Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1992

Evening Sitting

Volume 5, No. 17

[ Page 3543 ]

The House continued at 6:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on the constitutional motion.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.

J. Beattie: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You're doing a yeoman's job remembering all of the proper labels.

As many others have said, it's a pleasure for me to be able to stand up and address this important issue. Regardless of our point of view on this issue, our particular point of view is certainly overshadowed by the fact that we all think it is a very important issue. I am quite concerned that I'll not be able to say something as eloquent as many of the other members have, and I wish to refer to the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for Richmond-Steveston -- whom I didn't happen to agree with but whom I thought brought some very cogent views to the debate. I was certainly impressed yesterday with my fellow member from Nanaimo and also the member to my right here, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I think there have been some excellent comments about this whole issue.

As I have grown in Canada as an individual, as a Canadian, my views about Canada have evolved, and that's partly a process of being young and becoming older, but it's also a process of thinking about things in different ways within different contexts. I refer in my own mind back to some of the issues that have been guideposts in the development of Canada and in my thinking -- the flag debate, for example.

I think about the issues surrounding that debate when I was in school in Ontario and the sense of unfamiliarity with that red and white emblem in the sky and how we've grown into an acceptance of that flag and, in fact, a sense of love for that symbol as it is there on the flagpole. I think about Expo 67 and the type of emotion that it generated in me. That was the year I finished high school, and I was able to go to Montreal and sort of get a vision of the vastness of the country and feel a special pride for the province of Ontario at that time, remembering the pavilion, and then also see us in the world context, which was really quite amazing.

Another important guidepost in my evolution as a Canadian was the recognition of a strong separatist movement in Quebec. It was astounding to me to see mailboxes exploding in my country. It was astounding for me to recognize that people were willing to go to the extent they were in order to make a point about their strong feelings of nationalism and their relationship to other people in this country.

When I moved from the east to the west as a full-time resident in 1976, it was only then that I realized that western Canada had a very strong sense of alienation from the east. That was something I had heard about when I lived in Hamilton and in Montreal, but I could never really quite comprehend. As time went by I came to recognize that there was some validity to this sense of isolation that existed in the west, and that they felt overwhelmed by the numbers in the east. They felt overwhelmed by Parliament being in Ottawa. It was a sense of removal that added to this sense of not being part of some greater nation.

Latterly, my deep feelings about Canada have been changed quite drastically by my recognition of the relationship of aboriginal people to this country and finally by the recognition, after seeing it firsthand in my own constituency and community and across the country, of the desperation and the sense of alienation that exists within the aboriginal communities. It's something that I didn't learn about in high school or at any time during my schooling.

I would say that, as a Canadian, my learning experience is not that much different from any others here in this chamber or in this province or in this country. Nevertheless, to me it's a very exciting experience that I've been through, and I certainly feel thrilled and privileged to have experienced it in Canada.

As I've participated in this debate in the last number of weeks, the most exciting times I've had have been when I've had the opportunity to speak to schoolchildren. There have been a couple of reasons for that. One is that I've been able to put the Charlottetown accord -- the unity agreement -- into its simplest terms, so that children who don't have a lot of experience or facts, but have a sense of things, can understand the direction and the gist of the undertaking that the Charlottetown accord is presenting.

This is not to say that not having the facts is bad or good. But as with schoolchildren up to grades 7, 8 or 9, the lack of facts is also found in other parts of our constituency. I know that many adults in British Columbia, either because of a lack of time or initiative or sometimes a lack of ability to absorb that much information, are not going into this debate with all of the information that we have or that those who have spent a great deal of time studying the issue have. I don't think that's necessarily going to jeopardize their decision making, because, again, it's possible to boil down the Charlottetown agreement into some pretty fundamental terms and principles. Not having the ability to digest the intricacies, we are still able to understand the basic principles and the process, which I think are the most important elements of the Charlottetown agreement.

What are some of the important principles embodied in the Charlottetown agreement? One of the most important is inclusivity. This agreement speaks to the inclusion of a vast number of diverse peoples, regions, individuals and points of view. That is a basic principle that is embodied in this agreement.

Another basic principle embodied in this agreement is the honouring of historical commitments. The most important historical agreement that I think is defended is the relationship of Quebec as a founding nation within the rest of Canada. That agreement was made, and the Charlottetown accord continues to recognize it.

Another basic principle that's recognized here is that there are two important levels of government: federal and provincial. There's a recognition that we must have 

[ Page 3544 ]

a strong federal government, but underneath that there is the need for provincial governments to exert themselves in ways which are particular to the area.

[6:15]

Finally, a very important principle, which I think is spoken to in the Senate clauses, is that regional values are very important. They're given a respected and honoured place within this agreement. I think the Senate speaks very strongly to the importance of regions within our country. So those are the basic principles that I believe are addressed in the Charlottetown accord.

The second thread that is very important within this accord is the process. For those people who are unable to grasp the complexities or the intricacies of the deal, I think it's very important that they understand that a very legitimate process has taken place as this accord was structured.

The components of this process were demanded by Canadians, and I think they were received. The first important component of the process was consultation. Other speakers have referred to the debate that's taken place in Canada since the seventies, when the first idea that we should patriate our constitution was initiated, through the 1982 patriation, the Meech Lake accord and up to the present, when this accord was drafted. In the interim, specifically in the later years, a very thorough attempt has been made to consult with all the people in Canada who have had an interest in taking part in this consultation. I don't think we can say that people have been wilfully excluded from this process. I don't think we can say that people have not had the opportunity to participate over an extended period of time. There has been a very serious attempt to consult.

Another part of the process, which I think people always expect, is the element of compromise. When I was going to Catholic college in Montreal, I remember having a discussion with one of my professors who was a lay professor, and she said that in her mind compromise was one of the highest ideals and one of the greatest values. As a teenager at the time, I didn't think that was a valid point; I thought it was an attempt to somehow blunt my radical edge. Now, as I review that statement, I think that there's a great deal of profound meaning to it, because ultimately, as human beings, we're forced to exist within a confined environment. We're forced to live with disciplines over which we have no control, the elements being the most basic of those. The parry and thrust of just existing in a community is a discipline that we can't escape.

In order to live with those disciplines, we must make some compromises. Embodied in the word "compromise" is a lot more than just what some people are attempting to attribute to it. People are attempting to trivialize compromise at this time.

To me, compromise embodies some very important values and qualities. One of them is caring. When you say that you're willing to make a compromise on your strongly held principles, you're saying that you care for the other person. When you step up and proudly say, "I will modify my demands for you," you are exhibiting caring for other people.

Another thing that is embodied in that is tolerance. Tolerance to me is not quite the word that caring is. Nevertheless, even if you don't agree with somebody, even if you don't care about somebody, by saying that you are willing to compromise with them, you're saying that you're willing to tolerate their positions and their views, and you're willing to live with their demands as well.

Finally, from a pragmatic point of view and from the point of view of politicians, compromise speaks of political wisdom. Without compromise we as politicians recognize that we will be shedding our blood every day on the streets in trying to win points that may be valid but may be too ideal, or whatever. We recognize that with our constituents, with each other as opposition members and even as members of our own party, we must exercise political wisdom and attempt to move the agenda forward.

Compromise is a very important element of this deal. It should in no way be trivialized. Heaven forbid that we would resort to the options that come to us if we refuse compromise. I think we just have to look around at the dictatorships in this world, where people refuse to compromise because somehow they think they have the complete answer on all that is good.

Finally, within the process of this agreement, as well as consultation and compromise comes the whole concept of consensus. And again, in my discussions with people, there is an attempt to trivialize what consensus actually means. I think that consensus validates the integrity of the process from every position that may be held. The intentions of those people who eventually signed this agreement are denigrated if we don't recognize that the consensus they arrived at only came about through serious thought and discussion, and serious acceptance of the alternatives. So when we talk about four aboriginal leaders, two northern territorial leaders, ten Premiers, and one Prime Minister coming to a consensual agreement on this, we must recognize that they have done so not with a compromise of their integrity but with integrity. They bring to the agreement their integrity by saying that they accept it.

They can be criticized as individuals, but not all of them will fail under our eyes. Each one of them, by saying yes to a consensual agreement, validated the process. I'm not sure that I'm actually making my point clearly, but I think what I'm saying is that they have to be appreciated as strong individuals who have said yes. That has a great deal of meaning to me.

So on the principle aspect and on the process aspect, I think it's a good deal. I really do. I know that we've had a lot of discussion about some of the finer points: the 25 percent, the Canada clause and many other details that I agree are very important. But those are not the issues upon which most Canadians are going to make their decision. Most of them are going to make their decision based on the principle and the process, and I think those two are good.

On the Yes side, I think there has been an acknowledgement that the deal is not perfect, and that tacitly acknowledges that there will be some downsides to the agreement. There will be some turmoil over the accep-

[ Page 3545 ]

tance of the agreement and some difficult negotiations. One of the issues that's always brought up is the challenge of self-government. It's not clear as crystal how it will evolve. But without the agreement, it's not clear as crystal how it will evolve either. So there's going to be some turmoil as we put the final shape on this agreement once it's signed.

On the other hand, even though the Yes side has acknowledged -- partly because the No side has brought it up so eloquently -- all of the problems throughout, and even though the Yes side has attempted to address those concerns, I don't really remember hearing a No speaker stand up and courageously acknowledge the potentially negative aspects of saying no. I've heard them say that no, they don't think that will happen: no, we're not going to have an increased interest rate; no, the dollar's not going to do something outrageous; or no, the country's not going to fall apart. I've heard them all say that. But whereas we have been forced to have some kind of a crystal ball and take their concerns extremely seriously and explain them, I haven't heard anybody on the No side say: "Well, okay, let's just acknowledge that Quebec might leave, that the Parti Québécois might get elected and that indeed they may be a separatist party." They refuse to follow those arguments through.

So we're left with this uncomfortable kind of feeling that you are, on the No side, just naysayers. You're not willing to follow it through to the end, and you're imposing all of the responsibilities for defence on the Yes side. It's unfortunate, because it's a principle of really fair sharing of debate.... I don't think the No side has gone all the way. It's unfortunate.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I think the Yes vote is good for this province. I think it allows us to have stronger representation.

Madam Speaker, do I have a few more minutes, or is my time up?

The Speaker: Hon. member, in the absence of any motion passed to the contrary, the standing orders do apply. I invite the member to continue, if he chooses, until 6:40.

J. Beattie: As we had agreement to wrap up at certain times, I believe I will wrap up by saying that I feel that this is a strong agreement that reinforces the integrity of our nation. I would feel extremely uncomfortable with the results of a No vote in this province or in this country. I hope that the Yes side will prevail.

H. Lali: It is with great pride that I support the Canada unity agreement, and it is with great pride that I wear this Yes button, both outside and inside this House. I am proud as an ethnic Canadian, with origins in the Punjab region of India, and as a western Canadian, because of addressing east-west imbalances with this Canada unity agreement. I am also proud as a British Columbian, because this agreement addresses all six points that were put on the table by the negotiators on behalf of British Columbia, such as a limited distinct-society clause for Quebec, a veto on future constitutional changes to the House of Commons and the Senate for British Columbia, a reformed and elected Senate, more provincial powers over the economy, protection of our social programs -- which are the envy of the world -- and, of course, aboriginal self-government.

[6:30]

There are four basic reasons that I support the Canada unity agreement. First of all, it ensures that Canada will stay strong and united, with Quebec remaining in the country. It came as a result of our dealing with the federalists, as represented by Premier Bourassa, rather than with the separatists. When Meech Lake failed, there was still a feeling after that that we could come to another agreement with Mr. Bourassa at the table. But such are not the circumstances that exist today. There's an upcoming election to be called within a year in Quebec, and if the No side prevails in this vote on October 26, you can be assured of one thing, and that is that Mr. Bourassa will not win the election. Then we will be left with dealing with Mr. Parizeau, who will be talking about separation and not unity.

Secondly, a Yes vote on October 26 will mean that the economy will become the number one priority for all of the elected governments in this country. It would eliminate the duplication which presently exists in such areas as forestry, mining, housing, urban affairs, tourism, labour training and regional development. By eliminating the duplication, we would be assured of having economic policies in British Columbia that are made by British Columbians and not dictated to us by people in Ottawa. By putting the constitutional wrangling behind us, we can finally make bread-and-butter issues like jobs and the economy our number one priorities.

As a personal example, for the last month and a half I have spent a considerable amount of time -- as a matter of fact, most of my working time -- on the constitutional debate, the meetings I've been attending, the information I have been reading, the people I've talked to, and in answering letters and telephone calls all related to the constitution. Yet the issues that I was elected by the people of my riding to represent, such as job creation and talking to town councils, native bands, chambers of commerce, individuals and entrepreneurs who wanted to talk about the economic issues, have gone on the back burner. I can assure you that a No vote would result in politicians and elected governments throughout this country again concentrating most of their time on constitutional wrangling when they could be doing that thing which they were elected to do: helping to create jobs and looking at the unemployment situation in the country.

The third reason is that I believe this agreement is good for British Columbia, not only because all six of the demands that we put forth are addressed within the agreement, but also because by 1996 we will get seven new seats, as opposed to the old formula which would give us only two seats by the year 2001. British Columbia has gained more seats in the combined House of Commons and Senate than any other province.

Fourthly, we can finally get on with the business of redressing a longstanding historical wrong by negotiat-

[ Page 3546 ]

ing self-government and reaching a fair and honourable settlement with the first Canadians to have inhabited this land, and that's the aboriginal people of Canada. This is indeed a historic opportunity for us to do so. By this agreement, Canada is not giving something new to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. It merely reaffirms something which they had for thousands of years before the rest of us came to this land. The aboriginal people had various systems of self-government, ranging from the matriarchal system to a very democratic system predating what we know as modern democracy by thousands of years.

When I hear people in the public or in the news saying that if you give people power all they want is more power, I find it not only totally irrelevant but totally misleading -- to say that all of a sudden, if the native peoples achieve self-government, they're going to turn around and take over this country.

I'm also sad to see the intolerance being exhibited by the No forces. I'm especially disturbed by what the Liberal and Social Credit opposition have had to say over the last two days. I'm deeply disturbed by some of the comments and almost ashamed to be in this House at the same time when these comments are emanating from the opposite benches, especially the intolerance of Quebec, aboriginal peoples, ethnic minorities and women.

At the same time that intolerance comes through loud and clear, not just in this House but outside it as well, from people on the No side towards people representing the Yes side. The most ridiculous statement that I have heard to date was made by the member for Okanagan East yesterday in the Legislature. And I quote her: "...in the Liberal caucus we have taken the approach that we will not tell people how to vote." Meanwhile, both the former Liberal House Leader and the former Liberal caucus chairperson were fired precisely because they were being forced against their will to support the No side; or they didn't want to keep their mouth shut, because they wanted to support the Yes side. They were forcefully being denied their most fundamental democratic right, and that is the freedom of expression and choice.

