What I say is that the accord stops the erosion of social programs; the accord stops the federal offloading of the deficit. The accord, if we had had it last year, would have been worth $1.4 billion to British Columbia this year. My opponents, my friends on the No side of this question, have not offered a credible alternative. On Monday, October 26, we must vote yes or no. No is no solution. It does not offer an alternative; it throws away the very real and significant gains our province has reached agreement on together with 17 elected leaders in two years of public consultation. The alternative is a Yes vote.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's truly a pleasure to be involved in this debate and to perhaps throw some light on some of the arguments we've just heard from the two previous members, which sound wonderful but don't brush even closely with reality.

We need to look at a number of issues.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo is once again castigating members of this House on their eloquence. It's true that other members of this House are not nearly as verbose or as articulate, but they are far more realistic.

There are a number of issues we need to look at as we decide which way we will vote as British Columbians and as Canadians on the Monday following this. We heard some very eloquent debate from the member for Nanaimo about his presence in, and his co-chairing of, the British Columbia constitutional committee that toured this province. Well, I know that the members of the Liberal caucus who toured and the members of the Social Credit caucus who toured -- whom I got to know fairly well -- were there to listen. I know that the member for Nanaimo was there to use it as a platform, to teach and to speak. We listened to the people of British Columbia carefully. The member for Nanaimo apparently did not.

We heard some very interesting comments from both members here today, and particularly from the member for Nanaimo. I would like to address his most eloquent highlighting of how difficult it was for the ten Premiers, the federal government, four aboriginal leaders and the two territorial leaders to come to an agreement on the constitution that we finally -- miracle of all miracles! -- came to a conclusion on. Boy, I cannot believe it either!

The member then turns around and says: "Why should we be concerned about unanimity in the constitution? Why should we be worried that it requires unanimity among those very same players for any changes to the House of Commons, the Senate or the Supreme Court?" If it took such a miracle to finally come to some agreement, why do we want to entrench the requirement for divine intervention in our constitution every time we want to change it? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The member's argument is obviously flawed.

The member also made some comments about my age, which I'd like to respond to. It's true that I am one 

[ Page 3506 ]

of the younger members of this House. As a younger member of this House, I am looking more toward the future.

Hon. M. Sihota: Says who?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour has obviously aged over the last year. I know that.

It's important that we look very carefully at what this constitution means, not just for today but for the future. I had the privilege of listening to the Premier of Newfoundland when he was out here defending the Charlottetown agreement. Throughout his presentation, which was extremely articulate, there was one phrase that kept coming up again and again. It was "at this time." This is the best deal we can get at this time. This is the best agreement we can get at this time. It's the best agreement for Canada at this time.

We don't build constitutions for today; we build constitutions for tomorrow and for the children of this country. Why, then, would we be entrenching things in this constitution that we cannot change or that require a miracle to change, to quote the member for Nanaimo? Why is it that we would put a 25 percent floor -- not a number of seats but a 25 percent floor -- in this constitution in perpetuity for any province regardless of what that province is? Why would we want to do that? What happens, not in five or ten or 15 or even 20 years but in 40 years, when British Columbia has grown to the point where it's a much larger province than it is right now? What will happen to the people of British Columbia? What will happen to my children and the children of the people opposite -- if they have children -- when they once again face western alienation? I thought we were trying to get rid of that when we were changing the constitution. What's going to be the response of British Columbians when they see the underrepresentation they have?

[5:00]

That's not going to work. It will not work for the future of this province. I think the members opposite realize that, but are just clouding their minds a little when it comes to reasoning.

We have another issue that is important as western Canadians -- I think it's important not just as western Canadians; it's important as Canadians -- and that has to do with the Senate. I really think the Premier was hoodwinked on this one; I really think he was asleep at the switch on this one. I know that if the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs had been doing the final negotiations, this never would have happened. We had the Premier go into a negotiation, and the agreement was made to finally get what we wanted in western Canada as an equal Senate for all provinces, a House in Ottawa that would represent provinces equally, and what we had to give up.... The deal that was struck was that we bring Quebec and Ontario down to six Senators. But in order to do that, we would take those 18 -- to quote the member for Nanaimo -- "extremely ineffective Senators" and transfer them into the House of Commons, where the real power is anyway. Why would we do that?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says that's fair. That would be fair and that would make sense if we had a Senate that actually could do something. This Senate is a paper tiger, and we all know it; the member knows it also.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I do know all the powers they have. The constitutional minister will have his chance to debate, and I'll welcome his....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, if the member would come to order, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs to ask the Premier if he knows, because I'm sure he doesn't.

