1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, No. 18
The House met at 10:03 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on the motion respecting the Canadian unity agreement. Motion without Notice
CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to talk in the House this morning about my support for the Charlottetown accord.
When we look in the dictionary for a definition of accord, we see that accord means a treaty of peace, an agreement that brings about peace. That was truly the intention of the people who sat at tables throughout this country to bring this agreement to us. People who are saying yes in British Columbia and across this country are saying yes to the social charter and an economic union that we see in this agreement. They are saying yes to the protection of medicare as a constitutional value, and they are saying yes for a good balanced agreement that sets out our priorities as a country. It talks about what we value as Canadians, and it allows us to get on in this and other provinces with issues that affect women's lives, including economic issues. In difficult economic times, no one is harder hit than women, young people and the elderly.
The Charter, whose support is contained within this agreement, protects our individual and collective rights and freedoms. Sexual equality rights and rights to redress historic inequalities are keys to those rights. As Canadians, we argue these rights are primary and fundamental rights for all Canadians. The Charter, which is the fundamental individual rights agreement, says governments cannot use the notwithstanding clause to override any sexual equality rights. This will not change. The Canada clause, on the other hand, is a broad statement. It's a statement of the equality and diversity of Canada and Canadians, and it does not take precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When we think about it, does it create equality among provinces? It's important for all of us to remember that equal does not mean the same. What this agreement does affirm is the equality of the provinces, but it allows us to celebrate the diversity and differences between provinces, which we are so proud of here in British Columbia.
I want to talk for a minute about social programs and a number of issues and concerns that have been raised about whether this agreement in some way causes social programs in this province or this country to be at risk. I quite honestly reject that argument. This agreement does say that there will be national program objectives that all provinces and territories have to meet for any new program that would receive federal funding. It is the first time that we have ever had program objectives talked about in our constitution, and it is a very important step.
In a number of places that I've gone to, the statement has been made that we will never see a federal day care program. Well, hon. Speaker, we never have seen a federal day care program. We have been promised one for eight years. A year and a half ago the federal government said: "No, that's not what we're going to do; we think we'll do something different." It is not this agreement that is going to bring about quality day care for Canadians. The federal government has promised a federal day care program for eight years. In ten months this government had the first child care policy and strategy in this province, and will have 5,000 new day care spaces by the end of this year. What it takes is policy; legislation, when necessary; adequate and appropriate resources; and the political will and a commitment of courage by governments to take on the commitments that are so important to the lives of women and men in this province. That is how we see quality day care programs coming about.
There has been concern expressed that we will never see a federal initiative around intervention in and prevention of violence against women. Well, we haven't seen one so far either. We have seen a task force that has been going around this country for some significant period of time. I think the research and the information they have accumulated is good information, but they are out researching again. In this province, what is making the difference in intervention and prevention of violence against women, and 16 million new dollars being spent this year, is a government with the political will, the courage and the commitment to recognize what a priority that is and to carry forth that kind of initiative in this province. I do not accept the argument that day care and intervention and prevention of violence against women are programs that will be at risk.
Can provinces opt out? Yes, of course, they can opt out. They can opt out under certain circumstances. They can opt out if they meet the national program objectives to be set up. Is that a problem, or is that difficult? I don't suffer under any illusions that the only people able to design a good social program are the federal government. Quite frankly, I believe that in British Columbia, with the kind of people we have here, we are more than able to design social programs as good as, if not better than, those designed by the federal government in this country. Even medicare, which is the example that's often used as a national program, began as a provincial program. It began in the province of Saskatchewan and was modelled there and then picked up by the federal government. There is no reason to believe or to suggest that individual provinces cannot take leadership, as long as they meet objectives that say they need to be quality programs, which other provinces will then be able to model.
One of the tremendous impacts on social programs in this province that this agreement will prevent happening again is reduction in transfer payments. This only affects new programs; it does not affect ongoing transfer payments. But had we had this agreement in the beginning that said federal and provincial govern-
[ Page 3572 ]
ments must agree when federal governments take those kinds of steps around reducing money, then we would not have seen this province lose $7.8 billion between 1982 and 1995. It has cost this province $7.8 billion. How many post-secondary seats, how many more schools, how many more hospital beds, how many more transition houses and sexual assault centres could that have provided to people in this province? Never again, under this agreement, will the federal government be able to take a unilateral decision that has such tragic results for the people of British Columbia.
People have also talked about a patchwork quilt of services across the country. It's an interesting use of the words "patchwork quilt," and clearly, I see the image of a patchwork quilt differently. For me, a patchwork quilt -- when we think about what that traditionally means to us -- is something that protects, that keeps warm and that with different pieces weaves or puts together a common set of values or things that we treasure. That's really what a patchwork quilt has been about. So I don't see it as being wrong that other provinces might have different kinds of services that meet the needs of people in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador or Manitoba, as long as there are program objectives that ensure those are quality programs. I would not be so presumptuous, as the federal government may have been in the past and as others are, to suggest that there is some single program design that meets the needs of people in Kaslo and Pubnico, in Sidney and Corner Brook. That's not the case, so I see the term "patchwork quilt" in a very different way.
[10:15]
It's also been suggested that the individuals who are saying no are taking a feminist perspective and that the individuals who are voting yes are taking a non-feminist perspective. At least, at several events I've been at recently those have been the banners that I've seen. There is not a single feminist perspective about this agreement. There are feminists who are supporting this agreement and there are feminists who are not, and I don't want any of us to get into some sort of contest where we count how many feminist lawyers you can get on either side of a debate or argument or position. There is no single feminist position, and there are certainly many feminists of credibility and repute in this province who are supporting this agreement.
While I would not speak to all of the responsibilities and powers that will accrue to the provincial government, I would wish to speak to one, which is labour adjustment strategies and training. I see an opportunity for the people of British Columbia and, quite honestly, women to design training opportunities and labour adjustment strategies that use the skills of people in B.C.; that look at the kinds of jobs, industries and economics that we see in British Columbia; and allow us to create opportunities for women to enter that kind of training. If you take out two particular categories, currently we have 4 percent representation by women in apprenticeship programs. This is an opportunity for us to create training opportunities in many more non-traditional fields, because women are asking to be part of that. It is an opportunity to have a training strategy and plan in B.C. that is built on the skills of people here, based on the future job needs here, and that will be far more open to the needs of women in British Columbia. I see that as a strong opportunity for this province.
Certainly at the forums I have been at in the last couple of days there has also been discussion on how we should not pass this until absolutely every detail has been worked out: all the details of self-government; all the program goals; all parts of this accord. I think we will wait a very long time. There is no other part of our lives where every single piece is in place. When we do that, we wait and we wait. And while we are waiting in this province -- and certainly viewing it from my ministry's perspective -- there are energy and resources focused away from stopping violence in this province, providing child care, moving on with economic strategies that will assist women into the workforce if they choose to, get training if they choose to and have a standard of living that says that many women do not have to continue to live below the poverty line. I would ask on behalf of women in this province: how long can we ask people to wait?
I've been talking to a lot of student forums in the last few weeks. It's interesting. When I talked to them I realized that for many people who are voting for the first time, who are 18, 19, 20 and 21, this constitutional discussion has been there for over half of their lives. So again my question is: how much longer do we wait?