A. Warnke: Nonsense. You don't know the facts.

H. Lali: And that's why he got fired. The member opposite doesn't claim that he was fired...

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

H. Lali: ...but I beg to differ. Perhaps he hasn't had a chance to talk lately to the two members about how they feel.

I question the motive of the leadership on the No side. The leadership on the No side is an amalgam of has-beens and never-beens. On the has-been side, you take a look at Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who is a former Prime Minister; you have Bill Vander Zalm, who is a former Premier; and Rafe Mair, who is a former MLA. On the never-been side, you have Mr. Jacques Parizeau, an opposition leader who has never been a Premier but is aspiring; Sharon Carstairs, who was once the Leader of the Opposition, but is now the leader of a third party; and Preston Manning, who's still hoping to be elected. Then we have the leader of the third party, again an aspiring Premier, and another wannabe, the leader of the Liberal Party.

What exactly is their motive? All you have on the one side are people who have either been thrown out of power or have never been in power. Why are they all amalgamating into one group to represent the No side? That's because they represent parochial interests only. They want short-term political gain in upcoming elections at the expense of the unity and the future of this country. They, especially the people who have never been, are opposing those leaders simply because the leaders in power right now are voting yes; and to oppose them, they are going to vote no. And they are encouraging people in the communities, the provinces and Canada to do the same.

I would like to point to the all-party special committee on the constitution that was made up of Liberal, Social Credit and New Democrat MLAs. There was unanimous support for the recommendations put forth in the British Columbia report. All six of these items brought to the table by the B.C. negotiators have been addressed under the unity agreement, but you find not only both leaders of the opposition but their respective caucuses now supporting the No side. My question is: which were the real Liberals or the real Socreds? Would the real Socreds and the real Liberals please stand up?

One of the main features that forces on the No side have kept complaining about is that the Prime Minister and some people on the Yes side have been fearmongering in trying to get people to vote yes. I have talked to many of my colleagues, and I'm supportive of that view as well. I have never supported fearmongering myself. When I go out to public meetings, and I talk to people, give speeches and go out in debates, I've never used fearmongering tactics, and I don't support it. Yet at the same time, the leadership on the No side is doing exactly the same thing. They have been making statements which have been inflaming some of the racial and ethnic tensions that have existed in society and that exist today. Each time any one of these leaders gets a chance, they continue to inflame those sentiments by using language that is anti-French, anti-Quebec, anti-aboriginal, anti-ethnic, anti-women or anti-multicultural. Yet at the same time, they don't propose any alternatives of their own that would bring about what they claim would be a better agreement.

I've heard members opposite and leaders on the No side consistently saying that by putting in references to aboriginal peoples, ethnic groups and women, etc., this agreement is dividing the country along racial, ethnic and gender lines. Well, my friends, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I was disturbed by the comments made yesterday by the member for Okanagan East when she talked about the equality of every Canadian to every other Canadian:

"That equality must be entrenched in the constitution. The equality that I'm talking about is not an equality that separates us, that divides us and that puts walls between us based on language or race or gender, but one that recognizes that the paramount principles 

[ Page 3547 ]

have to be ones of equality and that those are entrenched in the Charter of Rights."

If the member for Okanagan East had spent more time reading the Canadian unity agreement and the text, instead of backstabbing her own colleagues, she would have come to the realization that that equality is exactly what is being talked about in the unity agreement. As a person from a visible minority, and the member opposite who made those remarks yesterday being from that same visible minority, I would have hoped that she would have seen that in the agreement.

What is the equality that the people on the opposite benches are referring to? Presently two-thirds of the population incarcerated in our jails are aboriginal people. Is that equality? We have finally started seeing women making inroads into higher-echelon jobs, but when it comes to the top jobs within corporations -- the chief executive officers and major decision-making jobs -- women are not represented. I ask the people on the opposite benches: is that equality? Is that your idea of equality? When people from the Third World and visible minorities have a tough time trying to access even the most menial of jobs or educational opportunities, I ask the people opposite: is that your definition of equality? When I see that aboriginal people can't get access to the employment or the proper, safe housing that they are consistently being denied because of their race, I ask the people on the opposite benches: is that your definition of equality? It certainly isn't mine, and it certainly isn't the definition that my colleagues on this side adhere to. We're supporting this document because it addresses those inequalities that exist in our society.

[6:45]

In order for people to come up with any solutions on a particular problem, first they have to recognize it. The Canada unity agreement recognizes that we have a problem in Canadian society with all of the inequalities that exist based on race, gender and ethnic group. A recognition of that problem in the Canada unity agreement says to me that there is a problem in Canadian society, and it's time we recognized it and started looking at solutions. All these people who are presently not feeling equal in Canada can become equal citizens and enjoy all those equalities in a future Canada.

My colleague for North Coast talked about the bigotry and racism that exists and how completely shocked he has been by not only reading about it but also by witnessing it through comments that people have made. I looked at three different items. One of them was in a paper I just read. Federal MP Nelson Riis was at a public meeting. One person got up and said that we wouldn't have this problem if we turned around and shot all the aboriginals and all the Québécois.

It also reminds me of the debate that took place in Hope last week. One of the people who was representing the Yes side was a person who worked as the administrator for the Sto:lo nation in East Fraser Valley. Every time he got up to speak or answer a question relating to aboriginals, he was told by a group of people who were sitting right up at the front: "Shut up. We don't want to hear what you have to say. Go back to the reserve." Those kinds of statements don't make me feel proud to be a Canadian. Whenever I got up to speak on ethnic or aboriginal issues, those same people turned around and told me the same thing.

A third instance that I'd like to use is the objection that these people have to the 25 percent minimum representation for Quebec. I would like to state that throughout the history of Canada we have never had 100 percent representation by population for any particular group. We have had differences in our representation and minimum representation. When British Columbia first came into Confederation, according to 100 percent representation by population, we should have been allowed one seat, but we were guaranteed a minimum of seven.

F. Gingell: Six.

H. Lali: I stand corrected. The member opposite says it was six.

We have four provinces in Canada who happen to have minimum representation: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick -- and also Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Yet when it comes to Quebec, the French-speaking people of Canada, there's an objection from these people: "Why are they getting a minimum guarantee?" Yet those same people will not recognize or even want to talk about the fact that we have four English-speaking provinces that are getting exactly the same minimum representation. Where's the objection?

F. Gingell: Not true.

H. Lali: I don't know where you've been, but everywhere I've gone and wherever I've listened, they don't seem to be objecting to that.

The members opposite seem not to want to admit to any kinds of consequences that may result from a No vote. It's like the old ostrich story: put your head in the sand; those problems aren't there; they'll probably go away all on their own.

As I stated earlier, I have never used fearmongering tactics. But when I talk to people, I tell them: don't be fooled by the belief that there will be no consequences as a result of a negative vote on October 26, because there will be. As I mentioned earlier, the Quebec election will follow within a year. Mr. Bourassa, who represents the federalist side, will definitely lose the election, and then you'll be dealing with Mr. Parizeau. As I mentioned earlier, he will not be talking about unity; he will be talking about separation. Try to get a better deal out of Mr. Parizeau than you did with Mr. Bourassa.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that as a Canadian, a British Columbian and a member of a visible ethnic minority, I am proud to support this agreement because it recognizes some of the inequalities that exist, and there is a dire need for us to address them. It is with pride that I will wear this button, and it is with pride that I will be going out into the 

[ Page 3548 ]

communities to try to convince as many people as I possibly can that they should vote yes.

L. Stephens: It is with great honour that I rise today to address the House on the most important of issues: the constitution of Canada. Having followed this issue very closely and being a member of the all-party committee on the constitution, I have had an opportunity to meet with British Columbians and to hear their opinions on this matter. I had the chance to travel around the province with the committee to hear people's comments and concerns. So it was with great joy and happiness that I discovered that the territorial leaders, the Premiers, the Prime Minister and the aboriginal leaders had come to an agreement on August 28 -- until I discovered what had been agreed to. It is with regret that I must stand in this House and tell British Columbians that their concerns were heard, but they are not reflected in this accord.

There are many reasons why I am opposed to the Charlottetown accord, and many of those are economic. We've heard time after time from those on the Yes side that we must pass this accord in order to get on with the pressing economic issues that are upon us. My response to this weak sales pitch is that we are fully capable of managing discussions on two important topics at the same time. So I take particular issue with those who tell Canadians they can't negotiate the constitution and deal with the economy during the same day.

On Monday of this week the chair of one of the largest banks in Canada stated that Canada would cease to have a constitution should Canadians decide not to vote yes. I would like to address this comment and misconception, which is not only widespread but, in my opinion, indicative of what the Yes side is trying to advance. The Yes side says that if we vote no, there will be dire consequences, and this agreement can never be repeated. We already have a constitution in Canada; we've had one since 1867, and we have made several amendments to it since that time. This proposed accord is only an amendment to the constitution that we already have. I urge each and every Canadian to read not only the Charlottetown accord but also the Constitution Act of 1867 and the 1982 amendments to it.

Given that the economy is the number one issue in the country, let's take a look at the economic union clause. For the record, let me provide the House with the wording of this clause:

"The policy objectives set out in the provisions on the economic union should include, but not be limited to: working together to strengthen the Canadian economic union, the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital; the goal of full employment; ensuring that all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living; and ensuring sustainable and equitable development."

These are nothing more than policy objectives to which no legislature can be bound by law.

Nor do I accept the argument stating that this accord is good for the economy. Let there be no mistake that this accord taken by itself does nothing to the economy. It does not alter the way we do business, nor does it lower our taxes. The only thing that can affect our economy is the political will to do so. The fearmongers who threaten opponents of the deal with what a No vote will do to the economy should perhaps revisit their policies and recognize that if our economy takes a turn for the worse after this deal is rejected, it will be the fault of politicians for completely ignoring the financial mess of the country and for creating the fear in foreign investors. They will have no one to blame but themselves.

With so much talk revolving around some of the bigger issues in this package, there is one point which I feel has been largely overlooked. What we should be discussing is the need for a common market agreement between provinces, an agreement which is outside the reach of constitutional horse-trading, an agreement which addresses the need to make Canada more productive.

Hon. Speaker, I was very disturbed when I heard members opposite tell the UBCM at this year's AGM in the Okanagan that no new powers are available to one province and not to another. This accord not only gives different powers to one province, it virtually entrenches those powers in perpetuity through the proposed changes to the amending formula. I can only assume that one who does not understand this has not read the accord.

The concept of a floor of House of Commons seats is indeed practised in Canada, and I refer particularly to Prince Edward Island. However, entrenching a number of seats versus a percentage of seats is a very significant difference. This percentage is a clear deviation from the principle of one person, one vote -- the very foundation of democracy.

With regard to the Senate proposals, I quote again from the accord: "The constitution should be amended to provide that Senators are elected either by the population of the provinces and territories of Canada or by the members of their provincial or territorial legislative assemblies." In other words, the provincial legislatures have every legal right to deny a direct vote by the people in electing provincial representatives to the Senate. Indeed, four provinces, including this NDP administration, have said they will use their discretion as to how Senators shall be elected. This government has stated publicly that there will be gender-balanced Senate representation from British Columbia. It could be argued that this inconsistency will mean that some provincial Senators are not as legitimate as others. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of having Senators elected was to lend legitimacy to their position and their powers.

The second area is where some Senators are more equal than others. A double majority vote will be entrenched, giving francophone Senators the power to veto legislation pertaining to French language and culture. Again, I feel it is important to reiterate that anyone who can stand before me and argue that no one province got any powers above and beyond any other province is simply not being truthful.

Finally, I would like to express some thoughts on the proposals regarding aboriginal peoples. No one will argue that the history of government policy pertaining to aboriginal people is an honourable one. There are many changes that must be brought about to enable the 

[ Page 3549 ]

first peoples to take their rightful place in Canada. Regardless of what happens to the Charlottetown accord, this government must address the needs of aboriginal people. This government must press the federal government to repeal the Indian Act and enable all governments to address the legitimate concerns of first peoples. I can only hope that this government does not again blame someone else for something over which it has substantial control.

[7:00]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The arguments of the Yes side are always prefaced with the words: "This is a compromise agreement. This is not a perfect deal." I have to agree with them on these points. This is not a perfect deal; this is not a good deal; this is not even an adequate deal. This is a bad deal. It is bad for British Columbia, and it is also bad for Quebec, because it is a deal which will foster animosity and conflict. The Charlottetown accord will not serve any of us well in the long run. I have great confidence in the ability of British Columbians to become informed and to make the right decision.

Finally, hon. members, I would like all members to ask themselves two questions before they go off to the polling booth. The first one is: does this agreement further the principle of equal representation for all people and all provinces in Canada? Secondly, does this agreement make Canada easier to govern? For me the answer is no, and I will be voting no.

F. Gingell: Before I give my very short prepared text, I would like to deal, if I may, with a couple of matters that have come up during the course of the debate.

I appreciate that those of us on the No side are somewhat of a ragbag of different groups. There are certainly people on the No side who take positions and make statements with which I do not agree and with which I will not associate myself. Surely the attacks that we have been subjected to by the member for North Coast and recently in statements by the member for Yale-Lillooet, which in effect put us all in one big group and accuse us of being racist, are unparliamentary, unnecessary and certainly untrue.

If I may, hon. Speaker, I would just like to deal with a couple of other items. I'm sorry that the member for Vancouver-Hastings isn't here. While I was lying on my sickbed yesterday trying to stay awake -- that, of course, was because of the pills I'm taking which cause drowsiness, rather than because of the speeches -- it was stated by that member that on a strict representation by population, the province of Ontario was short by 30 seats. I have made a calculation. I believe that the province of Ontario is short by five seats, and the province of British Columbia will be short by four seats.

The statement that was made....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, this is after the adjustment. If you take it to prior to that, it certainly wouldn't be 30 seats, because if they're only short five now and they've got 16 more, 16 and five are 21. So that doesn't come up to 30. But it's another one of these occasions where people are making statements that really don't have any basis in fact. That's a mathematical calculation.

We heard also today the Minister of Finance, who specifically said in his speech that the reason Canada's debt had been downgraded was because of uncertainty over the constitutional issue. I'm sure that many members besides me heard the vice-president of Standard and Poor's, who was the official responsible for that decision, state very clearly that the constitutional uncertainty in Canada was completely irrelevant in their decision, and that the only reason they had downgraded the rating -- which, incidentally, was on foreign currency debt only for two federal Crown corporations -- was because of the size of the deficits in both the federal government and the provinces. We continually hear all of these statements that are just pushing the truth.

There was a little bit of an exchange just now with the member for Yale-Lillooet during the speech with respect to the floor of the number of seats. As my friend from Langley stated, the floor that was given to Prince Edward Island was a specific number. Actually, in 1873, when this matter was settled, Prince Edward Island was given six seats out of the total House of 207 members, at that point. That's roughly 3 percent, I think you will agree. There wasn't any agreement that Prince Edward Island would always have 3 percent or would always be guaranteed a minimum of 2 percent; they were guaranteed six seats, or later four. It's very different. It is a specific number.

