Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1992

Volume 5, No. 16

[ Page 3513 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm delighted to welcome to the Legislative Assembly Mr. J. Hyndman, teacher, and many students from Eric Hamber Secondary School in Vancouver who are visiting us. The protocol office has noted for me that there are up to 70 students and several adults, and I would like to note to the protocol office that in our ministry we take the view that adults may also be students. But in any case, I'd like the House to make them all welcome, please.

G. Wilson: I'd like the House to make welcome Mr. Tony Hennig from Ladysmith. Mr. Hennig distinguished himself as a Liberal candidate in the last election and this year is scouting out the precinct so that he can join us down on the floor after the next provincial election.

B. Simpson: This is a very special day for me, as I hope it is also for my son Jory who is here. He is with his elementary school, the Vancouver Talmud Torah School, and I would ask the members of the House to join with me and welcome my son Jory, who is here to witness this historic debate.

Oral Questions

AIRLINE MERGER EFFECT ON JOBS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Air Canada is now pressing for a speedy and early merger with Canadian Airlines and trying to ratify this deal quickly. This is a deal that's going to cost roughly 15,000 jobs both directly and indirectly in British Columbia. Will the minister tell us what new initiative he has today to stop 15,000 jobs being sucked out of British Columbia and driven into central Canada?

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously the merger of two Canadian airlines gives cause for concern both in economic terms in British Columbia and in terms of service across the west in particular. We're very fond -- I think all members of the House are -- of Canadian Airlines, which has been a western-based airline company with a particular focus and the majority of jobs here in British Columbia. We have been extremely active on this issue, including travelling with the minister of finance from Alberta and representatives from the federal government and the Ontario government some months ago on the question of a merger, where a request was made for millions of dollars of tax money to try to assist the takeover of Canadian Airlines by an American airline. Our job, as the British Columbia government, is to do the best we can to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians regardless of the outcome of merger or private sector deliberations.

We're taking a very active role in that regard. We've been meeting continuously with employee groups; we've been meeting continuously with other governments. In spite of our concerns about government support, we put a loan guarantee from the taxpayers of British Columbia on the table to show our faith in the employees of Canadian Airlines. We're continuing to monitor the question. We'll make sure that we use every economic and political lever we can to protect the maximum amount of jobs here in British Columbia.

G. Wilson: It's interesting to note that the minister takes so long to say that they're not doing anything substantial to help the people of British Columbia.

I'm encouraged to hear that the minister has been travelling with his counterparts from Alberta and the federal government. One hopes they're travelling on Canadian Airlines and not Air Canada.

The amount of money that has been put forward by this government falls short, we are told, by some $15 million of the amount that would be required for bridge financing to make the employee initiative worthwhile. Does the minister not consider that that is a very small price to be paid, given the number of people who will go on social assistance in this province when those jobs are sucked into Ontario and Quebec?

Hon. G. Clark: Everyday in this House the Liberal opposition demands more money to give away to every group that comes lining up at government's door. We made a commitment for a $20 million loan guarantee to Canadian Airlines and their employees, and that's not small potatoes to the taxpayers of British Columbia; that's a significant contribution.

We have remained committed to working on a solution up to and including loan guarantees from the provincial government, if we can see a viable long-run solution to the financial difficulties in the airline industry in British Columbia and Canada. In the absence of any federal government direction with respect to deregulation -- whether they want two airlines or not, whether they are prepared to participate in the solution -- it's extremely difficult.

The Speaker: Order, order. Would the minister conclude his comments.

Hon. G. Clark: We continue to work with Canadian Airlines and their employees. We are prepared to be part of the solution. We have been constructive, and we will continue to be over the coming weeks regardless of the outcome of any merger talk or takeover.

G. Wilson: A final supplementary. I would be happy to give this minister, who seems devoid of any solution, one solution. It is the jet fuel tax of this government that's costing Canadian Airlines $7 million a year. Why does this government not decide to give a rebate on the jet fuel tax, on the question of three years, to provide them that kind of bridge financing and to allow them an opportunity to move forward?

Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday, hon. Speaker, this member talked about the deficit in British Columbia, and today he wants to give away millions of tax dollars. 

[ Page 3514 ]

Our jet fuel tax in British Columbia is exactly the same as in that socialist haven Alberta. We are competitive with our neighbours on the jet fuel tax here in British Columbia. If we were to give a rebate to Canadian Airlines, Air Canada would be in next, and then all the foreign carriers would be in next. Millions of tax dollars would go, and Canadian Airlines would be no better off.

CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM
QUESTION FOR B.C.

J. Weisgerber: I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday I asked the Premier to assure British Columbians that, in the event of a No vote on October 26, he would not introduce to this House the Charlottetown accord in whole or in part. The Premier waffled and refused to answer the question yesterday. He has had an opportunity now to consider the question overnight. Will he give an assurance today to British Columbians that the Charlottetown accord will not be introduced to this House in the event of a No vote, either in whole or in part?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is substantially the same question as yesterday, but I will permit a reply from the Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was just going to suggest to the hon. member that he read Hansard. The same answer stands. If he spent more time trying to inform the people of British Columbia why he changed his mind on the all-party committee report on constitutional change, which is contained in the Charlottetown agreement, the people of British Columbia would be far better informed than the waffle back and forth on whether he's Yes or No on constitutional change in this country. If he was doing more to bring about a strong, united Canada, I think most British Columbians would have more confidence in the leader of the third party than they do now.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier never asked a good question when he was in opposition, and he doesn't ask a very good one as the leader of the government either.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, the Premier was reported the other day as saying that should the Charlottetown accord fail, he would be unwilling to go back to negotiate constitutional changes in the future. Is the Premier ready to give up on Canada simply because British Columbians don't like the deal that he negotiated this time around?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The people that have given up and given up their word on this agreement are sitting on that side of the House in the opposition and the third party. They're the ones that are No on Canada; they're the ones that can't see the advantages of a strong, united Canada and all of the advantages to British Columbians. So I can tell you that this side, the government side, is prepared to stand up and be counted and not change from last spring. We're prepared to say yes to a strong, united Canada, and we urge other British Columbians to say the same.

BCGEU AGREEMENT

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll address my question to the real Premier, the same one who answered the last one before the elected Premier got up. This government is running a $200 million deficit, which incidentally is about $123 million larger than the Social Credit projection for the same period. We have a BCGEU settlement in this province that, according to the minister's own ministry officials, is going to cost $83 million in wages and $40 million in back pay. Incidentally, that adds up to exactly $123 million. It sounds very suspicious. I'd like to know what the cause of the deficit is. I'd like the minister to table the BCGEU agreement in this House today. Will he commit to do that?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to answer this question on the economy of British Columbia. We have a 2.5 percent growth rate in British Columbia -- the highest growth rate of any province in Canada, of any state in the United States, and of any country in western Europe. We have 1.7 percent employment growth.

The Speaker: Order, order. The Chair is having great difficulty today hearing both the questions and the answers, and so I call for order. Would the minister conclude his reply to the question.

Hon. G. Clark: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I'd be delighted to table the BCGEU collective agreement in the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the messengers are running to the minister's office to get it so we'll see it today.

The minister talked about a 2.5 percent growth rate in this province. Why then have the public sector settlements that this government has negotiated averaged 5.1 percent, double the rate of growth in this province?

Hon. G. Clark: With a 1.7 percent increase in employment in the first six months of this year, housing starts up 34 percent and exports up 4 percent, the economy in British Columbia is doing better than anywhere else in Canada, or indeed, in many cases, the Western World.

On the question, the member opposite should do his homework. Last year, private sector settlements were about 5 percent and public sector settlements were about 5 percent. This year's public sector settlement with the BCGEU is 2 percent, and that's competitive with everywhere in the private sector for this fiscal year.

[2:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister should do his homework, just like he should have done his homework 

[ Page 3515 ]

on the jet fuel tax before he brought it in, as we instructed him to.

Why is this government and this minister favouring public sector unions over private sector unions? Why not give $50 million of that $123 million to the employees of Canadian Airlines to keep the jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: We have done our best to be fair to our public sector employees. Our wage settlements are competitive with the private sector. For anybody who cares to look at the statistics -- and I'll provide them for the members opposite -- it is very clear. We are very concerned about jobs in British Columbia. As I mentioned, we have the highest and fastest rate of growth in employment of any jurisdiction in North America -- with more to come.

MINISTERIAL ASSISTANT TO
MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION
AND HIGHWAYS

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. When we're talking about deficits in the billions, I guess this is small potatoes. But a few weeks ago $12,000 of taxpayers' money was paid to move Sandra Houston from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. Sandra Houston was the secretary for the NDP in Nova Scotia. Can the minister advise the House upon whose advice she was hired? And can he explain why he thinks it's all right to blow $12,000 of our taxpayers' money to transport a political hack from Nova Scotia to British Columbia when our transportation system is going to pot under this minister?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: To hear such unmitigated gall from someone who participated in the blowing of a billion dollars on the Coquihalla Highway...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. A. Charbonneau: ...substantial portions of which have to be rebuilt already because it was done in such a sloppy way. To have conducted an open....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Again I must ask the House to come to order, and I must ask the minister to reply to the question.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: To have participated in an open process with applicants from across this country -- and we are, in case the opposition didn't realize, one country -- to have those put in the order of their capability, and then to have hired the best.... There is nothing to apologize for.

L. Hanson: It's interesting to hear the minister's comments on the Coquihalla Highway, one of the finest highways in Canada -- and we are still Canada. But the minister hasn't told us the whole story. Can he in fact confirm that the Sandra Houston he hired is the same person who a year ago was out on leave from her job, presumably at the NDP's expense, to act as campaign manager for the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin? Can he confirm that Mrs....?

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I regret that I'm interrupting you, but I want to remind the hon. member that he must address the question to the minister in those areas for which the minister is responsible. So would you please state your question.

L. Hanson: I think that the minister is responsible for his MA, but can he confirm that Mrs. Houston was hired at the Minister of Labour's request?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, she was not.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House, first of all, that there's been a lot of demand for speaking on the motion, and so we've decided to extend the sitting today until 10 p.m. We know that members in the opposition -- such as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and others -- felt constrained in trying to get everybody in. We thought it best to extend sitting hours so that all members could participate in this important debate. I just wanted to give the House some notice that we will be sitting until 10 p.m.

I call adjourned debate on the motion that we've been debating. I believe it was the member for Abbotsford. Motion without Notice

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate on the Charlottetown accord, even though I believe that this whole exercise is most probably simply a tactic to delay tabling the labour bill. It's a convenient way to delay it.

The Premier and members of his caucus have chosen to call this document a unity agreement. This referendum on the Charlottetown accord is not a referendum on unity. Pure and simple, they're amendments to the Canadian constitution. The passing of this referendum does not guarantee unity at all. Far from it. Nor will the rejection of the accord and the proposed amendments dissolve Canada as a nation. Canada's constitution would remain intact, as it has been for many years.

When the Canadians came to liberate the people of the Netherlands and other countries in Europe, there were French Canadians along with English Canadians, fighting side by side, with one aim and purpose. That was to provide freedom for the people of Europe and other countries.

Two years after that event, we emigrated to Canada. As a family of ten coming to Canada, we knew that 

[ Page 3516 ]

Canada was a country of two languages, now two official languages.

I come from the province of Friesland. You may not know this, but the province of Friesland, within the small country of the Netherlands, has its own language. It's not an official language, and it's not taught in school unless specifically requested. When I entered school, I did not know the Dutch language, and therefore I had difficulty understanding the teacher. To learn a new language was nothing strange to us, coming from the province of Friesland -- even though it was somewhat frustrating.

Inasmuch as it was a challenge to learn the Dutch language, so has it been -- and for that matter, it still is -- to speak proper English, even though French and English are both official languages. However, while it is expected that every Canadian should know at least one of the official languages provided for through the education system, it does not mean that people must drop their cultural heritage, religious values or mother tongue. That's what makes Canada unique as a multicultural nation. People from all over the world have come to Canada to seek improvement in their living standards, to share in the prospects and opportunities available and to make a contribution to the economic well-being or standard of this great country under the provisions of the current constitution.

I could probably go into many technical aspects of this accord, but time does not allow. So I will approach it from a very practical point. Politicians past and present have shared the view that strong, united families are necessary as a foundation for a strong community and hence a strong nation. Recognizing this, I, along with my colleagues of the Social Credit caucus, share the greatest respect for those who have worked so hard towards amending the constitution so that every Canadian can be a vital part within Confederation.

Having said this, let's for a moment look at the accord in a family setting and assume that provinces and territories are the children and the federal government are the parents, with one child dragging its heels over fully participating in family affairs. The parents and the rest of the family have a deep concern about this apparent lack of full participation in family activities by this one child, not only in the activities but also in the responsibilities. And as a result, the child demands special privileges apart from the rest of the family in order to become a fully participating member on all fronts.

[2:30]

I am privileged to be one of a large family with ten children. We were a close-knit family, a family where responsibilities and privileges were shared and enjoyed. I, along with my brothers and sisters, will always respect our parents. There were no special privileges for anyone in particular but equal opportunity for all of us. We will always remain a happy, close-knit family because justice was the cornerstone in our upbringing. It would appear that those who sat around the table in an attempt to persuade Premier Bourassa to become a full participant in Confederation either have not recognized or have perhaps lost sight of that real family-building not only as a family but also as a nation.

The Premier stated in his address yesterday that the self-government proposed for natives is not going to obstruct other levels of government. How can the Premier be so sure of this since the parameters of self-government have not been established within the accord? Are the natives going to have their own laws and courts? What about the boundaries? The natives along with the Department of Native Affairs have for years and years ignored municipal bylaws as well as provincial regulations. And to prove this, in our own community many housing developments have been allowed on floodplain lands where the community plans clearly state.... In fact, the aspirations of the B.C. Land Commission together with our provincial government have suggested that floodplain lands should be preserved for farming purposes. There are no questions asked about the septic tank problems that could occur, while a white man or a farmer next door is simply refused an application for a building permit on similar adjacent land.

A proposed incinerator for polluted soils for the Kilgard Indian reserve in the district of Abbotsford is totally contrary to the community plan. As well, the provincial Ministry of Environment appears to keep its eyes closed to this development. No other Canadian could ever expect to proceed with such a proposal without meeting all the provincial and federal regulations, including those of local government.

The accord proposes improved trade relations between provinces. What about the club, which I am sure the Premier and some of his ministers are well aware of, that has been used by Quebec on so many occasions within the Canadian supply management system of a variety of farm products? What about the development -- all sorts of development -- on native lands? Are they going to be subject to all regulations and taxation imposed on similar businesses carried out by other Canadians? There is no assurance of this in the accord. In fact, the accord is silent on the issue.

Do the Premier and his government, who are all wearing Yes buttons, expect British Columbians to vote in favour of Quebec being guaranteed 25 percent of the House of Commons seats? Are you asking the people to vote for adding 18 seats to the House of Commons for both Ontario and Quebec? Are you asking people to vote for a guaranteed 33 percent of justice chairs to be chosen from Quebec? And if we can take the Premier seriously in his comments, are you expecting the people of British Columbia to vote for an elected Senate with forced gender equality? Not a democratic solution at all.

Conflict between nations, within nations, within communities and, yes, within families is not something new. It has been present for centuries. It has been with us since the Old Testament era. Many warnings and solutions have been suggested by people throughout the Old Testament days and after as well. I would like to make reference to one of those statements made by the prophet Micah: "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

[ Page 3517 ]

The context of this accord, undoubtedly well meant by those who put it together, lacks the basic principle of justice. It is a package of handouts to certain groups of people within this great nation, Canada.

Conditions have changed dramatically from the early days, and they must be addressed as they apply to today's situation. However, the fundamental principle for a strong nation has not changed -- the principle of justice and equal opportunity for each and every Canadian. This principle of justice and equal opportunity is not present in the proposed amendments to our constitution. My question is -- and I'm sure that of all British Columbians, perhaps all Canadians -- how can we, as Canadians, expect justice to be applied through the courts of this great country when, in fact, equality and justice for every Canadian will no longer be the cornerstone or foundation of our constitution?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to rise today. In fact, I'm privileged to rise today to speak on this important question about the future of our country. I, of course, will be voting yes on October 26 -- not because I have to, but because I believe this is an honourable compromise. I want to give three compelling reasons that say to me that people should vote yes on October 26.

