1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5529 ]

CONTENTS

Royal assent to bills –– 5530

Motions on Notice –– 5532

Resolution 73, Meech Lake accord.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. G. Hanson

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Clark

Ms. Marzari

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Jones

Mr. Sihota

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. S.D. Smith

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Tabling Documents –– 5568

Appendix –– 5570

The House met at 2:13 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to introduce to the House this

afternoon Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith. Mr. Smith is the deputy secretary for

justice in New Zealand. Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith from New Zealand are

having lunch today with Mr. and Mrs. Mel Smith from British Columbia. I

would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. and

Mrs. Sam Watson and their daughter Janice of Victoria, and Mr. and Mrs.

Bert Bollington of Sussex, England. Would all hon. members make them

welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: There are two people here today I would like to

introduce. First, there's Mrs. Joyce Heynsbroek, who is a good friend

of mine and our party, and who has been a supporter of ours for many

years. Would the House please welcome Mrs. Joyce Heynsbroek.

Also in the gallery is an old political war-horse, a well-known

farmer and a friend of mine over the years: Geoff Vantreight. He used

to be a Saanich alderman. Over the years Geoff and I have agreed on

many things, but some things we haven't agreed on. Would the House make

Geoff Vantreight welcome as well.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to welcome Harry and

Carol Cook from North Vancouver, who are in the area for a restful

holiday. I assured them that question period in the House was one of

the most restful times of the day for most of us. But apparently by the

schedule, they will be denied that. But I think they'll be rewarded

with a visit by His Honour. I would like the House to make them very

welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to introduce today two gentlemen in

the gallery: James Coleridge and Roy McDowall. They have been working

hard with Tourism Vancouver and are here doing some work with Tourism

Victoria. Please join me in making them welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing

the same two gentlemen, only I'd introduce Mr. James Coleridge as the

alderman from the city of White Rock; and also Roy McDowall from

Helijet Airways. Would the House make them especially welcome on behalf

of White Rock.

MR. ROSE: I take pleasure today in introducing my eldest

daughter, Toni, who's in the gallery for the first time, looking

beautiful, like her mother. She's coming back to British Columbia after

having the privilege of teaching in California for the past three

years, courtesy of the B.C. government education policy.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon are Sandra Shelford and her

daughter Wendy. Sandra is the daughter-in-law of the well-known former member

of this House, Cyril Shelford, and they are accompanied by Mrs. Barbara Shelford

this afternoon. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is a constituent,

and on behalf of the Premier and myself I'd like to ask the House to

please welcome Dolena Kirkwood, who has made a fine contribution to our

community and also to our local riding association. Please welcome

Dolena Kirkwood.

MRS. BOONE: I notice in the gallery today a friend of mine

from the wonderful constituency of Delta, my home town, and a good

friend of mine. Mr. Don Anderson, from my mother's constituency as

well. Would the House please welcome Don.

MR. DE JONG: Up in the members' gallery today, accompanying

my wife Ann, are Henry and Alice Groothof, who are related to us: in

fact. Alice is a sister to my wife, and they're farming on Sumas

Prairie. Accompanying them today are Henk and Greetje Apotheker, to say

it in Dutch, from the Netherlands. I would ask the House to give them a

friendly welcome.

MR. ROSE: I think it's important that I give notice that I

intend to raise a question of privilege at the first opportunity after

His Honour has been here.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the House today is a former owner of the Langley Times . Would the House please welcome Gerry Maginn.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

file the annual report for the B.C. Ferry Corporation for 1987-88. I'll

just advise members that this is the first issue off the press. The

others won't be available until Monday, and copies will be sent to

every member's office. If the courier services work as well as I

expect, I'll be able to do B.C. Rail's prior to adjournment.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing orders

call for a question period, and question period hasn't been called. As

I read the standing orders of this House, that motion should be put to

the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was agreement reached in the

Legislative Assembly last night that we would dispense with question

period today. I regret the hon. member for Omineca was not here, but he

could perhaps be referred to standing order 8, which says: "Every

member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of

absence has been given by the House." The member was not here, the

agreement was reached by members in the House, and I would presume from

that that we will proceed as agreed to last evening.

MR. KEMPF: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, was a motion put to this House to that effect? I know of no such motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If he were to check with the Blues, the hon.

member for Omineca would see that there was an agreement made in the

House last night between the two House Leaders. It was an implicit

agreement on the

schedule for today's proceedings. There was no

disagreement heard by

[ Page 5530 ]

the Chair at that time, so I would rule that the

agreement made between the two House Leaders — the government and Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition — will be the format for today's proceedings.

MR. KEMPF: I will certainly accept your ruling, but I think

it would be traditional if that motion were put to this House at this

time, rather than have some agreement made without the party of others.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point of view.

Hon. members, as you know, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor is in

the precincts. I would ask that we just take a short recess, and if

members would remain in their seats, His Honour will be here very

shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Police Act

Land Title Amendment Act, 1988

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988

Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988

Forest Amendment Act, 1988

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act

Victims' Rights and Services Act

Municipal Amendment Act, 1988

Agriculture and Fisheries Statutes Amendment Act, 1988

Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1988

Dental Technicians Amendment Act, 1988

Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1988

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1988

Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1988

Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act

Resource Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1988

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988

Credit Union Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1988

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1988

Environment Management Amendment Act, 1988

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988

Securities Amendment Act, 1988

Nursing Statutes Amendment Act, 1988

South Moresby Implementation Account Act

Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1988

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988

Life Bible College Act

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1988

Northwest Baptist Theological College Amendment Act, 1988

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 2), 1988.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice, before His Honour arrived and left, that I intended to rise on a question of privilege.

Erskine May, the great British parliamentary authority, has this to

say about rights and privileges, on page 71 of his twentieth edition.

Under "Breach of Privilege and 'Contempt,"' this is what is stated:

"When any of these rights and immunities, both of the

members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity,

which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or

attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach

of privilege, and is punishable under the law of parliament."

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House the Attorney-General, standing

in his place, stated that he was no longer able to carry on his duties

because his independence and neutrality had been repeatedly interfered

with by the Premier, who failed to appreciate or respect the legal and

constitutional sensibility of the role of Attorney-General.

This morning — and this is why I raise this privilege now, because

it's the first opportunity that we've had — the Premier's office issued

a statement which, among other things, accused the former

Attorney-General of lying to the House yesterday afternoon, and I quote

from the press release, paragraphs three and four: "Mr. Smith's

independence was at no time questioned or challenged, and to say

otherwise is false." Paragraph four: "It is also preposterous to use as

his reason for resigning allegations that have no substance or

foundation."

[2:30]

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a simple

disagreement over facts; it goes a great deal further than that.

Attributing a falsehood or falsehoods to a former high officer of the

Crown is unheard of in parliamentary history, so far as I know.

Imputing false motives to a member of the Legislature from outside the

House is most unparliamentary and is an attack on all members

individually and collectively. Clearly someone is not telling the truth

here. Either the Premier is lying in his press release when he denies

meddling constitutionally and interfering with the independence of the

Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General, in his resignation speech of

yesterday, uttered — as the Premier says — allegations that have no

basis in fact.

Whatever the case, this issue is much more than a spat. It is a

serious dispute between two of the most senior officers of our

government and shakes the very confidence that this Legislature has in

the integrity of the present administration. If you agree, Mr. Speaker,

I will move for a special committee of privilege to be struck to

investigate this matter.

[ Page 5531 ]

Let me close by reminding the House of the Speaker's role in

deciding whether or not the privilege of this House is held in

contempt. Mr. Speaker does not decide contempt; that is not the

Speaker's role. The Speaker's role is to decide whether there is a

prima facie case and whether or not there is enough evidence to justify

the House considering it. Then, when consideration is made.... Upon the

completion of that consideration — and this is important — the House

will decide whether or not a committee should be set up to inquire into

the matter further. That is all that the Speaker's role is in this

issue.

I quote from a great authority of the British Columbia House in terms of procedure, George MacMinn. In his Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia

he says on page 171 in

section 5, "Power of Assembly to summarily

inquire and punish: "The Legislative Assembly has the rights and

privileges of a court of record" — not the Speaker, but the Legislature

— "to summarily inquire into and punish, as breaches of privilege or as

contempt of court, without prejudice to the liability of the offender

to other prosecution and punishment, the following...." It covers a

series of things that are thought to be contemptuous. I will quote just

one citation over on the next page: "giving false evidence,

prevaricating or otherwise misbehaving in giving or refusing to give

evidence or produce papers before the Assembly."

Mr. Speaker, there are extreme cases to which we could go, including

summoning the Attorney-General to the bar of the House. We're asking

now for the Speaker to consider the case I have made. Should

consideration be given positively, then I will be very pleased to put

forward the motion required.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker —and I didn't

want to interrupt when the member opposite was making his comments — I

must ask for a withdrawal, in the sense that there was a reference made

about one member lying about another member in this House. I feet that

should be withdrawn immediately before I make any further comment.

MR. ROSE: I have no difficulty in withdrawing that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, an interesting proposition

made by my friend opposite dealing with comments made outside of the

House about a current private member.... Let us consider that when the

member for Oak Bay spoke yesterday, in his comments about retiring from

this House, he made certain comments about proceedings of the executive

council and how he had been treated. He made these — and I think this

is important — before orders of the day were called. Then the Leader of

the Opposition was allowed an appropriate reply.

I think that there might have been cause yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 35, for the opposition

to move for adjournment for special purposes to discuss this case,

because the facts, as have been presented now by the opposition House

Leader, are in fact no different than were presented by the Attorney

yesterday when he resigned.

However, the opposition leader had that opportunity, did respond to

the resignation speech of the member for Oak Bay — this was all done

before orders of the day — and therefore I would say the only recourse

available to the opposition would be leave under standing order 35,

which by now has expired.

MR. SIHOTA: Just in response to what the government House Leader said, first of all this is a....

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the member that he's not on the

floor to respond to the government House Leader, but to advise the

Speaker, if he can assist me in any way in ruling on this standing

order.

MR. SIHOTA: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I should bring, then, to

your attention the following facts: first, that the earliest

opportunity really is today, because in the time between when the

former Attorney-General — if I can refer to him that way — made his

statement and today, we've had a subsequent statement by the Premier,

which raises the matter of the truth or falsity of statements made by

the former Attorney-General. It is as a consequence of the statements

made this morning by the Premier that this matter is being raised now

and, hence, at the earliest opportunity.

I am quoting here, Mr. Speaker, from the renowned text Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

written by Mr. MacMinn, wherein all sorts of examples are provided of

statements made outside of the House. The fact that the statements were

made outside of the House is not by itself a bar to the raising of

these matters or to the consideration by the Speaker of these matters.