I do think that through these discussions has come an acknowledgment many of us would have made before as well: while I'm very proud of the work our Premier and our Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs have done at the table, when we look across this country, we have a different political job to do to ensure that the message we've heard so clearly about "Where are the voices of...?" is answered. Where are the voices of people who are disabled? Where are the voices of more women? Where are the voices of women and men from ethnic communities? Where are the voices of aboriginal people? We have a political job to do as we shape this future to ensure that our political process moves. If we can look four or five years down the road, we need to ensure that when elected people gather at a table, people in British Columbia see themselves more broadly represented. That's a message that has been clearly heard and has been said by others of us along the way.
In talking about the accord or the agreement yesterday, one of the students used in her forum the analogy of a house. She said that it's in some ways like buying a house. You look at the house; you look at its location; you look at the rooms in the house; you look at the living room, the dining room, the bedrooms, the kitchen and the bathroom. And you know, as you do with this agreement, that you have an ability, if you will, to redecorate or to change some of those things -- to change 95 percent of them, quite honestly -- with the seven-50 amending formula. But you don't reject the house because one of the rooms isn't exactly perfect. And I thought her closing line in the forum was an important one. She said: "If you agree with my analogy of looking at this as a house, then it is important that in
[ Page 3573 ]
our deliberations we do not -- either literally or figuratively -- move in Canada to divide this house."
R. Kasper: There is no confusion over what a Yes vote will mean. The resulting action by governments is clearly set out in the Canadian unity agreement. Of course, some of the provisions will require further negotiations. The whole purpose of this agreement is to provide a sound and reasonable basis for the conduct of those discussions, most of which can be handled by government officials. That would leave us, those elected to office, able to concentrate on the other matters at hand.
What will a No vote mean? The people telling us to vote no can't even agree. We've got Preston Manning saying that no means no more constitutional wrangling for at least five years. We've got Judy Rebick, from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, saying that a No vote means that the agreement can go back to the bargaining table in order to come up with better protection for the rights of women, gays, lesbians and people with disabilities and to get better protection for social programs. Jacques Parizeau, on the other hand, says he'll interpret a No vote as a Yes vote to Quebec sovereignty.
If we say no, where does it end? Judy Rebick will still be saying: "Get back to the bargaining table. Put aside the important government business of dealing with jobs and the economy, and negotiate a better deal." Preston Manning will be saying: "Leave it alone for five years." Meanwhile, good old Jacques Parizeau will be working harder than ever to take Quebec out of Confederation, Pierre Trudeau will be smugly satisfied with a weak country because that's the way he left it, and the bitterness, divisiveness and acrimony that is so persuasive in Canadian society will not go away.
I haven't heard anyone yet say that this agreement is perfect or that it includes everything that they would want to see in it if they had negotiated it. There are some things in there that I'd like to see more of and some things I could live without. There are those who argue that the whole agreement should be defeated because it doesn't include everything they, their province or the interest group they represent wants. No agreement that is designed to meet the needs of all Canadians, all interest groups and all regions could meet the test and satisfy those people and the interests of different regions without conflicting with others.
Being in government means finding a common ground, a balance and the reasonable compromises that are necessary to give everyone enough of what they need to continue as partners and as common citizens. We must balance the demands of the few with the common desires of the many.
Most of the naysayers, on the other hand, have their own political agendas and special interests to represent. To a great extent these interests conflict with each other. Can you seriously imagine Preston Manning, Judy Rebick, Pierre Trudeau and Jacques Parizeau sitting down together and reaching a consensus and a compromise that will not only satisfy the bulk of their demands but will reflect a vision of Canada common to all Canadians?
When we look at the agreement we have before us, we must assess it in terms of whether it is acceptable, not perfect. Is it better than the likely alternatives? Is it worse than the status quo, where western Canadians feel left out and dominated by a distant central government, Quebeckers feel disillusioned about their future within Canada, there is no formal recognition of the first peoples' right to self-government, and the future of Canadian unity is uncertain?
Hon. Speaker, we can take an action where everyone benefits and can remain stable, united and strong. If we say yes, our constitutional negotiations can take place in an atmosphere of consensus rather than in the bitter and acrimonious wake of a No vote. The No is being interpreted in completely opposite ways by completely different people. To imagine a lull after the constitutional storm, with a calm continuation after the status quo and a moratorium on demands for constitutional change for five years, is simply unrealistic. We will be hit with aftershocks for those years.
Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard will take the No as an invitation to pursue separatism and sovereignty more vigorously. Those who have called for recognition of aboriginal rights will feel they've been rejected. Those calling for Senate reform will view the No as a slap in the face of their concerns. There will be no provisions for equality of provinces, for stronger equalization for poorer provinces, or for constitutional reflection of the values that we share as Canadians -- values that make us special and unique and set us apart from our neighbours to the south.
Of course, people have a right to vote no, and I respect that right. But they should determine their vote on a fair understanding of the contents of this agreement and realistically appreciate the consequences of voting either way.
I had a few problems with the agreement when I first read about it, and I have to admit I was one of those people wondering why Quebec seems to get everything. But I did a little digging. Now I realize that Quebec gets no special treatment. It is a distinct society within Canada, just as the agreement spells out. And distinct society simply recognizes the civil law tradition and the French language and culture that is found only in Quebec.
But this talk about Quebec's guarantee of 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons is really misleading. Quebec now has and has always had 25 percent of the population. Demographic projections exist that say it could sometime in the future drop below 25 percent, but projections are just projections, not facts. These projections are based on assumptions about the rate of migration out of Quebec between 1976 and 1985 when there was a separatist government in power. If the unity agreement is ratified, the constitutional and economic uncertainty that resulted in this massive move out of Quebec will likely be resolved. In addition, there was a very low birth rate in Quebec over the past few years. That was also a factor in the demographic projections, but that too has turned around. If the more recent trends continue, and there's no reason for us to believe that they won't if these constitutional issues are satisfactorily resolved, there is
[ Page 3574 ]
a very good reason to believe that Quebec will not fall below 25 percent.
Those who say B.C.'s population will equal or surpass Quebec's in 25 to 30 years, as Rafe Mair likes to say.... Let me talk about Rafe Mair. He has a vested interest in whipping up the No forces within this province just to perpetuate his ratings. I'm sure that if one pursued this, it would leave a bad taste in one's mouth as to what his true motives are for his views on the No vote.
[10:30]
It's a fantasy for us to be left with the impression that such a massive shift in population would occur. And there are no projections that indicate that this is even remotely likely. The latest StatsCan projections, which are driven by the outdated projections I've already mentioned, go to the year 2036. They indicate that Quebec's population will be around 23.3 percent and British Columbia's around 13.2 percent.
Hon. Speaker, I became a citizen of this country by choice. In making that decision, I embraced the values of Canada and what it stood for: the view that we treat all citizens within this country equally. We respect all views and opinions, regardless of culture, race or language. It's far too easy for us, in any setting, to be critical of recommendations by government or any organization that hon. members here have been involved in in the past. It's very rare that one can achieve consensus or unanimity. But with this agreement, it should be noted that all political affiliations and all special interests within regions have been set aside, to come up with something that is fair and honourable for the future of this country. As a Canadian by choice, I'm proud to support this agreement, and I would urge members of the public and this House to give careful consideration to their vote next Monday.