The first reason that I would recommend that people vote yes is because it is a positive affirmation about the future of the country. A Yes vote gives us the best chance to keep Canada strong and united for our children's future. It's the best chance to keep the country together. My view is that one of the problems in Canada is that people see or define their country as their world around them. They define their country as their neighbourhood. That's a false view of Canada, because clearly while that's part of Canada, it is not Canada. My constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, which I am very proud of, is not representative of all that is Canada. For example, some 28 percent of my constituency are Canadians of Chinese descent. We have, for example, not a single elementary school in my constituency that has a majority of English as a first language.

I'm proud of my constituency; I've lived there all my life. I continue to live there; I have the privilege of representing them in the House. But it is a mistake to define Canada, for people in my neighbourhood, as our neighbourhood. It is only part of Canada. Yet if you go across the country to a small town in Saskatchewan, you will see very few new Canadians. You will see second-and third-generation Canadians. You will see different ethnic backgrounds. You will see a different economic structure -- largely a farming community. You will see a different political culture.

If you go to Quebec, you find three million or more Canadians who speak not a word of English. You find, yet again, a different culture, different politics and a different economic structure. If you go to Newfoundland, which joined Canada in 1949, you'll see a different set of experiences, a different way of viewing the world, different politics, a different culture and a different industrial base.

So Canada is not just our neighbourhood. It is a huge and disparate land with different values, different languages, different cultures, different economic structures and different kinds of politics. That's what we celebrate about Canada: its vastness, its richness and its diversity. But people make the mistake of saying that "my neighbourhood is Canada." It is, of course, but it's much, much more than that. The problem with the way in which people define their country as their neighbourhood is the essence of our constitutional problem.

We have in British Columbia the majority -- not all, but the majority -- of people who wish to vote no on October 26. They wish to vote no because they feel profoundly that Quebec got too much in this constitutional accord. If you go to Quebec and you see a majority of people who want to vote no in Quebec, it's because they feel that Quebec did not get enough. So we have disparate views about the nature of the country, and this accord is an attempt -- a fragile attempt -- to bridge those dramatically different views of the way in which people frame their country, the way in which people frame their world. Trying to bridge these differences is extremely difficult. In fact, some would say that this country is ungovernable. It is extremely difficult to govern because of its vastness, its differences and its beliefs. For the first time in 120 years of Canadian history, all provincial governments, all national political parties, all of the major union groups in the country -- the central labour organization, the central business organizations -- agree that this compromise, this attempt to bridge those disparate views, is our last chance, potentially, to try to paper over, to patch together, to keep this disparate and vast land together.

I ask all those who are contemplating voting no to ask themselves that if this compromise is not accepted, is not acceptable, then what will be? What will be acceptable, given the views of British Columbians who want to vote no because of Quebec, and given the views of those in Quebec who want to vote no because of the share that they receive in this accord? What compromise will be acceptable if this is not accepted? Will the Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of the Social Credit Party and the Reform Party, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Bill Vander Zalm and the separatists in Quebec decide on a common compromise to bridge the differences in this country? I suspect they will not. They cannot, hon. Speaker, because their reasons for voting no are fundamentally different. The No forces represent entirely different views about the nature of this country. They are incapable of bridging together, of compromising and of achieving a consensus to move on and forward.

Last night I saw the Leader of the Opposition on television arguing that we need a stronger central government. That is a unique view. That is a rare view among those who support the No side of the campaign.

This attempt to bridge those fundamental differences in Canada is a historic one, and I genuinely fear for the future of this country when you look at those who would vote against this accord. I don't think it is possible to bridge the differences that exist in this country very easily. Frankly, I have not seen a coherent view which would suggest that those who would vote 

[ Page 3518 ]

no because this document is not perfect could come up with a perfect document.

[2:45]

Therein also lies the problem. In a complex and negotiated settlement, to bridge the disparate views that exist in this country there are always things with which you do not agree. Clearly there are elements in the accord which everybody can point to that they don't like. That is the nature of a compromise; that is the nature of Canada's existence. It's easier to vote no, because you can always find something that you don't like. But surely Canada, throughout its history, has risen above that. It has said yes, we don't like some things that are going on in this province or that province, we don't like some things about the constitution, we don't like some things about the accord; but Canada is more important than individual concerns about specific elements of a compromise package.

Frankly, the thought of those who would vote no of getting together to come up with a compromise that all of us can agree to in this country I think is a foolhardy wish. If we go to the ballot box on October 26 with some abstract notion of what a perfect constitution would be, then clearly we would be compelled to vote no, because this is not a perfect document.

But if you believe that that abstract notion is not possible because of the disparate views in this country, then you have to accept the fact of what is possible, what is an honourable compromise. I submit that this is a chance -- perhaps our last chance -- to try to bridge the differences that exist in this country.

The second reason I think that it makes sense to vote yes on October 26 is for the economic security of the country. I want to make this point very carefully. The world will not come to an end if a majority of people vote no on October 26. Canada will not immediately fall apart. We will not have problems that cannot be overcome by the goodwill of people of conviction. But I want to make this point very clearly. There are those who argue that you can vote no with impunity, with no consequences. They are wrong. There are consequences to voting yes, clearly. People know that. But there are economic consequences to voting no.

I spent last week in London, visiting with investment bankers, the people who buy our bonds -- Canadian and provincial. Just so everybody here knows this -- and I know my colleague across the way knows this -- we have to borrow $4.7 billion this year. Some $2 billion of that is for the deficit. That's too high; we all agree. About a billion dollars is for schools, hospitals and post-secondary institutions -- mostly schools, because we are a growing province. The remainder is for refinancing Crown corporation debts. Even if we had no deficit, we would have to borrow close to $3 billion, and we are better off than they are anywhere else in Canada.

Whether we like it or not, when we borrow that money, we borrow it in the domestic market, in the American market and in Europe. We have the lowest debt and the highest credit rating in Canada. Can we borrow the money? Yes. Have we been able to borrow the money at attractive rates? Yes. Will that continue, relatively speaking, if there's a No vote? Yes, because we're better off than the rest of Canada.

There is no question that interest rates have gone up in recent weeks because of concern about the constitution by those who finance our debt. If members don't want to take my word for it, they don't have to. But I have a responsibility to tell you that when I meet with people who invest in Canada, they tell me very clearly that they are concerned about the future of the country, and that we are going to have to pay a higher interest rate to compensate them for the risk of the country failing. Interest rates will rise. They will be higher than they otherwise would be if there is a No vote on the constitution.

I think the optimistic scenario is that it will rise somewhat with a No vote. The Canadian dollar will fall as a result. Interest rates will rise somewhat to protect the dollar. Then, if nothing happens in Canada, if we continue to talk, over time, in a few months, interest rates will start to come down because they are clearly high and not supportable by our economy. But they will not come down all the way. They will be somewhat higher -- maybe half a percent higher - - than they would be otherwise. There is no question about it. It's not alarmist. Can we live with half-a-percent higher interest rates? Clearly we can. But no one should think that it is without consequences.

If we continue to have a 2 percent higher interest rate as a result of this, that's $100 million on a $4.7 billion borrowing program. That's $100 million more that we have to find to finance our debt.

Frankly, I want everybody to know and to go to the ballot box with their eyes open. There are economic consequences to voting no. It sends a message to international investors that the future of the country will be debated. A lot depends on the reaction. There's no crystal ball. No one knows what the reaction will be in Canada. If the reaction is a separatist government in Quebec, a sovereignty referendum in Quebec or a clear move that results in the breakup of the country -- or at least continuing debate around the country -- we will pay more in interest costs than we would otherwise.

A Yes vote does not end our constitutional debate. It is not without consequences, but a Yes vote sends a message to investors around the world that Canada continues to be a safe place to do business. It is a stable base. It is an affirmation of a united country. Interest rates will be lower with a Yes vote.

That is not a reason, in my view, to vote yes. It is not a good enough reason. There are things that are more important than money in these kinds of questions. I acknowledge that. But I want to be clear and on the record, as the Minister of Finance, about my attempts to borrow money on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and with the concern around Canada, which has a worse deficit situation than we do, that interest rates will be higher if there is a No vote. Obviously that won't continue forever. Hopefully, if we can resolve these problems down the road, that will rectify itself. But there will be short-term consequences; there will be medium-term consequences; and depending on how the country unfolds over time, there will be other consequences.

[ Page 3519 ]

Hon. Speaker, the best message to the international community in an increasingly competitive world, when we are competing with Germany and their capital demands to rebuild eastern Germany, when we are competing with other countries who are financing their deficits and when we are competing around the world, the best thing we can do for economic stability for ourselves and our children is to get this behind us, to vote yes and affirm a united Canada.

That is the message you hear, not just from me. When I go abroad, they follow this very, very carefully. They are very concerned about the future of Canada, and at the moment we have some serious concerns around investors. Canada's credit rating was downgraded last week. Canada and British Columbia now have the same credit rating. One cannot attribute only the constitutional question to ratings, deficits and the like, but the future of Canada was a contributing factor in the minds of rating agencies. The constitutional uncertainty casts a shadow on our economic security, and it's another reason why one should give some pause and reflection on October 26.

The third reason why I recommend that people vote yes on October 26 is that it is a good deal for British Columbia. I want to go into just a few of the specifics in this accord. First, we are better off in terms of representation by population if the accord passes than if the accord fails. For some reason there's been a lot of misinformation about this. A lot of people have been arguing that we've been shortchanged on the accord with respect to representation by population. The reality is that if the accord fails, British Columbia receives two more Members of Parliament by the year 2002, and if it passes, we receive seven more Members of Parliament by the year 1997. We are better off in terms of representation by population if this accord passes, in spite of the misinformation that has been cast on this subject. I urge all Canadians and British Columbians to read the accord, because representation by population is respected. It is enhanced by the accord; it is not diminished.

Secondly, we will have an elected, equal and effective Senate. That has been diminished by some people. That is a significant gain. Ontario and Quebec gave up 18 senators. For the first time in Canadian history Quebec agreed to an institution that recognizes that all provinces are equal. And they are elected. Some people say it's not effective enough, but once you elect people, once they have political legitimacy, once they are equal, I suggest to you that they will be powerful, and no Parliament of Canada will be able to turn its back on an elected Senate with equal representation from each province. And appointments like the governor of the Bank of Canada -- and provinces like British Columbia have been shortchanged by the Bank of Canada's high interest-rate policy -- will have to be confirmed by the Senate with equal representation in every province. On questions like resource taxation in the federal House, British Columbia and the provinces have a real say on federal matters that impede our jurisdiction. This is a good deal when it comes to an equal and effective Senate.

I want to make a couple of other remarks, as I see my time is waning. Aboriginal people are represented in this accord, and that's a positive move, because those people in Canada obviously have not been treated with justice and dignity. We have for the first time federal-provincial agreements respected in this accord, so never again can the Canada Assistance Plan or a program like that be ripped up by the federal government to shortchange British Columbia.

In summary, if you believe in a united Canada, a Yes vote is the best vote to ensure the bridging of differences that exist in this country. If you believe in economic stability and security of the country for our children of the future, then a Yes vote is the best vote for economic security. If you look at the substance of the accord, you will find very clearly that British Columbia is better off in real terms because of the substance of this accord. Those are powerful reasons for voting yes on this constitutional accord.

When British Columbians reflect on this subject, I ask them not to compare this accord to some abstract ideal which will never be the case in any federal system, but compare what is possible and how we can make the compromises necessary to bridge the disparate elements, the diverse interests and the diverse cultures and backgrounds that exist in this vast and great country. I honestly plead all British Columbians to vote yes on October 26.

S. Hammell: Madam Speaker, the phone has been ringing in my constituency office in Surrey-Green Timbers, and people are asking me some fundamental questions about the Charlottetown accord. First of all, they're being told that the accord just doesn't treat everyone fairly. Now that's a pretty strong criticism, and if it were true, I couldn't wear this Yes button. I'm certain that the ten Premiers, the Prime Minister, the leaders of the north and the aboriginal community would not have signed an agreement that was fundamentally unfair. So I've been listening hard to the arguments of my constituents who are inclined to vote against this accord, and I've been trying to understand what they mean when they tell me that it just isn't fair.

Is it fair that Quebec should be guaranteed 25 percent of the seats of the House of Commons? My answer is very clearly yes, because I also believe it is fair that P.E.I. should continue to be guaranteed a disproportionate representation in Parliament. I believe that P.E.I., with a population of approximately 130,000 people -- half the population of my municipality of Surrey -- should have four members in the House of Commons and six Senators, which adds up to ten federal members. This means that there will be ten federal members for every 130,000 people in P.E.I., whereas in Surrey there is one federal member for every 130,000 people. You would think that everyone in my home municipality would be screaming with outrage that one vote in P.E.I. is worth ten times a vote in Surrey. But Canadians have not been in the habit of thinking of fairness in terms of an arithmetical formula. No one has objected to the radical inequality between Surrey voters and P.E.I. voters. They understand that there are good reasons for this historical compromise.

[3:00]

[ Page 3520 ]

Some people are trying to argue that fairness is like an equal sign, and they have been demanding exact equivalents on both sides of the equation. But this has never been true in Canada; we have never been able to apply automatic mathematical principles to our political life. Figuring out what's fair in a country so vast and varied as Canada has always been complicated and difficult. Think about this: if we applied an equal sign to the question of rural representation and demanded exact equivalents in votes, then the whole of rural Saskatchewan might have but a single member. We all know that that's not fair, and we just don't do it. We have always guaranteed that Canadians who live outside urban areas will have representatives who know something about their community, who live in the region and who are able to articulate their interests. That means a rural vote is worth more than an urban vote, but nobody is objecting to this form of inequality in our system. We acknowledge that the interest of rural residents can't be represented fairly unless our electoral boundaries are drawn according to a non-mathematical principle.

Some of my constituents tell me they are worried that special interest groups are getting guarantees in the constitution, and those guarantees reduce others, like themselves, to the status of second-class citizens. They tell me that they'll lose their democratic rights as equal citizens of Canada if the constitution is changed to give special status to others at their expense. This, too, is a very serious criticism. Once again, it involves a simple mathematical model of politics. This time it's an equation that says: if you win, I lose. It's called a zero-sum game. But there is more than one kind of game. I suggest that when the activity is nation-building, if you win, so do I; and conversely, if you lose, so do I.

As a teacher, I know that when you're dealing with children's lives -- their sense of worth, who they are and their aspirations -- you create losers at your own expense. There's a very simple primary song that says if you give love away, you end up getting more. If you give out love, trust and loyalty, you get it back in spades. But the same phenomenon holds for hate, distrust and dislike: what goes around comes around.

The Fathers -- and now, I'm proud to say, Mothers -- of Confederation have always known this. Throughout our history it has been a balancing act, with government as an honest broker trying to find policies that give everybody something and policies which ensure that nobody ends up a loser. But taking this approach means having a certain amount of generosity of spirit. If all the players are simply calling for more and more -- more for me, more for my province -- then agreements are impossible. We seem to have talked ourselves into a crisis of confidence, a lack of trust in the spirit of compromise.

The irony -- no, the tragedy -- of our situation is that this accord is the result of the most massive public consultation process ever undertaken in our country. As a member of the constitution committee of this House, I travelled throughout the province from town to town listening to the ideas, opinions and arguments of British Columbians who expressed passionate concerns for the future of Canada. Every member of that committee, Liberals and Social Crediters included, was involved in drafting the final report that expressed a consensus drawn from every corner of this province. Our government leaders used that report as the basis of their negotiations. They were successful in achieving five of the six objectives set by British Columbians in the public consultation process. Yet hon. members opposite now renege on that commitment, disowning the very settlement that they themselves helped negotiate. It is this political opportunism that threatens to destroy the legitimacy of the way we govern ourselves. Democratic governments depend on trust and confidence and the legitimacy of our political process and public officials. Imagine the audacity of those politicians who demean the Charlottetown accord on the grounds that it was negotiated by politicians! Have I missed something? Are they not politicians or, in some cases, would-be politicians or, in other cases, former politicians turned broadcasters?

