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)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, No. 19

[ Page 3585 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, as we know, there are many prominent Canadians visiting British Columbia these days concerning the constitutional agreement, talking to British Columbians about the positives of this agreement. Today a group of people from Quebec, calling themselves "From Quebec With Love For Canada," are with us. The group includes people like John Hallward, deputy chair of McGill University; Santo Manna, former president of the McGill Student Society; and Neil McKenty, author and broadcaster in the province of Quebec.

We have in the gallery this afternoon three members of the delegation: Gordon Fehr, president of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company from Quebec; Robert Greenhill, consultant with the McKinsey Group; and Louis Martin Richer, a student at the University of Montreal. I would hope that all members of the House will recognize these Canadians and welcome them to the province of British Columbia as they talk about the issues facing us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

SEPARATE B.C. REFERENDUM VOTE

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

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

EFFECT OF NO VOTE IN B.C.

G. Wilson: A supplementary question then. Let me turn to the Minister of Finance, given that British Columbians will have to be left wondering, I suppose. On the question of the world image of our economy, the Minister of Finance said yesterday that his international finance friends have told him that the people of Europe and the United States are concerned about the future of the economy of this country and this province.

Yet the opposition notes that Allan Taylor of the Royal Bank has reversed his position on the question of a No vote consequence, and the Dow Jones has said that there is confidence in the stability and maturity of the Canadian political system. Since the Finance minister gave such a fearmongering speech in this House yesterday, will he today go along with Mr. Taylor and with Dow Jones and retract his fearmongering statements about the economic consequences of a No vote, when that No vote happens on October 26?

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

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

[ Page 3586 ]

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

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

BALANCING THE BUDGET

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

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

[2:15]

SEPARATE B.C. REFERENDUM VOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AIRCARE PROGRAM

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

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

[ Page 3587 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMERCIAL ROAD SIGNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

I call adjourned debate on the constitution.

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

Pursuant to

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

Orders of the Day

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

Motion without Notice

CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD

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

The province of Quebec, then under a separatist government under the premiership of René Lévesque, refused to put a signature to the Canadian constitution of 1982.

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

[ Page 3588 ]

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

But let us set some ground rules for this particular discussion on the merits of this document that is before the Canadian people, which the Canadian people will be asked to vote on on October 26. Let us understand that there has been a great deal of rhetoric around the inclusion of the province of Quebec and the inclusion of aboriginal people as this document would outline.

Many of the members opposite and many of those on the Yes side around British Columbia and across Canada talk about the fact that if this document is not supported by the majority of Canadians or is rejected by one or more provinces, somehow that constitutes a demonstration that we wish to exclude the people of Quebec from this great nation or that we wish to exclude aboriginal people from what is a right and just settlement for many years of abuses against them because of the discriminatory laws under the Indian Act and the maintenance of those laws by the Department of Indian Affairs.

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

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

[2:30]

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

Let me say that those of us in the Liberal caucus who are taking the position that we should not support this accord are well aware of the views, words and actions of some members who stand and advocate the No position. I can tell you that I did not join an orchestrated No campaign, because there were some people with whom I chose not to share the stage. That is important when we hear the comments from members opposite who try, by association, to affiliate all those who are saying no to this question, who say that we are all together.

I suggest that if we can believe public opinion polls at all, in the last one roughly 54 to 56 percent of the people of British Columbia are rejecting this package. By the words of the member for the North Coast, I assume that they are all bigoted and racist people. That is an offensive assumption to make.

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

You may cut or not." Well, what kind of choice is that? We have seen the Prime Minister of this country tear up this accord in a symbolic fashion, saying we are going to tear up Canada if this accord does not go forward.

We have heard from other members. We have heard a former Premier of this province, who represented the New Democratic Party in government from 1972 to 1975, stand as an elected member of the Parliament of Canada and say that this deal is not a perfect deal, not a good deal, but that Canadians should hold their noses and go and vote for a renewed Canada. What a shameful thing to say!

Can you imagine what kind of image that provides for those people who witness a former Premier of British Columbia, representing the New Democratic Party in this province, telling British Columbians -- indeed, telling all Canadians -- that we should send a symbol to those who watch us from outside our borders of holding our noses and voting for

[ Page 3589 ]

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

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

Let's for a moment talk about the process, before we get into looking at the detail of this particular accord, and try to understand what this accord does. We are hearing from members opposite that somehow the ability for us to get together a consensus of first ministers and the Prime Minister is something that is unique -- a remarkable if not miraculous thing for Canadians to have experienced. Well, we had that in 1987, I believe, when we came together and created something called the Meech Lake accord. We had a unanimous agreement.

At the time we had the Meech Lake accord, when a different Premier of a different government in British Columbia brought the Meech Lake accord, which was resoundingly rejected by the Canadian people, to this House, that was again supported by the vast majority of the members in the opposition, who now form government. Indeed, five of their members -- they beat us by one -- broke ranks with them and said no to Meech Lake, and were consistent with the majority of the views of British Columbians and Canadians.