You can appreciate that if we continue to increase the size of the House of Commons, as we seem to do all the time against the wishes of the Canadian people.... I'm sure they would have been much happier if instead of having 42 more seats, we would have 42 fewer seats. If Prince Edward Island has four out of 400, it's only 1 percent; and if it's four out of 500, it's only 0.8 percent. So it is very different. It simply isn't the same question.

However much I personally would like to get the constitutional issue behind us by voting yes to the referendum question on October 26, I have concerns that keep me from endorsing it. First, I don't believe that a Yes vote will put the whole discussion behind us. The accord is full of uncertainty and lack of clarity, particularly in the aboriginal self-government and the economic union sections, that will take many years to settle. Secondly, the areas that are clear, such as Senate reform, the configuration of the House of Commons and the selection of Supreme Court justices, all give special privileges to certain groups of Canadians, and that's not a foundation on which we can build a fair democracy. Thirdly, I do not like the unanimity requirement for changing provisions dealing with the Senate, the House of Commons and the Supreme Court. This requirement of unanimity will be more of a barrier to logical change than a protection against illogical change. Lastly, I am disappointed that property rights were omitted. The actions of this government in the last session of this Legislature underscore the need to enshrine such guarantees in our constitution.

[ Page 3550 ]

There are simply too many issues wrapped up in this referendum question. In common with many British Columbians, my reservations have nothing to do with the acceptance of Quebec as a culturally distinct society or with interpretations of other sections which serve to pit province against province, but rather with the problematic issues mentioned before. My deep concern for a healthy, united future for Canada, in the final analysis, leads me to the conclusion that this constitutional proposal is not our last best chance. In choosing to withhold my endorsement, I also maintain that we can improve on this proposal on an issue-by-issue basis, and the net beneficiary will be our nation as a whole.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to pick the agreement apart. I've written a speech which I call "The Dance of Dangerous Delusions." Canada is in danger of joining the dance of dangerous delusions -- a path that has led many great nations to ruin or decline. Nations dance to destruction when they adopt policies contrary to their self-interest. A better alternative is available for one willing to consider it. Early in mankind's dance of delusions, the Trojans hauled the wooden horse inside their walls, despite being warned that it was a Greek trick. In our own century, Winston Churchill was widely ridiculed by his countrymen for insisting that democracy was under threat, until the bombs began falling in the streets. Now Canada seems to be starting its own dance of dangerous delusions.

This country may break apart because too many Canadians are indifferent to a possible breakup of the country and too few have really begun to recognize the consequences of choosing the wrong alternative. Destruction is the final step of the dance of dangerous delusions. It is a delusion that a national breakup would be relatively smooth and involve only minimal costs. That risk sends Canada down this road of destruction.

A recent poll indicated that the majority of Canadians surveyed outside Quebec believe that if Quebec separates, the economy of what remains of Canada will be unchanged or even stronger. Who are these people? How much time have they spent thinking about what would really happen? That separation would be relatively easy and without cost is not just a dangerous delusion, it is a real-world impossibility. The costs would be huge, long-lasting and paid for by everyone in Canada -- in Quebec and in every other province and territory. No one would escape lightly.

It requires no constitutional expertise to see that many assumptions that are being made are simplistic nonsense. Some people assume, for instance, that with some new form of association between Quebec and the rest of Canada, we will have the continuation of a common currency, a common international trade and a stabilizing fiscal structure. This is not to happen. Even in the spirit of harmony and selflessness -- and history warns us of that -- emotion cannot be kept out of the picture. Political separation would inevitably result in economic separation, which in turn would see the emergence of two weaker regional currencies, provoking a host of economic problems. The Canadian dollar would be undermined by a greatly weakened economy, and neither the Canadian nor the Quebec currency would be a stable medium of exchange. Canada and Quebec would have less ability to finance growth, development, jobs, environmental initiatives and social needs. Separation within Canada also means losing the power of the federal government to help smooth out economic cycles by transferring funds from strong provinces to those that are relatively weak. Without the combined strength of the country as a whole, the economically weak provinces would suffer a dramatic decline in governmental services and a vast increase in taxes.

Ironically, the countries of Europe are drawing closer at this time. They have buried the deep wounds of conflict and are forming a sovereignty to create the world's biggest common market. The Europeans know what we have forgotten: in unity there is strength.

Don't buy the big scare. It's really starting to get annoying -- listening to the constitutional fearmongers. People on both sides of the unity question are predicting everything short of global implosion, depending on how we vote. Let's calm down a little.

[7:15]

I find it disconcerting to hear the Prime Minister describe opponents of the unity deal as enemies of the country. In a perfect case of the pot calling the kettle black, separatist leader Jacques Parizeau accuses the Yes side of using scare tactics, all the while continuing his dire warning to Quebeckers that this deal practically threatens their very existence. Then there is feminist leader Judy Rebick talking of fearmongering and intimidation from the Yes side. On the other side, a group of Quebec businesswomen complain that women across Canada are being duped into opposing the deal. Now the chairman of the Royal Bank predicts a million Canadians will emigrate to the U.S. and 750,000 will be thrown out of work if Canada breaks up. Let's slow down. We should vote yes or no according to whether the deal's gains are more important than its concessions. Don't let yourself get sucked in by the extremists from either side of the argument.

Look at the consensus report. This is not the legal text. This is a draft legal text, and we won't have the legal text before we vote. A draft legal text is not the legal text. That has been one of the contentious issues for the No voters. I urge you to read the report for yourself. It is not perfect. It has good points, but it also has bad points. It is up to each individual to decide whether the faults are bad enough to have a devastating effect on what will be the foundation of our nation and the future of Canada. In the final analysis, both the Yes side and the No side are both aiming for the same goal: to structure Canada's future.

We must keep in mind that the federal government is not bound by the results of the referendum. They have the choice whether or not to accept the results. Also, regardless of whether the majority vote is yes or no, it is not the end of the constitutional talks and negotiations in Canada. Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Bourassa and the first ministers have stated this.

Proponents on both sides of the question have reservations about the federal government's powers 

[ Page 3551 ]

being eroded due to more powers being given to the provinces. They fear the federal government will lose its negotiation advantage.

The constitution is both a political statement and a legal document. It embodies and reflects the values Canadians share, and it defines the legal structure of our society. Unlike other arrangements such as collective bargaining agreements and trade agreements, which are temporary and easy to amend, a constitution is not easy to change. That is at it should be. When dealing with fundamental values, political institutions and the delicate balance of a society, our approach must be considered and prudent.

Since the changes we will make will be with us for a long time, it is preferable to get the wording right before the proposals are agreed to. As a legal document that individuals, governments and the courts must rely upon, it must accurately reflect the intentions of its authors. Let us resolve not to transform a debate on the legal meaning of proposals into an emotional debate about rejections and humiliations. Let us not transform a debate about values into a lot of empty rhetoric and political posturing. Clearly it is too early for anyone to state definitely a hard and fast position on the government paper.

Constitutional language is extremely important, and some of the government papers lack legal precision. In many places we do not have a specific proposal, just a list of options. We must not tolerate constitutional wording that is so deliberately ambiguous that it can be used to mean one thing in one part of Canada and something else in another part of the country.

Ensuring that these proposals are thoroughly debated, thoroughly reviewed and where necessary amended, abandoned or enlarged -- that is our duty. It is a duty that we in the Liberal Party will honour. We will not compromise on principles. The constitution does not belong to the politicians or the bureaucrats; the constitution belongs to the people.

One of Canada's great constitutional thinkers, the late Prof. F.R. Scott, once wrote: "If Canadians can agree upon...which they wish their society to be built, then they can agree upon the broad outlines of the constitution to achieve these ends." My principles are clear. What is proposed must be compatible with the very nature of Canada, a nation which finds its reason for existing in sharing diversity, in respect for the rights of individuals. The solutions proposed must result in real reform in our political institutions to ensure that all people in all of Canada's regions are respected. The solution proposed must recognize the need to renew and modernize our economic institutions, including the training and mobility of our workforce, and it must create policies that will permit us to be competitive in the world of tomorrow.

Constitutional reform must not weaken the rights of the individual as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Constitutional reform must not weaken the rights of minorities anywhere in Canada. Constitutional reform must not weaken Canada's cultural diversity and its heritage of tolerance. Constitutional reform must not weaken the ability of a strong federal government to speak and act for all Canadians.

I am convinced that the things we call Canadian values are as relevant today as they have been at any time in our history. At a time when Canadian values are under attack and our country is divided as never before, I believe that Canadians must remind themselves of the greatness of the Canadian experiment. I also believe that Canadians must devote their energies to finding new bonds and new endeavours that reflect our collective values. More than ever we must concentrate now on what unites us and not on what divides us. We must commit ourselves to true Canadian values, like generosity of spirit and collective action -- values that will permit us to meet the next century with our heads held high. In discussing constitutional reform, we must reflect on the great and lasting principles of our society.

Constitutional reforms must have one goal and one goal only: the well-being not of governments, politicians or bureaucrats but of the citizens of Canada. Governments must ensure that citizens are well served. That is what politicians have been elected to do. They must understand the values we share as Canadians. After all, Canadian citizenship means more than a shared passport; it is shared values. Quite frankly, Canadian citizens have a right to a government that can speak and act for all Canadians.

As Canadians, we have a unique and profound commitment to a shared sense of social responsibility. We believe in equality and equality of opportunity. We respect the individual, and we also have a very strong sense of obligation to the community as a whole. We believe that we are responsible for each other, and we believe that it is our responsibility -- every one of us -- to ensure that Canadians, wherever they live, enjoy a Canadian quality of life.

I would like to repeat what Laurier said to Quebec:

"We are French Canadians, but our country is not limited to the land we see from the citadel in Quebec. Our country is Canada. Our fellow citizens are not only those with French blood in their veins. Our fellow citizens are people of all races and tongues, who came to this country driven by the misfortunes of war, by chance, or of their own free will."

In this 125th anniversary year of Confederation, we should be celebrating our achievements. A 1992 report of the United Nations rating countries on a broad scale in terms of quality of life -- economic prosperity, longevity, living standards, equality of the sexes, distribution of income and human freedom -- ranked Canada first in the world.

We've accomplished this under our present constitution. So why the rush to change it? Britain has not had a constitution for 900 years. They're still here and surviving. Why are we panicking to vote on something that is not a final legal text? Observers abroad can only shake their heads and ask: "Don't Canadians know what they are risking?" Here's one Canadian who served his country in the Canadian Armed Forces for 27 years, who has lived across our great country and abroad and who cares passionately about keeping Canada together, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. Let's not join the dance of dangerous delusions. Vote your conscience on October 26.

[ Page 3552 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I want to congratulate the previous speaker; I enjoyed his speech. The tone of his presentation was an important one for this House, because I think that all Canadians care very deeply. This debate and the passion that we are seeing here in British Columbia is indicative of how strongly we care as Canadians -- on both sides. I want to recognize that from the perspective of both the Yes and No voters.

I also want to acknowledge some of the concerns and fears that people feel in this debate and how the passion and anger reflected in some of the debate is so destructive to our communities and to families generally. It is my sincere hope that after the referendum on October 26, families and communities can again meet to talk about the future and about the next step. It will be because of that caring for Canada that we will be able to move forward regardless of whether this referendum succeeds or fails.

I'd like to make my points on the referendum and on this particular agreement by putting it into perspective for some of the new members in the House. I'm a fairly new member to this constitutional debate, but it is my second time around, like many members on this side. When I was in opposition, I split from my caucus and voted against the Meech Lake accord, so I fully understand how difficult it is for a number of members to vote according to their conscience. I understand how strongly one must feel to do that and how committed one must be to one's country to be able to take on the personal cost among a group of people one cares about very much. Having made that decision and having gone through that process, I have been very much involved in discussions with people whom I respect, not only in this House, in my caucus, in my party and in my community but at national tables as well.

One of the reasons I voted against the Meech Lake accord was that I felt very strongly that a constitution had to involve more Canadians, that the process of constitution-building in this country had to be more inclusive. I believe that in the last number of years people of good faith and goodwill have worked very hard to bring about a consensus in this country. Through many different tours of politicians, experts and community leaders and through community meetings among service clubs all around this province and, indeed, all around Canada, they built the kind of productive discussions that contributed to this accord -- to say nothing of the number of constitutional conferences that were held across Canada.

I don't want to understate or overstate that process, because the process that people were engaged in was very much a political struggle in which different interests, different points of view and different realities were talked about. People actually got together in a number of different forums and tried to reach a consensus, because that's what this process was about. It was not about a piece of legislation to regulate Canada or to regulate our conduct as Canadians; it was a process to try to lay out what our common values are, what Canada stands for, and to try to move Canada forward and provide the kinds of tools necessary for governance in Canada and the provinces in the 1990s.

[7:30]

While that process reflected the heads of many families in the final days.... I say the heads of many families, because I believe that it is a snapshot of where we are in Canada today. It is not where we would want to be, because I think that we do want more and we do want better for Canada. We want Canada to be more inclusive. We want more opportunities for those who have not enjoyed as many of the opportunities as the heads of families have. But while it is a snapshot of where we are, it is also a reality, a real snapshot of the structures that exist in Canada. For the No side to suggest that they can just turn this whole process around and have that structure then do anything other than it was able to do this time, I think, is naive. I've come to that conclusion after the last number of years of working on the constitution and talking to a number of people.

You see, I believe very strongly in representative government. That's the struggle that women are engaged in in this province and across Canada to achieve equal representation. I believe that the poor should be represented in government; I believe the disabled, the visible minorities and aboriginal people should be represented in government. At this point, we have a long way to go. Surely when we achieve that as a province and as a country, the constitution will look very different. But we're not there yet.

This constitutional package represents for me the kinds of tools that help in that struggle, that help us move forward to a governing structure and a country that is more inclusive, that is more representative, that is my vision and reflects my goals for the political work I do. That is why I'm voting for this accord.

I want to talk a little bit about realities, about where we are in British Columbia and in Canada, and about the tools provided in this accord to try to move us from where we are now to my vision, to a more inclusive Canada, a Canada that is more sharing, a Canada that is more representative at the decision-making tables and a Canada that truly gives people opportunities to be the best that they can be. In doing that, we have to recognize where we are to be able to recognize how we can get from here to where we want to be.

I want to reflect on some of the realities that are presently in existence here in British Columbia, realities that I wrestle with on a daily basis as Minister of Social Services. I want to share with you some numbers about how aboriginal people have been impacted by our society, by the inequalities and the injustices. I want to preface my comments by saying that aboriginal people don't want charity. They don't want our pity; they most certainly do not want anything other than the ability to stand tall, to be respected and to have their own dignity. That's what they're asking of us in this accord: the recognition that they have the inherent right to self-govern, and in that recognition, the agreement of two levels of government to meet them at their tables to discuss the best way for them to achieve the kind of strength that I think we in this House all believe in and are committed to.