Dr. No, with the help of others, has been telling his audience that we risk too much by making these changes to our constitution. What I want to know is: what alternative is there? Does Dr. No have a magic machine that will stop time and freeze-frame the present? Does he have a secret laser that will zap us into constitutional nirvana? Because time will not stand still; life is not static. There is no status quo. Be it yes or no, a chain reaction will inevitably result, and we will move on.

Let's look at the possibilities. Suppose we say no to Quebec, to the aboriginal people, to a social charter, to the devolution of power. If we do that, we are saying no not only to the future but also to our past, to those agreements, those contracts that have been created through our political process over the past 125 years of Canadian history. Make no mistake, this constitutional accord is in many respects nothing more than an expression of our common values as Canadians. It is a statement of the day-to-day reality of the way we go about governing ourselves, and it includes a commitment to continue our historic practices of tolerance and fairness.

If we deny Quebec, are we denying our past? And what of the future? If we deny Quebec, will there be an election on sovereignty? Having been rejected by the rest of us, will Quebeckers be justified in choosing to strike out on an independent course outside of Canada? Those of us who deny the past also deny our future.

Like the people of Quebec, the aboriginal people of Canada are searching for a political process that will enable them to reclaim their past and take possession of their future. This is something to celebrate -- something for all of us to celebrate -- and it will happen. It will happen with a yes or a no.

South of the border, Americans look longingly at Canada's system of medicare, our Canadian pension plan, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Those we have built over a century, and it was hard work. To deny now with a casual and petulant no is to deny a fundamental value that we all share.

[ Page 3521 ]

It took courage to look to the future and create pension plans for our seniors, to secure our health care, to ensure that the desperation of the thirties could never happen again because people were out of their jobs. These principles are affirmed in the language of the Canada clause -- and my Liberal and Social Credit colleagues say no, they don't like it.

You know, this worries me, because it represents a trend in Canadian politics, a trend towards trashing agreements, disowning positions taken, abandoning commitments. Members of the Liberal and Social Credit caucuses committed themselves to common ground on the constitution, endorsed our legislative consensus and then threw it to the winds to curry favour with the naysayers. I want to know what's happened to honour and good faith. Are you prepared to deny those as well? Because if that's the future, we are in deep trouble. If the future is one in which the process can be disowned at any time, which of us can possibly ask electors to put trust in us? After months of public consultation and consensus-building, at what time did the members of the opposition decide to sign off, to say: "This isn't my constitution"?

How can we as Canadians keep everyone on board a consensus long enough to keep our vote afloat? That is in fact our responsibility as elected representatives. I am satisfied that those who met in Charlottetown discharged their duty with remarkable success. If political opportunism has since muddied the waters, we had all better practise swimming, because we're going to find ourselves in deep water.

This constitution is a Canadian accord, produced in Canada by Canadian politicians who were elected by the people of Canada to do the job. It's a document describing a nation our children would be proud to inherit. It's inclusive and it makes us all winners. It sets high ideals and provides a process for achieving them. It must be said again that every Canadian political party has had input into the Charlottetown accord. It is truly a non-partisan document covered with fingerprints of politicians from every political persuasion. No one has been excluded.

Reform can point with prode to a Senate, New Democrats fought hard for this social charter, and the old-line parties achieved devolution of power to the provinces. This is the most inclusive political agreement in Canadian history, and it will provide the foundation from which we can move on to the task of providing a strong economic future for our children.

I stand today as a member of this Legislature to reaffirm my own belief in the process of consultation that produced the Charlottetown accord and in our Canadian political institutions that have served us so well for more than a century. I believe that we have crafted a constitution that will serve us into the next century, and I urge the people of British Columbia to join me in voting yes on October 26.

J. Pullinger: I am pleased to see that there are some young people in the gallery today, because obviously what we do in this accord will affect those young people far more than it will affect the older generations in this country.

I'm going to take a slightly different tack today, hon. Speaker. My colleagues -- the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, the Minister of Finance and numerous others today and yesterday -- have very clearly argued all of the points that I believe we all care passionately about: why this country should stay together, why Quebec ought to be recognized as distinct and unique in this country and why this is a good deal for working people. There are a number of wonderful arguments, and they have been argued well.

I'm going to make one basic point today. I'm going to argue that this agreement is a good agreement for women. I'm going to argue that this is an agreement that women can support with confidence, and that it's to our benefit to do so. I'm addressing my remarks, of course, to everyone who's interested in women's issues, but I am particularly addressing them to women and to those six or seven out of ten women who have not yet made up their minds on what they're going to do on October 26.

Before I begin making my arguments, however, I want to make a comment on the difficulty in which we all find ourselves in this debate. Of course, referenda are a little unfamiliar to us in this country. They're a bit of a graft onto our political system, and we're not used to dealing with them. Not too long ago I found myself at an organizational meeting for the Yes side, and among the players in that meeting were a high-powered Conservative organizer and a Socred organizer. There was also a high-powered Liberal who has been a candidate many times for the Liberals. There were numerous other people from different persuasions, views and political parties.

In conversation, we were talking about how we were going to organize. Of course, in this kind of debate, all our usual mechanisms and ways of organizing simply aren't there. I think everybody has found that. So we started to talk a bit about where people were, and the Conservative sitting next to me said: "You know, Conservatives are all over the map on this thing. I'm really having trouble." The Liberal said the same thing, and I had to say that New Democrats are too. There is not the same kind of innate, inherent agreement that we in our political party structure usually have, and that makes this debate and this referendum difficult, I believe, for everybody in it.

[3:15]

For me and for many women, there's another dichotomy that we're dealing with. I am a strong supporter of women's equality, as all my colleagues on this side are. I am a proud feminist. I have worked and organized for women's equality, and I have been a member of NAC, as I know a number of other people on this side have been. Therefore when I heard Judy Rebick and NAC come out against this accord, I paid attention, as I know a whole lot of women did. I paid careful attention to their arguments. Let's face it: women all across this country and in most places in the world have good reason to be cautious and skeptical, because women have not always had a good deal. The fight for equality in this country has been a long and difficult one, and quite frankly, we've just begun.

[ Page 3522 ]

I want to give one example, and I think this outlines very well why women particularly need to be cautious. I don't think that many people are aware that when, in the very early years of this country, women had the vote, the vote was attached to property rights. In Quebec, where the laws of inheritance were a little different, women could inherit property, which was a bit of an anomaly. So women had the vote. Of course, that was very quickly realized and that vote was then legislated away. It took a long fight for over a hundred years by thousands of women to win that vote back. We finally did it after the First World War when the arguments were simply too powerful to ignore anymore.

Similarly, at that time we won the right to run and be elected and sit in chambers such as this across the country. When I was elected and did a little bit of analysis in 1989, I discovered to my dismay that if you take the growing number of seats since 1918, when the first woman was elected in this province, and multiply it by the number of elections, you come up with a very conservative figure of 1,400 possible people to be elected -- and I was the thirty-first woman. So we've got a long way to go. We're just beginning.

My point is that women have got good cause to be skeptical. My other point is that I am part of that fight for women's equality and am fervently committed to it. But on this very difficult issue I find myself at odds with a group I highly respect and am part of and want to and will continue to be part of. I don't agree with the position that this is a bad deal for women. In fact, I think the opposite is true. With great respect to those on the other side of the debate, I want to take on some of those arguments, have a look at them and argue that this is in fact a good deal for women.

The whole issue of a hierarchy of rights came out of a legal opinion obtained by NAC -- the hierarchy of rights that's supposed to be in this agreement in the Canada clause. As well, there's an argument that says that women's rights under the Charter are weakened by this agreement. I want to look at that, and I want to make the point, first, that the Canada clause is an interpretative clause that's there to give direction, to give guidance to the courts when they interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when they interpret the constitution. It does not override the Charter. It does not give rights or take rights away. I think it's very clear that it reinforces the equality rights that women have gained in the taking of section 28 in the constitution, which we all remember in the early eighties. In my opinion it adds to that; it enhances it. What the Canada clause does is require that for all aspects of the constitution, including the Charter, when interpreted, the courts take heed and recognize the fundamental commitment to equality that we have had in this country since 1982 through our constitution, that equality between women and men.

It states quite clearly in that Canada clause that Canadians are committed to the equality of female and male persons. I think that's very clear. I don't see that there's any valid argument to the opposite that can say that women's equality will somehow be damaged by this accord. It states very clearly that we want equality among all persons. It states again that there is a commitment to equality between women and men in this country. I don't see any ambiguity, and I know that an overwhelming number of constitutional lawyers who have looked at this, including the deans of the two law faculties in this province, also see no ambiguity. They see it very clearly as, if anything, reinforcing women's equality under the Charter and the constitution.

On the No side -- and again a concern -- is the argument that this deal, this unity agreement, somehow threatens national social programs, and therefore things like a national child care program can't come about. Yes, this agreement does allow provinces to opt out of federal programs. That's very clear. And there was a time some years ago when I would have been very concerned about that. I used to feel that somehow the federal government was the protector of our social programs in this country. I don't feel that anymore. I think there are some very good arguments, if you look at the history over the past ten years.... If you look at the cuts in transfer payments for health care and education, I don't, quite frankly, think you can argue that anymore. The provinces are as likely -- perhaps more likely -- to bring in those social programs.

This agreement does allow for opting out of national programs that come with funding. Let's have a look at the political reality. No province is going to opt out of a good, solid national program that has agreement across this country without putting something else in its place, which there is provision to do under this charter. It's not going to simply say: "Take your money and go home; we don't want your social program." I think the political reality and the way that this unity agreement works makes it clear that provinces can opt out; but there is room for a province to have instead a more relevant program that works better for the differences within that province and to receive the funding if it meets those national objectives. I don't find that threatening at all.

Finally, what we have to be very careful of in this debate.... I've found this with some people I've talked to in my constituency. We have to be very clear not to mix up a constitution with government policies and programs. They are two different things. A constitution is a statement about who we are; it gives governments and people rights and powers; and it limits the power of government. That's what a constitution is in very simple terms. We cannot confuse that with government programs and policies. Quite honestly, I would say that if we want a national child care program in this country, the way we can get it is to elect a government at the federal level that will bring in a national child care program. We have had 125 years of governments that have had the opportunity to bring in child care programs. We had the promise of a child care program across this country; we still don't have one. Therefore, for all of those reasons, I don't find this part of the constitution and the argument against it as something very threatening at all. In fact, for the provinces to have the ability to tailor social programs to meet their own local needs would probably be much more effective. 

[ Page 3523 ]

The worst that can happen under that is the status quo. Quite frankly, I think it will be significantly better.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

The third area I want to touch on to do with women is the argument and the very valid and legitimate concern that the Charlottetown unity agreement threatens the equality rights of native women. Anybody who understands the position of women in this country understands that most, if not all, women operate under a different set of rules than our sons, husbands and male friends do. But native women, we must be very clear, operate under what is called in feminist terms "double oppression." They are not only women, but they are native, and they therefore have two big barriers to leap across. It's very appropriate that the issue has been raised, and I'm glad that it has been looked at very carefully, because I think we have to be very careful that our aboriginal sisters are not left out and are not dealt a hand that makes them less able to work for equality rights.

It's important to note that in the original Charter, section 28 and section 15 both protect the equality of women and men, and those are not touched. In fact, they are reinforced in the Canada clause in this latest agreement, the unity accord. Yes, the legal text of the Charter is amended in terms of aboriginal self-government. Section 25 is amended to provide that the guarantee of Charter rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from aboriginal treaty or other rights pertaining to aboriginal peoples, including those relating to the exercise or protection of their languages, culture or tradition.

I understand some people feel that that protection for aboriginal governments and aboriginal peoples would then mean that women's rights, equality rights, are subject to that. I don't believe that's true. That clause gives some protection to aboriginal governments. Look at that clause in the context of the equality section, section 28 of the Charter, which is how you have to read it. It clearly states in section 28 that notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. In addition to that, the legal text of this agreement says that the Charter applies to all legislative bodies and governments of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of their respective legislative bodies. It seems to me that that's very clear: the Charter applies to aboriginal governments as well.

Finally, the legal text specifically provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada referred to in this part are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." So we see that gender is referred to, and equality between women and men is guaranteed in several places in this agreement. Frankly, I can't see that there would be any further obstacles put in the way of aboriginal women.

So those are some of the primary arguments. I have looked at them carefully, and I believe that women are adequately protected. In fact, women gain under this accord for the reasons that I've already outlined. But there are also some other reasons that women need to look carefully at this agreement. The most obvious reason, in my view, is the entrenching, for the first time ever in the history of this country, of some social objectives, some social goals. We have this time the entrenchment of universal health care as something that Canadians cherish and want to strive for, and the courts will be instructed through that to interpret things with the principle in mind that we are committed to universal health care and the five principles of it. Women obviously have a vested interest in that. It's women who care for children; it's women who are disproportionately poor. Therefore I think it's fair to argue that the protection of that health care is something that women can look to as a very good reason to support this agreement.

[3:30]

Similarly, there is a statement about social services, about adequate housing, about adequate food. I find it tragic that in 1992 I still deal regularly in my constituency, which is not a poor one, in one of the wealthiest provinces in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with women who are living with two or three children in a hotel room and are not able to adequately clothe or feed their children. This isn't going to resolve that. I know that; everybody knows that. But for the first time, we're putting in writing, we're entrenching in our charter, the fact that it is not acceptable to have those kinds of situations for men, women or children in this country. All those single mothers, who are a huge chunk of the people who depend on social services, can look at this charter, I think, and support it with confidence because there is a statement in there. It's not a big step, but it's a step in the right direction, and one that's long overdue.

Similarly, access to education. One of the things that keeps women back is lack of access to education. We see a move now at the local level to start to integrate the opposing and contradictory roles that women have of career and caring for children. Make no mistake, women are still the primary caregivers for the children in this province and in this country. We see that integration beginning to happen. I think a statement that everyone should have reasonable access to post-secondary education in this country is a powerful argument to continue that trend and to make sure it continues to go in that direction, and that in some provinces where women's issues are on the agenda in the same way as they are in this province, women don't lose ground. So I think that's another important gain for women.

Again under this charter, we see for the first time that workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively are protected. One of the issues that we've heard a lot about in recent years has been the wage gap, and there's no question that trade unionism and women's participation in trade unions tend to close that wage gap. Therefore women can look at some gains in being able to argue for strong trade unions and participating in them. It's a small step, but it's in the right direction.

I see that my time has run out, so I would simply say that this is a good deal for Canada, it's a good deal for 

[ Page 3524 ]

British Columbia and it's a good deal for women. I urge women to vote for this deal on Monday with the confidence and pride that they are voting for the best chance that they have to keep this country strong and united for our children's future.

C. Tanner: The debate on this national referendum has been one of the most divisive and difficult issues faced by Canada since the conscription debate of 1940, and in the case of Quebec, the sovereignty-association debate in the eighties. Families are divided, friends are split, brother opposes brother, and husbands and wives are of differing opinions. Everybody is taking sides. Everybody, that is, except the 50 souls who make up the government side. By some divine guidance, by some extraordinary melding of thought, the NDP have obtained an exceptional unity of mind not available to ordinary people but available to them.

Personally, I don't believe it. I think that behind those Yes buttons worn on each lapel beat some troubled hearts. Even if I did believe it, the public doesn't. The public is not taken in by the charade of 50 robots smirking behind lapel pins. Fifty all of one mind, unlike any group, any family, any association or any collection of people in Canada. No, I exaggerate. The Bloc Québécois are united too.