Certainly they can be and have been taken into account by the Speaker.

I would draw the Speaker's attention in that regard to page 176 of

the text that I referred to, where examples are given of a newspaper

report containing an imputation against a Chairman of an estimates

committee, the disruption of a meeting of a subcommittee outside

London, the service of a writ to a member and an alleged assault on a

doorkeeper during a division. All of these events occurred outside of

the House. There are several others listed here.

It's my submission, therefore, that one cannot simply reject the

matter raised by my learned friend the opposition House Leader on the

basis that the statements were made outside the House. I want to

emphasize firstly that this is the first opportunity, and secondly that

the comments made by the Premier this morning ought to be germane to

your consideration of this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. members for their input, and I will defer my decision until later today.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise under standing order 35 to discuss a

definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the danger to the

guarantee that all Canadians should depend upon to have a justice

system that is impartially administered. Mr. Speaker, you will remember

that yesterday the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith)

stood in his place as the Attorney-General and the chief law

enforcement officer of the Crown and advised the House that he was

obliged to resign because he perceived that the traditional

independence of that office was threatened by the actions of the

Premier.

The member from Oak Bay is a grievous loss to the government, and

British Columbia is the poorer because of the reduced role of the

Attorney-General. But the issue is not the honour of the member for Oak

Bay-Gordon Head. The issue is that the impartial administration of

justice in British Columbia is no longer guaranteed by this government

for our people.

[ Page 5532 ]

I think the lack of appreciation of law and due process of this

administration is demonstrated by the way the member for Oak Bay-Gordon

Head's successor was purported to be appointed by the Premier. We were

advised that the acting Attorney-General is the hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch); however, there was no cabinet

order in existence that we were aware of to confirm that as of 11

o'clock this morning.

Basically the Premier does not understand the relationship of the

law of the land to his office. Lord Denning put that issue very

succinctly, as only he could do, when he told the cabinet minister

before him: "To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, be

you never so high the law is above you."

There is a definite crisis in the administration of justice in the

province of British Columbia. If the Premier and the former

Attorney-General disagree about the facts — that is one thing that has

been mentioned by the hon. Opposition House Leader — the public is

entitled to be assured that the impartial administration of justice

which we have enjoyed for over 100 years will continue and that the

police, prosecutors and the Attorney-General will not be subject to

political direction from the Premier's office. We are entitled, on

behalf of the people of British Columbia, to raise this very important

matter under standing order 35. I would seek leave to move adjournment

of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would be simple to say that my previous

argument applies in this case, except in this case I'm on far firmer

ground and the opposition is on far slipperier ground. Let me read

standing order 35 again: "Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of

the House, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of

urgent public importance, must be asked after the ordinary daily

routine of business has been concluded and before orders of the day are

entered on."

The hon. member for Oak Bay made his statement yesterday prior to orders of the day being called. Following that, I note from Hansard that a response was given by the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it was a ministerial statement and the

response was allowed for. If the Leader of the Opposition felt that

this matter was so emergent that it required adjournment of debate,

then he should have appropriately made his appeal under standing order

35 then. This is 24 hours later, orders of the day were called and the

Leader of the Opposition had appropriate time to respond. I see it here

in Hansard . He failed to

petition under standing order 35, and I would submit, therefore, that

his opportunity for standing order 35 has failed.

MR. ROSE: I'm very pleased that the government House Leader

has come out in favour of my privilege motion, although didn't expect

him to do it under standing order 35.

Could I just respond briefly by saying that we've always given the

government an opportunity to respond to standing order 35, and we

extend this courtesy now. There was no reason to raise the matter

yesterday, because at that time there was no dispute between the facts

of the ex-Attorney-General and the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I will defer decision on this matter until later today.

Motions on Notice

MEECH LAKE ACCORD

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By agreement, I call government orders on

resolutions, and I call Resolution 73 in the name of the hon. Premier

of British Columbia: a motion for a resolution to authorize an

amendment to the Constitution of Canada. [See appendix.]

[2:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this debate on

ratification of the Meech Lake accord is a historic occasion. This

agreement stands as a very significant event for all Canadians as one

of the final steps to be taken in this stage of Canada's constitutional

evolution.

Today you, as members of our Legislature, are being asked to add

your voices to those in support of this great act of modern nation

building. By doing so, we will move our nation one step closer towards

completing the Canadian constitutional family. The accord not only

completes the work left unfinished when Quebec was left out of the 1982

agreement which led to the patriation of the Constitution, but it does

so on terms fair to Quebec, fair to British Columbia and fair to all

Canadians.

The accord is the result of a unanimous agreement reached by the

first ministers of Canada after a considerable period of constitutional

consultation, debate and negotiation. The process leading up to the

accord marks a new approach to federalism in Canada which is marked by

flexibility, cooperation, compromise and conciliation as opposed to

confrontation and divisiveness which marked the Trudeau era.

The accord is important for all Canadians. It allows Quebec to fully

and actively participate in our constitutional development, while at

the same time recognizing the principle of the equality of all the

provinces. I ask, Mr. Speaker, how could the important work of

constitutional reform carry forward in this country without the

participation of one quarter of its people. That is why, in Edmonton in

1986, I joined the premiers of all provinces in agreeing to put the

resolution of Quebec's constitutional isolation at the top of our

reform agenda. Our feeling was unanimous that as soon as Quebec's

re-entry to the constitutional fold had been properly and fairly

secured, then the discussion of other important issues could begin. To

further exclude Quebec from the constitution is to stand in the way of

the many reforms that the people of British Columbia seek to strengthen

our role in Canada's Confederation.

The positive spirit in this approach has proved successful. Quebec

has rejoined the Canadian constitutional family. Their Legislature and

others across our nation are ratifying this historic agreement. It is

time for us to do the same. This historic document represents the best

features of cooperative federalism in Canada. It is a product of the

cooperation and compromise that marked these important discussions. The

amendment before us embodies that cooperative spirit and calls on all

parties to make it continue in all our future discussions.

Canada and Confederation cannot afford a situation where a province

— whether it be Quebec, B.C. or any other province — is on the outside

looking in. But the Meech Lake

[ Page 5533 ]

accord does much more in terms of nation building

than simply guaranteeing Quebec's entry into the constitution. It sets

in motion an overdue process to give Canada's Pacific province a real

say in the central institutions of Canada. It ensures that provinces

must be equal and active partners in the process and is a call to

continue our efforts for meaningful reform of central institutions such

as the Senate and Supreme Court.

This amendment is a vital first step down the road to more reform.

Some have argued the accord is not perfect. Mr. Speaker, no law is

perfect. Some have argued that unanimity is a roadblock to future

reform. Unanimity is as much a protection as a hurdle. It is protection

of fundamental respect for our provincial equality. I would remind

members that unanimity settled the difficult issues of Quebec's

inclusion at the constitutional table, much to the surprise of the

professional skeptics. It is essential that we carry that political

will to future reforms. If we do, there will be consensus and there

will be unanimity, and once again we will confound those skeptics.

I urge hon. members to give their consideration to those aspects of

the accord which represent the new face of Canadian federalism. British

Columbia now has a greater say in the appointment of judges to the

Supreme Court of Canada, the final arbiter of constitutional disputes.

The accord also recognizes our right as a province to have a greater

say in the development of new shared-cost programs, rather than being

subject to unilateral federal actions in areas that, after all, are

exclusively in provincial jurisdiction.

We have also entrenched the annual first ministers' conference on

the economy, another significant instrument of national reconciliation.

When governments sit down and listen to each other, it does not mean

they always have to agree, but formalizing regular and open lines of

communication means there are far more opportunities for agreement,

consensus and cooperation. By entrenching our annual first ministers'

conference on the economy, our governments will have a real opportunity

to harmonize our economic strategies and plan for the future.

Another important recognition of the equality of the provinces is in

the provision giving us the right to negotiate our own immigration

agreement, targeted to our needs, with the federal government. This is

a provision our province has long sought, and it is one we look forward

to implementing.

Another aspect of the agreement important to B.C., is reform of the

Senate. The accord gives provinces a greater say in the appointment of

senators, an important step in the right direction. We are now on a

path to bringing new relevance to the upper House as a credible and

effective forum for main regional concerns. Through a process aimed at

more fundamental reform, western Premiers endorsed in Parksville the

principles embodied in the triple-E Senate concept. The accord's

entrenchment of annual first ministers' conferences on the constitution

explicitly provides that the first of these conferences, to be held

this year, will address this vital issue of Senate reform.

I am not overstating the case by saying the history of

constitutional reform and the history of Canada are about one and the

same. In entrenching the requirements for annual first ministers'

conferences on the constitution, we have made this historical and

political reality a legal and constitutional reality. Keeping the

reform process alive bodes well for British Columbia. The government of

British Columbia looks forward to round two of constitutional reform as

a further step towards building a more equitable federation, starting

with the issue of Senate reform.

We will continue to fight for what is right for British Columbia. We

will not rest until we have received our fair share and rightful role

in Confederation. To the critics who suggest this accord was hammered

out in a hasty, all-night session in the Langevin Block, I say: look at

the last two decades of Canadian history, years that have been

agonizing and frustrating for all Canadians. The Meech Lake accord

heals those wounds and gives us the impetus to move on to new horizons.

Since the accord was reached a year ago, Canadians have had ample

opportunity to study the deal. They have had the opportunity to

contribute to and listen to the views expressed, both for and against,

during the parliamentary special joint committee hearings. The expert

testimony received and the conclusions reached through those national

committee hearings confirm our belief that evidence does not exist

which would cause us to ask for the accord to be reopened. It is my

belief that a much greater threat lies in a reopening of the accord, in

which case there would most certainly be a throwback to the days of

disunity. It is time to focus on the future, because while not a

perfect solution to the many complex questions in our constitutional

life, the accord represents a balanced resolution of issues that have

dogged constitutional talks for years.

While federal governments have used the spending power in the past,

it often brought loud protests from provinces and contributed to a

climate of confrontation in federal-provincial relations. Instead, the

Meech Lake accord civilizes the use of the spending power. It squarely

faces up to the fact that provinces have always had — and sometimes

used — the right not to participate in shared-cost programs. It

provides for reasonable compensation to non-participating provinces

that carry out their own programs or initiatives, but only if these are

compatible with the national objectives. This will give provinces

freedom to tailor programs to their special needs. These arrangements

will result in a healthy bargaining process that will encourage

provinces to meet national objectives.

The accord is also important in that it unblocks the constitutional

reform process. By ensuring Quebec's full participation in the

constitutional reform process, the accord lays the foundations for

solid and lasting progress on many other issues. By providing for

annual constitutional conferences of first ministers, the accord will

end a history of federal-provincial differences over the timing of such

conferences. This will let us get on with such important issues as

Senate reform, fishery roles and responsibilities, and other matters.