To go back again, currently in British Columbia there are over 6,000 children in care. That means that, as a government, we are the parents of 6,000 children and 

[ Page 3553 ]

that we have the responsibility of providing care and custody for those children. Of those 6,000 children in voluntary care, 13 percent are aboriginal in origin. In involuntary care -- these are children who are placed in the care of the province through the courts -- 51 percent are aboriginal children. I'm not sure if people can put that into perspective, because only 5 percent of the population of this province are aboriginal. That means that we currently have, as representatives of this House, 51 percent of all the children in care of aboriginal origin. People need to give that a little bit of thought. They need to understand what that means to those children, those communities and those aboriginal families: the destruction of aboriginal families, their communities, their way of life and their culture.

I want to change that. This is what this government is about. It's about change. It's about looking for opportunities to deal with the injustices, and what this agreement does is recognize that. It recognizes the injustice, and it takes one step. It's a small step, considering the task ahead of us, but it gives that commitment. As Canadians we are saying that we recognize that, and we want to walk that road with you. We want to stand beside you to recognize those injustices, to support aboriginal communities and families in trying to heal, to be engaged in that healing process and to support aboriginal families and children back into their communities, their way of life and their culture. I think that's important, and that's why I'm voting for this accord.

This accord also does other things for other communities and other families -- not only in British Columbia, but across Canada. We talk a lot about the values that are recognized in this accord, the social union and the values reflected in our Canadian reality. I think those are important values, and I think the fact that Canadians -- from British Columbia and all across Canada -- were prepared to say, "Yes, those are our values,,those are important to us," is an historic gesture and an important one, especially at a time when we as Canadians have concerns about the impacts of international pressures such as NAFTA and what that's doing to our Canadian identity. Across Canada, Canadians said: "This is what we're about. This is why we're different. This is what we want to say as a statement of our values in our constitution."

I think it's really important for me to be specific about the social union, for people who have not read the agreement. The social union talks about comprehensive, universal medicare. Surely that's a Canadian value. Surely that's something that every Canadian is proud of and is prepared to say: "Yes, that's our value." Adequate social programs, high-quality education, protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations -- surely those are values of a modern society. As Canadians we would be proud anywhere in the world to say: "This is what we stand for." At a time when we are pressured by international economic pressures, when we need to preserve our sovereignty as a country and very clearly say that these are our values and this is what we stand for, it's worthwhile having that in the constitution.

People have said that it's because it is not justiciable that it doesn't have any clout or any muscle. On the other side, they say: "Well, how much is it going to cost?" But in reality this guides the courts in the decisions that they will make in the future as it pertains to other parts of this agreement. It says that this is the framework that Canadians function within, that these are our values, and this should govern the way we conduct ourselves. That, in and of itself, is crucially important.

But we have to move beyond the values, and we have to talk about the tools that are necessary for provinces and for the country to be able to work towards achieving those values. That will very clearly also be a struggle, like most struggles within a family or within a community to reach a vision or a goal for the best way to live together. Those tools are also in this agreement. Not only does the agreement talk about values and move another step towards addressing the injustices for aboriginal people, but it deals with how families will relate to each other. And provinces are families. It also deals with how the provinces and the federal government will deal with each other. It talks about integrity, and it talks about the kind of security of relationships necessary in a family, especially at a time when the country and the provinces are under such economic stress and uncertainty.

I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone in this House of the fact that in 1990-91 the federal government arbitrarily and independently made a decision about social programs across Canada. Independent of its agreement with provinces, it arbitrarily decided that the have provinces -- and we are one of them -- would have the cost-shared programs capped. In this province that capping, to date, has cost taxpayers $400 million. People talk about our social infrastructure and our values, but the bottom line is: if you don't have the money, it's pretty hard to meet that vision.

I am a very practical politician. I have vision and I have the values, but I want to take the step towards that vision, because it's shallow in and of itself to stand here and say that these are my values and this is my vision if I'm not prepared to look for the tools and fight for those tools to carry out that vision. These intergovernmental agreements, while they may feel distant from families and from communities, from the daily lives of taxpayers in this province, are the very tools that we need to bring about certainty in the ability of this province to deliver on its vision and its values to the people of this province. That is important to me. One of the things that the intergovernmental agreements do for this province is entrench agreements between the province and the federal government, and it ensures that there can be no change to those agreements for five years without mutual consent. It is that kind of stability that will allow this province to move forward, to plan for the future, to deal with the needs of families and children, to be able to plan and to be able to take the next step to our common vision -- and that is important.

[7:45]

[ Page 3554 ]

The other thing that I want to touch on -- and I recognize that there are a number of issues that people need to get their heads around with this agreement and that unfortunately we don't have the time to deal with them all, but I do want to talk again about a time when there are scarce resources for governments, about the vision and the values that are reflected in this agreement and about medicare, education and social programs. Those things are important to families as people try to raise their children and meet their goals and aspirations for their families and for their communities.

One of the things this agreement does, as well as providing stability of funding, is deal with duplication. And when there are scarce resources, when we have overlapping bureaucracies in the federal government and in the provincial government, where we are spending taxpayers' dollars to provide similar or the same services, then that is wasteful spending, and we need to deal with it. This agreement gives us the tools to move in that direction. It recognizes the need for the federal government to respect exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It gives us the tools to end the overlap and duplication in programs, and it provides the stability and the vehicles to negotiate the separation, where the federal government will remove itself from a provincial jurisdiction and at the same time provide the stable funding necessary. I believe that the provinces, and in particular the communities and the families, know what's best for them, and as a government I want the tools to carry out the goals and the vision reflected in this agreement to enable us to move forward for families. So I would ask everyone to consider that, because I don't think it's been given enough profile. People talking about the Senate and the House of Commons does not put the issue right in peoples' back yard, and people need to be able to relate to what this agreement will do for them, for their families and for those communities, and surely that's what Canada is all about.

L. Krog: I must pay my compliments to the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Social Services. She has spoken with an eloquence that we have come to expect from her, but with a particular eloquence tonight that touches on something that has not been discussed as much in this chamber as I would have thought, and that is that this document is about humanity. It is about something more than mere politics or economy. And so I pay my compliments to her.

It's the 125th anniversary of Confederation. I was fairly young, but I well remember 1967 and a certain jubilation in this land and a positive feeling about the first 100 years. But I've been a student of history long enough to remember that Canada goes back much further, that the aboriginal people came here tens of thousands of years ago, travelling to a completely unknown land. A thousand years ago my Viking ancestors travelled to the coast of this country unknown to them, making some small leap of faith that there was something at the end of that great journey. We know that Portuguese fishermen travelled to the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia 500 to 600 years ago for the fish and the resources of this nation. And shortly after that came the French in large numbers, and following them came anglophones and others from all around the world. The city of Montreal some time ago celebrated its 350th birthday. The oldest part of this country, in terms of our recorded history, is reflected in Quebec. The oldest part of the oral tradition of history is found among the aboriginal peoples of our country. And I have felt when I've spoken to audiences in the last few weeks that many have either never learned or have forgotten the history of this country, and I suppose that is what has troubled me much as a Canadian. Somehow people do not seem to have an appreciation of what it is to be a citizen in this country. The eloquence of the member for Chilliwack, and the things he talked about, impressed me as well, and the member for Vancouver-Langara was equally eloquent.

So why is it that I as a Canadian, having been born here and being a descendant of Canadians who have been here for generations, am so upset by what has happened in the last few weeks? I'm upset because at a time when my nation is clearly coming of age in every aspect of its development, when I see before me an accord reached and agreed to by the political leadership of this country that should move us forward, I hear voices of anger, frustration, bigotry and racism that I did not expect to hear.

After Meech Lake it struck me that this country could actually fall apart. It was the first time in my life I had seriously considered the possibility that at some time in my lifetime I would not be a Canadian citizen in a country that included the province of Quebec, the Maritime provinces and the Prairies. I must tell you very sincerely that it was something that made me feel a sense of despair I hadn't felt before.

As we moved into 1992, I thought that progress was being made, and then things seemed to fall apart. Suddenly, almost out of the blue, came a unanimous agreement on where this country should go for the foreseeable future -- a document that set out a guide as to how to settle the longstanding rights and claims of aboriginal people with some justice in Canada. I thought that maybe this campaign, such as it was, would be an easy campaign, because I believed everything I had learned in school about Canada -- that we were a country that welcomed everyone from around the globe, that we were ultimately a nation of tolerance and that goodwill would prevail. I have not seen that.

At the end of this campaign I'm not without hope, as some of the polls would suggest I should be. I am still convinced that there is an ultimate quality, if you will, in Canadians; that the things that are addressed in the Canada clause are, in fact, real comments about Canadians; that we will move forward; and that somehow, between now and Monday, Canadians are going to look around and seriously ask themselves: "Is the passage of the constitutional accord going to be bad for Canada?" Of course it's not.

It's going to be good for this country. It is going to speak to those things that the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley spoke to. It's going to speak to a country that's committed to democracy and a country that's committed to social justice. I can't help but be troubled by some 

[ Page 3555 ]

of the voices that I have talked about. There are many on the No side. I respect some of their opinions; they are deeply held. But there is an element out there that is not nearly so pleasant, that is not generous, that is not kind, that is not forgiving and that is not prepared to share.

I hear so much commentary about the province of Quebec and how Quebec is getting something that the others don't have. I think of myself and my family. Sometimes somebody gets something a little more than the other has for a little while, but that's the nature of coexistence within a community. I would remind members of this House that Canada is an Indian word. It's a Huron word that means community.

Have we fallen to such a state in our history that we are not prepared to share any more? The province of Newfoundland receives $4,500 per capita in transfer payments. The province of Quebec receives $300 per capita. Multiply them out by the population of those respective provinces and, in fact, in actual total dollars, the province of Newfoundland receives more. But I haven't heard any voices in British Columbia or western Canada say that Newfoundland is getting a better deal or getting too much. We're not thinking about that. Instead we're complaining because Quebec has been recognized as a distinct society, as if there were some new news about Quebec and this hadn't happened before. Have we forgotten the Quebec Act of 1774? Over 200 years ago, the government of Great Britain recognized that the province of Quebec was going to want, and indeed was entitled, to maintain its distinct language and culture, its religion and its civil code. What the province of Quebec and the people of Quebec have been asking for over 200 years is quite simply that other Canadians, in a legitimate way in a constitution, say: yes, we accept that you are distinct, just as every member of the Canadian family is in some way distinct; but you have a distinction that is historical and strong and that was recognized in 1867 and in 1774.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

The province of Quebec contributes as much to this country as any province. The province of Quebec has provided leadership in arts, culture and politics. One need only run down the list of the Prime Ministers of Canada to see that many of the greats, the ones that we would all acknowledge -- Liberals among them -- have come from the province of Quebec. Yet now, among Canadians, I see a willingness to say: fine, let them go. I hear that from the people who are always talking about rep by pop. Well, I would remind them that rep by pop means that if the province of Quebec is no longer part of the Canadian family, that other bogeyman -- for Canadian westerners, anyway -- the province of Ontario, will be left with over half the population of Canada. So I'm not very swayed by rep by pop, because rep by pop also means that Prince Edward Island, which came into Confederation on certain understandings and agreements, including a guaranteed number of seats, is therefore not entitled to its fair representation in the Canadian family either. Surely in a land so wealthy, in a land that the hon. member for Chilliwack reminded us has been recognized by the United Nations as the best country to live in on the planet, we are not so mean-spirited that we cannot extend some generosity to other provinces.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The No side says that nothing's really going to happen. We'll turn down this deal; we'll go back; we'll talk some more; we'll get a better deal. Well, what more could Canadians ask for at this time in history than an agreement that advances the cause of aboriginal justice, that brings Quebec into the Confederation of Canada more solidly than ever before, and most importantly, in my view, that enshrines a social charter that emphasizes everything that I believe is good and right about this country. All that the Yes side is asking is that like all those people I talked about who came here through history, we now take the leap of faith that they took. Their leap of faith was much greater. They often travelled into unknown country -- not a country covered by communications and settlements but a completely unknown wilderness. They made a large leap of faith; I'm asking for a tiny leap of faith.

[8:00]

All I'm saying is forget the dire predictions that suggest that in 50 years the province of Quebec might actually have a few more Members of Parliament than it deserves. Terrible! I would remind the members of this august chamber that when British Columbia entered Confederation, our population said that we were entitled to one Member of Parliament and we got six. We have recognized throughout our history the necessity of Confederation requiring that some provinces be given an odd benefit once and a while in order to bring us together and to keep us together. I just cannot understand why a constitutional accord which moves us forward so far is the object of such derision. Where are the statesmen? Those I hear on the No side -- and they're a diverse group -- are essentially, in my respectful opinion, people whose special interests have blinded them to the national interest, people whose community does not extend beyond their immediate friends or those with whom they think they share some qualities. Those on the Yes side -- and they're diverse -- include members of the official opposition in this chamber. They are all people who are saying that the deal, the constitutional accord, speaks to national interests, that it's good for Canada as a whole and that their particular needs have been met to some extent -- maybe not fully, but they're going to step back and respect that others have made sacrifices, others have given.

To the No side, whose special interests have not been advanced, do they think that their interests are going to be advanced by saying no, by retaining a Senate, which I think everyone in this chamber would acknowledge is a rather useless body, an embarrassment to Canadian politics? Do they think the cause of aboriginal justice is going to be advanced by saying no to aboriginal people in this country? Do they think the cause of unity is going to be advanced by western Canadians saying to Quebec, one of the founding peoples of this country, that somehow they shouldn't be recognized at last? Is 

[ Page 3556 ]

all this going to advance the cause of my country, our country? No, it's not.

At the end of the day I say again: it's a very small leap of faith to accept a document that is so positive in tone. We started out with a constitution that talked about peace, order and good government. Those aren't very inspiring words. They're not inspiring like those in the American constitution; nevertheless they said something about us as a people. And from peace, order and good government we have moved to talk about other things. We have come to talk about democracy and social justice and respect for individual and collective rights. We're talking about the best things in us, and the best things in us tell us to be generous, to be forgiving, to be magnanimous, to be the kinds of Canadians that are spoken of in the Canada clause. At the end of the day I happily say to my colleagues in this chamber and to my constituents that I embrace, with passion and with hope, the accord reached in Charlottetown. I sincerely hope that Canadians -- and in particular British Columbians -- by October 26 will have come to accept that we have a chance to move this nation forward as it's never been moved in 125 years. I'll be voting yes on October 26, and I suggest that it is truly a vote for Canada.

Hon. A. Edwards: I want to enter this debate on the constitution by talking about our political system in this country and in this province. I'd like to say that this political system, no more than the Charlottetown accord, is perfect. The political system, which we frequently attribute to the Hon. Winston Churchill, is certainly not a particularly good system; it just happens to be the best that we can think of. In that sense we are sticking with the best that we have, and it is not perfect. But the political system, essentially, is our way of dealing with change. We are not, as citizens of a country, able to stay in the same place for any length of time. The question that we face in general, and most certainly the question that we face in particular when we look at this accord, is not whether we will change; it is how we will change.