But those 50 over there are extraordinary. It's too much to believe. They have forsaken their leadership responsibilities. You wear your heart on your sleeve and a deception on your lapel. Why don't the 14 of them who are voting no stand up and be counted? Why don't they have the courage of their convictions? Why hide behind unimposing buttons and ineffectual leadership? If the Yes vote fails, the people of B.C. will know that my caucus struggled with the problem and was upfront and forthright. My leader had the courage to allow discussion and differences of opinion. Not content with leading the Yes forces in confusion, you give comfort to the opposing opinion by sending out your lieutenant to prove the interdependence of Canadian provincial politics, by having your Constitutional Affairs minister single-handedly create more havoc for his allies than all of the PQ together. There are those who contend that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is more effective in Quesnel for the No forces than the Red Baron in World War I if he had shot down the entire German air force. The Constitutional Affairs minister can take pride in the fact that he's the only British Columbian to vote with his mouth 3,000 miles away and perhaps sink the Quebec government. With friends and leaders like that, who needs opponents?

There have been questions about the preoccupation in the B.C. debate with the number of seats in Ottawa. I can only assume that the NDP's concern arises from the fact that since they never had the ability to appoint Senators, they want to expand the Commons so they can continue to dump tired, failed and bingo-playing retread provincial members into that place. If the public woke up to the fact that sending old warhorses for a rump movement like the NDP is not the path to power in Ottawa.... Perhaps the people of B.C. will be better served by learning from Quebec politics and voting consistently en masse for a winning national party. They might get some political clout in the nation's capital. Or could it be that the NDP opposite are so pessimistic of their chances of survival here that they want to create enough seats -- 51 -- so that they can all go back east where they can warm seats, collect pensions and do nothing?

A fair question of me is why I'm voting yes. I'll tell you five reasons. One. The Charlottetown accord was the culmination of three years of public discussion. It was debated in convention by all three national parties: Liberal, Conservative and NDP. It was endorsed by all the provincial leaders, the territorial leaders and four aboriginal leaders. That is a Canadian constitutional first.

Two. National organizations of labour, commerce, banking, culture and many others have recommended its adoption. When have labour and business ever recommended the same course of action in this country before?

Three. My business experience of 25 years tells me this is a doable deal. My political involvement of 20 years tells me it is the best offer we'll get. My conscience tells me that we must be positive, generous, considerate and understanding. Finally, my knowledge of Canadian history tells me that this is in the fine tradition of Canadian accommodation.

Four. My initial decision has been reinforced because of the outcries from Quebeckers that they are not getting enough, while in B.C. we claim Quebec is getting too much. While I hear some native leaders saying they're being sold down the river, I hear other Canadian people saying we're giving away the store. This confirms my original decision in that everybody at the negotiations left something on the table.

And five. If not this accord, then what? The No side in this debate has been critical of its parts but has offered no reasonable alternative to its whole. I think this is a plateau which, if we can agree to do so, we can continue to improve upon. But if this accord is abandoned, it will take much energy and enormous goodwill to reconstruct.

Like many members, I too have criticisms. I think we needed a net reduction of politicians in the Commons and the Senate. I think we should have found an answer to the interprovincial trade problems. I think we hung too many bells and whistles on the constitutional frame, quite frankly. But overall I think this is the best we'll get under the circumstances. Most of all, I think the municipal governments in this country have been ignored, and I think we're going to suffer as a consequence.

I have one suggestion: the entire accord should be subject to a 20-year sunset clause. Let's try it for a few years, review it when we have all lived with it and then take another look. Constitutions are living, growing organisms. By presetting a 20-year review date, we will offer some comfort to those people nervous about the unanimity clause. It will be an insurance against the "forever" concern of some critics and an opportunity to live with a new package for a reasonable trial period.

The only three areas affected by the unanimity clause are: the Supreme Court, which has had this form for over 100 years; the Senate, which hopefully never 

[ Page 3525 ]

need be expanded; and the Commons, which changes automatically with each census. Consequently, unanimity is not a concern for me, but I offer the sunset clause as a solace to those who find it hard to digest.

In spite of the poor stickhandling of the government, I will vote yes, as in my opinion that is the best way to score for Canada. I am sure, Hon. Speaker, that people of goodwill can amend and change anything in good faith.

A. Cowie: It's a pleasure today to speak in favour of this constitutional proposal, which has been characterized as a Canadian compromise. It's wonderful that the first ministers across Canada were able to get together, along with most of their opposition as well as the representatives from the Territories, to come together in one package, which, as many of the speakers before me have mentioned, is not perfect. But it's a good package.

For my part, I'm proud to be in the Liberal opposition. I fought very hard, as others did, so that I could speak here today on the Yes side. You'll notice I'm fairly close to the door, but it was well worth fighting for. I also wish to commend my fellow Liberals -- that they're all in unison and that we all, in fact, can speak our own way on this particular issue. It's part of our own Liberal constitution that we should do that. I only wish that some of the members on the other side would have the same freedom also. I know, when I look at the full membership on the other side, that there are those who would like to express a No position. I feel that from the history of many of the members as I know them. I feel that they should have the right, as we have, to express their own opinions, and I think that's what our constituents -- all of our constituents -- want us to do. However, apart from that criticism, I'm very glad you are supporting the Yes side.

There are three basic components to any constitution of a country. Essentially, there's the technical component, dealing with the ideal principles. The question is: how close is the constitution to the ideal? There are the legal aspects -- how well will the constitution stand up in the courts? Then there's the political side, and that's been most of the emphasis during the last month. It's unfortunate that this side has gone off the rails to some extent. I think we're all responsible for that. On the NDP side, I noticed that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, as good as he is on most things, almost lost us Quebec on one occasion in Quesnel. I think it's only more recently that the Premier has taken on the full responsibility of getting out there and meeting the people, and I hope he does that in the next few days.

I, for one, am proud to be a Canadian. You've heard me say this before. I was born in Halifax, went to school in New Brunswick, did graduate studies in Montreal and in British Columbia, and I've lived here for 26 years. I'm very, very proud to have that sort of a background as a Canadian and as a citizen of British Columbia. Canada is well worth fighting for.

[3:45]

Housing is one of the issues that I would like to talk about briefly. It comes under my critic portfolio. I have been following the debate throughout the day and yesterday, and it's one issue that really hasn't been touched on. Housing in 1971, especially social housing, came under the minister of housing federally, and that was the last date of the big projects -- the McLean Parks and others in this province. Then, under Hon. Ron Basford and Dr. Peter Oberlander in Urban Affairs, housing was moved into a much better form -- that is, co-op housing, limited-dividend housing and a number of other forms of housing which were all federally oriented.

While some of them were very good -- such as co-op housing, which I still believe in strongly -- it's now time for housing to be shifted over entirely to be regionally responsible. I believe, especially with this being a "have" province, that we could very well handle the housing situation. It'll be of benefit to our industry in that we can manufacture a great number of houses. I am very glad that this aspect of the constitution has finally been recognized.

Other land use aspects as well, such as mining and forestry, are now shifted over to the province, and, except for research and maybe the environmental aspects which have to be looked at in Canada as a whole, I think that's excellent.

As far as CMHC goes -- and I do owe CMHC a little bit; they gave me a scholarship to go to the University of British Columbia at one time -- I don't think they're any longer necessary at a federal level. They really are just a banking institute, and I believe that can be handled otherwise. They've done a great job, but it's time now for that responsibility to be shifted to the province.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the aboriginal peoples. This correction is well overdue. In going around my municipality and the fringe areas, I've been talking to a number of aboriginal peoples. They want to look after their own affairs, both socially and economically. It's far overdue that we stop having a social-welfare attitude toward the aboriginal people. They should have the right and the opportunity to look after themselves. That's what they want to do, and this constitution puts that right. For that reason -- and if it were only that reason -- I would go along with this constitution.

In drawing to a conclusion, I want to refer briefly to my constituents, who are on both the Yes and No sides. There's no doubt about that. Most municipalities and constituencies are that way. A letter printed in the Tuesday Sun by Frank Low-Beer probably best represents my constituents on the Yes side. He states that the defects of the accord do not justify the No vote. There is no perfect constitutional fix. He states: "Given the radically different approaches..." to the accord in this country -- and we have many diverse groups -- "the very concept of a constitution that can reconcile these views is illusory. There is no ideal constitution, only a process of getting one."

Many countries have gone through many changes. The United States, for example. I believe it's on the twentieth change. France is still making changes. Many countries are making changes continuously.

As I believe the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said only yesterday, the constitution 

[ Page 3526 ]

is an organic process. We should always be looking at it. That's why I feel, as my colleague beside me feels, that there should be a period when it should be reviewed. I agree with it. I think, in fact, that it will be reviewed, because that's the history of Canada.

Meech was our first chance. In this second chance the process has been messy -- we all recognize that -- but I think it has been fair. Mr. Low-Beer notes: "While patriotism is perhaps the wrong term for why we should vote yes, the conclusion is inescapable that those who vote no are putting their private interests, vision or principles ahead of the survival of the country."

To those who vote no in my riding, I thank them for expressing their concerns. I have listened to their concerns, as I'm sure others have, and those concerns must be addressed. This whole debate has been well worthwhile, and these concerns will and can be addressed.

Finally, to the still 40 percent undecided -- and there are 40 percent undecided, at least in my riding -- I hope that when they go to that ballot, as my friend did the other day.... He was going to vote no, but he got there and he couldn't do it. He had to vote yes. I give that advice to all of those people.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm very proud to follow the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who now represents a riding that I had the privilege to represent until last year. I applaud him for his courage, his convictions and his willingness to buck the tide of public opinion for what he sees to be the real interests of the country.

All of us here recognize that the public is deeply divided on this critical question for the future of the country. All of us recognize that the question is not an easy one. All of us recognize that there are merits to the arguments put forward by all sides.

I would like to salute not only the member for Vancouver-Quilchena but the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who has also displayed the courage of his convictions, and the member for Vancouver-Langara. I look forward to hearing him take his place in the debate, because he holds a position of great respect in our community for his activities in the First United Church and the anti-poverty movement. I know that citizens who share many of the social values that he represents but for one reason or another do not support my party will be looking forward to his leadership as well.

Hon. Speaker, I've had to collect my thoughts in just a few minutes, because I expected to speak tomorrow night or perhaps on Friday, so I will speak extemporaneously and from the heart. Like many of the members of this House, I was not born in this country. My family chose to immigrate to Canada for reasons of opportunity, for political freedom, for the opportunity for my father to pursue a scientific career in an attempt to discover the causes of mental illness and mental retardation, to pursue excellence in medicine. My feelings about this country are frequently passionate, because like many of the people who become new citizens now, I've been through that experience, and I know what it is to have wanted to be a Canadian for many years before I was allowed to become one.

I'll never forget the day I took the citizenship oath, the judge who administered it to me, Judge Norman Oreck, or the fight that my family went through to achieve Canadian citizenship. It's a matter of great significance to me. I hope, hon. Speaker, that although I speak through you to the members of this Legislature and in fact some of my constituents -- however few who may be watching this debate -- I now have the opportunity to convey to them why I believe the Charlottetown agreement and its passage are profoundly in the interests of this wonderful country.

In trying to think these issues through, I've sought some guidance in the past, and I've looked to two of the great figures of Canadian history. Tommy Douglas, the great former leader of the New Democratic Party, is someone who I think, despite what the public may now think of most of us politicians, the public universally across the country holds in high regard as the architect of medicare in Canada. Consider what Tommy Douglas said, as quoted in the Globe and Mail on April 13, 1966: "I do not think that the dead hand of the past should be allowed to stay the onward march of progress. Human rights are sacred but constitutions are not."

Consider what Nellie McClung, one of the early great feminists of Canada, one of the great writers of Canada, one of the great citizens of Canada, said in a book she wrote in 1921:

"...Canada was like a great sand pile, each little grain of sand beautiful in its own way, but needing cement to bind it to other grains, and it was for us to say whether we could be content to be only a sand pile, or would we make ourselves a beautiful temple."

I think those two quotations reflect the point that we stand with only five days left for us and our fellow citizens to decide how we shall vote on a question that in the future we may look back on as one of absolutely fundamental importance to the evolution of our country.

Mr. Ed Broadbent is another great figure in Canadian political history. I can recall patients of mine, when I was still practising medicine, who would say: "You know, I can never vote for your party, but I sure wish that Ed Broadbent could be Prime Minister." He's someone who dedicated the better part of his middle years to serving the country in a creative and thoughtful way and is now the commissioner for human rights representing our country abroad, observing democratic elections and helping new nations -- or old nations emerging from military repression -- to make the transition to democracy.

Ed Broadbent wrote just yesterday in the Toronto Globe and Mail:

"Modern states stand or fall by one basic test. Citizens must instinctively ask themselves not merely what is good for me, my region, my gender, my ideology, but also what is good for us. No people will live together in what we call a country if they do not respond in this twofold way. They must be able to look at their compatriots in distant parts and ask not simply, 'What share of this is mine?' but also: 'What can we do together?'"

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena and I were in the audience when the Rt. Hon. John Turner received the Great Trekker award at UBC recently. Mr. Turner, 

[ Page 3527 ]

although his words were slightly different, said essentially the same thing: it's time for Canadians and for our country to begin to ask ourselves how it can be that in the most privileged country in the world, we are tearing ourselves apart. How can we not begin to ask what we can do for our country, rather than what individual, precise, jealous notion we can satisfy for ourselves from our country at this particular moment? I think the member for Vancouver-Kensington, although I had to leave as he began his remarks yesterday, was alluding to the same phenomenon: how bizarre, or, as I think Tom Berger put it, what crazed constitutional groupies we must seem to people in other countries contemplating the rancour over minor matters!

Hon. Speaker, through you to the people of Vancouver-Little Mountain and to the people of B.C., let me state very simply what I see as the key advantages of this agreement; and let me state that I, like many members of this House on both sides, like the Leader of the Opposition and unlike the leader of the third party, was a strong opponent of the Meech Lake accord. I sit in this Legislature partly by virtue of my opposition to that agreement. I shared the views of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, that the Meech Lake accord would weaken Canada. In the three years since, not only has the constitutional picture changed but I personally have had to ask myself whether I ought to reassess my position in the interests of the country.

My own position has changed. I have come to realize that the country is different from the way I first understood it, even though I have lived four years of my life working in Quebec. I have worked and lived in virtually every province and in both territories during my medical career. I felt I had some glimmer of understanding of the country before, but in the last three years I've often reassessed my own understanding and come to realize that people in other parts of Canada, including the province of Quebec, see the country differently than us in British Columbia; that they have an equal stake in their interpretation of what Canada is and what Canada should be; that it's equally important to consider their concerns, not just those of us in British Columbia; and that as members of this Legislature, in contrast to what the member for Okanagan East said yesterday, our duty first and foremost is to this country, not to this province.

[4:00]

Without this country, we descend into the maelstrom of violence that has engulfed the United States in its urban cores. We descend into the banality of political life that we witness every day in the American presidential election campaign. We descend into the viciousness of the American health care system, into the homelessness that plagues that country, and potentially into the class struggles that plague even the European nations from which so many of us are descended.

Let me come back to the advantages of this agreement. First, it provides us the opportunity, for once, for some political stability and for the chance to divert our energies and attentions from the constitution, which Tommy Douglas described as "not sacred," to those issues which are engulfing our society and our world: our inability to provide the necessary means to restore our economy because of our national and provincial deficits; our inability to deal with the global environmental deterioration which threatens all of us; our inability to deal with population growth around the world, with global warming, with atmospheric pollution and with water pollution; our inability to cope even with the basic needs of new immigrants, like providing English-language education, through constant strife between federal and provincial governments; and our inability to deal with the training needs of our society through the division of responsibilities between competing governments. One of the beauties, paradoxically, of this poisoned and painful campaign has been to find ourselves, as provincial politicians, crossing that barrier occasionally: for the member from North Vancouver to find himself campaigning with the member for West Vancouver, for me to find myself sharing a platform with the hon. Minister of Justice of Canada, and to find that we in fact have much more in common than what separates us.

A second major advantage of the agreement is the ability, finally, after 125 years of Canada, and after 400 years of colonialism -- or 500 since the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus -- to begin to come to terms with our aboriginal people. I remember, hon. Speaker, indelibly, as if it were yesterday, my late father's despair at the racism he encountered towards Indians when he came to Canada. It was something he thought he had left behind in the black ghetto of Watts, where he left his pediatric practice in Los Angeles. I remember his despair, on seeing the reserve in Salmon Arm, where he went to study inherited metabolic disease, that there were no books in houses. I've watched the anguish on the faces of aboriginal leaders -- from Chief Wendy Grant of Musqueam to Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Assembly of First Nations -- when they saw the ability to finally achieve justice and progress for their people apparently slipping through all of our fingers.

