1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 22

[ Page 7875 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: Joining us in Victoria in the galleries today are several mayors from around northern British Columbia. I particularly want to introduce Mayor Blair Lekstrom from Dawson Creek, Mayor Thorlakson from Fort St. John and Mayor Frank Read from Vanderhoof, who were with us this morning when we announced our oil and gas initiative. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have present in the members' gallery two Members of Parliament: Chuck Cadman, the MP for Surrey North and justice critic for the Reform Party, and Keith Martin, the MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're joined in the precincts today by many members of the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. I know that many of us will be joining them for a reception this evening. We are also joined in the House today by Stanley French, who is the manager of communications and policy development for the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. Would the House please join me in making him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a birthday announcement today: Chris Brinton, a U.TV cameraman, is 40 years old. Would the House please wish him a happy birthday.

P. Nettleton: It is my privilege today to introduce a number of representatives of various communities in northern British Columbia, who are here to meet on a matter of some urgency in dealing with the whole question of the health care crisis in northern British Columbia -- the withdrawal of services by physicians.

Frank Read, mayor of the district municipality of Vanderhoof is here today; Jerry Petersen, director of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako is here as well; Eileen Benedict, director of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako; Tony Thompson, mayor of Fraser Lake; Bob Storey, councillor of the village of Fraser Lake; Paul Jean, mayor of the village of Burns Lake; Bonny Hawley, councillor of the district municipality of Houston and president of the North-Central Municipal Association; Blair Lekstrom, mayor of the city of Dawson Creek and vice-president of the North-Central Municipal Association; and last but not least, Mayor Jim Togyi of Fort St.

James, that wonderful little town in northern British Columbia. Please join me in welcoming them.

J. Wilson: In the gallery today we have a very well-known individual: Steve Wallace, the mayor of the city of Quesnel and the president of the UBCM. I ask that the House make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the pleasure to make two sets of introductions today. First, joining us in the members' gallery we have some special visitors: His Excellency Loïc Hennekinne, the Ambassador of France to Canada. He is accompanied by Maryse Berniau, consul general of France at Vancouver. I'm looking forward to meeting with him and the ambassador later this afternoon and ask the House to make them very welcome.

Also, in anticipation of this afternoon, I'm pleased that we have in the gallery today two of the members of the B.C. Unity Panel: Cheryl Tellier and Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs. I'd ask the House to please join me in making them welcome as well.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have some representatives from the Catholic Women's League who met with members of our caucus this morning. We have Margaret Beardon, Jackie Lenarduzzi, Lorraine Saherty and Marion Nygren. Could the House please make them welcome.

Also, I'd like to extend my welcome to constituents of mine: Eileen Benedict, Paul Jean and Bonny Hawley, who are with us in the gallery today as well.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to introduce Lorraine Saherty to the House. She was introduced by the member just a minute ago. She is a longtime resident of Fort Nelson and a very good friend, and she's here with some others. Because I don't often get to introduce people from that far north, I had to do it.

The other person I certainly have to add my welcome to is the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson.

E. Gillespie: I'd like the House to join me today in welcoming 45 grade 11 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in the Comox Valley, along with their teachers, Geoff Horn and Barry Walker. Please join me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

B.C. IMMIGRANT SERVICES

G. Campbell: We know today that the government has agreed to a new deal with Ottawa with regard to the funding of immigration settlement services in British Columbia. In fact, the government has agreed to a deal that will provide British Columbia with approximately half the funds that the province of Quebec has received since 1991. Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations explain why the government capitulated on this and agreed to the province of British Columbia receiving only $45.7 million while the province of Quebec has received $90 million a year for immigrant settlement since 1991?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sometimes comparisons can be misleading, and that is the case in this particular matter. We have, for the first time in the history of this province, twice the amount of money that the federal government spent on settlement renewal and settlement services for immigrants -- twice that amount flowing into the province. The federal government, for the first time, started giving additional money: $22 million for '96-97, for '97-98 and for '98-99.

This particular agreement formalizes that. It also devolves settlement services that are being provided by the federal government currently; $23 million for those services is being forwarded to British Columbia under this agreement. So there is total new money coming to us of $45 million, $23 million of which is for the services that the federal government was providing and that we're going to be providing, and $22 million in recognition of the services that we have been providing that the federal government should have been providing.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

[ Page 7876 ]

G. Campbell: First of all, there is no one in this House, I am sure, who doesn't agree that the federal government should be providing a substantially larger sum of money to support immigrant services in the province of British Columbia. Certainly that's what we would demand, and we would have expected the government to demand that.

The fact is that the province of Quebec gets 35 percent of the government's federal funding for 13 percent of the total immigrants. In British Columbia we get 17 percent for 22 percent of the total immigrants. The fact of the matter is that we are not getting our fair share. My question to the minister is: why wouldn't he stand up to the federal government and demand that we be treated equally in this province, that our immigrants get the same federal support for settlement services as those in any other part of the country? Specifically, why wouldn't we demand the same standards for B.C. immigrant services as Quebec has managed to attain for Quebec immigrant services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are comparing apples and oranges. There is an agreement with the government of Quebec, entered into under the Mulroney regime of '91. It's an agreement that takes into account the labour market training element and responsibility for government-sponsored refugees. Quebec is responsible. It is going to provide social assistance to them, and other benefits, which the province of British Columbia is not going to provide. As well, you have the government of Quebec processing and selecting its own immigrants, with employees at missions abroad. I think it's important for us to recognize that their costs are far more excessive than ours.

It is important, however, to recognize that this is a two-year agreement, in terms of the money, for the '98-99 and 1999-2000 fiscal years. It will be renegotiated at the end of that period. This agreement, for the first time, allows us to do several other things. If the hon. member asks me a question, I'll respond.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I'd like to thank the minister for responding to a question. That's a good thing.

What I would like to ask the minister, though, is . . . . We may be dealing with apples and oranges here. The fact of the matter is that we need more resources for immigrant services in British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that we have agreed to approximately half the funding that the province of Quebec gets.

Once again, the minister points out that we don't get to select immigrants the way they do in Quebec. This, in fact, allows us to select 200 business immigrants,

whereas in Quebec they're allowed to select all of their business immigrants. Why wouldn't we ask for the same agreement in British Columbia that they have in Quebec? Why wouldn't we demand $90 million for services so that we can get on with providing our immigrants the services they need across the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there's consensus that British Columbians don't want us to have a duplicate system of selecting immigrants for British Columbia. What we do want, however, is more consultation and more input into policy and planning for the national immigration policy. And for the first time, we have that entrenched in this agreement in writing, in black and white.

We also have for the first time the ability to select at least 200 immigrants per year for the next five years -- a total of 1,000 immigrants and their families -- for the purposes of meeting our skill needs, our business needs, and to attract investment in British Columbia. As I said, that's the Pavel Bure clause or the Jim Pattison clause -- take your pick. For people who will make a significant contribution to this province and who otherwise can't qualify, the province will be able to say: "We want that individual to come and invest billions in this province." We have the ability to do that.

There are some other elements that, if the hon. member asks me and the Speaker allows me, I'll speak about.

REPORT ON CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

S. Hawkins: On Friday the Health minister tried to minimize a damning report on cardiac wait-lists by releasing it shortly before a long weekend. What this report reveals is that the wait for cardiac surgery has more than doubled since the NDP got elected, and the number of patients forced to wait longer than six months for cardiac surgery has tripled.

My question is to the Health minister: how can patients have any confidence that the waits will improve under the NDP, since five successive Health ministers have let the wait-lists for cardiac surgery in B.C. become the worst they've ever been?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm actually very pleased to speak to the cardiac review panel results and the announcement made on Friday -- albeit before a long weekend, but leave is very hard to get these days. Many people were there, including the cardiac surgeons who've been part of the review panel. There are three reasons why people can be assured that this government will continue to attend to wait-lists.

One is that we set up the cardiac review panel, and we have accepted every single recommendation they made: funding of $8.5 million, which is 700 cardiac procedures this year, in new, annualized money -- 20 percent more cardiac procedures. The cardiac surgeons and cardiologists said they were very pleased with the government's response to their report. That's on top of $16 million in new dollars for other kinds of wait-lists in the province.

S. Hawkins: What the minister left out of her press release is that only one in five cardiac patients has the chance of getting their surgery done within the recommended period of time, and I think that's pathetic.

The opposition has received a leaked memo from a consulting group hired by the Ministry of Health. In reference to the May 3 draft of the cardiac report, the memo says: "This is the almost final editorialized version of the report." My question to the Health minister is: how can anyone believe in her or her government when her ministry insists on editorializing reports before they're ever made public?

Hon. P. Priddy: The report is available, and significant . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I guess people like Dr. Richard Brownlee and other cardiologists and cardiac surgeons are

[ Page 7877 ]

part of the whitewash, because they support the report. They have the final copy, they agree with it, and they agreed with this government's response to their recommendations. So if the member is suggesting that all those cardiologists and cardiac surgeons are participating in a whitewash, then I'm quite appalled by that. They are cardiologists and cardiac surgeons in this province who are outstanding; I think that's appalling.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: The facts are simple: the longer patients wait for cardiac surgery, the higher their risk of dying. This leaked memo, from the ministry's consultants, also states that the Ministry of Health has requested that they include data comparing the B.C. deaths on the wait-list experience with Ontario. Unfortunately for the ministry, the situation in B.C. under the NDP is so bad that the best statistics they could come up with from Ontario still showed a much higher death rate in B.C. My question is to the Minister of Health: why is it so important for the Minister of Health to get statistics more damning than hers before she releases her report?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct: there is a small difference between British Columbia and Ontario. But in the past I have heard the hon. member refer to the fact that we don't have standards across this country for wait-lists. We don't have any kind of data gathered that say that over a period of time the number of patients who are classified as either urgent, elective or emergency and who have died waiting for surgery. In an attempt to gather data from across the country, we are looking at what other provinces do, and we've included . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: Our mothers wouldn't like this.

The Speaker: The question was listened to in silence; I suggest that the answer also be listened to.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have attempted to collect data from the only other province that has a cardiac registry, which is Ontario. We can't get it from other provinces. But do we want to measure ourselves against standards? Of course we do. This initiative -- a 20 percent increase in cardiac procedures this year -- will make a significant difference. If there are 700 people who are going to get the procedures, I would think that that is a very significant difference for those 700 families.