Hon. Speaker, I will be glad to detail the powers of this new Senate that we have. I will give the argument that was given by Premier Wells when he was in this province defending the Senate. His argument is that we now have a Senate that can introduce bills. In his view, it has all the same powers that the House of Commons has: it can introduce bills, and it can name those bills to be francophone bills or to affect the French language. He said that Senate will have exactly the same powers as the House of Commons. When there's a conflict between the two and one House doesn't want to pass legislation that the other has introduced, we then strike a committee to try to come to some resolution. And if that committee doesn't work, then we go to a joint sitting of the House and we have a debate. And at the end of that debate, we have a vote.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The hon. member is asking what powers the minister.... He was talking when I was giving my presentation. If he would listen, he would know I just itemized what the powers were.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, if I could have order, I'd be glad to continue my discussion.

When it comes down to a vote between those two Houses -- the House of Commons and the Senate -- the vote will be a majority vote. Those 60 Senators will be awash in a flood of House of Commons members, and once again in this country the power that's entrenched in central Canada will override what's done in the regions. We'll be exactly where we are right now. The absolute best that the Senate could possibly achieve is what we have right now. That's the best. And that's not good enough. I didn't fight this long, I didn't tour the province for two months, I didn't fight as long as I have 

[ Page 3507 ]

on the constitution, I haven't read all the papers I have in order to give up and get what we've already got for a Senate. That's not good enough.

An. Hon. Member: I was going to agree with you.

G. Farrell-Collins: There are a lot of people who will agree with me.

We've also heard arguments from the side opposite that this is the only deal that there will ever be, that this is the only deal we will ever have.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I'm sure all hon. members will have an opportunity to participate in this debate, but at the present time the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says that I haven't read the agreement. I would hazard a guess that I've read more issues on this constitution than a number of the cabinet ministers combined and certainly the Premier. If the minister opposite is so concerned, perhaps he would have been at the UBCM to hear what the people had to say.

I'll continue with my discussion of this accord. We have a number of things that we need to look at also. We heard from a number of members opposite that we're entrenching a social charter in this agreement. Isn't that wonderful? We've now entrenched a social charter in this agreement. If there was some form of entrenchment whereby we could guarantee that we would be able to deliver social programs to the people of this country in perpetuity, I would be wearing a Yes button. But I'm not.

It doesn't matter what you write in the constitution about what the goals are and what the government is supposed to try and do. If you can't afford it, you don't have it. Simple as that. I know that's a difficult concept for the NDP to understand, but that's the reality: if we can't afford it, you won't have it. It doesn't matter what it says in the constitution.

We had the member from North Vancouver-Lonsdale say that we've transferred all these powers to the provinces, that somehow we're going to be better represented and that we had a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of downloading from the federal government. Well, this deal, this Charlottetown agreement, is the mother of all downloading. What we're doing is giving the provinces all these responsibilities over all these jurisdictions, and there's no discussion of where the money's going to come from. There's no discussion of where the tax points come from or where the transfer payments come from. Somebody, again, was asleep at the switch.

I'm not proud of the social charter that's in there, because it doesn't guarantee a darned thing. But it raises the expectations of people in this province. That's unfortunate.

Let's look at some of the economic impacts of this agreement. One of the things that we need if we're going to pay for these social programs is a strong economy. Everyone understands that. The Premier's wonderful for gallivanting around the country -- around the world, for that matter, to Geneva, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tokyo -- travelling and discussing trade. He talks so eloquently about what trade means for British Columbia. It's amazing that the Premier does that, and yet he agrees to a constitutional accord that can't even break down the barrier between British Columbia and Alberta. Why travel to Geneva when you can't even get the trade barriers down in your own country? That's a fundamental problem. If we want an economy that's going to be able to pay for the social programs and be viable for the young people of this country and the future of this country not at this time but 20, 30, 40 years from now, we need to have no trade barriers between provinces. The Minister of Tourism might want to look at that one also.