Hon. Speaker, two days ago I visited the Toti:lthet education centre in your riding, a place where there is the optimism and determination of aboriginal people to overcome those barriers. They are people from across the country -- from as far away as Labrador. The cadets in the aboriginal justice academy were standing at attention, giving me a salute, as I visited that academy as Minister of Advanced Education. The pride, the enthusiasm and the determination radiated from them. To think that we would spurn that, at the point when it's within our grasp, out of political opportunism, out of stupidity, out of unwillingness to consider the possibilities, or out of worship for a constitution, out of deification of a constitution, which is only an attempt to encode and encompass the real values of our society, makes me sadder than I can bear to describe here.

Hon. Speaker, the fatuous arguments raised by some of those who question the perfections of the agreement -- those, for example, from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women -- would make my feminist mother, my wife or my grandmother, an early scholar at Columbia University, shrink from that obsequious worship of a constitution and fatuous disregard of reality. Do those women like Judy Rebick seriously believe that the constitution or a proposed constitu-

[ Page 3528 ]

tional amendment or some amendment that they might be able to negotiate with Preston Manning or with Jacques Parizeau or with that man whose name I won't even dignify who has defended Ernst Zundel and who campaigns for the No side in this city seriously believe that they can design an agreement that will protect women from violence on aboriginal reserves or from violence in households in this country? Do they seriously worship that constitution so much that they think the constitution is going to intervene in the middle of the night when a drunk man is beating up his wife? If they do, I suggest they've taken leave of their senses. They have no idea, as any physician would know who has dealt with the victims of abuse against women, particularly aboriginal women, whom I constantly saw in my work at St. Paul's Hospital. The protection of those women lies not in the constitution; it lies in reform of the basic attitudes of society, in ensuring that people will not stand idly by while that abuse occurs, in the correction of alcoholism, in the education of young children and in the teaching of young women self-confidence and the ability to resist.

For Judy Rebick to suggest that she can perfect a constitution to protect women from the real causes of abuse is not only absurd, it is profoundly destructive to the real liberation of women from violence. Do Judy Rebick and her cohorts and allies and those who would have the perfect constitution seriously believe the constitution has anything whatsoever to do with the reforms which have taken place in the College of Physicians in Ontario, which have forced the B.C. College of Physicians to finally open its doors and clean up the abuse of women by doctors? Do they think the constitution had one whit of influence on that? Or do they not see that, in fact, it was the demands of society -- including brave women in the parliaments, like our colleagues Grace MacInnis or Pauline Jewett or others who were laughed at when they raised those issues in Parliament years ago -- that forced that? Not the constitution. Do they not see that the Law Society's recent reforms proposed under the chairmanship of the Hon. Ted Hughes come not from the constitution but from the demands of society that lawyers and judges clean up their act? I submit, hon. Speaker, that those critics of the constitution fail to see the ability it gives us to come together as a society and begin to really work on those causes.

I will speak with less anger about the complaints of the disabled community. You'll note that I'm wearing my badge, the pin that suggests not only access for people with disabilities but work, a tool kit, a portable computer. I understand their frustration and anger at why they were left out of the agreement, but I do not agree with their analysis. The real barrier to the achievement of equality -- economic equality, social equality -- for people with disabilities is not the constitution; it's the national deficit. It's the strangling of our abilities to educate people, to provide communication devices, to teach the rest of society to respect people for their abilities, not restrain them by their disabilities. Not the constitution. That's not the barrier. And those who think that a perfect constitution will somehow bring disabled people to their rightful place in society are dreaming. The barriers are right here in this Legislature, in society's attitudes, and we need not perfect the constitution to get on with fixing those issues.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I regret your time has expired.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll conclude by saying I hope that in the final few days we in this Legislature will be able to shake our Canadian public out of its complacency. Our job is not merely to follow, as one of the members opposite has suggested. If we were here only to follow, the public might as well get the media to run this government, not elect politicians to represent them. We do have a leadership role. We will respect the public's verdict in this referendum, but I hope to God the public will think carefully, because I think we have major advantages to our country if we can swing this through on Monday.

J. Tyabji: A point of order. Under standing order 42, I would like to state, in the House and for the record, that I did not stand up and say that we have to put Canada's interest behind that of B.C., as the former speaker says. Obviously Canada's interests are paramount in my opposition to the deal.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, a dispute between two members does not constitute a valid point of order.

L. Fox: This afternoon, as I stand before you and speak representing a No vote, I want to first take some issue with the last speaker. He attempted to suggest, in his thoughts and therefore in his speech, that all the No voters were in fact very similar. I am no more similar to other No voters than that particular speaker is to Yes voters. I am here as an individual who was born and raised in Canada. Fortunately -- or unfortunately -- I do not come from a long line of academics; I come from a generation of hard-working Canadians who believed in the country of Canada and even put it before their concerns.

When I arrived in the House on the reopening of this session, I was quite pleased that my desk hadn't moved. As I looked around the assembly, I saw several desks moved, and I had to wonder why. I respect those who have chosen to speak their conscience, and I respect those throughout the province who have identified issues in this package that concern them.

I wonder, however, what the rationale was for this government to make time available for the discussion of this constitutional issue at this point in time. One has to question whether it was to provide a smokescreen over the labour issues. One has to question whether or not it was a last-ditch attempt by this government to persuade the people of British Columbia to respect their views.

[4:15]

I wonder how that can be achieved after what we saw leading up to the reopening of this Legislature. The first issue that comes to mind is when the Minister 

[ Page 3529 ]

Responsible for Constitutional Affairs had to clarify what the Premier said about the constitution. Not long after that the House Leader had to clarify what the Premier said with respect to whether or not there was going to be any debate in this Legislature on the accord and what the time frame was going to be. Then we had the House Leader once again clarifying the Premier's position on a gender-equity Senate. Then we had the Premier attempting to cover up what the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs braggingly said to the people of Quesnel about the Quebec Premier not being a strong negotiator.

Does this provide a climate of confidence in this government? I suggest not. If this weren't so serious, it would be a joke. Just who is leading this government, and how can the people of British Columbia have any confidence in a government that shows this lack of leadership?

As I said before, I'm a proud Canadian. I am willing to state the fact that most British Columbians are also proud Canadians, and that's the reason they're going to vote down this accord. They're not racists or bigots, and they're certainly not full of hatred. They are voting no because they love this great country, and they're genuinely concerned for the future of Canada. They believe, as I do, that this accord will divide our country, not unite it.

Initially I wanted to find reasons in this accord to vote yes. After doing considerable reading, I asked myself a series of questions, and I believe that most British Columbians asked very similar questions of themselves before they decided what position they would take. How can we build a stronger Canada when we divide our country into three parts, with two of them having the ability to write their own laws which may conflict with the laws of Canada? How can we vote yes to a constitution which forces all provinces in Canada to be bilingual except Quebec? How can we vote yes to an accord that transfers the responsibility for our forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation and municipal affairs without a financial commitment and an accord that also has a qualifier which suggests that the federal government could request the province to deliver the services which they're taking over in a bilingual way? How can we vote yes to an accord whereby if the federal government wishes to enter into an agreement with the province of British Columbia to improve our highways, build a new port, or do any other infrastructure improvements, it first has to find ways of spending similar amounts of money in other provinces before meeting the demands of a growing province? How can we vote yes to a constitututional amendment that has dropped the clause which ensures the rights of an individual to own property?

How can we vote yes to a constitution which gives the aboriginal people the inherent right to self-government without a definition as to what this means, except to say in section 41(b): "to develop, maintain and strengthen their relationship with their lands, waters and environment"? The only limitation on laws that will be developed by native people is the clause that states they "may not be inconsistent with those laws which are essential to the preservation of peace, order and good government in Canada." Brian Armstrong, an expert, maintains that this section is vague and toothless. In reality the native nation will be able to pass laws in their regions, which are still yet to be defined, that will be in conflict with provincial and federal laws on such issues as forestry, resoure extraction and property taxation. They could even have the power to expropriate.

What does this mean to non-native individuals who own land or harvest a resource within what may be a traditional territory that would be included and therefore subject to aborginal rule? It means a lot of concern and uncertainty, and that will cause them to vote no on October 26. This accord does not respect the rights of an individual to own property; it only respects the rights of groups.

How could we vote yes on an accord that recognizes the culture of two groups but fails to recognize the many other cultures and fails to recognize the disabled and seniors who make up this great country of Canada? The problem is that if we identify one group, we have to indentify all groups. In my view, that's what's wrong. We should be one nation that provides an opportunity for all and special privileges for none.

Much has been said about there being no tomorrow for Canada if we turn down this vote. In fact, yesterday the member for Nanaimo stated: "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." Given the experience of that individual and others on the government side, I wonder where union bargaining would be if we incorporated that logic, if it did not go back to the table every time the negotiators had their proposed deal turned down by their membership. A No vote will not break up Canada. In fact, a recent poll shows that 70 percent of Canadians believe the same as I do.

The Finance minister earlier suggested that we're going to have a lower dollar value and a higher interest rate if we vote no, at least in the short term, and his crystal ball may be clearer than mine. But I suggest that the country which divides itself into three parts will have the very same effect in the long term, as we are fighting among ourselves over who has control over the resources and thereby directs the economic development within Canada. This uncertainty will reduce our opportunity to encourage investment and therefore reduce our ability to compete in foreign markets.

I could go on and on. However, let me conclude with just a few comments made by many of the proponents on the Yes side about the fact that the No side is not coming forward with alternatives. I grant you that, hon. Speaker. I suggest that if the No side were provided with a very small portion of the $200 million plus that has been spent by the provincial and federal governments in promoting this deal, it could indeed come up with alternatives. When I look at this particular provincial government document called the Canadian unity agreement -- which is something I disagree with -- and see the half-truths in it, I think we could have spent the money a whole lot better finding alternatives than publishing half-truths in order to convince a Yes vote.

Let me say that I respect the opinions of all Canadians and those who stand in this Legislature, and 

[ Page 3530 ]

I certainly congratulate them for making their views known on all sides. I believe all sides do this because of a love of Canada, and because they want to see a strong, united Canada.

D. Miller: I want to say right at the outset, as the member for North Coast and as a Canadian, that I have taken the time to read the details on this accord and make a personal decision that is coloured by my feelings of national pride -- my feelings of pride in being a Canadian and a citizen of one of the greatest nations in the world.

I want to start today by dispelling a couple of myths that have been promulgated in the last couple of days in this House, myths that I think are ultimately not good for our democratic institutions. First of all is the myth expressed by the member for Okanagan East yesterday that somehow all of us here in this chamber are obligated to ultimately represent the majority view of our constituents, that that is our function as legislators, as parliamentarians, as people who've been elected to represent their constituencies in parliament -- that we simply should be mirror images of what the popular opinion might be in our constituencies. I reject that notion absolutely.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I've been actually searching for this quote for some time. It's a very famous speech that has guided legislators and those who hold a great respect for parliament and parliamentary traditions. It was made by Edmund Burke in 1774 to the electors of Bristol on the very topic of whether or not, as a representative of that city to parliament, he was obligated to simply reflect the opinions of the electorate or to provide some leadership and opinion on his own. His very famous quote is: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." I would particularly direct those remarks to the Liberal opposition, because there's an element of pandering in their position with respect to this constitutional accord.

An Hon. Member: Vote against your electorate.

Hon. D. Miller: I would be quite happy to, hon. member. I'm not sure what your constituency is, but if I could be hypothetical for the moment.... If all of my electorate were in favour of bringing back hanging in public, it would be my proud duty to vote against it. I would hope other members of this House would have that kind of strength as well. Perhaps the member might want to comment on that.

The second myth -- and let's go to the heart of some of the concerns in British Columbia with respect to this accord, or at least the concerns expressed to me and no doubt to others -- deals with the guarantee of 25 percent representation in the House of Commons for Quebec. I'll quote again the Liberal member for Okanagan East, who said yesterday -- and appeared to say this with some strength of conviction -- that we must follow absolutely the notion of representation by population:

"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 we have to go forward with those principles of equality and representation by population...."

Isn't it interesting, when we look at British Columbia and at the makeup of this House -- and one of my colleagues alluded to it earlier -- that we do not accept the absolute principle of representation by population. All parties subscribed to that notion; all parties supported the report of the Fisher commission on the changes to the boundaries of the constituencies.

I was particularly dismayed to hear the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, give lip service to the notion of representation by population. Somehow it was wrong. It was wrong to provide that kind of guarantee to Quebec. Quebec, a French-speaking province surrounded by English-speaking provinces and on the south by the United States and its English-speaking states, wants to have that kind of guarantee and comfort. I was astounded to hear the leader of the Liberal Party say that he rejected that notion. Yet when I look at the population of that member's riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I find that it is about 8 percent below the average population of each constituency in this province. If we were to follow the logic of the Leader of the Opposition, we would reduce the representation for people in areas like the Sunshine Coast.

[4:30]

Let me give one other example where quite frankly people are making arguments of convenience. They know there's some sensitivity about the issues of Quebec, and there has been for generations in this country. And those sensitivities have erupted from time to time -- during the referendum on conscription in the forties. Members older than I will recollect the kind of divisions that created in this country. It's easy to exploit divisions.

Let's turn to the members from Peace River. Let's turn to the population base of their constituencies. We note that in Peace River North the number of registered voters is 15,407. We have a member -- he sits beside me here -- who occupies a full seat in this Legislature even though there are only 15,000 members in his constituency eligible to vote. And for Peace River South the leader of the Social Credit Party sits in this Legislature as a full member with all the rights and privileges. Well, there's a member from the Comox Valley who has 34,000 people eligible to vote in that constituency. Yet we hear this hypocritical argument that somehow it's wrong to give a guarantee to Quebec, which currently has 25 percent of the population and is likely to have that for many years to come. We somehow think it's wrong.

They say that it's wrong for Quebec, but it's not wrong for them. Why is that? Why is it that when we look at the Peace River North constituency with 15,407 and the Peace River South constituency with 18,238 we see two members sitting here? If we add up the total 

[ Page 3531 ]

populations for those two Peace River constituencies, it comes to 33,645. And in the Comox Valley the eligible voters are 34,306. There is an imbalance. If the Social Credit opposition and the Liberal opposition were not being hypocritical, they would stand up and say: "We have too many members." The two Peace River members should, if they want to be consistent, and I seriously question if they want to, stand up and say: "We are overrepresented. We do not have representation by population."

We have guarantees, because they represent large geographic areas with difficulties of travel. We make those accommodations, and it is sheer hypocrisy for the Social Credit and Liberal opposition to pander to anti-Quebec sentiment simply because they think that at the end of the day somehow their political fortunes will be improved. Their fortunes will not be improved. They, along with all other Canadians, are going to have to grapple with the consequences of a No vote. And if anybody thinks that this is a child's game, that we have the luxury of giving into all of those things that trouble us, or if we can pander to bigotry as I and other people in this province have witnessed....

An Hon. Member: Or pander to big business.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd be quite happy to talk about big business and the economy, because the Liberal opposition does not seem to appreciate the consequences of a No vote on our economy. I'll be quite happy to deal with that.

This is not a time for little people to pander. This is a time for Canadians to think about their country and the things they hold dear and to make that leap of faith. It requires a leap of faith. The nitpickers and the naysayers will always find something wrong. But the nitpickers and the naysayers will never -- they don't have it in them -- build a constitution, and I think they display a remarkable lack of faith in this country. It's not something that I'm prepared to do.

I was born in this country. I had the privilege of being born here. My children were born here. My grandchild, who I hope to have appear on the scene this week, will be born here. I want my children and my grandchildren and all those future generations to live in a united Canada, to recognize the differences and the ties that bind us together. It is no time for pettiness and bigotry and small-mindedness.