That consensus did not move forward, because the people of Canada are a fair-minded people that recognize that this nation needs a constitution that reflects soundly the concept and principle of one Canada, where every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian and every province has equal legislative authority and powers with every other province, and that recognizes that within that process of equality we can and will embrace the differences among us, we will enhance those differences, and we will support and allow those differences to flourish, as is the tradition and the history of this great nation of Canada.

But today, forced to a referendum date on October 26 by

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

We knew that on October 26 there had to be a vote. We knew then and we know now that this vote is going to be a very significant one in the history of Canada. And so the process of executive federalism took place yet again. This time, realizing the failure of Meech Lake, the members of the executive-federalist core -- I'm speaking, of course, of the ten Premiers and the Prime Minister -- understood they would have to have a different approach.

They entered into a different approach by suggesting that this time we would have a series of meetings across Canada in which we would include Canadians in a process through selection. This would allow ordinary Canadians, selected by government, to come forward and articulate on the question of the Canadian constitution how we should readjust, how we should change, our nation.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3590 ]

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

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

And it came together at a time when the federal House had very little discussion of what Canada needed; what it was to be Canadian; what the national vision was; what the national order was going to be; how we were going to establish national standards right across this country so that we could establish, entrench and maintain the standards that all Canadians could enjoy, whether or not they lived in Newfoundland, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.

As a result, we tended to move into ten provincial agendas, driven by one provincial referendum date -- the province of Quebec's -- with a Prime Minister who had one eye on the referendum process and another eye on the federal election, realizing clearly that time was running out. This is the Prime Minister who admitted that he rolled the dice in the Meech Lake process, and here we are rolling the dice one more time.

He lost last time, and he will lose again this time, because he didn't learn that this is not the way that we should be trying to amend our constitution on an ongoing basis, that you simply do not have the first ministers in an executive federalist proposition come together, decide on what is essentially going to be acceptable to the ten premiers, and expect the people of Canada, given a limited amount of time to understand it, and given no definitive legal text -- which says as a disclaimer on the very cover of it that it is a "best efforts" text prepared by officials representing all the first ministers and aboriginal and territorial leaders, a text that does not have the ratification of the first ministers themselves....

And here we are in the closing days of this debate with a draft legal text that significantly alters in at least four areas the text of the accord we're being asked to vote on.

[2:45]

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

It is on the basis of this agreement, on the basis of this draft "best efforts" legal text that goes along with it that we're supposed to make some kind of recognition of a renewed Canada.

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

Yet not only are we being asked to look at this in terms of what it hasn't done -- because it's incomplete -- we're then being told in a most mischievous way by those people on the Yes side of this campaign that if you go out and vote for it, it's going to end the constitutional wrangling. Only one premier was really honest with the people of his province and the people of Canada. Only one premier really had the honesty to come forward and the integrity to say that this doesn't end the debate but only starts it and that this is day one in the real process of constitutional reform.

That was the premier of Quebec, Premier Robert Bourassa, who said: "This does not end the debate on the Canadian constitution; it only begins the debate." And he's absolutely correct. When Premier Clyde Wells from Newfoundland -- a very close friend and associate of mine, somebody for whom I have enormous respect -- came to British Columbia, what did he say? He said that he had reviewed this, and he outlined his concerns -- perhaps the most articulate voice on the question of constitutional reform in Canada today.

Over and over again he said: "At this time, this is the best that we could accomplish." He said over and over again: "If I had been writing it, I would not have written it this way." He recognized the need for compromise. He recognized that compromise was the only way that he would get out of a room and get to the Canadian people so that the Canadian people could rightly say: "Your compromise is acceptable or not."

That is what we now have in front of us: an opportunity to say yes or no to the best that could be done at this time. And yet you put to the Premier of Newfoundland, who is an avowed opponent of the veto provision: how is it possible, if at this time it's the best we can do, that we have put into this document a proposition for an amending formula that provides veto provision for every province on the question of a Canadian House of Commons, our Senate and our Supreme Court.

The three most fundamentally important institutions that govern this great country will now be subjected to the veto provisions of any province. And what does that mean to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories when they seek to gain in 50 or 60 years down the road? I know from our budget debate that this government has no vision toward a 50- or 60-year plan; therefore it's understandable that they would probably only think to October 26 on the voting of this particular document.

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

subser-

[ Page 3591 ]

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

So here we are with this consensus report that we have to move toward on October 26 with either a Yes or No vote. Here we are reviewing what is in this text. I think it's important, particularly in light of some of the discussion we have heard in this House in the last day or so, to put the record straight on a couple of matters. Let it be very clear that this is indeed a matter by which Canadians must vote on conscience; they must understand it; they must either accept or reject it.

For that reason, this caucus has had as a position for almost a year now, anticipating that at some point we would have a vote in the Legislature, that there will be a free vote on this side in the Liberal opposition, something I would suggest that the government opposite might want to consider: allowing their members the freedom to come forward in a free vote.

Let me say that it's interesting when we take a look at all of those Yes buttons over there, at all of them standing in unison like a group that simply has no freedom to think or act or speak, all of them dressed in the same uniform, standing to attention, marching to the same drum, with the same beat. They are simply marching to the wrong tune. I suggest that they look at the public opinion polls.