There has been a lot of discussion that we will never get another agreement in Canada, that this is our only chance. I heard that very same argument used by the very same Prime Minister, by the very same Leader of the Opposition -- or maybe it was Audrey McLaughlin and Dave Barrett -- last time when we went to the Meech Lake accord, that this is the only agreement we're ever going to have. "It's amazing we did it, and we can't do any better than this." That's what we heard about the Meech Lake accord. Why is this agreement any different? We tried again. We rushed through it; we went to the deadline of the Premier of Quebec, and we've come up with a constitutional agreement that's flawed.

If we can achieve unanimity now and if we achieved unanimity under Meech Lake -- it didn't last -- we see that what we have to do is get back to the drawing table. This country is not going to end on October 27. No matter what the Prime Minister says and no matter what the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs says, this country will not end. This is a strong country. We will have an opportunity to continue this debate to ensure that we have a constitutional agreement that includes some other things.

We need to look at a few other things that could be in this agreement. Why is there nothing in this agreement that says this is one country and that we will not be threatened with separatism? Why isn't there some agreement, some buy-in, by the provinces of this country to ensure that we will never have the gun of separatism held to our head again? Why don't they just say one thing, one line? The Leader of the Opposition has itemized that and has brought that forward very eloquently. Why don't we say it as the first thing in the Canada clause: Canada is one indivisible country and that forevermore we will not have to deal with separatism. Where's that commitment? We don't see it.

There are a number of issues that we need to look at. We need to have an amending formula that will work not just for today but for the future. We don't need to take this country to the brink of non-existence before we change the accord.

An Hon. Member: How do we get it?

[ Page 3508 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asks: "How do we get it?" We go back to work like we did after Meech Lake and like we've done before; like we did after the Charter and like we did after the Victoria agreement in 1971.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was directing my comments through the Chair. I made no reference to the member opposite. Perhaps he would like to address his comments through the Chair.

There are, once again, some rude comments being made that because I'm standing here discussing issues that are of concern to the people of British Columbia, somehow I'm in bed with Jacques Parizeau or some other person in this country.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: That is absolutely ridiculous. That means that 60 percent of British Columbians are in the same position. Are you insulting 60 percent of the people in British Columbia? I don't think so.

These are the same members opposite who cry and complain about so many issues with the federal government and about so many terrible things that the federal government has done to this province -- downloading and all sorts of items that they've been talking about -- yet they choose to join forces with Brian Mulroney as he stands in Canada, rips up an agreement and yells into a microphone and tells us this country is going to end. That is the type of person that this government is associating itself with, and I think that's scary.

In summary, I'm not telling people to vote yes or no; I'm telling them what I think the concerns are. I'm telling them what I think British Columbians and Canadians should be aware of in this agreement.

An Hon. Member: Tell us what the solutions are.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have given a number of solutions. If someone in British Columbia wants to vote yes, then I say go ahead and vote yes. But be proud and vote yes. Don't do what the former leader of the NDP in this province did and said: "Hold your nose and vote yes." That is a disgusting concept. If you're going to vote yes, vote yes because you're proud. If you're going to vote no, do it for exactly the same reasons. Do it as a proud Canadian, and vote no because you feel that this agreement is not good enough for you or your children. That's the reason we should be voting in this constitution.

Hon. L. Boone: I am pleased to stand here and tell you why I'm supporting this agreement and why it is good not only for people in British Columbia but for all the people of Canada. I think we have to look beyond what's sometimes our own personal little back yard and see the bigger picture here and why it's important for all of us.

This agreement contains things that I feel very strongly about: a social charter which enshrines in the constitution the principles of universal medicare, social programs and the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively. Those are things that are not in our current constitution; they weren't in Meech Lake. They are in this agreement, and I think we ought to be proud of the fact that our leaders have come together united and put in a social charter those items that I think enshrine the things that we as Canadians believe in very strongly. We may not have a similar opportunity in the future to bring those points of view together and to enshrine them in the constitution for the benefit of all Canadians.

I want to talk a little bit about the Senate, because I think everybody knows it's my preference and probably the preference of a lot of people in this government to have the Senate eliminated. However, that wasn't in the cards. That wasn't in the cards at all, because there were provinces out there that fought just as hard to keep the Senate. So what one has to do is work together to try and find a compromise, to try and come to an agreement on something that is acceptable to all of us. Although eliminating the Senate was not in the cards for us, we could recognize that we needed to change. We needed to come to a compromise in order to gain for all Canadians. So what we have is an elected Senate, an equal Senate for all Canadians and a Senate that does have considerably more power than the Senate that we have currently. That's something that I think is being overlooked. It's important, because you have to look at this from the viewpoint of what we are going to achieve for all Canadians here.

[5:15]

I'm also very pleased that this agreement contains justice for our aboriginal brothers and sisters. We've heard some people talk about the possibility that there's too much in there, that we're giving things away, that they're going to be able to have laws and powers that are above those in Canada. That's not true at all, hon. Speaker. The justice that we are giving the aboriginals here, the self-government concept, is a government within Canada, not outside Canada, that has to adhere to the laws and order of the federal and provincial governments. I'm really upset that we find people playing on the fears of individuals and trying to create havoc in this province against our aboriginal brothers and sisters.

I'm also pleased to see that the taxpayers are going to benefit from this agreement as well. We're going to see reduced duplication of federal and provincial programs, with more jurisdictions brought home here to British Columbia. I, for one, certainly feel a lot happier having decisions made here in B.C. rather than in Ottawa. I think that's good for the taxpayer; I think that's good for British Columbians.

I also like to see the fact that intergovernmental affairs are taken care of. No longer can the federal government unilaterally change agreements that they have with the provinces. That's been a concern of all of us, as we've watched the federal government unilaterally change things over the years. That can no longer happen. I think we can all benefit from that.

[ Page 3509 ]

One of the main reasons that I think we should be supporting this agreement is: what is the alternative if we do not go with this agreement? If this is turned down, we are left with no change in the Senate. We are left with an unelected group of people who are put in there by the Liberal government and some by the Conservative government; but they certainly are not representative of Canada. We do not have very good representation whatsoever with regard to British Columbia. We are left with no social charter, no changes in responsibility and no solution to the constitutional problem.

I think it will be a long time before our leaders sit down and try to negotiate an agreement again, and I don't think we are going to find a solution just around the bend as some people seem to think. Quite frankly, I don't think we can afford to have our leaders at the federal, provincial and territorial levels sit down and spend more time dealing with this issue that should be put to rest now.

Finally, I think it's important and one of the main things that really I find a driving force.... If you look at the 17 individuals who sat down and came to an agreement here, it's nothing short of a miracle or absolutely incredible that these people should come to an agreement here. It's absolutely incredible that these people should come to an agreement, should come to consensus at this particular time, and that they'd put aside their own personal drives and try to find an agreement that worked on behalf of all Canadians. We had provincial, territorial, federal and aboriginal leaders all sitting down, all working hard and all giving in order to come to an agreement.

It's clear that no one came out of this a clear winner. It's equally clear that no one came out of this a clear loser. Everyone gave, everyone won a little bit, and, as you know, in the negotiation process when people give and take, you end up with an agreement. That's what we have here -- a consensus, the agreement of everybody. Because it is a consensus agreement, and because it has some give and take in there, people are able to say, "This is not covered in it," or, "This should have been covered in it," or, "This was covered in it and shouldn't have been." It's not a perfect deal from any one perspective. My perfect deal obviously wouldn't be the perfect deal for the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party or any other party -- or maybe not even perfect for my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour.

But it certainly is a deal. This is a deal that has consensus, that has agreement. Everybody says it's a deal that we as Canadians can all live with. Some say Quebec got too much. You go to Quebec and they say they didn't get enough. There are some people saying we gave the aboriginals too much, and there are some aboriginals saying they didn't get enough. The reality is that we all gave, we all gained on this, and that's what happens when individuals sit down to negotiate. It's a give-and-take process.