In fact, Senate reform will be on the agenda until reform is achieved.

This round of talks was not designed to solve all our constitutional

problems in one grand sweep. Its purpose was to restore Quebec to our

constitutional family as a full and enthusiastic member, and in this it

has succeeded. Quebec's full participation in further constitutional

talks is essential to solid and lasting progress. It is an essential

first step. Concerns not dealt with in the Meech Lake pact can and will

be raised at the annual constitutional conference of first ministers

which will begin this year. British Columbia anxiously awaits this

all-important round two.

Let me close by saying that federalism in Canada today is an

evolutionary process. A constitution must recognize and reflect these

economic, social and political realities. That is

[ Page 5534 ]

what the Meech Lake accord is all about. In

addition to repairing the significant gap left in our constitutional

life by Quebec's non-acceptance of the 1981 constitutional package, the

Meech Lake accord fully respects and recognizes the important principle

of the equality of the provinces.

For these reasons, I believe the approach taken by some critics who

attempt to assess who won and who lost by virtue of the Meech Lake

accord is thoroughly misguided. The accord made all Canadians winners.

The approach of cooperation, constructive compromise and openness to

change is, in my view, in the best spirit and tradition of Canadian

Confederation. It is an approach which will, I am confident, lead to

even greater things in the months and years ahead.

I call on all members to share in endorsing this historic act. I

urge them to exercise foresight in keeping the process moving. In the

interests of all British Columbians and all Canadians, I ask this. I

support this resolution today as a proud British Columbian and a proud

Canadian. I call on all hon. members to say yes to the resolution and

yes to a stronger and more united Canada.

[3:00]

MR. HARCOURT: I too rise to support this motion. I believe bringing Quebec formally into the Canadian family and granting la belle province

its rightful place in Confederation is an important and indeed very

happy occurrence. This is a long-overdue completion of the first round

of nation building. We are all one family now.

We have, as a country, evolved from, first of all, a number of

colonies — Upper and Lower Canada, the Maritimes — to the creation of

our country in 1867, with four provinces and approximately four million

people. Canada was formed under the British North America Act, which

left us with a constitution decided in another country. However, we

proceeded over the next many decades to add new territories and

provinces, including our own, the province of British Columbia, in 1871.

In that process we became the second-largest country in the world.

We have had several constitutional changes, including the Statute of

Westminster. It wasn't until 1981, 114 years after the birth of Canada,

that we became a country not just in fact but in reality, with the

repatriation of our constitution. Some would say that's the Canadian

way: slow and steady progress. With it, we have created a country and a

province that are the envy of most areas of this world.

That process of nation-building was not completed in 1981. Our

second-largest province, the home to seven million Canadians, was not

brought into the constitution. We were unable to deal with that and

other important issues then, but now we've been presented with the

Meech Lake accord, in only the fourth time in Canadian history

that unanimity among the partners has been reached on a constitutional

amendment — an altogether rare example of cooperative federalism.

With this accord we are bringing Quebec proudly and fully into the

Canadian family. Quebec said yes to Canada in 1982 in the referendum,

and now we are saying yes to Quebec here today. For me, and for many

others on this side of the House, we are prepared to play our part.

However, I want to make it very clear that I have very serious

disagreements with this accord, as do New Democrats across this

country. No disagreement on the substance of bringing Quebec into

Confederation.... This is the completion of the first round of

nation-building, but all of us New Democrats agree that by no stretch

of the imagination is the process of building this great country of

ours over.

I'd like to touch briefly on some of the disagreements we have about

the Meech Lake accord: (1) equality for women; (2) aboriginal

self-government; and (3) a fair deal for the north. We want Canadian

leaders to bring in constitutional amendments that will deal with

equality rights for women, to exercise an abundance of caution and to

deal with some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed not

just by a number of women in this country but by men as well who feel

that the constitution should be amended to deal with some of those

concerns about equality rights for women.

As well, we believe that bringing about equality for women is not

just going to be done through the constitution, but that there is a

need to address the question of affordable and accessible child care, a

need for transition homes for battered women and children and a need

for us to bring in proper pay equity to deal with the poverty of women.

All of these are not dealt with in the constitution but have got to be

addressed by members of this Legislature and legislatures right across

this country.

We also ask our political leaders to ensure — and I would like the

Premier to give this assurance — that the aboriginal constitutional

talks will be put back on the table. The aboriginal people of British

Columbia and this country have the unfinished business of

self-governing, as do we. The people who have been here many, many

centuries have legitimate claims. I have spoken to many native leaders

in British Columbia, and I want to assure you they will never give up.

As Simon Lucas, that great orator, hereditary chief of the

Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council has said: "We are patient because we know

that we are dealing with not just our future but the future of our

children and our children's children, and we know who we are and where

we have been and where we are going." That long-term perspective we

should all share as we build British Columbia, but we have to address

this unfinished item of nation building and of constitution creating.

Finally, we want the political leaders of Canada to not make it

prohibitive in a few decades for the Yukon and the Northwest

Territories to also have the opportunity to become provinces. The

accord now requires unanimous consent for the provinces, which is a

greater level of consensus than was required for any of the other

provinces.

There are other concerns that members of my caucus will be

discussing, including the impact of the accord on our social programs

and the issue of the Senate. We've heard mention of the triple-E

Senate. We, of course, as New Democrats, would like to see the triple-A

Senate — abolish, abolish, abolish. It is like a third leg. It is an

unnecessary appendage on the body politic. We'll also be discussing the

questions of judicial appointments and workers' rights.

We on this side of the House do, indeed, have reservations about the

Meech Lake accord; however, as elected political leaders, I believe the

ball is now in our court. With progressive and fair and open

leadership, we can address the concerns many Canadians have with this

accord. That is why I have asked the Premier to ensure that equality

for women and aboriginal rights are placed right back at the top of the

agenda in the next round of nation building.

We know that if the federal government has the political will to do

so, it can establish national objectives such as accessible,

affordable, quality child care under the shared cost program

arrangement. It would be pretty difficult for

[ Page 5535 ]

any province that joined in to then spend that money elsewhere. So

it is a question of political will and progressive leadership.

Before I take my place, I want to make one last comment about the

procedure that brought us to the Meech Lake accord. It was a process

that the Premier alluded to that can best be described as a midnight

patchwork of the constitution. It was, indeed, hastily assembled in two

late-night sessions of the first ministers. Now, as a result, we have

an accord that appears unable to bear detailed scrutiny, to absorb

legitimate objections, or even to accept basic repair. We think that is

unfortunate, that it's all or nothing, that we couldn't have

accommodated some of these changes in this Legislature and in the

Parliament of this country.

We're simply not prepared to accept this method of nation building.

It is distasteful to us and must be reformed. We need a more open,

participatory process for the people of this country to participate in

constitutional evolution and changes to our country.

We recognize that this is a flawed and imperfect document. We

realize that there are many people who are bitter and angry about it.

We would hope that this government will have a second look and will

resolve the outstanding disagreements in our country. We believe there

is still much to be done, but we also believe it is our responsibility

as Canadians to bring Quebec into our family. We are prepared to play

our part here today in giving approval to the Meech Lake accord,

To improve the accord, we tabled some amendments last night. Those

were agreed to and accepted by the House Leaders for the government and

for the opposition, and some members of our caucus will be directing

their comments towards some of those amendments.

Let me conclude my remarks today by quoting a Canadian statesperson,

Henry Wise Wood, from earlier in this century, who said: "True progress

can come only as a result of thoughtful, continuous, cooperative

effort. This progress will be necessarily slow, but it must be

continuous." That is the Canadian way. The Meech Lake accord represents

progress; slow progress, yes, but that progress must be continued.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GUNO: May I say, first of all, that I rise with some mixed feelings to engage in this so-called debate on the future of our country.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is not a so-called debate.

MR. GUNO: No, it's so-called.

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, we're engaged in a meaningless exercise,

in some ways overshadowed by yesterday's events. I think that the

resignation of the Attorney-General demonstrates the moral bankruptcy

of this government.

This whole exercise reminds me of T.S. Elliot's poem, "The Hollow Men," and it goes:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Our dry voices when we whisper together

Are quiet and meaningless.

That's what this debate is all about. It's meaningless; it doesn't

mean a thing. But this is a forum for us who have strong concerns about

this resolution, and I intend to take every opportunity to express my

concerns.

[3:15]

We are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to debate this very fundamental

matter, but as an afterthought. There's not even a pretence that we're

going to consult the people of British Columbia. The Premier says it

was a frustrating exercise. Well, I guess the exercise of getting the

trains on time is a frustrating exercise. The democratic exercise is a

very difficult one — sometimes frustrating; most times time-consuming —

but it's the best process that we have. And I think that this whole

process has ignored that.

I have no illusions that the amendment that we're going to introduce

will be adopted, so I'll speak on the main motion, and I do that with

full knowledge that it will not be adopted. But again, as I say, this

is a forum, and I think we ought to take every opportunity to express

our concerns.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, first of all, that my position in no way

means that I'm against the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

That is a historical fact. We only have to listen to their music; we

only have to read their literature; we only have to hear of their

aspirations. So I think every effort should have been made to make the

fact that Quebec is a distinct society in Canada a reality; every

effort should have been made to make that possible.

But the Meech Lake accord and this resolution, Mr. Speaker,

demonstrate that no real effort was made. In fact, it was done in

haste, in secrecy, by a roomful of men, overnight. This accord, Mr.

Speaker, as history will show, will do much harm to our Canadian

nationhood. We will, by excessive decentralization, have weakened the

ability of this nation to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

What we have to remind ourselves is that we are not just British

Columbians or Quebecois; we are Canadians. In fact, the very reason why

the Fathers of Confederation forged a nation was to build a very unique

experiment, an experiment that would build a federal state, one that

would balance the need for reasonable aspirations with the need for a

strong central state that can have creative, national initiatives.

We also have to remind ourselves that we are purportedly debating

the constitution of Canada. It is not an ordinary bill. It is not one

that we can just pass off as some kind of inconvenience, but a document

that will determine the direction we are taking as a nation.

As I said, the Fathers of Confederation took a great deal of care in

forging this nation. It was not done overnight. Neither was the

constitution of 1982. There was full public input. The accord does not

have that.

We also have to remind ourselves that the constitution safeguards

the individual from the excessive and arbitrary exercise of government.

This accord, in my humble opinion, jeopardizes those safeguards.