The five key elements of this accord are things that simply recognize what ties us together. What keeps this magnificent, geographically large country with its very small population together? What binds us together as a nation? We all know the things that we can differ on. We are all familiar, as politicians -- in fact, we're experts -- particularly with the things we can differ on. But surely there comes a time when we have to put aside the pettiness and say: "What are the things that bind us together?" It is no time to pander to hypocrisy and bigotry.

The Canada clause is a remarkable document. It tries to define us as Canadians. It says we respect parliamentary democracy, federalism and the rule of law. It makes a commitment -- and I feel particularly strongly about this one -- to racial and ethnic equality and a recognition of the contribution being made by citizens from many lands. Although I was born in this country and my parents were born in this country, their parents weren't. They came from somewhere else, as all of our parents did. We do not have an aboriginal representative in this chamber anymore, and I'm very conscious that the population of my constituency is comprised of about 40 percent aboriginal people, and I'll deal with the question of the aboriginal issues as I get to them.

An Hon. Member: You should step down then.

D. Miller: I have no intention of stepping down -- to the foolish comments from the member at the end of the floor...

K. Jones: How else are they going to get represented?

D. Miller: ...the member who is quite prepared to pander to bigotry. It's disgusting.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

D. Miller: It's a commitment to racial and ethnic equality, a commitment to respect for the individual and collective rights and freedoms of all people, a commitment to the equality of women and men and the confirmation of the principle of equality of the provinces at the same time as recognizing their diverse characteristics. People are going throughout our land saying this is no good, and I don't understand it. It baffles me as a Canadian and as someone who loves this country.

We talk about parliamentary reform -- the other main element -- and the fact that B.C. will finally have an increased representation in the House of Commons. We will have not a perfect Senate, but we will get rid of the Liberal pork-barrel. Where was the Liberal Party after I don't know how many years of pork-barrel patronage? They never appointed a single woman to the Senate by the Liberal pork-barrel, and these people are standing up here talking about equality. Shame!

Do you remember John Turner? Were you all out working for John Turner in that election? In that famous election John Turner was saddled with Pierre Trudeau's pork-barrel appointments, and John Turner lost that election because he appointed those people to the Senate whom Pierre Trudeau had named. Pierre Trudeau has suddenly become the guru of this ragtag bunch. They were condemning him then, but now they are praising him.

Hon. Speaker, let me talk about justice for aboriginal people. The fear that's being promoted around this issue is very disturbing to me. Aboriginal people were made wards of the state well over 100 years ago. They were denied basic rights as a people. They were isolated physically and economically from the mainstream of this country. They were made wards of the state, and they've been there for over 100 years. They have finally achieved a remarkable, historic constitutional breakthrough. We have recognized in this document that they 

[ Page 3532 ]

were the founding peoples, that they governed themselves before we came and that they have the right to negotiate and to define what those rights are. There's further protection offered by the courts, and quite frankly, a close reading simply says that the courts will act as a shadow over those negotiations. We finally have the opportunity to do what's right in this province, and we get this petty quibbling and this petty pandering to bigotry.

Interjection.

D. Miller: Yes, the member can laugh all he wants. I hope he laughs and feels some comfort when he knows that he's joined on the No side by the likes of Doug Christie. I hope it gives that member some comfort, knowing that the bigots and the racists are out there in full force on the No side.

We have an opportunity to redress a historic wrong. The aboriginal people are citizens of Canada. They are saying yes to Canada, and I think we need to say yes to the aboriginal people. Let's not confuse what's happening with this Charter document with some of the difficulties we have in this province. They are completely separate. I say this to my friends in the fishing industry, who are greatly disturbed by the mismanagement that they have seen this year by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are greatly disturbed that the federal government is pulling back resources from the west coast. We are in great danger of having the same thing happen on the west coast as we have seen on the east coast, through that kind of mismanagement. But let's not confuse the issues. That has nothing to do with this accord, which, as I said, is a historic breakthrough that recognizes that originality -- the founding peoples -- and provides an opportunity for them to define a form of government consistent with the Charter to allow them to assume responsibility for their affairs. They have been denied the opportunity to take responsibility. Any person you make a ward of the state loses the opportunity to be responsible. This is a great leap, but it is a leap of faith. It's a leap that we should all be prepared to make as Canadians. What are we afraid of? Why be timid? And why pander to bigotry?

Canada's social and economic union. I have spent my life.... In fact, I occasionally got into a bit of trouble because of my connection with the labour movement. We reaffirm our support for comprehensive universal medicare. How can people oppose that -- for adequate social services, for high quality education, for protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively? That has never been in the constitution. Why are people trying to defeat this constitution that recognizes these fundamental principles that all Canadians should be proud of -- protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations. It's a remarkable document that tries to encompass those things that we as Canadians hold dear and that define us as a nation. It is no time for petty leadership. It is no time for nitpickers and naysayers.

[4:45]

Finally, the division of powers. Why would any politician in British Columbia oppose an accord that will finally allow us to have more control over our economic destiny? Are they opposed to the provision that would allow the transfer of federal training dollars that finally will put this government into a position where we can train for our own needs?

Hon. Speaker, I see my time is up. I will simply close by saying that I have made a leap of faith as a Canadian. I love this country. I think this accord will keep this country together. I would ask all British Columbians to consider that when they vote on October 26.

R. Neufeld: On a point of order. The member was giving such a good speech that I didn't want to jump up in the middle. But I'd like to correct his population figures. Peace River North, which I represent, is 29,529; North Coast, which he represents, is 29,444.

Hon. A. Edwards: On a point of order, I simply say that this is not a point of order.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. It is not a point of order, but I'm sure the House appreciates the numerical correction.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you for your input, all hon. members.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege, as others have already indicated, to rise and speak with regard to the Charlottetown accord. I wish to thank those who speak from both the Yes and the No sides. The different points of view from them and also from persons from my own constituency and throughout the province have helped me to clarify why I would be voting yes in this particular undertaking within Canada. These comments from other people have helped me to see that in reading the same document, they are discovering different meanings from the same words. That indicates to me that the difference of interpretation is in the persons who are reading, rather than in the document itself. This does not surprise me, though, because there is a book that I read regularly as a religious person which has probably had more different interpretations throughout history than any other and yet which still demands universal respect.

Some of the No voices say that this document leads to three Canadas. I strongly beg to differ. As I see this document, it recognizes the inherent value of basic differences and the validity of fundamental variations of thinking and acting, and thus lays the groundwork for a truly multicultural country -- of farmers and urban dwellers, of those who work with their hands and those who work with their heads, of those who respect historical commitments and those who look to the future and to the past. This document, as I understand it, recognizes an infinite variety of "Canadas" -- from the past and in the present and for the future, all of which are part of the Canada that is.

[ Page 3533 ]

Again, some of the voices are concerned that all the implications are not clearly spelled out, and I appreciate their concern. Yet this for me is a plus, not a negative, for I am acutely aware that today's answers are not tomorrow's and that ongoing discussion on the basis of agreed-on principles is the best way to go. Thus for me, the values of the Canada clause are the important aspects of this agreement, for they provide a vision of Canada that I can endorse. Indeed, the more these are challenged, the more they become real to me. Yet the challenges to them are valuable, for they help to set the future agenda of ongoing change.

I affirm that Canada is a democracy committed to a parliamentary and federal system of government and to the rule of law. I do not agree with those who suggest that this is a false system that has led us astray. How else have we achieved our relative well-being in this country?

I affirm that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have always had their governments in Canada, and it is time that we worked with them instead of against them. For in learning to work with them -- which will not be easy on our part -- we shall learn to work with each other. And how this debate has displayed that we have much to learn in that regard!

I affirm that we need to understand our history as French and English cultures and to learn to have mutual respect, not expecting each to be like the other. For to be truly equal is to understand that being equal has different meanings which we need to comprehend, respect and live with. Thus we may also be able to appreciate that many other cultures, which are different from either English or French or aboriginal, with whom we live and work and play, will require us also to understand that equal has different meanings for each and every one. Thus equality is not being the same; it is accepting each other in total disagreement, something that Canada has been quite good at and which no doubt is a fundamental element of our peacekeeping role around the world. Thus in this sense I agree with the commitment to racial and ethnic equality, equality enriched by a multitude of differences, the interrelation -- not the integration, but the interrelation -- of which continues to weave an ever-increasing multidimensional Canadian identity.

I affirm the vision of the balance of recognition of both individual and collective human rights and freedoms for all people, men and women alike. This statement, along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sets us the task of ensuring the fullness of life for all and includes all of our special concerns: sexual orientation, persons with physical and mental challenges, the unemployed, the economic poor, children, married people, singles, seniors and many others.

I affirm the twofold new principle, if you like, of representation by population and representation by province as a check and balance on the perspectives. Linked to this is the new mandate of cooperation between the provinces and the federal government, a new expression of Canadian cooperative participation.

Finally, I respect the projected process of "both/and," rather than "either/or," in our living together. To me, this is the basis for a new covenant between all Canadians. Out of this covenant -- not a contract, but a covenant -- will come changing agreements according to changing times. I am realistic about the problems, and I am optimistic about the future. I affirm the commitment to a process to maintain and improve the Canada-wide social, educational, medical and economic programs by cooperative and joint undertakings, as we work together as a people to discover the future, which is built on the past.

I affirm that the vision comes first. The effort to make that vision a reality is not the vote on October 26; it is our commitment today to live and work together for each and for all. It is that commitment, not the vote, which will make the difference. October 27, 1992, is not as important as October 27, 1995, when we will know whether we have moved ahead or back as a nation. What is important on October 27 of this year is what vision will be leading us. The details of how many sit in government -- whether it's 296, 356 or whatever -- and by what percentage we are represented, be it 7, 6, 12 or 25, are not as important as the vision of those who sit in the seats of government and of those who have put them there: the Canadian voters.

Martin Luther King said: "I have a vision." That vision caught the attention of the world. When the vision faded, his cause went with it. The vision is important. It is my humble opinion that this agreement has the needed vision for a renewed Canada, which requires to fulfil it only the wit and the will of the Canadian people.

D. Mitchell: I'm very pleased to rise today in this House to speak in this debate on the merits of the Charlottetown accord. I'm very pleased to be following in debate my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Langara, a member whom I think all of us, as members in this House, respect as a colleague and whose words rang true for me in this very important debate. Hon. Speaker, there have been some excellent addresses from all members in the House in this debate.

It's like the debate that's going on in our province and in our country itself. The level of debate on this constitutional accord has been such that our citizenry have become perhaps the most constitutionally conscious in the world. That's good; that's healthy for democracy. For the most part the debate itself has been healthy and very commendable. For many of us the debate and the referendum campaign itself have been an interesting and, for me personally, refreshing experience in non-partisanship. I believe that the debate over something as fundamental as our citizenship is an issue that really transcends party lines. There is no room for partisanship on this issue. It's an issue of deeply held personal conviction and identity.

When I say it's been an interesting experience, I can tell you that I've had the opportunity during this campaign to share the platform with members of all other parties -- provincial, federal and municipal politicians -- whom I would normally, during the course of a political career, not have the opportunity to cooperate with at that level and not have the opportunity to agree with in public. For me that's been a very special experience, and it fulfils one of the promises that I made 

[ Page 3534 ]

to myself when I first offered myself for public service a little over a year ago: there would be a reduction in the polarization that has gripped our society, and there would be opportunities to work together with politicians whom we might disagree with on some issues but agree with on others. That's been one of the healthy aspects of this referendum campaign -- the fact that we've been able to agree to disagree but also agree across traditional party lines. That's been an interesting experience for me personally. My one hope from this whole referendum campaign is that beyond October 26 this spirit of non-partisanship might live on, that there are cells of activity throughout our province and throughout our country where people who have normally been perhaps enemies in political terms have been working together. If that spirit can live on, that would be one tremendous benefit for our province and country.

Unfortunately a vote on this particular motion that we're debating is not going to take place. I understand that this is because of the nature of the motion itself: procedurally a vote would not make sense. That's unfortunate, in my view, because I was hoping that we would have a vote in this House and that it would be a free vote where every individual MLA would stand up and be counted on the issue of the constitution, not necessarily on party lines but to demonstrate their best judgment on behalf of their constituents. I'm disappointed that we're not going to have that free vote.

[5:00]

It's interesting to note that there have been votes in some other Canadian parliaments that have sat during the referendum campaign. I'll just refer briefly to the fact that in our House of Commons there was a vote, and the results of the vote were 233 in favour, 12 opposed. That was on the referendum question to be posed next Monday. In the Senate the vote was 58 in favour, 2 opposed. In the Northwest Territories Legislature the vote was 19 in favour, 0 opposed. In Alberta, a province where there are 83 members in the Legislative Assembly, the question was unanimously endorsed by all parties. And in Quebec, which is gripped by a very special debate on this issue -- and unfortunately party lines have entered into it -- the vote was 85 in favour, 30 opposed. If we add up all those numbers in legislatures and parliaments in Canada that have voted on this question so far, the total vote is 478 in favour, 44 opposed.

Now that says something very interesting to me, hon. Speaker. The votes were not on party lines; they transcended partisan politics by any definition of the term. And by an overwhelming majority -- by more than 10 to 1 -- the elected representatives of the people in their legislatures and in our national parliament have voted in favour of the question. I know that technically the question could be interpreted differently, but overwhelmingly the sense and the spirit of the vote was that they were in favour of the Charlottetown accord. That says something important, because some of us talk about the virtues of perhaps a constituent assembly of one form or another. What better constituent assembly is there than all of the combined elected representatives in our country?

I've decided, personally, that the answer in this referendum for me is yes, and it's an enthusiastic yes. I believe that the Charlottetown accord represents a triumph of the Canadian tradition of compromise. It's an opportunity to move forward to more meaningful issues -- bread and butter issues that are more productive to all of us as Canadian citizens. It is time to move forward to the challenges of the future and to stop arguing and bickering about the problems of the past.

I look at the Charlottetown accord in many different ways, but as a British Columbian I think it is a good deal for British Columbia. I'm absolutely convinced of that. As a British Columbia legislator, I wholeheartedly endorse this agreement. I say that for a few different reasons. I really believe that British Columbia not only does very well as a distinct region in Canada, but perhaps fares better than any other region by virtue of this agreement.

Let me explain why. More powers for British Columbia -- this has been referred to by many in the House during this debate. The fact is that in key areas like job training, forestry, mining and tourism we are now going to have exclusive jurisdiction. It's jurisdiction that has always been ours under the Canadian constitution, but there will be no more costly overlap or duplication of government services by the federal government. More powers for British Columbia, a traditional constitutional demand by B.C. at the federal-provincial bargaining table -- we achieve that in this accord.

An elected Senate, equal by province, and one that's going to be far more effective than some critics suggest, is going to be good for British Columbia because it's going to provide a strong voice for us in our national parliament. That's going to be positive and certainly an improvement over the existing chamber. Representation in the House is improved, and it's made fairer for all Canadians, but particularly for British Columbia. If we reject this accord, we in British Columbia will get two more seats in the House of Commons by the year 2001; we'll go from 32 to 34. If we accept this accord, British Columbia will get a minimum of seven new seats -- four immediately and at least three after the 1996 census. We'll be very close, virtually at the level of representation by population, if we accept this accord. That's good for British Columbia and for all other regions of Canada, which become much fairer in terms of representation by population under this accord.

Something very crucial for our province is the recognition of the inherent right to self-government of aboriginal peoples. It's important to our province. It's important for natives and non-natives alike to move forward. I believe that our province has the most to gain by virtue of the fact that the flip side of that coin -- unresolved native land claims -- is also going to be much more positively addressed, much more quickly addressed if we move forward in this direction. It will end the uncertainty that's affected our province more than any other region in Canada by virtue of those unresolved land claims. So this is an issue that is going to help our province as a whole; we're going to benefit more than any other region, and it's something that is 

[ Page 3535 ]

fair and long overdue for the aboriginal peoples of our region.

There's another issue that I refer to as the B.C. veto. At the federal-provincial negotiating table British Columbia has long argued -- going back to Premier Duff Pattullo, W.A.C. Bennett and others -- that we as a region should have a veto over certain aspects of constitutional change. This is tied up in the historic debate over the amending formula in our constitution. In the Charlottetown accord British Columbia gets its long-sought-after veto. We have a veto.