I don't know what's going to happen on the 26th. I don't know if our country is going to divide and separate on the 26th or after the 26th. That's possible. I don't know whether our economy is going to go downhill. That's also possible. However, I do know that if we get a No vote, the issue of the constitution will stay with us for a long time. We will not have any solution to this, and we will have to tackle it again at some point in the future. Maybe not now, maybe in five or ten years, but it will have to be tackled at some time in the future at great expense to this country.

The reality is that to gain agreement will be no easier than it was this time, and to gain an agreement that has the support of everybody is not going to be any easier than it was this time either. So it's important that on Monday the 26th British Columbians sit down and look at this agreement and what it brings to Canada, what it brings to British Columbia and what we are achieving by this -- not just at the one thing that is not in there or the one thing there that they don't like. Look at the whole package. Look at what we as Canadians have done. We have done something that many countries would find absolutely incredible. To think that 17 leaders could ever sit down and come to an agreement without drawing arms on each other. I think that's an incredible thing, and as Canadians we ought to be proud of it. I urge people to look at everything, to seek through, to look at it and not dismiss this agreement on the basis of one or two items. Look at the whole agreement and find out what's in it for Canada. I think that we have a lot to gain as Canadians.

M. Farnworth: It's with a great deal of pleasure, pride and some mixed emotion that I rise to speak on this debate, because over the last few weeks -- in particular the last two weeks -- as visions of the different Canadas that many people across this land of ours have.... It's focused a debate in a way that I don't think many of us ever expected. It has created divisions, it has created some interesting alliances, but most of all it has forced people to look at the country that we live in and at how they see that country -- how they see it today, how they saw it yesterday and how they will see it tomorrow.

I know that what I have to say is very much shaped by my experiences in this country. I've lived here for some 25 years, most of that time on the west coast, in the Vancouver area; but I also lived for two years in Quebec and for a time in the Northwest Territories. So I've seen three very different, contrasting parts of this country with many differences but with a great many things in common. It's in that context that I make my remarks, because I don't believe that this package is a hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-it deal. I believe that this package represents the best about this country and is a deal that can be supported on its merits, because I believe that it's a deal that is not made for one province, for one Prime Minister, but for a country. The country is called Canada, and it's our country.

We've achieved something in this deal that's really unique. For the first time, as other members in this House have stated, we have achieved unanimity. We didn't do it 50 years ago when there were two basic political philosophies that were very similar. We didn't do it 50 years ago when aboriginal issues were never even thought of, much less on the table; when issues of concern to women were never thought of, much less on the table. We achieved unanimity in a process that 

[ Page 3510 ]

involved literally tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in almost countless forums, whether it was the Spicer commission, the Dobbie-Beaudoin commission, our own provincial committee, or any of the other provincial or Territorial committees. There was an opportunity for input for anybody who cared to get involved, and tens of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast did just that.

It's out of that grass-roots participation that the messages came loud and clear. From failed conferences in the past -- from the Victoria conference to the failed Meech Lake accord -- to this time, when the leaders of the ten provinces, the two Territories and the federal government sat down and said: yes, we are going to include aboriginals' concerns this time; yes, we are going to address the intense feeling of Western alienation; and yes, we are finally going to address the promise that was made to Quebec in 1980 when we said, "Say No to sovereignty-association and say Yes to Canada...." We did that this time.

Everybody went to that table and fought for what they wanted, for what they believed was important. They fought in the context of what was important for the province, but more importantly, they fought for what was right for this country.

There is no single greater problem facing this nation than that of two competing visions of those who want a highly centralized federation and those who believe that the provinces should be able to assume a greater role in how they run their affairs. It's a battle that has been waged in this country for 125 years, and it's a battle that will continue to rage. But it will rage in the context of an agreement that meets, I believe, the bulk of the aspirations of each province and Territory in this country. We are told that there is not an agreement, that this agreement will not end separatism. You know, those people are right, because there is not an agreement that could be written by me or by the member for Richmond East or by anybody in this country that would satisfy the separatists, except if it was one that gave them an independent Quebec. They will never be happy until they achieve that goal. But this agreement satisfies those with a federalist vision in Quebec. It satisfies those people who, when they voted no in 1980, looked to the rest of us to achieve a consensus, an agreement that could bring them back into the constitutional family. This agreement does that. It does it not by a massive transfer of powers or the entrenchment of distinct society within a charter of rights; it does it by saying to a province that feels isolated, that does see itself in a different light than the rest of us, that you can protect your language, culture and civil code.