Someone in front of me was reading some clippings. One of the headlines from yesterday was: "Is the Status Quo Really an Option?" The status quo is not an option before us today when we face a vote on whether or not we will approve the wording of the Charlottetown accord. I don't believe there is any question to any serious thinker that we have the opportunity to stay where we are right now in relation to the constitution. Our challenge in our political system when we face change is to choose those things that we should change and to choose how we may change them. At the same time, we are also choosing those things which we do not want to change, and in particular they are those that we address when we look at a constitution, because the constitution addresses the very elements of the agreement that we put together as people who live together in a single nation.

What we look to are the things that we don't want to change. We want to find the things that are good, the things that are agreeable and the things that are timeless. We have to separate them from things that we see as having been less useful, things that could be replaced by something better. This accord, in essence, addresses those things.

You know as well as I know that the province of Quebec was not the only province within Canada that wanted some change, which led to the process and to the Charlottetown accord. They were neither the only province nor the only group within the country, nor were the aboriginal people and the province of Quebec the only people. We in the west demanded change as well. And what we said then in our political system was: "You, our leaders, must get together and find a way to put this country together." I remind all members of this legislative chamber that several of the recommendations that were unanimously put forward to this House by the legislative committee on the constitution included the recommendations that we wanted Canada to stay together as a country; that we wanted that country to include Quebec; that we wanted this country to have an agreement with the aboriginal peoples so that they would be able to experience and enjoy the inherent right to self-government that we all recognize that we have; and that we wanted western Canadians to be recognized as full partners in Confederation.

Those recommendations were in the report of the legislative committee on the constitution, and they formed the basis of what our leaders took to the constitutional negotiations. We said to those leaders: "We want you to find the ground on which we can take the next step; we want you to find the basis for us to work into the future." Maybe it doesn't amaze us all, but in a sense it is amazing to discover how much common ground our leaders found. The first ministers of ten provinces and two territories and the federal government and the aboriginal people were able -- miraculously, some say -- to find a very large area of common ground on which we in this country want to stand when we work further on our Confederation. I am inspired by that achievement. I am inspired to know that those leaders were able to come up with an accord that so effectively reflects the nature of us as Canadians. It reflects our nature, as we all know that as Canadians we are a people renowned for being able to reach resolution in a peaceful way by compromise. We honour the word compromise, and we say that we have been able, as a country and as citizens, to achieve our goals through compromise rather than through confrontation, war and conflict.

This accord reflects that nature. This accord says in the Canada clause that we recognize certain rights, the individual rights -- that we in fact recognize social rights. The social character of the nation, as many people say, could be characterized by our creation, development and continued connection to our medicare plan, which says that we as a people have a right to medical care, just as we have the right to free speech. That is as important a right as our right to free speech, and it's stated in the Canada clause.

I know there are those who say it isn't in the most magnificent purple prose, but it is written there. It is written in this accord that we expect, as citizens of this country, to have a right to comprehensive, affordable and extended health care; that we have a right to 

[ Page 3557 ]

reasonable education; that we have a right to a clean environment.

We also have a social statement in this accord, and it says that we have a right to a sustainable economy. It says we have a right to expect full employment. This process was a long, extensive process involving a number of commissions travelling the country and a number of conferences to which were invited any number of people and which also included that legislative committee I talked about from British Columbia, where input was huge. There was not only the legislative committee of this parliament, but that of the previous parliament. If there were any democratic processes that were extensive and inclusive, it was this process.

Out of that, as I say, we may have been surprised to find that so many people were willing to subscribe to the values laid out in the Canada clause, in the social charter, in the economic statement, and in our recognition that within this accord all provinces are equal. That was another requirement of the people of British Columbia, who said they wanted each province to be equal. As a Canadian nation, this accord gives us the opportunity to continue to be proud of the fact that all provinces can be equal. But within that equality we can recognize the differences that accrue to different people within that confederation.

It's important to look at the distinct-society references in the Charlottetown accord, to probe that traditional historical agreement that we have had within this country that says that you can have a different language, you can have a different culture, you can even have a different civil law system, and still work together as a country. It was the basis of the initial agreement between Upper and Lower Canada, and it has been an agreement that we have been able to stick to through 125 years -- plus the years before we actually came together as a confederation of more than two provinces.

[8:15]

I'm proud of that tradition. I am proud that our leaders were able, in this process which led to the Charlottetown accord, to continue to say that we can tolerate, that we can accommodate and that we can continue to include people who have different aspirations within a Confederation where we share a large body of similar aspirations, and that we are able to articulate the values that define and describe that Confederation.

I'm also proud of the fact that we not only have the distinct society defined in our new Canada clause, but we were able to find a way to work with aboriginal peoples to allow them what is broadly recognized as their inherent right to continue the governments that they had when we and our ancestors came as immigrants to this country. Our leaders were able to say that we will negotiate. All of the first ministers who negotiated the agreement that came out as the accord have agreed that we do not want to go to court. As Canadians we don't want to go to court to decide how the current governments will interact with the aboriginal people's aspiration to continue their own governments and have fair representation in this nation.

This accord offers us the opportunity to continue to build our country in a way that excludes wars and revolutions and rebellions. It allows this country to continue to grow as a country in a peaceful way, without conflict.

I would urge you to think very clearly about those who say that our politicians did not serve us well. I haven't heard any suggestions for any other way to reach this kind of accord. With this common ground on which we can build our country, no other way to do it has been suggested -- except that the same people who did it before should go back and do it again. I would suggest that the political system has served us well. The leaders got together and found that common ground that we needed. They found the common statement that we needed as a nation. They have completed their task.

Now the task is up to those of us who are voting on Monday, October 26. I believe that our job is to say that this is a good deal. It's not a perfect deal, but it's a good deal. Above that, it offers us the opportunity to work together as a country. Many of us, myself included, do not see any other process available that has been suggested. Basically, if you want to call it a leap of faith, call it a leap of faith. I would prefer to call it a recognition that the political system that we use is not perfect. But in these circumstances, it has given us the opportunity to have common ground to further build this country of Canada.

J. Dalton: I've heard some very nice speeches on both sides this evening and this afternoon. I'm a fairly basic person, so I'm not going to be as nice nor certainly as esoteric as I feel some have been. I'm going to pose a question and then go ahead and give some answers.

Why have the people turned against the accord? That is the question that I pose to this House. Let there be no mistake: the people have turned against the accord. The polling indicates this. Door-knocking in my riding indicates this. Everyone I speak with, whether they be my rugby friends, service clubs I address, the people in business who I've talked with in Ambleside and North Vancouver districts, or many high-school students I've spoken with over the last three weeks, has a very consistent message: this accord is doomed. Presumably in the name of unity and nationality, and anything else, we should be supporting this agreement.

What has happened? The Yes side would have us believe that they were slow in starting. That is ridiculous of course. Not only do they have legions of politicians.... Can you imagine the number of political leaders who have been trooping through British Columbia in the last three weeks? It boggles the mind. I've lost count; I have no idea how many. In addition, they have the public treasury on their side. Yet they tell us that they are slow in starting. Quite frankly, it's not the fact that they were slow in starting; it's the message that they are attempting to put across.

I would also point out to this House that if the number of lawn signs that have sprouted up in my riding are any indication, the Yes side is certainly backed very well financially. However, again, their problem is that they are not delivering the message. A 

[ Page 3558 ]

lot of Yes lawn signs will hardly convince people, once they have read the document, to support it.

Many things have happened to defeat this accord, ranging from its content -- many people have spoken on that, and I will make some comments about it later -- to, quite frankly, a general distrust of our political leaders. I think that's well demonstrated in the way that Prime Minister Mulroney, for example, is received as he goes about the country. It's interesting that he has not come back to British Columbia. He was only here once. Why has he not returned, and why will he not return before the vote? I will leave that open.

When you hear from the Yes side that an agreement based on consensus and compromise, which was put together by all the Premiers, the Prime Minister, aboriginal leaders and the territorial leaders, must be good for us, what you are really hearing is: "Trust us; we know what is best for you, for Canada and for the aboriginal peoples." But going back to Meech Lake and beyond, where in this entire process have the people been truly consulted? The argument that our political leaders have a mandate to revise the constitution is false. If they have such a mandate, then why have they gone to the people for endorsement? Why have they allowed us to go through this protracted exercise leading up to the vote next Monday? I would submit that this campaign is but a terrible exercise in public relations that has gone bad.

The process is backwards. The people's input should have been invited first, and then they should have proceeded to produce a package that would be acceptable. Canadians are tired of the ongoing political process to amend the constitution since Meech Lake. Can we expect the people to accept the current agreement now? In effect, it's really just another Meech Lake. I must tell you an amusing story. The best argument that I've heard was from a colleague of mine at Langara, who is now retired and is voting yes. He said: "Meech Lake was bad, this agreement is worse and God help us if we have a third agreement." As far as the question that I posed, the answer is that people will reject this agreement. They will be voting no -- there's no question of that. The vote will certainly reflect the opinion that I've stated.

That's the background as to why I feel that the accord will fail. I have several specific reasons to add. Firstly, the cost. Federally, this public relations exercise is going to cost at least $190 million. In addition, each province is spending its own money to promote the cause. For example, in today's Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province and the Times-Colonist -- and probably in every community newspaper, for all I know -- there were full-page ads printed by the province of British Columbia, our tax money, with the giant headline: "A United Canada. A Strong B.C." Then of course it goes on to say that you should all get out and vote next Monday. It doesn't tell you how you should vote, but I would suggest that the message from those headlines is pretty clear.

Federally we have similar messages coming out. There's a brochure -- one of many printed by Ottawa -- that contains what I would say is hardly neutral information. For example, one brochure I picked up the other day said: "The Canada clause responds to the desire of Canadians for a clear and inspirational statement of our basic values." Well, that's a very flowery statement, but I would submit that it is not neutral. That was paid for by our federal tax dollars.

There are many TV ads currently running. One ad in particular has caught my attention. It's a National Defence ad. I wonder why a National Defence ad is running so many times consistently, over and over again? Well, if you have occasion to look at it, basically it doesn't have anything to do with the Armed Forces as such; it wants us all to feel warm and fuzzy and to go out next Monday and vote yes. The waste of money, from my point of view, is disgraceful, to say the least. I made a comment to Mary Collins the other day in a high-school gymnasium. I said to her: "Mary, if we could have taken all of this money that's been wasted on this exercise, we could have retired the national debt."

There is also another important factor -- the time consumed on this referendum. I would submit the very fact that we're here this evening and that we're going to sit tomorrow for God knows how long.... Why? Quite frankly, I would rather have been watching the baseball game, which I'm pleased to announce Toronto won.

People are tired of these endless discussions, meetings and commissions. Since the formal referendum period started.... People, of course, are still tired, but I can tell you that they are very anxious for information -- neutral information, not the biased information I have referred to. Now people have had a chance to read the accord. They have had a chance to listen to a legion of experts; to consult daily with Rafe Mair; to attend a strange collection of panel discussions, where Chuck Cook and Mary Collins sit on opposite sides and at opposite ends of the table, where Marilyn Baker sits next to the leader of the official opposition -- that is interesting, because the leader of the official opposition tried to talk Marilyn Baker into running as a Liberal on the North Shore last year, she refused, and her reward was finishing third in her riding of choice -- where Preston Manning and Jacques Parizeau agree on an issue. Very interesting. As they say, strange bedfellows -- and on both sides.

Well, I can assure you that the people have had enough. They want to vote now, not later, and of course they want to vote no now, not later. They want this propaganda to stop, and they want to get on with their lives. They want to get on with the issues that are facing Canadians: the environment, the economy, rising interest rates, free trade agreements. Those are the issues that people should be attending to.

Now as far as the accord itself goes -- other speakers have commented on this and no doubt others will, so I don't want to get into a lot of detail -- there are certainly many aspects of it that I cannot personally support. For example, in the Canada clause the quality of the provinces is stated but then the accord goes on, in effect, to fly right in the face of that concept: 25 percent guaranteed seats to one province, three Supreme Court of Canada appointments guaranteed to one province, 18 more Commons seats for both Ontario and Quebec. I hardly suggest that that is equality.

[8:30]

[ Page 3559 ]

Also in the Canada clause, a third order of government is created -- not a third level of government, a third order of government. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that Canadians do not want more government. They certainly do not want all of the implications of more government, including taxation and all the rules and regulations that go with it. I would add, as far as this third order of government is concerned, it is very badly explained in the accord. People are unsettled by a very open-ended concept that lacks definition. I do not wish my remarks on that to be misinterpreted. The native issues in this country have to be addressed, but we have to have the political will to sit down and deal with them effectively and not raise false expectations and many unanswered questions.

The so-called Senate reform is something that concerns Canadians. I would make just one observation about the Senate, hon. Speaker. It says in the accord -- in one part at least -- that the Senate is to be elected as part of the triple-E. However, there's also a provision in the accord for an "indirect election," and that is by appointment from the provincial legislatures if they so wish. Quebec has already made it quite clear that it will appoint its Senators. That is not an election.

House of Commons reform is also a concern. I've already commented on the 25 percent of seats given to one province and the extra seats given to two provinces. I would suggest that what people would like is a complete inventory taken of the population growth and the size of federal ridings. Then we can look at effective revision of all seats. This stupid numbers game that all the Premiers have gotten into is quite evident in the 42 extra seats created in the House of Commons, and that is the last thing Canadians want. Isn't that a great prospect? More politicians and more tax dollars to support them: that's what we've created by this.

Finally, hon. Speaker, the inherent right to self-government, which of course is also a very important concept in the accord. As I have stated, the issue of aboriginal rights must be addressed, but I would suggest not through the proposed revisions to this constitution. People are concerned, for example, when they see that the Okanagan nation has already declared sovereignty from this country. What does that create? A sovereign nation also given self-government within this nation? I have no idea what that means. It's also significant that the first nations, in a million-dollar conference in North Vancouver last week, could not agree to take a vote on whether they supported the accord. They went home without a vote. I think that is a significant statement.

The problem is that people are not buying into this agreement. I would suggest that it's like AirCare. AirCare is a great concept, but it's so badly implemented that people are not buying it.

Interjections.

J. Dalton: The members opposite will be happy because the next heading here is: "To Conclude." The people of Canada and certainly the people of British Columbia will reject the accord next Monday. They have tired of all the political toadies preaching only one side of the argument -- the Yes side -- and telling us what to do: "Do the right thing and vote yes." They've tired of the waste of energy, time and money on this whole matter. The people are just tired, but I would suggest that they're not so tired that they won't get out next Monday, get to the ballot box and look for the shorter word on the ballot. I don't need to tell you which word that is. Somebody the other day asked me whether the words would be listed alphabetically -- the choices -- and I think not. It might be nice to see whether No comes before Yes on the ballot. So people will search out the shorter word, and they will make their choice next Monday. Then we in this House -- right across the country as well -- can get on with the things that we are elected to do and not waste our time and energy on this rather false exercise that we're going through.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I want to begin by saying how pleased I am that the House has agreed to extend hours this evening so that all MLAs will have the opportunity to speak on this issue. It's clearly one of the most important decisions that Canadians will make in their lifetimes, and I think it's very important that all of our constituents have a chance to hear what their member of the provincial Legislature has to say on this very important matter.