There are some who argue that the veto over further constitutional change to our national parliament or Supreme Court is a constitutional straitjacket. I reject that, because not only do we get a veto, not only are we as strong as Ontario or Quebec, but the principle of all provinces' equality is also enshrined. I can tell you that if we could achieve unanimity among all of the first ministers of our land on this major, broad-ranging, sweeping package of constitutional reform, that in itself would prove unanimity is possible. It should not be easy to change our national parliament. It should not be easy to change our institutions of government, but unanimity is possible with the goodwill and good spirits that are demonstrated in this accord itself. So I think the B.C. veto is a positive for our province.

There's one last issue that I think is crucial for our province - - the Minister of Finance alluded to this in his remarks today -- and that's investor confidence. The consequences of a Yes or a No vote are crucial for our country. If we say yes to this accord, it's going to be a vote of confidence in ourselves as Canadians. The world is watching. Both domestic investment and foreign investment is watching very cautiously. I believe that if we say yes enthusiastically to this agreement, the international investment community is going to look much more positively at us, in a world of increasingly unstable national economies. Canada has always been a safe haven for investment, and that investment translates into jobs. We're going to witness not only confidence in the Canadian dollar and lower interest rates, but job creation is going to filter into our economy by virtue of voting yes to this agreement.

I ask you, hon. Speaker, which province, which region of the country will benefit most from that? To me, as a British Columbia chauvinist, it's obviously going to be to our province, because we're the most attractive region of the country. Investment will flow into our region much more than any others because of our position on the Pacific Rim.

I look at this agreement as an individual, and I say that my rights are protected. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still dominant in this Canadian constitution. As a British Columbian, I think we benefit more than any other region in the country.

Then I take one further step back. I think it's important to step back from the trees and look at the forest on this agreement -- to really step back and try to take that Canadian perspective that is so crucial. We've got to go beyond narrow self-interest and take a look at the whole picture. As a Canadian I can say that I'm very comfortable with this accord.

Public opinion polls demonstrate tremendous uncertainty about this agreement. Some might suggest that there's a protest vote brewing in the land. We in this Legislature, perhaps more than in most others, know a lot about protest votes, because all of us are here as the direct consequence of a protest vote one year ago this month. One year ago this month a government was defeated; we were all elected. There was an element of protest against an existing order. A year later there's still a strong element of protest in the land. I believe that the protest vote that brought us here a year ago was for all the right reasons, but if we're to witness yet another vote of protest on October 26, 1992, I fear that it might be for all the wrong reasons.

This is not an election campaign; this is a national referendum - - something that we don't have a lot of experience with. We must get beyond personalities and partisan politics and deal with the accord itself. Fundamentally this is not an issue of the head; it's an issue of the heart and of the gut. I say that because the people have been promised a say in further constitutional change, and they're now having that say in this referendum.

Unfortunately for many, though, the discussion has been rather abstract and at the level of intellectual debate. That's unfortunate, because for many people it needs to be more than that. It needs to be on a level that is more real for them, more visceral. As a result, I think many are undecided, and some feel disfranchised. The debate needs to take place at a level that is much more real, and that can only happen if we strip away the rhetoric and focus on the facts of the agreement itself.

I believe that a majority of British Columbians and a majority of Canadians want to vote yes to national renewal, but they need to know why this accord is good for them -- as individuals, as British Columbians and as Canadians. That can only happen by looking at the agreement itself, by looking at the facts and not listening to or being distracted by abstract debate or rhetoric. The facts in the agreement are there to read.

Also there is a vision in the agreement. It's a vision of the future of Canada -- a vision that reflects the strong and proud traditions of all of us as Canadians. It's a vision that I'm personally comfortable with. It's one that I'm prepared to move forward with. The alternative to this vision, I fear, is division. I fear that the alternative might be the conclusion some would draw that our country is ungovernable. We do have an opportunity to move forward with this vision. It's an opportunity to set aside a generation of unproductive constitutional wrangling. It's an opportunity to focus our sights on rebuilding our economic strengths and ensuring economic fairness for all of our citizens.

My constituents are divided on this issue. I've listened closely to their concerns. My party is divided on this issue. We've agreed to disagree. My country is divided on this issue. But I hope we can move forward together.

I believe that the Charlottetown accord represents a good Canadian compromise in the very best tradition of a Canadian compromise. The word "compromise" has within it another word, and that is "promise." And there is a promise, a promise of being Canadian, that 

[ Page 3536 ]

goes back to 1867 and the so-called Fathers of Confederation. That promise was that our individual rights would be protected as citizens of a new strong nationality, but our collective and minority rights would also be preserved within this new Confederation. The Charlottetown accord achieves that very fine balance -- and it's a delicate one -- of protecting both individual and collective rights. It's one that I'm happy with. If we move forward with that promise in the spirit of compromise, I believe that each and every one of us have the opportunity today, 125 years after Confederation, to be the new mothers and fathers of Confederation.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to enunciate on the constitution and my particular feelings or disposition towards the Charlottetown accord. It's a unique opportunity, made possible clearly by a difference of opinion between the government House Leader and the Premier of the province, who in their collective wisdom decided to use the constitutional debate as a shield to delay the submission of labour legislation to this Legislature.

This is not the first time that the constitution has been utilized as a shield. Regrettably, for too many months in the past several years it has been used as a shield to assure Canadians that once this package is put together and out of the way, then we can attend to the economic issues which are paramount to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the number of members in the federal Parliament and in the legislative assemblies in all the provinces and the territories in Canada, there was ample opportunity to devote substantial time to the economy. The economy and the attention given to it has been very dismal in Canada over the last several years.

[5:15]

Apart from the united forces on the government side, what we are seeing today is an opportunity to show the face of Canada: the enthusiasm, sometimes the confusion and certainly the patriotism and feelings of Canadians, especially with respect to their love of Canada. I don't think that the constitutional accord is a partisan, political issue; it's an issue that affects all Canadians -- ordinary Canadians. The constitution is a document that belongs to the people. It's the fundamental basis for all law in Canada, and as such, the input of ordinary Canadians should have been utilized in the composition of this particular accord. It was not.

I want a strong, united Canada with equal provinces and with all people being equal under the constitution -- equal opportunities for all, special privileges for none. Individual Canadians must be regarded equally regardless of where they live and regardless of their sex, race, religion or creed. I don't think there's the slightest shred of difference between the Yes side and the No side in what I perceive as a common and shared objective: a vision of Canada for the future, for the next century. I don't think there is any difference here among members of the House.

The question that we have the opportunity to debate here is whether the proposed Charlottetown accord will bring us closer to attaining that common and shared vision, or perhaps take us further apart. That is truly what we're discussing and elaborating on here. No member here disagrees with that vision, and I certainly abide by that common and shared vision.

The Charlottetown accord, however, is simply a political document made to benefit politicians. That's quite a statement. The final deal is just that. It's a deal made by people who do not necessarily share common interests or a common vision of a united Canada that is stronger and better, and that will take us into the next century. That's what we're looking at. We're not looking at an important vote for perhaps the next federal or provincial election. What we're looking at is a constitution that has to serve the people of Canada for a prolonged time. Fundamentally we're looking at stability and for a constitution that will serve this country as well as the British North America Act, the original constitution that was written in 1867, has. It still is the fundamental constitution of this nation.

I've heard a number of speakers elaborate on certain aspects: the fact that it is amazing that we have unanimity among the leaders of various provinces and of the Territories; they're all agreeing. I think it's fair to ask why there is that complete agreement. Partially it still boils and distils down to party discipline. It's the responsibility of the federal parties and party objectives, and certainly is a subjective mood of politicians and the three main federal parties, recognizing that we have an imminent federal election ahead of us. Now that's subjective, but that's reality.

A few days ago on "The Journal" there was a series, three programs, on behind-the-doors, backroom-type deals that the video cameras were allowed to record -- both the scenes and the dialogue. But it doesn't stretch one's imagination to recognize that behind those scenes are further backroom scenes.

In this particular constitutional accord a number of objectives of the three federal parties have been achieved. But the interesting thing -- and I watched those programs -- is that not once did the federal first minister or the provincial Premiers address the results of the public input on the Spicer inquiry and the commission that toured all of Canada. No one spoke about the Beaudoin-Dobbie report on the constitution; no one spoke about a common and shared objective, a vision of Canada that would do us for the next 100 years. Not one person spoke of that. What we witnessed was politicians dealing. We didn't witness a compromise; we didn't witness the development of a consensus. What we saw were elements in the agreement that satisfied the objectives of three political parties. I suggest that the best opportunities and the equal treatment of all the people of Canada -- equal in the eyes of the constitution -- were not fundamentally responsible for the drawing up of this particular accord.

I'm going to vote no on October 26 for five major reasons. There are five major sections that I have a great deal of difficulty with. Why? Because they move us further away from unity. They move us further away from building a stronger united Canada which will be better for my children and my children's children -- the Canada of the future. That's what we're talking about -- not political expediency for now or for a few years, but 

[ Page 3537 ]

about the Canada of the next century. That's why this particular question is so important, and that's why the independent individual must make up his or her mind about what they believe will be the best direction for Canada to take. There is no organized or official No campaign in the province of British Columbia, yet every public opinion poll shows that No is winning, and winning decisively. The appropriate question to ask is why.

I believe it is because the constitutional package must be judged on its own merits and not on the advertising that is written up to sell the package, or on the commentary of so many different people. Each and every Canadian should judge the elements of the package in the original consensus agreement and look at it from that standpoint, without any editorialization. It seems fundamental to me that all Canadians do that. Ordinary Canadians and ordinary British Columbians -- British Columbians are Canadians first and foremost -- will make that clear, and that's the position we're discussing at the present time. Ordinary Canadians are deciding that it is a deal that compromises fundamental principles of democracy and, worse still, forever ties our hands from making changes to the three primary federal institutions: the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House of Commons.

In addressing this particular question in my constituency, I've asked my constituents to ask themselves five questions. Will the Canada clause that creates three legally distinct societies bring us together or tear us apart? It's a straightforward question. You can answer it, hon. Speaker. Any British Columbian can answer that question, and that's a fairly major question.

The Second Question Is: will the House of Commons, which guarantees central Canada control and whose structure moves further from representation by population, provide equal opportunities for all Canadians? For the past 125 years it has been the intent of the BNA Act to move us closer. I recognize it is utopian to believe that we can get complete representation by population, but I sincerely believe that, as a fundamental principle of democracy, we must strive to move closer, not further away. Have we achieved this in the constitutional accord? Will a reformed Senate, while equal, only partially elected and not at all effective, provide better regional representation? A valid question.

Should an inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples be included at this time without the vaguest idea of its scope, jurisdiction or cost to the Canadian taxpayer?

Perhaps the most important clause that I have difficulty with is the amending formula. Does the proposed amending formula lock us into a constitutional straitjacket?

My findings indicate that the answers clearly indicate that this particular accord falls far short of reaching its objectives, and that is my concern. These sections will not promote unity, nor will they help build a better, stronger Canada. We're all agreed that that's what we want. We want unity and a better, stronger Canada for the future. There is no difference in that. That's the absolute goal.

Since the constitution was patriated, we have had ten years in which the current federal government has made its primary objective the goal of getting Quebec to sign the patriated constitution. Meech Lake was a culmination of that ten years of work on the constitution to the exclusion of all other interest groups. That was the primary focus. While I supported Meech Lake, Meech Lake in fact failed, and it's history. But I would like to point out, contrary to the opinion of many members of this Legislature, that Meech Lake had the unanimous consent and agreement of all the provincial Premiers. What elapsed was several provincial elections; then they came back, and they had changed their particular positions. But Meech Lake had also achieved the unanimous consent of all of those involved in the negotiations.

We've had the Spicer commission and the Beaudoin-Dobbie report go to the federal government. In this whole process we had the federal constitutional minister, Joe Clark, and the constitutional ministers of all provinces, including our province, work hard and come to an agreement. However, after that agreement was achieved, it was overturned. The Prime Minister of Canada became involved, the first ministers also became involved, and they changed that agreement.

So that's some of the substance that has led us into the constitutional package that we're discussing at the present time. It is not something that is the result of public input of ordinary Canadians throughout Canada. It is a political document, nothing more, nothing less. The public input, in fact, I suggest has been primarily smoke and mirrors and has not been incorporated whatsoever.

I had the opportunity to travel with the British Columbia constitutional committee throughout the province, and I will say this: British Columbians want a strong, united Canada. British Columbians want a Canada with equal treatment and equal opportunity -- political, social and economic -- for all Canadians, regardless of where they live in Canada. But they said one thing loud and clear: "But not at any cost." They wanted the agreement fair and balanced.

It's my belief that the document is the people's document, and it's also my belief that the people are sovereign, not parliament. What we're seeing is something that is designed by parliaments, not people, and I think that that is very wrong. On October 26 Canadians will be asked to make the single most important political decision that they will ever make in their lives. It's that significant and that important, and that's why I say every Canadian should take the opportunity to study the original consensus agreement document. But I want to say one thing: when that decision is made, if the decision happens to be yes, there is no comeback; there is no trial period. It is done, and that is the direction we will take.

[5:30]

We are being asked to take a great leap of faith on a document that is vague in many cases, not specific. A great deal of work should have been done on it. But regardless of what we decide, whether we vote yes or no, I think all Canadians must know -- and certainly British Columbians must understand -- that the barter-

[ Page 3538 ]

ing and negotiating process will go on and on and on. It's not something that has a finite life; it will continue to go on for any number of years. The Charter is, in fact, a living document, so voting yes will not end it and voting no will not end it. That is academic and not part of the requirement or the element that enables a decision.

Let's look at the Canada clause, Hon. Speaker. The clause is supposed to recognize the fundamental characteristics of Canada, yet it would essentially demolish the existing foundation of our constitution. Instead of a constitution that guarantees the rights of all Canadians equally, this clause would compel the courts to view us as a nation of nations, with special status for Quebec and aboriginal people. Rather than one nation -- Canada -- comprised of equal provinces, equal cultures and equal people, we would become a nation of three legally distinct societies. We would have Quebec Canadians, aboriginal Canadians and just plain Canadians.

Unity is not the word that describes that scenario. That's why I'm concerned, and that's why I will vote no, because I see that by creating these legally distinct societies we will start to drive wedges -- we have created cracks and now we're driving wedges -- into the fabric of Canada. The document should surely emphasize our commonalities and create equal opportunities. Surely that is the vision. There is no argument with that vision that we all equally share.

The distinct-society clause was a matter discussed at great length as I, as a member of that constitutional committee, toured the province of British Columbia. There was a reluctance to have the distinct-society clause included. There was absolutely no question that there was universal recognition that, because of language, culture and the Napoleonic Code or French civil law, Quebec was different from other areas in Canada. And there would have been no problem with that particular clause if it were restricted to those three elements. Those three elements are included, but it's not restrictive, and since the entire constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be interpreted by the courts from this fundamental Canada clause, it would have been imperative to identify the primary characteristics and restrict the definition to those characteristics. The reality, from the information I have, is that the French culture is flourishing, and that the protection that is afforded under the Quebec Act of 1774, the British North America Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982, is more than adequate to protect the French culture -- which, again I say, is flourishing in Quebec.

Since the Canada clause must guide the courts in their future interpretation of the entire constitution, the special status and legal grounds for special constitutional powers that would result are a major concern of mine.

I recognize that there are some time elements, but I also note that we will be speaking until 10 o'clock. By the rules of the House, I have 30 minutes in which to speak, and I intend to take the 30 minutes.

The Speaker: The Chair has been advised that, by agreement, speakers will speak for 20 minutes. However, standing orders clearly allow for 30 minutes. In view of the agreement of the three House Leaders, and the Chair being so advised, the Chair rules that 20 minutes will be the limit for speaking on this issue.

C. Serwa: I bring to your attention that to the best of my knowledge, there was in fact no agreement.

The Speaker: Is the member rising on a point of order?