[5:30]

This is an agreement that addresses all areas of this country. There has been no single greater symbol in my lifetime of western alienation than the imposition of the national energy program and a feeling that Ottawa and central Canada don't listen. There has been a demand for a reformed Senate. This is one of the most important aspects of this agreement, because it is a Senate that met the demands of westerners when they wanted it to be equal. It is equal, with six Senators from every province. It's a Senate that is elected, a second demand of westerners. It's elected in nine of the ten provinces. There are those who criticize this: "It's not elected, so it's half elected." I suggest that they should redo their math, because at the very least it's 90 percent elected.

But that's not the point. The point is that of those provinces....

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: If they were elected in western Canada, it is an elected Senate. I'm quite sure that as the years go by, the people in Quebec will demand the same right to elect or to hold their Senators accountable as the rest of us do. The fact that their government feels that they would like to appoint their Senators at this time provokes howls of criticism from the No side, saying: "Sorry, this is not elected. This is not what we want." That is up to them: the Quebec government will be held accountable by its people. Our Senators in this province will be elected.

The Senate will also be effective. It will have powers to propose legislation. But more importantly, in my opinion, it will have the ability to deal with what I said before was the single most fundamental cause of western alienation of the last 25 years: the national energy program. Our economies out here are fuelled in large measure by our resources. It's changing in places like British Columbia, but we're still predominantly resource-based, and control over those resources is very important to us. I say that anything that gives us the clout not to force a joint sitting of the House, not to delay for 30 days but to kill a piece of legislation that cost western Canada over $65 billion, is effective.

A role in the appointment of the governor of the Bank of Canada, which is an institution that many of us have railed against over the years for a policy of high interest rates at the behest of central Canada, punishing western farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and the North Peace: that's effectiveness. That's why I believe that we achieved Senate reform and that we have achieved greater influence for western Canada. I believe that is a fundamentally important part of this agreement.

This agreement also brings Quebec into the constitutional family. When I said that in 1980 we said no, we said to Quebeckers: "Say no to sovereignty-association. Join with us in building a new and stronger Canada." It was a hard-fought and emotional debate ten years ago, just like it is a hard-fought and emotional debate today. At the end of that debate, 60 percent of Quebeckers said yes to Canada but 40 percent said no. I think we have to think about that. Ten years ago when every major business organization in Quebec was solidly against sovereignty-association, 40 percent of the provincial population said yes to the idea, which everybody knows was the first step to the creation of an independent nation. That is not something that can be addressed or dismissed lightly.

It says that there is something fundamentally different and important going on in that province. Over the last 12 years, that percentage has not dropped. The feeling of those people is just as strong as ever, and in part it's driven by the fear of a loss of language, of culture, of identity and of history and a desire to 

[ Page 3511 ]

preserve those things which they believe are what they are all about. You have to realize that we are all Canadians, but some of us -- and in particular, I would argue, in two provinces -- see ourselves a little differently. The links to where Quebeckers came from were cut more than 250 years ago. They don't see themselves as being from France or Germany or Ukraine or Scandinavia or England; they see themselves as of Quebec. They see themselves as a product of North America. They see themselves as a people originating in a new continent.

I would say that this also applies to another province in this country: Newfoundland. It took two votes to join this federation. Every single Newfoundlander knew the economic arguments, just like every Quebecker knows the economic arguments of those who would say: "Call their bluff." The economic arguments to join Canada are compelling. They were compelling in 1949; they are just as compelling today. But the arguments of culture, identity and history were equally compelling to them in 1949. It took two votes to join this nation. There are those who say a No vote is a not a no to Quebec and not a no to Canada. Well, think about that 40 percent and of the leadership of that No campaign in Quebec. They're not saying vote no to negotiate a better agreement two or five or ten years down the road; they're saying no to set the groundwork for an election campaign and a referendum 18 months to two years down the road, when the issue will be sovereignty. That is what they're doing; that is where they're coming from. When we fail to recognize that, we are doing this country a tremendous disservice.