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL MAINTENANCE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Many principals spend part of their day cleaning out toilets and fixing playground equipment while this minister undermines free collective bargaining and guts CUPE work. Will this minister assure the principals who are in Victoria today and tomorrow that he will put in place enough funding so there can be adequate maintenance and custodial work in our schools, so that principals don't have to spend their day unblocking toilets that are blocked?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't know if the member was here earlier when I asked all members to welcome principals and vice-principals to the precincts. I encouraged members to attend the reception that they're hosting this evening, because I do value the work that principals and vice-principals do in our schools. They are the educational leaders on a local level, and they hold schools and communities together for neighbourhoods across British Columbia.

As far as funding, this member somehow believes that a $105 million increase in the operating budget this year doesn't address these issues; it does. This $105 million -- $93 more per student in every school in British Columbia -- enables principals, vice-principals and the staff they work with to do a good job for our children.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, $105 million is going to simply catch us up to where we should be this year. Will the minister confirm today that the deal that was cut in the back rooms between the office of the Premier and the BCTF will provide no additional CUPE work or relief for maintenance in the schools of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has caught the disease from the official opposition. This is indeed a spend-more day on the opposition benches.

We've devoted $105 million to increasing operating budgets. We're spending $338 million on an exciting initiative to reduce the number of portables in this province by half over the next five years. And we have a groundbreaking agreement with the teachers of this province to put $150 million more into classrooms, reduce K-to-3 class sizes and hire 1,200 more teachers to help our children.

CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS IN NORTHERN B.C.

P. Nettleton: In the ministry's report, when broken down by hospital, we discover that the wait-list for cardiac surgery for northern and rural patients is 20 weeks. Northern and rural patients wait at least five weeks longer than patients in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island. My question is to the Minister of Health: how can she deny that we have a two-tier health care system when patients in the north have to wait months longer than patients in the south?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is correct. There are some differences in the wait-list times, and we have to move to narrow those or to make sure that there is no inequity between the two. But let's look at the information available to us. The only places where cardiac surgery is currently done are in Victoria, Vancouver and New Westminster, which is one of the reasons we asked the cardiac panel to at least look at and offer for our consideration the need to establish a cardiac centre outside of, if you will, the lower mainland and Victoria. That's exactly what they did.

We will be able, when we look at that and establish a new centre, to ensure that people in the north who have to come farther do have greater access and faster time through the wait-lists.

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition signed by 399 British Columbians.

"We the petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House revisit the issue of hepatitis C compensation to reflect the

[ Page 7878 ]

concerns of British Columbians and to offer a fair, compassionate and humane compensation package to all who have received infected blood."

G. Campbell: I rise to present a petition. I'd like to present this petition on behalf of 17,000 British Columbians who request that the Legislative Assembly reconsider its position and have B.C. support Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in their constitutional challenge to Bill C-68.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. D. Miller: By leave, I call Motion 48 standing in Orders of the Day of Thursday last.

[WHEREAS the B.C. Unity Panel of legislators and private citizens has consulted the people of British Columbia about the Calgary Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity, which was agreed to by the federalist Premiers and Territorial Leaders of Canada on September 14, 1997, and about other issues pertaining to national unity;

AND

WHEREAS British Columbians have affirmed their commitment to preserving a strong and united Canada that fosters the social and economic well being of all its citizens;

AND

WHEREAS British Columbians have expressed their commitment to the equality of status for all provinces, while recognizing the unique character of Quebec;

AND

WHEREAS the Calgary Framework in no way diminishes the rights enjoyed by Canadians;

AND

WHEREAS the Calgary Framework does not imply agreement to constitutional change, and any future amendment to the Constitution of Canada must be approved by British Columbians in a referendum in accordance with the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act, RSBC 1996, c. 67.

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this Legislative Assembly endorse the principles of the Calgary Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity as follows:

1. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law.

2. All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.

3. Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.

5. In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.

6. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.

And that, following upon the report of the B.C. Unity Panel, this Legislative Assembly endorse these further principles:

1. That British Columbia supports national standards for health care and believes that these standards are best set co-operatively by the federal government with the provinces;

2. That British Columbia supports the federal government's equalization program and believes that for other federal transfers for health, education, and social programs, provinces should receive the same level of federal funding per person;

3. That British Columbia believes that provinces should be able to assume greater responsibility in areas that are important to them, such as fisheries in the case of British Columbia.]

The Speaker: It's been posted in the proceedings, so it's not necessary to put the question of leave. Before we begin that, I just have one . . . .

I beg your pardon, hon. member. It does require leave because it's not in Orders of the Day , so I'll put the question. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, I think you need to call Committee A.

Government House Leader.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm a last minute stand-in as House Leader, hon. Speaker. However, we shall prevail.

In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The Speaker: And in this committee, we will be dealing with the motion.

Just before we begin the debate, I have a couple of paragraphs that I would like to share with members on Motion 48. Before debate proceeds on Motion 48, standing in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, May 14, 1998, I wish to make a brief observation. Members will have noticed that the form of the motion departs somewhat from the normal restrictions applicable to motions outlined in the notes to standing order 50 in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 117.

Debate will proceed on the motion as tendered, as it deals with matters arising out of the Calgary framework on Canadian unity, and the Chair has been previously advised that the form of the motion has the approval of government and the official opposition.

We can now proceed with the debate.

[2:30]

CALGARY FRAMEWORK FOR

DISCUSSION ON CANADIAN UNITY

Hon. A. Petter: It is a tremendous pleasure for me to be participating in a debate concerning the Calgary framework and the consultation process that took place following that framework in British Columbia, in particular because of the role that British Columbia played in terms of participating in the development of the framework and the process that flowed from it -- the process that has resulted in the opportunity today for this House to debate a resolution that represents British Columbia's perspective on national unity matters.

[ Page 7879 ]

The purpose of this resolution is to put forward the position of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia with respect to the Calgary framework. This debate is important. It is about national unity, and in particular, it is about the perspective of British Columbians on how best to foster national unity. The Calgary framework sets out seven principles that are intended to serve as a basis for renewing the federation and strengthening national unity. This framework was defined through discussions amongst the nine Premiers and the two territorial leaders last September.

It was clearly understood, however, that the principles embodied within the framework were to be taken back to the provinces and territories for public input. Indeed, this is one of the bottom-line positions the Premier of British Columbia succeeded in achieving as part of those discussions.

There was an understanding that those discussions would not result in a closed-door deal but in an open framework that could be taken back and discussed with British Columbians, and that this framework would not be exhaustive but would provide an opportunity for British Columbians to add their own perspective and their own value, which might result in a resolution that is in some ways different than the resolutions that would come forward in other parts of the country.

This input was sought in British Columbia through the efforts of the B.C. Unity Panel, consisting of 12 citizens and ten elected officials from all parties in this Legislature, as well as representatives from the federal Parliament. The panel held public meetings in all regions of the province and received over 700 written and oral submissions and almost 50,000 responses to a questionnaire sent to every household in the province.

The response given by British Columbians through the Unity Panel was very clear. British Columbians are passionately committed to keeping Canada united, and they support the seven principles contained in the Calgary framework. In addition, British Columbians expressed strong support for three other principles that they also regard as important in the context of discussions on national unity. These additional principles are set out in the resolution before us today.

Taken together, these principles reflect a British Columbia perspective on the values that should guide us in building a stronger Canada. They also encourage us to consider in practical terms the strategies that British Columbians want us to pursue in our efforts to renew the federation. In doing this, we need to approach our discussions with a sense of context and a sense of history. We must learn from our experiences -- both our successes and our mistakes. We must be pragmatic, maximizing clarity without sacrificing the need to be flexible in accommodating diverse interests.

As we know from recent history, principles that are inflexible are unlikely to be workable, while principles that are unclear can give rise to contradictory expectations and thus be worse than no principles at all.

The Calgary framework articulated seven principles that underlie Canadians' commitment to national unity and that can help to guide our future course of action. The Calgary principles speak to the need to maintain provincial equality while respecting diversity amongst provinces within the context of our federal system. One of the strengths of Canadian federalism is that it enables provinces to participate in Canada on an equal footing without sacrificing their varied and singular characteristics.

For this reason, the framework is able to affirm the equality of status of all provinces while also recognizing the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law as being fundamental to the well-being of Canada.

Finally, the Calgary framework speaks to the need for governments to work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. It calls upon federal and provincial governments to work cooperatively to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation, particularly in relation to the delivery of key social programs.

The B.C. Unity Panel found that 80 percent of British Columbians support the Calgary framework as a whole, and this support was consistent throughout the province. British Columbians are passionate Canadians, and they are stalwart supporters of national unity. Time and again, British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they want to be part of the solution to the challenges that we face as Canadians and that they are prepared to play a larger role in Canada.

Indeed, British Columbians feel strongly that to date they have not been given the opportunity they wish to have to play a larger role in the future of this country. In making their views known to the panel, British Columbians were also very clear in their view that issues of national unity are not synonymous with the concerns of central Canada, nor are they limited to matters related to Quebec and the threat of separation.

Moreover, fostering national unity must not mean reverting to the sterile obsession with constitutional amendment that dominated both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. In this regard, it is important to understand that the Calgary framework is not a constitutional amendment, nor does it imply agreement to constitutional change. The resolution before us makes that crystal-clear. Indeed, it affirms what every member of this Legislature already knows -- that is, that the road to a constitutional amendment in British Columbia must be by means of referendum.

In summarizing the input it received from British Columbians, the panel also found that while each of the principles achieved majority support, including the unique character of Quebec society, the strongest support was given to statements that recognize principles of equality. These include equality of persons in the first principle, equality of provinces in the second, equality of opportunity in the third, respect for diversity in the fourth, equality underlying unity in the fifth, and the availability of powers conferred on one province to all other provinces in the sixth principle.

But the panel's work also highlighted how British Columbians think about other issues and how those other issues are intimately connected in the minds of British Columbians to the question of national unity. British Columbians clearly want us to focus on real solutions to real problems. What I mean by this is that the statements of the principles in the Calgary framework are important, but clearly they are not enough. They are important because they identify general values around which we can unite.

But they are not enough, because they don't explain how these values should be translated into actions that address the real problems that we face. That is why it is critical in this debate that we use this opportunity to look beyond the Calgary principles themselves and engage in a constructive discussion about where those principles take us, in fashioning a renewed federalism for the new millennium.

The resolution before us today, hon. Speaker, helps in this regard by incorporating three additional principles identified

[ Page 7880 ]

by British Columbians. These principles are not inconsistent with the Calgary framework. Indeed, they augment and build upon the Calgary principles to address three key themes: first, the importance of national social programs; second, the need for equality in federal-provincial fiscal relations; and third, the case for devolution to the provinces of specific areas of local interest. I intend to address each of these themes in turn.

By doing so, I hope to show that, taken together with the Calgary framework, these themes help to provide a road map that we might follow to achieve a new national consensus -- a new form of cooperative federalism to meet the needs not just of British Columbians but of all Canadians as we prepare to enter a new millennium.

When we look at the history of this country, one of the major triumphs has been the network of social programs that we have built together to serve Canadians and meet their needs. The evolution of our health care system, our public education and our system of income security has helped to define our sense of national identity in the latter half of this century. Indeed, these social programs are sometimes referred to as the twentieth-century equivalent of the national railway system that helped to define Canada in the nineteenth century.

The significance attached to these programs is also a reflection of the pragmatic nature of Canadians. It is not that we're less concerned than others about grand statements of principle. It's just that we're particularly interested in understanding what such statements actually mean in terms of their ability to provide solutions to the day-to-day problems we face as individuals, as families and as communities. We are justifiably proud of our accomplishments in building these social programs, which more than anything express our shared commitment to one another and our common bond as Canadians.

But British Columbians also understand that these programs have come under real threat in recent years and that we must be vigilant if we are to ensure their continued viability. The future of these programs particularly depends upon our ability to maintain a stable and adequate base of funding. Yet the past few years have seen a serious erosion of that base, as the federal government has cut the contributions it has made through social program transfers by over 50 percent since 1985. The introduction two years ago of the Canada Health and Social Transfer -- the CHST -- alone reduced the federal contribution by 33 percent, or some $6.2 billion.

These cuts highlight a more fundamental issue that is directly relevant to the debate before us. This issue concerns the fact that Ottawa's involvement in these programs has been based on federal spending power rather than on any legislative power -- given that legislative responsibility for these programs rests for the most part with the provinces. In the past, the spending power was used by the federal government as a powerful tool to encourage provinces to establish core social programs in accordance with federally defined standards.

But in recent years, the spending power has proved to be a two-edged sword, permitting the federal government to withdraw funding unilaterally while still purporting to maintain its role as enforcer of national standards.

The result has been a growing fiscal imbalance, represented by the ever-increasing costs provinces are expected to bear in order to fund key social programs and the inability of provinces to meet those costs through tax room and reduced transfers provided by the federal government.

At the root of this imbalance is the fact that while primary responsibility for funding the core social programs lies with the provinces, access to the largest share of the most productive revenue sources -- personal and corporate income tax -- remains with Ottawa. Moreover, the federal government, having eliminated its deficit through cuts to these programs, has compounded the problem by directing new spending not to restoring moneys previously cut but rather to creating new boutique programs such as the Millennium Scholarship.

These new programs maximize the visibility and political credit for the federal government while disregarding the severe funding problems faced by medicare and other existing programs.

I've gone into some detail about this, hon. Speaker, because in my view this theme around national social programs lies very much at the heart of our debate about the Calgary framework, especially with respect to the seventh principle. This principle speaks of Canada as a federal system, where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. It also states that Canadians want their governments to work together, particularly in the delivery of their social programs.

The recent history of federal funding for these core programs illuminates the importance of that principle and the extent to which it has been neglected in recent years. If this principle is now to be given practical meaning, the federal and provincial governments must recommit themselves to maintaining and strengthening national social programs, particularly our national system of health care.

British Columbians told the Unity Panel -- and this is reflected in the additional principles before us today -- that they support national standards for health care and that they expect both orders of government to cooperate in setting and meeting those standards. Achieving this will not be easy. It will require political will on the part of all governments to forge a new collaborative framework for defining and delivering national social programs in Canada.

But while it won't be easy, it is essential, and work towards such a framework has already begun and is being pursued by federal, provincial and territorial representatives on the ministers' council on social program renewal. This council has been mandated by first ministers to develop a framework agreement on the social union.

British Columbia's goal in these discussions is to seek a cooperative approach to funding and delivering these crucial programs, combining the need for provincial flexibility to meet local conditions with strong national standards that are mutually agreed upon and jointly enforced. We are also, in this and other forums, asking the federal government to curtail its use of the federal spending power in new program areas and to commit new federal resources to restoring an adequate and stable source of funding for existing social programs -- particularly our medicare programs.

The outcome of these discussions is crucial to the future of Canada's national social programs. For this reason, these discussions are as much a part of fostering Canadian unity as is the Calgary framework itself.

[2:45]

It is important to tie these threads together in addressing the resolution before us. This resolution gives urgency to the need for all governments to demonstrate progress in supporting national social programs within a collaborative framework and will help to guide that work in a principled and consistent manner. It is only through such linked efforts that the principles set out in this resolution will be given practical effect, in the form of meaningful change that meets the needs of the people. That, after all, must be the touchstone for all of us.

The second major theme running through the Unity Panel report is that of equality. Indeed, equality is mentioned in five of the seven principles in the Calgary framework. The

[ Page 7881 ]

Unity Panel found that while all seven principles are supported by a majority of British Columbians, the strongest support was given to statements which recognized equality. I might note that wherever concerns were expressed, they too tend to revolve around issues of equality. British Columbians clearly understand and support the view that equality and diversity are two complementary principles of citizenship that are fundamental to Canadians. The adequacy and fairness of the balance struck between these two principles is a kind of litmus test that's employed by British Columbians in addressing the actions of government.

British Columbians also endorse the principle that all provinces are equal under constitutional law. No province should be given more or less authority than any other; no province is of higher or lower status than any other. For this reason, British Columbians have clearly expressed their opposition to any constitutional amendment that will confer a special status on any one province or region. Of course, the principle of equality of provinces does not imply that all provinces are the same, just as the principle of equality of persons does not imply that all individuals are identical.

Provinces vary greatly in terms of their populations, their geography, their history, their politics, their culture and their economies. Each province is distinctive in its own way and has its own unique identity. That diversity can be protected and celebrated by ensuring that provinces have the autonomy and flexibility they need to respond to their diverse circumstances, without having to grant any province special status or powers that are not enjoyed by others.

As I have said, Canadians are a pragmatic lot. Over the decades, we have invented mechanisms to meet our needs. One of those mechanisms is a system of equalization payments, which transfers money to provinces whose ability to raise revenues to support provincial programs is weaker than others. The Unity Panel reported that British Columbians support this principle, as it is aimed at allowing provinces to provide similar levels of programs to people no matter where they may live in Canada. As such, it is an important and practical demonstration of the commitment of Canadians to the principle of equality and to each other.

The panel also reported, however, that with respect to federal transfers for health, education and social programs, British Columbians believe that provinces should receive an equal level of federal funding per person, based upon need. In other words, efforts to equalize the relative position of provinces should be confined to the equalization program and should not be extended to other social programs, so as to undermine the principle of equal per-capita funding. Yet this, unfortunately, is exactly what has happened in recent years. Ottawa has used equalization as a pretext for discriminating against provinces with respect to other federal transfer programs.

For British Columbia, the most infamous example of this was the cap on CAP a few years ago, which restricted funding provided to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario for social assistance transfers -- despite the fact that British Columbia faces higher immigration and higher cost pressures than many other provinces. The effect of that restriction continues to this day in the reduced level of entitlements that British Columbia receives under the CHST. Again, I mention this history for the purpose of illuminating the path we need to follow in solving such problems in the future.

I want to relate all of this back to the resolution before us today. The equality principles contained in the Calgary framework lead to certain conclusions for British Columbia. In exploring what those principles mean in practice, the Unity Panel found that British Columbians support the proposition that the federal government has a legitimate and vital role to play in equalizing the capacity of provincial governments to provide core social programs to their citizens. The vehicle for achieving this is the equalization program.

But the principle of equality is seen to be compromised if, beyond equalization, funding for other federal transfers is distributed in a manner that discriminates amongst provinces. This is because British Columbians believe, quite rightly, that a person's entitlement to federally funded health care, education or social dollars should be the same regardless of whether that person lives in British Columbia, Newfoundland or Manitoba. A person in need of health care is as much in need and as worthy of federal regard no matter which province they may live in.

Put simply, British Columbians believe that the equalization program should do the job that it was intended to do in remedying disparities amongst provinces, but that it should not be used to erode the sense of common entitlement that citizens enjoy with respect to other federal transfer programs.

I must say, in a similar vein, that there is also a clear impression amongst British Columbians -- supported by overwhelming evidence -- that this province does not receive equitable treatment in relation to other federal program expenditures. Whether that treatment is measured by federal procurement of goods and services, by support for culture or by the presence of federal offices in this province, citizens are all too often aware that British Columbia frequently receives less than its fair per-capita share.

Addressing these issues would again constitute an important, practical contribution to national unity, in meeting the real needs and concerns of British Columbians while removing the lingering sense that principles of equality are not applied consistently to all provinces. This is a message that came through loud and clear in the report of the Unity Panel. It is one that this province will continue to press directly with the federal government as well as in the context of other discussions that I mentioned earlier, concerning social program renewal and fiscal arrangements.

The third theme running through the Unity Panel's findings also relates to the need to balance diversity and equality. It is the theme of enabling the provinces to assume greater autonomy by devolving powers of responsibility to them in certain areas of local concern. British Columbians recognize that provinces vary greatly in a number of dimensions, and they want to live in a federation where their particular needs and concerns are addressed quickly and effectively.

One of the major benefits of a federal system is that it allows for differences in circumstances and interests to be reflected differently in various parts of the country. It allows for responsibilities to be assigned according to the needs of citizens and reflects the fact that governments that are closer to the people -- both physically and politically -- can be more flexible and responsive in addressing the particular needs of those people. On this theme I would commend to the House's attention the report tabled last summer by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Where the federal government is best positioned to take action, British Columbians support that, as they do in the case of national standards -- provided we have the means to make our voices clearly heard in Ottawa. But where provinces are best positioned to take action, we believe that they should have the autonomy to respond to local needs and conditions.

The fact is that most, if not all, provinces are seeking greater autonomy in some fields. For example, British Colum-

[ Page 7882 ]

bia, Quebec, Alberta and a number of other provinces have been seeking greater control over labour market development and training. In other fields, greater provincial autonomy may be of interest to only one or perhaps just a few provinces. British Columbia, for example, has sought greater control over the west coast fishery, a move that the Unity Panel reports is strongly supported by most British Columbians. Why?

Because the fishery is at the heart of our coastal communities and because some aspects of the fishery demand governmental responses that are particularly tailored and sensitive to local needs and conditions -- responses we believe the province is better suited to make than the federal government.

This call for greater autonomy is squared with the principle of equality by recognizing that all provinces should have equal access to achieving greater responsibility in areas that are of particular local interest to them. In the Calgary framework, these sentiments are reflected in the interplay between the equality principles and the wording of the seventh principle, which stresses the need for governments "to work co-operatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation."

Let me draw these themes together in urging that we approve the resolution before us today and in sketching out the more important linkages we must make to ensure that today's debate is not simply an exercise in hollow rhetoric or symbolism -- that it points much more practically to the future. First, the seven principles contained in the Calgary framework are supported by British Columbians on the basis that they reflect our key values and beliefs.

British Columbians are strongly -- indeed passionately -- committed to a united Canada and to a Canada that is founded on principles of cooperation, equality and recognition of diversity. Second, British Columbians also identified other principles of key importance, principles focusing on the value of national social programs, on the need for equality in federal fiscal relations and on the desirability of giving provinces greater responsibilities in areas of local concern.

Third, all of these statements of principle are significant, not just because they define common values around which we can coalesce but because they provide a starting point for the even more important work required to give them practical effect in addressing the challenges that confront Canada.

As we approach a new millennium, I believe that we are at a crossroads as a country and that the principles in this resolution serve as a useful signpost pointing us in the direction that we should be going in. All of the themes I have discussed today guide us in our efforts to find solutions to the problems we face. The message conveyed to us through the Unity Panel is that these solutions should be found in a renewed federal-provincial relationship designed to benefit all Canadians, not just British Columbians.

What British Columbians are looking for, for themselves and for the country, is a new vision of cooperative federalism animated by complementary commitments to equality and diversity both for provinces and for individual Canadians -- a form of federalism that is characterized by strong social programs, supported by adequate sources of funding, and defined by national standards set and enforced collaboratively by federal and provincial governments.

They're looking for a form of federalism in which there is a clearly understood division of labour between the need for an effective program of equalization for poorer provinces and the need to ensure that all provinces receive the same level of funding per person with respect to federal transfers for health, education and other social programs. They're looking for recognition of the value of devolving responsibilities in areas where provinces are better situated to meet the specific needs and concerns of their citizens.

In a very real way, British Columbia is particularly well-placed to help realize this vision on the national scene. Geographically, British Columbia is on the periphery of Canada, but with respect to the issues that are reflected in this resolution and in this debate, British Columbia stands very much at the centre of the country. On the one hand, British Columbians have a keen sense of our own identity and of the things that distinguish us from the rest of the country; on the other hand, we remain unswerving in our support for a united Canada and for the principle of provincial equality.

British Columbia has consistently supported equalization for poorer provinces and continues to make a major fiscal contribution to the Canadian federation. But we are just as strong in demanding that federal transfers for social programs be distributed on an equal per-capita basis amongst the provinces and that other federal spending be distributed fairly. While we support those who want greater autonomy to enable provinces to better respond to local conditions, we also agree with those who argue for an effective central government to protect national programs, principles and standards.

Given our stance on these and other issues, I believe that we in British Columbia are uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between the competing interests and visions that have sometimes divided this country in the past. We can suggest the means of reconciling those interests and visions in a way that makes sense, not only at the level of the principles set out in the Calgary framework and in this resolution but, more importantly, in practical terms that recognize the need for governments to respond to the real demands of citizens in every part of this country.

This does not require us to consider further resolutions, and it certainly does not require us to pass constitutional amendments. The value of the principles we are debating today does not depend upon their being incorporated into the constitution but upon their being infused with practical meaning, to better serve the interests of all Canadians.

That is the challenge that is before us now, not just in British Columbia but in every province across this country. If we can rise to that challenge, then we have an opportunity to forge a new model of cooperative federalism for this millennium, one that will animate the words of this resolution and help to unite this country in the years ahead. I hope that we are up to that challenge; I believe we are. I believe we are also capable of playing a major role in assisting others to meet that challenge in the months and years ahead.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make introductions.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members.

We have a number of groups here today from the United States. The first group was here earlier in this sitting and are now touring the precincts. There are some 28 visitors: grade 7 students, with some adults and their teacher, Mr. Stuckmeier, from the Annie Wright Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington. Please make them welcome.

Just now we have a group from the Presidio Middle School in San Francisco. There are 35 students from grades 6 to 8, with several adults. They are here for a lesson in comparative government and local history with their teacher, Mrs. Tse. Please welcome them.

[ Page 7883 ]

[3:00]

G. Campbell: I want to start by thanking the government for adjusting the agenda so that we could discuss this motion today. I'm not going to be here tomorrow, but I wanted an opportunity to speak to this resolution and motion which was brought forward by the Premier. My thanks to the Government House Leader for that.

I want to start by talking about the process, because as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has pointed out, this is an opportunity for British Columbians to show some leadership -- some true leadership. I'm afraid that we have missed that opportunity. Too often, as we sit in this House or as we go about our day-to-day activities, our day-to-day political life, we forget that there are many things that we have in common. We forget that we share many areas of agreement. I think, in fact, that that agreement is reflected in the motion.

It's reflected by the voices of British Columbians, who came out in the middle of December to comment on how vitally they felt about their country and about the ability to strengthen it.

It was more than two years ago that I made a presentation to one of the federal caucuses in Vancouver. During that presentation, I highlighted four key values that I thought British Columbians believed in, four key values that we felt should inform the national debate and national issues. I said first that we believe in equal rights and responsibilities. Every Canadian should have the same rights, the same responsibilities, and the same rights and freedoms anywhere in Canada. Second, we believe in equal treatment.

Every Canadian, regardless of where they live in Canada, should be treated equally by federal government programs. Third, we believe in more open government. Governments at all levels should make decisions in an open and forthright manner, so that all Canadians have the opportunity of making their views known before decisions are made rather than after their impacts are felt. Fourth, most people believe that government has abandoned them. Government has abandoned the working families of this country. Every day across this province, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians go to work and pay their taxes.

They're the people who make Canada work, yet the vast majority of those people believe that every year it's harder to get by and that their children will have a lot fewer opportunities than they enjoyed. Government must address their needs and give them hope once again.

When the Premiers met and discussed the Calgary declaration and how we might take some steps forward, I believe that all of them were looking for a new way to try to bring governments together so they meet people's needs in this country and in this province. One of the critical components of that is to understand our history. For a generation, Canadians -- children of my children's age, in their twenties -- have listened as politicians have debated the division of powers. They have listened as politicians seemed to forget that their job is to serve their constituents, not to rule them.

They have listened as politicians set an agenda that talks about which share of the pie one province or another is going to get, while their lives and their quality of life slowly seemed to be ebbing away and, more importantly, as the opportunities that they felt Canada presented for their children seemed to be ebbing away.

Too often, that's been because we have been willing to deal with the division of powers in the constitution. Instead of dealing with what we have in common, we've dealt with what distinguished us. We've dealt with how we were different, and I believe that the Calgary declaration is at least a beginning step in saying that there are some issues and values that Canadians share; there are some values we agree on.

I believe that families in British Columbia have the same goals as families elsewhere in Canada. We want schools that give our kids the tools they need for the real world. We want a health system that's there for us when we need it, and we want our communities to be safe and secure. We want a little bit more money left in our pockets at the end of the month, because we know that we can take better care of our kids and their future than governments can.

I believe that governments should be focused on meeting those needs, not on amending the constitution, so I agree with the major thrust of the Calgary declaration. This is not about constitutional change. Indeed, I agree with the Premier's motion, which points out that this is not an authority for constitutional change. There will be no constitutional change in British Columbia without going to the people of this province through a referendum. That's how it should be, and I'm glad it's specifically referred to in this motion.

The critical component I think we missed in the Calgary declaration was in the unnecessary rush put on it. We had a number of citizens who were willing to come forward and serve on the Unity Panel, and I take my hat off to them for the time and effort they put in at a very difficult time of the year. They showed the reflection of the people of British Columbia, because they showed they were willing to work on finding some solutions and some common values by listening to the people of this province.

Having said that, I think we should think back. We took this important issue, where people in this province are vitally concerned about the future of this country and how we can make it work better for them -- not for a government or an opposition, not for a province or a country, but for them, for their families and for their communities, regardless of where they are in Canada.

We imposed on that Unity Panel a deadline that said that they must do this work by January. Because of that, the Unity Panel held their unity discussions throughout the province. They did travel and tried to encourage people to come out and speak; but again, this was done in December. It was done in the middle of a mail strike and done at a time that said there was really unnecessary haste, because if there was a truly a need for us to conclude this by January, it would have been concluded -- and it wasn't.

If there was really a deadline that wasn't an arbitrarily and politically imposed deadline, then the first thing we would have done when this House met would have been to deal with this resolution. But indeed that was not to be the case. So now here we are, five months past the deadline, discussing this resolution.

I believe that we could have done better, hon. Speaker. I believe that we could have spent more time actually asking people in this province how they felt that they wanted their governments to work in the years ahead. I believe that we could have asked them for their ideas on how to improve the Calgary declaration. What was the result of that undue haste? The result was that 74 percent of people polled in British Columbia in January, right after the Unity Panel's program, were not aware of the hearings. It wasn't that they didn't care; it was that they were not aware. Only 12 percent of the people who were surveyed reported reading the questionnaire that was put out.

I personally believe that the vast majority of British Columbians agree with what is put forward in the Calgary declaration. But again, I think the unnecessary time constraints lost an opportunity for British Columbia: an opportunity for us to show real leadership. I believe that real leadership would have recognized one of the critical components of

[ Page 7884 ]

the Unity Panel's surveys. Ninety percent of the people surveyed said yes when asked: "Do political institutions need to allow more public input into the decisions of government?" Ninety percent agreed that our political institutions have to change to allow more public input into the decisions of government. I think there was some public input and that it was worthwhile public input. We should listen to those voices. But there were a lot of British Columbians who felt left out and who were indeed left out of this process because of its timing and because of the rush.