C. Serwa: If you wish, hon. Speaker. The point of order is that there was no agreement struck that limited the time of debate per individual member to 20 minutes. I checked with the former House Leader of our caucus.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I agree with the member. There is an agreement between the official opposition and the government to limit the debate to 20 minutes. It is not an agreement of the House. We did not change the rules for this debate. It was an agreement that we reached. Everybody has been holding to that agreement. However, if one member chooses to exercise the standing orders, I think it's his right to do so. It seems a bit puzzling. We're trying to fit everybody in, and we're extending the hours to do so. It's not fair to other members of the House, in my view, but I think the member is correct: there has been no formal agreement reached by all parties.

J. Tyabji: It is my understanding that it was reached between the Whips rather than the House Leaders, which might be why the Third Party House Leader doesn't know about it. But I don't have any objection to his freedom to speak.

The Speaker: The Chair, as always, wishes to carry out the will of the House. If it is the will of the House that this member continue for the full 30 minutes, then I ask leave of the House that the member continue for the full 30 minutes.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. I appreciate the latitude that the House has given me. I will try to expedite.

The second reason that I will be voting no is because of the proposed redistribution of seats in the House of Commons. No one in their wildest imagination anticipated a redistribution of seats that would see 42 seats transferred from the Senate to the House of Commons -- six times as many seats for central Canada as for western Canada. The goal of redistribution has for some time been to move closer to representation by population. Why the change in direction? What about fairness, and what about democracy? Why not reallocate the present seats in the House of Commons to see a greater emphasis on representation by population, rather than increasing the Members of Parliament without limit? 

[ Page 3539 ]

Canadians would be better served with less government rather than more government. Canadians are the most overgoverned people in the world, and we're talking about a third order of government.

My third principal criticism is the proposed E-and-a-half Senate. Although equal, it would only be partially elected and not at all effective. Each province is to be allowed to manipulate the selection process to suit its own whims and fancies. There is no consistency for the selection of Senators throughout this great nation of Canada. In fact, it may result in a movement of the patronage appointments that exist with the present Senate to allow the legislatures of the provinces to appoint Senators. One jurisdiction has already indicated that it will be doing that, and I suspect that many others will be inclined to follow.

The Senate will not be effective, and I think that is clear. It will have less power than the present Senate, with two major exceptions. One applies to the resource taxes. The reality is that the ability to veto those particular bills is in essence a non-issue again because of the small number of bills that may fall under that category.

There is some concern with the double-majority rule. Under the double-majority rule, if something is judged to materially affect French culture or French language, they can veto bills that would apply to all of Canada. I have a great deal of difficulty.... The reality is that the combined opportunity of the Senate and the House of Commons, if there is some difference in a bill, really means that with 337 Members of Parliament and only 62 Senators, Senators would have very little clout in the expanded House of Commons.

The fourth reason for rejecting the package is the clause relating to aboriginal self-government. No section is so vague or ill-defined as this one. I support the concept of aboriginal self-government as a form of local government, fairly negotiated on a tripartite basis between natives, the provincial government and the federal government, subject to the laws of the land flowing through the various levels of government. We already have aboriginal self-government in British Columbia with the Sechelt people. It's built on a municipal model. That would be a more applicable manner in which to go, rather than creating virtually sovereign nations that can set aside federal and provincial laws once they make their own laws. There is a great deal of unease and concern there. Why should we include in the constitution something that is vague and ill-defined? Surely when the definition is agreed to by the governments, it could and should then be included in the constitution.

I have stated again that the strongest reason I have for my opposition is the proposed changes to the amending formula. At present the amending formula only applies to the Supreme Court of Canada. To expand that unanimity requirement to the Senate and to the House of Commons would prevent all changes in the future to those fundamental institutions in this nation of Canada. The net result is that it's a bad deal for Canada, and in view of other proposed changes in this package, it's a bad deal for British Columbia. Regardless of the decision on the 26th, the debate will rage on and on -- there is no question about that. There are some 50-odd outstanding issues that require extended political negotiations. Premier Bourassa has stated that he would interpret a Yes vote as a constitutional springboard for more power.

Hon. Speaker, it's not great, but it's a deal. That doesn't convince me to vote for it. The constitution is the people's document. Each principle section should stand on its own merits. If there was faith and confidence in this agreement, we would have had the opportunity to vote independently on each major element of the constitution. Canadians could have signified what portions of the agreement they would like to have included in the constitution. A rejection would indicate a clear sense of direction that more work would have to be done on those elements in the constitution. That opportunity has not been made available, but it should have been. These are important issues. As I have said before, it is a people's document.

Canada will not break up, the economy will not go to pot, the dollar will not necessarily fall, interest rates will not necessarily go up and jobs will not necessarily be lost. A number of fallacies and scare tactics are being used to try to convince Canadians that yes is the only way to vote. The reality is that a number of elements are simply untrue. The decision must be made now. Is that a fact? Is there an urgency to make the decision? What is the urgency to make the decision? For a document that must serve this land for that timespan, isn't it appropriate to take our time and make the correct decision? I think that is important.

References have been made by some of the elite who are supporting this document that only enemies of Canada, mindless Canadians, racists and bigots will vote no. I suggest that ordinary Canadians will look at this and vote according to their consciences on this matter. For a variety of reasons, I suggest that the net result will probably be no.

[5:45]

To conclude my remarks, I will say that in the end, whether it's yes or no on October 26, we're going to do what Canadians have always done: we're going to link arms and work together to build the better and more beautiful Canada that we collectively see for the future. When we do that, Canada's future will be abundantly secured by the individuals who have built this nation with their social conscience, their work ethic and their multicultural base. That's the Canada of tomorrow, and working together we can achieve an equal Canada, an equal-opportunity Canada. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, and thank you to the House.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to take my place in this debate this evening. I haven't spoken much in the House since the election, but over the years, as a member of this House -- going back some 17 years now -- I've taken many opportunities to speak on many subjects, and I can't think of one speech or one occasion in all those years that I felt was as important as this one. Even in the Meech Lake debate in this House a few years ago, about which I felt very strongly, I did not have the sense of concern about the country that I have now. I think the decision that we make -- British 

[ Page 3540 ]

Columbians make, Canadians make -- on Monday is simply the most important decision that Canadians have ever made.

There are a wide variety of scenarios about what might happen if various outcomes occur on Monday. None of us knows. I think that's clear, and I suspect there's agreement about that. No one in this country knows what might occur in the months and years following Monday's vote. But I think you would have to be a very naive Canadian indeed to reject the possibility that one of the outcomes might be a referendum in Quebec which puts the separation question directly on the table, with the possibility of an acceptance this time, unlike the 1980 referendum in that province. That's a possibility, and I don't think anybody in this country would deny that it's a possibility. There will be differences of opinion about the probability. The fact that it's a possibility -- in my view, a very real possibility -- makes me take my judgment on this issue very seriously indeed, as I think all Canadians are taking their responsibility seriously. The degree of interest in this issue exceeds interest in any issue that I can remember in my political career.

I think there is a view among many, including some in this House, that rejection can somehow be followed by another process. Some suggest a constituent assembly, some suggest waiting for a while and others suggest we just reconvene the current process. There are a variety of proposals that somehow a better arrangement can be achieved. There is no doubt in my mind that if everyone had the will to do it and leave the economy on the back burner for another year or two, there might be a way to find better phrases. There might even be agreement on phrases here and there that could be dealt with better than what's being proposed. There's no doubt in my mind about that. We could, in fact, send the Premiers and the constitutional ministers back to a meeting tomorrow, and they could probably make some changes they would all agree to.

But I don't think anybody in this House believes that they would agree on the fundamental issues. I don't think anybody would suggest that those Premiers could go back and reconcile Preston Manning's view with Jacques Parizeau's view -- no one suggests that -- or with all the other combinations of issues, whether they relate to aboriginal concerns, western Canadian concerns, women's concerns, disabled concerns and on and on. No one who thinks about it carefully can conceive of how, if we all in our own regions or on our own issues take a stronger position, everywhere in this country -- because that's what a No vote will suggest to us all -- then will come a reconciliation. It's not possible; it's just not possible. Some members suggest that it is. It might be possible with another generation of politicians. It took some many months in this last period of time to bridge what are almost unbridgeable gaps between views of westerners versus central Canadians versus those from eastern Canada. The view of Canada is that it was founded by two founding peoples who arrived and founded a country that was inhabited by aboriginals. Nonetheless, it is a view of the country that we are composed of two founding peoples, or this competing view that there are a wide variety of cultures and all of them have an equal and valid role to play in a constitutional framework. Those are both legitimate concepts, and they have to be married. They have to be merged; they can't stand in competition. If they stand in competition, the country can't stand. So the process of trying to merge those competing values has taken place -- not at all perfectly. It can't be perfect, because everyone's measure is different. No one achieved their measure.

What we have is an honourable compromise. Not even the BNA Act of 1867 was received unanimously. Back in those days, one province in particular had to be given quite a number of financial inducements to come on board some time later. No set of negotiations has produced the kind of unanimity that this has produced.

When I speak on this issue in my constituency, I talk about Canadians and the leaders of this country. However people think of us, we have in fact delivered a miracle. I think it's a miracle that Clyde Wells, Robert Bourassa, Don Getty, the aboriginal leaders and others can agree unanimously and happily. To have had that happen in this country at this time just gives us an opportunity that we should not let slip. I feel that so strongly, because, as I said to begin with, we may never get the opportunity again. I for one do not want to live in a country where we will inevitably face the question of whether or not we should join the States because we don't have a country anymore. If that day ever came, I would look to live elsewhere in the world. I think many other Canadians feel the same way.

I want to tell you why I come to these kinds of conclusions. I'm not going to be saying anything that anybody doesn't know. I'm probably not going to say anything that hasn't already been said here in the debate today or will be said tomorrow. I just want to trace my own view of this issue and how I came to my conclusions. One of the things that enabled me to have a particular perspective on this, and which is really only available to a very few Canadians -- the Minister of Labour and the Premier have had that opportunity -- was sitting in meetings with representatives of every province and territory in this country and trying to reach compromise. It's no secret that all the political parties in this country have within them different perspectives on the constitution. It's no secret that within our party we have traditionally had differing views about the nature of the country, many of us proposing that the only way the country can stay together is by some form of special status for Quebec. That's party policy going back to 1965. It's rejected now. It's not party policy now, but it was in the '65 federal convention of the party. It's a view that I still hold. Only by way of some kind of special arrangements for Quebec is it possible to keep this country together, and I think we may well come to that at some point in the future. This document doesn't do it, but if Quebec is prepared to live with this, then maybe I'll be proven wrong, and I'll be delighted about that.

But I have participated in that kind of process as co-chair of a federal party committee dealing with the constitutional questions during the Meech Lake era. We spent days upon days trying to reconcile the differing views of the country. They were dramatically different 

[ Page 3541 ]

perspectives on the country, from Saskatchewan to Ontario to the Yukon to the province of Quebec. We had our own time trying to balance those, trying to get compromise and trying to find ways to bring people together. We were able to do it in the party over a very long and difficult process. We've been able to do it in the country over a very long and difficult process.

Think back through history -- not all the way back, but just back to Trudeau's desire to patriate the constitution. Or think back on the process even before that -- the '71 round in this very room, when the Premiers of the country and the Prime Minister agreed to a deal which didn't meet Quebec's needs. When you go through and examine what happened in the '80-82 period, and especially the meetings in the fall of '81 when there were attempts to patch together a constitution, and the failure then, again, to include Quebec in the arrangement, you recognize why the Meech Lake round was the Quebec round; why in fact there was then a decision to try to make the accommodation, to try to bridge that gap that had yet to be bridged between Quebec and the rest of the country. That's what we went through in the Meech Lake round. We found language then that was satisfactory to the province of Quebec and for the most part to the leaders in the rest of the country. But it was clearly not satisfactory to the people. There's no doubt about it, for a variety of reasons. In my party, one of the reasons was that it didn't include aboriginal people. In other parts of the country it was because northern Territories had to have unanimous consent to become provinces. In much of western Canada it was because the Senate was not dealt with as an issue. Division of powers was not dealt with. Those of us who supported Meech Lake tried to say that those issues would have their time; that we needed to deal with them one at a time; that this was the time to put Quebec into the constitution so that when we dealt with all these other issues we could do it as a whole country rather than just as part of a country. That was rejected. Why was it rejected? Because we didn't include all of these other issues that I mentioned: the division of powers, Senate reform, aboriginal issues, the northern Territories, and a concern about process. The process hadn't been done properly.

So Canada's leaders, against their better judgment, decided that we would have a Canada.... When I say "against their better judgment," I'm not speaking about all of them. There may have been some who wouldn't agree with that statement. But many of them, against their better judgment, decided to have the so-called Canada round, of which this is the conclusion. It's an attempt to take every issue that had been raised in Meech and was undealt with by Meech, and find an accommodation.

They dealt first of all with the process question. They established a variety of mechanisms for Canadians to deal with the issue, whether it was parliamentary committees, Spicer travelling the province and the community forums, the kitchen conversations that occurred as a result of Spicer's initiatives, or various legislative committees in provinces. It's a discussion that has gone on for several years now exhaustively, in every sense of that word. So we dealt with the process question in a really thorough way.

[6:00]

Then the people's elected representatives, the people who were entrusted to take these kinds of leadership positions, began to work on all the issues, one by one. They dealt with the very difficult question of inherent right to self-government. Compromises were made in that field, so much so that some native leaders have trouble accepting what they see as an inadequate package, so much so that some Canadians and British Columbians think there was too much given. But it was a trade-off, and agreements were reached. The northern territories -- all three of them, soon -- had their concerns met. The concern out of Meech that they required unanimous consent to become provinces is now gone. We're back to the pre-1981 arrangement, where it simply takes a decision of the federal parliament to decide on new provinces.

We dealt with western concerns. Western concerns are difficult to describe precisely, but they generally relate to the alienation westerners feel, the concern that westerners have that the 62.5 percent of Canadians who live in Ontario and Quebec unfairly dominate western concerns. I've never been a supporter of the Senate in the first place, and if we were to have one, I have never been a supporter of a triple-E Senate. I've compromised; you have to compromise. There are western Canadians who felt there was a need -- and there are some in the east; the province of Newfoundland is on this list -- to have some kind of second chamber in this country that was based not on equality of peoples but on equality of pieces of geography. It's a concept that I find difficult to understand. I've never understood the American Senate. I don't think it's a democratic institution at all; it just happens to be based on lines that were historically drawn on a map, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Nonetheless, I've compromised. Lots of people have compromised on that issue. We've agreed to some kind of new second chamber, based on the equality-of-provinces notion, but it's one that is more creative. Look at the Australian model, the American model and the West German model -- some of the more prominent dual-chamber models. Look at all of those and their weaknesses, and look at the strengths that the 17 leaders in this country were able to reach. When you look at that institution, I think you can see that it has the very real potential of becoming a very powerful instrument in Ottawa. The most important reason it will become an important instrument, apart from the fact that its legitimacy is certain because of being elected, is because not a single member of that chamber will ever be able to sit in the cabinet. That point escapes a lot of attention, and, I think, often escapes understanding. The independence of a backbencher, if that backbencher isn't always keeping their eye on being a cabinet minister, is pretty profound, let me tell you. If you know that you will never go into cabinet, you're going to operate far more independently, particularly when you've been elected separately to represent a region in this way or a province in this way. You are going to operate far more independently of your caucus, your party and of the other part of the caucus. 

[ Page 3542 ]

You're going to start to form alliances that cross party lines completely and go into geographical lines and into a whole variety of other ideological lines. For those reasons, I think you'll find that that chamber will become a very powerful instrument in this country.

The same kinds of arguments about reaching accommodation between competing interests has been done in a whole variety of issues in this package. I am proud to be able to vote yes on Monday. I think Canadians should feel good about their elected leaders. Whatever they think of their elected leaders, they should feel good about the fact that these leaders have done something that no leaders in this country have ever been able to do before: bridge some almost unbridgeable gaps. We should take advantage of this opportunity.

Hon. G. Clark: I move adjournment of the debate on this constitutional motion until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that this House continue to sit until not later than 10 p.m.

Motion approved.

The sitting concluded at 6:05 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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