I know that the constituents in my riding are taking this matter very seriously. It's evident from the people who come into my office and ask for information kits, the people who phone and ask for more information from the staff in my office and, as an example, the over 500 people who filled to overflowing one of the meetings that we held in a local high school in the riding, which, importantly, was not a Yes meeting or a No meeting but simply a meeting to give information to constituents. The questions that those people asked, the seriousness with which they tackled the very difficult and complex issues that we have before us, indicate to me that people are not taking this matter lightly at all. I urge everyone to do likewise, to read, discuss and consider very carefully what we are about to make a decision on on October 26. I urge everyone not only to think, as I think some people are, about what we didn't get and what things we might have been able to add to the agreement if we had been able to work harder, talk longer or find more compromises, or about whether someone else got more and saying that's unfair somehow, but to think about where we will be when we wake up on the morning of October 27 if we have a Yes vote and where we will be if we wake up with a No vote.

I will be voting yes because I believe that this is a good deal for Canada and a good deal for British Columbia. I didn't grow up in this province; I grew up in Ontario. When I lived in Ontario, I never thought of myself as an Ontarian; I thought of myself as a Canadian. I probably didn't think much beyond the borders of Metropolitan Toronto where I spent the first 20 years of my life. I didn't know about the regions in Canada and how people in different parts of the country felt until I moved almost 20 years ago to British Columbia and had a rather interesting educational 

[ Page 3560 ]

experience. I learned very quickly that Canada doesn't look the same from British Columbia as it does from Ontario. While I have not lived in other provinces, I suspect that that holds true no matter where you live in this country, that your perspective is different depending on where you live.

We all have different points of view. And you know, hon. Speaker, that's what makes me really proud to be a Canadian. When we talk about ethnicity in Canada -- or when we did in the sixties -- we used the term "mosaic," showing that Canada is not some kind of uniform melting pot where everybody is the same but that we see ourselves as different, varied. Not only are we different, but we value those differences. It's important to us as Canadians that we are different.

The Canada unity agreement recognizes and honours and enhances those differences. It does so in a number of ways. It does so first of all by disentangling the provincial and federal responsibilities in a number of very key areas, and that allows us all, as provinces, to respond to the differences, so that we can create programs and solutions in our own province, in our own communities, that honour and respect British Columbia -- made-in-B.C. solutions to our problems, not made-in-Ottawa solutions, made-in-Saint-John solutions or Manitoba or anywhere else we want to look at, but things that can be tailored to our own province.

One of the very important elements of that disentanglement that I think is critical to our province at this point in our history, given our economic situation, is the authority that it will give us to get on with labour market development and training that can be, again, made in British Columbia to suit our needs here. I don't think there is a member in the House who would disagree with me that the problems we're facing in our economy are different from the problems being faced in the Prairies or in central Canada or in the Maritimes, and that all of those issues require different solutions. We have to have the authority at the provincial government level to be able to make those solutions that fit the needs here in our province.

Some of the critics of the Canada unity agreement say that there's a problem with all those differences. If you don't have a national program that's uniform from British Columbia right across to Newfoundland, we're somehow losing something important here. But I say have a look at the unity agreement, because it provides for us to have national standards and objectives to meet, but gives us the flexibility to have our own programs here in our own province meeting the needs of our citizens.

I think that people who are critical of that approach should give it hard thought, look back at history and look at where some of the major social programs in this country came from. They didn't come from Ottawa; they came from the provinces. Of course, the one that springs to mind first for me is medicare, a program that started with Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, started in some other provinces and grew across this country until there was the will to have a federal program. I think we have to bear that in mind, because it's not the only social program that got started that way. Often it is the innovation and flexibility of provincial governments that make that kind of thing possible. If we can have national standards in a national framework, but provincial flexibility, I think we can go a long way to meeting the needs of our citizens.

There are two main reasons, though, that I'm going to be voting yes, and I want to talk about those for a few minutes. On this matter I also want to say, particularly to my constituents, that I've come to this agreement very slowly. I've come to support it after a lot of thought and a lot of consideration, because, like many Canadians, I haven't wanted for many, many months to think about the constitutional wrangling. It's something that's been out there, that I was hoping would resolve itself in some fashion. I'm not sure what I was hoping would happen to it, but I had to come to this very slowly. It wasn't until the Canada unity agreement was printed and I could pick it up and read it that I realized there were many things in there that fit my political objectives -- the things that I want to see happen in my community, in my province and in my country. As a result of reading what is in the Canada unity agreement, and the two things I'm going to talk about and highlight in the next few minutes, I have become someone who believes we have to vote yes for the good of the province and for the good of the country.

First of all, a yes vote is a vote in favour of medicare. As the Minister of Health, of course I have to be concerned about medicare. If we look at the social and economic union in the Canada unity agreement, this provision entrenches what is special and unique about Canada, and it reinforces those qualities in the constitution. The social union commits all governments at the provincial and federal levels to comprehensive, accessible, portable, publicly administered, universal medicare. It also talks about adequate social services, quality education and protecting, preserving and sustaining our environment. It provides for the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. These are very important social programs, but, beyond that, I think they are social values that define us as Canadians.

Let me again return to the medicare issue. I think medicare is probably the most important Canadian social program. I think it's the one that defines us best as Canadians. When we look across the border to the United States, where health care is a big issue because of their presidential election, I think a lot of us say: "There but for the grace of some leadership is where we would be." If we did not have in the past in this country strong leaders like Tommy Douglas, who had the faith and the foresight to make some bold initiatives, we would not have that kind of program here.

[8:45]

I think the No side overlooks the importance of entrenching those principles of medicare in our constitution. When we look at the impact of the cuts in federal transfer payments for health, education and social services, and we see how they work to undermine programs like medicare, we have to conclude that there has to be a change, that we have to do something better. The Canada unity agreement confirms our commitment to medicare, and it goes further. Besides just entrenching the principles in the constitution, it allows national standards to be set. Most importantly, it allows us to 

[ Page 3561 ]

develop intergovernmental agreements so that we can ensure a fair and stable funding base into the future, something that is seriously undermining the ability of all the provinces to uphold the principles of medicare. So I think that this is a very important issue for Canadians. The social and economic union which encompasses the protection for medicare is a very important element of this agreement, and one that should not be dismissed lightly.

The second reason that I am supporting this agreement is that a Yes vote is a vote that will keep Canada strong and united and allow us to move on and make the economy our number one priority. It allows us to secure our future politically as a province. It says yes to Canada and no to Quebec separatists. It says yes to aboriginal people and no to those who, from fear or from some other concern, would deny justice to people who have long been in need of it. It says yes, we're going to move on, having agreed with some of the constitutional issues that we need to get agreement on and thus enable us to turn our attention to the economy.

I think it's very important that we think about this ability to move forward. I don't think, as some people have said, that a Yes vote will end the debate. That's clearly not going to happen. We are going to have to have more debate about our constitution. Constitutions, I believe, do have to be living documents, and they're going to have to change over time as our country changes. But if we say yes to the Canada unity agreement, we will have cleared the decks on some issues, and we can put those ones aside and then work on the ones we still have to work on. I believe that that will also give us the ability to start to work on the really important issue that has to be in front of all governments in this country right now, and that's the economy.

Before I conclude, I just want to touch on one of the arguments that I've heard a lot in this chamber in the last day and a half that is giving me some concern, and that's the concern from the No side that the equality of Canadians and the equality of provinces are somehow being negatively affected through the Canada unity agreement, that somehow some people are more equal than others. As I thought about what I was listening to here in the Legislature and from others, I started to think about what it really means to have equality. What does the word "equality" mean? And I thought back to some work done in 1984 by Judge Rosalie Abella when she was talking about equality of women and minority groups in our society. I think she said some very important things that we need to think about here today: "Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences; and sometimes it means treating them as equal by accommodating their differences." So we should look at the outcome. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that equality is just treating everybody the same. It's the outcome at the end of the day that really matters. I'll quote what was said, I think even more eloquently, by Anatole France many years ago: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." So the equality of the law, equality of provisions, doesn't necessarily make equality an outcome. This particular agreement, because it is a compromise, because it recognizes the tremendous diversity of regions and of people in this country, doesn't always treat everybody the same; but the idea is that at the end of the day we will have a condition that makes everybody equal, and I think that is a far more important objective to be striving towards in this country.

I said when I started speaking that we should look to what will happen if we wake up on October 27 with a No vote. I think there is one thing that is absolutely clear. We will have agreement on one item: No is a rejection. But we will not have agreement on anything else. We will not have agreement on Quebec, on aboriginal rights, on social programs or on political representation. In fact, the people urging us to vote against this agreement have often totally opposed opinions about how we should resolve these very critical issues before us. The Noes will have to do what essentially has already been done: they are going to have to compromise. I believe that at the end of the day the compromise that will come together, if we are able to put another compromise together, will look very much like what we have right now.

It's easy to say no. It's really easy to pick apart the unity agreement, to find holes, to say you've left this out or that out, and for that reason I'm going to vote no. That's the easy choice in all of this. It's a lot harder to say yes, because to say yes means that we have to have some faith in our country, we have to have some faith in our future, we have to have faith in our ability to be tolerant as Canadians -- to recognize our diversity -- and we have to have faith in that all-too-Canadian ability, that practical ability that we have as Canadians to find a compromise. That's what we've done. I think we have been uniquely Canadian by bringing together a wide diversity of opinions from right across this country on what can carry Canada forward into the future. It's for that reason, hon. Speaker, that next Monday on October 26 I will be voting yes.

D. Streifel: I rise tonight to speak on the question of the unity vote on October 26 in British Columbia and in Canada. I should say some things about myself and my family before I begin. First, I'm a first-generation Canadian. My mother was not born in this country. Without the welcoming arms of Canada, I wouldn't be here. My wife, on the other hand, traces her roots back to the Mayflower pilgrims. Perhaps with that immigration began the problems for the natives of North America.

We've heard debate after debate and speaker after speaker refer to Yes individuals or the Yes team as clones or Yes toadies. I don't accept that, hon. Speaker. I don't accept that unless those who speak with the No voice are willing to accept the responsibility of their No and look at who they are voting no with. If they are willing to vote no and stand with the rest of the No voices, I will proudly say I'm a Yes toady.

In the past six weeks, I have addressed 25 meetings in my community. I have been in the newspapers every week speaking on the Yes side. My constituents know very well that I'm going to vote yes on October 26. I don't need to stand here tonight to explain that to them. 

[ Page 3562 ]

I will be at it again tomorrow and again on Friday, speaking for the Yes voices.

For those who would say no, I tell them that No is a cop-out. No with no stated alternative is nothing short of dishonest. And for those who say that the Yes people are all clones or siding with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and that they are voting no out of independence and concern for their issues, I ask you to look at how both edges of your No-sword cut. Are you supporting an agenda that you don't want to support? Jacques Parizeau will never be happy unless Canada is separated and ripped apart. The founder of the Western Canada Concept movement, Doug Christie, will never be silenced until Canada is broken apart.

That's as far as I'm getting into the negative side tonight, hon. Speaker, because I feel very positive about this vote. I feel very positive about how we reached October 1992. This began for me in October 1970. I believe we have a very different October this year than we had 22 years ago.

I support the way this agreement was reached. I am comfortable with the process of consensus-building, negotiation, give-and-take and finally reaching an agreement without animosity and with good feeling. That's the way this agreement was reached in Charlottetown. It took a long time, a lot of give-and-take and a lot of hard work by dedicated individuals.

The dedication in British Columbia began in this chamber with the all-party committee that went out into the province, asked for input, consolidated that input, brought it back to this House, accepted it unanimously and sent it off with our negotiators. Our negotiators achieved it. Now it's back in front of the people of British Columbia for acceptance or rejection.

I support the Canada clause in this agreement, which recognizes the first peoples, the founding peoples and all those who are yet to come as equals in Canada. I'm proud to accept that.

I accept in this document the framework for the negotiation of aboriginal self-government within Canada -- not separated-nation status, as some have said in this chamber.

I accept the social and economic union clauses that not only set out goals for Canadians but goals for the rest of the world. Some of those goals scare the dickens out of some of the No voices. Some of those goals are:

"Providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, universal, portable, publicly administered and accessible."

It's a noble goal.

"Providing adequate social services and benefits to ensure that all individuals resident in Canada have reasonable access to housing, food and other basic necessities.

"Providing high-quality primary and secondary education to all individuals resident in Canada and ensuring reasonable access to post-secondary education.

"Protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively.

"Protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations."

I'm proud to accept those as goals and commitments for Canadians -- a framework within which we can form our societies and move to the future.

The preservation and development of the economic union. It's a marvelous piece of work. It sets a framework within Canada that we can all be proud of. It doesn't set any finite end. It doesn't produce the end of an agreement; it produces the framework for the future and the direction that we will go as Canadians within this country. "The free movement of persons, goods, services and capital" between the provinces. As we enter the global market, we must also enter the domestic market in honesty. "The goal of full employment" and to dispel once and for all the myth of the far right that in order to manage the economy, we must manage the number of unemployed at an acceptable level of about 20 percent. I don't accept that. I accept the goal of full employment. "Ensuring that all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living. Ensuring sustainable and equitable development." I support those items in this accord. I am not afraid of some of the items in this unity agreement that may be offensive to the No side.

There is recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, having differences in the provinces but being equal within Canada. I have heard members in this chamber say: "What do you need it for? It's a fact; it's a given." I say to that member: if it's a fact, if it's a given, what is the harm in repeating it in this document?

[9:00]

I would like to read a couple of quotes from Thomas Berger, from an article he wrote in the Globe and Mail on October 15. One dealing with the makeup of the Supreme Court says: "And since we have two legal systems, civil law in Quebec and common law elsewhere, Quebec gets three seats on the Supreme Court." It's absolutely frightening to some voices I've heard in this chamber. Those voices have refused to recognize that that's been the status quo and standard in this country for 115 years. What's the harm in recognizing it in the constitution?

As for Canada's aboriginal people, this is another quote:

"...recognizing their inherent right of self-government is the logical culmination of recent constitutional developments. We entrenched aboriginal rights and treaty rights in the constitution in 1982. Now it is time to entrench aboriginal self-government. Two things about these governments are said to be matters of great concern. First, that they are based on race. This is exasperating; the native governments recognized under the accord are political successors to the governments the native people had before the Europeans came. They were the only people on this continent; there were no other races. That is hardly their fault; indeed, it is the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court has held that, from a constitutional point of view, native governments are not racially based."

I say again to some on the No side who have suggested that we separate this accord into its individual parts, organize a referendum and a debate on each and every part, and have our vote: how is that promoting unity? It is nothing short of divisive.

I believe a Yes vote is essential to keep Canada united, stable and strong for our children's future, by 

[ Page 3563 ]

ensuring a win for federalists, not separatists, in Quebec; by recognizing the social platform and the social guidelines that the world should be embracing, not just Canada; and by delivering justice to aboriginal peoples. That is why I'm proud to say I am voting yes on October 26.

