Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992

Volume 5, No. 19

[ Page 3585 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, as we know, there are many prominent Canadians visiting British Columbia these days concerning the constitutional agreement, talking to British Columbians about the positives of this agreement. Today a group of people from Quebec, calling themselves "From Quebec With Love For Canada," are with us. The group includes people like John Hallward, deputy chair of McGill University; Santo Manna, former president of the McGill Student Society; and Neil McKenty, author and broadcaster in the province of Quebec. We have in the gallery this afternoon three members of the delegation: Gordon Fehr, president of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company from Quebec; Robert Greenhill, consultant with the McKinsey Group; and Louis Martin Richer, a student at the University of Montreal. I would hope that all members of the House will recognize these Canadians and welcome them to the province of British Columbia as they talk about the issues facing us.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon are four distinguished visitors from France. With us is His Excellency Alfred Siefer-Gaillardin, Ambassador to Canada, accompanied by his wife Mme. Siefer-Gaillardin. As well, we have the cultural attaché, M. Michel Deverge, and the consul general posted in Vancouver, M. Bernard Ledun. Would the members of the House please join me in giving our visitors a warm welcome.

N. Lortie: We have visiting us today 22 young people. Ten of these young people are from Quebec City, and 12 are from North Delta Senior Secondary School in my constituency. They're in this area of the Speaker's gallery, and I'm wondering if any members can tell which ten are from Quebec and which 12 are from North Delta. They are being chaperoned by Ms. Maureen Gulyas, who is a reporter on one of our local papers, so I have to mention her name. I would hope that the members would help me make this group of 22 students and their chaperon welcome to the Legislature.

M. Lord: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome 15 students from G.P. Vanier Senior Secondary School in my riding who are visiting us in the precincts today. These are grade 11 social studies students from the enriched class, where they study government, history and geography. Their teacher, Mr. Rodriguez, is accompanying them, along with Mrs. Rodriguez. I'm honoured that they have come to the assembly today to listen to this very historic debate. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a guest in the gallery today who is a constituent from Saanich North and the Islands. She's a geographer and an educator. I'd like the House to welcome Arlene Collins.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery someone who has a very special hobby and who has not missed a single question period in the life of this Parliament. I think this individual, who is in the public galleries again today, deserves to be singled out for his peculiar hobby. He's a very keen student of the House. His name is Mr. Campbell Achinson of Victoria. Would the members welcome him.

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to welcome Linda Hepner, a friend of mine who's in the gallery from beautiful South Surrey.

Oral Questions

SEPARATE B.C. REFERENDUM VOTE

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the minister responsible for the constitution. I would suggest that Canada's international reputation in terms of our economy has taken a bit of a beating because of those on the Yes side who have said that should a No vote take place in Canada, somehow this country is going to be irreparably damaged. Today the Prime Minister said that if indeed we had a close No vote in the province of British Columbia, British Columbia might run another referendum to give us a second kick at the can. Will the minister tell us, should there be a No vote in the province of British Columbia, will the province run another referendum on this question?

The Speaker: That is a hypothetical question, which is out of order in question period.

EFFECT OF NO VOTE IN B.C.

G. Wilson: A supplementary question then. Let me turn to the Minister of Finance, given that British Columbians will have to be left wondering, I suppose. On the question of the world image of our economy, the Minister of Finance said yesterday that his international finance friends have told him that the people of Europe and the United States are concerned about the future of the economy of this country and this province. Yet the opposition notes that Allan Taylor of the Royal Bank has reversed his position on the question of a No vote consequence, and the Dow Jones has said that there is confidence in the stability and maturity of the Canadian political system. Since the Finance minister gave such a fearmongering speech in this House yesterday, will he today go along with Mr. Taylor and with Dow Jones and retract his fearmongering statements about the economic consequences of a No vote, when that No vote happens on October 26?

Hon. G. Clark: We're still waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to retract his fearmongering on aboriginal questions.

I want to answer this question very carefully, because I have been attempting to be careful on the question of the economic implications of the referendum question. In discussions with people in Europe and the United States, my view is that they view Canada as a safe and stable place for investment and 

[ Page 3586 ]

financing particularly large deficits in Canada and in the provinces. They're looking with great interest at the future of the country. It is my judgment, and I think the judgment of most people who deal in the international financial sector, that a Yes vote gives us the best chance to affirm a stable, secure and united country, and therefore it gives us the best chance to assure economic security.

In the event that Canadians do not support a Yes vote, that leads to some question of uncertainty, and uncertainty is a problem for international investors. I think it behooves all of us to accept the wisdom of British Columbians and Canadians on the question of how they would vote on the constitution and to reassure -- and I certainly do my part -- all international investors and Canadians that the country will continue regardless of the outcome of the vote and to assure those kinds of investors around the world that Canada will continue to be a safe place to do business.

BALANCING THE BUDGET

G. Wilson: It's encouraging to note from the opposition side that no matter whether we vote yes or no, as we read in today's Times-Colonist, the NDP will finally turn their attention to the economy, which will be of benefit to all people. The Minister of Finance is on record as saying: "There's no magic to balancing a budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy.... Absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." In light of the fact that there is some economic uncertainty, would the Minister of Finance share with us today what these easy methods of balancing this budget are, which the Premier committed to on Tuesday of this week?

Hon. G. Clark: When I made those remarks, we were under the mistaken assumption that the previous government was telling the truth about the finances in British Columbia. Having said that, the easy solution is for the federal government to treat British Columbia the same way they treat the other provinces of Canada: by reinstating the Canada Assistance Plan and treating our citizens the same as they treat the citizens of most other provinces in Canada. It will go a long way to dealing with the question of our fiscal problems in British Columbia.

[2:15]

SEPARATE B.C. REFERENDUM VOTE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, as well. It deals with the question that the Prime Minister raised this morning. I would like the minister to assure British Columbians today that in the event of a No vote, his party and his government will not participate in or conduct a second referendum unless there are significant and meaningful improvements to the deal.

The Speaker: I must also remind this hon. member that that is a hypothetical question, which is out of order.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, the question was: can the minister assure British Columbians today that his government will not conduct a second referendum unless the deal has significant improvements?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's nice to see that on the third attempt the opposition has finally learned how to draft a question that's in order.

In any event, let me say this. Of course, we're still in the midst of a campaign here in British Columbia, and we certainly anticipate that there will be a Yes verdict on October 26. British Columbians appreciate the political stability which will result from a Yes vote and the fact that we can then get on with dealing with jobs and the economy here in British Columbia, and so that B.C. can have a stronger voice in Ottawa. Nonetheless, if the vote is no, the deal is dead. The Prime Minister of Canada knows that if one province votes no, the deal does not proceed. Accordingly, this province would not entertain a second vote on the same deal.

J. Weisgerber: Your government also anticipated balancing the budget, so I suppose its anticipation of a Yes vote probably holds about the same chance. Just so that I'm clear, hon. Speaker, is the minister saying this government will neither conduct nor participate in a second referendum unless there are significant improvements to the deal?

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't say that. I simply said that we would not have a vote on the same deal. The hon. member knows full well what the provisions of the constitutional referendum or amendment act are. They indicate very clearly that the Legislature cannot authorize an amendment to the constitution without holding a referendum first. If there is another constitutional process, and if that results in a new arrangement, whether it be significant or minor, then this government, like any other good government, would comply with the law.

AIRCARE PROGRAM

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Attorney General about another entry in the government's misery index: the AirCare program. I wonder if the Attorney General is on record as saying the previous Social Credit government blundered when it signed an airtight agreement with Ebco-Hamilton to handle this program. Without disclosing proprietary information, will the Attorney General share with the House the basis for his believing this contract offers no remedy to taxpayers in the event of a nonperformance?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I missed a couple of words in the member's question. I didn't quite catch them. But let me say first of all -- and hopefully this answers the member's question -- that it's my intention to release the contract between Ebco-Hamilton and the provincial government as soon as that's possible. There are some parts of it on which it's important we not reveal trade-secret issues, but that will be done as soon as it's possible to do it.

[ Page 3587 ]

There are a number of performance-related clauses in the contract. Those performance-related clauses apply to both Ebco-Hamilton and ourselves. It's fair to say -- and it's no secret to anyone in this province -- that in some ways both Ebco-Hamilton and ourselves have, in the first month or so, failed to meet all of the requirements in a technical way.

I can also assure members of the House that there is no breach of contract involved in the technical violations that have occurred to date. I am absolutely confident that this essential program to clean up the air in the lower mainland is going to be operating properly in the very near future.

W. Hurd: My supplemental question, then, is to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Given that consumers appear to have been ripped off by some repair shops specializing in AirCare repairs, will his ministry supplement the efforts of the superintendent of motor vehicles by launching its own investigation into some of the horror stories that are coming before the opposition from people who have had their cars repaired and have found that they paid far too much in the bargain? Will he launch that kind of investigation?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know, first of all, that the Ministry of Attorney-General is doing that already in an intensive way. Secondly, if there are complaints brought before our ministry, then they are inevitably investigated.

W. Hurd: Again to the Minister of Labour, can he confirm that the two AirCare stations in Matsqui and Coquitlam have such bad air that they're poisoning their own workers? Is he prepared to order the WCB to investigate those complaints and indeed have the WCB look at the air quality in every AirCare station in the lower mainland?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member had taken the time to check the facts, he'd have found out that that problem is already being attended to.

COMMERCIAL ROAD SIGNS

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. As of November 13, 1992, most businesses will be prohibited from advertising on any highway or roadside right-of-way. Given that after November 13 there will be 38 shopping days until Christmas, will this minister agree to urge his colleague the Minister of Transportation to delay implementation of this policy until after the holiday season because of the negative impact it will have on businesses around the province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will do everything I can to ensure that the minister considers Christmas, and to do everything reasonable that ensures that he does not interfere with Christmas shopping.

L. Stephens: Will the minister table the complaints that he refers to in his news release of October 14, claiming this policy is in response to "a substantial number of complaints from the public and municipalities"?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The policy that is being put into effect is good for all citizens of British Columbia. Our rights-of-way are being cluttered up by illegal signs, and we have decided that those people in our business community who obey the law and do not put up the signs should not be punished. We have, however, made an exception for large, substantial signs. They may stay up for some six years.

With respect to your question, I'd be pleased to inform you of the complaints I've received.

The Speaker: Fortunately, the bell signals the end of question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to clarify. The word was "unfortunately."

Hon. G. Clark: Fortunately for whom, hon. Speaker?

I call adjourned debate on the constitution.

The Speaker: I wanted to table a report today. Perhaps we could proceed with that before we proceed to orders of the day. Then I will ask the Government House Leader again.

Pursuant to section 5(9) of the Election Act, I have the honour to table the report of the chief electoral officer for the thirty-fifth provincial general election, October 17, 1991.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on the constitutional motion. Motion without Notice

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it is with considerable pride that I rise today and enter into what I think is indeed a historic debate not only for the province of British Columbia, but for all of Canada. It's a debate that essentially deals with an omnibus amendment to the Canadian constitution as drafted in an accord in Charlottetown on August 28, 1992. This is part of a long and somewhat arduous ongoing process that Canadians have had to deal with since Confederation, but most recently since 1982, when the current Canadian Constitution Act was repatriated. The province of Quebec, then under a separatist government under the premiership of René Lévesque, refused to put a signature to the Canadian constitution of 1982.

It was largely that refusal to sign on to the Canadian constitution that over the years has created anxiety among Canadians to make sure that Quebeckers are signatory to this constitution, so that all Canadians 

[ Page 3588 ]

from coast to coast to coast can recognize that Quebec is a full and functioning equal partner in Canada.

But let us set some ground rules for this particular discussion on the merits of this document that is before the Canadian people, which the Canadian people will be asked to vote on on October 26. Let us understand that there has been a great deal of rhetoric around the inclusion of the province of Quebec and the inclusion of aboriginal people as this document would outline. Many of the members opposite and many of those on the Yes side around British Columbia and across Canada talk about the fact that if this document is not supported by the majority of Canadians or is rejected by one or more provinces, somehow that constitutes a demonstration that we wish to exclude the people of Quebec from this great nation or that we wish to exclude aboriginal people from what is a right and just settlement for many years of abuses against them because of the discriminatory laws under the Indian Act and the maintenance of those laws by the Department of Indian Affairs.

Let me be very clear that in looking at this omnibus set of amendments, nowhere in this document or in this accord is there any mention of whether or not Quebec should continue to be a part of Canada. At no time in this debate has there been a discussion on a yes/no question that relates to sovereignty for the province of Quebec. The issue of sovereignty in Quebec is not before the Canadian people in this debate. The issue of whether or not Quebec wishes to buy into Canada is not before the people in this debate, because Quebec is a functioning part of Canada today in 1992.

Similarly, with respect to those who argued.... I heard a somewhat passionate description from the member for North Coast, who used the terms "bigotry" and "racism" for those who talked about aboriginal people. I understand the member for the North Coast has anxieties, having travelled to his riding this summer and spoken to many of his constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who will be voting no on this accord. There is no question that he must have some anxieties about the fact that he's out of step with his constituents.

I find it interesting that there are those who would argue that those of us on this side who talk about one Canada where every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian regardless of race, colour, creed, language, religion or gender are making a racist or bigoted statement. Let me say that those people who in the same breath talk about the fact that we need to have a consensus in Canada also are the ones.... I would challenge any member who wishes, to go back and review Hansard where a number of members opposite have said that we must bring the aboriginal people into this country, we must lead them to our country or we must bring them in as partners. Well, I can think of no more paternalistic, colonial mentality than that of those who don't recognize that indigenous government was a functional part of this country long before the colonial governments of Quebec or English Canada. To talk about us "bringing them in" is offensive in the extreme. Indigenous government exists in this country today and has done so for many years, before the colonial regimes of the French or English.

[2:30]

What those of us on this side of the No question have been talking about -- those of us who are putting forward the ideas, views and attitudes -- is equality among all Canadians in a proposition that allows the administration of not only their government but also the system of justice in a way that will make sure that government remains just and in the interest of all people. We talk about that in a process of equality among Canadians, something that this document addresses in quite a different framework.

Let me say that those of us in the Liberal caucus who are taking the position that we should not support this accord are well aware of the views, words and actions of some members who stand and advocate the No position. I can tell you that I did not join an orchestrated No campaign, because there were some people with whom I chose not to share the stage. That is important when we hear the comments from members opposite who try, by association, to affiliate all those who are saying no to this question, who say that we are all together. I suggest that if we can believe public opinion polls at all, in the last one roughly 54 to 56 percent of the people of British Columbia are rejecting this package. By the words of the member for the North Coast, I assume that they are all bigoted and racist people. That is an offensive assumption to make.

Let me say, for those who would, by association, suggest that Canadians have been given an unique opportunity -- in fact, an opportunity that may not and, one would hope, will not be parallelled in future years, because of the necessity to go to a national referendum on the question of constitutional reform -- and for those who would suggest that that unique opportunity provides them the choice of either saying yes to an agreement between ten Premiers, a Prime Minister and the aboriginal leadership in this country or no to Canada, this nation that we know has remained strong for 125 years, that, for want of a better example, it is like suggesting that we in this country have essentially been given a knife that we can put to our throats, and the Prime Minister has said: "You have a choice. You may cut or not." Well, what kind of choice is that? We have seen the Prime Minister of this country tear up this accord in a symbolic fashion, saying we are going to tear up Canada if this accord does not go forward.

We have heard from other members. We have heard a former Premier of this province, who represented the New Democratic Party in government from 1972 to 1975, stand as an elected member of the Parliament of Canada and say that this deal is not a perfect deal, not a good deal, but that Canadians should hold their noses and go and vote for a renewed Canada. What a shameful thing to say! Can you imagine what kind of image that provides for those people who witness a former Premier of British Columbia, representing the New Democratic Party in this province, telling British Columbians -- indeed, telling all Canadians -- that we should send a symbol to those who watch us from outside our borders of holding our noses and voting for 

[ Page 3589 ]

our country? What a disgraceful image to have portrayed of Canadians! Canadians are a prouder people than that.

That was only in the very first days of this debate. Since then we have seen many people -- many people on the Yes side, a few people on the No side -- come forward and articulate doom and gloom on the question of a Yes or a No vote. Let me say that those Canadians who have read this document have the right as honourable, loyal, proud citizens of this country to go forward and if they agree with the document and how this will change our country, vote yes with pride; and if they do not agree, vote no, safe in the understanding and knowledge that they as Canadians are doing what their democratic rights allow them to do. And that's to vote for their country by voting no.

Let's for a moment talk about the process, before we get into looking at the detail of this particular accord, and try to understand what this accord does. We are hearing from members opposite that somehow the ability for us to get together a consensus of first ministers and the Prime Minister is something that is unique -- a remarkable if not miraculous thing for Canadians to have experienced. Well, we had that in 1987, I believe, when we came together and created something called the Meech Lake accord. We had a unanimous agreement. At the time we had the Meech Lake accord, when a different Premier of a different government in British Columbia brought the Meech Lake accord, which was resoundingly rejected by the Canadian people, to this House, that was again supported by the vast majority of the members in the opposition, who now form government. Indeed, five of their members -- they beat us by one -- broke ranks with them and said no to Meech Lake, and were consistent with the majority of the views of British Columbians and Canadians. That consensus did not move forward, because the people of Canada are a fair-minded people that recognize that this nation needs a constitution that reflects soundly the concept and principle of one Canada, where every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian and every province has equal legislative authority and powers with every other province, and that recognizes that within that process of equality we can and will embrace the differences among us, we will enhance those differences, and we will support and allow those differences to flourish, as is the tradition and the history of this great nation of Canada.

But today, forced to a referendum date on October 26 by an act of the legislature of the province of Quebec, which had decided, in reviewing the rejection of the Meech Lake accord, that on October 26 they were going to put before the Canadian people one of two questions.... Either Quebec was going to remain a functional part of Canada through a sovereignty vote, or they were going to react to a new deal from Canada that would satisfy the demands of the people of Quebec. Those demands were most clearly articulated and most demonstrably displayed by those people who sit today in the ranks of the Parti Québécois, a party that is dedicated to the separatist movement in Quebec, to removing Quebec as a functional part of this country.

We knew that on October 26 there had to be a vote. We knew then and we know now that this vote is going to be a very significant one in the history of Canada. And so the process of executive federalism took place yet again. This time, realizing the failure of Meech Lake, the members of the executive-federalist core -- I'm speaking, of course, of the ten Premiers and the Prime Minister -- understood they would have to have a different approach. They entered into a different approach by suggesting that this time we would have a series of meetings across Canada in which we would include Canadians in a process through selection. This would allow ordinary Canadians, selected by government, to come forward and articulate on the question of the Canadian constitution how we should readjust, how we should change, our nation.

In changing the governance of Canada, people across this country in those so-called meetings and conferences of ordinary Canadians -- well articulated and well orchestrated by the federal government -- at no time said anything at all about 18 seats for the province of Ontario and Quebec. The people at no time in those meetings said anything about a 25 percent guarantee of the seats in the Commons for the province of Quebec. The people at no time said that it was acceptable for us to put in place an amending formula that would provide a veto on the three institutions.

They talked about flexibility. They talked about the process and ability of compromise as an ongoing functional reform mechanism for our constitution, and they talked about equality. They talked about how important it is for us to recognize that there are legitimate concerns and needs for the people of Quebec because of their unique and distinct quality.

When the process got closer to October 26, what happened for Canadians to observe and to understand? We understood the complex nature of the reform of this constitution, given that we were trying to reform it in an omnibus fashion with vast numbers of reforms, most of which essentially have now been lumped together through political accord. In the process of doing that, we were moving ever closer to an October 26 deadline that had for the province of Quebec, and in particular for the government and Premier of Quebec, enormous significance because of the commitment to move toward a provincial referendum in that province.

The Prime Minister knew there were two other provinces that also were going to move toward a provincial referendum. One of them was British Columbia, where the Premier had repeatedly given a commitment that the people would have a made-in-British-Columbia referendum on a made-in-British-Columbia question. We heard repeatedly that we in British Columbia would have an opportunity, and rightly so, for review, input and a say in how our constitution was going to be drafted and written. The province of Alberta also had that proposition.

As we moved closer to the October 26 deadline, the process of executive federalism once again took over. The recognition of the inclusion of aboriginal people, long overdue in the debate, long overdue in their inclusion in the Canadian constitution, became something that the first ministers and the Prime Minister 

[ Page 3590 ]

were going to have to accept. And accept it they did, and then moved into a final round of discussions with respect to coming up with what is now considered this consensus report, the merits of which we are debating today.

The process of Meech Lake is flawed. The first ministers, in that kind of a setting, get down to what really amounts to bartering, horse-trading and trading on the basis of what each of the provinces desires and needs for and what the constituent groups -- in this case the aboriginal people -- require in order for them to have what they believe is necessary for their people.

And it came together at a time when the federal House had very little discussion of what Canada needed; what it was to be Canadian; what the national vision was; what the national order was going to be; how we were going to establish national standards right across this country so that we could establish, entrench and maintain the standards that all Canadians could enjoy, whether or not they lived in Newfoundland, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. As a result, we tended to move into ten provincial agendas, driven by one provincial referendum date -- the province of Quebec's -- with a Prime Minister who had one eye on the referendum process and another eye on the federal election, realizing clearly that time was running out. This is the Prime Minister who admitted that he rolled the dice in the Meech Lake process, and here we are rolling the dice one more time. He lost last time, and he will lose again this time, because he didn't learn that this is not the way that we should be trying to amend our constitution on an ongoing basis, that you simply do not have the first ministers in an executive federalist proposition come together, decide on what is essentially going to be acceptable to the ten premiers, and expect the people of Canada, given a limited amount of time to understand it, and given no definitive legal text -- which says as a disclaimer on the very cover of it that it is a "best efforts" text prepared by officials representing all the first ministers and aboriginal and territorial leaders, a text that does not have the ratification of the first ministers themselves.... And here we are in the closing days of this debate with a draft legal text that significantly alters in at least four areas the text of the accord we're being asked to vote on.

[2:45]

Hon. Speaker, the Prime Minister thought that he might get away with it if he went to the Canadian people. He said: "We'll ask a question that says that we support a renewed Canada -- something that I think all Canadians will support." But it's a renewed Canada on the basis of the consensus report in Charlottetown of August 28, 1992. What does "on the basis of" mean? That's what the people of British Columbia and Canada are going to be voting on on the 26th. It is not the language of this particular agreement. It certainly is not the language of this particular legal text. It is on the basis of this agreement, on the basis of this draft "best efforts" legal text that goes along with it that we're supposed to make some kind of recognition of a renewed Canada.

And yet, hon. Speaker, when we look at this text, we see that there are many areas in which further negotiation is required. We see that clearly half of what is in here hasn't even been agreed to. It's covered under a little asterisk that says it's going to be dealt with later, or a political accord will be put in place -- we can deal with this at some future negotiation.

Yet not only are we being asked to look at this in terms of what it hasn't done -- because it's incomplete -- we're then being told in a most mischievous way by those people on the Yes side of this campaign that if you go out and vote for it, it's going to end the constitutional wrangling. Only one premier was really honest with the people of his province and the people of Canada. Only one premier really had the honesty to come forward and the integrity to say that this doesn't end the debate but only starts it and that this is day one in the real process of constitutional reform. That was the premier of Quebec, Premier Robert Bourassa, who said: "This does not end the debate on the Canadian constitution; it only begins the debate." And he's absolutely correct. When Premier Clyde Wells from Newfoundland -- a very close friend and associate of mine, somebody for whom I have enormous respect -- came to British Columbia, what did he say? He said that he had reviewed this, and he outlined his concerns -- perhaps the most articulate voice on the question of constitutional reform in Canada today. Over and over again he said: "At this time, this is the best that we could accomplish." He said over and over again: "If I had been writing it, I would not have written it this way." He recognized the need for compromise. He recognized that compromise was the only way that he would get out of a room and get to the Canadian people so that the Canadian people could rightly say: "Your compromise is acceptable or not."

That is what we now have in front of us: an opportunity to say yes or no to the best that could be done at this time. And yet you put to the Premier of Newfoundland, who is an avowed opponent of the veto provision: how is it possible, if at this time it's the best we can do, that we have put into this document a proposition for an amending formula that provides veto provision for every province on the question of a Canadian House of Commons, our Senate and our Supreme Court. The three most fundamentally important institutions that govern this great country will now be subjected to the veto provisions of any province. And what does that mean to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories when they seek to gain in 50 or 60 years down the road? I know from our budget debate that this government has no vision toward a 50- or 60-year plan; therefore it's understandable that they would probably only think to October 26 on the voting of this particular document.

But let me say that a constitutional agreement is not for today. It's not for this time. A constitutional agreement must go on and on for generations of Canadians. If we want to look at the proposition of this agreement, we must understand that in the amending formula we are quite clearly going to straitjacket ourselves. We are going to put the people who live in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories into a subser-

[ Page 3591 ]

vient position, because they will not be able to enter into and have full and equal status without a proposition of one province providing veto against their involvement in the Senate, the Commons and against their provincial status itself. That alone is unfair and unjust and treats northerners in this country in a manner that I simply don't agree with.

So here we are with this consensus report that we have to move toward on October 26 with either a Yes or No vote. Here we are reviewing what is in this text. I think it's important, particularly in light of some of the discussion we have heard in this House in the last day or so, to put the record straight on a couple of matters. Let it be very clear that this is indeed a matter by which Canadians must vote on conscience; they must understand it; they must either accept or reject it. For that reason, this caucus has had as a position for almost a year now, anticipating that at some point we would have a vote in the Legislature, that there will be a free vote on this side in the Liberal opposition, something I would suggest that the government opposite might want to consider: allowing their members the freedom to come forward in a free vote.

Let me say that it's interesting when we take a look at all of those Yes buttons over there, at all of them standing in unison like a group that simply has no freedom to think or act or speak, all of them dressed in the same uniform, standing to attention, marching to the same drum, with the same beat. They are simply marching to the wrong tune. I suggest that they look at the public opinion polls. On October 26, when the people of this province reject this deal, we will then ask all of those members on the other side of the House whether or not they have a relevant position with respect to how the people in this province feel. We will then ask ourselves whether or not this mandated government is in touch with the will, the drive, the attitudes and the desires of the people of British Columbia. Let their constituents be the judge.

Let us look at what this document does. We have heard an awful lot on how it saves and renews Canada. This accord essentially attacks two very important issues in any federated state, but particularly in this country of Canada. The first one is how, as a nation that has a considerably disparate set of conditions -- geographical as well as social and political -- we tie this nation together in a manner that provides an equal distribution of powers to each of its regional and component parts. The devolution of power and the distribution of that power from the central federal state is something that has preoccupied the minds of federal and provincial politicians since Confederation.

Frankly, there is no easy answer to this question, because clearly there are very real differences in Canada. Those very real differences are driven, in large measure, by our major trading partner to the south, which has built very strong economic connections and alliances east to west and that now influences, in very substantial ways, the economy of this great nation. As we all know, the economy drives the wealth and prosperity of Canadians, and therefore the political agenda of this nation must address that economic question. So in the devolution of powers, we have to look at the economy and how it impacts the economy.

Let me first address what this consensus report does on that question. We recognize that in the devolution of powers, it is important for us not to have a greater degree of political and economic concentration in any one part of Canada. We recognize also, by virtue of the majority of the people of this country living in what is generally considered Canada's heartland region -- which runs from Sudbury all the way up to and including Quebec City -- that that heartland region is the principal engine that drives the secondary sectors of our economy, both production and manufacturing. That heartland has been a major player in the development of the overall economic strategy of the federal government by necessity -- because it has to be.

We recognize that if the so-called hinterland of Canada -- a term that is both economic and geographic in its context -- is to be something other than a provider of raw materials, if it's to be something other than simply the hewers of wood and drawers of water, something that Canadians have been touted as being for that trading partner I referred to to the south of us, then it's important in the devolution of power that consideration be given to divesting power from the central heartland region and distributing that power into the regions of this great country.

What we have to have, through an equal distribution of power, is the maintenance of the economies of provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We have to recognize the expansion and the potential that is there as we see the Northwest Territories developing and as we recognize the Yukon growing.

What is the best way for us to do that? The best way for us to do that is to make sure that we have a strong central government and that that strong central government provides an equal devolution of powers to the provinces, rather than concentrating the devolution of powers into the two central provinces that already drive the engine of the Canadian economy. Ask anybody who is in business in this province today what one of the principal considerations and concerns is with respect to their ability to conduct business. It's the value of the Canadian dollar. It is the monetary and fiscal policy of Ottawa and what drives interest rates within the Bank of Canada. Who determines that? Is it the province of British Columbia? Is it the province of Newfoundland? Is it the provinces of Nova Scotia or Alberta or Saskatchewan? It clearly is not, because it cannot be. It's the province of Ontario and, in some measure, the province of Quebec. So when we look at how we have a devolution of power, let us consider that it is important for that strong central government to understand the need to have strong provincial economies right across this country, so that every Canadian has an equal opportunity to succeed and every Canadian, including British Columbians, has an equal opportunity with those people who live in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

As we start to see what this document has done, we ask one very important question. Has this document 

[ Page 3592 ]

actually addressed the barriers to the free movement of goods and services across this country? At a time when we have a continentalization of our economy, when our economy has developed into a continental structure, when we are looking at a free trade agreement with the United States already in place with certain significant consequences, when we look at the development of a North American free trade agreement -- something that the members opposite, we are told, oppose vigorously because of what it's going to do to the regional economy of Canada.... I suggest that if the members opposite really are worried about NAFTA, the place that we should have started to deal with it is in the removal of the economic barriers within Canada between the provinces. That's the place we should have started. Instead of pushing out a lot of verbiage about how NAFTA is going to impact negatively on the workforce in Ontario and in British Columbia, where was this particular government and this Premier in his negotiation, when he should have been arguing to get rid of the provisions that are now in place restricting the free movement of goods and services?

[3:00]

What does this document say about the so-called economic union? We'll come back to talk about the social union, because we've heard members opposite talk about guarantees of universal health care. This document gives no such guarantee, and anybody who tells Canadians or British Columbians that this document guarantees universal health care is misleading you. They are simply policy objectives that Canadians have embraced well before this constitutional document and that can be quite easily accomplished under the Constitution Act of 1982, which is the law of the land today.

So policy objectives on the economic union are set out that say we should be working together to strengthen the Canadian economic union. We should have the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, a goal of full employment, ensuring all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living and assuring sustainable and equitable development. They talk about this as a policy objective. There's no removal of trade barriers here. There's nothing tangible in the language in this document, and nothing in the accompanying legal text that provides any such guarantee.

Yet we see a rather disturbing trend occurring. While the government opposite says they're so opposed to NAFTA, and while they recognize that they are opposed to the continental free trade movement that is taking place in this country and the continentalization of our economy, in the last budget brought down in this House we saw the relevance of trying to compare the British Columbia economy with the economies of Alberta and Ontario. This government said that we had tax room to move in in British Columbia. What we said was: get realistic, over there on the other side of the House and learn something about regional economics. At least understand that what we see here in the barriers to the free movement of goods and services, which have not been removed in this document but are entrenched and enshrined in it, is the very reason why certainly the Liberal opposition on this side of the House argues that the relevant economies that we should be looking at are Washington, Oregon and California, because those are the economies with which the economic union is going to be built. Therefore it is inherently dishonest to talk about an east-west economic union in Canada when there is no provision or proposition for it. Because of the centralization of power and monetary and fiscal authority in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, British Columbia, by necessity, is going to be driven in a north-south way. As that happens, the proposition of Cascadia -- something that has been talked about in terms of the economy -- becomes an ever more functional part of that development, that economic union between those of us in British Columbia and those south of the border.

Hon. Speaker, I don't want my remarks to be misunderstood. I'm not opposed to developing strong and good trade alliances with our partners to the south. But what I do recognize -- and it's unfortunate that it was not recognized in this document -- is that there is a very real opportunity in Canada today to take advantage of a changing continental economy that would allow this province a great deal of latitude to expand, to grow and to take advantage of that economy, if we were to have the opportunity of a greater degree of freedom to move and to trade with markets in eastern Canada than we have today. If we didn't have to ship our goods south first to then have them shipped east on U.S. rail lines because Canada no longer has a commitment to that kind of unity and integration, to that kind of east-west connection.... That is a major tragedy in this country, Canada.

Those of us in the Liberal opposition on the No side recognize that not only is the economic policy objective spelled out in this document totally frivolous, it's misleading in the extreme. It suggests that somehow we're going to be able to develop that kind of east-west connection, that east-west alliance. In fact, we are not. We're already hearing members opposite wanting to talk about the Georgia basin. We hear that NAFTA is coming up on the orders for next week. Well, let it be known and let it be on the record now that the Liberal opposition in British Columbia is dedicated to a strong and vital provincial economy as a strong and integral part of a united Canada, one that is going to look after the interests of British Columbians first, before we sell our economy south to the people of the United States.

We in this particular part of the Liberal opposition in this House also recognize that with the devolution of powers into the two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we have also provided, in perpetuity, essentially junior partner status for the people of British Columbia in this great country of Canada. It doesn't mean that we have any disrespect for those who have been fortunate because of the negotiating skills of their Premiers. It doesn't mean that because their Premiers were able to go to the table and count that we should feel that they are any better Canadians than we are. It doesn't mean that we have anxieties or tensions that we would like to direct to Canadians in Ontario or Quebec, because clearly we do not.

The entrenchment of powers in central Canada has happened in two major ways. The first is in a movement 

[ Page 3593 ]

towards the devolution of authority from the central government and the implementation of two blocs of seats from the Senate into Ontario and Quebec -- 18 seats into Ontario and 18 seats into Quebec -- at a time when British Columbia gets four. Hon. Speaker, you will hear an awful lot about how these new rules are going to be interpreted. We have done some considerable calculations on the question of seats. I think it's important for us to put to rest the myth out there that if we do not move forward, we are going to be entrenched, in perpetuity, in a reform of the Commons system that would provide us with only two seats. What this province should have received, had we negotiated in a manner consistent with the principles on the table.... I look essentially at the interpretation of the Charlottetown accord in which the 1991 census through to the 1996 census is put forward. The rule that is triggering this proposition should have provided at a minimum, at the time that Ontario and Quebec received 18, seven additional seats to British Columbia. We argue that it should have provided eight.

But let's be clear. Not only did the 18 seats come into Ontario and Quebec in a manner that was not strictly adhered to across Canada in an equal and fair way, but we recognize that the reason that that happened was the inability of the first minister of this province, who was negotiating on behalf of this province, to calculate what the seats should have been. We recognize that the Premier did go back to Charlottetown after considerable urging and after a letter that I drafted as Leader of the Opposition to every first minister, including the Premier of this province, in which I suggested that if there was no reassessment of those seats allocated in the Charlottetown accord, this accord would not pass in British Columbia, and that we needed the guarantee immediately. We did not need it in a promise of a 1996 census; we did not need it in a way that essentially would provide us, through a 1996 census, some kind of allocation through normal boundary redistribution, which on average has taken.... I would ask the people who may well be listening to my remarks tonight or may read my remarks in future Hansards to check the record. You will see that the boundary redistribution effectively suggests that it's going to take anywhere from five to seven years for us to get those kinds of seats. Therefore, when our children and future generations start to look at when British Columbia is going to receive its seven seats, they'll see that it's sometime after the year 2000.

Hon. Speaker, that's simply unacceptable. How is it possible that we could have had a first minister negotiating on behalf of the people of British Columbia whose inability to calculate such a simple arithmetical equation...? Perhaps it's at this time that I ought to give some public acknowledgment to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, who -- I want to publicly acknowledge it -- did keep me informed on a day-to-day basis many times on the telephone, as this negotiation was taking place, of exactly what was going on inside that negotiation, what kind of fumbling had happened and how there was going to have to be some kind of process to try and redress that and deal with that. We understand that when you've got in your first-string quarterback and you pull him out when he's on the 20-yard line and put in your second-string quarterback, and they fumble the ball and the opposition scores in your own end zone, it's embarrassing, frustrating and annoying for that first-string quarterback, who if he had still been there might not have had this proposition. So we understand on this side of the House that the skills and negotiating prowess of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs were going very well. Things were perking along in a reasonable way until such time as the first string got pulled out and the second string got put in, and, of course, we lost the ball game and now are having to deal with the problems.

If the only problem was those 18 seats, then maybe we would say: "Look, all right, we understand that essentially the problem was that they made a switch in players. Yes, there was a fumble, and we'll forgive that." But what was the trade for that? What did we trade for this provincially equal Senate? It has everything to do with the central devolution of powers; it's part of this deal. What did we trade for that? What we traded, in perpetuity, was 25 percent of the Commons seats for the province of Quebec. I fully recognize, and I can tell you that.... Again I want to acknowledge and thank the minister opposite for discussing this with me in some detail as he realized the very, very difficult problem that he was facing. He knew well that it was going to be a difficult sell in British Columbia because of the problems we had with a lack of seats allocated. To give 25 percent to Quebec, it was suggested, was a trade for a provincially equal Senate.

What we have to recognize, and what was sold, negotiated and debated among the first ministers, is: how do you sell it to the Canadian people? The way that you try to sell it to the Canadian people is with the fact that Quebec right now enjoys about 25 percent. Statistics Canada, that great bastion of provision.... I don't take issue with Statistics Canada -- they do good work and provide very interesting statistics. But their projections have not always been right on the mark; sometimes they've been a little off. When you're dealing with the question of future demographic trends in a country such as Canada, there are a number of factors that are going to influence demographic shifts. Statistics Canada acknowledges several things. One is that British Columbia is the fastest-growing province in Canada today. Statistics Canada acknowledges that the province of Quebec is losing population. I think Canadians have to be aware that one of the reasons there's a separate negotiation with the federal government and Quebec on immigration is that they understand their population is declining and they want to have a proportional share of French-speaking immigrants coming into Quebec on a first-choice basis. We understand the reason for that. We understand what that situation is.

But let me ask you this. Where would the states of, say, Massachusetts and Maine be today if, when the Americans wrote their constitution, they had come back and said that when they put their constitution together the House of Representatives would have for those founding states a floor on their representation? Good heavens, way back in the 1700s who even knew about 

[ Page 3594 ]

California? Who even thought about California? Where was California? It was that sort of distant never-never land on the other side of the continent that would never amount to a hill of beans, and now it has a population and GNP greater than the country of Canada. Nobody predicted this was going to happen at that time, and yet their constitution was written on the foundation of principle -- a principle that said no matter what happens, whether we stick with 25 percent forever in the province of Quebec or we do not, the principle of representation by population should not be abandoned in its entirety. What we ought to have is a proposition where we can indeed have a redistribution of representation if the population of British Columbia warrants and deserves it. We have abandoned that principle now, and we have abandoned it for all time.

On the 25 percent guarantee I want to be very clear, because I know that certainly those opposite and some members listening might say: "Well, this man is obviously anti-Quebec on this question. He doesn't want Quebec to have 25 percent of the seats." Let us be really clear here. The province of Quebec has never asked for 25 percent of the seats. It's never been their agenda. It was never put on the table by the Premier of Quebec. It was something that he was offered, and, in his words: "It was just too good to give up." I think that was right after nine Premiers had stared him in the eye, put him against the wall and said no.

[3:15]

When you give that offer to one Premier, surely it is something that the Premier is going to take up. It's unknown who offered it, or, at least, there's some dispute as to who offered it -- whether it was the Premier of New Brunswick or the Premier of Saskatchewan. I'm not certain. Maybe in his speech the minister might tell us if he was there when the offer was made. I'm not certain if he had been pulled from the game at that point.

The 25 percent guarantee is a question of principle, and I know that there are members who will stand and say this question of representation by population doesn't exist in the country of Canada today, because there are guarantees already for Prince Edward Island, already; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. What about the Yukon? I mean, if we had straight representation by population, the Yukon wouldn't have a seat; we wouldn't have the leader of the NDP. Of course, hon. Speaker, we realize we don't want that to be the case, and we know that representation by population requires a certain flexibility in base and adjustment in order to look after the interests of those people who live in a very widely dispersed region. So we hear somewhat inane comments. I don't mean to belittle those members who stood up, but it really is misleading when you hear comments, such as the ones we heard from the member for North Coast yesterday, about the fact that if we had a straight adherence to representation by population, the good people of Powell River and the Sunshine Coast, whom I represent, simply would not have representation in this Legislature. That's just a lot of nonsense.

To suggest that because Prince Edward Island is accorded more members -- Prince Edward Island has a population roughly equal to that of Burnaby -- they shouldn't have the kind of Commons representation they have, essentially flies in the face of Canadian history. It is in place today, and it is recognized. It is something that we have evolved with and, in the patriation of the constitution of 1982, something we dealt with.

We don't need to revisit that question. We certainly didn't need to offer up, to a province that had just received 18 very powerful Commons seats for 18 relatively useless Senate seats, a guarantee that they will never fall below the 25 percent representational margin in the House of Commons. What did we get? We got an equal Senate right across Canada. Is it going to be elected by some national standard? No, it isn't going to be elected. What we're going to see in this Senate is every province determining how we're going to have these Senators elected.

When we see every province determining how we're going to have these Senators elected, we then, interestingly enough, read and see on television the Yes campaign's Canadian Labour Congress advertisement that says four governments and four Premiers have committed to a gender-equal Senate. Well, hon. Speaker, who are those four? We know for certain that one is the Premier of Ontario. We understand that one may be the Premier of New Brunswick. We understand that one is the Premier of Nova Scotia. We know it certainly isn't the Premier of Newfoundland, and we know it isn't the Premier of Prince Edward Island. We know it isn't the Premier of Quebec. We've heard it isn't Saskatchewan. It isn't Manitoba, and it certainly isn't Alberta. That leaves one, and that's British Columbia. If that isn't true, then it seems to me that somebody has misled the Canadian Labour Congress. Or maybe there's been a guarantee made to the Canadian Labour Congress that hasn't been shared with all British Columbians in this open style of government.

Let's address just for a moment this national standard on the election of Senators. The people who sit as Liberal opposition members here are not opposed to -- in fact, they fully support -- the removal of barriers that prevent women from entering into and being successful in the political arena in Canada. That's the real issue. The real issue is to remove the barriers and allow women to have an even playing field, so that there are no discriminatory barriers to women being allowed to get into and be successful in the political arena with men. The way you deal with that is to attack those areas in which discrimination is maintained, enhanced and put forward. So we are committed to the removal of those barriers. We are committed to making sure that we have a larger representation of women in politics, and we look forward to the day that we can overcome those barriers so that we can have women entering politics.

I hear a member opposite asking where they are. Lyn McLeod is the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario. Sharon Carstairs is the leader of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. Lynda Haverstock is the leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan. That's where they are: leading parties. The first woman president of a national political party in Canada was Iona Campagnolo. That's 

[ Page 3595 ]

where women are in the Liberal Party. Let there be no confusion about our commitment to the involvement of women in politics. We certainly are not only committed to it; we find that women who enter politics through the Liberal Party are successful.

This question of quotas -- and that's what we have, legislative quotas -- is not going to provide gender equity. It is going to remove the democratic right of every citizen, male and female, to choose the individual whom they believe is best able to represent them. At this time we'd better put it on the record. We heard from the first minister, who talked about this being a social revolution or a social breakthrough. Perhaps not a revolution; that might be too strong -- although that might have been what he wanted to say. But being able to have this so-called quota system legislated is certainly a social breakthrough. The Premier has given a guarantee to the people of this province that that is not part of this accord should this document succeed, and, from my personal view, I don't think it will. If a Senate elections act is introduced, let the Liberal opposition serve notice that the Premier's commitment to the people of the province that this will not be legislated as three women and three men by quota had better not be reneged on, because that would be an abrogation of the democratic right of British Columbians to elect the individual whom they believe is best able to look after their interests.

We don't have national standards on the election of Senators. The Premier of Quebec said that, for his part, Quebec was going to elect out of the sitting members of his legislative assembly. The Premier of Quebec better read the draft legal text, because the draft legal text prohibits that. It says that you can't be a sitting member of any legislative assembly and hold a Senate office. I'm not quite sure whether that means that the Premier of Quebec has changed his mind or if he hasn't read the legal text yet. Maybe he's not going to agree to that portion. Maybe we're going to be into another first ministers' negotiation on the question. We're really not sure.

One thing we are sure about is that the election of this new Senate is going to be a hodgepodge set of regulations set down by provinces. This so-called new national assembly, which is supposed to be looking after the broader vision and interests of Canadians, is going to become little more than a house of provincial political concerns that will have no effective powers in managing the interests they're representing.

The biggest tragedy here is the effective powers portion of this Senate. Not only have we had a devolution of power into central Canada, but we have also created a triple-E Senate only in name and not in substance at all. I recognize that there are many people who disagree, one of whom, as I've pointed out before, is the Premier of Newfoundland, who is a good personal friend and someone whose opinion I deeply respect. He has said that this is going to be an effective Senate. I understand that there is tremendous hope and a desire to have the Senate counterbalance the Lower House, which is determined -- or was determined, until this document came along -- by representation by population. The counterbalance is important because, while we recognize that the Lower House is the most important House in terms of its ability to determine fiscal policy and how the government is spending the taxpayers' money on the programs they develop, there has to be some measure to put in balance, from a provincial perspective, the central authority and power driven by central Canada -- Ontario and Quebec. This is a most important concept, because if we don't have that, it means, de facto, by virtue of the very fact that the central powers in Ottawa will continue to provide a greater degree of concentration in those two central provinces, that British Columbians will always remain, as I said earlier, a junior partner.

The Senate today -- and let's be very clear about this, because there seems to be some confusion on the point -- has effective powers. It is a very effective body; in fact, it is the most effective it can be today. The problem with it is that the Senate is not elected. I ask you to think back to when the GST came before the Senate. The Senate was able to prevent the legislation from moving forward until the Prime Minister dug down deep into the constitution and found an ability to appoint additional "Conservative" members who would be able to push the package through. This Senate is going to be able to do what? Hold it up for 30 days. Thirty days to do what? To try and rally the Canadian public around an issue of such national importance that a 30-day suspensive veto is all this Senate can do. And then at the end of it, what happens? This Senate has to go into a joint sitting with the House of Commons, which is going to have the majority in view of votes actually cast, and a huge majority of those members in the Commons are simply going to override the Senate. So what's the purpose of it? Why would we have it?

J. Tyabji: It's useless. Abolish it. Get rid of it.

G. Wilson: We hear one member say: why not just abolish it? Hon. Speaker, let me say this: with the proposition of the Senate powers the way they are, you might as well abolish it, because all you're going to have is a very expensive talk shop that is going to drain the tax base in this province and right across the country. I would suggest to you that one of the reasons we have such a mishmash in the Senate is that at least three of the Premiers who were sitting at the table, including the Premier of this province, were arguing for a triple-A Senate from the beginning through the end of the negotiation and never had a commitment to a true triple-E Senate. We did not have the kind of strength in that negotiation and debate from the Premier of this province to put in place a triple-E Senate.

The Premier of this province is on record, when he was Leader of the Opposition and again when he was the leader of the government of British Columbia, as being fully supportive of a triple-A. "Abolish, abolish, abolish," he said. Despite the hard work and good intentions of the Minister of Constitutional Affairs -- and I know that the minister opposite did debate and argue hard on the question of the Senate, but after all, the minister opposite is not the Premier of this province -- this government, along with that of Ontario and Saskatchewan, essentially had no preoccupation with 

[ Page 3596 ]

developing a truly triple-E Senate. And it's a great shame. Had we had a united force, a united front on that question, we would have had a triple-E Senate -- equal, elected and effective.

So where are we now in this whole proposition? We've got devolution of powers, we've got powers into the central portions of this country, and we've got powers that essentially provide for the Ontario and Quebec provinces greater degrees of authority.

Let's move, then, to the second major area that I talked about earlier in my remarks, and that is trying to deal with the rights of the collective versus the rights of the individual as spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is an extremely difficult proposition for anybody in government to grapple with, and I don't take lightly what the first ministers had to try to deal with. I understand clearly that there are collective interests in this province that need to be addressed, protected and enshrined within our constitution. There clearly are.

[3:30]

But we also have -- whether members opposite like it or not -- a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be the senior law of the land, because it is that Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the individual rights of Canadians and makes all Canadians equal under the laws of Canada. What we've effectively done is acknowledge there are collective interests in Canada, but we have given special treatment and attention to two collectives. We've done that through the proposition of the Canada clause.

As I said earlier on, we know that this debate has been in large measure driven by the people of Quebec. The people of Quebec were not a signatory, because they had a separatist Premier in 1982, and we don't want to go back and revisit that history. The people of Quebec see themselves and believe themselves to be a distinct society in Canada. The distinct society clause was something that caused a great deal of concern for many British Columbians in the Meech Lake debate. It was like a lightning rod around which a lot of the debate happened.

This document is better in the definition of distinct society than Meech Lake. Let us acknowledge that. It is better because it does provide a definition of what distinct society includes. This document provides a definition that says distinct society essentially includes a French-speaking majority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition. That is the definition of this distinct society.

My concern is when we look at a unique culture. How do we determine a unique culture? What is it that is unique about this culture? How do you make a definition? I heard a member ask if you define culture, what would you pick? That's a good question and a legitimate question. When we talk about a unique culture, are we talking about the culture of the people of Quebec -- i.e., anybody who is a resident and therefore, by virtue of their residency, has the ability to vote in the province of Quebec -- or are we talking about the unique culture as it refers to the French-speaking majority? If we're talking about the French-speaking majority, are we saying that the culture of an immigrant Haitian in the province of Quebec is the same as that of a francophone Quebecker who has four or five generations of tradition and culture in the evolution and history of that nation? That's a legitimate question to ask.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the Minister of Transportation asking how many Haitians can dance on the head of a pin, and I think that that's the most regrettable of things. He's suggesting that it was....

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order. I know that the Leader of the Opposition would not object to me raising this point. I think it fair to say, for all of those who heard the comments made by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, that he said "angels," not "Haitians." I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition was in full stream in making his presentation, and sometimes it does happen in this House that we don't hear clearly, but I think the record should be clear that the Minister of Transportation and Highways said "angels," not "Haitians."

G. Wilson: I stand corrected if indeed he said "angels." I don't rule out that there are probably many angels who are of Haitian origin.

Nevertheless, let's come back and deal with the salient point in this question, that in protecting this unique culture, what we're hearing, and the argument that's been advanced.... I ask Canadians to consider this because it's most important in terms of any future constitutional reform, especially if this document does not pass. If we are saying that the distinct society is required because of the two-founding-nation concept, then I don't think there is any question that this unique culture refers to the Québécois, those people who founded that first nation. In the founding of that first nation, that is the distinct society of the province of Quebec. I don't have an argument or a quarrel with that.

Where I do have an argument and a quarrel is with how we protect the minority interests of the rest of the people in Quebec if the distinct society is provided and protected with respect to the proposition of the Canada clause, which affirms the role of the legislature and the government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec. This is a very important question for all Canadians to address, because not only are British Columbians interested in having equality prevail right across Canada; we are also interested in making sure that the collective rights of the francophones in Quebec are respected, understood, recognized and provided for in this Canadian constitution. But in order for us to do that, we have to also recognize that the measures that are provided for the protection of that distinct society have to be addressed in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore what we argue is that if we are to provide a double majority vote on the question of French language and culture for francophone-declared Senators, we have essentially 

[ Page 3597 ]

provided in the Senate a two-vote system: first, where all Senators will vote, and second, where the vote of francophone Senators will be counted separately.

We have provided in the Canada clause the recognition of a distinct society for the province of Quebec, and we have provided to the government of Quebec some provisions of powers to be able to promote, protect and preserve that distinctive quality. In this document we have also provided for three of the Supreme Court judges to come from Quebec -- which is the case today -- or at least to be appointed from the civil bar, with the province of Quebec essentially making the appointment, which virtually guarantees that three out of nine of the Supreme Court justices will come from Quebec.

An Hon. Member: What's wrong with that?

G. Wilson: I haven't ascribed anything to be wrong with that. I'm just explaining what we have done in the protection of this.

So the situation is that we have undertaken, on those three questions alone, for the protection of that distinct-society clause.... Let me say that the distinct society of Quebec, as it is affirmed here, coupled with the additional powers in the House of Commons that are granted to Quebec, coupled with their three Supreme Court judges and given that we have now offered a 25 percent guarantee, in my judgment and in that of others who have reviewed this, does provide powers for Quebec that are separate from or different from other provinces in Canada, in status and role.

Maybe that's what Canadians want. If that is what Canadians want, then we must ask this question: why did they not listen to what came out of the so-called people conference of Halifax that talked about asymmetrical federalism? The asymmetrical federalism concept addressed what Quebec was asking for. Quebec hasn't asked for any of this. The people of Quebec are not asking to have the powers redistributed in this manner. What is happening is that the federal government is suggesting this is the way it should work.

So let me say that if, in fact, you wish to have that kind of distinction granted, if you want to essentially have two Canadas, as this would suggest, then surely the two Canadas that should be developed would reaffirm, through some form of asymmetrical federalism, that Quebec will be distinct and separate and will have a sort of pseudo sovereign association with Canada.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Canadians accept that proposition. Therefore I suggest that British Columbia should reflect carefully upon what we have done here. What we have provided is a federal solution to the demands of the people of Quebec that will fall far short of what the people of Quebec have wanted. Therefore we wonder why it may be that in the province of Quebec we end up with a No vote. Why do we not then turn around and suggest....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the hon. minister opposite for Aboriginal Affairs say that it's called accommodation. Accommodation with whom? Is it called accommodation with the Premier of Quebec, who, it would seem, is having difficulty selling the notion to the vast majority of the people of Quebec? That's the problem with this whole document: the politicians who have negotiated this great accommodation have lost touch with what Canadians think and believe about this country. It's not bad enough that the politicians have lost touch with what the people want, but then they have the audacity to go out and spend $150 million on what basically amounts to a public opinion poll, and spend millions upon millions of dollars of advertising to try and tell them that this is the best thing -- indeed the only thing -- and that if they don't vote for it, somehow Canadians have killed the country. I believe that what this does is create a functional two-Canada.

The other collective that this area tries to address is the one involving aboriginal people in Canada. We have attempted in some measure through this document to mirror those kinds of collective rights, the protection of those collective rights and the proposition of what is considered a third order of government. It has been the position of this member and, indeed, the position of the Liberal caucus for at least four years -- articulated clearly in terms of the fallout on the Meech Lake question -- that indigenous government has existed in this country and should be recognized in the constitution as such, having existed well before colonial governments of the francophone and English-speaking peoples.

Therefore, in our judgment, it is not a question of acknowledging a third order of government, which tends to give, at least in its intention.... We're told it does not, but certainly in the language it tends to rank governments, because you order things in some form -- first, second and third. So it's one of the three orders. But some would argue that based on the fiduciary obligation and responsibility of the federal government, and given the involvement with the provinces now and the language of this agreement, this in fact puts them in a third position.

I would suggest that this is an area where we need to give a great deal of study, a great deal of thought and a good deal more time in order to fully understand what this particular section says to the Canadian people and what it provides for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples alike.

Let me suggest that it is in this area that I have the most difficulty in trying to articulate a position without having members opposite misconstrue, mislead, misdirect and, in some instances, outrightly misrepresent what I am attempting to say. Let me be very clear that this opposition is on record as saying that we support the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves, and we recognize that indigenous government has been a functional part of this great country of Canada well before the colonial regimes. We recognize, however, that if we are going to put a protection of this collective in place, then we have to do so in a framework that is going to recognize not only their legitimate concerns and rights to government but also that it must be woven intrinsically within a just settlement to the land question. We have to recognize 

[ Page 3598 ]

that in doing so we must have an open political negotiation to provide involvement and inclusion of not only aboriginal people and the federal and provincial governments but also the non-aboriginal people of British Columbia and indeed Canada.

Nowhere in this agreement is there more misunderstanding, greater misrepresentation, greater fear or greater direction toward a concern among the people of this great province. Nowhere is there more fear, because the language of the document is incomplete. This essentially calls for five years to negotiate. We have agreed to negotiate for five years, and after that they can proceed if they desire and if the negotiations are failing in the courts.

I find it interesting that the aboriginal people have spoken on this question themselves, perhaps more eloquently than I. They refused to take a vote on this question when they came together at their summit, because they needed to consult further with their people. What could be more responsible than politicians -- they may happen to be tribal chiefs -- recognizing the need to further consult with their constituents before taking a vote on a question?

[3:45]

I think we have to take a signal from the aboriginal people here. We have to recognize that this language is indeed incomplete. We have to recognize that what is in place here is in fact a good negotiating position for the inclusion of aboriginal people in the Canadian constitution. We can acknowledge that that can continue to take place whether this document succeeds or fails.

Hon. Speaker, I see the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs shaking his head. He says: "No, we won't proceed." Let me say this: if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is shaking his head, perhaps when he has an opportunity to speak....

Hon. A. Petter: Point of order. The Leader of the Opposition attributed something to me that I never said. I shook my head in disbelief at some of his statements. I did not shake my head saying that we would not do something, which he attributed to me as a statement. I wish to correct the record on that.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please proceed.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to hear that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is going to proceed, or perhaps I've misrepresented you again, in which case I retract that.

The Speaker: Hon. member, obviously the Chair intended to say: please proceed, leader of the official opposition, continuing your remarks in the debate.

G. Wilson: Let me say again that I'm delighted that that was not the intention of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and I'm pleased that we can proceed.

The Leader of the Opposition made a commitment on behalf of the opposition in this province to the aboriginal leadership in British Columbia at a meeting I had with them last week. Essentially we have agreed that we will do everything within our power to make sure, should this document not proceed, that the content, direction and intention of this document be advanced regardless. It is our view that this is an issue that cannot wait any longer. This is an issue that must be addressed in British Columbia, because there is such anxiety and tension outside of the lower mainland and urban centres that seem to preoccupy the minds of the government opposite. Having travelled this summer into the hinterland regions -- having travelled to the member for North Coast's riding and heard his constituents perhaps more clearly than he seems to have -- I can tell you that there is a great deal of anxiety to make sure that there is an open and full consultative process on this question.

Let me say that I gave that commitment to the aboriginal leadership in British Columbia. The words attributed to the Premier are incredible to me. He said that that was it; it was all over, and nothing more would take place. We have agreed to a process for land claims negotiations. That process has been accepted. Land claims are moving forward. I find it most regrettable for the Premier to essentially suggest that we are not going to move because the people said no to a deal that he had such difficulty negotiating on our behalf. I hope the Premier will say that he didn't mean that, and that he will join the opposition in making sure that this situation is advanced.

In principle we recognize that in this document we have effectively created, through direct and very conscious deliberation, three Canadas. We have created a francophone Quebec Canada, with certain rights, privileges and traditions as spelled out in this document; an aboriginal Canada, with certain rights, privileges and traditions as spelled out in one of the three orders of government; and the rest of Canada.

Let me for just one moment talk about the rest of Canada, because it seems to be the part of Canada that everybody has forgotten in this debate. This "rest of Canada" is the Canada that includes a very complex multicultural mosaic of peoples, who essentially come from a variety of cultural backgrounds, traditions, religions and languages. That multicultural fabric, so eloquently articulated in the 1982 constitution, has now been virtually left out of this agreement entirely. In fact, multiculturalism is not mentioned in this agreement at all.

Let me read the Canada clause into the record so that I can save the minister opposite some time when he gets up to speak in a few minutes. "Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the building of a strong Canada." Let's just for a moment examine the language of those clauses. Immediately above that it says: "Canadians and their governments are committed to the vitality and development of official language minority communities throughout Canada." Then it says: "Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality." Why not Canadians and their governments?

In order to bring back the proposition of the three Canadas, we have recognition of the powers of the government of Quebec in the Canada clause and the distinct-society clause. On the question of minority 

[ Page 3599 ]

language we have the powers of the government, and with respect to the collective interests of aboriginal people we have empowered governments. But what about the multicultural mosaic of Canadians? Where are these people in terms of the proposition put forward in the Canada clause? Let us be clear that this Canada clause is a set of lenses through which we are going to start to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that we'll hear a response from the minister that we didn't have to put it in there because it's already entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the Charter does prevail. Well, let me see how that Charter does indeed prevail.

In the province of Quebec we had the use of something called the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause, which is not a functional part of this accord but is a very important part of the constitution itself, was used for the protection of the French language to make it illegal to put any sign outside your store that was not in French. It's ironic that the Minister of Highways is not here, but judging by the letter he sent out to many of the small businesses in British Columbia, we've gone one step further: we're not allowed to put a sign out at all.

So let me attempt to move through this point to make clear to the people that what we've created is three Canadas. What we should be attempting to do is to maintain one Canada indivisible, in which every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian, regardless of their rights, religion, race and colour. This document creates three.

If that's what Canadians want, if that's the kind of Canada with a devolution of power from the central government, the disproportionate allocation of that power into two central provinces -- Ontario and Quebec -- the proposition where no freedom to trade between the provinces has been established or maintained; if we can live in a country in which there are different rights and privileges accorded to the two collectives that I have talked about, with the rest of Canada being defined essentially as a proposition of racial and ethnic groups and the loss of our multicultural commitment in this country; if that's the kind of Canada that we want to live with -- three Canadas within one nation -- then I would suggest that Canadians should go forward and embrace this deal with great vigour and great passion, because that's the kind of Canada that we're going to get.

But if people don't believe in that, if people do not believe that there is to be a proposition where three Canadas can rule or that we want to have one Canada, that we want to put in place a strong central government that has national programs that allow us to have equality of those national programs across Canada, portability of those national programs across Canada, and an opportunity to move forward in the portability of those programs with equality, then I suggest that if people want one Canada in which every Canadian is equal to every other, they should vote down this deal. They should vote no on October 26.

Let me say, as I move to my concluding statements today, that there is no right or wrong constitution for this country. There is no one way to see Canada. I have a vision of this nation that may not be shared by others in this House or by others in this province or across this country, but the vision of this nation is one in which I believe there have to be standards that apply to Canadians equally right across the country. There has to be a proposition that when you immigrate into Canada, you don't immigrate into one of its component provinces; you integrate into the nation as a whole. There has to be a Canada where Canadians are ruled by a strong national government that makes sure that it has strong national programs for health care, education, the environment, and the social interests of Canadians, and does not devolve those powers disproportionately into the two central provinces.

I believe in one Canada in which the economy of this great nation is equally maintained and shared right across the country, so that we can deal with those members in the Maritimes who have such difficulty today because of the centralist policies of the government of Canada, and so that we can deal with the interests of the people in British Columbia when we have such difficulty as this government seems to have difficulty in understanding, when there is a movement by the federal government to assist in the merger of Air Canada and Canadian and we're going to lose 15,000 jobs sucked out of British Columbia and into central Canada, that this government in its inaction is unprepared to move.

That's the political reality of the country as this country is building and as it has been seen. The great disappointment to Canadians is that we understand the reality of Canada today. We wanted to see in Canada, through this constitutional reform, an addressing of those problems, so that we can work toward not only a more equal distribution of political power and the economy of the country, but equality among Canadians. It's a fundamental principle of what it is to be Canadian: equality among all Canadians.

For those who misinterpret my statements -- and there are a few -- when I talk about equality, I do not suggest that because we are all equal, we must all be the same. I do not subscribe to the principles of the melting-pot theory that addresses south of the border. I realize why the members opposite have so much difficulty understanding that when you are all equal, you don't have to be all the same. When I look across at the other side of the House, there they are: all exactly the same, all wearing Yes buttons, all with the same speech, all with the same message and all with the same direction. There's not an independent thought among them. But that isn't Canada, and that isn't the reality of what Canadians are feeling. That's why on October 26 the members opposite are going to get a lesson from the people of British Columbia that they had better start listening to the majority, or they will be on this side of the House after the next election. We will finally be able to deliver to this province a strong and articulate government.

I do not pretend to stand here and tell people in this province how they have to vote. But I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that quite clearly there is no secret of where and how I intend to cast my ballot. We made a point of saying that we would go out and articulate our 

[ Page 3600 ]

positions and our concerns. We have done that. We have articulated our positions and our concerns in this accord. We have spoken to the detail that is included in this accord, and we have gone through it in maintaining a commitment to two things: an attention to the detail of the accord and not to play into the fears that are being put out by those members such as the Prime Minister of this country, who would rip up this agreement and try to tell us that if we don't vote for this, somehow this country is going to die. We are not going to play into the fears of ministers of finance who say that if this doesn't go forward, somehow our economy is going to go to rock bottom. We know that what is driving down the economy of this province is not this constitutional accord, but the fiscal policies of the government opposite.

We're saying to Canadians that you have to choose. I believe that Canadians are going to read this document and recognize that out of the 60 clauses in this deal, only three of them actually functionally and structurally change the Canadian constitution. The rest of what's in here can be accomplished through political accord and political action under the existing Canadian constitution.

[4:00]

I recognize that those three are important, because they do involve Senate reform -- something that's necessary. They do involve the proposition of a reform of Commons representation, and that is necessary. They do involve devolution of authority and spending powers of the federal government, and that is necessary. But those three changes that we're making to this constitution, given that there is a veto power on any further reform of the Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court, will entrench in perpetuity this document as it stands today, unless we can come up with some miracle of consensus. I remind members opposite that when we had the Meech Lake accord before us, and one member of the House in Manitoba, Elijah Harper -- an aboriginal person standing up and speaking out on behalf of aboriginal people -- and one Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland, when they stood up and said no.... One member, Elijah Harper, ended the Meech Lake accord. The Prime Minister of this country and the first ministers who had embraced this accord were unanimous in their outcry and rage that one member of one Legislative Assembly could shoot down a constitutional package that was going to save this nation. Well, the Prime Minister and many of the same first ministers today have entrenched it in the language of this agreement: veto power.

Canadians and British Columbians can go forward and safely say that if this document doesn't proceed, there will be other ways to amend the constitution. I believe that what we must do on October 27 when we have seen a resounding No vote on this question is to immediately start to address the question of what we will do with respect to the aboriginal people and the kind of expectations that have been created for them in this accord. I believe that we can do that, because I believe there is goodwill among the government members and the minister, and I believe that the minister is committed to seeing that happen. I think that that is what this government ought to focus its attention on in this province.

Nationally, when this document fails, I think that the people of Canada deserve a federal election. Let me say that when such an election has taken place, given whatever the outcome may be, we must then recognize that we will never again enter into this process for amending our Canadian constitution. We will move toward a standing committee on constitutional reform that will work through a process of constituent assembly and that will essentially deal with constitutional reform one section at a time, where we can put together a properly worded, properly crafted and definitive legal text so that we will have an opportunity for all British Columbians and all Canadians to understand fully what we're attempting to do. This is not a unique or different proposition. It is not the property of any one particular political party. It provides a chance for further reform when this document fails.

Above all, let me say that this has been a very divisive process. Referendums always are. I can tell you that as a Canadian and a politician.... I believe, with deference to the leader of the third party.... I think he was the first politician who took a No position in B.C. It was a difficult decision to take, because of the overwhelming number of people on the Yes side, both from the elite of Canada and from the other political parties. I know the amount of pressure that was brought to bear on me to simply toe the line, to get in line and do what I was supposed to do.

Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that this process has divided people on the basis of their family; it has divided political parties; it has divided communities; it has divided Canadians generally. There is a great need in this land for some healing. If that healing is to take place, I would hope that there will not be overt celebration one way or the other on October 27. I believe there has to be a real and honest commitment of all people, whether they vote yes or no, to come together as Canadians and continue the process of building this fine nation of Canada.

I believe that this nation is strong, that the people of this country are strong, and that, notwithstanding the remarks of members opposite who say, "Can you imagine the likes of the No forces coming together? Can you imagine Preston Manning with Parizeau and Sharon Carstairs and Gordon Wilson, sitting in a room and trying to negotiate this deal...?" To those people who say that, I would say: not only could I not imagine that, I would never accept participating in that, because the people I put my faith in for further constitutional reform are the Canadian people, the people of this country.

This is a nation that will survive October 26. I hope that we will no longer hear from politicians who will come forward and say that I, as a proud Canadian who votes no, am somehow a traitor to this country or a conspirator seeking to divide us and make us ungovernable. That is not worthy of anybody who has the honour to hold elected office, whether it's at the provincial or federal level.

A healing process is needed. Our commitment is to make it so. I hope that the members opposite will 

[ Page 3601 ]

participate in keeping to the cause of this great nation and the building of this great province, British Columbia, as a strong and equal partner in a strong and united Canada.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to rise in this debate and offer my opinions in response to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. But before I start I should let you know, hon. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker for our party on this issue.

If I may abuse the liberty a bit, I think that many members of the House are familiar with some of the ongoing day care problems that I have and how often they find our children in the precincts. I'm pleased to notice my five-year-old daughter Karina is here. It's nice to see her here today. I don't think she'll last for the full measure of my comments.

Let me begin my substantive comments with regard to this constitutional consensus by talking a little bit about the process. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition, during the course of his comments, talked about process. There is no doubt in my mind that it was absolutely imperative after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord and after the comments that Canadians had made about the Meech Lake accord that there be a process of inclusion where Canadians had to be intimately involved in the development of a constitutional consensus in this country. It was clear to all of us who had witnessed the collapse of the Meech Lake accord that Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of this country wanted input into the development of our constitution.

I think everyone here knows what my political stripes are. It may seem a little unusual for me to give credit to another government, but I think we have to recognize that after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord there was an unprecedented level of involvement of Canadians in the development of the constitution. There was the Spicer commission, which consulted Canadians from one coast of this country to the other with regard to their views of what is required to attend to our historical constitutional grievances. There were federal proposals tabled, I believe, two, or possibly three, Septembers ago. There was the Beaudoin-Edwards commission which went around the country and discussed with Canadians the basis upon which we should be making changes to our constitution. There was the Dobbie-Beaudoin commission which went around this country from one end to the other talking to Canadians as to what they thought should be part of a renewed constitution in this country. There were unprecedented conferences held in Halifax -- which the Leader of the Opposition talked about -- Montreal and Vancouver that looked at issues such as aboriginal government, the division of powers and the reform of our Senate and other institutions in this country. We had a culminating conference here in British Columbia, in the city of Vancouver, where we took the results of all those conferences and discussed the direction in which constitutional negotiations should proceed.

There were legislative committees set up in every province of this country -- different legislative committees with different formats. Shortly after our election we established our own legislative committee here in British Columbia. It toured this province and consulted with British Columbians in all eight regions represented in this House. I'm pleased to say that it made a series of unanimous recommendations, which the Premier talked about the other day and which I will deal with in passing. That process was repeated in every province throughout this great nation of ours.

At the end of that whole process, Canadians said a number of things to us, as the elected political leadership in this country, through that form of constituent assembly -- if I can use those words, because that's clearly what it was. They said that they didn't like the contents of the Meech Lake accord. Why? They said it provided special status to the province of Quebec. They said that that constitutional accord did not adequately attend to the concerns of Canadians outside Quebec. They said that there had to be a Canada round that dealt with the needs, aspirations, views, visions and desires of Canadians from one end of the country to the other. They said that it had to attend to the legitimate concerns of aboriginals, who were excluded in the Meech Lake accord; that it had to attend to the concerns of people from Atlantic Canada, who had legitimate concerns about regional economic disparities; that it had to attend to the concerns of the province of Ontario in relation to the social charter; that it had to attend to the west in terms of institutional reform; and that it had to attend to the province of British Columbia, with respect to managing our economy, in the distribution of powers under our current constitution.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

More particularly and more specifically, Canadians said that this constitution had to recognize certain principles. It had to recognize the principle that all provinces are equal. It had to go beyond that and recognize that western alienation must be attended to. The sense that western Canadians had of not being included, of not having a strong voice in our institutions and in our governance, had to be attended to. They said that during the course of the next constitutional round, there had to be justice for the aboriginal people and the aboriginal communities of this country. They said that there had to be an accommodation for minorities in this country, be it visible minorities or the francophone minority in Canada. They said that there had to be a recognition of the cultural diversity of this country. They said that our system of government had to be improved.

[4:15]

I submit to this Legislature that all of those goals, all of those objectives and all of those principles have been respected in the constitutional agreement which is now put before the people of Canada for their consent on October 26.

Now let me elaborate on all those points. Let me start with the issue of western alienation, because it is something we here -- on the other side of the Rockies, so far away from Ottawa -- understand. In fact, it's almost genetic. The constitutional reality in this country is that currently there are 295 seats in the House of 

[ Page 3602 ]

Commons; 174 of those seats are situate in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I'm not saying it's wrong, because the House of Commons is based on the principle of representation by population, and we'll have more to say about that principle in a few minutes. But the inevitable result of that concentration of power is that decisions are often made which are seen by those of us who live in western Canada as benefiting central Canada.

We've all -- in this chamber and outside -- expressed irritation over the way in which federal contracts are awarded and the way in which federal largesse often flows to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, when we think it should have come to British Columbia or somewhere else in western Canada. We take issue with policies such as the national energy program, which historically was seen as a program designed to meet the needs of central Canada, or interest rate policies which seem to be set all too often on the basis of needs in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. More about that later on.

I know that in my own riding, people express tremendous frustration when they want to get on the E&N Railway and have to phone to central Canada in order to get a reservation. They're frustrated when they see shipbuilding contracts such as the Polar 8 denied to the west coast and other contracts going to the province of Quebec. These events, policies, contracts and initiatives in many ways explain the roots of western Canadian alienation. I think the case was well made that this constitutional round had to bring in the west and had to deal with western Canadian concerns.

Let me share with this House how we endeavoured to deal with those concerns during the course of these constitutional negotiations. First of all, we endeavoured to address that historical sense of alienation, that grievance, by providing more power to the provinces to manage their own economies. What we chose to do under this constitutional agreement was restrict the federal spending power as it related to a number of areas: tourism, culture, forestry, mining, agriculture and regional economic development, for example. In all of those areas we said that western Canadians ought to be able to develop their own distinctive economies to meet their own distinctive needs. This was important to western Canadians. This was important to British Columbians. Why do I say that? I say that because we in this province established a legislative committee that toured this province, and one of its first recommendations was that power, in the areas explicitly of tourism, forestry, mining, culture, agriculture and regional economic development, flow to the provinces. That was a unanimous provision.

It was not surprising that all parties in this House would agree to that provision, because it had been a historical position of this House long before this government took office. To its credit, the Social Credit government, from W.A.C. Bennett on, had made this argument and had said that this province deserved greater control over these economic powers. This constitutional agreement now makes provision for those powers that this House unanimously asked for in the constitution.

I see the irritation and frustration on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and his counterpart, who want to sit here and heckle as I speak. I'll get to tax points, economics and funding for these programs. So just settle down for a moment.

We dealt with western alienation by making provision explicitly in this constitution for more powers for western Canada. But we went beyond that. We said that western Canadians were entitled to better representation in the House of Commons -- a stronger voice in the House of Commons. And how did we correct that situation? We said the current rules that allow two seats to all provinces every ten years are unfair to the fastest-growing province in this country. They are unfair to British Columbia, and they are unfair to Alberta. As a consequence, we prevailed upon the other representatives from other parts of this country and persuaded them to remove that ceiling that artificially stunted our growth in the House of Commons and lift it forever. This immediately means that this province, by the year 1996, will have secured seven new seats in the House of Commons.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying no, that's not true; that we'll get them by the year 2001. That's untrue. That's all they say: our percentage of representation went down. I want the Leader of the Opposition to listen carefully. Our population ratio in this country stands at 12 percent. We currently have 10.8 percent of the seats in the House of Commons. By the time these seven seats are in, we'll be up to 11.3 percent. You tell me how that's down. And I want the Leader of the Opposition to consider the following. When you take a look at Parliament as a whole, currently British Columbia, absent this constitutional agreement, has 79 percent of the representation it's entitled to on the basis of its population. With this constitutional change, it gets 93 percent of the population its representation entitles it to.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition.... Let me ask you the following question, sir, through you, hon. Speaker. When you take a look at the House of Commons and the Senate -- Parliament as a whole -- tell me: which province gained more seats in Parliament than any other province in Canada? Was it (a) British Columbia, (b) Ontario, or (c) Quebec? Because I know it's a bit of a skill-testing question, let me help the Leader of the Opposition by telling him the answer is (a) British Columbia -- more seats in Parliament than any other province.

Let me continue. The west was included by giving more power to the provinces to manage the economy, by providing for better representation in the House of Commons, and thirdly -- I want to amplify on this point, because I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say -- by reforming the Senate.

This is a critical concern for western Canadian governments, because we recognized that because the House of Commons is based on representation by population, there had to be a counterbalance through a Senate where all of the provinces have equal represen-

[ Page 3603 ]

tation and where the west therefore has 40 percent of the power, which then reduces the power of central Canada to 10 percent each for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So it's a Senate that sits on top of the House of Commons and that provides greater power to outer Canadians in western Canada and Atlantic Canada and diminishes significantly the powers of central Canada.

For the Senate to be a meaningful counterbalance, it must have effective power. I agree with the submission of those who say that this constitutional package must contain an effective component for the Senate. Because failing that, it is true that the reform doesn't amount to much more than we have now. Let's talk about the powers of the Senate for a moment so that British Columbians can make their own judgment as to whether or not it meets their standard of effectiveness.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Senate has the following powers. It has the power to veto any natural resource taxation initiative started by the federal government. Now why is that provision so important? Because historically in western Canada we have witnessed the federal government, which is dominated by central Canada, introduce programs such as the national energy program, which had an adverse affect on the economic development of this province. But this power doesn't limit itself to gas or oil. It extends to energy products such as electricity and, more importantly, forestry and mining products -- the very lifeblood of our province. So now this Senate is armed with the power to veto any legislation that deals with taxation of natural resources.

Let's think about that for a moment. You have 337 members of the House of Commons, and in theory the whole of that House of Commons could vote yes to impose a taxation initiative on our natural resources. But 32 Senators -- 50 percent plus one; and 40 percent of them are from western Canada -- could veto that initiative on the part of the federal government. That's power.

On top of that, apart from the ability to veto legislation with respect to natural resources, it has the ability to block federal legislation and the power to blow the whistle on the federal government if they were trying to do something that was adverse to our interests. Remember, that power to block is at 50 percent, with 40 percent of the power being in the hands of the west. It's true that the House of Commons could ultimately, through an extended reconciliation process, override the decision to block on the part of the Senate. That would happen only after significant scrutiny and debate. The opposition should know that because there's a 30-day provision in there, that provides immense power to the Senate. The opposition that ridicules the provision knows that the only power it has in this House rests in its ability to delay initiatives. It's never going to win a vote, but it has the power of time. That same power is now vested in the Senate.

[4:30]

The Senate now has the power to initiate its own legislation. Think about that for a moment. For too long we have seen the agenda of this country set by central Canada and by those elements from Ontario and Quebec that dominate in the House of Commons. The Senate can now set its own agenda and initiate its own legislation. The Senate can now offset decisions made by the House of Commons, question them and raise public debate with regard to any initiatives that are adverse to the interests of western Canada.

One of the biggest concerns we've had as western Canadians historically is the fact that interest rate policies and employment policies have so often been predicated on the needs of central Canada. This provision in this constitution now rips away from the office of the Prime Minister the power to make significant appointments that have an impact on our lifestyle, our needs and our economy here in western Canada. This constitutional package now gives the Senate, where 40 percent of the power is from the west, the ability to ratify or make appointments with respect to the Bank of Canada. Think about that for a moment. We have taken away from the office of the Prime Minister the ability to make those kinds of significant appointments -- whether it be in the area of the Bank of Canada, the CRTC or the Canadian Transport Commission -- and put it in the hands of an elected Senate which now has 40 percent of its representation from western Canada. In the event of a minority, as often happens in this country, or a government with a small majority in the House of Commons, the Senate has enormous power, because it then has the power to sit on top of the House of Commons and exercise its clout to prevent the passage of initiatives by the House of Commons. We have a Senate in this case that gives British Columbia as much power as the province of Ontario, that has the legitimacy of an election and that has remarkable power to influence the day-to-day activities and involvement of the people in this province.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Leader of the Opposition and others, who have been heckling for the last 15 or 20 minutes, say to me that they don't agree.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. They're upset that I said 15 minutes. Okay, for the last five minutes. But look....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Settle down. Just relax for a moment. Stop the chirpiness, and we can continue here.

That Senate enjoys the support of all of those governments that advocated a reformed, triple-E Senate. Mr. Wells and Mr. Getty support these changes to the Senate.

I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that somehow this is not perfect, that this Senate has not met his requisite standard of effectiveness. What's his alternative? His alternative is to vote no. If we vote no, what are we left with? A Senate that is no more than a House of patronage, where there is a 23 percent guaranteed representation for Quebec and for Ontario, 

[ Page 3604 ]

and that, quite frankly, has been a blemish and an embarrassment to this country. That's the consequence of a No vote.

An Hon. Member: The Libs want it.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right. That's what the Libs want. That's what the opposition wants. The other day, when the Premier of Newfoundland was looking over what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the Senate, he said that the Leader of the Opposition from British Columbia doesn't "fully understand, fully appreciate the package." He was right.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, if the minister is going to be quoting the Premier of Newfoundland....

The Speaker: Your point of order?

G. Wilson: My point of order, hon. Speaker, is that the Premier of Newfoundland made no such statement. I believe that quote is directly misleading the House in this debate.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would just remind the hon. minister to address his comments through the Chair. Please continue.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition feels some sting from those comments, but let me say this: just read the Vancouver Sun.

Let me go on. During the course of the discussions that happened after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord, Canadians said that there had to be recognition of the principle of equality of the provinces. It was felt that no one province should have powers that are not available to other provinces. The rallying cry from one end of the country to the other was that we had to have respect for the principle of equality of the provinces. This constitutional agreement, which is being put in front of the people of this country on October 26, says very clearly, up front, in the Canada clause, that the principle of the equality of the provinces is hereby recognized and accepted. That flawed the Meech Lake accord. The failure to recognize that principle has now been corrected through the provisions now found in the Canada clause in this constitution.

We went further during the course of these constitutional negotiations. We said that in every area where there was a transfer of power from the federal government to the provinces, those powers had to be equally available to all provinces in Canada. There is not one power change made in this constitution -- not one -- that is specifically available to the province of Quebec and not available to the province of British Columbia. Every power that the province of Quebec has, the province of British Columbia has access to as well.

On top of that, we meet the provision for an equal Senate. Let's think about this for a moment. Canadians said that the principle of the equality of provinces had to find a place in our constitution. It has it now in the Canada clause, in the transfer of powers and in the form of an equal Senate.

One of the most significant changes to this constitution is one of the most significant items that Canadians said had to be accommodated in an upcoming constitutional arrangement and that was that there had to be an accommodation for minority elements in this country. One of the more remarkable aspects of Canada is that it has distinguished itself as a nation that respects different linguistic, cultural, religious and ethnic groupings. We've accommodated people from all parts of the world in this country. Other nations in the world look to our country as a model of tolerance and understanding in the accommodation of different races and cultures.

Nowhere has this sense of accommodation been more evident and true than in the historical accommodation of the francophone element in society. As Canadians we have always understood that in a democracy a majority is judged by the extent to which it shows sensitivity to the minority elements in its nation. In this constitution we have said to the francophone community that there is a place for them in this country. We have said that we recognize that place by making provision in this constitution to protect the language, culture and civil law tradition of the francophone minority, and we've done it through the provisions of the distinct-society clause.

I listened to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say earlier in terms of that distinct-society clause, so I want to deal with the comments that he made. First of all, he said that this clause was an improvement over Meech Lake, and he's right. He said that this clause needed to be defined, and it is. He said that he wasn't happy with that definition. I must say that I was somewhat perplexed by that comment, because, as the Leader of the Opposition.... I note that in a speech he gave on January 27, 1992, before the Dobbie-Beaudoin commission, he said: "The official opposition caucus in British Columbia urges fellow citizens in Canada's westernmost province to recognize that Quebec is a unique society made distinct by virtue of its adherence to civil law, the fact that the majority of its citizens live and work in the language of French and its unique colonial past and current traditions."

That's exactly what this constitutional change does. For reasons of political expediency, which we'll get into later on, today the Leader of the Opposition said that the constitution we have before us and will vote on on October 26 contains something that he can't live with; whereas back on January 27 he was saying that he could live with that provision.

He asks what distinct society means? I'll tell you. It means that an individual francophone in this country should have the right to a trial in French. Does that upset the Leader of the Opposition? Does that justify some of the arguments of fear that have been put forward by those on the No side. It means that an individual has the right to speak French in the House of Commons. Does that upset the Leader of the Opposi-

[ Page 3605 ]

tion? Does that justify some of the fear being perpetrated by those on the No side?

The double-majority provision in the Senate combined with the distinct-society clause says that you can't get rid of Radio-Canada, the French arm of the CBC. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying to the francophone minority in this country that their right to a trial is protected; their ability to speak their language is encouraged; and their communication arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have a place in this country.

It does not, as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, provide any special power or status to the province of Quebec. Why do I say that? I say that because this constitution, as I said earlier on, provides for the recognition of the principle of equality of the provinces. If all provinces are equal, no one province can claim that it has special powers. It's as simple as that. As Clyde Wells, to whom the Leader of the Opposition so frequently referred to in his comments, said, the principle of equality of the provinces builds a fence around the distinct-society clause and prevents it from providing special status or special power to the province of Quebec. As I said a few minutes ago, the Premier of Newfoundland was correct when he said that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't fully understand and appreciate what's contained in this constitution.

[4:45]

We have said in this constitutional agreement that there is a place for the francophone minority in this country. We have gone further in this constitutional agreement and said to the aboriginal people in this country that there is also a place for them in this country. It's high time that we did that. For the past 125 years we have witnessed and regrettably tolerated a system of injustice, unfairness and inequity as it relates to aboriginal people in this country, resulting in a lifestyle that all too often went into poverty, and seeing a people that have the highest infant mortality rate of any grouping in Canada.

We've thought, under this constitutional agreement, to make changes with respect to aboriginal people, to say that aboriginal people must take some responsibility for their lives and to move away from the paternalistic and, yes, often racist provisions of the Indian Act. We've said under this constitutional agreement that native people will have the right that non-natives for all too long have taken for granted -- the right to govern themselves, to make some basic decisions about their own lives and to get away from the Indian Act, which requires them to phone Ottawa just to order a photocopier for their native band office. We've put in a provision for self-government.

There are those who somehow take that provision to further arguments of fear -- I intend to say more about that later on -- and to say that because it's undefined it means that somehow people ought to feel threatened. Let me tell you, as someone who was there during the course of that process, what aboriginal self-government means. It means particularly that native governments in this country should have, and indeed will have, the right to do many of the things that municipalities do -- to make land use decisions about their own lands.

Why does that frighten the Leader of the Opposition? Why does that keep him awake at night, to think that we might have a level of government that does much of what municipalities do?

But it goes beyond that. It also says that native governments can have some of the powers that federal and provincial governments currently have, but only those powers which federal and provincial governments are prepared to give up -- perhaps, through a process of negotiation, powers over education, housing, linguistic instruction and health care; those kinds of powers, developed through a process of negotiation.

That's not to say that resource management issues won't be discussed. They will be. Let me say this: they will be discussed in a structured and orderly process of negotiation, because a third thing that we say with regard to aboriginal self-government in this constitutional package is that we want to get away from the history of litigation, roadblocks and confrontation. We want to get away from the courts, because we all recognize that there's uncertainty in litigation. We all recognize, as I often used to say to clients, that there's certainty in settlement and negotiation.

So in this constitutional agreement, what we have said is that there must be a five-year period during which self-government agreements are negotiated. Get away from the courts. Tell me why there are elements in society on the No side, including the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed some fear over that kind of a notion.

Let me go further. Fourthly, in terms of native self-government, what we've said is that if after five years there is no negotiated settlement, then you can go to court. But through this constitutional change, we've armed the courts with a power they don't currently have. We've said to the courts: "Instead of having to decide on a winner-take-all basis for one side or the other, you can take a look at the negotiations. And if those negotiations have proceeded on the basis of good faith, you can direct, for the first time, that these negotiations continue." So we've given that power to the courts in order to make sure that this whole notion of negotiation is given paramountcy by the courts.

We've gone further in terms of providing some checks and balances to this notion of self-government. We've also said -- and I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand this and to listen very carefully -- that native self-government laws, when those agreements are negotiated, must be compatible with existing provincial and federal laws. Through the provision of what's known as a "peace, order and good government" clause, we've said that native laws must respect and be consistent with federal and provincial laws.

What does that mean? That means that you can't have a native band establishing their own pulp mill on their lands with lower effluent discharge standards than the province has, and then have someone else deal with the problem downstream. It means that native government must respect existing federal and provincial laws and regulations. What's wrong with that?

[ Page 3606 ]

This constitution therefore says there is a place in Canada for the francophone community. There's a place in Canada for the aboriginal communities of this country. It goes further, to say that there's a place in Canada for the racial, ethnic and multicultural groupings that we have in this country. Why? Because we recognize that the face of Canada is changing. That change is reflected in this chamber and in every community in British Columbia. This constitutional agreement says that the racial and ethnic diversity of this nation is hereby recognized in the provisions of the Canada clause.

The Leader of the Opposition, during the course of his presentation, says that the word, "multiculturalism" is not contained.... You know, they are contained in our constitution. Remember this is an amendment to the constitution; they're contained there. In this new Canada clause, we give amplification to the term "multicultural." The Canada clause says: "Canadians are committed to racial and ethnic equality in a society that includes citizens from many lands who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the building of a strong Canada that reflects its cultural and racial diversity." If that's not showing homage and respect for the principle of multiculturalism, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what does? Clearly those provisions recognize that there's a place in this country for the ethnic and racial communities of Canada who have come from all parts of the globe to live in this country.

There are those who say that because these provisions have been made to accommodate these minority elements in this country, somehow that creates three categories of Canadians -- the aboriginal, the francophone and, as they like to put it, the rest of us -- and that there are special rights and privileges for aboriginals and francophones. That's simply not true. Quite frankly, that is one of the biggest lies of this constitutional debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The minister is obviously showing disrespect for this House in the terminology he is using -- fearmongering. To call someone a liar is clearly inappropriate for this House, and I'd ask the minister to withdraw his statements.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair did not hear the hon. minister refer to anyone in this House with an unparliamentary term, but members are always cautioned to use temperate, moderate language in debate. I ask the minister to....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I have made my response to your point of order, and I ask the hon. minister to continue.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I listened to what you had to say about moderate and temperate language. I want to make it abundantly clear that I quite frankly am offended by that argument. It has been made over and over again by several factions opposed to this constitutional agreement. I want to put it on the record very clearly, without apology, that this argument is intellectually flawed, legally incorrect and is an obscene and, quite frankly, remarkable abuse of this constitutional package. It amounts to a lie. And let me tell you why I say that.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The minister is referring to statements made by the Leader of the Opposition and saying that those statements are a lie.

The Speaker: On the point of order, I would ask the hon. minister if he intended to impugn the motives of any other hon. member in this House?.

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course not, hon. Speaker. My comments speak for themselves. I'm talking about the proposition that had been put forward by some. But let me, if I may, continue.

Let me tell you why I take that strong a position with regard to this issue. I believe deeply that all of us in this country are equal before and under the law, and I do not see in this constitutional document anything that says that the law applies differently to different people on the basis of their ethnic grouping or their race. We are all equal before and under the law. The Criminal Code applies equally to all of us -- whether we're aboriginal or francophone, East Indian or anglophone -- in this country. There's no different Criminal Code for different people. And for those who say that somehow this constitutional document provides for different laws for different people, I'm saying to you clearly and unequivocally that each and every one of us is subject to the same law and the same Criminal Code.

[5:00]

Let me present that in a simpler way so that perhaps the opposition can understand it. Whether you're francophone or aboriginal or anglophone in this country, if you want to go out and get a passport, you're governed by the same rule and regulation as everybody else. We're all equal in this country before and under the law. If you want to get a driver's licence in this country, for God's sake, there's no different standard for anglophones or francophones or aboriginal people. We all are equal; we all have to meet the same standard. It is fundamentally wrong and intellectually flawed for anyone to assert that there are different laws for different people under this constitution. What escapes those on the No side, what they don't seem to understand and fully appreciate -- I only noticed in the last week that they're starting to say it, though, so maybe the understanding will get there -- is that this constitution says that we can all be equal but different.

We all have equal access to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that we have to say the same thing. We can say different things. We all have equal access to freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that we have to subscribe to the same religion. We all have equal access to freedom of association, but that doesn't mean that we have to belong to the same political party. So all this constitution recognizes is that we can be equal but different. It recognizes that the francophone community in this country should be able to speak its own language and celebrate its own culture, to protect that 

[ Page 3607 ]

language and to allow it to flourish in this country. It recognizes that aboriginals should be able to celebrate their own language, to recognize their own differences and to celebrate their cultures. And it says that visible minorities ought to be able to speak their own language and to practise their own religion. That is my vision of Canada, and that's the vision of Canada that is found in this constitutional agreement.

I know that the Premier of Newfoundland has made this point clear to the Leader of the Opposition, as well as other aspects of this constitution; and I know that the Premier of New Brunswick has said as much to the Leader of the Opposition. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is a reasonable man, that he must understand these concepts and that he appreciates these constitutional issues. Therefore he must understand that his argument about three different Canadas is flawed, that his view of aboriginal self-government unnecessarily creates fear, and that his concerns about special power for the province of Quebec are unfounded and groundless. I would submit that he has chosen to oppose the unity agreement exclusively for reasons of political expediency.

I listened to his speech, and I know that he is no constitutional visionary. The reason I say that....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: It seems from the heckling that they don't want to hear what I have to say about the Leader of the Opposition not being a constitutional visionary. So let me tell you what your own caucus chairman said about the Leader of the Opposition. Don't take my words....

J. Tyabji: Former caucus chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right, because the Leader of the Opposition....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I would call the House to order. Only one member has the floor in this debate, and at this point it is the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.

Hon. M. Sihota: I said that the Leader of the Opposition is no constitutional visionary, and he took issue with me saying that. So let me just quote what his caucus chairman -- former or present -- had to say.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, they don't want to hear it.

J. Tyabji: On a point of order, I hate to ruin their fun. We are talking about the merits of the Canadian unity agreement, and that quote is not relevant to the debate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! As all members know, during this debate we allow fairly wide-ranging debate. I think that all hon. members attempt, wherever possible, to make relevant comments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would call the House to order when the Chair is addressing it. I would ask the hon. minister to continue with his comments, and I'm sure, as with all other members, that he will keep his comments relevant to a very broad-ranging debate on this topic.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me continue. I said that the Leader of the Opposition is no constitutional visionary, and he took issue with the comments that I made. That's fair enough. Just listen to what your own caucus chairperson had to say on October 7, 1992 in the Times Colonist.

An. Hon. Member: As he then was.

Hon. M. Sihota: As he then was. Speaking of the Leader of the Opposition, he said: "He's not a visionary. There's no vision of where we're going." He explained that the Leader of the Opposition had arrived at his position on the constitution not because of some type of constitutional vision or some deep, abiding respect for individual rights, but because -- and I want to quote him accurately and directly -- the Leader of the Opposition saw it as an opportunity to get at the Premier. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this debate is not about Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark or your political aspirations; it's about the future of this country.

I listened to the debate earlier as the Leader of the Opposition talked about this being a free vote that we're now giving to members of the opposition, but we've been talking about it for a year.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I would just ask the minister to stick to the terms of the Charlottetown accord. I'd be glad to hear his comments.

The Speaker: Is this on the point of order, hon. member for Cariboo North?

F. Garden: It's on the point of order. We've gone through a debate here, and while the previous speaker was speaking, notwithstanding some of the heckling that he got, nobody interrupted him with repeated frivolous points of order. This has happened constantly.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The point is well taken that at some point along the process, points of order become disorderly. I know that this is a topic about which members feel strongly -- as they should -- but I ask all members to respect the parliamentary rules of debate. I ask the minister to continue his comments with that in mind.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 3608 ]

Responding to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about a free vote and said that this was now a free vote on the part of his caucus. They've been talking about it for a year. That didn't happen a year ago; it happened a few weeks ago, when he found that there was a revolt in his own caucus. He said: "Sure, you can say yes, but you'll lose your job." That's what he said to his House Leader. He said that if you're on the No side, you can speak for 20 minutes; if you're on the Yes side, you can only speak for ten minutes. So much for the eloquent words about free speech from the Leader of the Opposition.

In any event, it is true that I was diverted for a moment. Let me just continue. His House Leader, a gentleman whom a lot of people in this House respect, said something that I think the Leader of the Opposition should consider and listen to. He said....

J. Tyabji: Are you talking about the former House Leader?

Hon. M. Sihota: The former House Leader. Sorry, my apologies to the House Leader.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right. He did lose his job because he was going to engage in free speech. He recognized that the position held by the Leader of the Opposition was one of political expediency. As I said earlier on, and as the caucus chairman from the Liberal Party said earlier on, it was a chance to get at the Premier. The former House Leader of the Liberal Party went further. Let me tell you what he had to say, because I think they're telling remarks about the Leader of the Opposition. He warned that with respect to a No campaign, it's easy to play on fear and anger. It's easy to fuel distress and suspicion about Quebec or native self-government. He said: "It's cruel to make promises of a better day, a better package, when you know it's not achievable. It's the kind of politics which bring out the worst in all of us. It's not the kind of politics I'm proud of." That's what the Leader of the Opposition is using: cheap political expediency. This politically expedient Leader of the Opposition....

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Standing order 43 in MacMinn's book states very clearly that personal attacks upon members will always be promptly rebuked by the Speaker. I ask the Speaker, in accordance with standing order 43, to ask the member to withdraw his statements.

The Speaker: The member is correct in that personal attacks are never appropriate in this House. I remind the hon. minister to address his comments through the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I remind the Liberal critic who objected that I'm simply quoting words from Liberal members of this House who made these statements.

The Speaker: Is this a point of order, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove?

G. Farrell-Collins: It is. According to standing order 40, which is also in Mr. MacMinn's book, one cannot avoid points of order by quoting from newspaper articles.

The Speaker: That point is also well taken. I have cautioned the member who has the floor about that, and I ask him to continue his comments in parliamentary tradition.

Hon. M. Sihota: So the former House Leader, second in command in this Liberal Party, said: "It brings out the worst in all of us. It's not the kind of politics I'm proud of." And what did this politically expedient Leader of the Opposition say in response? Let me quote. He said: "I haven't worked as hard as I have since 1987 just to have it come unwound because a couple of people decided they were going to jump on their white steeds and ride out and save Canada." I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what's wrong with standing up and saying that you want to save Canada? Jean Chrétien is doing it. John Turner is doing it. Clyde Wells is doing it. Frank McKenna is doing it. Iona Campagnolo is doing it. Liberals from one end of this country to the other are doing it. What's wrong with standing up and fighting for Canada? There have been other times in our history when other politicians have taken positions of political expediency and have sought to silence members of their own party.

[5:15]

I was struck by the following comments by a former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Meighen, who said in a speech -- and I think the Leader of the Opposition should listen to this carefully:

"I believe in the British system of democracy, and would submit to almost anything before surrendering those liberties which we as British subjects enjoy. But if anyone tells me that fidelity to party and fidelity to country are always compatible, or that the wisdom of mere numbers is the wisdom of heaven, then I tell him that he loves applause far more than he loves the truth."

The hon. Leader of the Opposition should understand, in my view, that he has an obligation, a duty, to stand up to Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard, and to the likes of Doug Christie, and publicly say that the truth of the matter is that this constitutional agreement is an agreement that benefits Canadians from all walks of life -- that's what he should say. And he should recognize that no single issue and no single ego is bigger than Canada itself. The tragedy of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition is that it has given a platform of convenience, an air of legitimacy, to the likes of Doug Christie and Bill Vander Zalm.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's true. I sat on a podium the other day where Mr. Christie was introduced as the official spokesperson for the No committee. He was....

Interjections.

[ Page 3609 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, they've settled down.

His comments exposed what I would describe as an unfortunate and ugly face of Canada that's....

J. Tyabji: You're slamming the majority of the population.

Hon. M. Sihota: The Opposition House Leader asked if I am slamming the majority of Canadians. No, I'm not. I'm slamming....

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I would remind the minister to direct the comments through the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm simply slamming people like Doug Christie, and I make no apologies for that.

An Hon. Member: Let's talk about the accord.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask other hon. members in the House to allow the minister to conclude his comments.

Hon. M. Sihota: His comments exposed a face that is wholly inconsistent with our reputation as a tolerant and understanding nation. But what the Leader of the Opposition and others who join him on the No side fail to understand is that when we in this Legislature protect minority elements in our community, we are protecting the interests of a large number of people whose interests have as much right to be protected as those of the majority in society. That's what the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand.

Hon. Speaker, let me go on further and respond to some of the other comments the Leader of the Opposition made earlier. He talked about the 25 percent guarantee for the province of Quebec. I've dealt with a number of the other issues, so let me just deal with the 25 percent guarantee for the province of Quebec. I think we all understand that there is concern among British Columbians, as there was on my part, as the Leader of the Opposition appropriately acknowledged when this was first raised during the course of the constitutional negotiations. But let's not forget that the province of Quebec has always had more than 25 percent of the population in this country, it currently has more than 25 percent of the population in this country, and for the reasonably foreseeable future it will have more than 25 percent of the population in this country. If you take the worst case scenario in terms of projections with respect to Stats Canada, which the Lortie commission on electoral reform did, it means that 50 years from now British Columbia may have one less seat in the House of Commons than it would otherwise have had. So that's what the 25 percent guarantee means to the province of British Columbia -- possibly one less seat 50 years from now.

Should we vote against a package that provides more powers to the provinces to manage their economy, which provides for aboriginal justice, which provides for a social covenant -- which I will deal with later on -- and which gives this Legislature the ability to engage in programs such as labour market training? Should we set aside all of those gains that are made in this constitutional agreement because 50 years from now we might have one less seat in the House of Commons than we otherwise would? I say no.

During the course of these constitutional discussions, we also recognized that there was an obligation on the part of governments to improve the system of government that we have in this country. What we've done in these constitutional negotiations is that we have taken a number of steps to improve the system of government in Canada. We have eliminated all sorts of areas of waste, duplication and overlap where the federal government and the provincial government did the same thing and where there were mirrored programs and bureaucracies with two ministers delivering virtually identical programs. In the areas of tourism, forestry, mining, agriculture and regional economic development, we made a conscious decision to make sure that those powers now are primarily provincial powers and that the federal government cannot engage in its spending in those areas of provincial responsibility.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The opposition says: "What about tax points?" That's what the Leader of the Opposition said during the course of his comments. Let me tell you about those tax points. You can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand complain about tax points and on the other hand criticize the provision that says that we will work out the deals with respect to tax points as this constitutional agreement is implemented.

Most significantly, what this constitutional agreement does in terms of economic powers is give the provinces ability to engage in labour market training. I'll tell you why that's critical. We all know that there's increased globalization in trade. We all know that we're seeing increased free trade. We'll talk more about the economic union in a second. Provinces must know what market niche they fit into, where their economies are going in the next 15 or 20 years and what products they'll have to produce over the next 15 or 20 years. And provinces need to take stock of their labour pool to see whether or not their people have the skills necessary to produce those products 15 or 20 years from now. Thirdly, they have to determine whether or not there are deficiencies. Where there are deficiencies, they then have to take the next step to make sure that through labour adjustment programs, job retraining and apprenticeship programs they have the funds necessary to train those workers -- so that we train our own workforce in this province, as opposed to relying on immigration to provide those skills to our people.

The opposition says: "Where will the money come from?" The money for those programs will come out of that component of the UIC dollars which the federal government now has committed and is transferring over to the provinces. The feds under this constitutional agreement will maintain funding with respect to the income-support provisions of UIC, and the training 

[ Page 3610 ]

component will now come to the provinces. I don't understand why the Leader of the Opposition takes issue with that kind of reasonable, rational transfer of powers, with those funds being provided in that fashion.

It is true that we don't have what is known as a free trade clause, and the reason for that is simple. Canadians have seen the free trade agreement with the United States. They don't like what they see. And they've heard about the free trade agreement with Mexico, and they're concerned about what they hear about it. And what we're saying is that in this constitutional agreement it was felt that we ought not to proceed with free trade within Canada. Why? Because that would provide additional economic clout in the hands of the two provinces that wanted it -- Ontario and Quebec -- and would frustrate the regional economic development of provinces such as Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. That's why it's not in here. You can't have it both ways. The Leader of the Opposition on one hand complains about too much power being in the hands of central Canada, and yet on the other hand advocates an economic theory that he thinks should be put in this constitution, which would give more economic power to central Canada. That's why we take issue with that position.

The Leader of the Opposition is hypocritical when he stands in this House and talks about lost jobs in terms of Canadian Airlines and then advocates the very position that would mean that there would be more jobs created in central Canada and less jobs created in provinces such as British Columbia.

I listened to the comments the Leader of the Opposition made with respect to gender equality in the Senate, and the position that our Premier outlined is very clear on that issue. But what the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand is that we as a government recognize that 52 percent of this population is composed of women and that women are historically underrepresented in our governing institutions. That's a fact that you can't deny. And we as a government said very clearly that we recognize an obligation on our part to correct that historical wrong, and we make no apologies in our desire to correct that historical wrong. And I take umbrage at the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who says: "Well, the Liberal Party understands these concerns." I ask the Leader of the Opposition, where has the Liberal Party been? In all of the years that the Liberal Party was in government, in all of the years from 1867 on that the Liberal Party elected representatives from British Columbia, it only elected two women to the House of Commons. Is that the kind of record the member of the Liberal Party is happy with? And of all of those appointments they made to the Senate, not once out of British Columbia was a female appointment. Shame on the Leader of the Opposition. It takes some gall to make those points.

[5:30]

I want to end by making a couple of comments. I've listened very carefully to what the No side has to say and what the Leader of the Opposition said about the fact that some day there might be another agreement that is better with regard to this constitutional change. I don't know if that will happen or if it won't. I can't crystal-ball that any better than any member of this House, but I know from my own experience of the last eight or nine months what I've seen. I went into this process persuaded that should it fail the country would go on as it has always gone on. I must confess that after nine months at the constitutional table I no longer subscribe to that view. I don't say that to engender fear so people vote in favour of this package. I don't say it for those reasons. I say it because that's my own personal observation from what I've seen at the negotiating table. One of the unique experiences that I've had, which I want to share with this House, is that I have been able to see what it takes to build a constitutional consensus. I know what is required to bring together the disparate groups and opinions in this country.

Last night, as I thought about what I was going to say today, I couldn't help but reflect on a number of the events I was privy to over the last eight and a half months, none of which are public and most of which will be written about, I suspect, in the years ahead. But I remember on July 7 sitting in Ottawa. We had adjourned for lunch. We had been negotiating for nine months, and for the first time in those nine months I was of the view that we had to terminate the process, that it was time to walk away. In fact, if I may say this was a private luncheon -- I wrote a note to the Premier of British Columbia telling him that I just didn't see any merit in continuing. I made that point to the other Premiers that were assembled at that meeting. A number of us felt that way, because we had, quite frankly, agreed on July 3 to a triple-E Senate, and by the lunch of July 7 we had decided to vacate that position. We couldn't see a way in which we could wed the position of the province of Alberta and Newfoundland to the position of the province of Quebec. And as I sat at that lunch I listened to Don Getty, who for only the second time, as memory serves me, was involved in the negotiations. Up until then Mr. Horsman had led the negotiations. I listened to Mr. Getty make an impassioned plea about the future of this country. He insisted that we could not walk away at this time. I listened to Joe Ghiz, shaking his head and saying that the Canadian people would crucify all of us if somehow we allowed this process to collapse because we couldn't agree on the number of Senators or the number of representatives that should be in the House of Commons. We then worked to continue to resolve the issue, as that night we did. Then I remember through the next round of hearings watching Mr. Bourassa, who came for the first time to the meetings, and being moved not by his words but by his demeanor, by his body language. I saw before me for the first time a man who deeply believed that the only hope for the survival of his linguistic community was within the context of a unified Canada, Canada the way that he knew it. And I know what effect that had on me, and I knew that must have had an effect on the others that were at that table. You can't capture that magic, that sense of coming together, on a regular or ongoing basis. It is flippant, in my view, to say that yes, we will be able one day to come up with a better agreement. I know, after talking to people like Clyde Wells, that what made this process different from 

[ Page 3611 ]

Meech Lake was that there were no pressure cookers, that there was a broad time frame in which we were allowed to evaluate this process. I know from what I saw with my own eyes that the only thing that kept that process going was the will to keep this country united.

As I said at the outset, I honestly don't know whether or not that process could be replicated, because it was remarkable. The other night I was in Vancouver, and a gentleman came up to me and handed me this piece of paper. I want to read what it says, because I think it accurately reflects, better than I can say in this House, how I feel. He gave to me a letter to the editor that was written by a Mr. Glen Rheault from Montreal. It says:

"Canadians who are thinking of voting no on the October 26 referendum should reflect upon the words of Thomas Jefferson written over two centuries ago, when another less than perfect constitution was being debated."

It quotes Mr. Jefferson. He said:

"'I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not approve, but I doubt whether any other convention may be able to make a better constitution, for when you assemble men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble all of their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? I consent to this constitution because I expect no better and because I am not sure it is not the best'."

I see a victory in this constitutional round that gives a social charter to this country, something it's never had before in its constitution. It protects programs like medicare, commits us to goals of equal employment, and recognizes the collective bargaining rights of workers. I see a victory in a constitution that gives us more power to manage the economy, more seats for growing provinces, a stronger voice for western Canada, a reformed Senate, a new system of government for aboriginal people, a place in this country for ethnic and linguistic minorities, and a future for a strong, united and stable Canada. This, in my view, is a remarkable event in the history of this country. We ought not to allow this event to pass us by.

J. Weisgerber: I would start by informing you that I'm the designated speaker for our party. Like most members of this House -- with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs -- it's my intention to honour the agreement among the parties and limit my speaking time to half an hour.

Having said that, as we near the end of this debate, both in this Legislature and in this country, it's important for us to think seriously about the issue that's before us. I must say that it's a bit disconcerting, having sat here for most of the afternoon, to have seen the debate in this Legislature deteriorate to what we saw this afternoon. This is not an issue not of partisan politics; this is an issue that is serious in its implications for this country. I believe that it deserves the respect and consideration of Canadians and British Columbians -- and that includes the members of this Legislature.

On Monday Canadians and British Columbians will have an opportunity to vote in a referendum on amendments to the constitution of this country. It's a rare opportunity for voters in this country to be able to directly advise their governments on the actions that they believe their governments should take. It's kind of pathetic, sad and in many ways obscene to see those governments, that have made the gesture to seek advice from their constituents, instead use those same voters' money to tell them how they should vote. That's what has gone wrong with the constitutional amendment process in this country. If, having given it their very best effort, governments had stepped back and said to Canadians, "Consider the work we've done. Examine our handiwork. Criticize it if you will, and then make up your minds," I am convinced that there would be an altogether different debate in this country.

Having said that, I don't think the debate that's gone on in Canada has been divisive. In fact, with a few exceptions -- and again I'll refer to the debate this afternoon as one of those exceptions -- I believe that Canadians in this exercise have come to understand each other more clearly and to show compassion for each other across this country. People in British Columbia have gone out of their way to make it clear that the objections they have to the powers that have been given to Quebec in no way reflect animosity toward the people of Quebec or francophones in this country. I have seen, time after time, speakers on both sides of the issue go out of their way to make sure that this debate wasn't fostering misunderstanding. I don't believe it was.

I believe that Canadians have learned something about themselves in this process. I think politicians had an opportunity to learn something about the views of Canadians in this process. If, as politicians, we have been so busy telling people how they should vote that we didn't take time to hear what British Columbians and Canadians were saying to us, then the loss is ours; the misfortune is Canada's. Canadians clearly and loudly were telling their politicians -- federal and provincial -- what they expected in a constitution. Quite honestly, they were telling them that this wasn't the constitution. That's why this deal is going to fail in five provinces of this country.

It's not because politicians on either side of the issue -- particularly those on the No side -- were voicing the opinion expressed by many Canadians. It is because the deal wasn't the deal that Canadians wanted. I expect that politicians of good faith are going to have an opportunity to go back and discuss amendments to our constitution again. Some of those who were there this time, if they are extremely lucky, are going to have an opportunity to go back and do it again. Many of them, of course, will have faced a decision by the people before that opportunity presents itself again. But those who are fortunate enough to go back and work on constitutional amendments in this country will have had an opportunity to learn something from the process. If they choose not to take advantage of that opportunity, then it is a loss for all of us.

[ Page 3612 ]

But what we saw in this process -- of government spending as much as $300 million of the taxpayers' own money to try to convince them to vote in a way they weren't inclined to vote -- hasn't worked, and I think the events on October 26 will demonstrate that.

What we're talking about is not even a referendum, but a plebiscite. We in British Columbia had an opportunity to have a referendum. The reason it's a plebiscite is that the government of Canada cannot bind the legislatures of the provinces. British Columbia has legislation in place that requires a referendum to be conducted by the province of British Columbia before amendments to the constitution can be approved in this Legislature. We have the mechanism; we have had the mechanism. Even though the Premier promised in this Legislature at least twice -- and perhaps three times -- that he would honour, live up to and abide by the legislation and the law of this country, we didn't take advantage of a referendum.

[5:45]

B. Jones: How would you have done it?

J. Weisgerber: The member for Burnaby North asks how I would have done it. I would have, first of all, lived up to the law of British Columbia. I would have conducted a referendum in British Columbia by Elections B.C. I would have taken the money that the federal government offered to British Columbia to conduct the referendum, and used it in accordance with the law of this province and this land.

I would have done another thing. As I suggested I would do in this House and as I urged this government to do last April and May, I would have asked the same question in British Columbia that was asked in the rest of the country. But I would have also included....

B. Jones: What's the difference?

J. Weisgerber: Well, just hang on a second. Don't get so jumpy.

As I advised your Premier six months ago, I would have included in that real referendum a plebiscite that would have given voters an opportunity to express their approval or disapproval on the major components of this deal, so that had the deal failed, as it probably will on the 26th, your NDP government would have had an opportunity to at least have examined the responses of British Columbians and understood more clearly why they voted against the deal. You would have understood that British Columbians undoubtedly approved of certain sections of the deal but that there were also sections of the deal that they found unacceptable, and there would have been an opportunity for you to go forward with some information as a result of this process.

Let me spend one last go-around explaining our position on this deal -- the reasons we decided to vote against it. I do that with some reluctance, quite honestly, because I'm not certain at this point that there are many people left in British Columbia who haven't heard the reasons why they should and shouldn't vote for the deal. The polls suggest that there is a large percentage of undecided, but I suspect that the fact of the matter is that most British Columbians understand this deal now and know in their hearts how they're going to vote on Monday.

Let me say very quickly, though, that my concerns with this deal are very similar to the concerns expressed by most critics of the deal. The Canada clause is one that, instead of encouraging and embracing a Canada made up of equal provinces, equal cultures and equal people, sets out to establish for the first time in our history a nation of nations -- a nation made up of francophone Quebeckers, aboriginal people and, as has been said before, the rest of us Canadians. That's a concept that I believe is fundamentally wrong, and it's divisive. If it were to proceed, I believe it would tear this country apart. Any time that you move away from the concept of treating people equally and fairly, you start to drive wedges between them. To suggest that somehow the Canada clause and the recognition of the distinct society and the inherent right to aboriginal self-government, and the entrenchment of those in the constitution, with instructions to the court that the entire constitution is to be interpreted with those two provisions.... In my mind, that is disruptive and divisive.

We also hear that these were necessary, because language, culture and civil law in Quebec were in jeopardy in North America. Look at the evidence. Quebec's language and culture are flourishing in Quebec, and there has never been a threat to the civil law system. There is no evidence at all to suggest that our current constitution presents any threat at all to Quebec or the people of Quebec. If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but I don't believe it exists.

I'm going to pass on from the Canada clause to my concerns with the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons. If this deal passes -- and again I must underline that I don't believe it will -- we are going to add 42 new Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. We had a legislative committee that travelled around British Columbia and asked our constituents to give their opinions and advice to this Legislature on changes to the constitution. I don't believe that one British Columbian came forward and said: "We'd like to have 42 more Members of Parliament." I don't believe one came forward and said: "We'd like to have one more." Many came forward and suggested that they wanted to see the size of government reduced. If the way government responds to public consultation is by spending tax money to travel around the country to listen to advice and then going and doing the opposite, is it any wonder that Canadians and British Columbians are angry with their politicians and with this political system? We not only did the opposite of what British Columbians advised our committee, but we gratuitously added to that the guarantee to Quebec of 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity. British Columbians are angry about that, because they understand that this provision puts to bed forever the opportunity for representation by population in Canada. There can never be representation by 

[ Page 3613 ]

population in Canada again, nor can there even be an expectation of that or something close to it.

The last speaker, I'm sure, will remind me that we don't have representation by population now, that Prince Edward Island has 125,000 people and has had four Members of Parliament since Confederation. That's true. Because of those four seats and the two seats in the Territories, we don't have representation by population. But these are seat guarantees; these are numerical guarantees. Had the Fathers of Confederation, instead of guaranteeing Prince Edward Island four seats, decided to give them a percentage guarantee in the House of Commons, there would be 11 Members of Parliament in Ottawa representing those 125,000 people from Prince Edward Island today. That's what is wrong with giving a percentage guarantee to the province of Quebec. That four-seat numerical guarantee was given 125 years ago, and no one has dared yet go to Prince Edward Island and say: "Gee, folks, in this give-and-take and consensus-building that we're doing here, let's give up those four seats. We think we could cut you back to two." If I'm to believe that the 25 percent isn't going to stand 125 years from now, explain to me why we have four seats in Prince Edward Island today.

For that redistribution of seats, that concentration of power in central Canada, that abandonment of the notion of representation by population we are asked to believe that we got, in turn, a triple-E Senate. We've heard today all kinds of debate as to whether or not this Senate is going to be effective. One of the arguments that has flowed back and forth in western Canada over these last few weeks has been the question of whether or not the Senate would be effective.

I have said, and I believe with all my heart and soul, that this Senate will be anything but effective, that it will be less effective than the Senate we have now. The Senate can only block a very small number of bills, and the rest of the bills go back to a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Commons. The 62 Senators get to sit in a legislature with 337 Members of Parliament and overwhelm those 337 members with their voting power. What a preposterous suggestion! What an unwieldy, unworkable, ineffective Senate we have proposed.

But if anybody has a doubt about the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of this Senate, I would remind them of this. Perhaps they watched about a week ago a CBC documentary entitled "Anatomy of a Deal," some backroom film footage that was taken while the deal was being negotiated. The little clip that stands out in my mind is Clyde Wells leaning over to Don Getty and whispering to him: "This is a long way from a triple-E Senate." That's a direct quote. He went on to whisper: "Don't underestimate the compromises we've made." I wouldn't attempt to say any more about the effectiveness of this Senate, because the two strongest proponents in this country of a triple-E Senate said this and agreed exactly with my sentiments.

Before I move off the Senate, let me suggest that the notion that for some reason we would allow provinces to decide the way Senators are going to be selected.... I won't dignify it with "elected," because there is an opportunity, as we all know, for any province to decide that they can elect those Senators in their legislature, rather than allowing the election of Senators by voters in their province. What a fancy way of saying they're going to appoint Senators the way they're appointed now! It's exactly the same process. Patronage in Victoria or Quebec City is no more acceptable than it is in Ottawa.

What there should have been, at the very minimum as part of a triple-E Senate, is a senatorial election act that spelled out specifically the way Senators were going to be elected in each and every province and territory in this country. Had there been a senatorial election act, I would have hoped that it would have established specific geographic, representational regions for Senators.

As a British Columbian who lives in the Peace River region, I don't want to be represented in the Senate by six British Columbia Senators that I voted for off a list of 36 or 56, or however many ran. I want to vote for a Senator to represent me as a British Columbian and to represent the interests of northern British Columbia. I also would expect a Senator to be selected to represent the southeast and central Okanagan in British Columbia, and perhaps one on the Island and three Senatorial electoral districts in the lower mainland. If this deal goes forward -- and I think it won't -- we're going to have 36 Members of Parliament and six Senators. It would be extremely easy in British Columbia to group those federal electoral districts into groups of six and have a Senator represent each senatorial electoral district. You could then watch your Senator and see whether or not you were satisfied with his or her performance. At the next election you could decide that you were going to vote them in again or vote them out.

Another side benefit of that electoral process is that it would make it as difficult to impose this gender-equal nonsense on the Senate as it would be to impose it in this House or in the House of Commons. Senators should be elected on their merits and their abilities. If all six of them are women, good for them. The suggestion is that women don't have a chance. What a condescending attitude to women!

We had a leadership contest in the Social Credit Party last July. The two front-runners were both women. The first woman Premier in Canada was elected by the Social Credit Party. I suppose that if we'd had gender equity, we would have ensured that an equal number of men and women ran for the leadership, and we would have eliminated one man, one woman, one man, one woman, until we got to a race at the end. That's no more ridiculous than what you've been proposing. It's less ridiculous perhaps -- if anything could be less ridiculous than what has been proposed here.

[6:00]

Native self-government. This government would have us believe that what is being offered to aboriginal people is nothing more than some form of local government. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs shakes his head, and that's understandable, because as he travels around, particularly with aboriginal people, he tells them one thing, and other members of the government travel around the province telling people something else. "Don't worry about it. Peace, order and 

[ Page 3614 ]

good government apply. Governments couldn't displace federal and provincial laws." There was an opportunity with aboriginal self-government to set some time aside to negotiate and define self-government. We wouldn't enshrine changes to our constitution on Senate reform, the House of Commons or the amending formula without specifics. We have two levels of government now, and the powers of each are specifically identified. We have a municipal affairs act that gives specifics to the powers of regional and municipal governments, but we are expected to take a leap of faith and approve aboriginal government with no definition of its scope, jurisdiction, powers or costs. We're expected to approve now and wait five years, and then if there's no resolution, look to the courts.

Finally, we have an amending formula that would put a straitjacket on anyone who would seek to change the central institutions of this country. We're told time and time again that the consensus that we got this time was -- and I quote federal and provincial politicians -- "a miracle." My response to that is: if this is a miracle, I'd hate to see a disaster. But if it is a miracle, what's to make us believe that miracles happen every time we want to change our constitution? A miracle, I would expect, by your own logic, is something that happens only on rare occasions. We are, from time to time, going to want to amend our constitution, and it is going to be British Columbia and Alberta, which are by far the fastest-growing and most vibrant provinces in this country, that are going to want and need changes to the constitution. We're not going to be wanting to exercise a veto; we are going to be promoting change. It will be eastern Canada and the Maritimes that will want to preserve the status quo. So it will not be western Canada that will be looking to take advantage of the veto.

The amending formula is a bad one. The one we have is totally appropriate. The seven-50 rule is absolutely adequate in every respect not only to deal with providing the ability to make change, but it's also sufficiently restrictive so as to require broad consensus before change is possible.

Hon. Speaker, those are the reasons that for the last six weeks or so I have been taking those opportunities that were available to explain to British Columbians why I would vote no. But the time is now coming for voters to make up their own minds. The time has come for governments to move back and allow people to express their will and to indicate before October 26 that they are not going to grudgingly accept the verdict of British Columbians on this issue but that they are going to welcome it, and that they are going to take the advice that British Columbians give them, and with good spirit and good intention, are going to deal with the decision whatever it might be.

I was appalled to hear the Premier say: "I wouldn't have the stomach to go back and negotiate another constitutional change." Are British Columbians to believe that his somewhat pathetic efforts in constitutional negotiation have fatigued him to the point where he wouldn't go back and try again? If indeed our Premier is fatigued so easily, then perhaps one of the things he should undertake is to appoint a minister responsible and to stay away and avoid the fatigue, avoid allowing himself to be worn to a frazzle in a matter of weeks.

So there are opportunities here in what appears to be almost certain defeat -- at least in British Columbia -- for the Charlottetown accord. We should not look at it as if this were some great disaster -- the will of the people being exercised, the people of British Columbia telling our government: "We're dissatisfied with the constitution that you propose." It should simply be an opportunity for governments to resolve to be more attentive to what British Columbians want and to be more determined to go back and achieve what British Columbians want in the context of the needs of all regions of this country. That is the constitutional process we should anticipate.

The yes-sayers are going to continue to forecast doom and gloom -- economic disaster and unity crisis -- in this country. That's not accurate; it's misleading and detracts from the arguments about our constitution. The financial markets have already adjusted to the No vote. They, being much more perceptive than many of our politicians, understood some time ago that this deal wasn't going to be approved by the majority of Canadians, and they have already factored in the rejection of the Charlottetown accord. I dismiss the forecast of the breakup of this country as being nothing more than fearmongering. The same arguments were imposed on legislators when the Meech Lake accord was being debated. We legislators were told all of the things that voters today are being told about the Charlottetown accord. To my chagrin and embarrassment, we bought the arguments in 1989 and 1990. If that proves anything, it proves that the voters are smarter than we are, because they aren't being taken in this time around. They don't buy that. They know that Quebec doesn't want to leave Canada any more than we want them to leave.

This is not a question about whether or not we want Quebec in Confederation. The question is: do we approve of and are we satisfied with the proposed changes to our constitution? The answer, quite clearly, before the vote is no. So the challenge, then, is to develop a constitution that is acceptable. And let me say this to governments, not only the government of British Columbia but governments across this country: if you are unwilling to do that, rest assured that Canadians will find governments that are. That's their right, and that's the way the system works. So let's accept the verdict of the people with good grace, with understanding for what it is. Give us a commitment; make a commitment now to deal with that as adults. As sophisticated leaders in the community, demonstrate now the willingness, the desire, to hear what people have to say and to act on that, and to act on it with good grace. If you do that, October 27 will be much like the day after Meech Lake: a day after a constitutional amendment failed; one day closer to the development of an agreement that will work.

Hon. A. Petter: I want to express my appreciation to the previous speaker for keeping his comments brief, and I want to assure him and the rest of the House that 

[ Page 3615 ]

my comments will be even briefer because of the lateness of the hour and an engagement that I have to attend at the other end of the peninsula in just a few minutes' time. That prevents me from getting into some of the detail I would have liked to have gotten into in responding to some of the comments by the leader of the third party and by others in this debate.

I think what I will do is reflect in general on why I believe this agreement is not only good for British Columbia but for Canada. One of the things that has disturbed me in this debate is that we hear a lot about this agreement not being perfect in terms of some particular interest, be it British Columbia's, be it the interests of the west, be it the interests of some segment of society. What I'm much more concerned about is: is it a perfect agreement for Canada? A perfect agreement for Canada will necessarily not be a perfect agreement for all of the segments of the country looked at individually. This is a country that was built and based upon accommodation, upon goodwill and, yes, upon compromise. Yet as I've listened to the debate, particularly from those members of the opposition who are urging a No vote, I'm not hearing that spirit of accommodation and compromise. I fear for my country when I don't hear that spirit of accommodation and compromise.

If one goes back to 1867 and looks at the original BNA Act, as it was then called, one sees all sorts of accommodation and compromise. There are provisions that apply to some provinces but not to others. There are provisions that are clearly designed to speak to the concerns of some parts of the country and not to others. Indeed, there was a provision when British Columbia came in that guaranteed British Columbia six seats in the federal Parliament even though by population it was entitled to only one. That was a generous offer made to British Columbia to bring it into the constitutional family.

Provinces were not treated as absolute equals. Senate seats were divided up on the basis of regions. Even in 1982 the much-heralded amending formula that the leader of third party seems so happy with doesn't treat provinces as equals. Under that formula Ontario and Quebec get a veto over constitutional change; B.C. and Alberta do not. Is that special status for Ontario and Quebec, because they as provinces can effect a veto but B.C. and Alberta cannot? No. It is part of a constitutional compromise. We need to hear more of that spirit of compromise in this House, because if we don't at some stage, be it now or later, we will not be able to bring about a united Canada.

[6:15]

I was puzzled by one comment in particular that the leader of the third party made. He suggested in his speech that his concerns with the constitution mirrored those that were commonly expressed by others. But the fact is that the concerns that are commonly made by others are completely contradictory one to another. Listen to the concerns expressed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women: they say that the social charter should be stronger and Quebec should be given additional powers. Listen to Preston Manning: he says that there shouldn't be a social charter and less power should be given to Quebec. Listen to Pierre Trudeau: he says that there ought to be a stronger central government. Listen to Lucien Bouchard: he says that there ought to be a much diminished, if any, central government. That's what the leader of the third party seems to have failed to grasp. The concerns are not common concerns; they are conflicting concerns. If you were to put those four leaders together in a room and ask them to resolve some issue, be it for a week or a month or a year or a decade, they could not come out and agree on a pizza topping, let alone a vision of this country.

I want to reflect back to a comment that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps anticipating this comment, as I've made it before, he said that he would never agree to the kind of process in which you would put those four people together. Thank goodness he wouldn't agree to that process, because it would be a failed process. But that isn't the point. The point is that those leaders do speak for certain visions and constituencies in this country. Whether one does it through this process or another, at the end of the day those conflicting visions must either be reconciled in a common vision or they will not be reconciled, and we will end up with division.

The choice we face is an accord like this one that does make honest compromises for the sake of Canada, or discord that results in our country not coming together around anything common because each of the elements clings to its own preferred vision. That is the kind of view that will only end up with this country becoming weaker and less united. That's what concerns me.

It seems to me that what I hear from the opposition are two categories of criticism about this accord. There are those who say: "Gee, if I had been at the table, it would have had this, or it wouldn't have that." They are the perfectionists. I call them the constitutional nitpickers. "If only this part of the Senate were done this way or that were done that way" -- they'll nitpick the agreement to death. And then there are the others who, if I think uncharitably of them, I think are really having a political picnic at Canada's expense. They're the ones who say, "Follow me and my vision. British Columbia's interests aren't being served," without playing the responsible role of leadership that we have seen historically in this country and without laying in front of British Columbians, straightforwardly and honestly, that if we're going to keep this country together, we're going to have to make compromises. I think of the comment referred to by the leader of the third party. He quoted Clyde Wells, where he said that we shouldn't underestimate the compromises that have been made. That isn't a criticism of Clyde Wells. Clyde Wells understood that he was making compromises, and he understood that others were making compromises too. At the end of the day he believed that those compromises were in the best interests of his province and, more importantly, of this country. That's what the leaders of the third party and the opposition seem not to realize.

C. Serwa: Compromising principles, my friend.

[ Page 3616 ]

Hon. A. Petter: One of the members of the third party suggests compromising principles. If we don't compromise principles, we will compromise our country. Our country is based on compromise, but not in the sense that you mean it. It is based on compromising principles in the best sense of bringing together different views and allowing them to coexist, not insisting that your view is the only view that can exist.

I want to talk just for a minute about how this accord does speak to B.C.'s interests. While I've talked about accommodation and the country's interests, I also want to make it very clear that in my view this accord speaks very dramatically to the interests of British Columbia. Indeed, I had the pleasure of campaigning on the accord last week with the former House Leader of the official opposition, who described British Columbia as probably the major beneficiary of this accord. I want to say I agree with him. We are the major beneficiary under this accord.

Let me just list the things that British Columbia gains. They've already been mentioned, so I won't go into great detail. British Columbia gains dramatically increased representation in the House of Commons, which it does not now enjoy. You may not think it's enough, members opposite, but it's more than we have now. To vote no is to say: "Let's go with what we have now." To say yes to this accord is to say: "Let's move ahead. Let's increase our representation and build a commitment to representation by population in the constitution that will see us through in the years ahead."

Much greater say in an effective Senate. I wish I had the time to outline just how effective this Senate is going to be. It is going to be a very effective voice, particularly for western Canada. There's an example in the Senate of how we characterize other people's interests differently than our own. The Senate has very substantial powers, as the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs outlined, but look at the two in which there is an absolute veto. First, there's the appointment of the Bank of Canada head, an appointment that will influence monetary policy and the setting of interest rates. Guess in whose interest that is? Clearly it's in the interests of the outer regions of this country, particularly western Canada. Secondly, it has the power to ensure that our natural resource wealth cannot be simply transferred to central Canada through taxation. Those two provisions were put in there for one reason only: to respond to the interests of western Canada. Does that mean we got special status under this deal? Of course not. It does mean that our special concerns were addressed under this arrangement, just as Quebec's special concerns and other special concerns have also been addressed -- and that's laudable. But I don't hear the leader of the third party saying: "Oh my goodness, we can't vote for this, because the west got special status because our concerns were legitimately addressed." I imagine that if he were in another part of the country, he wouldn't hesitate to point his finger at B.C. and make just that charge based on his argument.

Aboriginal rights. I won't say a lot about aboriginal rights, except this: there has been a lot of talk about the inherent right of self-government. I just want to read from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This is a royal commission set up by the federal government. René Dussault, a judge from Quebec and a very respected jurist, and Madam Justice Wilson, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, sit on this commission. This commission issued a report in February about the inherent right of self-government. In that report they talked about the concept and its history. Here is an interesting tidbit that the leader of the third party might be interested in. The report says: "It is interesting to compare the Canadian position with that prevailing in the United States of America. There, an inherent right of aboriginal self-government has been recognized for over 160 years." One hundred and sixty years, yet we hear from members opposite the allegation that this is too new and too revolutionary a concept to entrench in our constitution. That seems to me a really incredible position.

In addition, we have within this accord -- and again the Constitutional Affairs minister enumerated them -- a number of elements that clearly spell out a process for negotiating aboriginal self-government in a way that will stabilize and secure aboriginal rights in a way that will protect the interests of all British Columbians. Indeed, that is so clear that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has put out a paper reassuring people that the provisions in the accord pose absolutely no threat to British Columbia and in fact will enhance and stabilize our economic environment with respect to aboriginal self-government.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: No, I'll be happy to share it with the member opposite.

As has the Business Council on National Issues. In fact, the Business Council on National Issues goes further and says that not only will this stabilize, but it will result in cost savings for Canadians because as aboriginal governments become more self-sufficient, not only will they benefit themselves, but we will all benefit. I will quote from the Business Council on National Issues: "In the longer term, self-government could lead to less reliance on government revenues than is currently the case."

So this provision, which apparently members opposite find unacceptable, seems to pose no threat to the very interests that you would think would be most disturbed by it.

Aboriginal self-government is the very least that we can hold out to our aboriginal peoples, who have been treated very differently from the rest of us in this country and who have been treated under a system of paternalism for year upon year when they were disentitled to vote, to participate in post-secondary education and to enjoy many other rights that we as citizens enjoy.

What have we done in this accord? We have simply given the recognition that aboriginal peoples have the same rights to self-determination that we as non-aboriginal persons enjoy in this country. That's what we've given. And isn't that the least that we should give to our aboriginal citizens in this province? Absolutely. And we have done it in a way that recognizes and 

[ Page 3617 ]

respects their culture and their values and their history. And isn't that what a tolerant society should do? Absolutely.

Self-government exists in the United States. It's not in the form, perhaps, that we would want in Canada, but it poses no threat. There are over 500 tribal governments in the United States. No one gets excited. In fact, President Bush has extolled the government-to-government relationship -- the domestic sovereignty, as he has described it, of those governments. So to suggest that this is something that is untoward or of concern to British Columbians is simply unfounded.

I have only time to enumerate a couple more things. I want to mention the social and economic union. I want to mention the fact that we will, through this agreement, gain a measure of social and economic stability countrywide that will once again get us back on track.

I want to recount to you that when I left my job teaching constitutional law a year ago to come and participate in the political process, my students asked me: "Why would you want to get involved in politics?" I said: "Well, one good reason is that I won't have to talk about the constitution for four years." Little did I know. But I was trying to make the point that the constitution and its preoccupation have not assisted us in this country in moving ahead, and this continued preoccupation that seems to be the desire of the members opposite will not assist us.

I want to make one final point. It's one I want to make sensitively because I know that if one raises any concerns about the future, one is accused of fearmongering, and I want to say that I am not in any way intending to engage in any fearmongering. I want to recount something that had a tremendous impact upon me last year before I became elected. A senior lecturer in law from the University of Melbourne, Australia, came to British Columbia last year and lectured at the University of Victoria. He talked on the topic of federalism -- secession in Canada and Quebec. I asked him why he had chosen to come to Canada. He said that secession, the breakup of countries, was his major academic interest. He is one of the few people in the Commonwealth, certainly, who makes that a preoccupation. He said that he had come to Canada because he believed that Canada was at a point at which all of the conditions that might lead to secession -- and I don't want to put it beyond that -- were now present in this country.

I found that a very disturbing suggestion from someone who had no particular stake in the political games or the rhetoric that go on in this country. His name is Greg Craven, and he talked about that. I just want to read you one short sentence from a very extensive paper. While it's true that very exaggerated statements were made around Meech Lake, statements that I thought at the time were irresponsible -- and I still do -- that does not mean we should not attend to the seriousness of the situation and the potential consequences now.

What Professor Craven wrote, after having spent six months in Canada pursuing his study, was this: "The main consequence of all this is that Canada once again faces the prospect of Quebec's secession, but does so with little apparent realization of the seriousness of its situation, and with no particularly discernible appreciation that -- on the assumption the federation in its present form is worth saving -- resolute action is needed before it is too late."

It's not my statement. It's a statement made by someone who came to this country as an academic because of his experience elsewhere. I share it with some reluctance, because I know that there is fearmongering about fearmongering. I'm not fearmongering, but I think we must approach this situation not at all flippantly either. We must understand the gravity of the situation. We have a country that is a delicate balance, that requires us all to work together and to understand each other's points of view. If the constitutional nitpickers and the political picnickers who have thus far informed this debate on behalf of the official opposition continue to cling to their narrow view, then I am fearful about what Professor Craven has to say.

I hope that Canadians, when they go to the polls on October 26, will consider that the history of this country has been one of accommodation and of listening to the other point of view; that they will, yes, focus on those elements of the accord that are good for British Columbia, but will understand that in making concessions to other parts of the country they are not giving up anything for British Columbia. Rather they are gaining as Canadians. That surely has to be the message. I would like to thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

[6:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

Ministerial Statement

SMALL BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker and members, I want to pay tribute today to the energy and commitment of small business entrepreneurs throughout the province as we prepare to celebrate Small Business Week. This important event runs from October 25 to 30 throughout the province.

As we know, small business is an important component of the B.C. economy. Depending on how we measure it, small business over the last decade has created between 80 and 95 percent of all new jobs and supports 40 percent of all private sector employment. There are over 100,000 small businesses in British Columbia, each with less than 20 workers. Net new jobs created as a result of small business growth -- 45,700 in 1990 -- accounted for almost five times as many jobs as those created by small business start-ups -- 9,400.

This government recognized the importance of small business in the budget planning process this year. In a tough fiscal environment, we did not increase the sales tax, we did not introduce the payroll taxes found in other provinces, we did not introduce a tax on restaurant meals, and we kept other tax increases to an absolute minimum.

[ Page 3618 ]

Small business in B.C. is performing better than small business in other provinces. For example, from January to August this year there were 742 total business bankruptcies in B.C., but this is 16 percent lower than this time last year. In B.C. more than three-quarters of new businesses start from the owners' homes. Some have evolved to be significant employers. It is important to recognize the importance of small business to the overall economy of British Columbia, especially at a time when we see that our province's economy is changing in response to a changing world and changing national economy. For a number of reasons our resource-based industries are not now the major generator of new jobs that they have been in the past. Increasingly the small-business sector will be an important new job generator.

My ministry is working to foster the establishment of new small businesses and to assist existing ones. For example, we offer programs like home-based business seminars, business information centres, the young entrepreneurs conferences, women-in-business initiatives and others. My ministry puts priority on small businesses in order to refocus on new priorities. Among other things we intend to offer more services to small businesses in the regions. Our future prosperity depends on the skills and talents that exist in each community. In order to be sensitive to local needs, our new ministry structure will provide easier access to the services we have available.

There is a popular perception that the tax environment for small business is less favourable in B.C. than in our neighbouring jurisdiction of Washington State. Today my ministry is releasing a new study that provides evidence to counter this perception. The study reveals that the total corporate and personal taxes paid by owner-operators in British Columbia can be significantly lower than those paid by their counterparts in Washington. Washington State owner-operators pay about 24 percent more in income taxes than do their counterparts in B.C. This finding and other information presented in this study will be of interest to potential investors considering a west coast location and to British Columbia entrepreneurs assessing their competitive position. The tax calculations in this study were verified by an independent consultant. The report follows two previous studies, "The Profitable Choice" and "Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing," which show that B.C. stacks up favourably against its U.S. neighbours as a location for high-tech and advanced manufacturing firms.

I challenge members from both sides of the House to join me in recognizing and boosting small business, not only in the week to come but in the future. I also encourage you to participate in the events in your communities.

L. Stephens: As the opposition critic for small business, I too would like to pay tribute to the small-business entrepreneurs throughout the province as we celebrate Small Business Week. I know that many communities have scheduled important events during this week, from October 25 to 30. The theme of this year's celebration is Entrepreneurship: Competing in a Global Economy.

Since 1983-84 an average of 150,000 new small businesses have been launched, and a substantial number of these firms are owned and operated by women. Our increasingly integrated world economy is a challenge to small businesses. The increased general corporate income tax rate from 15 to 16 percent of taxable income and the increased rate for small businesses to 10 percent is not helpful in these difficult economic times. Entrepreneurs must develop new skills and strategies to meet these challenges and to take advantage of areas of opportunity. I'm very hopeful that the reorganization of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade will do just that.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the many small business owners who contribute to our communities and to our future.

R. Neufeld: On behalf of the Social Credit Party, we would also like to extend our best wishes for a very successful Small Business Week.

Small Business Week originated a number of years ago through the Federal Business Development Bank to pay tribute to small business in B.C. and in Canada as a whole. Small business creates and supports about 80 percent of all jobs in British Columbia. In fact, under a Social Credit government small business flourished in British Columbia and created half of all jobs in B.C. Small business flourished under Social Credit because of a stable labour law, a strong trust in the free-enterprise system that was reflected in the government of the day and because of a strong investment climate in British Columbia.

I'm afraid to say that small business today is very nervous, and for a number of reasons. Changes in the labour law have all business nervous. Changes to tax policies, increases in corporate tax, a new capital tax, resource compensation taxes, parking lot taxes, fee increases in every conceivable place and regulations for regulations: even under these conditions small business will survive, only because of the tenacity of the people who own and run small businesses, but not at the level British Columbians have enjoyed in the past. I hope this government realizes the importance of small business and will back off on its road to making it very difficult for small business to survive, flourish and provide the jobs and benefits it historically has. We also encourage everyone to participate in this event in their community.

The Speaker: Returning to the debate on the motion before this House, which is the motion to debate the merits of the Canadian unity agreement, I recognize the hon. member for Prince George North. Motion without Notice

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to be able to rise in the House and join in this debate. Over 20 years ago, when I was a new immigrant in this country, I did not think 

[ Page 3619 ]

that I would ever be standing in a legislature in a province of Canada, having an opportunity to express my concerns about how this country should form itself constitutionally.

I guess the first thing that I want to say is that the views I'm expressing are mine. We've heard a lot of concern from the official opposition that Yes buttons are somehow being worn insincerely by people on this side of the House, and that somehow we're not representing the electors of our ridings when we do so. I want to make it clear that I speak for myself in this. We have a referendum coming up in this province on the 26th, and electors in my riding will have their own chance to express their view. They do not need me to speak for them here tonight. But I do want to express my views.

Behind that opposition claim that somehow there are some insincere yesses present in this House is, I guess, a perception that there may have been pressure to support a certain side, or that perhaps there were some doubts and caucus solidarity had to be enforced, or there were rules on whether we should or should not join a Yes committee or a No committee. I think members of the opposition caucus are confused. They must be thinking of what happened within the realm of the Liberal caucus, because I want to assure the House that there was no such pressure in the New Democratic caucus. I remember nobody telling me how I should stand on this issue; I remember no plea for solidarity; I remember no direction on whether I could or could not sit on a Yes or No committee; I remember no threats that I would lose caucus office or position; I remember no arrangement that if I voted a certain way I would get half the debating time of somebody else. On this side of the House we wear our pins with pride.

I'm pleased to stand here and give some of my views on this constitution. I'm trying to figure out a broader way of looking at what's happened in our constitution in this country. We've had a lot of debate in this House in the past three days -- and I've listened to it with interest -- about various clauses and about concerns about how those clauses are going to work out. But being an immigrant, I want to take a slightly broader view. I want to look at what I value in the constitutional arrangements of this country and at what I think this accord will add to those arrangements.

I think it's a fundamental principle of liberal democracies that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be inherent in them. That is in our constitution, and I see nothing in this accord which in any way threatens those rights and freedoms. They are not changed. We are committed to the equality of men and women, to recognition of the rights of the disabled, to recognition of equality before the law, to recognition of freedom of expression, and to all those other freedoms and rights that we as Canadians value so highly.

But I see in this Charlottetown accord some additions to that, which I also welcome. The Canada clause says specifically that we will have respect for individual and collective rights and freedoms. It's the addition of collective freedoms that I think is uniquely Canadian, and I believe that is a positive addition to the constitutional framework of our country. Our Canada clause would recognize racial and ethnic equality. It would recognize the need of linguistic minorities to have vitality and rights in the development of their languages. It would recognize the right of individuals to bargain collectively in the workplace.

There has been a lot of concern expressed by some that the Canada clause will somehow overshadow, change or destroy the provisions of the Charter. I don't see that. I'm at a loss to see how that would occur. What I see in this Canada clause is a Canadian virtue: balance. I see a balance between, on the one hand, individual freedoms and rights and, on the other hand, the collective rights and freedoms. We don't want any government to trample on those, just as I don't want a government to say to me as an individual: "You can't speak on this issue." "You have no right to live here." Or, "Because you are a certain gender or race, we'll have special laws for you." Just as I don't want those to apply to me as an individual, I don't want my country to discriminate against me because I am part of a particular collective. I believe that those collectives should have their own rights recognized in a constitution, and that is what has happened here. It is a balance.

[6:45]

Part of the debate that I listened to with some interest was the assertions of members of the Liberal caucus that only individual rights were valid. I think that they somehow reflect the principles of one of their mentors, or apparent mentors, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, who had the view that all collective rights must inherently flow from individual rights. For my part, I reject that formulation. I believe that collectives have rights by themselves, and those rights should be recognized in the first law of the land, which this document would be. So that's one ideal that I recognize in this accord and that I welcome: a balance between individual rights and collective rights.

The second ideal is simply embodied in the social union provisions of this. What we have in this document is an assertion that equality is not just a legal ideal but a social goal. It's not enough to say that we're all free and can do what we want. We must, as government, recognize goals to make that equality a reality in how people live their lives. Here we have a document that says that an objective of government, regardless of who's elected, must be to have a health care system that's universal, public, accessible, and comprehensive. That is a goal of governments in this country. We have a document that says that high-quality education, the core of personal and intellectual development, and the ability to try different professions and attain goals in life, is a right, and it's an objective of government to provide that education. We have a document that says that one of the objectives of government must be to protect the integrity of the environment.

I've heard some say -- indeed, I've thought it myself -- that these provisions are not strong enough and that we should embed the very legislation of the Canada Health Act or embed environmental protection principles in our constitution. But I think this compromise, this agreement, again strikes a wise balance between an overall objective that must be stated clearly and the right of an individual government at a particular point in time to decide how best it can obtain that objective. 

[ Page 3620 ]

Again, we have a balance that incorporates, as I say, the principle that these high ideals and visions of equality are not just legal ideals but must be social goals.

Another thing that I think a constitution must do is reflect the history and people of the country. One size does not fit all in writing constitutions. This accord tries very hard to acknowledge the history of this country in two areas where that history has not been well acknowledged to date. That is obviously in recognition of the part that Quebec, as a province and as a people, has played in the development of this country. This is an accord that says that we must recognize and respect the distinctness of that culture, that people, that province; that their concerns about preserving that language, that culture, their ways of relating to one another are valuable; that they enhance our country; and that we need to recognize and protect it. But at the same time, this accord asserts and reasserts the equality of the provinces in their abilities to enact legislation.

The second group of people who would be reflected if the vote is yes on October 26 are our aboriginal people, whose inherent right to self-government is now entrenched in constitutional law.

I don't know how else we do it. If we're not going to recognize the history of those people as somehow distinct and different from those of us who came to this country later, what are we going to do? Are we going to deny it? Homogeneity is not the answer here; respect for history is. Those who do not respect their history in their constitution are doomed to rend their country asunder. All you need to do is look at Yugoslavia; look at everything that has happened in eastern Europe in the last few years. They had constitutions. They were cobbled together, but they were not the agreements of free people who respected their history and reached compromises on how they could live with one another within a country. They were imposed by force, and they fell apart as soon as the force disappeared.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs spoke passionately and well about the crisis this country faces if we do not accommodate our history in recognition of aboriginal people. I believe the same is true if we do not recognize the history of Quebec and the role it has played in our country.

Finally, I think a constitution must look to the future, not only respect the past. I won't speak long on this point, because I think others have said, in far more detail than I want to, some of the things about reformation of parliament, some of the things about redistribution of powers, which will enhance our ability as provinces and as a country to move on into the next century. It's again a balance between what we must acknowledge from our past and what we must move toward as we build our future.

Any constitutional accord is a temporary measure. One of the things I found most troubling in the speech by the leader of the official opposition was his assertion that the statement that this is the best agreement available at this time was a negative one. I find it a positive statement. This is the best agreement available at this time. It's a balancing act. At any one point the pressures between past and future and between individual liberties and collective rights must be balanced. This is what's available at this time. A constitution that goes on and on forever -- which seems to be the ideal of the leader of the official opposition -- is a myth. It does not exist; and if it did exist, it would not last long.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

We have a balance here. That's the nature of constitutions. The leader of the official opposition derided that view. He described the process by which this was arrived at as "bartering," as "horse-trading." I find that to be playing with words. I guess I could say I will reach a consensus; you may compromise; and he will indulge in bartering and horse-trading, but this is playing with words. The reality is that balance and compromise must be reached. Consensus is the goal. I wish that those who speak on the No side would stop playing with words, stop playing with this country and recognize that the essence of constitutional agreements is compromise, working out diverse views and making them harmonize as best you can at a particular point in time.

I found the Leader of the Opposition incredibly arrogant in his assertion that somehow, with different players and a different process, a better result could have been obtained at this point in time. The reality is that at the end of the day we have people in a room representing diverse parts of the country, diverse interests, trying as best they honourably can to reach a consensus and compromise. They've done it this time, and the assertion that somehow we have supermen and superwomen lurking out there who will do it differently and better strikes me as false.

In closing, I want to return to the assertion made by a person from the opposition, who said that behind these Yes buttons lurk troubled hearts. I'm not troubled in my conviction that Yes is the correct vote on October 26, but I'll admit to being troubled when I look at the possible results of a No vote. Not fearmongering -- I think we've had quite enough of this. Brian Mulroney is equally unconvincing when he rips up the accord and says that's what's going to happen to the country on October 27, and when he says that if yes is the answer, everybody will be making $90,000 a year. We've had enough of rhetorical excess.

But I do fear the result of a No vote for two reasons. One of them is that I think this campaign has unleashed some passions that had best been kept in check. I accuse no speaker on the No side of being either a racist or deliberately anti-Quebec, but much of the rhetoric has played to those sentiments in some parts of our population, and that is unfortunate. If the answer is no on October 26, I do not see how we put those genies back in the box and tuck them away. Those passions, once unleashed, are poisonous to political debate -- and this debate has unleashed them. I fear that greatly.

The other thing I fear about a No vote is turning over the constitutional process to those who would be constitutional purists, who believe that somehow principles can be preserved: pure principles to the end of a process and beyond. That is not the reality of how 

[ Page 3621 ]

negotiations take place and how constitutions are written in this country or any country.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to stand in this House. I will proudly vote yes on October 26, and I hope, for my country, that that will be the vote of this country as well.

J. Doyle: I am pleased to stand to speak in favour of the Canadian unity agreement. I've noticed that in the last couple of days, during question period, the questions of the official opposition have been about the economy. I really feel they have their blinkers on if they feel a No vote won't hurt the economy in Canada and British Columbia. Speaking of the official opposition, they say how tolerant they are of one another. Let's look at how tolerant they were when their House Leader didn't go along with the party stand. The now House Leader called that House Leader "Daffy Duck." Is that tolerance? I think that party, whenever they come into this House in the mornings, must have to check the name tags to see where their chair is. That's how much tolerance they have.

As far as not being consulted and not asking people, that was mentioned by many speakers in the last couple of days. The B.C. constitution committee travelled to many parts of this province. I was on that committee, as were members of the other parties. They signed that agreement that we pulled together. And many of the items that were brought by our Premier to Ottawa and Charlottetown were right from that agreement, yet today they are denying it.

Another party that we hear a lot about these days is the Reform Party. They were asked to sit on the federal constitution committee. They refused. Now they're such critics. If you don't get around the table when you have a chance.... I feel they really didn't want to. That's one reason I feel they didn't want to get around that table, so they could come out.... Was it really some surprise when they came out in opposition to this accord?

Let's have a little look at this agreement that we are debating in this House. The Reform Party and their friends don't like this particular charter; it is not part of their right-wing republican agenda. The social charter includes a national commitment for universal, publicly administered health care. I would say that is something our friends south of the border would give a lot for. Let's not play carelessly with this. Adequate social services and benefits is another item. Quality education for all, not just a chosen few. Collective bargaining rights. A commitment to protect the environment. The Reform Party and their friends are opposed to the social charter. They see it as some kind of socialistic plot. I say that looking after people is good.

[7:00]

Let's look at the aboriginal self-government. Our aboriginal people have had promises forever. Is it not about time that that was addressed? I feel that this one part of the agreement in itself is enough reason for me to want to vote yes, never mind the other many things in this agreement. The Reform Party and their friends are opposed to finally addressing this.

Let's look at the government overlap and duplication. The Canadian unity agreement addresses this. Forestry, which is now a dual role, will be in the provincial domain. Mining is another one. Tourism. There are many others. But those three and the others will be saving taxpayers' money. Some of the duplication right now will finish up not being the best use of money, and the programs can't be delivered as well as they could.

Parliamentary reform. Those opposed to parliamentary reform must want to keep the appointed Senate instead of an elected one. B.C. will get seven new MPs with a yes, two with a no. The Reform Party and their friends must like the present pork-barrel appointed Senate. Possibly some of the opposition members are looking ahead to when they're not sitting in this House and they might get appointed to that pork-barrel place where many of their Liberal friends are sitting today. They must also agree that B.C. has been permanently underrepresented in the House of Commons.

In closing, I feel that uncertainty hurts each and every one of us as Canadians, and it also affects us greatly when someone is looking out in the world at investing in Canada. This hurts us as a country.

One item the No side does not mention is the cost of a no. I agree the unity agreement is not perfect, but they pick holes in certain parts of it. But they have never said the true cost of a no. They would rather just pick holes in something that's mostly good.

The greatest cost to me, if this is a no on the 26th, is a possible breakup of Canada -- without a doubt the greatest country in the world. Who will pick up the pieces? I feel that if Quebec separated in years to come, the United States will pick up the pieces. I'll likely get by, as somebody who's 48. I don't want my two little boys to be growing up in Canada and looking up at the Stars and Stripes flying. I think that would be one of the things that might happen if this agreement goes down and our country breaks up.

Let's not vote against Brian Mulroney or any other political leaders on the 26th. You'll get your turn in the next election. This is a totally separate issue. Like the member for Prince George North who just spoke, I too am a new Canadian. I was born in Northern Ireland. We read about it in our papers, and we can see there the price of communities that don't get along and aren't tolerant of one another. I am very proud to speak here today as a Canadian in a free, great country. Let's think of that before we vote no.

I am also very concerned, as has been mentioned by other speakers, that one of the big reasons the opposition is on the No side is for short-term political purposes. This is too serious an item to just address with some short-term political purpose. We're talking about our country. It's way bigger than any one of us or our parties that we belong to.

On the No side, let's look at who is in that big bed. There's Preston Manning, Doug Christie, Pierre Trudeau and Bill Vander Zalm, who's still concerned with the fact that there's French on his corn flakes box. That's one of the reasons he's voting no, he says -- and of course, that social charter, which is a socialist plot. Their agenda is not that of most of us.

[ Page 3622 ]

In closing, I would like to say: for the love of Canada, vote yes.

B. Jones: It's a pleasure, but a difficult challenge, to follow so many good speeches that we've heard in the House up to this point. I'm very pleased that all MLAs who wanted to speak have had an opportunity.

I do have some misgivings, though, because I really wonder if this is the appropriate place. The reason for that is the comments that were just made by the previous speaker. This is a partisan place. This is a place where we debate under the British parliamentary system on the basis of the parties we belong to.

But this is not the time for partisan debate. This is the time to put aside those political differences and to rise above those divisions that normally separate us. It's a time to look objectively at this tremendous, positive agreement that has been reached by so many in this country. Simply put, this is a time to put Canada first. I am proud that all the major parties, federally and similarly in most provinces, have been able to do that -- to put aside their partisan differences and work together for what they see as a better Canada. Certainly because of that we have to be very tolerant of those in this debate that we disagree with, both inside and outside of this House. Not everyone can agree, and not everyone in my own party agreed in 1988 when we went through a similar exercise.

We must also recognize that even those that we disagree with.... I have had debates with many people that I have tremendous respect for, people who are very idealistic, people who have the same goals for Canada as I do, people whose analysis of federalism is sound.... But somehow those people come to a different conclusion about the Charlottetown accord than I do. I've thought about that at great length, and I ask myself: "Why have they come to a different conclusion?" The only thing I can suggest is that they are willing to gamble. They are willing to take more of a risk than I am, in terms of the future of Quebec within Confederation -- a gamble that something better will come along.

What do I mean when I say that those who take the opposite side are willing to gamble more on the future of Quebec than I? If this province votes no in the referendum, I have to ask myself how that is going to play in the province of Quebec. How is Jacques Parizeau, the Parti Québécois, going to use for political purposes the fact that we vote no in British Columbia? Jacques Parizeau and the Parti Québécois are going to use a No vote in British Columbia for their own political purposes, and they are going to say that that No vote is a rejection of Quebec. I think very few people who are voting no would admit that that is the reason. Regardless, I am certain, knowing politics as I do, that that is going to be used by that party, which I disagree with in terms of my vision of a united Canada.

That may not happen, but I am virtually certain that it will happen. If it happens, it may lead to a successful election for the Parti Québécois. It may not, but I think the chances are enhanced that that will happen. If the Parti Québécois wins, they will have a referendum, and the referendum may or may not be successful. But a No vote in British Columbia is the beginning of the slippery slope of a Parti Québécois win, a referendum and the separation of Quebec from Canada. That is simply a risk, a gamble, that I am not prepared to take.

One of the interesting aspects of this debate is -- and it has been driven home -- that 25 percent of the population of Canada lives in Quebec. That means that one in four members of the Canadian family is Québécois. Think of a family of four people, and think of what the loss -- and there have been losses in families in British Columbia in the news lately -- of one member would mean to that family. That loss is a gamble that I'm not prepared to take.

Secondly, those who I disagree with are willing to gamble that something better will come along. The critics -- and there have been many -- have done a good job of criticizing aspects of the accord. They have found imperfections. But never in their criticisms have they offered a credible alternative, either in terms of the process that would be followed following a No vote or the kind of constitutional package that would be agreeable to all provinces and all citizens of Canada. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides in terms of a package. One side of this debate agrees on a well-defined, well-circumscribed specific package of amendments to our constitution. The other side disagrees, and they disagree for hundreds of different reasons. Often those reasons are spurious. There's a very large 4-by-8 sign near my house that says: "On October 26, vote no. The sky won't fall, but Mulroney will." Many people in this debate have confused partisan politics and the future of Canada based on the Charlottetown accord, and I think that's incredibly sad. The critics have offered no alternative package. In fact, they have no position, and it's my view that they never will.

What about the process? In 1988, when I spoke in this chamber on the Meech Lake accord, I was very reluctant about supporting that accord, partly because of the process that had been followed. The Premier was in the chamber when I was speaking, and I recall asking him: "Why not take this package to the people? Why not explain it to them? Why not have a committee or a task force that would travel the province? Why not hold a referendum?" Those criticisms that I had in 1988 have, certainly in the last four years, all been answered. If we consider not only the last four years but the last ten years, since patriation of the constitution, in the history of this country -- or any other country for that matter -- has there ever been more time, more money, more debate, more effort, more involvement, more research or more committees to arrive at a constitutional package? Never.

We've had the Beaudoin-Dobbie and the Beaudoin-Edwards committees that received thousands of briefs and presentations. We had the Spicer commission, which involved over 400,000 Canadians. We had national policy conferences that involved 1,500 participants. We had select standing committees like the one that represented this Legislature and travelled in our province. Select standing committees all across this country received over 4,000 briefs and witnesses. And we had all the involvement of meetings in the aborigi-

[ Page 3623 ]

nal communities of this country. On October 26 we will have a referendum whereby every Canadian will have an opportunity to cast their vote.

In my view, a rejection of the Charlottetown accord is a rejection of due process -- a process never before achieved in this country and a process that may never be achieved again. To reject the Charlottetown accord, in my view, is to reject due process.

[7:15]

I jumped in a cab the other night. I was wearing my Yes button proudly, and you can imagine the conversation that flowed with the taxi driver. I detected a certain anti-Quebec sentiment from the taxi driver; it was based on a specific incident that he had experienced during the war. He said to me: "What's in this deal for me?" What came to mind was John Kennedy's famous line: "...ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." But I didn't say that. I didn't use that line. I instead tried to list some of those things that I believe profoundly advance our country as a nation through constitutional amendment: those qualities that are unique to Canadians, that are fundamental to our makeup, that define our tolerant and compassionate society; values that I believe in and that I and many other Canadians have fought for over many years; our parliamentary system of government, not a congressional system; equality between provinces, between men and women; and racial and ethnic equality. Those qualities define a country that is committed to a health care system that says that the poorest child in this country can have access to treatment equal to the wealthiest child in this country. This accord speaks to a Canadian commitment to a social safety net, to quality education, to workers' rights, to protecting the environment. Something that I think we need to be reminded of, something we may have forgotten, is the commitment to full employment for all our citizens.

Those are all things that I celebrate in this agreement, but none of those things seemed to impress my taxi-driver friend. It wasn't until I mentioned the aboriginal people that he understood. This accord provides them an opportunity for hope, an opportunity to end a repressive, colonial and racist regime that they have lived under for 125 years, an opportunity to enjoy rights that we have taken for granted in all that time but that have been denied aboriginal people. The taxi driver understood that. He knew the health care status of aboriginal communities; he had experience with it. He knew the poverty and the conditions that have been so eloquently outlined a number of times in this House.

I said to the taxi driver: "If for no other reason than the opportunity to redress aboriginal grievances, this is a reason to support the accord." And it's important to me that I not leave to my five-year-old son the legacy of shame about Canadian treatment of aboriginal people that I have experienced.

We live in the most favoured part of the most favoured nation on this planet. We all believe in families. How do our families survive? They survive by compromise. We give and take; we share; we trust each other; we build together. We should not let the future of this country be decided on technicalities, because the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts. This accord is not about whether some group resents what another group got. We cannot build or maintain a great society on intolerance, mistrust or resentment.

Great societies are built on respect. They are built on faith. They are built on trust. It does require a leap of faith. Our forefathers understood that. If you look at the original constitution of this country, it had no amending formula, and it was a tremendous encumbrance to this country. It had no provision for a cabinet; it had no provision for a Prime Minister. It was certainly an imperfect document. It was flawed. But it was a leap of faith that those founding fathers took.

Think of the Canadian family in 1871. Hon. Speaker, 30 percent of that family was Québécois; they resided in the province of Quebec. We've gone for the last 125 years with all the migration to the west. Quebec has diminished in population from 30 percent to 25 percent. All that in 121 years. That Canadian family, 30 percent of which was Québécois, looked at a British Columbia that was debt-ridden, demanding and a British Columbia with a small population that was diminishing rapidly. That Canadian family said yes to British Columbia. And I think on October 26 it's time for British Columbia to say yes to Canada.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am pleased to enter into this debate to outline some of the important economic features of this accord. These are timeless themes that we need to deal with as we get ready to face our economic crisis with resolve. I think one of the first things we have to remember is that this government's top priority has to be to create a healthy economy for British Columbia. We felt it was absolutely essential that the constitutional accord be designed to help do this.

This accord has new tools in it that we need to ensure sustainable and equitable economic development. For example, the accord ensures that the federal government will work with us on regional economic development agreements and provide us with sole jurisdiction over labour-market training, forestry, mining, tourism, housing and recreation. The benefits of having negotiated regional economic agreements in place are as follows. First, it ensures that federal expenditures take account of our objectives in B.C. as opposed to all of western Canada, which they do now tend to see as one region. Second, it ensures recognition of the regional differences and priorities within our province. And third, it ensures an integrated approach and eliminates overlap in programs. With sole jurisdiction over a number of economic areas we avoid expensive overlaps in federal programs, and we can also design programs that meet B.C.'s needs. For example, in forestry we can direct our silviculture expenditures into those areas identified by the people of B.C.

The need to negotiate strong, effective agreements is clear. We need to have the assurance that federal programs will meet our priorities, and that we can work in partnership with them to develop programs that fill gaps in those federal programs. We ought to be able to direct support into those areas of the province that are most in need.

[ Page 3624 ]

For example, if we look at the federal community futures program, which has implications for some 220 communities outside the lower mainland, federal expenditures run to $8 million or $9 million. This is four times our entire community economic development budget alone. The accord ensures that the federal government gives us a fair share of regional economic development dollars compared to other provinces. The accord also provides an opportunity for aboriginal people to become full partners in Confederation by recognizing their inherent right to self-government. This will enable them to enhance the social and economic development of their own communities. Stronger, healthier aboriginal communities will be able to contribute as full partners to the prosperity of the regions of British Columbia. This will benefit all British Columbians.

A Yes vote on Monday will not put an end to uncertainty, but it's my firm belief that it will create a much more favourable economic climate than a No vote.

Jean Chrétien, on Monday -- he's the leader of the Liberal Party, need I remind the members opposite who remain in the House -- said: "There is nothing more nervous than $1 million. It does not speak French or English, and it can walk very fast."

At a time when nations around the world are tearing themselves apart, a Yes vote on Monday means more political and economic stability for Canada and for British Columbia.

The other aspect of this constitutional accord that would give us great hope to be able to make the economic adjustments we need is the power over labour market training that's envisaged to be transferred to the provinces. This government sought a mandate for a more integrated approach to economic development policy with fewer ad hoc economic initiatives and unconnected programs. There is no question that real economic development is going to require better skills and new skills on the part of both workers and managers in all regions and communities. Skills development and human resource development should be part of all adjustment programs and be made an integral part of our economic development efforts. Training to upgrade and develop new skills is going to be an important part of any strategy for achieving sustainable and equitable economic development.

The constitutional accord gives the provinces clear, exclusive jurisdiction over labour market development and training in section 28 of the consensus report. This will allow us to design training and skill development programs that better meet the particular circumstances of different provinces and different regions of provinces. When this is coupled with our extended power and ability under the accord to negotiate federal-provincial-regional development agreements, the result will be enhanced capability to deliver an integrated, fair and sustainable approach to economic and regional development. The key improvement here is better coordination and focus, and this can be done without increasing spending or adversely affecting the deficit.

The other aspect I would like to address is the issue of whether or not we are granting special status for certain sectors of society. What troubles me about the debate on the No side, when they deal with the issue of aboriginal inherent right to self-government, is that it appears to fail to recognize that for so many years we have accepted inequalities. The fact that aboriginal people cannot mortgage their homes or land or use them to develop economically on the reserves and the fact that they govern themselves merely as an extension of the Department of Indian Affairs has been an insult to their citizenship -- their political citizenship and their economic citizenship.

People seem to be concerned that by providing equality, although recognizing the differences of aboriginal people, somehow somebody's going to get something that the aboriginal people haven't got. I think this is something we could worry about when we've seen the unemployment in aboriginal communities reduced from 80 percent to around the norm we have. But I think that this agreement, by providing that we should continue the negotiation of treaties rather than spend our time in the courts, will give us considerable hope for developing regional development agreements which take into account the need for creating a slightly larger economic pie so that there is more to share.

If people are fearful on the No side that somehow, by granting the right to self-government to aboriginal people, they are going to have something taken away from them.... This is not the solution that we see. Clearly, if we have the economic development agreements built into the negotiations around self-government, then we will find self-sufficient communities that with less and less money are able to create more and more real wealth. They will become net contributors to the regional economies, and they will use their capital money to expend. We all know that expending and investing money in the regions will help all the people in the service centres nearby, and so on -- the aboriginal peoples' governments themselves.

The recognition somehow that there were founding peoples of this country that we call Canada.... There are constitutional rights that existed before we established our government here. When in 1763 Great Britain recognized that the people who were here were self-governing political units, it was very important to recognize that. Nothing has changed that, and we must recognize that as the foundation upon which they enter into treaties. The very existence of treaties indicates that there's a nation-to-nation agreement.

What the aboriginal people -- those who are saying yes to this agreement -- are saying is yes to Canada. They want to be part of Canada. There are some aboriginal people who don't want to be; they have never recognized Canada, and they feel themselves to be unwilling immigrants to a new political creation. It seems to me that by our saying yes to the aboriginal people and recognizing the inherent right to self-government as a concept.... The fact that they did negotiate treaties and will continue to negotiate treaties is simply recognizing a historical reality. I think that to somehow say to people that they should speak white, or to somehow suggest that we all have to become equal and like the dominant sector of our society, is to deny 

[ Page 3625 ]

the present reality that there are people who want not to be unequal -- they want to be equal -- but to have the right to be different. The differences don't make us in any way unequal.

[7:30]

I'd have to say that the Leader of the Third Party, when he was speaking, was raising some of these same fears. They want everything defined in the constitution, and then when you give it to them to read, they get confused. So they say that there should be less in the constitution, and they want more in the constitution. If we were to satisfy all the naysayers, we would have a constitution that would pile up in the middle of this floor. We'd never get finished and our people would never, ever give us a mandate.

I think what we have to think about from now till the year to come is how we are going to take the disparate sectors of our society that have fundamentally different cultures and different values, such as the aboriginal people, the French people, some of the other ethnic minorities.... Just to ask the question again: what is the commonality? What is the definition of equality? How are we going to make equality operational in our governance structure? I think we have to remember that part of being Canadian and part of Canadian law is recognizing that differences exist and that those differences don't necessarily mean that there are inequalities.

When the leader of the third party said that the Premier was fatigued, he was inventing something that isn't the case. The point that the Premier of the province made was that if we have to go back to debate this subject after the vote, we have to get mandates from the people. It seems to me that a No vote is no mandate to negotiate an agreement. I think we have to reject the notion that somehow more public participation is going to end up with an easier deal. I think it's going to create divisions in the country. But I lived in the hope that through the Spicer commission and the various constitutional hearings and various involvement processes that we had.... Everybody was invited to participate, everybody was invited to submit, and the political leaders who negotiated the agreement listened to that. They didn't agree with everybody, because people were all over the map on it, and we'll never have a situation where the people who have decided No.... If you took the common ground, it wouldn't be enough.

There are people saying that to be equal means to be the same, to be like us, to be white; and there are people on the aboriginal side who say that they want to remain as they were and go back to the way they were. We will never get agreement on that, and I think if we sit back and look at it, this agreement is probably one of the best agreements in the true sense of Canadian compromise. So I hope that when they move into the ballot box, people will think that in the end it's how we feel about the country and how we act that is critically important. If they go into that ballot box feeling positive, they will put an X by the Yes. That's my hope. If they don't, then, as politicians, we won't say: "Oh, well, you were wrong." We will say: "Well, let's pick up the pieces. Let's begin the healing process."

B. Copping: I, too, am very pleased and proud to get up and speak on the Canadian unity agreement and about why I am voting yes. However, I would like to say that this is what democracy is all about. I think everybody in this country loves Canada, no matter how they are voting. But at the end of a long debate over three days now and well into the evening, hopefully those people who were planning to vote no because of misunderstandings will now have changed their mind. I don't intend to go into all these arguments again. They have been well presented over the three days.

Nevertheless, I do feel that the unity agreement has not been talked about enough. I might add that two nights ago I received some No literature, and all the highlighting was "Brian Mulroney's agreement," which, of course, this isn't. That is a misrepresentation. This was an agreement of people democratically elected to represent us, people from three major political parties, ten provinces, one federal government, two territories -- and four aboriginal leaders. This was the result of a process of compromise. You must look at the package in its entirety -- the Canadian unity agreement.

I am going to use some analogous thinking. I do so with some hesitation, because I am concerned that this might appear flippant, and this is such an important issue to Canada that in no way is that the intent. But I would say this about the scope of thought. In the 29 years that I've been married, Clayton and I have often had people over to the house for cake and coffee, and I have never had one person decide if they were going to have a slice of cake based on the merits of eggs, milk, baking powder and flour. People are able to see a piece of cake. This is what I feel has gone wrong with the people who are analyzing this so much. Milk is good, eggs are good, flour is good -- all those things are good.

I would also say that I've heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about three different Canadas in this agreement. Heaven forbid that I would ever offer -- I shouldn't keep talking about food -- that leader a strawberry sundae. Would he say: "I just wanted one dessert. I can't have three desserts. I can't have strawberries and ice cream and whipped cream. No, just one dessert." I mean, obviously, he would be able to see one dessert. This is a unity agreement. It is one agreement based on many different compositions. This is marriage, and what marriage would ever last if you looked at every little part of the package you were married to.

I don't want to be flip about this. Most importantly, this is an agreement about respect. It respects the differences, and it brings those differences together. It deals all people in Canada in. It deals in people in the west. It deals in Quebeckers. It deals in aboriginal peoples, along with everybody else in Canada. Equality does not equal sameness. We are all equal before the law. This agreement says that all provinces are equal, and that's what equality is. We don't have equality unless we recognize differences.

I will not reiterate all the gains that have been made in this agreement. We will have an elected Senate, and we will have an equal Senate instead of a house of 

[ Page 3626 ]

patronage. We have gained more seats in Parliament than any other province in Canada. We have a potentially very effective Senate, one that can initiate legislation, veto natural resource taxation legislation and force a joint sitting of the House of Commons and the Senate. This becomes very important, particularly in the time of a minority government, which has been known to happen.

I would particularly like to talk about the social and economic union, because to me that is what makes Canada Canada. It commits all the governments in Canada to medicare, to adequate social services, to a high-quality education, to the workers' right to organize and bargain collectively, and to protect, preserve and sustain the integrity of the environment for present and future generations. It talks about the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and it talks of a goal of full employment. It ensures that all Canadians have a reasonable standard of living.

It's very important in a country to have a strong federal core. With this agreement we are able to do that, but we also have the balance of getting rid of the duplication in forestry, mining, tourism, housing and culture. We don't need somebody sitting in Ottawa deciding on our job training. We are too different on this side of the mountains.

Finally, this agreement recognizes aboriginal justice -- justice for the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis. I heard a constituent say last week: "Look what they have." And I say yes, look what they have: look at their suicide rate; look at the alcoholism; look at the highest rate of infant mortality; look at the death rate at any given age among the aboriginal peoples. The treatment of aboriginal peoples is one of the blackest marks in Canadian history, but it is a black mark that can start to be corrected. It recognizes that they continue to have an inherent right to govern themselves, a right that existed before Canada itself existed. Self-government will be exercised in the context of existing federal and provincial powers. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall continue to apply to all governments, including aboriginal governments.

I close by pleading with you to look at the forest, not at every individual tree in that forest. Don't look at each individual tree in that forest, or you will never be able to enjoy a forest. Be brave. Don't be frightened of change, of dealing people in. That's what makes us Canadian.

N. Lortie: I'm also proud to speak in this Legislature in support of a strong and united Canada -- a strong, free and compassionate Canada that we will achieve with a yes vote on October 26. It is a good agreement, an agreement that's good for British Columbia and good for Canada. It widens the circle and allows all Canadians to participate as equals in this great country -- aboriginal Canadians, French-speaking Canadians, women, visible minorities. All Canadians will benefit by uniting our nation.

There are good economic arguments for supporting this accord. You've heard them from many members on this side of the House who have spoken before me. A strong and stable Canada builds investor confidence and translates into jobs and prosperity for British Columbians. A No vote creates uncertainty, and investments hate uncertainty. A No vote means higher unemployment, higher interest costs and a reduced standard of living. But these are just economic reasons to vote yes on October 26.

There are also political reasons: a reformed Senate, entrenchment of the social charter, justice for aboriginal people, stronger representation in Parliament for British Columbia. A No vote leaves us with the status quo: an unelected Senate dominated by central Canada; continued unjust treatment of our aboriginal people; no protection for our social programs, programs that make us unique as a country. And we will have years of constitutional debate in a crisis mode with a No vote. But these are only political reasons to vote yes.

There are also monetary reasons to cast a Yes vote in this referendum. It's good for taxpayers in British Columbia. It reduces duplication. British Columbia is given control over important areas of job training, forestry, mining and tourism. A No vote leaves us without these powers and continues costly duplication by federal and provincial governments. But these are only monetary reasons.

[7:45]

For me the best reason to vote yes -- the reason I will be voting yes -- is emotional. This is my country. I am a Canadian, and my Canada includes Quebec. We are the best country in the world. I don't need the United Nations to tell me that. I know it in my heart. My father was French-Canadian, born in Quebec. My mother was English, Scottish and Cree Indian. And I am a Canadian -- no hyphen, a proud Canadian, period. It has been suggested by the Opposition House Leader that the Premier ordered us to vote yes, to support the Yes side. He did not. My heart told me to champion the Yes cause because it's right, it's just, and I believe in Canada. The member for Okanagan East speculates that there are up to 14 government caucus members that are leaning to the No side. I don't think so. I don't think there's one. I've listened to the speeches in this chamber -- passionate, articulate pleas for unity. I challenge her to name one naysayer on the government side of the House. There isn't even a Maybe on this side. It's 100 percent -- 50 members supporting this agreement. As New Democrats we are unanimous in our support for this remarkable agreement.

In my community of Delta we have an active non-partisan Yes committee. People from all political stripes support the Yes side. Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit and New Democratic citizens and community leaders from every area of our politically polarized municipality are working together for this country. People that I've had many hard political battles with in the past and probably will have battles with in the future are coming together in a common cause, putting aside their political allegiance for Canada. I urge every member of this House to follow their example.

I beg the opposition: don't play politics with this issue. It's too important. Don't play Russian roulette with my country. We are greater than the sum of our parts, and Canada is too important to be dismantled for somebody's petty political agenda. Let's put aside our 

[ Page 3627 ]

differences and join together on October 26 for a strong and united Canada. Let's widen the circle.

F. Jackson: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the Legislature today to speak in favour of the Canadian unity agreement, to speak in favour of an amendment package that will make our constitution one of the best in the world and that will go a long way to ensuring that Canada remains Canada.

I would like to say right away that on Monday, October 19, I voted yes. I voted yes so that the people of Quebec could feel more comfortable with being Canadian. I voted yes so that aboriginal people could be more comfortable with being Canadian. I voted yes so that in the future the people of British Columbia could look east all the way to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and know that everything in between is Canada.

In one of the earlier addresses to this House, the member for Vancouver-Kensington referred to himself as a new Canadian and to how that gave him a somewhat different perspective on Canadian reality. I too am a new Canadian. I lived the first half of my life in the United Kingdom, which has no written constitution. I have sometimes wondered why in fact we needed a written constitution here. But having lived the second half of my life in this country, I realize that a written constitution which shows where Canada is and where Canada wants to be is very important.

At a rough count, there are about 16 new Canadians sitting in this Legislature. What is obvious, even though we all have that in common, is that we still manage to see the future of Canada in different ways. I wondered how the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for South Delta could look each other in the eye and disagree on where this country should go from here. On reflection, though, that is exactly as it should be, and it demonstrates one of the strengths of this country we live in. The fact that 16 of us new Canadians can take our place in this Legislature and help decide the future of this province and this country is one of the good reasons why the Canadian unity agreement should be supported.

I would like to say a few things about the Leader of the Opposition's comments earlier today on the free vote. He seemed to go to some lengths to criticize members of the government caucus for all saying yes to this agreement. He also went to some lengths to say how he was allowing his caucus to have a free vote. when the Liberal caucus was in Kamloops earlier this year, the Leader of the Opposition came close to turning himself inside out to show the people of British Columbia, through the media, that they all spoke with one voice. In fact, the best that he could get out of it was the fact that he didn't care how his caucus voted, just as long as they didn't tell anybody about it.

If one looks at the seating plan of the opposition bench, it must be obvious that the Leader of the Opposition, at the very least, did not tell the whole truth when he said he was going to give members of his caucus a free vote. What he should have added was: "You're free to vote, as long as you don't vote yes, because if you do, you will no longer hold a position in this caucus."

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. May the Chair remind you that we are discussing the merits of the Charlottetown accord, and could you confine your remarks to that?

F. Jackson: I think, hon. Speaker, that their reaction to a free vote is indeed relevant to the debate. The fact that he has used that free vote to move his people around in there makes a mockery of the idea of a free vote.

On looking at the idea that I am a new Canadian and that there are others of us, and when one looks at the seating plan of the whole Legislature here, there is something that becomes quite obvious from looking at the names and where they come from: Peace River South, probably Germany; Kamloops, probably France; Vancouver-Quilchena, probably Scotland; Nelson-Creston, probably Wales; Fort Langley-Aldergrove, very English. There are no old Canadians; we are all new Canadians.

And I think it is rather sad that people like Senator Len Marchand and Elijah Harper are oddities in their own land. The recognition of the rights of aboriginal people to govern themselves will develop in them the trust and the confidence in provincial and federal governments so that they will become more ready to become involved. They'll be ready to become involved because they will be able to see the future of Canada as having some relevance to their position within the country.

Yesterday I spent some time in the company of Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops Indian band; Nathan Matthew, who's chairman of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council; and Ovide Mercredi. Last night after a public forum at which these men were involved, 400-plus people joined hands in a friendship dance. That's something that is often done in the Chief Louis Centre on the Kamloops Indian band reserve, but I don't think it has ever been done in downtown Kamloops. I think this was an expression of people in that room last night who felt good about themselves and about each other and who had some confidence in the future of the country. And that is another good reason to support this agreement.

Much has been said about the position of Quebec as a province within this country that we call Canada and about their desire to be recognized as a distinct society. Before I came here in 1967, I knew Canada only as one country. I knew that there were ten provinces and two territories. I knew that some people spoke English and some people spoke French. I knew there were areas of the country with high proportions of ethnic people from the Ukraine, Germany or Scotland -- from wherever. I knew that new immigrants tended to settle in the more remote parts of the country and gravitate towards the more popular parts of the country. I knew these things, but I always knew it as one country.

I had to come here to learn about the differences. I had to learn about differences such as needing a separate driver's licence for British Columbia and Alberta. That's not obvious to anybody living outside this country. I had to come here to learn that I needed a separate qualification as an electrician in British Colum-

[ Page 3628 ]

bia to what I needed in Ontario. I had to come here to learn that Quebec was indeed a distinct society. I have lived with all of these differences. And we have lived with the French fact since Confederation. I believe that the French fact has contributed to Canada's greatness, and that contribution is necessary for Canada to continue to be great. That is another reason why the Canadian unity agreement should be supported.

[8:00]

Much has been said about the fact that this agreement is not perfect. It seems that everybody has managed to find some fault with it, and I suppose there are some things I could find fault with. I'm very much in favour of a triple-A Senate -- as Mr. Barrett would say: abolish, abolish, abolish. But there are some things that I'm very glad to see in there, such as our commitment to social programs and medicare and our commitment to allow the working women and men of this country to organize. Certainly not everything in this package is what I would have wanted. But is it possible that in the future I may well see what I want in there? Of course it is. But it's only possible as long as we have a country and a constitution that hold the country together. This agreement, which will amend our constitution, will provide us with a good solid base from which we can go forward into the future.

I started off by saying that I've already voted yes. I consider that I have done my bit, and I would urge members of this House and the citizens of British Columbia to go out on October 26 and do their bit for the future of our country.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to stand here and speak of my support for the Canadian unity agreement. It's a great decision that we as a people have ahead of us. After much consultation and public participation in a whole variety of ways, we've arrived at a package. Are we going to accept this opportunity to reform our political system, to reach out to others in our society and in our country, to be inclusive in our attitudes and to accept the minimal demands that other groups have indicated are necessary for them to flourish and for all of us to prosper and flourish within Canada? Are we going to look at what is best for all of Canada? Or will we each concentrate on what we think is best for ourselves -- for my province, for my region, for my particular group and for my interest group?

I hope not. I hope that we'll opt, instead, for a fair and doable package. Or will we get bound up in an endless quest for some kind of unattainable perfection? The Canadian unity agreement is a fair and reasonable package arrived at after a fair procedure and yielding a fair outcome. Who supports the agreement? All ten provinces, the two territories, the federal government, all three major political parties, the aboriginal leadership and more than nine out of every ten MLAs and MPs across this entire country, representing every political stripe. Do all of these supporters share identical views? Of course not. But were they able to find sufficient common ground on which to build an agreement? Yes, they were, because they understood compromise. They understood, in fact, that that is the essence and has always been the essence of Canada -- compromise.

No one at the table got everything they wanted. Everybody got something. Some had to give up very strongly held long-term positions. Alberta and Newfoundland, for example, didn't quite get the Senate that they wanted; on the other hand, there were others of us who accepted a Senate in some form. Ontario and Quebec had to give up their dominant position in the Senate, after each of them indicated that this was something they could not accept. But for the good of all of Canada they did accept. The federal government did not get the complete common market on economy that they were striving for. They accepted something less. None of us got everything we wanted, but the genius of compromise prevailed, and that compromise is the absolutely vital part of the whole thing -- the willingness to accept the minimal needs of others within our society. In so doing, we have built a foundation -- if you'll forgive the engineering analogy -- a solid base on which we can erect a new and improved Canada.

On the other hand, who opposes this unity agreement? And what are their reasons? It's truly a mixed bag, to say the least. We have Quebec separatists, the Jacques Parizeaus and Lucien Bouchards, who have as their open objective tearing the country apart. I can understand their opposition. We have the Reform Party, who feel that Quebec got too much and spread some concern and fear about the small gains that the aboriginal people made. We have some aboriginal people who want to reject this, who counsel rejection because they didn't get enough, and there are elements of Canada they don't wish to recognize. We have, of course, all of the anti-Mulroney forces, who mistakenly think that we're voting in a federal election. We have, unfortunately, some intolerant people who simply don't like Quebec or Quebeckers, or who don't like aboriginal people. Their thinly veiled racism is sometimes hidden behind a more acceptable reason of one of the other parties among the naysayers.

We have another group: is there everything in it that there can possibly be in it? And that includes, without detracting anything from their objectives, some feminists, who want to see more detail and who mistakenly think that this accord takes away some rights. We have disabled people, who mistakenly think the solution to their legitimate needs lies in a constitution as opposed to legislation. We have some environmentalists, who think that we should protect right down to designated species within a constitution instead of in the more proper form, in legislation.

We have perfectionists against this, because they somehow think that if we do it again and again, we'll end up with a perfect document. That would truly be a path of folly to follow, because we will never get to the end of that road.

And disappointingly, we have most of the members of the opposition in this Legislature.

But what is the No side's alternative? Well, the No alternative is no alternative. By their very nature, they are unable to cobble together anything like any kind of 

[ Page 3629 ]

accord. I accept that they have the right to criticize, and there are honourable and valid points to criticize in the Canada agreement. But along with that right to criticize, they ought to accept as well the duty to put forth credible and broadly based alternatives -- and that, they know, and I believe the public knows, is impossible by the very nature of the naysayer camp.

What could Preston Manning say to Quebec that might make it a better package for Quebec? What could Parizeau say that would cause Albertans to rush to the Yes side? What would the treaty chiefs say at an annual meeting of the Socred Party? What would Judy Rebick say to Preston Manning to sway him? And what would the Leader of the Opposition say to anybody? What would he say to members of his own party? What would he say to his national leader, Jean Chrétien? What would he say to his mentor, Clyde Wells? What would he say to the leader of the adjoining province's Liberal Party, Laurence Decore? He could say nothing to any of them, because, of course, they all disagree with his position. And anyone in his own caucus who dares disagree finds a sock shoved in their mouth and their chair moved in this Legislature.

So who is the No side, and who are they in league with? Well, they are the naysayers and the nitpickers, who disagree with each other more than they disagree with the Yes side.

What are the consequences of the outcome of this great debate and this referendum? If it's a yes, certainly we'll gain some political stability, and there will be a general calming influence. There will be a feeling of inclusion in some groups. It would certainly be welcomed by the Quebec federalists who have soldiered on in their campaign to remain part of Canada, and it will certainly provide a good basis for future negotiation.

At a meeting that my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson and I attended and addressed last night, 400 -- I thought perhaps more like 500 people; perhaps one-quarter of them aboriginal, three-quarters non-aboriginal -- had a marvellous meeting listening to Ovide Mercredi. There was a feeling of such warmth in that room, a feeling of hope.

[8:15]

The aboriginal people are at the door of our society. Are we going to open the door and welcome them in, or are we going to close the door not too politely in their face? That will certainly be a consequence of a No vote. If we vote yes, we'll be able to make some better use of political energy across this country. We can get away from the navel gazing and get on to some real work on the economy and job creation.

What if it's a No vote on Monday? There will certainly be feelings of betrayal and rejection in parts of this country, and the good work done by federalists in Quebec and by moderate aboriginal leadership will be lost. We'll be condemned to stay a little longer in the constitutional swamp, accomplishing nothing.

There will be a risk of the separation of Quebec. I don't know what the magnitude of that risk is, but I fear that there will be a sovereignty referendum in short order in Quebec should this accord fail, and I fear the results of that referendum. Once Humpty Dumpty has fallen, it's tough to put him back together. There will be some financial impacts. There will be a little worry in international financial markets. We may recover from that. There may be a modest downside risk on that. We'll be stuck with the status quo -- that's for sure -- with B.C. greatly underrepresented in the House and condemned to gain only two seats in the next decade rather than seven seats in the next five or six years. We'll be stuck with the patronage-laden Senate, which accomplishes nothing except spending good Canadian taxpayers' dollars. We'll certainly have aboriginal frustration, and that may lead to them asserting their rights in ways that are less constructive than at the negotiating table.

I would say to the members opposite: think again before you vote. Where is the better, widely supported agreement? Are you willing to risk the consequences of a No vote? How will you feel a year from now if a sovereignty referendum has succeeded in Quebec? Will you wish that you could back up the calendar and cast your vote again? I believe that each of you, in both opposition parties, if you look hard and think long, will find in your heart of hearts all the reasons you need to say yes to Canada. I know how I'll vote, and I know why. I'll say yes to the Charlottetown accord because it's a fair and good compromise and because it is a solid foundation on which to build a new and even better Canada.

F. Randall: Many members have discussed various aspects of the unity agreement in various ways. I want to take a moment to discuss the Canadian unity agreement from the perspective of my past work in the labour movement here in British Columbia in order to ensure that British Columbians, both those who live in my riding and those who live elsewhere but who may be listening, clearly understand why I'm voting yes on October 26.

In the past I have been part of a negotiating team whose task was, through the collective bargaining process, to improve the lives of men and women who were represented by the union. We always went to the negotiating table with a list of objectives. We always understood from the very beginning that we would not be able to get everything we wanted. While there were days when we wished that things had gone much better, that we had gotten a little more for our members, we took comfort in the knowledge that no negotiating team, no matter how skilled they might be, ever gets everything they want. It's a matter of getting the best agreement you can, based on the realities of the time. This understanding of the give-and-take reality of everyday life has helped many thousands of British Columbian workers to appreciate just how remarkable a document the unity agreement really is and to commit their support to the Yes campaign.

As a Canadian, I am proud that after many, many years of constitutional wrangling, the ten Premiers, the federal government, two territorial governments and the four key national aboriginal organizations could put aside their own agendas to come together to move this country forward by agreeing to a document that makes everyone's life a little better.

[ Page 3630 ]

As an experienced negotiator, however, I am disappointed by the way the Noes have attacked this agreement, suggesting that they could have done better, that everyone could have had everything they wanted and that nobody would have had to compromise on anything. Nothing could be further from the truth, and no suggestion could be more irresponsible. Anyone who's ever been anywhere near a negotiation process knows that it doesn't matter what happens as far as bargaining goes; whether you're negotiating for a mining operation, a mill or a constitution, the process must always come down to the matter of give and take. If it doesn't, then you're not solving problems; you're creating them.

That kind of problem only encourages Canadians to believe that the purpose of the constitution is to divide us into winners and losers, and that the strength of our support for it should be determined solely by how many of our own agenda items are found in it. The bargaining process is a give-and-take process. Do you get everything you want from your spouse, or is there some give and take? It's a small miracle that all parties in these talks were unanimous. A constitution is meant to keep our nation together by helping us define who we are, by outlining those things we believe in and are committed to as Canadians, and most of all, in a country as vast and diverse as Canada, by reminding us of the virtues of tolerance, understanding and compromise in an effort to do what's best for the country as a whole.

The unity agreement, in large part, resolves that problem by ensuring that medicare and other social programs that make Canada are protected through a new social charter. Future governments of all political stripes are now committed to ensuring that our citizens are provided with the basic necessities of life: adequate housing, food and education. What could possibly say more about who we are as a people than expressing that in our constitution?

Now I understand why Preston Manning and the Reform Party object to these provisions being included in the constitution. After all, as a right-wing party they've made it very clear that they don't support programs like medicare and old age security. They've been very up-front about that. They've been equally clear that if they ever become a government, they'll cut spending by 15 percent right across the board, no exceptions. Some are making statements that we cannot afford to have assurances in the unity agreement protecting items of health care, education, housing, food, and the right to organize and bargain for all Canadians. I say we cannot afford to not afford them. As disturbing as these comments are for everyone, they remind us just how important this particular advance really is to us and our children, for there may come a day -- I can't imagine it, but who knows -- when people who share this narrow view of rights may occupy the halls the power. If that day should ever come, then Canadians everywhere will once again raise a glass to celebrate this agreement and those who had the vision to write it.

In the final days of this debate I want to encourage people to look past what isn't in this agreement and focus on what is. It offers a tremendous opportunity to move this nation forward and to build for the better days that so clearly lie ahead. On October 26 I'll be voting yes, and I urge you to do the same.

S. O'Neill: I want to tell you that it's both a pleasure and a privilege for me to speak during this historic debate. I want to express my very great pride at standing here in this House this evening, and at saying yes to Canada on October 26. I want to begin my comments by expressing my gratitude to the members of both Saanich North and the Islands and Vancouver-Quilchena for their great concern that I may have been bullied into voting yes by some cold and unfeeling leader more interested in following the polls than leading them. But I want to assure them that that is not how I came to my decision.

Many speakers over the last three days have very eloquently expressed their feelings on the Canadian unity agreement. I'm going to speak very briefly tonight because most of the issues that I wanted to raise have already been touched on.

I would like to say just a word or two about the uncomfortable position that I know every Canadian is in during these last few days of this debate. They have been handed a very complex document. They've been asked to make a decision on how they will be governed in the future, based on a document that has produced a wide variety of opinions as to its meaning and impact. Everyone seems to have their own agenda, and it's hard to tell which is fact and which is fancy. I have a great deal of sympathy for the distress that people are going through right now in trying to make that decision, but I want them to know that it will be well worth the effort.

Contrary to popular myth, constitutions do serve a higher purpose than simply providing work for lawyers and interest group lobbyists. While constitutions deal with many other issues, their importance rests on their expression of who we are as a people and of the rights and responsibilities of both our governments and our citizens. In doing so, they ensure that the progress made by past generations is neither forgotten nor ignored.

On this score, I'm most impressed by the Canadian unity agreement. This document recognizes and strengthens, through both the social charter and the Canada clause, the great progress that this nation has made on three critically important social fronts. First, it strengthens our commitment to each and every Canadian through the addition of the social charter. Second, it recognizes the rights of Canadian workers to organize and bargain collectively. Third and finally, it begins the process to correct a longstanding injustice by providing a mechanism for aboriginal self-government.

Our leaders haven't always agreed on these issues. We can all remember the very ugly, petty scenes that typified the constitutional debate when that great national healer, Pierre Trudeau, chaired the meetings. So as a Canadian, I feel a deep sense of pride in knowing that in the interests of nation building, all ten Premiers, the federal government, two territorial governments and the four key national aboriginal organizations were able to put aside their own biases and move 

[ Page 3631 ]

this country forward. When so many countries around the world can't come to terms with the simplest of dilemmas, Canadians are still making great strides to build a stronger and even more generous nation. We are very fortunate indeed, when we look around the world, that we are continuing to talk and not to shoot.

In the final days of this debate, I want to encourage people to look at this debate wholeheartedly and to look at the whole thing. It offers a tremendous opportunity to move this nation forward and to build for better days. I will be voting yes with pride on October 26, and I urge all Canadians to do the same.

[8:30]

B. Simpson: I am honoured to be able to participate in this debate and give the closing speech on this historic event. I have listened with great interest to the members of the opposition. One thing that is apparent with all these members is that they feel that this debate, which is now raging across Canada, is solely a domestic affair, and it has nothing to do with what's going on in the world. The fact is we do not control our economic destiny.

Our national debt is $350 billion, and this does not take into consideration the debt of the various provinces. We are one of the world's most heavily indebted countries. One third of our national debt is held by offshore interests. We are vulnerable to the demands of the Japanese, Germans, Americans, their pension funds and their insurance companies. For generations our standard of living has been financed by foreigners. Our economy in Canada is in shambles. The average Canadian today has less economic security than ever before. There are few hopes for improvement in our standard of living.

One just has to look around in British Columbia -- Cassiar Asbestos, Westar, the retail sector. Some of the most prominent stores across Canada have folded. During the last ten years banks and trust companies have folded. Real estate giants like Olympia and York have folded. In my own riding of Vancouver-Fraserview I found out the other day that West Coast Plywood has closed its doors, with 400 unemployed.

As we enter the last decade of this century it seems that nothing is going right. We have 1.5 million unemployed in Canada. Brian Neysmith, president of Canadian Bond Rating Service, predicted that the 1990s would be a decade of declining living standards. British Columbia, and indeed all Canadians, have reason to feel poorer: they are. The Economic Council of Canada stated that in 1990 the average hourly real wage was 2.1 percent lower than in 1976. Before the referendum debate Canadians experienced more than a decade of no-growth income, the first time since the Depression in the thirties. We are now weakening the economy even further with this crippling debate that has diverted our attention from the economy.

What are the effects of the debate so far? The horrific power wielded by the foreign creditors can be seen by the vast fluctuations of the Canadian dollar. The free fall of the dollar shows that this is not purely a domestic affair. The effect of the falling dollar has resulted in higher interest rates. I say to those on the No side: you explain to your constituents -- if you win this event on Monday -- why they are paying two to three points more on their mortgages and consumer loans than if the Yes side had won.

In the province of British Columbia we borrow close to $5 billion a year from lending institutions. What do those lending institutions have to say about the debate that is now raging across our beloved country? Adam Greshin, vice-president of international bonds at Scudder Stevens and Clark in Boston, stated: "It is clear by now, and it should be clear to Canadians, that global investors are tired of political uncertainty and federations falling apart." And: "More and more, investors will throw in the towel if they cannot be assured the uncertainty will end." Ben Matthews of Dewey Square Investors in Boston: "...if a No vote leads to stabilization and a clear future for Canada, then economic indicators will return to normal. But if it just leads to more negotiations and uncertainty, then there's going to be more turmoil and that will make investors increasingly nervous."

If the Leader of the Opposition, together with his friend Mr. Parizeau, has his way, the No will prevail on Monday. Higher interest rates will result and the standard of living of all British Columbians and Canadians across the land will go down. Even at this point, in the last few days, interest rates have increased in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Standard and Poor's just this week downgraded Canada's credit rating on foreign currency debt. This down-rating will continue if the Leader of the Opposition has his way on Monday.

Our ability to pay our massive debt is declining as our productivity decreases. Michael Porter in his book, Canada at the Crossroads: the Reality of a New Competitive Environment, pointed out that since the early seventies Canada has ranked near the bottom of all major countries in productivity growth. Judith Maxwell, who spoke recently at the Premiers' conference at Lester Pearson College and is former chairperson of the Economic Council of Canada, contends that the deterioration in productivity growth in the past two decades explains a lot of the political and social tensions that we are now experiencing in Canada.

If the Leader of the Opposition and his friend Mr. Parizeau have their way, those tensions will continue. Mr. Parizeau will have his independent Quebec, and the Leader of the Opposition will have a new Canada with Third World status. In fact, even as I'm speaking we are close to Third World status in Canada as it is. With regard to the amount of R and D spent by the Canadian government, we are placed in between Mexico and India.

Thomas D'Aquino, president of the Business Council on National Issues, states that the country's economic problems are more urgent than the constitution. He, together with nearly every business leader in the country, is on the Yes side. To the Leader of the Opposition I say: can they all be wrong?

What is the future if the No side prevails? This morning on national TV, Jacques Parizeau said that a No vote in Quebec is a Yes vote for Jacques Parizeau and an independent Quebec. Matthew Barrett, chief executive 

[ Page 3632 ]

officer of the Bank of Montreal: "A No vote would inevitably lead to the breakup of the country. The breakup of Canada would be catastrophic emotionally, politically and economically." Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to risk that in the next provincial election Mr. Parizeau will defeat Mr. Bourassa, the result being the possible breakup of Canada?

We on the Yes side are not prepared to risk the destruction of this great country. The Leader of the Opposition is so consumed with his self-importance that he is prepared to split his own party and contribute to the unraveling of the Canadian constitution, which we worked so hard during the last 125 years to preserve. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to contribute to a significant drop in the standard of living of all British Columbians.

The Conference Board of Canada stated:

"Because of interest rates going up and the dollar going down and uncertainty about the constitutional resolution, consumer confidence is almost certainly down.

"We are still waiting for the real pickup in consumer spending, and that will only happen when the constitutional uncertainty is behind us and unemployment prospects improve."

The Retail Council of Canada said: "The constitutional issue is having and -- depending on the vote on this Monday -- will continue to have, substantial overhang on consumer confidence." This organization represents 6,000 medium-sized and independent retail merchants. Has the Leader of the Opposition no concern for these businesses, the families that run them, their employees and the children who are dependent on those businesses?

In conclusion, the Charlottetown accord is supported by all major parties in Parliament, all ten provincial governments, the territorial leaders, the majority of the aboriginal leadership, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the vast majority of business leadership in Canada, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress. I say to the hon. Speaker: can all these individuals and organizations be wrong?

Has the distinguished member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who, unlike the majority of the other members of the Liberal opposition, had the courage of his convictions to stand up and be counted on the Yes side, pointed out that when the vote was taken in the House of Commons, the results were 233 in favour and 12 opposed? In the Senate, when the vote was taken, it was 58 in favour and 2 opposed; in the Northwest Territories Legislature, 19 in favour and zero opposed; in Alberta, 83 members of the Legislature -- unanimously endorsed by all parties; in Quebec, 85 in favour and 30 opposed. Added together, of those who have voted in the legislatures and the Parliament of Canada so far, the vote is 478 in favour and 44 opposed. A ratio of 10 to 1 voted yes.

Yesterday I had the honour of introducing my son to this House. Tomorrow I'll be going home, and I will try to explain to him what we've accomplished in the last few days. I will be able to say that we in the New Democratic Party were on the side of a debate that wanted a prosperous and united Canada -- for him, for his children and for future generations of Canadians.

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, apologies to my colleague, who I think thought he was the last speaker. I get to do the wrap-up in terms of moving the final motion to adjourn. But before I do that, I would just like to reflect a little bit on what has been said in the last few days in this Legislature and in the last few weeks in this great province of British Columbia.

I won't go over all the great words and great considerations and emotions, because, quite frankly, it has all been said. I guess as we leave this chamber tonight we leave it in the hands of British Columbians in terms of what they want to do with their future and their viewpoint on Canada. It has been, to say the least, interesting -- confrontational at times, highly emotional, highly charged. But I think all of us have recognized the great opportunity for British Columbians and for Canadians to participate in such a debate and to participate in shaping the future of our country. Whether we agree or disagree, we've all had the opportunity to read the document. All Canadians have had the opportunity over the last number of months, through various forums, to discuss, to look at the future, to see where they want to go. And the people will now decide.

Not just for tonight as we conclude, I want to say to my constituents, who have come to me through various ways, in meetings.... Many of them were initially reacting to an agreement that they thought was not positive for Canada, but upon reflection, upon taking time to think, upon a rational, intelligent approach to the issues that they saw before them, many of them -- and I hope more in the next few days -- came to the conclusion that in the history of this country it has been difficult to keep this country together. There is honour in compromise. All those who went to the table to put the Charlottetown agreement together went with issues they felt they had to win, but all came away knowing they had to give up something for the future of this great country. That is what Canadians have to think about on Monday.

I've heard many people over the last few days and weeks reminiscing about the history of this country, about Quebec and about their feelings about it. Being a bit of a historian myself, sometimes I thought that we were fighting the Plains of Abraham battle all over again. I think all Canadians agree that it's time to end that war, and it's time to forget the Plains of Abraham. This country has an incredible future. We have achieved some consensus and some sense of future with this agreement. It's time to put down the battle lines and stop looking for one or two things in terms of perfection, and it's time to recognize that historically this country has been difficult to keep together. We have the opportunity on Monday for sober reflection, to recognize that a lot of people, not just within Canada but outside Canada, are counting on us. We are an incredible example to others around the world. Where else could we have the debate that we have had in this country in the last few weeks? It's a symbol to the rest of the world.

[ Page 3633 ]

[8:45]

Hon. Speaker, we'll leave it there. But on behalf of British Columbians and Canadians and those who are going to make an important decision on Monday.... Think about the future and the incredible potential. This is just an amendment to the constitution. It is a living document. There will be other great Canadian citizens who will participate in the future of this country. On Monday let's think of what we've gone through, what we can achieve as a unified country and vote yes on behalf of this great country.

I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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