Instead, as Brian Schwartz, a well-known constitutional expert, wrote

in a recent article, what we have is a charter of Premiers. It was the

Premiers who won, not the provinces and not the nation of Canada. In

fact, I dare say we won a pyrrhic victory — a hollow one.

Let's look at the price that was exacted, mainly by the western

Premiers. It was not a price that was asked by Quebec; it was not ever

contemplated by Quebec. But first, I have to go back to the process, to

the way this accord was reached, and it is one of the most troublesome

aspects of this whole exercise, for it provides a precedent in

nation-building that is disturbing, to say the least. There is, I

think, both on a national and a provincial level, a trend toward

circumventing the democratic process. We see that in the

decentralization exercise of this government. We see that in free

trade, where

[ Page 5536 ]

there was actually no public input. This is a very important concern.

Mr. Berger wrote a book called Fragile Freedoms — and this is

fragile. The more we tinker with that freedom, the more chance of

having a government that rules by edict rather than by consent. That's

what concerns me about this whole process, where the elected

representatives of each Legislative Assembly are told to accept

something that is virtually a fait accompli. What are we then? Are we

not the guardians of the freedom of people'?

Let's look at the way the north has been treated under this accord.

Without their consent, without even their consultation, their basic

aspirations to nationhood, to provincehood, have been denied. They

have been deprived of the right to appoint someone to the Senate, to

the Supreme Court. Was this what Quebec asked? You have to ask: why?

What's the rationale? Can the Premier tell us? Can the government tell

us why? I'll tell you, and I'll pose it as a rhetorical question. In

the last four first ministers' conferences, the aboriginal people from

the north have said: "We can exercise self-government through public

government. We constitute a very significant minority." So we have to

ask if the western Premiers, including our Premier, are afraid of that

prospect, are afraid to share.

Let's talk about the aboriginal people. In the last four futile

exercises — the last four first ministers' conferences — the aboriginal

people were told: "We need more definition. We need more detail. We

need more idea as to what you're talking about." The Premier of this

province led the charge in the last first ministers' conference in

sabotaging the aspirations of the native people for self-government. He

sat in this House and said: "I will not buy a pig in a poke." Some

weeks later he buys an accord that many constitutional experts are

divided upon — what Eugene Forsey, a most notable constitutional

expert, says is a cornucopia of ambiguities. Some pig; some poke.

Again, we must remind ourselves that we're dealing with a

constitutional issue. It's not a bill. It's not something that's

convenient for us to somehow put as the last item that we want to get

through with very quickly.

When I talk about the process, there's no evidence of any

consultation with the cabinet, with the caucuses, with the

Legislatures, and most importantly, with the people. Brian Schwartz,

the constitutional expert I quoted earlier, has condemned the process

as deplorable, and if it were to be a model, then the damage to the

nation and the discredit to democracy would be great. This is not a

small point.

Today we witness the government increasingly circumventing the

democratic process by reason of expediency in their own political

agenda. We have to remind ourselves that democracy is difficult. The

latest secret and hasty process, in my opinion, is an affront to our

democratic way of life. I find it difficult to take this debate

seriously, because we have had little opportunity to have significant

input. I think it's demeaning to the role of the Legislature and

elected members to have really no opportunity to debate this accord

until after the fact.

We have a clique of Premiers, not necessarily the provinces they

represent. It vests more authority in the Premiers than in the

provinces. That is really the crux of the matter: the price exacted by

the Premiers to accept constitutional recognition of Quebec as a

distinct society.

Take Senate reform. As a party on this side of the House, we have

called for significant reform. The unanimity rule is going to make it

virtually impossible to make any kind of reform. How can any Premier,

especially the western Premiers in the way they have demonstrated their

exercise of power lately, not take advantage of the full patronage

opportunities that they have?

The Supreme Court. So far, the Supreme Court has been non-parochial.

It has appointed justices who have demonstrated merit by their full

knowledge of the law as it reflects on our country. Now the premiers

have a hand in appointing Supreme Court justices. Quebec has an even

bigger power now to appoint Supreme Court justices, and in fact, the

provincial government has an even greater power than the federal

government. We have to ask whether in the future we are going to be

jeopardizing the effectiveness of that highest judicial body of our

country in dealing with very fundamental legal issues that confront our

nation.

I am fully aware that many of my colleagues are going to be

supporting the main motion, and I know that they do so because they

recognize the necessity of Quebec taking its rightful place in our

constitution. I say that and acknowledge that, because I agree to a

certain extent, but I think that the price exacted is too high. It will

mean, in the end, that we will have deprived ourselves of the

opportunity to grow and thrive as a nation.

[3:30]

I know that many of my colleagues felt that my strongest

objection would be around aboriginal rights. I pointed out to them that

as far as native people are concerned, it is not what is in the accord

that is objectionable but what is not in the accord.

Someone said that society is judged by how well it protects the

least protected in that society. For generations, native people have

been the least protected. For many generations their aspirations have

been ignored, and I think that the Meech Lake accord demonstrates that

pattern. We as a nation will never really grow until we have taken the

difficult challenge of meeting the aspirations of not only the native

people but the northern people, the women, the poor. As I said, I think

that the accord concentrates power in the hands of a few, and it is one

that will deprive of protection the least protected.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to speak briefly in support of this resolution, the Meech Lake accord.

I think it is high time that some facts of Canadian society were

recognized. I believe that Quebec has taken a unique position in some

respects. They are not within the constitution now. They are not at the

table, and this Meech Lake accord brings them to the table. I also

believe that it is progress. It represents the best effort of many

years of discussion by many people to bring together all of the

provinces of Canada so that things can be discussed among them.

I think it confirms some provincial rights that exist. It does give

us a greater say in some areas, and it means that there are some

programs that we can do our way, without having the tax money that goes

from British Columbia spent elsewhere because we do not agree with a

particular program. It allows us to do the programs the way we see fit

in British Columbia, as long as it's along the same lines, and without

our being financially punished for that. I think it's important that it

no longer leaves some conferences to the whim of whoever happens to be

there. It confirms that conferences will be held at regular intervals.

I'd like to comment on one of the concerns that people have about the requirement for unanimity. I really believe that

[ Page 5537 ]

unanimity is the best way to achieve results. It is not the easiest

way, but it certainly is the best way. If a person chooses to be

critical, it is fairly easy to be critical. If a person can stand fast

on a particular position in the full security that the majority will

pass it anyway and the progress of this country will go on, that person

can maintain that particular position as a critic or as someone who

does not agree. They can serve a particular constituency in that light,

secure in the knowledge that it will be passed by a majority anyway.

When unanimity is required — when a person cannot just remain as a

critic — that person has to make a decision as to whether his or her

position is strong enough to choose to stop something from happening or

whether he or she can make a compromise. I think that can be quite

important. It's the difference between remaining against something or

having to make the decision about stopping something from happening.

I can tell you this: since I have been Minister of Education and a

participant in the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, I at

first wondered whether anything could be accomplished or achieved,

because we could not reach decisions at the Canadian Council of

Ministers of Education on the basis of majority vote. It had to be a

consensus in order for a decision of the council to go ahead. There

were many things that prevented it from happening, because there was

disagreement and the disagreement remained; but there were also many

things accomplished, even with the consensus.... Believe me, having

chaired many meetings and many groups in my life, it was a rather

interesting experience to be chairman of the Canadian ministers for one

year, and at each of the meetings, having to have the members around

that table thrash out a problem and compromise both ways until

consensus could be reached, because there was no authority to make a

decision by majority vote. What seemed at first to be a great obstacle

in that year's experience with the CMEC, I found to be actually a

considerable advantage.

So I believe it can work. I believe that people can reach agreement.

When they do and they make the necessary compromises, it gets you the

best results. I also know that if, in trying to reach that consensus,

you have to sell everyone else around that table that it is important,

then you have to be more careful about what you bring forward, and you

can count on the support of the entire group once the decision is made.

If you only have to convince a majority to vote in your favour, then it

is possible to disregard what the minority may think, because you can

get your way if you can sell it to two-thirds of the group. If you have

to sell it to all of the group before it will proceed, you have to work

harder at it. You may lose some, but the ultimate and final result is a

much improved system.

There are a great many things that could be discussed in the Meech

Lake accord, but I would like to think that, as in some provinces,

there has been a high degree of support for this marvellous step in

improving our Canadian fact: all provinces at the table and the

possibility of reaching even further into the future to adjust to our

changing society as necessary, so that other rights now being asked for

can be brought into the agreement and we can all have a better Canada

as a result.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want, as I begin my comments this afternoon,

to acknowledge and pay special tribute to the speech of the member for

Atlin (Mr. Guno), as one of the finest speeches I have heard in my time

in this House. I just wanted, perhaps on behalf of all of us sitting in

this House, to acknowledge the depth, the integrity and the commitment

of those remarks. They were an outstanding contribution to our

discussion and our deliberations this afternoon.

The member for Atlin dwelt at some length on the process by which we

have arrived at this time and debate in this House this afternoon, and

I want to spend just a few moments reflecting on that process as well.

Many of us can look back to the other time when we had some opportunity

to be involved with nation-building, with the bringing home of our

constitution, with the forging of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, with the balancing of the roles of the federal government and

the provinces in constitution-building. All of us will perhaps remember

what a dynamic time that was, a time when many people throughout this

land were engaged in active debate about what should be in the

constitution which was being renewed, what should be in the first

constitutional charter this country had known in 121 years of its

history, which we will be celebrating on July 1. We know that it

involved coalition-building, consensus-building, challenges in the

courts, the setting of precedents and very historic events in which all

of us were meaningfully involved either directly or through our

following of that process.

I want to contrast that with the events that have produced this

second major constitutional renewal: two meetings of first ministers,

albeit building on work that had been done in the past, and a

resolution which was forged during those two meetings and which has

since been presented to us as a seamless web not to be altered by a

word or a phrase; not in any way to be changed, because that accord is

so fragile that any of the dynamics of consultation, of public

hearings, of genuine discussion in a committee or in this House, or

through public hearings in this province — any of those things — would

threaten it.

At the federal level there has been, over the past year and a month

or two since the agreement was reached by the first ministers, a

considerable amount of work done in public, both through the House of

Commons and its hearing process and through the Senate, to further look

at the constitutional resolution before us today. But in British

Columbia we have paid the most cursory attention to that process.

Within my own party there has been a very active discussion which has

brought forth different points of view and concerns about the accord.

Many of us have taken positions on those discussions within the

councils of our own party.

[3:45]

However, the legislative process is one that is totally attenuated.

I think it has, in the last few days, been really sullied by the means

which have brought this accord to the House. Even the scheduling of

this debate has been at the behest of a Premier. It has been very

difficult to know when this debate would occur and if it would occur. I

know that the officers of both caucuses have worked diligently in

trying to facilitate the debate, but it is not one that has had the

grace, dignity and importance that this particular kind of resolution

should have in coming to this House. I say that with regret and with

disappointment.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

We are this afternoon, in the dying days of this House, able to

spend as much time as we have through the due process to present our

views on the accord. From my remarks, it might be assumed that I am

going to be speaking in opposition to this resolution, but in fact I am

supporting it. However, prior to speaking to the reasons for my

support, I

[ Page 5538 ]

want to emphasize my disappointment and my frustration at the lack

of a much more extensive, public and comprehensive process in bringing

this resolution to the House.

I think that all of us on both sides of the House should make a

commitment that with the ongoing constitutional renewal that I think

all parties have agreed to, we will not see this kind of process again.

I would hope not. It is not, as my colleague from Atlin has so

eloquently said, a process that is conducive to nation-building. It is

not a process, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said,

that can really be conducive to not necessarily unanimity, but that

sense of consensus that is so important for the document which is our

constitution.

Having said that, let me enter the debate now in a more substantive

way around the issues that are a part of the resolution, and say first

of all that I am very pleased that this resolution brings Quebec into

the constitutional family. In fact, as my two sons, who have spent some

time in Quebec, have noted: "Mother, you should not say 'Kweebec,' you

should say 'Kaybec."' I will try to do that, to train myself that that

is in fact the way it should be said. I remember that as an easterner,

when westerners used to talk about Newfoundland with the emphasis on

the "found" rather than the "land." So we need, in terms of that

nation-building, to also learn to speak the language as well as we can,

even if it is only in how we say that name.

The inclusion of Quebec to the constitutional family is one that

gives to it a recognition and a maintenance of its status as a distinct

society. Indeed, I believe that the resolution enshrines many of the

specific working relationships that currently exist between the federal

government and that province. They include, explicitly and implicitly,

language, education, immigration and health measures, all of them

formulated in respect to Quebec's distinctiveness, a society that now

has enshrined, both from an historical and earlier constitutional

perspective, its status in Canadian society.

Some have expressed concern that that distinct society is not

adequately defined, but I think the Charter, which is a part of the

1982 constitutional reforms, provides a framework for all of the

aspects of this particular resolution, and particularly those relating

to Quebec. The guarantee of rights and freedoms, the first

section of

the Charter, says that the rights and freedoms set out in it are

subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be

demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There will be

interpretation required, and that

interpretation will be, I think,

something that will be the character of our constitutional work and

implementation over the years ahead.

There has been, in respect to the Quebec inclusion in the

constitutional family, strong concerns raised by women's groups on the

exclusion of clause 28 on equality of the sexes from the new clause 16

of this resolution. That clause excludes

section 25, the aboriginal

rights clause of the Charter, and

section 27, the multicultural rights

clause of the Charter, from any impact from this particular resolution.

I believe there is protection for women through the guarantee of rights

and freedoms, clause I of the Charter; but I think that seamless web

could very readily have been amended to include

section 28 on equality

of the sexes, in an abundance of caution, to ensure that the rights of

women are thoroughly protected by the former and the current

constitutional amendment.

I want to note also that this resolution deals with linguistic

duality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, and I want to note

it particularly because it requires all provinces to preserve this

fundamental characteristic in dealing with linguistic minorities within

their province. It provides, I believe, a balancing of historic and

current rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the Anglophone

population in Quebec, and also to the francophone populations in

western Canada.

I think it is important that we as British Columbians, who have

perhaps been at times less sensitive to those rights, recognize that in

agreeing to this constitutional amendment, we are committing ourselves

to preserve that linguistic duality in our province as well. I think

the balancing there will be one that all of us should give commitment

to in the future. In Quebec, and in the provinces where the linguistic

minority is quite small, where we have an equal responsibility, I think

it is something that we should note we have committed ourselves to work

on, and that means some active work on our

part in a whole range of

services that should be available to francophone within this province.

I want to also note that in this discussion there has been a

reference to a future constitutional amendment that would recognize as

a fundamental characteristic of Canada its multicultural nature.

Although that is not a part of our resolution today, it seems to me

very important, as we are looking at the two founding languages, that

in this province, whose fabric is enriched by its multicultural nature,

we should note that as a future constitutional amendment, one that we

should be preparing for and in a position to support.

There is one other part of the resolution that I want to speak to specifically; that is, the part that says:

to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national

coming into force of this

section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction,

if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with national

objectives."

Over the last 20 or 30 years, a responsible and cooperative

federalism has developed in this nation, which has had a good deal of

nation-building going on in areas that, under the British North America

Act, our first constitution, were exclusively under provincial

jurisdiction. I think it's fair to note that those developments have

often happened at the initiative of provinces. The most notable one I

could cite would be the development of our universal health system, the

Canada Health Act, the Canada health plan, which grew out of

initiatives in Saskatchewan and then in other provinces, and over the

years — culminating in 1983-84 — produced a national consensus on

objectives that produced national standards for that health act, which

is binding on all of the provinces.

It seems to me that what we have in this particular clause is the

constitutionalizing, if you like, of that evolution of a process. It is

one that I welcome, but with some concerns. I think there have been

concerns, because as we look over the 20 years that have produced some

national consensus through the political process, we recognize that

this is the kind of development that can very easily be short-circuited

by a government that is not committed to objectives that are clearly

defined.

A very good example of that at this time is the development of a

child care program in Canada — one is being developed, I believe, prior

to the coming into force of this

[ Page 5539 ]

address national objectives and where we are in danger of balkanizing

the country into a series of different programs. I believe that we do

need to have the capacity for some diversity in the delivery of

national programs, but that diversity should be under the umbrella of

clearly defined goals and objectives.

One of the best examples we have of that is in our own education

system, where clearly the province defines goals and objectives for

that system and then there is an opportunity for local involvement and

local decision-making at the school board level. There is no question

that there are clearly defined objectives and goals in the education

system provincially, and I believe that those goals and objectives

should be equally clearly defined by the federal government in the

areas that are exclusively of provincial jurisdiction, where they are

entering into cost-sharing and program development initiatives.

That will only happen where we have the political will to make it

happen, which we had with the development of the national health act.

That political will was a federal political will which members of this

government would have preferred to short-circuit. The user fee issue is

a clear example of that. National objectives can be defined in such a

way that we can have standards across this nation. This constitutional

accord provides the enabling of that, but it will not, unfortunately,

provide for that political will.

That is something that I think people, electors, need to keep in

mind when they are choosing a government that will deal with their

goals and aspirations: to elect a government that does reflect those

goals and aspirations. We as a province will need to fight as well for

a clear definition of those standards. I believe, in the context of

cooperative federalism, that those two things should go hand in hand.

[4:00]

I support, too, the amendment standing in the name of the

Leader of the Opposition that — again, in an abundance of caution —

makes it clear that there is nothing in this particular clause on the

cost-sharing programs under the definition of national objectives that

will derogate from the right of the federal government to pursue

national programs in areas of exclusive jurisdiction or areas of shared

jurisdiction. In other words, where the federal government has

exclusive jurisdiction it has that absolute right to not allow for an

opting out and some changes that would reflect provincial goals.

In my view, a constitution is an enabling document. It is a means of

setting out a framework by which a federal state —which is what this

country is — will work together toward goals that meet national needs

and aspirations but reflect the diversity of the country. I don't often

speak about my roots, but having come from a maritime province, and

having come, by the birthplace of my parents, from the place of the

founding of Confederation, I have that from-sea-to-sea perspective.

I am pleased that we are now, with this resolution, a nation that is

from sea to sea. We have one major set of players still not included

and who feel that the process we have been involved with has

compromised their role in Canada, and that's the Northwest Territories

and the Yukon.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that if we are indeed to

nation-build, we should and must do that with the consensus and the

consent of all those who are governed by our constitution. As we accept

this resolution, we need to be reminded that it has deficiencies, that

it has excluded people who deserve not to be excluded, that it has

failed to give attention to aboriginal peoples, to northern peoples and

to others who need to feet a sense that they have been accorded the

opportunity to participate in the process. We need to remember that

with any future constitutional renewal: otherwise this particular

process will be a much less productive one than it should be.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will continue

constitutional renewal in an enlightened, consensus-building and

involving way. I am pleased that we have come, by however poor a

process. to some new initiatives with this resolution.

MR. G. HANSON: This is a very important debate. It's one that

we've known was coming for some period of time. It's one that members

on both sides of the House have given a considerable amount of thought

to. It's not an easy decision, in the sense that it's not 100 percent

A-okay. It's one that raises serious concerns, but personally, through

the course of my pondering and weighing this matter, I've had to ask

myself, given what I know, given what I see: what is the best for

Canada?

As we know, the patriation of the constitution of Canada in 1982 was

a major step, but it was done at the sacrifice of Quebec being a full

partner in that process. That's outstanding business that has yet to be

fully addressed, and that is the historical process that we're involved

in now.

In my own personal circumstances, my family comes from Quebec. They

moved to Quebec in 1804 and basically stayed on the same farm until my

father left there when he was in his twenties and moved via Alberta to

B.C. I've visited many times. I have a particularly warm affinity for

that great province, and that has added to my consideration of this

matter.

I know that if Prime Minister Ed Broadbent had presided over those

meetings, we would have a different document in front of us today.

Unfortunately, we were just one election out of step. Our party is

committed to process, and events since these announcements illustrate

the historical fact that our party is committed to a process involving

people — certainly to a constitution where every Canadian must be

proud. That is the goal: every Canadian must be proud of this

constitution at some point in time. The problem at the moment is that

there are serious deficiencies in this document.

The argument was always made that nothing could be altered or else

the whole thing would unravel. That never made a lot of sense,

particularly in terms of minor amendments and clarifications around

equality rights for women, and what impact the distinct society clause

may have on equality rights. Surely that would be something on which

the gentlemen in that room that evening could have come to agreement

and made sure there was no ambiguity.

My party is committed to equality for women, in reality as well as

in rhetoric. We've always argued that the constitution and the

Charter.... The intent and spirit of equality rights for women should

be contained in the accord, so that there is no possible

misunderstanding on that point. Absolutely! Our federal counterparts

placed amendments in the House of Commons to ensure that the rights of

women would not be diminished. Testimony was heard before the Commons

on this matter. Fairness for women and the equality of rights of women

in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were won a mere five

years ago, through the collective struggle of thousands of Canadian

women. The

[ Page 5540 ]

"taking of 28" had great significance for the women of Canada, and

section 28 continues to stand as the major statement of our country's constitutional

commitment to sexual equality. We recommended that the first ministers amend

section 16 of the accord and add

section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. That is a struggle that we are committed to in our party, to ensure

that subsequent meetings of first ministers on constitutional amendments remove

any ambiguity or confusion about equality rights for women.

The way that aboriginal people were treated in this process causes

me great concern. I think that if Quebec had been a part of Canada, the

appeal of aboriginal people to have native self-government and to have

the constitutional meetings on native self-government defining

aboriginal rights.... Quebec would have been a positive factor in those

deliberations. I'm embarrassed by the position taken by my own

provincial government on those matters.

That was our second major series of amendments, Mr. Speaker, and

they concerned the aboriginal peoples of Canada, Canada's first

citizens. We argued that we would like to see included in the accord a

commitment to hold a first ministers' conference on aboriginal rights,

and particularly self-government. This could have been accomplished by

amending

section 13 of the accord to add a new subsection (

c) to

section 50(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and renumbering

section

50(2)(

c) as

section 50(2)(d).

For too long the native people — certainly of this province and of

Canada — have not been recognized as first citizens with their full

aboriginal rights. That is long overdue, and that debate occurs in this

Legislature almost on a weekly basis. As well, we believe that

aboriginal peoples and territorial governments must be assured of full

participation in these first ministers' hearings. This would require a

new

section 50(3) to ensure the Prime Minister invites representatives

of aboriginal peoples and territorial governments to participate in all

matters that affect aboriginal rights.

If the proper process had been in place, I'm sure we would have

overcome the ambiguity around the distinct society provisions and their

impact on equality rights for women. We also would have had an

aboriginal rights meetings provision in the accord. Unfortunately,

those struggles lie ahead of our party, and we're committed to

rectifying those.

We also have concerns about fairness — or lack of — for Canada's

northern citizens. We had amendments in the House of Commons in Ottawa

regarding the north. First ministers should have removed the anomaly of

Canadians living in the territories being denied the opportunity

available to other Canadians of serving on the Supreme Court of Canada

and possibly in the Senate as well — although we are essentially for

dissolving that particular body. This could be done by adding the words

"or territory" after the word "province" in sections 6 and 2 of the

accord, relating respectively to

section 101C(

l) and sections 25(

l) and (2) of the Constitution Act.

First ministers should immediately address the injustice of

requiring unanimous approval from the provinces for the creation of new

provinces in a degree of concurrence that was not required for any of

the existing provinces. The amendment would delete

section 41(

i) in

section 9 of the accord.

[4:15]

The Meech Lake accord is flawed, and we all know it. It has deficiencies with

respect to women's rights, native rights, the emerging provinces — particularly

the Yukon and the Territories — and there are other matters that should be there

to guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens of Canada.

In weighing all these important matters, I have concluded that I

will support the Meech Lake accord because of its embrace of seven

million people into the great province of Canada. But there is much

work to be done, incredible work to be done, that should not have been

left to this day. The struggle will continue with the leadership of the

New Democratic Party fighting for amendments for the future, that

second step to clarify and ensure that equality rights for women are

guaranteed in the constitution of Canada, that native people take their

full place and have the aspirations and desires of true self-government

realized, and that the Canadian citizens living in the north of our

country, who want and aspire to be partners in Confederation and to

become provinces of this country, are not given obstacles that are

unfair and prejudicial to those aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the accord, but with the caveat

that the concerns on process raised by my colleague from Atlin are

legitimate, and that I share the concerns raised by other members of my

caucus. But in weighing the total balance, I am opting to say at this

juncture that now is the time to say yes to Quebec and to bring it into

the family of Canada once and for all.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I stand to welcome Quebec into Confederation,

into Canada, and I stand to oppose the adoption of the accord and the

motion brought to the House by the government. I'd like to start off by

talking about what the constitution is. This has taken on some

particular significance for me in the last year and a half since being

elected to this House. I'm learning about the parliamentary process as

perhaps not many citizens of our country have the opportunity to do.

First of all, in political theory, a constitution is described as an

agreement or contract between the governed and the governing. In

substance, a constitution differs from other laws in that it sets out

the rules by which the government operates, following the tradition of

the British parliamentary system. Unlike the American experience, the

Canadian constitution was, until the constitutional process of the

1980s, largely unwritten. That means that a great deal of the law is a

matter of process, a matter of custom rather than actual statute.

That means for the House of Commons, for instance, that when the

government is defeated, it is compelled to resign by custom and by

convention and not by any law. Looking at what the parliamentary

process means to Canada and its people, and what it has meant to the

British Parliament, from a perspective that very few people have the

opportunity to share — from the perspective of, ironically, the

majority of people in our province, in that women represent the

majority.... That custom, that convention, is one that has developed

without the significant input of women. Women only very recently were

given the opportunity to vote and to participate in the parliamentary

process. All we have to do is look at this House to realize that women

are grossly underrepresented.

For women, the constitution is a very important document, a document

that begins to mould this convention, to mould the custom, and that

needs the input of as many people as possible. I rise to reinforce and

support the comments already made by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno),

and to tell this House that the people this constitution affects have

not

[ Page 5541 ]

had the opportunity to have their views heard or

the opportunity to have a say in this very important document — the

document that moulds the relationship between the governed and the

governing.

What the Meech Lake accord represents is a process of power-sharing.

It represents 11 men sitting down in two hurried sessions, talking

about their interests. I say "their interests," because I don't believe

they represent the interests of their provinces. I don't believe they

represent the interests of the majority of people of Canada. It was a

process of power-sharing that reflects a political message, and I want

to reject very strongly that political message on behalf of the

powerless in Canada: on behalf of women, on behalf of aboriginal

people, on behalf of those who are poor. That message, the

power-sharing that those 11 men undertook at Meech Lake, dealt with the

making of laws to control immigration, to regulate the exploitation of

natural resources, and to nominate friends and political allies to the

Supreme Court and the Senate.

We've heard a great deal of criticism of this accord from many

different groups that were excluded, that did not have the opportunity

to raise their concerns. We've heard criticism of the process, and we

are assured there is a commitment to deal with those concerns. We have

been told here in this House by the Premier that he realizes it isn't

perfect; no law is perfect, and there is a commitment to address some

of those inequities. The way this accord has been developed and the

agreement that this accord reaches makes it virtually impossible to

amend. We are told that those 11 men will again enter a room, they will

act in our interests, and they will deal with our problems.

I have given this a great deal of thought. It has not been easy to make the

decision to vote against this accord, but I think it is of utmost importance

that that negative vote be raised. The New Democratic Party has very strongly,

in this House and in the federal House, argued and put forward amendments to

the constitution to have these concerns addressed, and it will continue to do

that. I will take my part with my party to ensure that that process has every

possibility of success. Our leader has, on several different occasions, called

for a public hearing process. We have asked this government to give those people

who have essentially been disfranchised by this process the opportunity to express

their concerns. We have worked — and will continue to work — towards making the

constitutional process a better one that includes all Canadians. This process

does not.

What we had, again, was a process in which 11 men were lobbied, were

pressured, were requested to include, in an abundance of caution, the

section from the constitution that would include and recognize the

rights that the women of Canada have fought hard for. They were told

that wasn't necessary. I am offended by that. The women of Canada

—women from all across Canada, from many sectors of industry, from many

professions, from many walks of life — have said.... It is their voice

that went to those 11 men and pointed out that there was a grave error

and that the inclusion of this particular

section was needed. These 11

men said: "We've looked at it and we think you're wrong." That is an

insult.

The

section of the Meech Lake accord that deals with, and denies and

ignores, aboriginal rights is a flaw. If indeed there was the

commitment then, they should have dealt with it then.

The

section of the constitution that deals with national

cost-sharing programs is a

section that, I believe, puts our very

nationhood at risk. To hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) get up and say that this

section was of particular interest to

him, that it gave them the power to put in place programs they agreed

with and reject those they disagreed with, is a frightening prospect,

given the record of this government over the past year and a half.

I believe this document represents, as any political document

represents, a political message. I don't believe that you can separate

the Meech Lake accord from the Mulroney Reagan free trade agreement or

from the privatization initiatives of this government. When you look at

the significant lobby in the United States around the free trade

agreement — a lobby of the service sector, huge corporations lobbying

and pressuring for the opportunity to enter the Canadian market....

With this government saying that this particular

section is an

opportunity for them to disagree with the national programs and get the

money anyway, I am afraid that means this government is looking to

further erode social services and their delivery in this province.

There is every indicator that this government is heading down this path

with privatization and other initiatives,

This is an enabling accord that allows and facilitates the

government's political direction. It's a political direction that I

happen to disagree with. I believe very strongly that Brian Mulroney

has coopted the good intentions of people across Canada about

embracing Quebec. I believe that by putting these other things on the

table, by denying the rights of the powerless in Canada, Brian Mulroney

has put in jeopardy this very important move. I think it's important

that people make it known, and I suspect that will happen very soon.

So I take my seat, and I again want to register my protest, my negative vote, and my condemnation of the Meech Lake accord.

[4:30]

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's the first time in some

years I've had the honour to address this assembly from these benches.

With great enthusiasm I speak on and endorse the Meech Lake accord, and

also the very strong efforts that were made, both by the Prime Minister

and by the Premier of this province, to put differences aside and try

and get an agreement which would address constitutional matters that

have not been addressed successfully for decades.

I understand there are members — and the last member was one — who

think that things were omitted from this accord, and the opposition

House Leader's amendment specifies a number of things that were omitted

from the accord, in their opinion. But you never get constitutional

change by getting your whole shopping-list.

I read the testimony of many witnesses before the House of Commons

committees and some of the committees in the other provinces, who said:

"The distinct society clause bothers us. It may interfere with rights

under the Charter." I also read testimony that somehow this accord

might affect the rights of women, but there is absolutely no credible

body of opinion that supports those fears. Indeed, all the experts

— Peter Hogg and all the rest of them who testified — did not believe

that that was the case.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 5542 ]

This accord is as good as can be got, and many people had to give up

things on their shopping-list. I am sure there were things that we

would have liked to have had in this province as well, but it is like

the Confederation resolutions of 1864: you take it all, you take it as

a treaty, and you cannot change it piecemeal and add and subtract and

take bits away.

I like it, Mr. Speaker, because it means that the provinces are

going to at last have some credible participation in the formation of

national institutions. That means that for the first time there is

going to be some provincial presence in Senate appointments. It doesn't

mean that the provinces are going to be able to appoint exactly who

they want, but they are going to be able to submit a list. If you are

going to make a start with Senate reform, I don't agree with the

gentleman opposite that an elected Senate or an abolished Senate is the

answer. There should be a chamber, but there certainly should be an

upper House that is more representative and more effective. It is going

to be a more effective upper House if there is provincial input into

those appointments, because those people are then going to represent

the provincial points of view across the country as well as the

national point of view.

In many ways, including the clause on the spending power.... Really,

the most important proposition here in the Meech Lake accord is the one

that allows the spending power to be used for a provincial program

which supports national objectives, so that it would be possible for

the province to opt out of some new national social spending scheme,

provided it ran a program which met the national objectives. It could

run it in its own way and it could be different.

I know that there are people who think that that's going to erode

Confederation or that it's going to destroy the fabric of the country.

I don't believe that's so, Mr. Speaker. I don't see why there should

always be exactly the same delivery of a social service in Newfoundland

or Labrador as there is in British Columbia. There are local

differences and local needs, and those should be taken into account. In

the Meech Lake accord they can be taken into account without the

province losing that federal money, without that money that comes from

the taxpayers of British Columbia going to run a program somewhere else

which we haven't opted into here. So I believe that that is a very good

provision which will strengthen the unity of the country.

One of the reasons we had this unity in this country through the

constitutional rounds and discussions that took place in the seventies

and the early eighties was the desire of those in Ottawa who ran the

government — and the mandarins — to try and centralize too much power

in Ottawa, to try and have a uniform vision of this country that meant

that everything had to be done the way it was mandated from the centre.

There could be no provincial differences. There suddenly had to be a

young offenders act, for instance, right across the country — all the

same age clicked in; build your institutions; do it all tomorrow. All

these things had to happen according to central mandate, and that's

what was wrong with it. Every time we went down from this province to

attend those constitutional conferences, we always had the impression

that we were being beaten up by centralists down there and that their

agendas were the ones that drove the conference and its agenda. The

provinces were never respected in that process.

I am comfortable with the power that the province will have to send

a list of senators. I am also pleased with the role that the province

will have in the appointment of Supreme Court of Canada judges. It

doesn't mean that the province will be able to decide exactly who the

judge might be from this province — because they will get a list from a

number of western provinces if there is a vacancy, and they can choose

from whichever province they want — but it does mean that that national

institution, the Supreme Court of Canada, is going to have some

provincial input into who sits there. It is not just going to be

decided by the federal government, whereby they might be able to place

people who have a particular centralist view of the law and the

country. It's going to have to reflect the fact that there are ten

different points of view.

I think that great forward strides were made in the Meech Lake

accord and that we should support it. For western Canada and British

Columbia, it is a chance for us to break out of that centralist past.

It's also a chance for us to deal with a vital problem that arose in

1981 under the accord, when Quebec was left out of that accord, did not

agree to it, and therefore did not participate for a number of years in

national conferences and programs. Now finally the new government of

Quebec has agreed with the other provinces on the wording of this

accord and the distinct society clause. I like the distinct society

clause. I don't believe it erodes provincial rights one bit. I don't

believe it's a threat in western Canada; I don't believe that for a

minute.

I believe that what it does is give special recognition to Quebec,

not special status. That's why it's important, because you can go

around this province with some kind of confidence and talk about it

without people saying that it's another one of those deals that was put

together in a room in Ottawa, in which this province sold out to

another province or another cultural point of view. We did not. We

acknowledged and recognized the distinctness of that culture. There is

no selling out; it's a recognition and an inclusion.

I am very proud, as a member of this House and as someone who

participated and helped out in Meech Lake 1 and Langevin 2 at those

conferences, to support what this government did, what the Premier did,

what the Prime Minister did to bring about an accord which had eluded

us for almost a century. I stand in my place proudly and support the

accord.

MR. CLARK: "Something is wrong somewhere.... I find myself in

disagreement with my friends and with people whose ideas I usually find

congenial." So said Mr. Pierre Trudeau in 1954 in an

article entitled

"Federal Grants to Universities." I have a great deal of affinity for

Mr. Trudeau's early academic work in the 1950s. I have no support

whatsoever for his contemporary views or his views as a politician.

I too have concerns about the Meech Lake constitutional accord.

Unlike many of my colleagues, however, my concerns, firstly, are

relatively minor and, secondly, revolve more around the belief that the

accord does not shift enough power to the provinces. Nevertheless, on

balance I believe the accord is a good document, and I shall be

supporting it. I certainly respect my many friends and colleagues who

have profound problems with the accord. This matter is a complex one,

and there are no absolutes — no right, no wrong. Rather, on such a

serious matter as this constitution people must weigh their criticisms

of the accord — and there are many —with its positive attributes, and I

believe there are many.

[ Page 5543 ]

It is simply not possible or, I might argue, even desirable that

there could be unanimity on a document that involves, by its nature, so

many facets of the Canadian constitution. In order to better explain my

support for Meech Lake, it is useful, I believe, to step back and

review the fundamental values enshrined in our constitution. I might

say at the outset that I acknowledge a substantial amount of debt to

Prof. Andrew Petter from the University of Victoria law school, who I

think is one of the most articulate defenders, from a social democratic

perspective, of the Meech Lake constitutional accord.

The two basic tenets of the BNA Act of 1867 and its more recent

successor, the Canadian constitution, are federalism and responsible

government. Federalism is a constitutional form that implies a division

of responsibility between two levels of government, neither of which is

subordinate to the other. Hence, in Canada the provincial governments

have exclusive jurisdiction over certain things like natural resources,

forests, lands, mines and energy, and the federal government has

exclusive authority over other things like defence and external affairs.

Responsible government, on the other hand, is a system of democracy

whereby the executive branch of government is accountable to a

democratically elected legislature. The rationale for federalism is

that some matters are best handled at the central level, while other

matters are best handled at the regional level. It seems to me rather

obvious why Canada chose the federal route. Among other reasons, our

country is of enormous size. Some regions are more economically

advanced than others, population is unevenly distributed, and

linguistic and cultural patterns differ greatly between regions.

Regional governments accountable to regional electorates are better

able to design policies and programs suited to local conditions. A

central government can and often must ignore the wishes of a particular

region in order to garner the support of other regions. In Canada,

because of the population base in Ontario and Quebec, one or both of

those provinces' support is required to form a majority federal

government. That is a fact of life in Canada today. Federalism

therefore gives citizens more influence over policies assigned to the

regional governments than would be the case if those same policies were the responsibility of the central government.

However, in recent years the federal-provincial division of powers

outlined in the constitution has become somewhat blurred. The reason is

that the federal government has become increasingly involved in areas

of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. By using its superior financial

resources, the federal government has attempted to influence provincial

policies in areas like post-secondary education and health care. While

one can certainly argue that the federal incursion in those areas has

been progressive, and therefore should be supported, it is certainly

possible that this will not always be the case; in fact, it is likely

that this will not always be the case.

To many provinces, particularly Quebec, and certainly to myself,

this gradual encroachment by the federal government undermines

federalism. I agree with Quebec and go one step further. I believe

that it undermines democracy. Federal involvement in areas of

provincial jurisdiction confounds political accountability. As Pierre

Trudeau again said, in his early academic career in the 1950s: "A

fundamental condition of representative democracy is a clear allocation

of responsibilities. A citizen who disapproves of a policy, a law, a

municipal bylaw or an education system must know precisely whose work

it is so that he can hold someone responsible for it at the next

election."

It is not always clear in Canada which level of government should be

held responsible. For example, who should one blame for the

underfunding of universities, the province or the federal government?

Clearly, it is an area in the constitution of exclusive provincial

jurisdiction, but an area where the federal government contributes

almost all of the money today.

In my view, the Meech Lake accord at least moves a small step in the

direction of political accountability. The Meech Lake accord helps to

better define the division of powers in Canada in light of the reality

of federal involvement in provincial areas. In so doing, however, it

also clarifies the ground rules of federal support and reasserts the

right of the provinces to govern themselves in areas of their

jurisdiction.

[4:45]

What the Meech Lake accord does is accept the fact that we have a

system where the lines have blurred. It accepts the fact that the

federal government is now the major contributor to post-secondary

education. But it says we are going to reassert the provincial role in

those matters, and in any future policy discussions the provincial

government's role prevails. The Meech Lake accord, of course, also

recognizes the distinct nature of Quebec and makes that province a

willing signatory to the Canadian constitution.

There has been much criticism of the accord in Canada; and those

groups, as I said, are groups with whom I usually agree. I would like

to briefly respond, if I can, to some of the major points in their

critique at this point.

First, one of the major arguments is that the rights of women will

be undermined. It is argued that by recognizing Quebec as a distinct

society, this would imperil women's rights in Quebec. It is a profound

irony that the women of Quebec, represented by the Federation des

feninies du Quebec, do not support this concern, while women's groups

throughout the rest of the country think the accord should be scrapped

on this basis.

In my view, it was a mistake, a very serious mistake, for the first

ministers not to explicitly state in the accord that equality for women

would not be undermined. It clearly, in an abundance of caution, should

have done that. It clearly demonstrates to me that the first ministers

are oblivious to the very real concerns of women in this country and

should have anticipated that kind of reaction, given the nature of the

federal government and their track record in this matter, and should

have very easily recognized that women's rights should be protected and

written that into the accord.

Nevertheless, I agree with the women of Quebec that women's rights

in that province are not in jeopardy. Indeed, I think it is possible to

argue that women's rights in Quebec may be enhanced by the accord.

Critics of Meech Lake suggest that the Charter of Rights must now be

fettered by the need to view it in the context of the distinct society

clause. I agree with that criticism. I agree with that argument. But

far from diminishing equality, it is likely, in my view, that this will

strengthen women's rights in Quebec — or in the rest of the country.

It's quite simply because of the more liberal tradition with respect

to women's rights in Quebec. For example, a women's fundamental right

of access to safe abortions has

[ Page 5544 ]

long been accepted in Quebec, unlike any other province in Canada.

As the Federation des fernmes du Quebec state: "In Quebec respect for

women's rights is more and more becoming a part of political culture.

As a matter of fact, the progress we have made with regard to the

status of women is linked to the concept of a distinct society." Far

from limiting women's rights in Quebec, it is my view that it is at the

very least as arguable that those rights will be expanded by the Meech

Lake accord.

The second major criticism I'd like to spend a little bit of time on

is the criticism that federal-provincial shared-cost programs will be

impossible after the Meech Lake accord. Critics of the accord argue

that the federal government has forfeited its ability to implement

national social programs because of the ability of provinces to opt out

of such programs with compensation. Implicit in this criticism is the

view that we can't trust the reactionary provinces to formulate

progressive policies, and that the federal government is more likely to

enact programs designed to improve social justice.