Having said that, let me say that I believe there is another step that could have been made that would have added to the strength of our position and our leadership role in the unity debate. That has to do with this Legislature. We have a legislative committee on justice, constitutional affairs and intergovernmental relations, representing all parties. I believe that that committee should be working hard to develop a strong British Columbian agenda: an agenda for administrative change, an agenda that recognizes that there are many areas where we do have agreement.

I believe that that committee should have reviewed the report that was brought in by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. A substantial amount of work was put into it; a substantial amount of information is available. Why not have a public, open discussion with regard to that agenda? Why not start moving forward, instead of moving from crisis to crisis or from first ministers' conference to first ministers' conference? Why not recognize that we want to have a vital, dynamic discussion in British Columbia, so that we can show true leadership?

I believe the Unity Panel's report itself should have been submitted to that legislative committee, which has all parties represented on it. I believe that in doing so, they would have been able to come forward with a strong, all-party resolution.

As it is, the Premier has brought forward his motion . . . . I must say that I believe that this motion is worthy of our support. I do have some concerns about the add-ons that have been brought forward, here. Let me say that I think the important thing for us to do as a Legislature is to move forward, to say on behalf of the people of British Columbia who have taken the time to participate that we hear their voices and we will speak for them.

There are some critical parts of this motion that I believe we have to focus on. The first one is equality: the equality of all Canadians regardless of where they live and regardless of their background; the equality of the provinces. I believe it is critical that the provinces be treated equally in the programs that are in front of us. I believe that too often in the past we have not stood and fought for those principles. We have indeed been willing to sacrifice them on the altar of political expediency, and we should not.

I believe that when you talk to British Columbians, they are very clear that they believe in equality, as the previous member mentioned. That has to translate into true action. If we believe in equality . . . . One of the things that I think British Columbians clearly mean when they say they believe in equality is equality of representation. They believe that we are not treated equally when it comes to representation in our national institutions. Why has that been left off in terms of add-ons?

The add-ons are fine, but the fact of the matter is that those were not brought forward by the Unity Panel; those were brought forward by the government. Currently, in terms of Members of Parliament, we are 14 percent underrepresented in this province. In terms of that venerable institution, the Senate, British Columbians have one representative per 620,000 people, as opposed to Prince Edward Island, which has one for 34,000 people, or one per 448,000 that live in Ontario. Many British Columbians look at that and say: "That's not equal." They say that we have to look at ways we can improve that.

I agree with them on that.

When we look at the overall motion that has been brought forward by the government, I think we have to recognize that it does call for equality. It calls for equality of Canadians; it calls for equality of provinces. And we agree with that. We also believe it's critical to note, in terms of both the whereases and the resolution itself, that British Columbians are perfectly willing to recognize the unique character of Quebec -- or the unique character of other parts of the country, for that matter. But that unique character does not bestow on any province a special status.

It is critical for us to understand that equality does not mean uniformity. It does mean providing each part of the province and each citizen with the opportunity to pursue their own goals, their own objectives, in a way that recognizes that we live in a country with incredible opportunity in front of us.

When you look at the resolution that's before us . . . . Again, I point specifically to point No. 7: "Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial, and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions." I believe that is a very important statement. It's important particularly when we look at the situation we face in the province of British Columbia today. It does not say that it believes in Canada as a federal system, with federal, provincial, territorial governments and aboriginal governments that have paramount power over some of them.

It says specifically that we are a federal state which has federal, provincial and territorial governments that work in partnership. And we agree with that.

We believe that it is critical that as we strengthen our federal system, we recognize that there are divisions of responsibility and that there is a division of accountability which must be firmly put in place and firmly established. As we do that, I believe we have to remember that our fundamental task is to reflect the concerns of the people who live here and to respond to their wishes in a way that's positive and constructive.

[3:15]

I believe that one of the goals, as we move forward with administrative changes which will make government work better for the people that live here, is to recognize that the people we serve understand that we live in a dynamic world. The world has changed dramatically since our initial constitutional framework was put in place. When our constitution was first signed, when British Columbia first came into Confederation in 1871, just 36,000 people lived in this entire province. Today there are probably close to four million. British Columbia does have an important leadership role to play.

We must remember that if governments are going to respond to the needs of citizens, they have to be dynamic institutions.

I would encourage the government to continue its opposition to the veto power which has been imposed on constitutional change by the federal government. The veto power effectively stops change. I believe we should understand that. The amending formula which was arrived at is one that should work and is fair for Canadians. It has a high hurdle for approval, but it does allow for some change to take place as the world we live in changes. That is critical for us. So I would encourage the provincial government to continue its efforts in that regard.

Hon. Speaker, I want to speak specifically to the three so-called add-ons to the B.C. Unity Panel's report. The first has to

[ Page 7885 ]

do with national standards in health care. I am the first to accept that people in this country believe that it is important for us to have national standards in health care. It is necessary for us to work together cooperatively with the federal government. But I think that for us to have a true leadership voice, we should be able to provide health care to British Columbians in British Columbia, regardless of where they live.

We have been calling for some time for this government to respond to the cries of people in the north, to respond to the cries of people who are having trouble getting full hospital and emergency services because of this government's intransigence. If we can't meet those needs in the province, how do we expect them to be met nationally? How can we have a true, strong voice with regard to national standards for health care if we don't even have provincial standards for health care?

As the minister said, the words are fine; it's the actions that make a difference. I was talking today to a fellow from Vanderhoof. It cost one of his constituents about $6,000 to be able to go and stay with his wife in Prince George. She was terminally ill; she wanted to be in the hospital in Burns Lake. If we are going to have national standards for health care, we must have provincial standards for health care, and we must be willing to deliver those standards -- as the people of British Columbia expect.

For this to be more than words, it has to be more than simply the provincial government saying: "Send more tax dollars here." There is only one taxpayer, and that one taxpayer expects their money to be spent judiciously, cautiously and prudently; but they expect it to go where their priorities are. There is no question that their priority is for excellent health care in Canada and excellent health care in British Columbia.

The second point: British Columbia supports the federal government's equalization program. Well, I think that can be read the wrong way, hon. Speaker, but I will take it in the spirit that it's given. British Columbians do believe that they should participate in equalization. They are willing to contribute to other provinces through an equalization program, to make sure that facilities and services are available to them. But they do not believe that every program should be used as an equalization program.

They do believe that health care should be provided to them regardless of where they live and that education services should be provided to them regardless of where they live. They do believe that procurement services should be fairer for the province of British Columbia; they are not. They do believe that immigration services should be fairer for the province of British Columbia; they are not.

In terms of federal procurement, we still fall far behind our rightful share. The fact of the matter is that British Columbia represents 101/4 percent of the national economy but receives less than 8 percent in terms of procurement. We're not asking the federal government to spend more; I want to be clear about that. We aren't asking for any more or any less than any other province. We are asking the federal government to give us a fair share in terms of their procurement.

I think it's also important for us to note, in terms of equalization, that British Columbia has accepted and benefited from thousands of new Canadians coming to our province and millions of dollars of investment. But we have not had the support from the federal government that's essential, if those new immigrants and those new Canadians are going to be able to contribute as quickly as possible to the province that we live in. Again today we see that instead of the $19 million that Quebec gets for 21,000 immigrants, British Columbians are supposed to be happy with $45 million for 49,000 immigrants.

We don't ask more; we don't ask less. We ask to be treated equally; we ask to be treated equally with regard to transportation investment. We don't ask more; we don't ask less. We ask for equality for our province.

The last point that's raised is the issue with regard to fisheries. Again I go back to the point that our party has made for some time. There are two key issues in the west coast fishery that we feel need to be addressed: equal treatment for all people in the commercial fishery and a transfer of responsibility to the provincial government. We've been calling for that since 1994. We still believe that it's essential. We still have a fishery that is in jeopardy.

We still have a situation where instead of speaking with one united, focused, constructive and positive voice on how we can save our fish and our fishery in the province, we have a fractured voice. Again, instead of reaching out to all the parties in the Legislature and saying, "Let's speak together; let's speak with one voice for British Columbia," we have the one-man show going again. The problem is not that the one man doesn't want to protect the fishery; the problem is that it is never the case that one person can solve a problem that's that complicated.

It is always the case that by bringing us all together, we end up with a more positive, more forthright and, I think, more lasting solution for the fishery in British Columbia.

As we look at the Calgary declaration, I think it does give us an opportunity to speak with one voice. I think there is far more that needs to be done. There have been concerns raised with regard to the resolution, with regard to the whereases, and I think the critical component of this is that the voices of the people of British Columbia have been heard. There is more that could have been done, but this is a positive first step.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am pleased to say that we will support this resolution, we will support this motion, and I am hopeful that all members of the Legislature will vote in favour of this motion that has been brought forward. It is a motion that will hopefully start us on a process toward a new resolution to the problems that have been daunting to all Canadians for the last generation. It is my hope that we can send a clear message that we are a province that believes in equality and that acts to reflect that belief in equality.

I believe we should send a clear message that says that we believe the people of our province are committed and united in their endeavour to strengthen our country.

I believe it's critical that we send a clear message to everyone that our province is willing to take a leadership role so that the families of British Columbia and the people who live here know they still live in a country with a bright future and with governments that are willing to provide them with the services they need, and that we still live in a country where we are willing to reach out to one another, work together and build on the foundation of agreement, which is critical as we move forward through the years ahead.

I look forward to the debate that will continue with regard to this motion. I hope that we can speak with one single, united voice, and I hope there will be more effort in the future to bring all the voices in the Legislature together to provide the kind of direction and leadership that British Columbia should be showing to a united Canada.

I ask leave to table a document I referred to earlier in my remarks.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7886 ]

D. Jarvis: In the House today, visiting us from Dorothy Lynas Elementary School in my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour, are 28 students and their teacher Ms. Haussmann. Will everyone please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: It's a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion. I believe this to be a very important day in the history of our province and of our country, because we are now the last of the provinces to deal primarily with this motion. The minister is shaking his head and saying no, so I've missed one. Obviously Quebec has not dealt with it and will deal with it by way of committee hearings.

But I think it is interesting that we are now addressing the culmination of work that has taken place not only partly through my office and through the work of Gordon Gibson and of John Munro but also through the national unity committee of citizens which travelled around this province and listened to British Columbians -- on a framework of principles that I think most of us would have expected to be overwhelmingly endorsed and supported by British Columbians.

I don't think many of us, when we took this set of principles to the people, felt that we would have heard many Canadians turn around and say they didn't believe that we should all be equal. I don't think, hon. Speaker, that you would have heard many Canadians say they didn't believe that we are a diverse, tolerant and compassionate country. I don't think you'd expect that most Canadians would have said that our diversity does not include first nations or aboriginal people. I think that that's clearly true.

Similarly, I don't think you would find many British Columbians, notwithstanding the concern we have with respect to special status, who would say that the unique character of Quebec society, including a French-speaking majority with a different culture, civil law and practice of history in Canada, is something that is particularly unique or different. Most people understood that when we took these principles out to the people, we were attempting to put out what we believe most people accepted as the primary tenets -- the primary and most fundamental principles -- that make Canadians Canadians.

[3:30]

I have some concern that when we went out, took this set of principles around and listened to people, British Columbians wanted to depart from the motherhood statements and really talk about some of the core issues that are more important to the day-to-day survival of British Columbians, and they were criticized for somehow diverting from the original intent of what was being proposed here. To the credit of the Premier -- and I said this when the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations made his statement last week -- he said: "No, in British Columbia we're going to look beyond that." That's certainly something I believe we should have done, and it's good that we have done that.

Hon. Speaker, I have to tell you that that balance has not been maintained. The balance is way out of line. When we in British Columbia say, "You know what? We don't like this; we don't think this is good for us as British Columbians, and nor is it good for us as Canadians, because we are seeking to find ways to build a nation, to build equality and to make sure we have sameness across Canada even though we recognize that differences will occur as a result of the ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity," we're told that somehow we're threatening the national unity issue. Where do we hear that?

We hear that in the media, which is owned in large measure by the east. We're told it by federal politicians who have their own agenda to press. We're told by centrists who believe that somehow the federal government should be able to continue to march into areas of provincial jurisdiction and that we should all just take it up and accept it and go along with it.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Let's look at a few statistical pieces of evidence of what I'm talking about today. The federal government is boasting about the fact that it is going to have a surplus because of an increase in revenue of roughly 7.3 percent. Revenue has gone up by 7.3 percent, and they're bragging that they have this surplus. Spending, on the other hand, has gone down by 2.6 percent. The federal government says: "That's because we're prudent fiscal managers." Well, hon. Speaker, do you want proof of the rot in Ottawa?

Let's take a look at what they've done in the commitment to the most hard-pressed Canadians: those who are sick, those who are in need of income assistance, those who, by no fault of their own, require the assistance of government -- the so-called social safety net. The federal government -- the Liberal Chrétien government in Ottawa -- has cut expenditures in these areas to the provinces by 18 percent. That's their commitment to national unity, to making sure that all Canadians are treated fairly and equally: an 18 percent reduction.

And they wonder why we in British Columbia say: "You know what? We can't keep this up. We cannot continue to keep funding this." Their response is: "You're threatening national unity, because you're challenging our right to spend in those areas of jurisdiction." Well, if that isn't enough, let's figure out where they're getting all of this largesse. Do you know that the income tax, which makes up roughly over 50 percent of revenue to the federal government, has increased? In terms of the amount of revenue, income tax is up by $6.2 billion. That's a 9.8 percent increase.

Do you know what would happen in this chamber if the provincial share of income tax went up by 9.8 percent? We're knocking it down in

[ Page 7887 ]

the provinces, because we're trying desperately -- struggling -- to find a way to keep equity in the system. They stuck it up at 9.8 percent.

If that wasn't enough, the dreaded GST went up by 8.8 percent. They've increased it by $18.1 billion in additional revenue off Canadians, who are hurting and struggling in this country. The federal government turned around when they found out what was going on, and they said: "Don't worry about it, guys, because we've got a great national program for the unemployed." Well, they raised $6.8 billion more in UI premiums than they paid out to those poor British Columbians who are out of work. And they wonder why we're saying there's a national unity issue here.

They want us to focus in on the aspirations of the province of Quebec. Is it any wonder that the province of Quebec is saying: "Hey, listen, guys. There may be a different way to do this." We don't have the strength in this chamber in this province to stand up and say: "You know, the federal government is no longer going to continue to wade into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are now going to take over that which is constitutionally entrenched in our jurisdiction -- and that's income tax -- and we're going to continue with this shared arrangement which allows the feds to jack up income tax by 9.8 percent.

We're going to pay the can when they cut our transfers."

You know, I hear a lot of talk about universal health care and about how we've got to have universal standards. Well, let me tell you, hon. Speaker, the federal government, Mr. Allan Rock -- and I believe this government opposite is complicit -- can no longer ever use that term because of the shameful, disgraceful way they've dealt with the people with hepatitis C. If ever there was an example of a complete abrogation of responsibility at the federal level, the people who are suffering with hepatitis C are the great example of that, and what a shame. What a tragedy it is.

National unity is being affected in this country by the kind of attitude that we have seen in Ottawa: the arrogant attitude that believes that somehow they can make the decisions on behalf of Canadians without consulting them first. National unity is affected by Ottawa, which turns round and is now going to hand off or transfer back to the provinces responsibility -- but no money -- for some of those areas for which we pay our $19.4 billion a year to Ottawa. That's what comes out of B.C., in addition to the $20 billion we raise for this chamber.

How about ports and harbours? What's the federal government's solution to the ports and harbours commissions? We're just about to see the final resolution of that. What is it going to do? It's going to turn around and say that we've now got jurisdictional responsibility over that. How do you raise the money? They're going to raise the money by taking mortgages out on Crown land. That's how they're going to do it. Now, is that a good idea? I don't know. It's the only idea that has been pressed on the part of our ports and harbours commissions.

What about our Coast Guard? Let's talk about what they're doing with our fishery. Let's take a look at what they're doing with the docks -- both fisheries docks and harbour docks, the very lifeblood to coastal communities in British Columbia. What are they doing with those? How strong a fight was it to say: "Don't destaff lighthouses on the west coast because we need staffed lighthouses"? We've even got the federal minister responsible right out of the south Island.

Hon. Speaker, do you want to know what is affecting national unity? It's that attitude in Ottawa. What really causes me a great deal of concern is when I look at the editorial writers in the newspapers and on our televisions -- all owned by eastern concerns, by the so-called federalist concerns -- who challenge any of us who say: "You know what? There may be a better way to do this." They challenge us when we say that the strength of a centralized government in Ottawa has eroded the provincial jurisdictional legitimacy that is necessary for us to be able to provide for our people who live in this province.

There's nothing wrong with us standing up and fighting for them, because they're the people who elect us to this chamber to be able to do for them what we are intended to do -- that is, look after their interest and their well-being.

When we add on these, I would like to have seen one in here saying that we want to take over our right to collect taxes provincially. We need to exercise our jurisdiction -- our constitutional legitimacy -- on income tax so that we have the necessary revenue to take care of those items the federal government doesn't think are now worthy of its constant financial commitment, which they off-load to the provinces, which they give us no revenue for and then wonder why our economy starts to go into a tailspin.

The second item that deals with national unity is a broader issue and concern. It has to do with the continentalization or the globalization of our economy and the seeming inability that Canadians have to get adequately informed about what's going on and to convey to our federal politicians that it is necessary for them to talk to us about this, so that we can participate in discussing how we are going to resolve some of these issues.

Every single day we see aspects of Canadian unity eroded away right under our feet because of a globalized economy and an inability that we find, with respect to our federal government, to stand up and put the interests of Canadians first. Today it's the corporate agenda that goes first. Today it is the commercial bank interests that go first -- not Canadians, not average rank-and-file people who go out and do a day's work.

We find in this country today that the erosion of the Canadian theme -- that which we understand to be Canadian -- is happening more and more rapidly as a result of the slow intrusion of foreign capital, which is now welcomed into our country as an investment but over which we can no longer have any vestige of control.

NAFTA, FTA, MAI and TAFTA -- all of these trade agreements -- are happening around us. I'm not going to stand up like Canute and say: "Stop the tide on the beach." I don't think I'm so foolish as to believe that we're going to be able to just simply say, "No more," to globalized economy and international trade. What I am saying is: let's refocus our attention on what we're doing domestically to be able to make Canadians competitive, so that we can take advantage and not be taken advantage of.

Let us move to be able to put research and development dollars into our communities, so that we can build the research that's necessary for us to be on the cutting edge, not the following edge, of this new movement. Let us not be dragged along into it. If we're going to go into it, let's go into it with our eyes open and make sure that we protect the interests of Canadians as our first and primary concern.

[ Page 7888 ]

But we do not see it happening. Every day we're finding that our ability to have our right as a sovereign power is slowly being eroded. We have no leadership on this matter -- none -- coming out of Ottawa.

What we have to recognize is that it is time for us to get bold, to get aggressive about developing a new framework within Canada -- one that will change the relationship of power between the federal government and the provinces. I say this without attempting to be inflammatory -- without trying to rattle the sabres, as they may say -- as a British Columbian. I believe that we have evolved to the point now where we need to start to look at the strength of a confederated model, as opposed to a federated model.

I believe that we need to understand that we share a common wealth in Canada, that the shared common wealth allows us the legislative legitimacy within the provinces to be able to meet the needs of provincial concerns and issues and that we have to have the financial ability to do that. Therefore we need to put in place a regime that allows us to collect our taxes provincially to meet those needs, so that we may then share, in the transfer of dollars, with those less fortunate provinces so that they may also have the financial abilities to meet their goals and needs.

[3:45]

It may well be, in this commonwealth-of-Canada concept, that provinces may determine that there will be a different set of relationships between themselves and Ottawa and that those relationships will be legitimized by the interests and needs of their people -- not by a federal government that is in blatant conflict from the beginning and that continues to erode away the provincial right over their jurisdiction and their ability to provide for their people.

You know, in '82, hon. Speaker . . . . I don't want to go onto a long discussion on the constitutional debate. My goodness, I've been through it so many times, and I think most people in the chamber are familiar with it. Most people listening probably remember 1982 and the repatriation of the constitution and the period leading up to that, when there was a huge debate as to whether Canada is one country with a strong federal government and ten appending provinces or whether it is in fact ten provinces that have come together to make one central government.

There was a great deal of discussion as to where the seat of power rested. Does the seat of power lie in Ottawa? Does the seat of power rest in ten provinces that acquiesce, in degrees, to Ottawa?

In essence, I suppose that's the strength of the differences between the confederated and federated models of Confederation. But I tell you, hon. Speaker, that once entrusted in that power in Ottawa, it was expected that there would be equality and sharing. It was expected that there would be equal diversity of powers and authorities into the provinces and that the devolution of power would happen in an equal and fair manner.

It has not, and it isn't anti-Canadian to stand here and say so. It doesn't mean that I'm threatening the country because I stand up and say that this motion, for what it's worth -- and it has worth -- will do nothing to appease the people of Quebec. Nor should it, because this was done more to try and defuse what was becoming a very important political issue in that province's provincial election.

Let's not kid ourselves. For goodness' sake, let's be honest enough to know that there was a strong thrust -- and it remains a strong thrust -- to determine the outcome of that provincial election. I mean, why do we think that Jean Charest all of a sudden had this incredible amount of press coverage? Everybody was out there touting him, and he was going to take over. "No, no, no," he said, "I don't want it." Finally, Daniel Johnson steps down, and Jean Charest -- the reluctant bride he is -- is dragged to the altar. There he is: a federal Conservative wed now as the leader of a provincial Liberal Party.

An Hon. Member: It's almost like here.

G. Wilson: Some say it's almost like here. I'm not going to comment on that -- not in this debate today, although it's tempting.

But surely to goodness people don't believe that somehow that's going to solve the legitimate concerns and issues of the people of Quebec any more than this declaration will. What must happen is that Canadians must understand the history of the people of that province. They must understand the history of that movement. They must understand where the core thrust is coming from with respect to the people in that province. We must understand that this is not something that can be glossed over with a veneer that a new politician, albeit a federal politician, can suddenly transfer to the province of Quebec.

Nor is it acceptable for us to say that if we're going to look at national unity and the national unity question, somehow we should play the card of the Supreme Court of Canada. That's what happened in anticipation of this document coming forward. We found that the federal minister then was right in front of the Supreme Court, putting down a motion for debate to see whether or not in fact a referendum, which we've already had three of and which we have already legitimized -- in the process at least, if not in law . . . .

He's putting that in front of the Supreme Court of Canada to argue whether it would be legal if a referendum were in fact to pass and a declaration of independence were to be declared.

I mean, give your head a shake. First of all, it's a little late in the game to be doing that. Second, what if they say it's illegal? If it's illegal and if the referendum is held, the campaigns are fought and the Yes side wins and the people of Quebec have, by a vast majority, voted for secession, what is the federal government going to do then? You know, I keep laughing when people say: "Well, we're going to send in the army."

There are some hard-core right wingers out there saying: "Send in the army; we're going to defeat them." Well, I keep saying we can't send in the army. We've already closed down all the bases in western Canada; the army is in Quebec, and they're voting. Those are the guys who are voting. There is no army to send. It's already there, because they've closed down Chilliwack and are closing down the western bases.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin is demonstrating his intelligence. I mean intelligence in a military sense, which is in itself a bit of an oxymoron.

Let me say, hon. Speaker, that in truth, nobody in Canada is going to tolerate civil war. We're not going to do it. Canadians don't do that, because it's more of a principle than anything that we are a compassionate and understanding people. The reason this declaration is important -- it is important, and it's important that we pass it -- is that it tells us we understand that there are some basic principles that we can accept. But it goes no further than that.

[ Page 7889 ]

It certainly does not give to the federal government one iota of legitimacy with respect to any constitutional change, and anybody in the federal government who believes that somehow our passing this motion gives them the authority to institute constitutional change is wrong. By law, as the Leader of the Official Opposition quite correctly pointed out a few minutes ago, we must go to referendum in the province of British Columbia. So what this motion and these add-ons say is that there is a lot more to building a nation than satisfying the political issues in one province -- namely, Quebec -- and that those of us in British Columbia are strong, loyal Canadians. We want to build a nation.

But there is not necessarily one vision of Canada, and it is certainly not necessarily a vision that comes from Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Many of us in this province have a vision of a nation that includes the legislative legitimacy of the provinces. Many of us have a passion for this country that recognizes that there will be uniqueness and differences. We can all be equal without all being the same. What we want is to put in place a new mechanism, a new system, a renewed Canada. And it's going to have to come from the provinces, because Ottawa has fumbled the ball -- not once, not twice, but three times.

I don't want to give them the ball again, because the next time it might just be the end of the game, and I'm not ready to see this country come to the end of the game.

Let's look at some renewed models. Let's discuss the commonwealth-of-Canada concept. Let's look at the confederated model. Let's take a look at devolution of powers and authorities to the provinces. Let us not dismiss anybody who challenges the federal status quo as being somehow anti-Canadian. Let's listen to the debate; let's hear what people are saying, because many people in Quebec may have very good ideas, as they do in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. We are all Canadian.

All of us deserve a chance to build a nation, to have a vision for a future -- a future that our children will be proud to say happened, in its first instance, today. We will commit today to build this nation -- to build it together -- and to recognize its full potential and its full future.

I thank you for this time, hon. Speaker, and I look forward to the balance of this debate and to the work that is ahead of us as we build this nation, Canada.

M. Sihota: It's been interesting listening and observing the debate this afternoon around this declaration. You know, listening to the debate, I went through a range of emotions and thoughts. It occurs to me, first and foremost, that it's easy to be angry, but anger alone won't help us build a better country. It's very easy to complain about things that are wrong with Canada, but complaining alone won't help us build a better country. It strikes me, listening to the debate this afternoon, that perhaps we take ourselves -- who we are, what we are as Canadians -- far, far too much for granted.

In our obsession for dealing with these matters . . . . I'm not saying that they're trivial -- I'll come back to it a little later on -- I'm just saying that before we step into it, perhaps we should step back and take a look at it.

We take for granted much of what we've been able to accomplish as a country, who we are and what definition we've given to the personality of this country, as seen by the rest of the world. You know, in the eyes of the rest of the world, we're the model. We are what everybody else aspires to be able to provide for their citizens. We are a nation that provides the kind of stability, progress and forward thinking that is sometimes lacking elsewhere in the world. We are, after all, Canada.

As Canadians we are, amongst other things, the world's peacekeepers; a noble calling, a role that we play with both pride and passion from one end of this globe to another. We are the world's peacekeepers. The work that we do daily -- and I talk to many of my constituents about this, being from a riding that's predominantly military -- in eastern Europe distinguishes us from all the nations of the world. Our skill in being able to deal with human conflict in the most tense of environments distinguishes us as a country. We're a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.

The work that we did as a country this year . . . .

Who am I to always stand up and defend the federal government? After all, I've got my problems with them too. But give credit where credit is due. The leadership that we took on the land mines issue . . . . Both the Reform and Liberal members of the House of Commons have, over the last year or year and a half, been pressuring the rest of the world to begin to make some changes. We are the world's peacekeepers.

In that context, look at the work that we're doing in Asia. Look at some of the things that -- I think to his credit -- the Prime Minister has said during the course of events that have unfolded in Asia in the past week. The world looks to Canada to take leadership around these types of issues -- historically, yesterday and today. I'm confident that tomorrow we will continue to etch out our role as Canadians, because we consider it part of our duty to the rest of the world.

Not only are we the world's peacekeepers, but as a country we have a passion for the environment. Again, it defines us as a nation. The image of Canada -- its lakes, glaciers, waters, streams and air -- is one thing. But our role on the international stage in trying to bring about comprehensive environmental protection is one that distinguishes us as a country.

Just look over the events of this week and some of the trade arrangements that govern world trade relationships, and there's Canada pressing for the need to make sure that environmental consequences are built in to try to humanize what I agree are some of the adverse consequences of remarkable economic globalization. There we are, pressing for a virtue that most people in the world would believe in but that few governments would stand for.

[4:00]

We're Canadians, and we have a passion for the environment. We're the world's peacekeepers. Take a look at the environmental front and the role that we've taken in terms of air, be it with the Montreal protocol or the work that we did as a country in Rio de Janeiro under the Mulroney regime. Take a look at the work we did in Tokyo. Sure, I've got some problems with that stuff, and I've articulated that. But nonetheless, in a moment of perspective, one has to step back and recognize the place that we have taken on the world's stage.

It's not restricted to matters of peacekeeping or the environment. Our health care programs -- and more about that in a few minutes -- are the envy of the world. Travel anywhere else on this globe and witness how other nations don't care for their people or show the kind of compassion that we do through our universally accessible health care system. It defines us as a country. It is us that the world looks to. Our health care system is second to none in the rest of the world.

Travel abroad and see, as I have seen, people in Asia and Africa involved in what we would consider minor traffic accidents and left there to die because there's not an ambulance service or because blood isn't available. We have a view about the sanctity of life which distinguishes us as Canadians, in terms of the way in which we take that value and operationalize it in the development of our social policy.

[ Page 7890 ]

Yes, sure, we have our debates in this House -- and I'm sure in Ottawa -- about stability and economic prosperity. But again, we are a model of economic stability and prosperity in the eyes of the rest of the world. Yes, we have our tensions around the development of economic policy, but the fact remains that few nations, if any, can point to the level of economic progress that we have witnessed in this country since the turn of the last century to the time now, when we stand on the edge of the next millennium.

First and foremost, it's essential, before we launch into a debate about all that is wrong with Canada, that we take a few minutes during the course of this kind of debate and celebrate that which is good about Canada. It is a remarkable country, and we are a remarkable people. Now, that's not to say that somehow we all think alike. It's not to say that we are a society that doesn't have open and free debate. After all, to quote W.A.C.

Bennett, I think it was: "If we all think the same, nobody thinks at all." We debate in this country about ways in which we can improve the quality of life of Canadians, ways in which we can build upon the foundation of success that we have enjoyed as a nation.

You know, that's quite legitimate. In the context of this debate it is true that there are things that we can do to build yet a better Canada -- a new and improved version, if I can put it that way. Yes, in my view, and, I suspect, in the view of most Canadians and members of this Legislature, we need to build a better Senate. We have this House that doesn't quite make any sense, I think, to anybody except those who serve in the Senate. Clearly we need to improve that House. Why?