I believe that when we say yes to this agreement, we send a strong message to Quebec and to federalists in that province, and we say it in a way that has never been said before. Not by the failed accords of political leaders. Every single one of us, as electors and as voters, is sending a message that we have a vision of Canada that includes ten provinces and two territories. Not the vision of some, such as M. Parizeau or M. Bouchard, which is of one province as one state, or some, such as Mr. Manning, which is of nine provinces minus one out of every four people in this country. Ours is a vision of consensus that includes ten provinces and two territories. That's what I believe is so important about a Yes vote and about this agreement. It allows a Canada clause to act as a guide, to say: "This is important in our country." It allows, through three Supreme Court judges -- who have been there since the creation of the Supreme Court -- that you can protect your civil code. By means of an economic union, it says that we are on the path to eliminating trade barriers in this country to encourage a greater free flow of goods and people and ideas. We see a stronger, united Canada coming out of this.

There are those who say that 25 percent of the seats to Quebec is unfair. I guess that if we were to go on a strict rep-by-pop basis, a case could be made for that. But I would say that we in this country have never operated strictly on that basis. We in this province have never even operated on that basis. For 40 years we in this province had a system that gave some people two votes and other people one vote. Whatever you think of this accord, it is a thousand times inherently more fair than the system we had in this province. And there are those, whether members in this House, who should look at what we do in our province or what has been the history in our own province before we start to throw stones.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I understand by agreement of the House that speeches are 20 minutes, and your time has expired.

M. Farnworth: I have one brief statement, if I may finish.

The Speaker: With leave of the House, I am certain that the House will agree to allow one concluding sentence from the hon. member. Please proceed.

M. Farnworth: We have, as I said, two cultures living in a federal state. La route pour désunir le pays commence avec un non; la route pour demeurer en tant que partenaire dans un Canada renouvelé commence avec un oui. The future begins with a yes.

[5:45]

U. Dosanjh: I feel privileged, hon. Speaker, to be able to rise in this House and speak on this very important occasion and take part in this very important debate. As an immigrant Canadian who has been living in this country for the last 24 years, who has travelled in other parts of Canada and other parts of British Columbia.... This is a beautiful country. It is a wonderful place to be living in at this time in history, and it's a great province.

As an immigrant Canadian, I perhaps have a perspective that some others might not have in this chamber and in other places in British Columbia. I come from a land where, presently, people are killing each other with bullets, rockets and AK-47s in the name of more rights for the provinces or more rights for the federal government. I come from a place where there are no unemployment insurance programs, where there is no medicare. I come from a place where there isn't the literacy that you find in this country. I also come from a place where sometimes there isn't the tolerance that you find in Canada. I come from a place which is equally multicultural, if not more, but that doesn't have the level of tolerance and acceptance you find in Canada today. That's why, for me, this is a very important occasion and a very important debate.

I also want to look at some other parts of the world. If you look at Europe, at Germany, the neo-fascists in Germany are killing people in the name of getting rid of aliens from that land. In Italy you have had the rise of MSI, which is a neo-fascist political party under the auspices of Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of the duke. If you look at that part of the world and then compare yourself to the part of the world that we are definitely privileged to be living in -- Canada -- going through an historic debate, a debate of fundamental values, a debate of competing visions of this country in a peaceful but nonetheless emotional fashion....

This historic Canadian unity agreement deals with one basic issue that I think Canada has wanted to deal 

[ Page 3512 ]

with for decades: that, you would all agree with me, is the issue of the aboriginal rights. Aboriginal issues have stared us Canadians in the face over decades. Don't tell me that we as Canadians haven't been less than the task before us. Don't tell me that we have not shied away from the realities of those issues for many reasons: fear, ignorance, prejudice, lack of understanding. This is the first time in the history of Canada that the ten provincial governments and two Territorial governments have gotten together with the aboriginal people of this land and said yes to aboriginal Canadians.