W. Hurd: As I rise tonight, it's a privilege to debate this particular constitutional initiative by the Legislature. I want to say as a proud Canadian that I intend to vote no on Monday, October 26. I had prepared a lengthy address on the constitution tonight, but I decided to alter my remarks because I was so disturbed by the comments made by the hon. member for North Coast, the former Forests minister, who suggested that those in this province who oppose this accord are racial bigots, insensitive to the concerns and needs of Quebec, and people who do not deserve to be listened to.

As I listened to his diatribe I was struck by the fact that as a former Forests minister, he failed to deal even with the two issues in this constitution which would have affected his former ministry. I refer specifically to a press release issued by his ministry when he was minister about the Green Gold grants program, which explained the important role for the federal government and resource stewardship in this province. He also failed to mention the importance of the forest resource development agreement, which over the past ten years has pumped millions of dollars into the economy of British Columbia and will pay off in jobs in the future.

This was a minister who stood in the House this afternoon and preached about how important this agreement is to the aboriginal people of the province, and when he had an opportunity in his own riding to transfer a licence to the aboriginal people, it went to a multinational corporation instead. I tell you, that's hypocrisy and the kind of reason that people in this province are rejecting this accord and will vote no on October 26.

I'm struck by the way the campaign on the Yes side has unfolded in the last four weeks. We've heard almost every reason postulated as to why we can't possibly take any other decision but yes on this accord. First of all, we were warned about the economic doom that would follow if we failed to vote yes. Secondly, there was talk that Quebec would leave Confederation shortly after the 26th, before the vote came in from Quebec and before the polls came in indicating that they were prepared to reject it too. One wonders what will happen on the 26th if both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario decide to reject this agreement, supposedly representing the extremes of the position. Well, I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, it will prove one thing: both extremes recognize a turkey when they see one.

This particular agreement was forged like the last Meech Lake agreement was forged: at the end of the day by ten provincial Premiers and a Prime Minister desperate for any accord that would enable him to get re-elected. If this sorry process proves one thing, it's that ten provincial Premiers are not nation builders. They never have been and never will be, because they continue to approach the issues from a narrow self-interest when they get into a closed room. Every time, in the history of British Columbia, they have caved in when they have gotten back into the pressure-boiler atmosphere of Charlottetown, Meech Lake or anywhere else.

The sad fact of the matter is that the Premier of this province has brought back to British Columbia a turkey, which he can't sell to the people of this province. Not one member of the government side of the House has represented their constituents who have expressed concern about the agreement that was brought back.

I want to tell the government side of the House that the Liberal caucus fought the battles on this constitutional agreement, and we had a tough time. I want to say to you that there are four members in our caucus who stood up and took a contrary position. They were prepared to do that; they were allowed to do that. Not one person I've heard here tonight has the courage of his convictions to even represent the 55 to 60 percent of their constituents who intend to vote no on Monday the 26th. I tell you, hon. Speaker, there will be a day of retribution for those people in this House who have steadfastly refused to stand on principle and have voted based on the fact that their constitutional minister and their Premier brought back an agreement that the people of this province have seen through and are not prepared to support on the 26th of this month.

The Liberal Party did not emerge from this debate without casualties; there's no question about it. But we stand in this House tonight, proud in the knowledge that when push came to shove, we represented the interests of British Columbia far better than the governing party of this province that sent their Premier back there. He came back with an agreement that he can't sell to the people of this province...

An Hon. Member: He doesn't understand it.

W. Hurd: ...because he doesn't understand it. Exactly right.

One wonders what will indeed happen after October 26, when the people of the province -- not the bigots and the racists, but the ordinary people -- have rejected the advice of the mandarins, the politicos and the people who supposedly represent the future of the country, the vanguard of expertise on constitutional matters. When they have rejected that opinion, what will happen on the 27th?

I will tell you what will happen in this chamber, hon. Speaker. We will deal with another partisan piece of legislation: a labour bill that will have a more fundamental impact on the people of this province than this pork-barrel and ridiculous agreement brought back by the Premier. That debate will, I assume, continue far more than this one, but I don't expect that any member of the government side of the House will offer a contrary opinion -- much the same as we've seen with this constitutional debate.

The people who are tuning in tonight and watching this process must be wondering how it is that in every constitutional round, British Columbia gets sold down the river with an agreement that simply does not reflect the interests of the people of the province. They end up 

[ Page 3564 ]

with a referendum on the 26th and being forced to choose from an omnibus series of clauses, some of which are totally offensive to them. They are asked to support it in the name of national unity, when in fact we know that what will follow is another five years of negotiation. We already have the pledge from the Premier of Quebec that nothing is cast in stone as a result of any vote that people take on the 26th of this month. And can we blame them for being cynical about this process? Can we blame them for their decision to vote no on the 26th of this month, which they will almost assuredly do?

Hon. Speaker, the hon. member for North Coast is apparently prepared to blame them. He compares the decision to go against the wishes of his constituents with going against the referendum on hanging, for example. That's the kind of allusion he made, the kind of comparison he drew with this constitutional debate. The people of the province are not fooled, despite what the government may believe. They're not bigots, and they're not voting against Quebec. They are looking at an agreement that they cannot support, because they recognize that it's like a bad business deal. There comes a time when you have to look at what's in it and decide: do I want the future of the country based on this flawed agreement; or do I want to go back to the drawing board, start dealing with the economy and with the existing constitution we have now, and let the chips rest where they may?

We have a constitution. We have always had a constitution in this country. We will continue to have a constitution after the 26th. This is an amendment. It's an amendment that will change absolutely nothing in the final analysis, because almost everything in this has to be defined in the course of future negotiations -- twenty-six asterisks in this agreement that have to be redefined in another round of constitutional talks.

One of the most tiresome arguments I hear from the government is that we've got to put this behind us, because we've got to get on to other things. There's nothing in this agreement that's going to enable us to put it behind us. We're going to have a constitution based on totally flawed principles. And the people of this province are not buying it; they won't buy it. I tell you this: when the history of this province is written, it will be recalled that it was the Liberal opposition that stood on behalf of British Columbians in this chamber and not the Premier of this province, not the Constitutional Affairs minister and not the people in this chamber who have engaged in this debate on the government side of the House.

Hon. A. Hagen: As I listened to the last speaker, I must say that I was distressed by the acrimony and the extremism of his comments, and I want to comment, as I enter this debate, on my respect for the reasoned and thoughtful perspective that most people have brought to the discussion of this very important constitutional amendment. We in British Columbia, we across this land from sea to sea to sea, are talking over these few days in a very public way as elected people for the province of British Columbia about what this agreement means to us in our own province and what it means to the provinces and territories of our much-beloved country. And I believe, as I begin to comment on this agreement, that we have before us a very powerful and significant opportunity to build on the political, historical, cultural, economic and geographic traditions of our land.

[9:15]

As I listened to people speaking throughout the day on both sides of the chamber, I found myself saying yes to so much of what they had to say, to much of what they reflected about their personal and family histories, about their perspective on our country and, very concretely, about the elements of this agreement that allow us to go forward as a country for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. The people in this chamber have given us solid, thoughtful, personal reasons why each is voting as he or she chooses. I'm proud to be a part of a caucus that has collectively come to an agreement out of individual perspectives. I'm proud to be a part of a group of people who, in our discussions, have looked at this agreement, have talked about it, have shared perspectives and visions, so that each of us is voting yes out of personal belief and commitment.

I want to say a few words about my history in constitutional terms, because it has been very much a learning experience for me. I could go back, as some of us do, to 20 years ago. I remember where I was on the night of the October revolution when some people in Quebec erupted into violence because of their sense of injustice about what had been happening in their land. It was one of the first times that we have had violence in our country in a tangible way for many years, and I will not forget that night. I guess for me that began a constitutional saga, because it really crystallized a need to be aware of a part of the country that I didn't know at that time. I have come to know it a great deal better for a very personal reason. I have a daughter-in-law who was born a Quebecker, I have a grandson, the child of my son of Maritime roots, B.C. roots and who has a Quebec partner. So I have come to know something of that part of our country, and as I have just indicated, I come from the far east -- the Maritimes. So like everyone, I have a perspective of our land, and my constitutional saga has been very much rooted in my perspective of that whole land.

The next really concentrated perspective for me on constitutions was in 1980 and '81 when in British Columbia and Canada we were talking about patriating the constitution. I think it's worthwhile remembering that at that time there were two very strong elements in that debate. First, we were talking about a collective agreement, about bringing home our constitution from the United Kingdom and being able to amend our own constitution. That's how young a country we are constitutionally, in terms of dealing with amendments to our own constitution. We used to have to take it over to the mother of Parliaments in London for that task to be done.

Perhaps some people will remember that coming to an agreement was very difficult, and perhaps some will remember that the leader of the day, the Prime Minister, said he was going to bring home that constitution and 

[ Page 3565 ]

make amendments unilaterally. The provinces said: "Hey, wait, this is a federation. This is a task that involves all of us. We have to come to an agreement on those amendments that we can all live with." It was such a challenging issue that eventually Prime Minister Trudeau said: "I am going to do it unilaterally." The provinces said that that was not acceptable, and the whole issue landed in court. The Supreme Court of Canada said, as I recall it, that legally the federal government could bring the constitution home and make those amendments unilaterally, but that morally, in the traditions of this land, in the Confederation that we had built at that time for over 100 years, it was not acceptable. That wise decision began the process of provinces and territories working together around our own building of the constitution. And out of that patriation round, if you like, came the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was one of the first times the people of our land really became engaged in what our constitution should say and what its value should be.

Out of that round, however, there was one note of disharmony. Quebec did not feel that its aspirations were reflected, and it did not sign that constitutional agreement. Since that time, we have had two constitutional rounds. One was an attempt to deal with Quebec and its aspirations in what we know as the Meech Lake accord. It was a flawed process that took place in closed rooms. It was a process that took place without consultation. It was a process that left a lack of integrity because of the failure to involve Canadians. In this chamber we had a vigorous debate, and, at that time in our New Democrat opposition caucus, there was not unanimity. As my colleague the Minister of Social Services and other members of the caucus know, some of that caucus supported the agreement, feeling it was good; and others voted against it -- again out of their personal commitment about what was best for Canada.

It was clear, out of the Meech Lake accord round, that Canadians wanted a more inclusive process. We have worked over the last two years on that process to an agreement which people around this chamber have said came out of a whole range of discussions -- formal meetings with the legislative all-party committee of this House, kitchen and living-room discussions and constitutional conferences across the land. The gathering up of our vision, our values and our perspectives then went to the first ministers, the territorial leaders and the aboriginal leaders for them to cast into an agreement and a plan of action to take us forward. That is what we are voting on on October 26 in this historic amendment and in this historic referendum. It's an event that will stand in the history of Canada.

The people who are speaking about this accord and saying yes to it are saying yes because of what it includes and because it is the product of the efforts, ideas and ideals of Canadians from across the land.

I believe, hon. Speaker, that I'm the last speaker tonight. I want to take a moment....

Interjection.

Hon. A. Hagen: I see that there are others speaking, so I won't be presumptuous. Thank you, colleagues, for letting me know that.

I was going to say that as the last speaker I wanted to leave people who may be watching and listening with a review of the key elements of the accord. I'll do that anyway, because I know there will be other thoughts and ideas that come forward, as they have in all of these speeches yesterday and today.

The Canada clause in our agreement is, I believe, one of the most powerful statements of the values of a nation that one could hope for. It speaks about parliamentary democracy, the fundamental foundation of our government and our working together. It makes a commitment to our first peoples in recognizing their right to self-government, an inherent right that they had long before we and our forefathers ever came here. It recognizes that Quebec, that nation -- along with aboriginal nations, in fact, who historically have fought for us and helped to keep this Canada as a Canada that would be Canadian and not American -- has had since 1759, all through the time since the Plains of Abraham and the final battle between the English and French, a distinct culture, distinct language and distinct civil law.

The Canada clause recognizes and celebrates our racial and ethnic diversity, a powerful affirmation that I hear expressed in very tangible terms again and again by people who are first-generation Canadians and who talk about their love of this land because of the freedom and the democracy that they find here, in stark comparison often to the lives from which they have come.

It's a Canada clause that speaks again, as does the charter, about the equal rights of women and men, and it's a clause that reflects our federation about the diversity of the provinces and yet their equality. That is a powerful statement about what our country is, an inclusive statement that I believe resonates for all of us.

Secondly, I want to endorse what has been said about the social and economic union. People say we have much of what is expressed in that social union. But to put something in a constitution -- like our commitment to medicare, to education, to the social well-being of all people, to the environment -- says that these are values that we as legislators, in the provincial legislatures of the land, in the federal Parliament, in the territorial legislatures or in the aboriginal self-government structures, will all seek to have in place, with programs and resources to be sure that they are available to all citizens.

In this agreement, too, we take the next step toward social justice for a group of people who have been disadvantaged by us as Canadians. Our aboriginal peoples are for the first time contributing to the constitutional agreement, and we are working with them, through processes that they and the provincial and federal governments agreed to, to achieve self-government. The esteem, the pride and the potential of that particular part of the agreement are immeasurable, and I believe all Canadians feel a great pride in our having achieved it. We stand alone among nations in reflecting the rights of aboriginal people in our constitution.

[ Page 3566 ]

Finally, look at parliamentary reform. I for one will stand delighted and proud when our Senate of appointed people disappears from this land. I for one will be glad when no Prime Minister can stack an unelected body in order to achieve his legislative agenda. I for one will celebrate a Senate that has been determined to be equal across the land, has been given powers, has been elected, and has the potential to be a new institution. We don't often have a new institution in our country. In fact, it will probably not happen for another generation, although the new Senate may change over time with new representation in it.

I think it is a reflection of the compromise of the wish to meet aspirations of some of the provinces that this Senate has been formed, and we have agreed that it will have certain characteristics and certain powers. At the same time, in our Parliament, which is our main legislative body, fundamental principles have been established around representation by population that are beneficial, fair and equal to every province. Every province will have a minimum of a certain representation based on population. In this vast land of ours we have never had strict representation by population. Were it so, some of the members sitting on this side and on the opposite side could not be here, because it would be impossible for them to represent the huge ridings they would have to represent and serve.

I look to the member for North Coast, who has one of the most far-flung ridings in the land -- something like 30 different communities that he services with all the dedication and commitment that I know he has for all of those communities and the people of the area. But I can't imagine, with a strict rep by pop, how any living human being could serve what would virtually be the whole of northern British Columbia, with two or three or four members fewer in the House. So we've always had that balance, but this agreement provides us with some basic principles by which to have rep by pop as broadly and as well as we can on a provincial basis.

[9:30]

Those of us who are voting yes are voting because there are positive, helpful, visionary and challenging changes in this constitution that will take us forward. I believe we are voting yes also because in the consensus agreement that our Premiers, the Prime Minister, aboriginal leaders and territorial leaders reached, they also set for themselves a work plan. It is important for us to know that a constitution is the framework by which we work together. But it's the political will of parliaments and legislatures that gets the task done. Constitutions are but the tool, the structure in which we labour in the political arena and in our communities. And the idea that we would come out of this agreement not only with very significant and constructive amendments for our country but with clear commitments to work on economic, aboriginal, governance and social policy issues is evidence of the constructive work that our leaders did in Ottawa and Charlottetown.