We need to ensure that the sense of alienation that people in provinces like British Columbia feel about not having their voice heard -- or not heard enough or not having appropriate weight attached to it . . . . Some of those concerns about alienation can clearly be addressed through a reformed second chamber -- either that, or perhaps it should be done away with. Either way, hon. Speaker, the fact remains that it's quite legitimate to have a debate around the reform of that chamber.

There are not just governance issues; there are also jurisdictional issues and fiscal issues, like the cap on CAP, that are clearly appropriate forums for debate in this country. Clearly our ability to provide what we consider adequate health or education programs to our citizens is constrained by the decision taken by the federal government in terms of not forwarding equalization payments or appropriate payments to provinces like British Columbia. There are jurisdictional issues, like fish.

As we have clearly witnessed the federal mismanagement of that resource over the course of the last three or four decades, there is a natural desire on the part of British Columbians to say: "Look, we think, being closer to that resource, that we can do a better job of managing it than someone sitting in Ottawa." There is some saliency -- not a lot of saliency, I should say -- to that kind of an argument.

These arguments, be they matters of governance, be they matters of fiscal issues, be they matters of jurisdictional issues, have to be addressed in some context that keeps this nation together, that keeps us whole, that doesn't sort of press hot buttons to cause us to find divisions within ourselves, that doesn't build on dividing people and that doesn't build on petty parochial regionalism. But it's predicated on some rational thought about how we can improve what we've got. It's not so broken that it can't be fixed.

It's important to remember that the way for us to construct a better constitution is to build on the strengths of this country -- not by focusing on divisions. I find, and I believe, that all too often it's very easy for many people in this debate to slide into that abyss of finding ways by which we can divide one another.

We have a lot to offer as members of this chamber, and people of British Columbia have a lot to offer in terms of the debate around the constitution. Rather than complaining about the process, as previous speakers have done, perhaps we should recognize what it is that we've been able to extract in terms of value out of that process. There was a time that the same individual who stood up earlier on and talked about process would complain that the package couldn't be changed.

The process that we engaged in here in British Columbia and the amendments -- or as some like to call them, the add-ons in terms of this resolution -- demonstrate very clearly that the voice of British Columbians on things that are important to them can easily be integrated into a document that is living and not dead, which is not constrained by some artificial boundaries or by some artificial time lines, but is real and living -- in the sense that we have added on these provisions that speak to the aspirations of British Columbians.

Will we achieve those matters that are add-ons? I don't know. I know this: we probably won't get them all. But in the process of an evolutionary constitutional debate, I think it is important that we as a province put forward matters that are critical to us as British Columbians, but at the same time, that we not lose sight of the fact that we are Canadians first and hence have an obligation to take into account those tensions that others in other chambers elsewhere in this country have to deal with as well.

We have to recognize that at the end of the day, whether it be constitutional amendments that will be debated in the future -- because clearly this is not a constitutional amendment . . . . When we analyze the constitutional laws that govern us today, we have to recognize that they are indeed the product of compromise. Compromise sometimes means that you have to swallow a bit in order to move forward.

When we get to that time, as we inevitably will, and to that day when a package is put before British Columbians, we in this chamber should consider it our responsibility to recognize that it is the product of compromise. It is the product of recognizing that other provinces, like ourselves, have pressures, tensions and challenges. Sometimes it is not easy, if not at all possible, to reconciliate those during the course of constitutional dialogue -- one province to another, one level of government to another.

Our obligation is to go out to British Columbians and not to build on divisions but to put forward an argument that the amendments that have flowed from the Calgary declaration are really amendments that will build upon the successes that this country enjoys.

I've witnessed this debate, and I've enjoyed it over the last 11 or 12 years that I've been in this chamber. I've been a part of the negotiations; I've been part of the controversy. I've been part of the sell around the constitution. There's no doubt in my mind that today in Canada, we are far closer to being able to achieve those accommodations that are necessary for constitutional renewal than we have ever been before. The temperature has been lowered.

Some of the events in Quebec -- be they economic, in terms of the economic situation in which that province finds itself, or be they political, in terms of some of the changes that are occurring with Mr. Charest -- have created a climate, I think, where we can clearly bring about some type of constitutional resolution. I think there is an attitude amongst other provinces, including British Columbia, which recognizes that there is little value in constantly going after one another for the sake of appealing to political interests at home.

There's little value in doing that when you are trying to build a constitution.

I firmly believe that if you take a look at the kind of response and reaction that was received by those who repre-

[ Page 7891 ]

sented this province and travelled around, if you take a look at the desire that Canadians have for putting this debate behind us and achieving consensus, if you take a look at the kind of reaction provided to the Premiers once they executed the Calgary declaration and the kind of response that has occurred since the day the declaration was signed, and if you take a look at where we are today, I think it's quite possible for us to arrive at a constitutional arrangement.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we could show once again the rest of the world that we're capable of ironing out our differences and resolving those things that may divide us -- through debate and dialogue, without weaponry or aggression, and with thought, rationality, compromise and consensus? Wouldn't that allow us to build upon what we've been able to create as Canadians? Wouldn't that allow us to maintain the kind of position that we have in the eyes of others around the world?

Since my time is up, let me end by saying that if we choose, in the course of this debate, to recognize that a constitution is built upon consensus and accommodation, and if we choose not to lose sight of who we are and what we are to the rest of the world, there's no doubt in my mind that this debate will have played its appropriate role in leading us to constitutional renewal, which is long overdue in Canada.

[4:15]

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this debate on the Calgary declaration. Certainly it's an honour for me to make a brief contribution to the debate and to express support -- as my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has done -- for the declaration that is the subject of our debate today.

The declaration certainly deserves support, I think, because it offers a strong statement about the nature of the Canadian federation. What this declaration does that will be most useful in the future is underline certain values that are shared among British Columbians and certainly among Canadians. Hopefully, this debate -- and hopefully, the declaration that comes out of the debate in this Legislature -- will be a positive and constructive step for British Columbia. Hopefully, it will be a positive and constructive step for Canada as well.

Canada and British Columbia, as part of Canada, certainly face challenges in the future. There is no question about that. I hope that this declaration will be of some assistance to British Columbia and Canada in helping to resolve some of those challenges as they continue to be faced in the future. Canada, as everyone knows, is a very large, very diverse and very dynamic nation. As a consequence of those things, Canada faces persistent demands for change in its constitutional arrangements, in the way in which the federation operates.

Canada is a great nation, as others have noted. This is acknowledged by the United Nations and, I guess, by most of the world. I think that we can, despite the challenges that we face, move forward as a nation as we enter the twenty-first century. What the Calgary declaration offers is a very constructive and very positive message on the nature of our federation. It offers a framework for future change as well. This declaration, as others have noted, is not about constitutional amendment. The

preamble to the resolution we're discussing makes it very clear that it's not a constitutional amendment and that certainly, if at some future point we are able to achieve some tentative constitutional agreement, by law it must be approved by the citizens of British Columbia in a referendum.

The Calgary declaration, as everyone knows, is also at times referred to as the Calgary framework. This may be appropriate, because I think that it offers a framework for the renewal of the Canadian federation. Undoubtedly, at some future point -- ten, 20, or 30 years from now -- historians will look back on the debates in this chamber, in the Canadian Parliament and in the other nine legislative chambers across Canada and form some conclusions about what impact the Calgary declaration had on the subsequent course of events. Hopefully, what we will see from those historians, decades hence, is that the Calgary declaration was an important step in the renewal of the Canadian federation.

The Leader of the Opposition made some very compelling points in his address. One that particularly struck me was that to move ahead, as a province and as a nation, we have to take account of the interests and concerns of the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada -- not the interests and concerns of governments in Canada. I think that this is a new way of looking at this issue in British Columbia and in Canada.

In the past, certainly in recent constitutional rounds, the focus has very much been on what governments want, what their interests and concerns are, what changes governments were seeking, rather than, more importantly, on the issues and concerns, the hopes and fears, of ordinary British Columbians and Canadians. Hopefully, with this resolution and with this declaration, we are seeing some change with respect to that issue.

I noted with interest in this morning's Globe and Mail a column by Gordon Gibson, who had some similar things to say about this issue from the perspective of Quebec, where he had visited recently. I just want to quote briefly from his discussion of what he terms "a sea change" in the politics of the province of Quebec: "But the world has changed. For whatever reason -- perhaps a crystallized weariness with negativism, with looking inward and back, with apparently endless sacrifice -- there is a new politics in Quebec.

It is the politics of hope, of rebuilding and of improving ordinary lives rather than focusing on the state." I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition and others have tried to say in this chamber today as well -- that it's important that we look again at what the people's aspirations are, rather than at the aspirations of government.

The Calgary declaration, as others have noted, was a product of a meeting of the Premiers -- nine Premiers, excluding Quebec -- and the territorial leaders last September in Calgary. Most importantly, the product of that meeting was a statement of seven principles, which I'll refer to a little bit more extensively later on.

Just as importantly, the Premiers, when they met in Calgary, committed to a process which would be undertaken and completed before the declaration was debated in the legislative assemblies. They committed to consult with citizens to ascertain their views on the statement of principles contained in the Calgary declaration. I think this, while perhaps almost taken for granted today, is an important step. It's something which has not always been the case in Canada -- that we listen very carefully to the people before moving on issues of this sort.

Indeed we saw, particularly in the Meech round, widespread public concern that it was governments that were entirely driving a process and that people were not being given an opportunity to listen or to state their views about where the governments were going on that particular constitutional round. I think what we've seen over the past few months is certainly a great improvement in process.

The mechanism which the Premier chose for consulting with British Columbians was, of course, the Unity Panel. As my colleague for Richmond-Steveston did in the Legislature

[ Page 7892 ]

the other day, I think obviously we need to salute the British Columbians who served on that panel, and I think we also need to salute the many British Columbians who took the time and effort to make their views known to the Unity Panel.

The Liberal opposition, I think it's fair to say, had a number of concerns about the process prior to it being undertaken. Certainly we wanted to be assured that the panel would be independent from government. We wanted to ensure that the panel would operate openly and that the panel would respect the views of all British Columbians who made representations to it. Upon being satisfied that inde