On October 26, when the people of this province reject this deal, we will then ask all of those members on the other side of the House whether or not they have a relevant position with respect to how the people in this province feel. We will then ask ourselves whether or not this mandated government is in touch with the will, the drive, the attitudes and the desires of the people of British Columbia. Let their constituents be the judge.

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

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

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

That heartland has been a major player in the development of the overall economic strategy of the federal government by necessity -- because it has to be.

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

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

What is the best way for us to do that? The best way for us to do that is to make sure that we have a strong central government and that that strong central government provides an equal devolution of powers to the provinces, rather than concentrating the devolution of powers into the two central provinces that already drive the engine of the Canadian economy. Ask anybody who is in business in this province today what one of the principal considerations and concerns is with respect to their ability to conduct business. It's the value of the Canadian dollar.

It is the monetary and fiscal policy of Ottawa and what drives interest rates within the Bank of Canada. Who determines that? Is it the province of British Columbia? Is it the province of Newfoundland? Is it the provinces of Nova Scotia or Alberta or Saskatchewan? It clearly is not, because it cannot be. It's the province of Ontario and, in some measure, the province of Quebec.

So when we look at how we have a devolution of power, let us consider that it is important for that strong central government to understand the need to have strong provincial economies right across this country, so that every Canadian has an equal opportunity to succeed and every Canadian, including British Columbians, has an equal opportunity with those people who live in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

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

[ Page 3592 ]

actually addressed the barriers to the free movement of goods and services across this country? At a time when we have a continentalization of our economy, when our economy has developed into a continental structure, when we are looking at a free trade agreement with the United States already in place with certain significant consequences, when we look at the development of a North American free trade agreement -- something that the members opposite, we are told, oppose vigorously because of what it's going to do to the regional economy of Canada....

I suggest that if the members opposite really are worried about NAFTA, the place that we should have started to deal with it is in the removal of the economic barriers within Canada between the provinces. That's the place we should have started. Instead of pushing out a lot of verbiage about how NAFTA is going to impact negatively on the workforce in Ontario and in British Columbia, where was this particular government and this Premier in his negotiation, when he should have been arguing to get rid of the provisions that are now in place restricting the free movement of goods and services?

[3:00]

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

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

Yet we see a rather disturbing trend occurring. While the government opposite says they're so opposed to NAFTA, and while they recognize that they are opposed to the continental free trade movement that is taking place in this country and the continentalization of our economy, in the last budget brought down in this House we saw the relevance of trying to compare the British Columbia economy with the economies of Alberta and Ontario. This government said that we had tax room to move in in British Columbia.

What we said was: get realistic, over there on the other side of the House and learn something about regional economics. At least understand that what we see here in the barriers to the free movement of goods and services, which have not been removed in this document but are entrenched and enshrined in it, is the very reason why certainly the Liberal opposition on this side of the House argues that the relevant economies that we should be looking at are Washington, Oregon and California, because those are the economies with which the economic union is going to be built.

Therefore it is inherently dishonest to talk about an east-west economic union in Canada when there is no provision or proposition for it. Because of the centralization of power and monetary and fiscal authority in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, British Columbia, by necessity, is going to be driven in a north-south way. As that happens, the proposition of Cascadia -- something that has been talked about in terms of the economy -- becomes an ever more functional part of that development, that economic union between those of us in British Columbia and those south of the border.

Hon. Speaker, I don't want my remarks to be misunderstood. I'm not opposed to developing strong and good trade alliances with our partners to the south. But what I do recognize -- and it's unfortunate that it was not recognized in this document -- is that there is a very real opportunity in Canada today to take advantage of a changing continental economy that would allow this province a great deal of latitude to expand, to grow and to take advantage of that economy, if we were to have the opportunity of a greater degree of freedom to move and to trade with markets in eastern Canada than we have today.

If we didn't have to ship our goods south first to then have them shipped east on U.S. rail lines because Canada no longer has a commitment to that kind of unity and integration, to that kind of east-west connection.... That is a major tragedy in this country, Canada.

Those of us in the Liberal opposition on the No side recognize that not only is the economic policy objective spelled out in this document totally frivolous, it's misleading in the extreme. It suggests that somehow we're going to be able to develop that kind of east-west connection, that east-west alliance. In fact, we are not. We're already hearing members opposite wanting to talk about the Georgia basin. We hear that NAFTA is coming up on the orders for next week.

Well, let it be known and let it be on the record now that the Liberal opposition in British Columbia is dedicated to a strong and vital provincial economy as a strong and integral part of a united Canada, one that is going to look after the interests of British Columbians first, before we sell our economy south to the people of the United States.

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

It doesn't mean that we have anxieties or tensions that we would like to direct to Canadians in Ontario or Quebec, because clearly we do not.

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

[ Page 3593 ]

towards the devolution of authority from the central government and the implementation of two blocs of seats from the Senate into Ontario and Quebec -- 18 seats into Ontario and 18 seats into Quebec -- at a time when British Columbia gets four. Hon. Speaker, you will hear an awful lot about how these new rules are going to be interpreted. We have done some considerable calculations on the question of seats.