This is not an elegant piece of prose. This is not something that is written with perfect symmetry, harmony and compromise, but it is the product of good and faithful men and women citizens of the land and of elected people toward building our country. It's for that reason that I join the tens of thousands of Canadians who have read the agreement, who have done their homework, who have thought their position through, and who are proudly and solidly saying yes. They are saying yes not only to this agreement; they are saying yes to the fact that there is more work to do. And they know that by taking this stand and marking this particular benchmark in our constitutional working arrangements, they are also saying yes to the political will and to the commitment to work on behalf of citizens wherever we may happen to live in Canada within a harmonious, compassionate, just and committed country. That's what this agreement means to me, and it's what I know it means to many people throughout the land.

I believe that with a strong Yes vote we affirm not only to ourselves but to a troubled world that this miracle that is our country and that has survived from sea to sea to sea -- the ethnic, racial, aboriginal founding-nation diversity and the federation of so many different regions of the province -- is indeed a country that is the best place in the world to live, and one where we as legislators can be proud to be working with citizens for its betterment and for the betterment of our children.

H. Giesbrecht: I'd like to rise in this debate and express my opinions on the unity agreement, and I'd like to do so by first making a few observations about the debate that's taken place thus far in this session. We have been accused of setting up this debate as a diversion. I take some exception to that. I can clearly recall that when it became a matter of discussion as to whether or not we would have a debate on the constitution, there was a great flurry of excitement from the opposition leader that we should have it. Well, the opposition did ask for this debate, and I'm rather pleased that they did because I'm proud to be able to stand here and express my views on the unity agreement.

At the time that this was going on, I thought: "What could be least informative than having politicians debate the merits of this cause one way or the other?" It certainly wouldn't provide a lot of information to members of the public, and it's the members of the public that we want to read this accord, to read the draft of the legal text and to then make an informed decision. However, it's too important an issue for me to sit silent. There's too much at stake here, and I have to address the issue.

We have even been accused of trying to tell people how to vote simply by the mere fact that we're wearing a button that says how we personally are going to vote. I take some exception to that. I'm rather proud of the fact that I'm voting yes. I don't force anybody else to vote yes. I want them to make up their own minds, but I make no apologies for coming to the conclusion, after having read the documents, that this is in fact a significant issue and there is a lot more at stake than the No side would have you believe.

We are debating on the Yes side and asking the people to consider our particular point of view. When we debate the Yes side, we are occasionally accused of 

[ Page 3567 ]

fearmongering; however, when we listen to the No side, they're not fearmongering. There's an inconsistency there that I would like the public to consider. If you believe passionately about something, and you point out the reality of what the consequences might be, you are not fearmongering. There have been some statements that even I don't agree with, but if I address the reality of this issue, I could hardly be accused of fearmongering. The public can take the words and weigh them and then make their own decisions.

I would like history to at least record, if the Noes win -- and that's not a foregone conclusion yet -- that there were people in this country who were able to compromise, who had courage to face the future, who had faith in Canadians to come up with the right decision, even if the accord has some of these perceived inequities that they talk about. The Noes may win, but there will be consequences, and I would at least like the record to show that I tried to do something.

There is a fundamental difference between the arguments of the No and the arguments of the Yes. The No arguments seem to centre around the notion: what's in it for us? The Yes side seems to centre around the notion that we include all Canadians. So just by that fundamental difference, I have to agree with the Yes side.

I served on the Special Committee on Constitutional Matters. We had 37 separate meetings -- round-table discussions. Some 2,000 people in the province attended, and there were about 400 written submissions. Out of that came a unanimous report. We reached that impossible unanimity that some members of the opposition talk about with eight members of the NDP, four members of the Liberal Party and two members of the Social Credit Party. To now claim that the opposition was somehow browbeaten into submission, that they didn't get their points across in the report of the constitutional committee, is either completely false -- from which one would conclude that some questions about the integrity of the people might be considered or that there was some political opportunism there, which on an issue of such importance we would think would not be part of the equation -- or it shows total incompetence of the six opposition members who sat on the commitee. And I know that wasn't the case.

K. Jones: I'm rising on a point of order. This member is impugning the members of the committee represented by this party in the House, and I think he should apologize.

The Speaker: Did the hon. member intend to impugn the motives of any other hon. member in the House?

H. Giesbrecht: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker. I just finished saying that I knew that that was not the case because I worked with these people on the committee, and the way I understood it was that they did their job excellently and out of that we reached a compromise.

The Speaker: Please proceed with your comments, hon. member.

H. Giesbrecht: It's important for Canadians to understand that the same process was gone through in every province in this country. There are stacks of paper where groups have tried to get the mood or the opinions of the public so that the people who sat at the negotiating table would not go there with a blank cheque, as some people have indicated. There were some guidelines, and those guidelines were arrived at by consensus. No one had a blank cheque. The process actually succeeded. We got a compromise. An agreement was reached. Unfortunately, since then we've ended up with an awful lot of armchair negotiators.

I'm a first-generation Canadian -- one of the reasons I'm rather proud to be standing here. When my mother and father bundled us children up and took us across the water, we actually expected to be assimilated. There was no sense that we would refrain from trying to be Canadians or not blend in with the mass of Canadians who were here. If we had resided in Quebec, I probably would have spoken French today. But we didn't. We came to B.C., and I'm happy for that. I don't know what would have happened the other way.

I recognize that there were others in this country who didn't make that choice. Their ancestors were here first. In particular, the French have a distinct society. Everybody recognizes that. Everybody around the province told us that they recognize that they're distinct. Their distinctness comes from the Quebec Act of 1774. They were allowed their own language, their own French civil law and the free exercise of the Roman Catholic church. They were distinct. Then, in 1867, that distinctness was even provided for in the Constitution Act.

Something happened after that which I think the public should be aware of. It goes to 1976 and a major historic event. René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois were elected. Why was he elected? Obviously the fires of discontent in Quebec had brewed to the extent where they were prepared to elect a government that was interested in sovereignty. In 1980 they scheduled a referendum, and there was a debate on sovereignty. If people will remember, Pierre Trudeau was going around Quebec saying to everybody: "I know that I can make a solemn commitment that following a No vote we will immediately take action to renew the constitution, and we will not stop until we have done that." Based on that promise, Quebec voted no in the sovereignty referendum. Well, what happened? In 1981 at the first ministers' conference, nine provinces signed a deal in the cafeteria of a hotel and excluded the Premier of Quebec. A former Premier of B.C. was part of that deal. That further fuelled the fires of separatism in Quebec. They were excluded, and they felt excluded. Then, if people will remember, Trudeau took his famous walk in the snow and disappeared from the scene, and Mr. Bourassa was elected.

Now Mr. Bourassa is a committed Canadian. He arranged for a second round of talks, and we got Meech Lake. A consensus was reached by ten Premiers and the Prime Minister. There was a distinct-society clause in it that Clyde Wells objected to because it didn't have any restrictions on it; it ignored aboriginal peoples, so Elijah Harper voted no.

[ Page 3568 ]

Quebec has been at the table three times now. The first time they got shafted. The second time they had a deal, and we're still second-guessing this deal. How much more does it take before the fires of separatism are fuelled to the extent where there's no turning back?

[9:45]

Quebec may vote no, and we may as well, but that does send a message. For example, if we vote no, what does that say to Quebec? Who will sit at the negotiating table for Quebec the next time? Will they even come to the table? Would you if you were in their position? Could we strike a better deal with Parizeau or Bouchard? How will we reach a compromise if by the results of this referendum all of the Premiers have been put into a kind of restricted position? There's no flexibility in negotiating anymore. How can we come up with a better deal?

There's the issue of aboriginal concerns, and it's very dear to my constituency. Concerns have been expressed here that we're giving away the farm, that somehow we're conferring special status on aboriginal people. We have to deal with those remarks in a historical perspective. Native people in B.C. didn't get the right to vote until 1949; they didn't get the right to vote in Canadian elections until 1960. It's interesting that in one of those magnanimous gestures by the federal government, where they appointed a native Senator -- Senator Gladstone -- in 1958, he couldn't even vote in the federal elections for two years after that. We imposed an idea of band councils on aboriginal peoples -- totally foreign to them. We imposed it under threat that we would depose the chiefs.

They had their own system of government that was far more intricate than what most of us would realize. We outlawed the potlatch because it was a foreign concept to us. Imagine, hon. Speaker. You have status in the community by what you give back to the people in the community. We bestow status on people in the community by what they accumulate -- a totally foreign concept to aboriginal peoples. No wonder we didn't understand what the potlatch was. But we outlawed it. We put people in jail because they carried on their ceremonial feasts. We confiscated all of their cultural paraphernalia and then sold it off to museums in Europe.

In terms of property rights, we took their land. Whether we admit it or not, we took their lands. In fact, in 1882 there was a land sale in Vancouver, presided over by a Colonel Moody. Much to his surprise, a native person suddenly came to buy the land, and he got all concerned. Here were these wily aboriginal people trying to buy back some of their own land. He had never heard of this. He talked to his supervisors. They finally did have to give the native person the land. But after that, they passed a law that required a minute in council for any native person in B.C. to buy land. Needless to say, there wasn't much land that was deeded over to aboriginal people. That was at the same time that we put native people on reserves on the basis of 20 acres per head of a family. If you were a non-native settler in this province, you could pre-empt 320 acres for a farm. Even when they adapted, we weren't even allowing them under the Indian Act to sell their own produce, their furs or wild animals.

What we have done has simply not worked. It's time we recognized that and dealt with the issue. There are social indicators that tell us how great a job we've done. The Minister of Social Services dealt with that earlier this evening. On every socio-economic indicator we find that there is an abysmal record of what we've done to aboriginal people. Infant mortality rates are the highest. They have the lowest life expectancy, the highest unemployment rate and the highest school dropout rate, and their suicide rates are staggering. They want some control over their own affairs, something we have enjoyed for a hundred years. They are prepared to do that within Canada, and that's what makes the self-government section in this agreement worth approving.

This unity agreement recognizes the reality of our history. It recognizes the two founding nations to preserve the way of life of French-speaking Quebeckers and it also recognizes our abysmal treatment of aboriginal peoples in the past and even today. We took away their right to access the resources in their own lands, stuck them on small parcels of land, subjected generations to welfare, excluded them from the mainstream of our economic system and now some people on the No side are saying, "Why can't we all just be Canadians?" as though somehow that will address the injustices of the past. It's shameful because it perpetuates the status quo, and the status quo is not going to work.

There are consequences of voting no and there are consequences of voting yes, and if you talk about the consequences, you might be accused of fearmongering. I think that it's being realistic. If Jacques Parizeau or Lucien Bouchard sit at the next negotiating table, is a better deal possible? I ask that question again. Will a separatist Quebec give B.C. and the rest of the country a better deal than we've got now? Does a rejection increase the frustration to a point where negotiating or compromise isn't even possible? I say that's a distinct possibility. Another agreement is always possible. Anything is possible. But is it likely to happen? Will aboriginal people sit and wait? Will Quebec separatists sit and wait? On the other hand, a yes deals with the challenges of the constitution.

There are some myths about this constitution, and I would like to deal with them briefly. The myth is that it's not amendable. This accord, it's been said before, is not the whole constitution. Ninety to 95 percent of the constitution is still amendable by the seven-50 rule. The assumption is that consensus is impossible, and I say that that's nonsense. Consensus is infinitely more uniting than the majority imposing its wish on the minority. And in any family, consensus is a much better way of resolving disputes. We obviously already have some experience of that. I'm reminded of the comment that those who deny history are destined to repeat it. We should have learned something from 1982: you don't get unity by excluding a province or a group of people.

The Senate is not effective, people say. Well, having it elected makes it effective. There is a constituency then that they have to be accountable to. That alone makes it 

[ Page 3569 ]

effective, never mind the other issues of effectiveness that have already been added in terms of their role. And when we got equality, I would think that there had to have been some trade-offs. Why would Quebec or Ontario agree to six Senators? They already had 18 or so. Why would they simply give us an equal number, unless we were prepared to compromise?

It's been mentioned by the member for North Coast that we have abandoned proportional representation as a fundamental principle of democracy for some time and that every time we did, it was to address a specific issue. We address it even in the north-south issue in B.C., where we have smaller populations in northern ridings. But try to imagine it this way. If we are so hung up on rep by pop, think of an equal Senate. In B.C. alone, do you realize that we would have one Senator for everything north of about 100 Mile House? Is that what we're really advocating? Or will there be some more even distribution? How would a person deal with the entire northern half of the province? And I know that's sort of a leap of faith, because some parties in here don't have anybody north of 100 Mile House -- north of Chilliwack, let alone north of 100 Mile House -- but there are great distances that the representative would not be able to visit. How would you have access to your Senator? So please don't get hung up on a rigid rep by pop. It's deviated from to address certain issues.

Hon. Speaker, Quebec apparently gets special treatment. They get 25 percent of the seats if they go below a certain population. Why should that worry us? We have 75 percent of the seats in the rest of Canada. If B.C. was that little island of English speakers in this North American continent, do you not think that we would be a little bit worried about our culture? Do you not think that we would try to negotiate something that would protect us from the assimilation of American culture or what would then be French-Canadian culture? Of course we would. And we would hope that people would be compromising enough in this country to understand that, then deal with it and give us that kind of assurance.

I'm quickly running out of time, but let me say to people quickly that this constitution is not intended to do everything. It's certainly not intended to isolate people from ever having to make a decision about what kind of governments they're going to elect. There are policies that people want addressed that won't be in this constitution, but we can't simply provide a cocoon for everybody and say that nevermore will it matter who you elect because a particular social service is embodied in the constitution and no government can take it away. That's what governments and elections are for.

The other thing I want to address is the fear that if we vote yes, and if there's some little loophole in the constitution, we will change the last 50 years of progress on women's rights, aboriginal rights and rights for people with disabilities and so on -- that we will suddenly change all that. There would be a great hue and cry if we were suddenly to roll back on those issues. I think people should have some faith in the Canadian people that they wouldn't allow that to happen.

I want to make one final proposal to the No forces. We have occasionally accused the No forces of not having alternatives, and the argument has been that they don't have the resources to do that. I would certainly like to see somebody on the No side put together a constitutional accord with the wording that they would like and send it over to Mr. Bourassa or perhaps even Jacques Parizeau and see what their reaction would be. I have a pretty good idea. I know what that reaction would be.

The other thing I wanted to make sure the public understood is that a No vote or a Yes vote doesn't endorse or reject a particular politician, a particular government or particular party. This vote is on nothing more -- and that's plenty -- than the future of Canada. So when you vote yes or you vote no, make sure you understand the issues.

Hon. A. Hagen: The hour of adjournment having arrived, I move adjournment of the debate on the constitutional amendment until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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