I have two problems with this criticism. First, it is not at all

clear that the federal government is weaker after the accord. The

provinces have never agreed to unfettered federal involvement in areas

of provincial jurisdiction, and opting out was becoming the norm — in

some provinces anyway. Certainly the academic community is about evenly

divided on the subject, although one wouldn't think so by listening to

the critics. Professor Hogg, probably the leading constitutional

authority in Canada, has written that the accord does not weaken

federal spending powers. Profs. Boadway, Mintz and Purvis, in a recent

article, argue that federal spending powers may in fact be enhanced by

the new requirement that national objectives be considered.

This is certainly the view of many of the nationalist groups in

Quebec, it's interesting to note, that opposed the accord, including

the Quebec NDP, some labour groups and substantial sections of the PQ.

Their opposition to the accord, unlike the opposition to the accord in

I say, is supported by several academics in the field. In any event,

it's at least fifty-fifty divided, and it's not very clear whether

that's the case.

The second problem I have with this criticism of the accord is that

historically it has not been the national government that has pioneered

social programs; it has been the provinces. Why some people think that

central Canadians who comprise the bulk of the electorate are more

enlightened than those in western Canada or the Atlantic provinces is

beyond me. Virtually every major progressive social program in Canada

has been pioneered by Saskatchewan or Manitoba. This is a fact

documented very clearly by Prof. David Poel's statistical study of

social welfare programs.

In any event, even if it were true — and in British Columbia one

might have a good argument today — what political justification is

there for demanding that their particular, central Canadian vision must

be imposed upon those regions that do not share their view? If one

truly believes that the federal government is inherently more

progressive on social issues — empirical evidence to the contrary —

then the solution surely is to seek a constitutional amendment to

transfer jurisdiction to the federal sphere. This is a far superior

solution to the federal government using its financial resources to

blackmail the provinces to enact programs.

As I stated earlier, if we want to assure that democracy is served,

then clearly we should say that those people who are funding the

program should have the responsibility for the program so that the

people, the electorate of Canada, can pass judgment at election time on

the substantive nature of those programs.

I would argue very strongly that those that believe the federal

government is inherently more progressive and will act in the interest

of social justice should not argue against the Meech Lake accord. They

should not argue in favour of costsharing programs that confound

political accountability. They should rather argue that health care and

post-secondary education and the like should be transferred to the

federal government, and yet I have not heard that from any of the

critics of the accord.

Medicare, hospital insurance, automobile insurance, labour codes,

human rights codes, were all pioneered at the provincial level before

gaining acceptance across the country. I ask a very simple question:

would any federal government elected to date in our history have been

prepared to endure a doctors' strike to implement our form of

socialized medicine? The answer is very, very clear: I think not.

Why is it that explicit protection for homosexuals in human rights

codes now exists in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon, but not in

the federal human rights code? The point is not that provincial

politics is inherently more progressive than federal politics. We don't

have to look very far; certainly British Columbia is ample evidence

that that is not always the case. But neither is the reverse true, as

the critics would have it.

It is my view that in a country as large and diverse as Canada, the

federal government is, by its nature, often preoccupied with mediating

among competing regional interests, and all the while having to take

into consideration the fact that Quebec and Ontario, or one of them, is

necessary to form a federal government. It is in the smaller, more

homogeneous provincial units that consensus on social and economic

policies can more easily be achieved. By their nature, provincial

governments are more responsive to demands for innovation than the

federal government.

The third major criticism which I'd like to deal briefly with is the

argument that the process of constitution-making is fundamentally

flawed. Some critics of the accord have argued that the process by

which decisions were made condemns the document. It is suggested that

constitutions are so important that the public should be involved and

consensus should be reached before action is taken.

I might say that it is curious that there was so little criticism of

the process by which the constitution was patriated in 1982. Those same

groups that are now criticizing the process did not criticize the fact

that 25 percent of the population was left out of the constitution.

They did not criticize the fact that the deal was put together

unilaterally by the central government and imposed, essentially, on at

least one aspect of the country.

While I am certainly prepared to concede that the process could

clearly be improved by seeking more and wider input, there were, I

believe, very important reasons why the time was right for agreement.

Firstly, and most importantly, for the first time in Canadian history

all three political parties agreed with the concept of Quebec as a

distinct society within Canada. My own party has had a long debate on

this issue. I have long supported Quebec being recognized as a distinct

society. That has not been the position of the New Democratic Party; it

has changed repeatedly in the 12 years I have been involved. We had a

convention in Montreal where an historic

[ Page 5545 ]

agreement was reached to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

Likewise, the Liberal Party, in contravention of their recent history,

had a convention that recognized Quebec as a distinct society. So for

the first time in Canadian history we had all three national parties

agreeing to accept the notion of Quebec as a distinct society and that

it should be put in the constitution.

We also had, of course, a new federal government, a new Quebec

government and a new Ontario government. So that meant new players, a

fresh start and a fresh chance at agreement. The federal system of

government in Canada necessitates support from the provinces for

constitutional decisions. Having the elected heads of those governments

meet, confer and decide seems to me only appropriate. So we had a very

unique opportunity to bring Quebec into the constitution, that

opportunity was seized, and I support that.

The fourth and fifth criticisms I'd like to touch upon briefly are

that aboriginal people and the two northern territories were

inexcusably ignored in this round of constitution making. In my view,

there's no real defence against these criticisms. It's the area in

which I have a great deal of sympathy for criticism of the accord. We

had just had a national conference on the question of aboriginal people

which erupted in acrimony. Clearly, that should have been on the minds

of the first ministers. Very clearly, aboriginal rights should have

been entrenched. I think it's inexcusable that it was not discussed. In

addition, the two northern territories should have been consulted. I

don't understand why they were not consulted in this round of

constitution-making. I think those arguments are the best criticism of

the accord, and they're ones with which I agree.

However, I must say that justice for Canada's native peoples will be

the result of political pressure and political decisions, not

constitution-making and constitutional reform. Likewise, Mr. Speaker,

provincehood for the two northern territories is possible, indeed

probable, when the political will is there. I must also say that Quebec

being a member, willing participant and signatory to the constitution

makes both of those things more likely, particularly the aboriginal

question, because they have a far better track record on that matter

than any other province. So welcoming them into the constitution means

that the aboriginal question will be dealt with, I believe, more fully

and more adequately. As a result, it is my view that the Meech Lake

accord should not be defeated, even though I share the concerns around

those two matters.

There are, of course, several other areas of concern that have been

raised. I agree the Senate should be abolished. I don't agree with

provincial patronage appointments to the Senate. But I don't think the

Senate is any worse because of it, because in my view, it's rather

inconsequential.

Is the amending formula too tight? I suspect it is. However, the

amending formula, the unanimity rule, only applies to areas of

federal-provincial division of powers. So I don't think that's

significant either.

I believe I've covered the main areas of concern. I would like to

mention one other thing which I believe in strongly and which has not

been raised very much by the critics, and that is that British Columbia

should have a Supreme Court judge from British Columbia. We currently

have one. In this round of constitution-making, Quebec got a guarantee

for three Quebec judges, essentially appointed by the province. We know

that by convention Ontario has three judges on the Supreme Court. But

from all four provinces of the west we only have two judges, and those

two judges are appointed from a list from the four provinces. It could

be argued that by convention British Columbia should have one of those

judges. Most of the legal experts I have talked to say that's not the

case. If this government had been awake, alert and thoughtful in their

deliberations on Meech Lake, it is my very strong view that we could

have got in the constitution — as in the case of Quebec — a judge

appointed solely from British Columbia, representing British Columbia

on the Supreme Court. I think it was a great failure on the part of

this government to take advantage of this opportunity.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the Meech Lake accord

does not go far enough in the direction of provincial autonomy.

Nevertheless, the important recognition of Quebec and the explicit

recognition of limits to federal incursion in areas of provincial

jurisdiction lead me to support this constitutional document.

[5:00]

MS. MARZARI: I rise to make a plea and to put my voice on record as

being opposed to the Meech Lake accord. Because of the time available to me,

I wish to address just three aspects of the accord: the corporatization of Canada,

with some reflections on the compensation agreement: the judicialization of

social programs and social spending; and the relative absence of women in the

agenda we're facing. The theme I want to really address here is a void in

consultative processes that we have been presented with since the beginning

of the process that brought the accord to the table here today.

I'm voting against the Meech Lake accord, having come to it with

some difficulty. I've put as much thought into this as I have put into

any speech, attitude or position I've taken in this House. In fact,

it's my opinion that this is probably one of the most important debates

we've had since this House convened 18 months ago. It has always been

my view that decentralized government is a good thing. I am a

decentralist. I believe strongly in municipal government and in

regional government. Being a decentralist looks like decisions flowing

from people to government, and it looks like a government in constant

consultation with the people who give it its mandate. It looks at

government as a delicate balance between people, conducted in

partnership. Finally, decentralists like their democracy as close to

home as we can possibly make it.

Canada as a nation, however, is facing twentieth-century challenges

that demand a solid front. The connectedness between industrial

development and harmful pollutants; the whimsical nature of

international capital, which doesn't really respect national boundaries

at all; and the issues of trade and international deficit — these are

the urgent issues that face us today, and they demand the participation

of a dynamic state that can hold its own.

There are, therefore, competing demands for power and control inside

our federal state. The process of constitutional change must

acknowledge the presence of those competing interests and competing

tensions, and ensure that changes are not made without due regard to

the social costs involved, without due respect for the opinions of

citizens, without proper scrutiny of the changes to be made, and

without appropriate agreed-upon techniques for future change.

The Meech Lake document is a loose set of disparate amendments that

are being sold as an accord, in a feat of political salesmanship

rivaled only by the pitch for the free

[ Page 5546 ]

trade agreement. The package does not satisfy either of Canada that

I've put forward: the centralist solid-front vision or the

decentralized partnership-with-power vision. Rather, it establishes a

quasi-corporate image, one with the Premiers dissociating themselves

from the legislative assemblies, which are the source of their mandate.

The emphasis on first ministers' meetings creates the appearance of

government by invitation only. The elected assemblies — us — may well

be relegated to the task of rubber-stamping the first ministers'

decisions. This truncated corporate vision of Canada will have as its

quasi-board of directors ten Premiers meeting with the Prime Minister

twice a year, once on constitutional matters and once on economic

matters. This body will set priorities and make deals on decisions that

include the breadth and depth of our geography and our vision for the

future, and it will do so behind closed doors. It is only obligated to

consult legislative assemblies infrequently, and it will most likely

bring things like this accord as faits accomplis to the Houses across

the country.

The image of the four western Premiers on a private yacht is an apt

one, as they floated from Parksville across the strait a few weeks ago.

This is how I visualize what might happen —and I will refer to the

compensation package in this vision. This is the compensation package

that is basically the financial aspect of the accord that is bringing

Quebec into Confederation. It is already in legally, but not

financially.

It's worth commenting on the pre