There are those who say to the aboriginal Canadians: "Define your rights for us before we give you the inherent right to self-govern." We as Canadians have been governed by this present constitution in its amended form over the last 125 years. Can anyone tell me that we are not at present at the crossroads, that we're not talking about what it means to be a Canadian and what it means to be a provincial or a federal government? If we have not been able to define completely all of these issues for ourselves over the last 125 years, why is it that after neglecting the native Canadians for decades we now want them to instantly provide us with a definition of aboriginal self-government?

I also hear those who say that we should be equal as Canadians. I, as a member of a visible minority, as an immigrant Canadian, say yes. We ought to be equal as Canadians. This Canadian unity agreement does nothing less than that. It provides equality for all Canadians. More particularly, it provides equality for the aboriginal Canadians. If we herded the native Indians into the reserves decades ago and treated them differently to create the inequality that they presently face in this country, why is it that some of us -- particularly the leadership on the No side -- aren't now willing to say that they have to be treated differently to bring about equality for them?

Some of us now want to unleash this pure, absolute, intellectual equality on the native Canadians and then say to them: "Yes, we left you behind 125 years ago. We will now take the shackles off, and you have to fend for yourselves." That is one vision of Canada. The other vision of Canada embraces the inherent right to self-govern for native Canadians who are a fundamental part of this society. We as a society owe it to the aboriginal Canadians to agree that they ought to have that inherent right to self-govern so that they can make a better life for themselves.

I hear some members in this chamber and some leaders of the No position outside saying: "Yes, you've enshrined a social charter in the Canadian unity agreement, but you haven't told us where the money comes from." My friends, economic and fiscal politics aren't recorded into constitutions. Show me one constitution across the world where you have a fiscal and economic policy enshrined. This is not a banker's constitution; this is not a fiscal manager's constitution. This is a constitution of the people of Canada. This is a document that defines Canadians as to what their rights and obligations are.

This accord says yes to Quebec, as my friend from Coquitlam so eloquently put it. It says yes to a new Senate, and despite NAC's position, I beg to differ, it says yes to women. It says yes to the visible minorities. This agreement says yes to a tolerant, more egalitarian, more compassionate vision of Canada. This Canadian unity agreement deals with some of those fundamental issues. I hear some leadership of the No position saying -- and I want to distinguish between people who are going to vote no and the leadership of the No position.... It is the leadership of the No position who have been making irresponsible statements that with this accord we are somehow dividing Canadians into classes. We are bringing Canadians who have never been part of the mainstream into the constitution rather than taking them out and putting them in different classes. I, as a visible minority person, don't feel that I'm being categorized by being mirrored in the Canada clause. I don't think women of this country feel that by being mentioned in the Canada clause, they're being set apart as a class. I don't think aboriginal Canadians feel that they're being separated into a class by being mentioned in the Canada clause. I don't think the people of Quebec feel that they're being separated into a different class by being mentioned in the Canada clause. Quite to the contrary, my friends, that clause is our mirror, so that when Canadians look into that clause, we all find ourselves in that clause as one and equal.

I also see some people on the No side, and I hate to say this, but they've actually been successful in intimidating some of the Yes people and using this fear tactic by saying people on the Yes side are creating fear, uncertainty and insecurity in the minds of the people. But quite to the contrary, it is the leadership on the No side -- I want to make that distinction between the people who are going to vote no and the leadership on the No side -- who are trying to unnecessarily create fear in the minds of the people. Let me use the words of Wendy Grant, who said that there are some leaders in the No position who believe that the natives, once they have the self-government, are going to act like Saddam Hussein suddenly. My friends, that doesn't come from me. That comes from Wendy Grant, a native leader who was part of the constitutional process, who is also a woman and who was at the constitutional table when she dealt with these issues.

Therefore let me conclude by simply saying to the leadership of the No side that I'm proud to be a Canadian and proud to be an immigrant Canadian. I find nothing wrong with this constitutional accord. I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for it; I'm going to open both my nostrils and vote for it, because I find nothing wrong with this accord. I can defend, and vigorously do so, each and every clause of this accord.

H. De Jong moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada