1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, No. 16

[ Page 3513 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

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

Oral Questions

AIRLINE MERGER EFFECT ON JOBS

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

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously the merger of two Canadian airlines gives cause for concern both in economic terms in British Columbia and in terms of service across the west in particular. We're very fond -- I think all members of the House are -- of Canadian Airlines, which has been a western-based airline company with a particular focus and the majority of jobs here in British Columbia.

We have been extremely active on this issue, including travelling with the minister of finance from Alberta and representatives from the federal government and the Ontario government some months ago on the question of a merger, where a request was made for millions of dollars of tax money to try to assist the takeover of Canadian Airlines by an American airline. Our job, as the British Columbia government, is to do the best we can to protect the jobs and paycheques of British Columbians regardless of the outcome of merger or private sector deliberations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3514 ]

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

CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM

QUESTION FOR B.C.

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

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

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

BCGEU AGREEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2:15]

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

[ Page 3515 ]

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

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

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

MINISTERIAL ASSISTANT TO

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

AND HIGHWAYS

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

I call adjourned debate on the motion that we've been debating. I believe it was the member for Abbotsford.

Motion without Notice

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

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

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

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

[ Page 3516 ]

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

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

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

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

[2:30]

I am privileged to be one of a large family with ten children. We were a close-knit family, a family where responsibilities and privileges were shared and enjoyed. I, along with my brothers and sisters, will always respect our parents. There were no special privileges for anyone in particular but equal opportunity for all of us. We will always remain a happy, close-knit family because justice was the cornerstone in our upbringing.

It would appear that those who sat around the table in an attempt to persuade Premier Bourassa to become a full participant in Confederation either have not recognized or have perhaps lost sight of that real family-building not only as a family but also as a nation.

The Premier stated in his address yesterday that the self-government proposed for natives is not going to obstruct other levels of government. How can the Premier be so sure of this since the parameters of self-government have not been established within the accord? Are the natives going to have their own laws and courts? What about the boundaries? The natives along with the Department of Native Affairs have for years and years ignored municipal bylaws as well as provincial regulations.

And to prove this, in our own community many housing developments have been allowed on floodplain lands where the community plans clearly state.... In fact, the aspirations of the B.C. Land Commission together with our provincial government have suggested that floodplain lands should be preserved for farming purposes. There are no questions asked about the septic tank problems that could occur, while a white man or a farmer next door is simply refused an application for a building permit on similar adjacent land.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3517 ]

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

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

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

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

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

We have in British Columbia the majority -- not all, but the majority -- of people who wish to vote no on October 26. They wish to vote no because they feel profoundly that Quebec got too much in this constitutional accord. If you go to Quebec and you see a majority of people who want to vote no in Quebec, it's because they feel that Quebec did not get enough. So we have disparate views about the nature of the country, and this accord is an attempt -- a fragile attempt -- to bridge those dramatically different views of the way in which people frame their country, the way in which people frame their world.

Trying to bridge these differences is extremely difficult. In fact, some would say that this country is ungovernable. It is extremely difficult to govern because of its vastness, its differences and its beliefs.

For the first time in 120 years of Canadian history, all provincial governments, all national political parties, all of the major union groups in the country -- the central labour organization, the central business organizations -- agree that this compromise, this attempt to bridge those disparate views, is our last chance, potentially, to try to paper over, to patch together, to keep this disparate and vast land together.

I ask all those who are contemplating voting no to ask themselves that if this compromise is not accepted, is not acceptable, then what will be? What will be acceptable, given the views of British Columbians who want to vote no because of Quebec, and given the views of those in Quebec who want to vote no because of the share that they receive in this accord? What compromise will be acceptable if this is not accepted?

Will the Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of the Social Credit Party and the Reform Party, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Bill Vander Zalm and the separatists in Quebec decide on a common compromise to bridge the differences in this country? I suspect they will not. They cannot, hon. Speaker, because their reasons for voting no are fundamentally different. The No forces represent entirely different views about the nature of this country. They are incapable of bridging together, of compromising and of achieving a consensus to move on and forward.

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

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

[ Page 3518 ]

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

[2:45]

Therein also lies the problem. In a complex and negotiated settlement, to bridge the disparate views that exist in this country there are always things with which you do not agree. Clearly there are elements in the accord which everybody can point to that they don't like. That is the nature of a compromise; that is the nature of Canada's existence. It's easier to vote no, because you can always find something that you don't like. But surely Canada, throughout its history, has risen above that.

It has said yes, we don't like some things that are going on in this province or that province, we don't like some things about the constitution, we don't like some things about the accord; but Canada is more important than individual concerns about specific elements of a compromise package.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there will be short-term consequences; there will be medium-term consequences; and depending on how the country unfolds over time, there will be other consequences.

[ Page 3519 ]

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

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

The third reason why I recommend that people vote yes on October 26 is that it is a good deal for British Columbia. I want to go into just a few of the specifics in this accord. First, we are better off in terms of representation by population if the accord passes than if the accord fails. For some reason there's been a lot of misinformation about this. A lot of people have been arguing that we've been shortchanged on the accord with respect to representation by population.

The reality is that if the accord fails, British Columbia receives two more Members of Parliament by the year 2002, and if it passes, we receive seven more Members of Parliament by the year 1997. We are better off in terms of representation by population if this accord passes, in spite of the misinformation that has been cast on this subject. I urge all Canadians and British Columbians to read the accord, because representation by population is respected. It is enhanced by the accord; it is not diminished.

Secondly, we will have an elected, equal and effective Senate. That has been diminished by some people. That is a significant gain. Ontario and Quebec gave up 18 senators. For the first time in Canadian history Quebec agreed to an institution that recognizes that all provinces are equal. And they are elected. Some people say it's not effective enough, but once you elect people, once they have political legitimacy, once they are equal, I suggest to you that they will be powerful, and no Parliament of Canada will be able to turn its back on an elected Senate with equal representation from each province.

And appointments like the governor of the Bank of Canada -- and provinces like British Columbia have been shortchanged by the Bank of Canada's high interest-rate policy -- will have to be confirmed by the Senate with equal representation in every province. On questions like resource taxation in the federal House, British Columbia and the provinces have a real say on federal matters that impede our jurisdiction. This is a good deal when it comes to an equal and effective Senate.

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

In

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

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

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

So I've been listening hard to the arguments of my constituents who are inclined to vote against this accord, and I've been trying to understand what they mean when they tell me that it just isn't fair.

Is it fair that Quebec should be guaranteed 25 percent of the seats of the House of Commons? My answer is very clearly yes, because I also believe it is fair that P.E.I. should continue to be guaranteed a disproportionate representation in Parliament. I believe that P.E.I., with a population of approximately 130,000 people -- half the population of my municipality of Surrey -- should have four members in the House of Commons and six Senators, which adds up to ten federal members. This means that there will be ten federal members for every 130,000 people in P.E.I.,

whereas in Surrey there is one federal member for every 130,000 people. You would think that everyone in my home municipality would be screaming with outrage that one vote in P.E.I. is worth ten times a vote in Surrey. But Canadians have not been in the habit of thinking of fairness in terms of an arithmetical formula. No one has objected to the radical inequality between Surrey voters and P.E.I. voters. They understand that there are good reasons for this historical compromise.

[3:00]

[ Page 3520 ]

Some people are trying to argue that fairness is like an equal sign, and they have been demanding exact equivalents on both sides of the equation. But this has never been true in Canada; we have never been able to apply automatic mathematical principles to our political life. Figuring out what's fair in a country so vast and varied as Canada has always been complicated and difficult. Think about this: if we applied an equal sign to the question of rural representation and demanded exact equivalents in votes, then the whole of rural Saskatchewan might have but a single member.

We all know that that's not fair, and we just don't do it. We have always guaranteed that Canadians who live outside urban areas will have representatives who know something about their community, who live in the region and who are able to articulate their interests. That means a rural vote is worth more than an urban vote, but nobody is objecting to this form of inequality in our system. We acknowledge that the interest of rural residents can't be represented fairly unless our electoral boundaries are drawn according to a non-mathematical principle.

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

I suggest that when the activity is nation-building, if you win, so do I; and conversely, if you lose, so do I.

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

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

The irony -- no, the tragedy -- of our situation is that this accord is the result of the most massive public consultation process ever undertaken in our country. As a member of the constitution committee of this House, I travelled throughout the province from town to town listening to the ideas, opinions and arguments of British Columbians who expressed passionate concerns for the future of Canada. Every member of that committee, Liberals and Social Crediters included, was involved in drafting the final report that expressed a consensus drawn from every corner of this province.

Our government leaders used that report as the basis of their negotiations. They were successful in achieving five of the six objectives set by British Columbians in the public consultation process. Yet hon. members opposite now renege on that commitment, disowning the very settlement that they themselves helped negotiate. It is this political opportunism that threatens to destroy the legitimacy of the way we govern ourselves. Democratic governments depend on trust and confidence and the legitimacy of our political process and public officials.

Imagine the audacity of those politicians who demean the Charlottetown accord on the grounds that it was negotiated by politicians! Have I missed something? Are they not politicians or, in some cases, would-be politicians or, in other cases, former politicians turned broadcasters?

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3521 ]

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

You know, this worries me, because it represents a trend in Canadian politics, a trend towards trashing agreements, disowning positions taken, abandoning commitments. Members of the Liberal and Social Credit caucuses committed themselves to common ground on the constitution, endorsed our legislative consensus and then threw it to the winds to curry favour with the naysayers. I want to know what's happened to honour and good faith. Are you prepared to deny those as well? Because if that's the future, we are in deep trouble.

If the future is one in which the process can be disowned at any time, which of us can possibly ask electors to put trust in us? After months of public consultation and consensus-building, at what time did the members of the opposition decide to sign off, to say: "This isn't my constitution"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3:15]

For me and for many women, there's another dichotomy that we're dealing with. I am a strong supporter of women's equality, as all my colleagues on this side are. I am a proud feminist. I have worked and organized for women's equality, and I have been a member of NAC, as I know a number of other people on this side have been. Therefore when I heard Judy Rebick and NAC come out against this accord, I paid attention, as I know a whole lot of women did. I paid careful attention to their arguments.

Let's face it: women all across this country and in most places in the world have good reason to be cautious and skeptical, because women have not always had a good deal. The fight for equality in this country has been a long and difficult one, and quite frankly, we've just begun.

[ Page 3522 ]

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

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

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

The whole issue of a hierarchy of rights came out of a legal opinion obtained by NAC -- the hierarchy of rights that's supposed to be in this agreement in the Canada clause. As well, there's an argument that says that women's rights under the Charter are weakened by this agreement. I want to look at that, and I want to make the point, first, that the Canada clause is an interpretative clause that's there to give direction, to give guidance to the courts when they interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when they interpret the constitution. It does not override the Charter.

It does not give rights or take rights away. I think it's very clear that it reinforces the equality rights that women have gained in the taking of

section 28 in the constitution, which we all remember in the early eighties. In my opinion it adds to that; it enhances it. What the Canada clause does is require that for all aspects of the constitution, including the Charter, when interpreted, the courts take heed and recognize the fundamental commitment to equality that we have had in this country since 1982 through our constitution, that equality between women and men.

It states quite clearly in that Canada clause that Canadians are committed to the equality of female and male persons. I think that's very clear. I don't see that there's any valid argument to the opposite that can say that women's equality will somehow be damaged by this accord. It states very clearly that we want equality among all persons. It states again that there is a commitment to equality between women and men in this country.

I don't see any ambiguity, and I know that an overwhelming number of constitutional lawyers who have looked at this, including the deans of the two law faculties in this province, also see no ambiguity. They see it very clearly as, if anything, reinforcing women's equality under the Charter and the constitution.

On the No side -- and again a concern -- is the argument that this deal, this unity agreement, somehow threatens national social programs, and therefore things like a national child care program can't come about. Yes, this agreement does allow provinces to opt out of federal programs. That's very clear. And there was a time some years ago when I would have been very concerned about that. I used to feel that somehow the federal government was the protector of our social programs in this country. I don't feel that anymore.

I think there are some very good arguments, if you look at the history over the past ten years.... If you look at the cuts in transfer payments for health care and education, I don't, quite frankly, think you can argue that anymore. The provinces are as likely -- perhaps more likely -- to bring in those social programs.

This agreement does allow for opting out of national programs that come with funding. Let's have a look at the political reality. No province is going to opt out of a good, solid national program that has agreement across this country without putting something else in its place, which there is provision to do under this charter.

It's not going to simply say: "Take your money and go home; we don't want your social program." I think the political reality and the way that this unity agreement works makes it clear that provinces can opt out; but there is room for a province to have instead a more relevant program that works better for the differences within that province and to receive the funding if it meets those national objectives. I don't find that threatening at all.

Finally, what we have to be very careful of in this debate.... I've found this with some people I've talked to in my constituency. We have to be very clear not to mix up a constitution with government policies and programs. They are two different things. A constitution is a statement about who we are; it gives governments and people rights and powers; and it limits the power of government. That's what a constitution is in very simple terms. We cannot confuse that with government programs and policies.

Quite honestly, I would say that if we want a national child care program in this country, the way we can get it is to elect a government at the federal level that will bring in a national child care program. We have had 125 years of governments that have had the opportunity to bring in child care programs. We had the promise of a child care program across this country; we still don't have one. Therefore, for all of those reasons, I don't find this part of the constitution and the argument against it as something very threatening at all.

In fact, for the provinces to have the ability to tailor social programs to meet their own local needs would probably be much more effective.

[ Page 3523 ]

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

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

The third area I want to touch on to do with women is the argument and the very valid and legitimate concern that the Charlottetown unity agreement threatens the equality rights of native women. Anybody who understands the position of women in this country understands that most, if not all, women operate under a different set of rules than our sons, husbands and male friends do. But native women, we must be very clear, operate under what is called in feminist terms "double oppression." They are not only women, but they are native, and they therefore have two big barriers to leap across.

It's very appropriate that the issue has been raised, and I'm glad that it has been looked at very carefully, because I think we have to be very careful that our aboriginal sisters are not left out and are not dealt a hand that makes them less able to work for equality rights.

It's important to note that in the original Charter,

section 28 and

section 15 both protect the equality of women and men, and those are not touched. In fact, they are reinforced in the Canada clause in this latest agreement, the unity accord. Yes, the legal text of the Charter is amended in terms of aboriginal self-government.

Section 25 is amended to provide that the guarantee of Charter rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from aboriginal treaty or other rights pertaining to aboriginal peoples, including those relating to the exercise or protection of their languages, culture or tradition.

I understand some people feel that that protection for aboriginal governments and aboriginal peoples would then mean that women's rights, equality rights, are subject to that. I don't believe that's true. That clause gives some protection to aboriginal governments. Look at that clause in the context of the equality section,

section 28 of the Charter, which is how you have to read it. It clearly states in

section 28 that notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. In addition to that, the legal text of this agreement says that the Charter applies to all legislative bodies and governments of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of their respective legislative bodies. It seems to me that that's very clear: the Charter applies to aboriginal governments as well.

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

So those are some of the primary arguments. I have looked at them carefully, and I believe that women are adequately protected. In fact, women gain under this accord for the reasons that I've already outlined. But there are also some other reasons that women need to look carefully at this agreement. The most obvious reason, in my view, is the entrenching, for the first time ever in the history of this country, of some social objectives, some social goals.

We have this time the entrenchment of universal health care as something that Canadians cherish and want to strive for, and the courts will be instructed through that to interpret things with the principle in mind that we are committed to universal health care and the five principles of it. Women obviously have a vested interest in that. It's women who care for children; it's women who are disproportionately poor. Therefore I think it's fair to argue that the protection of that health care is something that women can look to as a very good reason to support this agreement.

[3:30]

Similarly, there is a statement about social services, about adequate housing, about adequate food. I find it tragic that in 1992 I still deal regularly in my constituency, which is not a poor one, in one of the wealthiest provinces in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with women who are living with two or three children in a hotel room and are not able to adequately clothe or feed their children. This isn't going to resolve that. I know that; everybody knows that.

But for the first time, we're putting in writing, we're entrenching in our charter, the fact that it is not acceptable to have those kinds of situations for men, women or children in this country. All those single mothers, who are a huge chunk of the people who depend on social services, can look at this charter, I think, and support it with confidence because there is a statement in there. It's not a big step, but it's a step in the right direction, and one that's long overdue.

Similarly, access to education. One of the things that keeps women back is lack of access to education. We see a move now at the local level to start to integrate the opposing and contradictory roles that women have of career and caring for children. Make no mistake, women are still the primary caregivers for the children in this province and in this country. We see that integration beginning to happen.

I think a statement that everyone should have reasonable access to post-secondary education in this country is a powerful argument to continue that trend and to make sure it continues to go in that direction, and that in some provinces where women's issues are on the agenda in the same way as they are in this province, women don't lose ground. So I think that's another important gain for women.

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

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

[ Page 3524 ]

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

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

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

But those 50 over there are extraordinary. It's too much to believe. They have forsaken their leadership responsibilities. You wear your heart on your sleeve and a deception on your lapel. Why don't the 14 of them who are voting no stand up and be counted? Why don't they have the courage of their convictions? Why hide behind unimposing buttons and ineffectual leadership? If the Yes vote fails, the people of B.C. will know that my caucus struggled with the problem and was upfront and forthright. My leader had the courage to allow discussion and differences of opinion.

Not content with leading the Yes forces in confusion, you give comfort to the opposing opinion by sending out your lieutenant to prove the interdependence of Canadian provincial politics, by having your Constitutional Affairs minister single-handedly create more havoc for his allies than all of the PQ together. There are those who contend that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is more effective in Quesnel for the No forces than the Red Baron in World War I if he had shot down the entire German air force.

The Constitutional Affairs minister can take pride in the fact that he's the only British Columbian to vote with his mouth 3,000 miles away and perhaps sink the Quebec government. With friends and leaders like that, who needs opponents?

There have been questions about the preoccupation in the B.C. debate with the number of seats in Ottawa. I can only assume that the NDP's concern arises from the fact that since they never had the ability to appoint Senators, they want to expand the Commons so they can continue to dump tired, failed and bingo-playing retread provincial members into that place. If the public woke up to the fact that sending old warhorses for a rump movement like the NDP is not the path to power in Ottawa....

Perhaps the people of B.C. will be better served by learning from Quebec politics and voting consistently en masse for a winning national party. They might get some political clout in the nation's capital. Or could it be that the NDP opposite are so pessimistic of their chances of survival here that they want to create enough seats -- 51 -- so that they can all go back east where they can warm seats, collect pensions and do nothing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3525 ]

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

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

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

For my part, I'm proud to be in the Liberal opposition. I fought very hard, as others did, so that I could speak here today on the Yes side. You'll notice I'm fairly close to the door, but it was well worth fighting for. I also wish to commend my fellow Liberals -- that they're all in unison and that we all, in fact, can speak our own way on this particular issue. It's part of our own Liberal constitution that we should do that. I only wish that some of the members on the other side would have the same freedom also.

I know, when I look at the full membership on the other side, that there are those who would like to express a No position. I feel that from the history of many of the members as I know them. I feel that they should have the right, as we have, to express their own opinions, and I think that's what our constituents -- all of our constituents -- want us to do. However, apart from that criticism, I'm very glad you are supporting the Yes side.

There are three basic components to any constitution of a country. Essentially, there's the technical component, dealing with the ideal principles. The question is: how close is the constitution to the ideal? There are the legal aspects -- how well will the constitution stand up in the courts? Then there's the political side, and that's been most of the emphasis during the last month. It's unfortunate that this side has gone off the rails to some extent. I think we're all responsible for that.

On the NDP side, I noticed that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, as good as he is on most things, almost lost us Quebec on one occasion in Quesnel. I think it's only more recently that the Premier has taken on the full responsibility of getting out there and meeting the people, and I hope he does that in the next few days.

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

[3:45]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3526 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Speaker, I've had to collect my thoughts in just a few minutes, because I expected to speak tomorrow night or perhaps on Friday, so I will speak extemporaneously and from the heart. Like many of the members of this House, I was not born in this country. My family chose to immigrate to Canada for reasons of opportunity, for political freedom, for the opportunity for my father to pursue a scientific career in an attempt to discover the causes of mental illness and mental retardation, to pursue excellence in medicine.

My feelings about this country are frequently passionate, because like many of the people who become new citizens now, I've been through that experience, and I know what it is to have wanted to be a Canadian for many years before I was allowed to become one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'What share of this is mine?' but also: 'What can we do together?'"

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

[ Page 3527 ]

although his words were slightly different, said essentially the same thing: it's time for Canadians and for our country to begin to ask ourselves how it can be that in the most privileged country in the world, we are tearing ourselves apart. How can we not begin to ask what we can do for our country, rather than what individual, precise, jealous notion we can satisfy for ourselves from our country at this particular moment?

I think the member for Vancouver-Kensington, although I had to leave as he began his remarks yesterday, was alluding to the same phenomenon: how bizarre, or, as I think Tom Berger put it, what crazed constitutional groupies we must seem to people in other countries contemplating the rancour over minor matters!

Hon. Speaker, through you to the people of Vancouver-Little Mountain and to the people of B.C., let me state very simply what I see as the key advantages of this agreement; and let me state that I, like many members of this House on both sides, like the Leader of the Opposition and unlike the leader of the third party, was a strong opponent of the Meech Lake accord. I sit in this Legislature partly by virtue of my opposition to that agreement. I shared the views of the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, that the Meech Lake accord would weaken Canada.

In the three years since, not only has the constitutional picture changed but I personally have had to ask myself whether I ought to reassess my position in the interests of the country.

My own position has changed. I have come to realize that the country is different from the way I first understood it, even though I have lived four years of my life working in Quebec. I have worked and lived in virtually every province and in both territories during my medical career. I felt I had some glimmer of understanding of the country before, but in the last three years I've often reassessed my own understanding and come to realize that people in other parts of Canada, including the province of Quebec, see the country differently than us in British Columbia; that they have an equal stake in their

interpretation of what Canada is and what Canada should be; that it's equally important to consider their concerns, not just those of us in British Columbia; and that as members of this Legislature, in contrast to what the member for Okanagan East said yesterday, our duty first and foremost is to this country, not to this province.

[4:00]

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

A second major advantage of the agreement is the ability, finally, after 125 years of Canada, and after 400 years of colonialism -- or 500 since the "discovery" of the Americas by Columbus -- to begin to come to terms with our aboriginal people. I remember, hon. Speaker, indelibly, as if it were yesterday, my late father's despair at the racism he encountered towards Indians when he came to Canada. It was something he thought he had left behind in the black ghetto of Watts, where he left his pediatric practice in Los Angeles.

I remember his despair, on seeing the reserve in Salmon Arm, where he went to study inherited metabolic disease, that there were no books in houses. I've watched the anguish on the faces of aboriginal leaders -- from Chief Wendy Grant of Musqueam to Chief Ovide Mercredi of the Assembly of First Nations -- when they saw the ability to finally achieve justice and progress for their people apparently slipping through all of our fingers.

Hon. Speaker, two days ago I visited the Toti:lthet education centre in your riding, a place where there is the optimism and determination of aboriginal people to overcome those barriers. They are people from across the country -- from as far away as Labrador. The cadets in the aboriginal justice academy were standing at attention, giving me a salute, as I visited that academy as Minister of Advanced Education. The pride, the enthusiasm and the determination radiated from them.

To think that we would spurn that, at the point when it's within our grasp, out of political opportunism, out of stupidity, out of unwillingness to consider the possibilities, or out of worship for a constitution, out of deification of a constitution, which is only an attempt to encode and encompass the real values of our society, makes me sadder than I can bear to describe here.

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

constitu-

[ Page 3528 ]

tional amendment or some amendment that they might be able to negotiate with Preston Manning or with Jacques Parizeau or with that man whose name I won't even dignify who has defended Ernst Zundel and who campaigns for the No side in this city seriously believe that they can design an agreement that will protect women from violence on aboriginal reserves or from violence in households in this country? Do they seriously worship that constitution so much that they think the constitution is going to intervene in the middle of the night when a drunk man is beating up his wife?

If they do, I suggest they've taken leave of their senses. They have no idea, as any physician would know who has dealt with the victims of abuse against women, particularly aboriginal women, whom I constantly saw in my work at St. Paul's Hospital. The protection of those women lies not in the constitution; it lies in reform of the basic attitudes of society, in ensuring that people will not stand idly by while that abuse occurs, in the correction of alcoholism, in the education of young children and in the teaching of young women self-confidence and the ability to resist.

For Judy Rebick to suggest that she can perfect a constitution to protect women from the real causes of abuse is not only absurd, it is profoundly destructive to the real liberation of women from violence. Do Judy Rebick and her cohorts and allies and those who would have the perfect constitution seriously believe the constitution has anything whatsoever to do with the reforms which have taken place in the College of Physicians in Ontario, which have forced the B.C. College of Physicians to finally open its doors and clean up the abuse of women by doctors?

Do they think the constitution had one whit of influence on that? Or do they not see that, in fact, it was the demands of society -- including brave women in the parliaments, like our colleagues Grace MacInnis or Pauline Jewett or others who were laughed at when they raised those issues in Parliament years ago -- that forced that? Not the constitution. Do they not see that the Law Society's recent reforms proposed under the chairmanship of the Hon. Ted Hughes come not from the constitution but from the demands of society that lawyers and judges clean up their act? I submit, hon.

Speaker, that those critics of the constitution fail to see the ability it gives us to come together as a society and begin to really work on those causes.

I will speak with less anger about the complaints of the disabled community. You'll note that I'm wearing my badge, the pin that suggests not only access for people with disabilities but work, a tool kit, a portable computer. I understand their frustration and anger at why they were left out of the agreement, but I do not agree with their analysis. The real barrier to the achievement of equality -- economic equality, social equality -- for people with disabilities is not the constitution; it's the national deficit.

It's the strangling of our abilities to educate people, to provide communication devices, to teach the rest of society to respect people for their abilities, not restrain them by their disabilities. Not the constitution. That's not the barrier. And those who think that a perfect constitution will somehow bring disabled people to their rightful place in society are dreaming. The barriers are right here in this Legislature, in society's attitudes, and we need not perfect the constitution to get on with fixing those issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4:15]

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

[ Page 3529 ]

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

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

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

Initially I wanted to find reasons in this accord to vote yes. After doing considerable reading, I asked myself a series of questions, and I believe that most British Columbians asked very similar questions of themselves before they decided what position they would take. How can we build a stronger Canada when we divide our country into three parts, with two of them having the ability to write their own laws which may conflict with the laws of Canada? How can we vote yes to a constitution which forces all provinces in Canada to be bilingual except Quebec?

How can we vote yes to an accord that transfers the responsibility for our forestry, mining, tourism, housing, recreation and municipal affairs without a financial commitment and an accord that also has a qualifier which suggests that the federal government could request the province to deliver the services which they're taking over in a bilingual way?

How can we vote yes to an accord whereby if the federal government wishes to enter into an agreement with the province of British Columbia to improve our highways, build a new port, or do any other infrastructure improvements, it first has to find ways of spending similar amounts of money in other provinces before meeting the demands of a growing province? How can we vote yes to a constitututional amendment that has dropped the clause which ensures the rights of an individual to own property?

How can we vote yes to a constitution which gives the aboriginal people the inherent right to self-government without a definition as to what this means, except to say in

section 41(b): "to develop, maintain and strengthen their relationship with their lands, waters and environment"? The only limitation on laws that will be developed by native people is the clause that states they "may not be inconsistent with those laws which are essential to the preservation of peace, order and good government in Canada." Brian Armstrong, an expert, maintains that this

section is vague and toothless. In reality the native nation will be able to pass laws in their regions, which are still yet to be defined, that will be in conflict with provincial and federal laws on such issues as forestry, resoure extraction and property taxation. They could even have the power to expropriate.

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

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

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

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

I could go on and on. However, let me conclude with just a few comments made by many of the proponents on the Yes side about the fact that the No side is not coming forward with alternatives. I grant you that, hon. Speaker. I suggest that if the No side were provided with a very small portion of the $200 million plus that has been spent by the provincial and federal governments in promoting this deal, it could indeed come up with alternatives.

When I look at this particular provincial government document called the Canadian unity agreement -- which is something I disagree with -- and see the half-truths in it, I think we could have spent the money a whole lot better finding alternatives than publishing half-truths in order to convince a Yes vote.

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

[ Page 3530 ]

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

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

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

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I've been actually searching for this quote for some time. It's a very famous speech that has guided legislators and those who hold a great respect for parliament and parliamentary traditions. It was made by Edmund Burke in 1774 to the electors of Bristol on the very topic of whether or not, as a representative of that city to parliament, he was obligated to simply reflect the opinions of the electorate or to provide some leadership and opinion on his own.

His very famous quote is: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." I would particularly direct those remarks to the Liberal opposition, because there's an element of pandering in their position with respect to this constitutional accord.

An Hon. Member: Vote against your electorate.

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

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

"To me, two wrongs do not make a right, and recognition of the fact that historically we haven't had representation by population does not then give us the right to completely abrogate that by going in the other direction. I would say we have to go forward with those principles of equality and representation by population...."

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

[4:30]

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

Let's turn to the members from Peace River. Let's turn to the population base of their constituencies. We note that in Peace River North the number of registered voters is 15,407. We have a member -- he sits beside me here -- who occupies a full seat in this Legislature even though there are only 15,000 members in his constituency eligible to vote. And for Peace River South the leader of the Social Credit Party sits in this Legislature as a full member with all the rights and privileges. Well, there's a member from the Comox Valley who has 34,000 people eligible to vote in that constituency.

Yet we hear this hypocritical argument that somehow it's wrong to give a guarantee to Quebec, which currently has 25 percent of the population and is likely to have that for many years to come. We somehow think it's wrong.

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

[ Page 3531 ]

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

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

An Hon. Member: Or pander to big business.

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

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

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

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

The Canada clause is a remarkable document. It tries to define us as Canadians. It says we respect parliamentary democracy, federalism and the rule of law. It makes a commitment -- and I feel particularly strongly about this one -- to racial and ethnic equality and a recognition of the contribution being made by citizens from many lands. Although I was born in this country and my parents were born in this country, their parents weren't. They came from somewhere else, as all of our parents did.

We do not have an aboriginal representative in this chamber anymore, and I'm very conscious that the population of my constituency is comprised of about 40 percent aboriginal people, and I'll deal with the question of the aboriginal issues as I get to them.

An Hon. Member: You should step down then.

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

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

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

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3532 ]

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

Interjection.

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

We have an opportunity to redress a historic wrong. The aboriginal people are citizens of Canada. They are saying yes to Canada, and I think we need to say yes to the aboriginal people. Let's not confuse what's happening with this Charter document with some of the difficulties we have in this province. They are completely separate. I say this to my friends in the fishing industry, who are greatly disturbed by the mismanagement that they have seen this year by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are greatly disturbed that the federal government is pulling back resources from the west coast.

We are in great danger of having the same thing happen on the west coast as we have seen on the east coast, through that kind of mismanagement. But let's not confuse the issues. That has nothing to do with this accord, which, as I said, is a historic breakthrough that recognizes that originality -- the founding peoples -- and provides an opportunity for them to define a form of government consistent with the Charter to allow them to assume responsibility for their affairs. They have been denied the opportunity to take responsibility. Any person you make a ward of the state loses the opportunity to be responsible.

This is a great leap, but it is a leap of faith. It's a leap that we should all be prepared to make as Canadians. What are we afraid of? Why be timid? And why pander to bigotry?

Canada's social and economic union. I have spent my life.... In fact, I occasionally got into a bit of trouble because of my connection with the labour movement. We reaffirm our support for comprehensive universal medicare. How can people oppose that -- for adequate social services, for high quality education, for protecting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively? That has never been in the constitution.

Why are people trying to defeat this constitution that recognizes these fundamental principles that all Canadians should be proud of -- protecting, preserving and sustaining the integrity of the environment for present and future generations. It's a remarkable document that tries to encompass those things that we as Canadians hold dear and that define us as a nation. It is no time for petty leadership. It is no time for nitpickers and naysayers.

[4:45]

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

V. Anderson: It's a privilege, as others have already indicated, to rise and speak with regard to the Charlottetown accord. I wish to thank those who speak from both the Yes and the No sides. The different points of view from them and also from persons from my own constituency and throughout the province have helped me to clarify why I would be voting yes in this particular undertaking within Canada. These comments from other people have helped me to see that in reading the same document, they are discovering different meanings from the same words. That indicates to me that the difference of

interpretation is in the persons who are reading, rather than in the document itself. This does not surprise me, though, because there is a book that I read regularly as a religious person which has probably had more different

interpretations throughout history than any other and yet which still demands universal respect.

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

[ Page 3533 ]

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

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

I affirm that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have always had their governments in Canada, and it is time that we worked with them instead of against