I think it's important for us to put to rest the myth out there that if we do not move forward, we are going to be entrenched, in perpetuity, in a reform of the Commons system that would provide us with only two seats. What this province should have received, had we negotiated in a manner consistent with the principles on the table.... I look essentially at the

interpretation of the Charlottetown accord in which the 1991 census through to the 1996 census is put forward. The rule that is triggering this proposition should have provided at a minimum, at the time that Ontario and Quebec received 18, seven additional seats to British Columbia. We argue that it should have provided eight.

But let's be clear. Not only did the 18 seats come into Ontario and Quebec in a manner that was not strictly adhered to across Canada in an equal and fair way, but we recognize that the reason that that happened was the inability of the first minister of this province, who was negotiating on behalf of this province, to calculate what the seats should have been.

We recognize that the Premier did go back to Charlottetown after considerable urging and after a letter that I drafted as Leader of the Opposition to every first minister, including the Premier of this province, in which I suggested that if there was no reassessment of those seats allocated in the Charlottetown accord, this accord would not pass in British Columbia, and that we needed the guarantee immediately.

We did not need it in a promise of a 1996 census; we did not need it in a way that essentially would provide us, through a 1996 census, some kind of allocation through normal boundary redistribution, which on average has taken.... I would ask the people who may well be listening to my remarks tonight or may read my remarks in future Hansard s to check the record. You will see that the boundary redistribution effectively suggests that it's going to take anywhere from five to seven years for us to get those kinds of seats.

Therefore, when our children and future generations start to look at when British Columbia is going to receive its seven seats, they'll see that it's sometime after the year 2000.

Hon. Speaker, that's simply unacceptable. How is it possible that we could have had a first minister negotiating on behalf of the people of British Columbia whose inability to calculate such a simple arithmetical equation...?

Perhaps it's at this time that I ought to give some public acknowledgment to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, who -- I want to publicly acknowledge it -- did keep me informed on a day-to-day basis many times on the telephone, as this negotiation was taking place, of exactly what was going on inside that negotiation, what kind of fumbling had happened and how there was going to have to be some kind of process to try and redress that and deal with that.

We understand that when you've got in your first-string quarterback and you pull him out when he's on the 20-yard line and put in your second-string quarterback, and they fumble the ball and the opposition scores in your own end zone, it's embarrassing, frustrating and annoying for that first-string quarterback, who if he had still been there might not have had this proposition. So we understand on this side of the House that the skills and negotiating prowess of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs were going very well.

Things were perking along in a reasonable way until such time as the first string got pulled out and the second string got put in, and, of course, we lost the ball game and now are having to deal with the problems.

If the only problem was those 18 seats, then maybe we would say: "Look, all right, we understand that essentially the problem was that they made a switch in players. Yes, there was a fumble, and we'll forgive that." But what was the trade for that? What did we trade for this provincially equal Senate? It has everything to do with the central devolution of powers; it's part of this deal. What did we trade for that? What we traded, in perpetuity, was 25 percent of the Commons seats for the province of Quebec. I fully recognize, and I can tell you that....

Again I want to acknowledge and thank the minister opposite for discussing this with me in some detail as he realized the very, very difficult problem that he was facing. He knew well that it was going to be a difficult sell in British Columbia because of the problems we had with a lack of seats allocated. To give 25 percent to Quebec, it was suggested, was a trade for a provincially equal Senate.

What we have to recognize, and what was sold, negotiated and debated among the first ministers, is: how do you sell it to the Canadian people? The way that you try to sell it to the Canadian people is with the fact that Quebec right now enjoys about 25 percent. Statistics Canada, that great bastion of provision.... I don't take issue with Statistics Canada -- they do good work and provide very interesting statistics. But their projections have not always been right on the mark; sometimes they've been a little off.

When you're dealing with the question of future demographic trends in a country such as Canada, there are a number of factors that are going to influence demographic shifts. Statistics Canada acknowledges several things. One is that British Columbia is the fastest-growing province in Canada today. Statistics Canada acknowledges that the province of Quebec is losing population.

I think Canadians have to be aware that one of the reasons there's a separate negotiation with the federal government and Quebec on immigration is that they understand their population is declining and they want to have a proportional share of French-speaking immigrants coming into Quebec on a first-choice basis. We understand the reason for that. We understand what that situation is.

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

[ Page 3594 ]

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

What we ought to have is a proposition where we can indeed have a redistribution of representation if the population of British Columbia warrants and deserves it. We have abandoned that principle now, and we have abandoned it for all time.

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

[3:15]

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

The 25 percent guarantee is a question of principle, and I know that there are members who will stand and say this question of representation by population doesn't exist in the country of Canada today, because there are guarantees already for Prince Edward Island, already; Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. What about the Yukon? I mean, if we had straight representation by population, the Yukon wouldn't have a seat; we wouldn't have the leader of the NDP. Of course, hon.

Speaker, we realize we don't want that to be the case, and we know that representation by population requires a certain flexibility in base and adjustment in order to look after the interests of those people who live in a very widely dispersed region. So we hear somewhat inane comments.

I don't mean to belittle those members who stood up, but it really is misleading when you hear comments, such as the ones we heard from the member for North Coast yesterday, about the fact that if we had a straight adherence to representation by population, the good people of Powell River and the Sunshine Coast, whom I represent, simply would not have representation in this Legislature. That's just a lot of nonsense.

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

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

When we see every province determining how we're going to have these Senators elected, we then, interestingly enough, read and see on television the Yes campaign's Canadian Labour Congress advertisement that says four governments and four Premiers have committed to a gender-equal Senate. Well, hon. Speaker, who are those four? We know for certain that one is the Premier of Ontario. We understand that one may be the Premier of New Brunswick. We understand that one is the Premier of Nova Scotia. We know it certainly isn't the Premier of Newfoundland, and we know it isn't the Premier of Prince Edward Island.

We know it isn't the Premier of Quebec. We've heard it isn't Saskatchewan. It isn't Manitoba, and it certainly isn't Alberta. That leaves one, and that's British Columbia. If that isn't true, then it seems to me that somebody has misled the Canadian Labour Congress. Or maybe there's been a guarantee made to the Canadian Labour Congress that hasn't been shared with all British Columbians in this open style of government.

Let's address just for a moment this national standard on the election of Senators. The people who sit as Liberal opposition members here are not opposed to -- in fact, they fully support -- the removal of barriers that prevent women from entering into and being successful in the political arena in Canada. That's the real issue. The real issue is to remove the barriers and allow women to have an even playing field, so that there are no discriminatory barriers to women being allowed to get into and be successful in the political arena with men.

The way you deal with that is to attack those areas in which discrimination is maintained, enhanced and put forward. So we are committed to the removal of those barriers. We are committed to making sure that we have a larger representation of women in politics, and we look forward to the day that we can overcome those barriers so that we can have women entering politics.

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

[ Page 3595 ]

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

This question of quotas -- and that's what we have, legislative quotas -- is not going to provide gender equity. It is going to remove the democratic right of every citizen, male and female, to choose the individual whom they believe is best able to represent them. At this time we'd better put it on the record. We heard from the first minister, who talked about this being a social revolution or a social breakthrough. Perhaps not a revolution; that might be too strong -- although that might have been what he wanted to say.

But being able to have this so-called quota system legislated is certainly a social breakthrough. The Premier has given a guarantee to the people of this province that that is not part of this accord should this document succeed, and, from my personal view, I don't think it will.

If a Senate elections act is introduced, let the Liberal opposition serve notice that the Premier's commitment to the people of the province that this will not be legislated as three women and three men by quota had better not be reneged on, because that would be an abrogation of the democratic right of British Columbians to elect the individual whom they believe is best able to look after their interests.

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

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

The biggest tragedy here is the effective powers portion of this Senate. Not only have we had a devolution of power into central Canada, but we have also created a triple-E Senate only in name and not in substance at all. I recognize that there are many people who disagree, one of whom, as I've pointed out before, is the Premier of Newfoundland, who is a good personal friend and someone whose opinion I deeply respect. He has said that this is going to be an effective Senate.

I understand that there is tremendous hope and a desire to have the Senate counterbalance the Lower House, which is determined -- or was determined, until this document came along -- by representation by population. The counterbalance is important because, while we recognize that the Lower House is the most important House in terms of its ability to determine fiscal policy and how the government is spending the taxpayers' money on the programs they develop, there has to be some measure to put in balance, from a provincial perspective, the central authority and power driven by central Canada -- Ontario and Quebec.

This is a most important concept, because if we don't have that, it means, de facto, by virtue of the very fact that the central powers in Ottawa will continue to provide a greater degree of concentration in those two central provinces, that British Columbians will always remain, as I said earlier, a junior partner.

The Senate today -- and let's be very clear about this, because there seems to be some confusion on the point -- has effective powers. It is a very effective body; in fact, it is the most effective it can be today. The problem with it is that the Senate is not elected. I ask you to think back to when the GST came before the Senate. The Senate was able to prevent the legislation from moving forward until the Prime Minister dug down deep into the constitution and found an ability to appoint additional "Conservative" members who would be able to push the package through. This Senate is going to be able to do what?

Hold it up for 30 days. Thirty days to do what? To try and rally the Canadian public around an issue of such national importance that a 30-day suspensive veto is all this Senate can do. And then at the end of it, what happens? This Senate has to go into a joint sitting with the House of Commons, which is going to have the majority in view of votes actually cast, and a huge majority of those members in the Commons are simply going to override the Senate. So what's the purpose of it? Why would we have it?

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

G. Wilson: We hear one member say: why not just abolish it? Hon. Speaker, let me say this: with the proposition of the Senate powers the way they are, you might as well abolish it, because all you're going to have is a very expensive talk shop that is going to drain the tax base in this province and right across the country.

I would suggest to you that one of the reasons we have such a mishmash in the Senate is that at least three of the Premiers who were sitting at the table, including the Premier of this province, were arguing for a triple-A Senate from the beginning through the end of the negotiation and never had a commitment to a true triple-E Senate. We did not have the kind of strength in that negotiation and debate from the Premier of this province to put in place a triple-E Senate.

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

[ Page 3596 ]

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

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

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

[3:30]

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

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

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

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

If we're talking about the French-speaking majority, are we saying that the culture of an immigrant Haitian in the province of Quebec is the same as that of a francophone Quebecker who has four or five generations of tradition and culture in the evolution and history of that nation? That's a legitimate question to ask.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

In the founding of that first nation, that is the distinct society of the province of Quebec. I don't have an argument or a quarrel with that.

Where I do have an argument and a quarrel is with how we protect the minority interests of the rest of the people in Quebec if the distinct society is provided and protected with respect to the proposition of the Canada clause, which affirms the role of the legislature and the government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct society of Quebec.

This is a very important question for all Canadians to address, because not only are British Columbians interested in having equality prevail right across Canada; we are also interested in making sure that the collective rights of the francophones in Quebec are respected, understood, recognized and provided for in this Canadian constitution. But in order for us to do that, we have to also recognize that the measures that are provided for the protection of that distinct society have to be addressed in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Therefore what we argue is that if we are to provide a double majority vote on the question of French language and culture for francophone-declared Senators, we have essentially

[ Page 3597 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the hon. minister opposite for Aboriginal Affairs say that it's called accommodation. Accommodation with whom? Is it called accommodation with the Premier of Quebec, who, it would seem, is having difficulty selling the notion to the vast majority of the people of Quebec? That's the problem with this whole document: the politicians who have negotiated this great accommodation have lost touch with what Canadians think and believe about this country.

It's not bad enough that the politicians have lost touch with what the people want, but then they have the audacity to go out and spend $150 million on what basically amounts to a public opinion poll, and spend millions upon millions of dollars of advertising to try and tell them that this is the best thing -- indeed the only thing -- and that if they don't vote for it, somehow Canadians have killed the country. I believe that what this does is create a functional two-Canada.

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

I would suggest that this is an area where we need to give a great deal of study, a great deal of thought and a good deal more time in order to fully understand what this particular

section says to the Canadian people and what it provides for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples alike.

Let me suggest that it is in this area that I have the most difficulty in trying to articulate a position without having members opposite misconstrue, mislead, misdirect and, in some instances, outrightly misrepresent what I am attempting to say. Let me be very clear that this opposition is on record as saying that we support the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves, and we recognize that indigenous government has been a functional part of this great country of Canada well before the colonial regimes.

We recognize, however, that if we are going to put a protection of this collective in place, then we have to do so in a framework that is going to recognize not only their legitimate concerns and rights to government but also that it must be woven intrinsically within a just settlement to the land question. We have to recognize

[ Page 3598 ]

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

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

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

[3:45]

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

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

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

The Speaker: Hon. member, please proceed.

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

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

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

The Leader of the Opposition made a commitment on behalf of the opposition in this province to the aboriginal leadership in British Columbia at a meeting I had with them last week. Essentially we have agreed that we will do everything within our power to make sure, should this document not proceed, that the content, direction and intention of this document be advanced regardless. It is our view that this is an issue that cannot wait any longer.

This is an issue that must be addressed in British Columbia, because there is such anxiety and tension outside of the lower mainland and urban centres that seem to preoccupy the minds of the government opposite. Having travelled this summer into the hinterland regions -- having travelled to the member for North Coast's riding and heard his constituents perhaps more clearly than he seems to have -- I can tell you that there is a great deal of anxiety to make sure that there is an open and full consultative process on this question.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3599 ]

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

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

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

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

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

Let me say, as I move to my concluding statements today, that there is no right or wrong constitution for this country. There is no one way to see Canada. I have a vision of this nation that may not be shared by others in this House or by others in this province or across this country, but the vision of this nation is one in which I believe there have to be standards that apply to Canadians equally right across the country. There has to be a proposition that when you immigrate into Canada, you don't immigrate into one of its component provinces; you integrate into the nation as a whole.

There has to be a Canada where Canadians are ruled by a strong national government that makes sure that it has strong national programs for health care, education, the environment, and the social interests of Canadians, and does not devolve those powers disproportionately into the two central provinces.

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

For those who misinterpret my statements -- and there are a few -- when I talk about equality, I do not suggest that because we are all equal, we must all be the same. I do not subscribe to the principles of the melting-pot theory that addresses south of the border. I realize why the members opposite have so much difficulty understanding that when you are all equal, you don't have to be all the same. When I look across at the other side of the House, there they are: all exactly the same, all wearing Yes buttons, all with the same speech, all with the same message and all with the same direction.

There's not an independent thought among them. But that isn't Canada, and that isn't the reality of what Canadians are feeling. That's why on October 26 the members opposite are going to get a lesson from the people of British Columbia that they had better start listening to the majority, or they will be on this side of the House after the next election. We will finally be able to deliver to this province a strong and articulate government.

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

[ Page 3600 ]

positions and our concerns. We have done that. We have articulated our positions and our concerns in this accord. We have spoken to the detail that is included in this accord, and we have gone through it in maintaining a commitment to two things: an attention to the detail of the accord and not to play into the fears that are being put out by those members such as the Prime Minister of this country, who would rip up this agreement and try to tell us that if we don't vote for this, somehow this country is going to die.

We are not going to play into the fears of ministers of finance who say that if this doesn't go forward, somehow our economy is going to go to rock bottom. We know that what is driving down the economy of this province is not this constitutional accord, but the fiscal policies of the government opposite.

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

[4:00]

I recognize that those three are important, because they do involve Senate reform -- something that's necessary. They do involve the proposition of a reform of Commons representation, and that is necessary. They do involve devolution of authority and spending powers of the federal government, and that is necessary. But those three changes that we're making to this constitution, given that there is a veto power on any further reform of the Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court, will entrench in perpetuity this document as it stands today, unless we can come up with some miracle of consensus.

I remind members opposite that when we had the Meech Lake accord before us, and one member of the House in Manitoba, Elijah Harper -- an aboriginal person standing up and speaking out on behalf of aboriginal people -- and one Premier, the Premier of Newfoundland, when they stood up and said no.... One member, Elijah Harper, ended the Meech Lake accord. The Prime Minister of this country and the first ministers who had embraced this accord were unanimous in their outcry and rage that one member of one Legislative Assembly could shoot down a constitutional package that was going to save this nation.

Well, the Prime Minister and many of the same first ministers today have entrenched it in the language of this agreement: veto power.

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

I think that that is what this government ought to focus its attention on in this province.

Nationally, when this document fails, I think that the people of Canada deserve a federal election. Let me say that when such an election has taken place, given whatever the outcome may be, we must then recognize that we will never again enter into this process for amending our Canadian constitution. We will move toward a standing committee on constitutional reform that will work through a process of constituent assembly and that will essentially deal with constitutional reform one

section at a time, where we can put together a properly worded, properly crafted and definitive legal text so that we will have an opportunity for all British Columbians and all Canadians to understand fully what we're attempting to do. This is not a unique or different proposition. It is not the property of any one particular political party. It provides a chance for further reform when this document fails.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3601 ]

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

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

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

Let me begin my substantive comments with regard to this constitutional consensus by talking a little bit about the process. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition, during the course of his comments, talked about process. There is no doubt in my mind that it was absolutely imperative after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord and after the comments that Canadians had made about the Meech Lake accord that there be a process of inclusion where Canadians had to be intimately involved in the development of a constitutional consensus in this country.

It was clear to all of us who had witnessed the collapse of the Meech Lake accord that Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of this country wanted input into the development of our constitution.

I think everyone here knows what my political stripes are. It may seem a little unusual for me to give credit to another government, but I think we have to recognize that after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord there was an unprecedented level of involvement of Canadians in the development of the constitution. There was the Spicer commission, which consulted Canadians from one coast of this country to the other with regard to their views of what is required to attend to our historical constitutional grievances. There were federal proposals tabled, I believe, two, or possibly three, Septembers ago.

There was the Beaudoin-Edwards commission which went around the country and discussed with Canadians the basis upon which we should be making changes to our constitution. There was the Dobbie-Beaudoin commission which went around this country from one end to the other talking to Canadians as to what they thought should be part of a renewed constitution in this country.

There were unprecedented conferences held in Halifax -- which the Leader of the Opposition talked about -- Montreal and Vancouver that looked at issues such as aboriginal government, the division of powers and the reform of our Senate and other institutions in this country. We had a culminating conference here in British Columbia, in the city of Vancouver, where we took the results of all those conferences and discussed the direction in which constitutional negotiations should proceed.

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

At the end of that whole process, Canadians said a number of things to us, as the elected political leadership in this country, through that form of constituent assembly -- if I can use those words, because that's clearly what it was. They said that they didn't like the contents of the Meech Lake accord. Why? They said it provided special status to the province of Quebec. They said that that constitutional accord did not adequately attend to the concerns of Canadians outside Quebec.

They said that there had to be a Canada round that dealt with the needs, aspirations, views, visions and desires of Canadians from one end of the country to the other.

They said that it had to attend to the legitimate concerns of aboriginals, who were excluded in the Meech Lake accord; that it had to attend to the concerns of people from Atlantic Canada, who had legitimate concerns about regional economic disparities; that it had to attend to the concerns of the province of Ontario in relation to the social charter; that it had to attend to the west in terms of institutional reform; and that it had to attend to the province of British Columbia, with respect to managing our economy, in the distribution of powers under our current constitution.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

More particularly and more specifically, Canadians said that this constitution had to recognize certain principles. It had to recognize the principle that all provinces are equal. It had to go beyond that and recognize that western alienation must be attended to. The sense that western Canadians had of not being included, of not having a strong voice in our institutions and in our governance, had to be attended to. They said that during the course of the next constitutional round, there had to be justice for the aboriginal people and the aboriginal communities of this country.

They said that there had to be an accommodation for minorities in this country, be it visible minorities or the francophone minority in Canada. They said that there had to be a recognition of the cultural diversity of this country. They said that our system of government had to be improved.

[4:15]

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

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

[ Page 3602 ]

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

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

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

Let me share with this House how we endeavoured to deal with those concerns during the course of these constitutional negotiations. First of all, we endeavoured to address that historical sense of alienation, that grievance, by providing more power to the provinces to manage their own economies. What we chose to do under this constitutional agreement was restrict the federal spending power as it related to a number of areas: tourism, culture, forestry, mining, agriculture and regional economic development, for example.

In all of those areas we said that western Canadians ought to be able to develop their own distinctive economies to meet their own distinctive needs. This was important to western Canadians. This was important to British Columbians. Why do I say that? I say that because we in this province established a legislative committee that toured this province, and one of its first recommendations was that power, in the areas explicitly of tourism, forestry, mining, culture, agriculture and regional economic development, flow to the provinces. That was a unanimous provision.

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

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

We dealt with western alienation by making provision explicitly in this constitution for more powers for western Canada. But we went beyond that. We said that western Canadians were entitled to better representation in the House of Commons -- a stronger voice in the House of Commons. And how did we correct that situation? We said the current rules that allow two seats to all provinces every ten years are unfair to the fastest-growing province in this country. They are unfair to British Columbia, and they are unfair to Alberta.

As a consequence, we prevailed upon the other representatives from other parts of this country and persuaded them to remove that ceiling that artificially stunted our growth in the House of Commons and lift it forever. This immediately means that this province, by the year 1996, will have secured seven new seats in the House of Commons.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying no, that's not true; that we'll get them by the year 2001. That's untrue. That's all they say: our percentage of representation went down. I want the Leader of the Opposition to listen carefully. Our population ratio in this country stands at 12 percent. We currently have 10.8 percent of the seats in the House of Commons. By the time these seven seats are in, we'll be up to 11.3 percent. You tell me how that's down. And I want the Leader of the Opposition to consider the following.

When you take a look at Parliament as a whole, currently British Columbia, absent this constitutional agreement, has 79 percent of the representation it's entitled to on the basis of its population. With this constitutional change, it gets 93 percent of the population its representation entitles it to.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition.... Let me ask you the following question, sir, through you, hon. Speaker. When you take a look at the House of Commons and the Senate -- Parliament as a whole -- tell me: which province gained more seats in Parliament than any other province in Canada? Was it (

a) British Columbia, (

b) Ontario, or (

c) Quebec? Because I know it's a bit of a skill-testing question, let me help the Leader of the Opposition by telling him the answer is (

a) British Columbia -- more seats in Parliament than any other province.

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

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

represen-

[ Page 3603 ]

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

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

[The Speaker in the chair.]

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

So now this Senate is armed with the power to veto any legislation that deals with taxation of natural resources.

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

On top of that, apart from the ability to veto legislation with respect to natural resources, it has the ability to block federal legislation and the power to blow the whistle on the federal government if they were trying to do something that was adverse to our interests. Remember, that power to block is at 50 percent, with 40 percent of the power being in the hands of the west. It's true that the House of Commons could ultimately, through an extended reconciliation process, override the decision to block on the part of the Senate. That would happen only after significant scrutiny and debate.

The opposition should know that because there's a 30-day provision in there, that provides immense power to the Senate. The opposition that ridicules the provision knows that the only power it has in this House rests in its ability to delay initiatives. It's never going to win a vote, but it has the power of time. That same power is now vested in the Senate.

[4:30]

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

One of the biggest concerns we've had as western Canadians historically is the fact that interest rate policies and employment policies have so often been predicated on the needs of central Canada. This provision in this constitution now rips away from the office of the Prime Minister the power to make significant appointments that have an impact on our lifestyle, our needs and our economy here in western Canada. This constitutional package now gives the Senate, where 40 percent of the power is from the west, the ability to ratify or make appointments with respect to the Bank of Canada.

Think about that for a moment. We have taken away from the office of the Prime Minister the ability to make those kinds of significant appointments

-- whether it be in the area of the Bank of Canada, the CRTC or the Canadian Transport Commission -- and put it in the hands of an elected Senate which now has 40 percent of its representation from western Canada. In the event of a minority, as often happens in this country, or a government with a small majority in the House of Commons, the Senate has enormous power, because it then has the power to sit on top of the House of Commons and exercise its clout to prevent the passage of initiatives by the House of Commons.

We have a Senate in this case that gives British Columbia as much power as the province of Ontario, that has the legitimacy of an election and that has remarkable power to influence the day-to-day activities and involvement of the people in this province.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

[ Page 3604 ]

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

An Hon. Member: The Libs want it.

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

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

The Speaker: Your point of order?

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Let me go on. During the course of the discussions that happened after the collapse of the Meech Lake accord, Canadians said that there had to be recognition of the principle of equality of the provinces. It was felt that no one province should have powers that are not available to other provinces. The rallying cry from one end of the country to the other was that we had to have respect for the principle of equality of the provinces.

This constitutional agreement, which is being put in front of the people of this country on October 26, says very clearly, up front, in the Canada clause, that the principle of the equality of the provinces is hereby recognized and accepted. That flawed the Meech Lake accord. The failure to recognize that principle has now been corrected through the provisions now found in the Canada clause in this constitution.

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

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

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