L. Reid: It's indeed a pleasure to rise in this chamber to discuss the Charlottetown accord. Canadians now face a national referendum. As citizens of a supposedly liberal, mature democracy, this should entitle us to make a full assessment of its merits, following extensive, open debate. We should feel totally free to accept the deal if we think it will strengthen our nation, or to reject it if we do not.
We are told that the deal is a delicate compromise that we cannot question: we must simply accept the bad with the good. This is unacceptable to me, hon. Speaker. We do not demand perfection in constitutional reform, but we must demand excellence from our leaders, and this deal is only mediocre at best. Canadians must insist on free and informed debate and remind our leaders that they hold power only on trust for us and cannot abdicate their responsibility to allow us a real choice in this referendum. Our leaders are in breach of this trust if they deny us this choice with threats that a vote against this deal will mean the end of Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Canada will not end if this deal is rejected, but what must end, for the foreseeable future, are these tedious, interminable constitutional debates. For the last five years in particular we have been constitutionalizing every problem that has faced us as a nation. Let our leaders stop hiding behind sterile constitutional excuses and get down to work to solve the real problems -- notably the economy, unemployment, poverty and environmental degradation. Let them start to really serve, rather than ignore, the needs of the people of this country. Let them focus their attention and their limited resources on finding effective ways to improve our quality of life and on building a fairer, more compassionate society.
The non-enforceable social charter in the constitutional package is no substitute for the federal legislative authority to establish minimum standards and social adjustment programs. It appears that this government endorses principles of health care in Charlottetown while dismantling the system at home. The provisions of the Charlottetown accord dealing with the social charter are written in clear -- if not simple -- language. When one looks at these words and then examines this government's record in health care, there can be only two possible reasons for the discrepancy. One, this government did not understand the simple language it agreed to, which is a distinct possibility, given its overall competence at Charlottetown. Or the government did understand that it was committing itself to protecting a health care system when it had no intention of doing so, but agreed anyway because the words had a nice ring.
I suggest that many British Columbians would believe the second explanation. They would see that this is another example of lofty words and lacklustre deeds, and the voters of B.C. would have reason to hold this opinion. They would remember that this same government, which supported comprehensive health care in Charlottetown, campaigned on promises of cancer treatment, only to renege on those promises after the election. If the voters of British Columbia are, as the polls suggest, resisting the soothing promises of this government on the benefits of the accord in terms of its application to health care, it is because they won't be fooled again. If this government has failed to provide comprehensive health care at home, how can they be credible proponents at a national level?
The accord also endorses the principle of universality. Therefore it might be asked if the Premier was aware, while reaffirming his commitment to universality in Charlottetown, that his government at home was marching in the opposite direction. It might be said that the Premier's legendary incompetence at the negotiating table was matched by the dismal negotiating skills of his Health minister in her impasse with our province's physicians. Are the disruptions in service resulting from job actions by physicians what the Premier had in mind when he supported the accessibility provisions in the accord? And when the Premier agreed in Charlottetown to preserve a publicly funded system, was he aware that a private billing system was taking hold in this province? While it is true that we have become accustomed to hearing that the Premier is not always informed by his cabinet on key decisions, we believe that this is one case where he should have checked.
The section of the accord dealing with social and economic union calls for commitment by government to
[ Page 3575 ]
protect bargaining rights. Here again we see a clear distinction between the government's words and actions. Specifically, would the arbitrary approach taken by this government in its negotiations with the medical community be tolerated by the same government if practised by any other employer? Does this government not see a contradiction between its plans to recruit salaried physicians and its pronouncements about replacement workers?
This case was brought home to me last evening in Powell River, where there is a Member of Parliament, Mr. Skelly, who is indeed trying to restructure the delivery of health care on this coast without consultation and is promoting the implementation of replacement workers. That is not something I ever thought I would see any NDP person stand for. Here again we see the government embarked on a course which they would condemn as strikebreaking in any other industry.
To maintain the integrity of the federal system, all provinces must have the same constitutional powers, however differently they may choose to exercise those powers and whatever limited and administrative arrangements some provinces might have made with the federal government.
Under this deal, the Canadian economic union has likely been weakened rather than strengthened. In addition, the federal government will effectively be excluded from any meaningful role in the labour training market and will be unable to take steps to improve the productivity and the skills base of the national labour force, which is an essential source of national competitive advantage.
Under this deal, the two-founding-nations theory is adopted, which is both historically incorrect and irrelevant to the Canada of the future. Special status for Quebec, whether through a distinct-society clause or special bilateral agreement, is not a viable option for long-term constitutional peace.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women produced many documents, and in their latest insert they suggest that women in this country say yes to a Canada which has the rights of women and minorities at the forefront, to a Canada in which aboriginal women, the women of Quebec and all women participate equally in democratic political institutions. They say yes to a Canada in which there is recognition of the inherent right of self-government by aboriginal people, including protection of the rights of aboriginal women. The National Action Committee says yes to a Canada in which the right of self-determination for Quebec is guaranteed. This means the right of the people of Quebec to choose freely their path of political and economic development, without the threat of coercion or force. Their final point is a Canada in which the federal government has the constitutional authority to initiate national social programs directed at overcoming inequality. The National Action Committee does not support the Charlottetown accord. They do not believe that it reflects their interests or the interests of women in Canada. They are saying yes to equality. They are saying no to a bad deal that can't be changed for the better.
Again, on the issue of women's equality as it pertains to the Charlottetown accord, we believe that the deal this Premier has negotiated will threaten the rights of thousands of Canadian women, and rights that they have fought for for many years. It sets up a hierarchy of rights. It diminishes the Charter, making collective rights paramount over individual rights, and it strengthens the rights of government at the expense of the rights of the individual. This deal will make the Charter of Rights and Freedoms subject to the new interpretative clause. Now, when the courts are asked to look at rights issues, they will be compelled to interpret the entire Charter, including women's rights, in a manner consistent with the eight characteristics set out in the Canada clause. It will put limits on the rights guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter. I don't need to tell any of you that among these rights are the historic gains made by Canadian women in our battle to be recognized in the 1982 Charter.
The Premier's poor negotiating performance will hurt all women in British Columbia, but the ones with the most to lose may well be native women. The guarantees for aboriginal self-government are in the Canada clause, and the Charter will, under this deal, be interpreted in a manner consistent with that clause. In other words, native governments will have the right to promote their cultures and traditions, even if their actions infringe on the rights of the women they are governing.
Why are our governments once again pursuing such unpopular constitutional reform? Why do they refuse to take the lessons of Meech Lake? Meech was wrong in principle in 1987, and it is still wrong in 1992, as are the additions put in to buy off some of the more vocal opposition. We must pursue only those constitutional reforms that are good for the entire nation and reflect a coherent, principled vision of our future.
The Minister of Government Services said yesterday that we must honour the accord because it is a deal. I find that an amazing comment in light of Bill 14, which extinguished a deal, which extinguished a contract in British Columbia. The proper, responsible approach is to remind people that constitutional reform is not necessarily as urgent as the government has claimed to date. The existing constitution is working -- something that too many people seem to forget or ignore. In fact, there are countries in this world which do not tamper with their constitution for hundreds of years at a time.
[10:45]
In the words of Deborah Coyne, the rejection of this deal is a wise choice. It's not the end of Canada. It simply means that at this particular time our leadership could not forge the extraordinary consensus necessary to legitimize the most complex set of constitutional reforms in the history of Canada. I do not believe it is necessary for us, as Canadians, to examine our constitution on a daily basis. We will revisit this topic, and when we do we will have woman Premiers at the table.
M. Lord: I am very proud to rise in the House today to speak on this very historic occasion. It's an opportunity that not very many Canadians have in the history of our country, and I'm very proud to partici-
[ Page 3576 ]
pate on this level. We have a chance to take part in a decision that will forever shape the future of our country, whether the outcome is yes or no. The Charlottetown agreement reflects a vision of Canada that I believe comes closest to my own vision of the future of our country. I have many concerns as a woman, a mother, a British Columbian and a western Canadian. I also believe in the principles of social justice, democracy and equality. I am proud to say that I support this agreement.
Of course the unity agreement isn't perfect. In any negotiated agreement, no one ever gets everything that she or he wanted, but surely that's the essence of a good negotiated settlement. Surely compromise and consensus is what it's all about, and surely that's what Canada is all about. It's easy to hold up some kind of accord that is ideal and perfect for British Columbians and to compare everything to that perfection. Any accord agreed to by all Canadians would fall short of that kind of British Columbian perfection. But even with that considered, I think that this agreement is good for British Columbia, good for Canada and, indeed, good for the women of this country.
Let's look at some aspects of this agreement that illustrate that. Most important for me is the new social charter that guarantees the social programs that we have worked so hard to create in this country. This alone is enough for me to vote yes. But there's more. There's a statement in the Canada clause about Canada's diversity and the value of equality, recognizing these qualities as fundamental characteristics of Canadian society. We are finally recognizing the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. The statement about these values and the inclusion of these characteristics only serve to strengthen our Canadian society.
How can we say that a constitution that guarantees medicare and a high quality of education is bad for Canada? Our social programs are what make us special and unique in Canada; they are what defines us as Canadians. The commitment to take care of our poor, aged, handicapped and unemployed, with broad, sweeping social changes, is what separates us from our neighbours to the south.
I also believe that the protection of social programs by enshrining them in the constitution is especially important to women. In Canada, programs like medicare have made a huge difference in women's lives. The Canadian unity agreement makes social programs core constitutional values. It strengthens and reaffirms our commitment to those programs. It provides a means for new and existing social assistance programs to have stable funding. In British Columbia, we know only too well what unilateral federal cuts to cost-shared programs have done. Federal cuts to B.C.'s transfer payments have cost British Columbia taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the new provisions these kinds of unilateral changes won't be allowed.
There have also been concerns raised by some women and some women's groups that the ability of government to create new national social programs, such as child care, will be hindered. Quite frankly, I don't believe that. I also don't believe that the ability of provinces to design and deliver their own programs would scuttle the chances for new national programs. New programs would still require federal-provincial negotiations. The unity agreement provides both the values and the practical framework for those negotiations. If I thought that this accord would jeopardize any kind of national child care program that was affordable, accessible and comprehensive, I would not support it.
Lynn McDonald, the former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, said very eloquently: "The barriers to a national child care program are not constitutional but political...." She goes on to say: "No constitution can make a government spend money on any program that it doesn't want, as we have just seen with the cancellation of family allowances. We will achieve the social programs we want only by political persuasion."
The federal Tories have made this very clear to us. For two federal elections in a row they've promised to bring in a national child care program, but they have demonstrated that this is not a priority.
Here in British Columbia we have developed a strategic approach to child care, which takes into consideration the costs to parents, the availability of spaces, the added costs of taking care of infants and toddlers and the need for community planning in establishing those programs. Our government has made child care a priority. We have demonstrated the political will to protect and implement vital social programs. That's the key to making a difference in the lives of British Columbian women, and the unity agreement helps strengthen the provincial government's ability to create its own programs.
For the first time, the ability of the federal government to spend in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction will be expressed in the constitution. With the provinces, the federal government can set national objectives for programs. Only provinces that meet the national objectives or implement higher standards will be entitled to federal money to run their own programs. Federal responsibility for income support and unemployment insurance will be guaranteed.
There are many other gains for women in the Canadian unity agreement. We made great strides with the gains in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and those gains are not harmed by the unity agreement. That Charter protects both individual and collective rights and freedoms. Our right to sexual equality and our right to redress historic wrongs are keys to those Charter rights. The Charter also states that governments cannot use the notwithstanding clause to override sexual equality rights, and none of this will change.
Aboriginal women will also have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under self-government. The Supreme Court of Canada has provided a working definition of equality that ensures that governments can take action to overcome the barriers that affect all women. Aboriginal governments, like the provincial and federal governments, cannot use the notwithstanding clause to override aboriginal women's equality rights.
The unity agreement also specifically includes a statement that aboriginal and treaty rights will apply equally to female and male persons. Our government in
[ Page 3577 ]
British Columbia has made the commitment that, through self-government negotiations, they will ensure that aboriginal governments serve the interests of all aboriginal people, whether they're women or men.
But don't take my word for it. Aboriginal women leaders such as Rosemarie Kuptana, head of the Inuit nation of Canada, and Mary Simon, an Inuit constitutional adviser, have said that they feel aboriginal women's rights are fully protected under the unity agreement, and that equality of rights for aboriginal women will not be overridden under native self-government.
I feel that many people are choosing to vote no because they agree with one part or another of the agreement, but I believe that it is better to vote yes and have a solid base with gains for women to build on rather than to continue with the unacceptable status quo. I believe that this is a carefully balanced package, which includes gains for women and for all British Columbians. The biggest gain of all is securing a strong, stable and united Canada. Passing the agreement will bring about an atmosphere in which we can build conciliation and allow us to get back to the vitally important issues that are affecting both women and men of British Columbia -- issues like jobs and the economy.
This is truly an historic opportunity for the women of Canada. The unity agreement allows governments across Canada to make changes in policy, legislation and programs that will make a positive difference in women's lives.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in this debate where there have been great presentations. Unfortunately, the presentations haven't been listened to by a lot of people. There's certainly no changing of opinions in this House that I can see. There certainly hasn't been much public interest in watching this when it has been in competition, as last night, and definitely second to the great Blue Jays ball game.
There's a question about whether this whole process was in the public's best interest. Certainly we've had a lot of costs involved in this process, this so-called referendum. The public demanded a referendum. As they did with our last election, they called it with more than 80 percent wanting to have a say in the way government is operating. They were indicating that they were lacking some confidence in the way governments have been operating on their behalf over the years. They want to be a part of a referendum that is going to be truly their decision. And unfortunately this whole campaign, using several hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money to run around the country and hand out material on various viewpoints at taxpayers' cost, is a misuse of the referendum concept. We have to let the people have the information without a proliferation of ideas on the pro and con or yes and no or whatever the different sides of a referendum are, and give the people the facts in plain language that they can understand in the final text, not halfway through the process. We have to make sure that with that we leave them alone, and we let them make their decision.
[11:00]
In this process, we political people, we parliamentarians, have done a disservice to the people of Canada and British Columbia. We are being patronizing to the people. We are telling them that they don't know how to vote or how to think or how to work out the processes on this, and that we know better, they should listen to what we say, and thereby they will get the right direction for their country. Well, I've got to tell you that this is not the way government was intended to be. You and I, on both sides of this House, were elected to represent the people and their opinions in our constituencies and to represent Canada. We see fine examples in this House of people who have failed to represent and listen to their people and who do not understand the agreement or what people are telling them. They are trying to make it into a decision on whether it's an emotional question or whether it's the unity of Canada or whether it's an economic question. These are the means by which to divert attention from the real facts that people should be dealing with -- this series of amendments to our constitution, which has been working very well throughout the history of Canada and has been amended periodically. This is just another process of that amending. In the meantime, until that amendment is satisfactory to the people of Canada, we must continue -- and we do continue very effectively -- with the existing process.
I agree that there is reason to make improvements to that process. We need to settle the issues of aboriginal title and aboriginal needs and get rid of the Indian Affairs department and those various things that have been held around for centuries as a problem to the aboriginal people. We have to continue to carry on this process, but I think the government people in office today have to start listening to what the people are saying.
There are good things in this proposal; there are bad things in this proposal. You can tell by the polls that this is going down to defeat. The people are saying: "Go back and do your homework. Get a better job. Fix up some of these problems. We're telling you what the problems are." We'll continue this process.
On the question of Senate reform, here's a report by a joint committee of the House and the Senate that was looking at this whole issue back in 1984. There were recommendations on Senate reform brought in by the Liberal government of 1984. This will continue. It hasn't caused any problem for our country throughout this period. We are continuing.
I'd like to say that my grandparents chose to come to Canada because it was a country that they desired to live in and bring up their children in. My parents and I have loved this country and have passionately worked for it. I have represented this province and my riding in constitutional and policy meetings across this country for the last 18 years. I feel that I am a true Canadian, and I'm proud to be a true Canadian. Anybody who tries to tell me otherwise had better look out.
I'd like to say a few words about some aspects of this legislation. I'd like to enhance the statement and appeal that the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley made yesterday. In her presentation she said that the present capping of federal programs has had a major impact
[ Page 3578 ]
and that British Columbia has lost $4 million. If people choose to say yes to this agreement, it will mean a whole lot more than that: it will mean the elimination of capital program funding by the federal government to the provinces. They are turning over the responsibility not only of administering but also of paying for post-secondary education, social services and housing.
Many times we have heard requests from the conventions of the UBCM and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for federal funding to rebuild municipal infrastructure for things such as water, sewers and roads -- basic, functional things that are deteriorating across Canada. They need federal funding. The money that's going to be required is not available through the taxing process of the provinces or municipalities.
Although all of these areas are under provincial jurisdiction, and always have been, don't be fooled by the statements put out in the advertising that the provinces will now have control over these issues. These issues are -- and have been ever since the BNA Act was established -- under provincial jurisdiction. There is nothing new. So if you want provinces and municipalities to lose federal funding -- taxpayers' money -- you would vote yes. If you want that corrected to eliminate that aspect -- which is really a red herring to appease certain people at the provincial level, to give more provincial powers -- and stop the removal of those funding supports, then you have to vote no on this issue.
I think it's very clear that today we are facing a people's revolution. For years the people on the opposite side in the NDP have talked about the movement of a people's revolution. Well, next Monday you're going to see a people's revolution. They're going to tell you that you're wrong in supporting a Yes vote, and you're wrong with your statements that stand lockstep together, strictly for political process. This whole referendum is wrong. It's timely only because it's politically expedient for federal government politicians. Therefore I urge everyone to make their decision based on the facts, as I have been doing. Study those and make your decision, and you'll see that your decision will be the one that's most important. Whatever it is, you make it. Don't listen to all this hype that comes at your cost today.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
S. O'Neill: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. O'Neill: Visiting Victoria today are 26 grade 11 and 12 students from the Ebenezer school in Smithers. They are here with their teacher, Mr. Mans. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pride that I stand in my place in this Legislature in support of the unity agreement reached by such eminent statesmen as the people of Canada have chosen to elect to their respective bodies. The agreement signed in Charlottetown by ten Premiers, two territorial leaders, the aboriginal people and the federal government represents an unprecedented breakthrough in constitutional wrangling in this country.
When I first heard about this agreement, I went back to my constituency feeling very good that we had finally come to unanimity on the constitution, and that it included the things that were near and dear to my heart. But I find myself standing in a Legislature today that is obviously divided on the question. That really saddens me. A member of the opposition stood up yesterday and literally castigated our caucus for our united stand on this particular agreement. I want to tell that member, and every other member of the opposition, that I have attended every caucus of our government on this subject. Never once has there been a note of discord. Never once have we been told how to vote. Never once has anybody threatened us. And if they did, I for one wouldn't stand for it, and I wouldn't be here supporting this agreement under these conditions.
How did we come to this conclusion? I'll tell you how. I believed what all the members in this House said a year ago when the House opened, when they stood up and made their maiden speeches. I heard opposition people saying: "We'll work with you. We want to get away from this acrimony of the past. We'll join you on your legislative committee, and we'll work together for the people of this province." And they did that. I appreciate the fact that they joined the committee. That committee came up with unanimous recommendations on the constitutional request of this province after consulting with the people of this province. Between the time that they came in with these recommendations and the time the decision was made in Charlottetown, not one opposition person stood up in this House and said that they objected to any part of what that committee was going to Ottawa with.
I went back to my constituency firm in the belief that these people would honour their commitments. I heard the talk that Quebec was getting too much. I heard the concerns about the aboriginal people. But I felt that if we marched out of this Legislature shoulder to shoulder on this agreement, we could overcome these arguments; we could allay the fears of the people and get away from these myths about some province getting too much and others not getting enough. Unfortunately, there was a two-week pause while the opposition made up their minds how the political wind was swaying on this thing.
First out of the chute was the third party leader: "We're going to oppose this." Shortly after that, in spite of divisions in his own caucus, the opposition leader.... There's an Opposition House Leader sitting where she is because that leader tried to tell his caucus how to vote. That's the kind of cooperation and that's the kind of thing that has caused dissension with this agreement in this province. If we'd left here according to our commitments through the legislative committee process, we would have been backing this deal.
[11:15]
I want to read you something:
[ Page 3579 ]
"The accord is the result of a unanimous...agreement by the first ministers of Canada after a considerable period of...consultation debate and negotiation. The process leading up to the accord marks a new approach to federalism in Canada which is marked by flexibility, cooperation, compromise and conciliation as opposed to confrontation and divisiveness which marked the Trudeau era." And it goes on to say: "For these reasons, I believe the approach taken by some critics who attempt to assess who won and who lost by virtue of the...accord is thoroughly misguided. The accord made all Canadians winners."
Who said that? Mike Harcourt? Jean Chr�tien? No, it wasn't them. Brian Mulroney? No, it wasn't him. That was the leader of this government in 1988 when he was dealing with the Meech Lake accord. Four of the people who are sitting in this House supported that statement then. At that time the distinct-society clause gave Quebec more than the present clause does, but there they sat, all voting for it; and today they're opposing it. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
This accord encompasses all the things that you found near and dear in 1988, but it goes further: it takes care of the objections of those who voted against it at that time. There were four members who voted against it, because it didn't look after aboriginal concerns. The new accord does. So I find it hypocritical to find out that out of all the legislative bodies in this country there are only two opposition parties that have taken a position in opposition to the accord. They are the separatists in Quebec and this opposition here.
This is a proud moment in Canadian history. It was said the other night that we should stand up and be counted. Well, I'm proud to stand up and be counted and say yes to Canada.
I don't want to listen to the Rafe Mairs, who are doing their thing for whatever they want to do. He's almost in a conflict of interest, the way he carries on. He sat with the Socreds, and I presume he shared their same views on the Meech Lake accord. Here he is out -- for ratings, I suppose -- preaching against this. I'm not interested in the Preston Mannings of this country, who've only got one goal in mind: political power, with or without Quebec. I want a Canada that has Quebec in its confederation.
Premier Bourassa is a proud Canadian federalist -- not a separatist but a federalist. The Liberal leader of that province, as I said, is a great Canadian, and he'll go down in history as the Canadian who tried to save Quebec from sinking in the uncharted waters of separatism. The Liberal leader in this province will go down in history as the man who, when Mr. Bourassa asked for help, threw him an anchor.
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and if they would be quiet long enough to accord the respect due to the House....
The point of order is that we are discussing the motion on the debates of the Canadian unity agreement, not some rhetoric about the B.C. Liberal leader.
The Speaker: The Chair would like to remind all members that we are here to discuss the merits of the Charlottetown accord and, although we have allowed wide-ranging debate, to just keep that in mind.
F. Garden: I appreciate that, hon. Speaker, and I'll be guided by your remarks.
I listened last night to someone in the Liberal opposition group tear this accord apart piece by piece and say it was irrelevant. My position was that the opposition has contributed to this accord not being accepted and to not saving this country.
I want to be as rational as I can about this. The good points are these: if you vote yes for this accord and do not listen to the Rafe Mairs of this world -- who is in conflict of interest on this particular subject -- it's good for Canada. It gives every province jurisdiction in areas where they have long sought it. One commentator has said that if every province takes advantage of what's being offered, the cost savings of getting rid of the overlap could be as much as $5 billion to Canada.
If we go to Newfoundland, we see the uniqueness of that people and the struggle they had as Canadians. But they have their unique little culture there. Do they not deserve six seats in the Senate, an equal voice in this country? Sure they do. When we get to Quebec and see the uniqueness of that great province and what they contribute to this society and the difference in their culture and language, which all adds to this great mosaic, do they not deserve to have that language and culture protected by having a guarantee of seats? Sure they do. When we get to the Prairies where the farmers are eking out their living -- independent souls, but the very pioneers of medicare in this country -- do they not deserve medicare being enshrined in the Charter? Sure they do. When we get to British Columbia with its uniqueness....
L. Fox: Who's arguing?
F. Garden: You guys are voting against the agreement; you're arguing.
When we get to British Columbia and see the uniqueness of this great province.... I'd like to say to some of the people sitting here that there are people in the north who have just as strong feelings of resentment towards the lower mainland as the whole province does to some of the things that Quebec is getting. You understand that, but you also overcome it.
B.C. has everything to gain from this agreement. It gives us control on the training of our young people. It gives us control in forestry and mining, which we've been crying for for years. Are we going to throw away all that for one potential lousy seat in the Parliament, where cabinet makes all the decisions? I say no. I say if we'd come out of this Legislature shoulder to shoulder, as I assumed we were going to, we would have been able to persuade the people in this province that this is good for B.C.
[ Page 3580 ]
I can't see how the opposition can sit there with pride after the commitment they made to this House in the legislative committee. I'm appealing: if there happens to be anybody watching the debate at this time.... This deal is good for B.C., good for Canada and good for all of this country.
I want to remind people. They're saying: "Oh, well, this country is going to stay together." There's an opponent to this accord who's got a program that says that in two years he'll fight the Quebec election, and one year after that he will bring forward a resolution on separation. If you want to risk losing 25 percent of this country's population, one of the finest bits of real estate in North America and two of the finest seaports leading into the heartland of the economic engine of Canada, then vote no. I'm not prepared to take that risk. I believe that there's enough in this agreement to weld us together as Canadians, and that we could stand up proudly and say that we brought Quebec into the fold, we brought the aboriginal people into the fold, we brought all Canadians into the fold. I recommend you vote yes on Monday for this agreement.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
L. Hanson: We've certainly had our minds filled, emptied, filled and emptied in our attention to the constitution. I'm sure that most British Columbians -- and probably most Canadians -- would love to have the word "constitution" banned from the language.
I want to take a minute, hon. Speaker, just to tell you, this House and hopefully British Columbians some of the reasons I will be voting no on Monday. The major reason is that when you look at the sum of the deal and the balance of the proposal, it grants special privileges to some and ignores the principles of equality for all. As a British Columbian and a Canadian born in Canada, I am concerned about what a No vote means. I'm also concerned about what a Yes vote means. Maybe I should express that a little bit differently: I'm confused with what a Yes vote means. I think we all want Canada to stay together. I think that is the fervent hope of by far the majority of Canadians. But the question then is asked: at what cost? I know that constitutionalizing inequality is a very difficult and complicated process. And I know that is why when we ask those supporters of the proposal why we should vote yes, they give us generalities: it's good for B.C.; it's good for Canada; it must be good, as 17 leaders approved it -- ten Premiers, the Prime Minister, four native leaders and two territorial leaders. They all approved it; it's got to be good. Vote yes, and we can get on with dealing with the economy. I just can't believe that that is true. If you look at the accord, the proposal.... I've heard varying opinions on how many issues are yet to be resolved. I've heard from 26 to 34 to a high of some 60-odd issues that still need to be resolved. It seems to me that the attention of governments and our leaders will still be dedicated to those negotiation processes long after the vote is tallied on Monday.
I've heard suggestions that a Yes vote will stabilize and generally improve our economy. I've also heard from people who have the same degrees, the same qualifications, that that isn't true. I've heard from people that the short-term gain of a Yes vote will be far surpassed by the long-term pain of a Yes vote. We're told in some detail by our leaders -- we're bombarded with advertisements, articles and experts -- to vote yes and Canada will stay together; vote no and, while they may not come right out and say that it's an absolute guarantee, the insinuation certainly is that Canada will break up. I can't believe that that is a certainty. It's a concern, as I expressed earlier. I intend to vote no, and I have a concern as the result of that. I have a greater concern with the Yes vote and the result of that. My concern is that if we do vote yes....
[11:30]
H. Lali: You voted for Meech.
L. Hanson: No, I didn't vote for you. I probably won't either.
Some Hon. Members: Meech.
L. Hanson: Well, I think anyone who sits in this House -- you've raised the issue of the Meech Lake accord -- and has the gall to suggest that this proposal is the same as the Meech Lake proposal, should go back and read it again.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: I have the floor, and I think it's my turn to talk.
There is something that really confuses me in this whole process and that I've had great difficulty in understanding or getting a handle on. We have an accord that was reached by 17 leaders in eastern Canada. I'm not suggesting the leaders are all from eastern Canada, but that was where the negotiations took place. We are led to believe that they all sat at a table, discussed all these issues and came away from that table with a unanimous agreement and understanding that this proposal was good for Canada. Then we see in reports via the media -- and sometimes I've been very critical of the media, as everyone else has -- that it wasn't really 17 people sitting at the table. There were all sorts of little side discussions, little side pressures and little trade-offs that happened before an agreement was reached. So I have a little difficulty in accepting that these 17 people sat down like good and reasonable politicians and made that decision based on the discussion that went around there.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: It has been mentioned that the issue is that 17 people agreed, not how they arrived there. I guess there is some merit in making that statement, and I'm not one who would say absolutely no to it, but I would also say that the fact that those 17 did reach an agreement does not take away the need, the responsibility and the requirement for all Canadians to look at the agreement that they reached and make a decision in
[ Page 3581 ]
their own minds -- measure it. I'm here saying that regardless of the 17 people who reached that agreement, I can't agree that the agreement is good for Canada.
I have some very simple oppositions to the agreement, and they are not in great detail. I know, having listened to the debates in the House and read all of the articles and everything they've been over a hundred million times.... I'm opposed because I really do think that it creates three different kinds of Canadians.
I really do believe that the Senate is not anywhere near triple-E. I will give it credit for being equal, but I don't give it credit for elected. To me, a body that is sent to Ottawa to be the balancing power with our House of Commons should be elected by all of the people of British Columbia and Canada in an equal manner. There should not be the discretion to do it in different ways. I understand that one province.... It seems that we're always picking on Quebec, but that's not the intention. They have said already -- and I don't know that other provinces have really stated their intentions -- that they will appoint their Senators through an election in the Legislature. Tell me, does that mean to you that if we in this House -- the 75 of us -- sat down and elected members to represent us in Ottawa, it would truly be the test of an elected Senate as far as we understand elections?
Interjections.
L. Hanson: You're making my point for me, because my point is that it shouldn't haven't a choice; we should all be doing the same thing, giving everyone a choice to elect....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! I would call the House to order, and I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.
L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, I cannot accept that the Senate is anywhere near a triple-E Senate that was certainly the wish of the majority of at least western Canadians. The aboriginal government process or reference is not defined. The proposal, in my opinion, is mainly an outline of how issues will be resolved in the future, but it's not a definition of what that resolution will be.
I've been told about the guarantee of 25 percent that we should not worry that they have 25 percent; we should not worry, because other provinces have a guarantee too. But anyone who believes that a percentage guarantee is the same as a number guarantee hasn't really thought an awful lot about it. They're two totally different things.
I was also told by, I believe, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs that the 25 percent guarantee was not a request of the province that was benefiting from it. It was, in fact, a request from another province. If that's the case, then it doesn't mean anything and there's no need for it. Why put it in? When I expressed concerns with why we need unanimous consent for certain changes, I was told: "Don't worry about that. It only amounts to about 5 percent of the issues in the constitution." Well, I tell you, that 5 percent is pretty darned important in the constitution.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: Hon. Speaker, the inference that these 17 people sat at the table and reached a calm and rational agreement is certainly not the evidence of the process that we were presented by the media. The fact that 17 people sat down and did reach an agreement eventually is very good. It's probably exceptional, when we look at our political system and all of the negatives and the differences of opinions that arise from that. But that reason itself is not a reason why we should accept this proposal. We have to look at what is in the proposal. By looking at what is in the proposal, I personally must vote no.
In finishing, I don't believe that a No vote means that we are rejecting Quebec. I don't believe that a No vote means that we are rejecting our aboriginal people. I don't believe, as I've been told by very influential people in Canada and British Columbia, that a No vote means a rejection of our conception of Canada. Not true. I believe that a rejection of the proposal to change our constitution will mean that the proposal was badly flawed. I don't believe that coercion and pressure is the way to renew a country. I know that whatever the result is on October 26, the voters will be right.
D. Symons: I too have great concerns about the constitutional accord reached in Charlottetown. There are many reasons that I have these concerns. Maybe I should begin by saying that I do not consider myself to be a constitutional expert. There seem to be some self-appointed ones across the floor. I do not share the expertise that they obviously have. I'm speaking from my heart and maybe from the viewpoint of the average constituent out there who is terribly confused by the proliferous information that has been given to us, often slanted one way or the other. It becomes very difficult for the average citizen of British Columbia to really know what the issues are in this and to make a valid decision on October 26.
The accord leaves much to be desired. It appears that many of the people who are advocating the Yes side will even say, "This is the best we can get at present," or: "We'll improve it later on." I've heard these sorts of statements made by people who have been speaking on the Yes side. I've also heard the same comments from people on the No side.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion over what the gains for B.C. or for Canada are going to be in this accord. It appears that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs made a comment in Quesnel to the effect of how much B.C. gained and what Quebec lost during this. There seemed to be a win/loss situation given in that, and that's not the way I think we build a strong united Canada -- when we talk in that manner. Yet the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs made such remarks in this province. I think it
[ Page 3582 ]
speaks ill of the way in which in those negotiations or talking to the public a concern is given.
There is some confusion, I think, over what some of the people whose needs are addressed in this accord may get out of it, and I'm concerned about aboriginal self-government as one of these areas. It's very true that the aboriginal people in this country have been treated badly. Their lands, their dignity and their self-respect have been taken from them over the past 150 or more years in this country, and we have not really, truly, in a forthright manner dealt with those issues. I must say that at least this constitutional accord seems -- and I use the word "seems" -- to be now addressing those issues.
[11:45]
But what do we find in the accord? We find many little asterisks in there. What do those asterisks mean? It means that these will be dealt with at a later time. It's not spelled out at all what the natives are going to gain in aboriginal self-government or, indeed, from the accord. When the five-year period comes when these issues are going to be dealt with, I believe that a good number of people who are now on board will feel as if they've been led down the garden path, and will be most disappointed in what has occurred. I think that may be more harmful to Canada than saying no to the issue right now.
The aboriginal women are really unsure of whether their rights are going to be protected in this new agreement, and many of them have spoken out against the agreement because of that. Indeed, the Charter of Rights will not necessarily apply, because there's a clause in there that specifies that nothing in the Charter abrogates or derogates from the inherent right to self-government or the rights of aboriginal governments to protect native languages, cultures and traditions. It sounds very nice, but what exactly does it mean as far as the rights of native women are concerned? It may mean that past abuses can be continued under cultures and traditions.
There is no guarantee that the aboriginal governments will be democratically elected. The Charter does not ensure that these governments will be elected, and I believe there's the possibility that we will see what happened in Oka occur in many of the reserves around here, where a militaristic group could take control and run the agenda on the reserves. If you don't believe so, explain Oka to me, please.
Another group that I think is going to be upset in the future, because their aspirations and desires that they hope to be getting out of this constitution may not materialize, would be the province of Quebec. I believe that what we are trying to do in reaching an accord is primarily aimed at bringing Quebec into Confederation, and that I wholly endorse. The problem is really that the concerns of the Quebec people are not going to be answered constitutionally. The concerns of the Quebec people are to preserve their culture and language. These are not primarily constitutional questions; they're an evolution of society. Not only Quebec but all of us, myself included, have felt that somewhere over the years we've lost something we once had. That's very true in Quebec but here as well.
If I can just dwell on that thought for a moment, I would like to suggest that when I was younger, we used to have family picnics quite frequently. This was our culture. It was a thing in society that many people did. Many companies held company picnics. You might think I'm wandering off the topic here, but there was a feeling then of our being in a different type of society than the one I live in now. I think we have that same feeling of having lost a quality of life. That is what is bothering the people in Quebec. They're losing a quality of life. They see their language going down the drain. They see many other things that are impinging upon a past that they remember well and look fondly back on.
That sort of thing is not a constitutional issue. It's a problem that television, mass media, travel and all sorts of things have brought upon all of us. Many people are not staying in one community. Mobility of people and all of this has affected the way in which we live our lives, and it has affected the way in which the people in Quebec live their lives. Regardless of what guarantees we put in the constitution, I don't believe that they're going to find that those issues are satisfied. They're beyond the constitution. They're going to have to be handled in another way in order to achieve the goals that they may be looking for there. In that sense I believe there will be some dissatisfaction, some regret down the line when they feel that what they were hoping for hasn't occurred, because they're approaching the problem in the wrong way.
Another concern I have is the size of government. I am very pleased to see that one of the things they're doing is reducing the size of the Senate. Hooray! -- it's about time. But unfortunately, what have they done? They have increased the size of the Commons. I would have liked to see a corresponding reduction in the size of the House of Commons. We're getting more government, more expensive government, and the taxpayer is going to pay for it.
There was an increase here of 42 seats. If we combine the two Houses together, as can occur when there ends up being some difficulties because the Senate isn't readily passing some bills, and they combine the two Houses to have a combined vote, we're now going to have 397 people meeting together in this combined Commons and Senate. I'm not too sure -- if we look at the size of this House, it's increased from 60 to 75 people over the last few years -- where they are going to meet. They are certainly not going to find it convenient to put that number of desks in the current building. Are we going to need a new House of Commons, new parliament buildings in Ottawa, simply to accommodate these large numbers of people? I think the expense and all that haven't really been worked out, but it's going to be very expensive, and the people of Canada are going to pay for it. So I want a reduced Commons as well as a reduced Senate.
As well as the size of the government, we have the powers of the Senate brought in here. They talk about equal and effective. We find out that equality is there; effectiveness certainly is not going to be there; and elected, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, is somewhat questionable in all provinces. The power of the Senate to ratify the appointment of the head of the
[ Page 3583 ]
Bank of Canada is a good move. But why on earth did they not give the Senate the power to ratify other appointments? Appointments such as the auditor general and others should also be ratified by the Senate; that should not be just a political decision made in the House of Commons. The Senate should have been given more powers, and it has had many of its powers reduced. It's not an effective Senate.
The absolute veto over fundamental tax policies affecting natural resources is a limitation, not an expansion, of the powers of the Senate. Over that issue only do they have an absolute veto, and indeed on that issue the Speaker of the House of Commons can decide which bills will fall under that category, which limits even the Senate in its ability to have an absolute veto in that sense. So the powers of the Senate are somewhat diminished.
I have another area of concern. If I may, I will simply read for a moment, because this will highlight the concern. It's a newspaper ad paid for by the federal government rather than by the provincial government, like the corresponding ad put in the papers just yesterday. Under the heading "Social and Economic Union" it says: "In a world where trade barriers between countries are falling, another key consideration would be the reduction of internal barriers in Canada. This key economic objective would promote free trade of people, goods, services and capital within Canada." Hear, hear! I agree 100 percent. But what is the catch? Absolutely nothing in the Charlottetown accord really addresses the issue, other than saying: "Wouldn't it be nice if we do this?" Well, we've known for years that that sort of thing has been needed in Canada for the economic prosperity of the country. All they've done is put in a statement that it would be nice if we could do that. That is ridiculous. To put it in the paper as one of the strong points of this constitution, making it appear as if there's something in there that will make it happen, is tantamount to misleading and -- well, I can't use that "l" word, can I? But it is indeed misleading the people into thinking there's something there that really isn't.
It seems ludicrous to me that we can make a three-part trade agreement with the United States and Mexico but we cannot yet do it between Alberta and British Columbia. Why was something not in the agreement to the effect of free trade? It was because the Premiers could not agree on it. We can agree with the United States; we can agree with Mexico; we cannot agree on a free trade policy within our own country. We can just put in a weak-kneed comment that maybe it would be a good idea. It's ridiculous. I have real concerns with these ads that are going out -- paid for by us, by the way -- because they are misleading the people of this province.
Another concern that I have -- and the same ad brought this out - - is more provincial control. One of the things mentioned here is that the province will have more control in such things as forestry, mining, etc. I've heard those very words from the members opposite in support of this accord. I was quite amazed the first time I heard the Premier after the accord was signed. He added "education." He very quickly dropped it because somebody probably pointed out to him that that was indeed given to the provinces in 1867 and he realized that it couldn't be in there. I rather think that forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation and municipal affairs are also powers that the provinces had all these years. We haven't gained a great deal. In fact, I would point out to the members opposite, who think that the small gains we might have made -- and they are minute.... They in their wisdom know that they're going to run those resources very well. But may I warn the people opposite that they will not always be seated on that side as government. Those who may follow you there might have the record of the previous organization that took over, and that may not speak well for the government. So I would feel that possibly having another organization in the federal government that will have some sort of control over what the provinces do in those areas is not necessarily a bad thing. If the government that is in power is truly handling those resources well, as well as the benefits for the people to come in the province, well and good. But if they're selling out to big business or big labour, or something of that sort, we could be into real problems. So I think we have to be extremely careful when we're promoting that as a reason for voting yes. It could indeed be a good reason for voting no.
I would like to close by saying -- and this, I suppose, is more to the audience that may be out in TV land than to the Speaker or people opposite -- that if you have a strong love of Canada as I do, and I believe that all of us do, you must really look beyond the words that are put in these printed ads, beyond the rhetoric and beyond the emotions that are being put upon you to say yes because otherwise it will be the dissolution of this country. I don't believe that for a minute. I don't believe that people in Canada are foolish or stubborn enough that they would give up this beautiful country that we have. I think that very few of us in this country would care to join our neighbour to the south. Very few of us would like to see it fragmented into regions of various independent countries or, indeed, almost self-autonomous provinces within a loosely federated union. What is necessary is to put all that aside. We have to look at the agreement itself and what it contains. We have to ask ourselves: does this agreement give me the Canada that I feel I want to live in? Will it meet the needs of not only this generation but generations to come? If the answer to those is yes, by all means go out and vote yes. But if the answer to that is no, then it's your duty, on behalf of Canada, to vote no.
D. Symons moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada